Spearman vs. Tank Probability

[Antrine]

Behold!! The story is most true, Arnold was caught unfettered ( unfortified) on open terrain ( Hollywood) and he miraculously defeated all those knights ( politicians). See the combact system depicts 'real life'....

I voted to keep things as they are...

[bvoncranium]

Antrine made me laugh:
Behold!! The story is most true, Arnold was caught unfettered ( unfortified) on open terrain ( Hollywood) and he miraculously defeated all those knights ( politicians). See the combact system depicts 'real life'....
I voted to keep things as they are...

I think that the Governator is more some kind of UU than Spearman!

[Sovereign]

Haha. Funny Ahnuld joke.


IMHO, RoN had one of the best combat systems regarding the technological disparity between the civ’s units.

However, I have a better combat model for a True Civ game. Here goes….


Unit Base Hit Points:

Ancient Age Units: 2 Hit Points

Middle Age Units: 4 Hit Points

Industrial Age Units: 7 Hit Points

Modern Age Units: 10 Hit Points.

So, say, an Elite Modern Age unit would have 15 Hit Points total while a regular Ancient Age unit would have 5 Hit Points total.


Next area…. Firepower.

Ancient Age Unit Firepower: 1 = 1 hit point damage per attack.

Middle Age Unit Firepower: 1 = 1 hit point damage per attack.

Industrial Age Unit Firepower: 2 = 2 hit point damage per attack.

Modern Age Unit Firepower: 2 = 2 Hit points per attack.

The exceptions to this rule are:

3 Firepower units (3 hit point damage per attack) = Modern Armor, Radar artillery, AEGIS cruiser, cruise missiles, and Stealth bombers.

4 Firepower units (4 hit point damage per attack) = Battleship


Last area…. Odds calculation. Throw out the stupid Civ3 random generator.

Attacker hitting Defender: Attacker’s AP divided by Defender’s DP modified by Fortify, Terrain bonuses, and city structures / size (if inside city).

Defender’s chance to deflect incoming attack: Defender’s base DP divided by Attacker’s AP then the result divided by the Attacker’s Firepower.

Defender’s chance to counterattack: Defender’s AP divided by Attacker’s DP modified by terrain or Fortification / Barrier bonuses (if Attacker is attacking from a fortress)

Attacker’s chance to deflect defender’s attack: Attacker’s DP divided by Defender’s AP, then result divided by the Defender’s firepower.

Note: When a successful Deflection is achieved, no damage is dealt to the unit doing the deflecting.


An example:

Marine: Attack 10, Defense 5
Infantry: Attack 6, Defense 8

Marine is located on a grassland tile.
Infantry is fortified and located on a grassland tile.

Marine attacks. Has 10 / 12 odds of hitting the Infantry. Infantry has 50% bonus to base defense from fortifying.

Infantry tries to deflect the incoming attack. 4 / 10 odds. Attacker has 2 firepower, so 8/10 divided by 2 is 4/10, which will be the final result / odds.

The Infantry tries to counterattack. 6 / 5 odds that it’ll succeed.

The Marine tries to deflect. 5 / 6 initial odds of success. 5/6 divided by 2 (Defender’s firepower) = 5/12 then 5/12 is final odds of success.

Then the cycle repeats until either the Attacker or Defender dies.

Hopefully my models were clear enough for everyone to follow.


What do you think?

[bvoncranium]

Sovereign asked:
What do you think?

I think that it would form the basis of a good combat system for some game. It would certainly be fun to try it out...
However superior, it is substantially different from Civ's combat system, so there's no basis to evaluate it and/or discuss it further in this forum.

excerpt from Sovereign's essay:
Unit Base Hit Points:
Ancient Age Units: 2 Hit Points Middle Age Units: 4 Hit Points
Industrial Age Units: 7 Hit Points Modern Age Units: 10 Hit Points.

I like this concept, in that it recognizes the general cumulative advantage of military advances (i.e. technology and training).
I think that the weighting factors are too large (perhaps 0/1/3/5hp?); however the concept appears sound.

Sovereign asserted:
Last area…. Odds calculation. Throw out the stupid Civ3 random generator.

It seems you have confused the setting of battle probabilities with the mechanics of the resolving each battle round (the latter depending on the RNG).
Your proposal includes a method of setting odds, which has merit and probably deserves play-testing.
There is also a lot of merit in the method that Civ uses to determine battle odds, namely that each round the attacker has a chance of hitting = (A/A+D), and the defender has a chance of hitting = (D/A+D). It has its quirks, but it has also proven itself pretty effective in Civ and numerous other games incorporating unit-vs-unit conflict.
Whatever the odds determination method, a pseudo-random-number-generator (PRNG) will be needed to determine an outcome of any conflict based on those odds. Unless you can objectively prove that the PRNG is flawed, there's no reason to believe that any other PRNG will provide superior results.

Trying to be constructive but also being picky - bvc

[Nubclear]

RoN had one of the best combat systems regarding the technological disparity between the civ’s units.

Isn't that ironic?

Anyway, edited most of the units to make them stronger.
For example, modern armour has around 36 attack now.

I know, unbalanced, but I don't know how to make it balanced

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by bvoncranium

I think that it would form the basis of a good combat system for some game. It would certainly be fun to try it out...
However superior, it is substantially different from Civ's combat system, so there's no basis to evaluate it and/or discuss it further in this forum.

/me coughs... CTP & CTP2

[Sovereign]

Well, Bvoncranium...

I was trying to establish a sound combat system. I just don't like the randomness of a warrior defeating 2 knights in a row without losing HP's.

I hate that kind of randomness, so I desire to eliminate THAT quirky randomness.

The odds in the Marine - Infantry battle I showed in my previous post... they have chances like the Lottery, but far less random or screwed up than the "warrior killing 2 knights without HP loss" stuff. I think.

[bvoncranium]

Sovereign explained:
I was trying to establish a sound combat system.

You may get satisfaction from sending your combat description to the developers/implementors of Civ's combat system:
http://www.firaxis.com/contact_gamefeedback.cfm
If it results in improvements to the incomprehensible battle outcomes problem, great.
I've corresponded with Firaxes on game issues in the past and it has made a difference.
- bvc

[Sovereign]

awesome! Thanks, Bvocranium!

[Sovereign]

Sorry for double post!

For some reason my T1 connection is sucking AGAIN!

[DrSpike]

I voted very rarely.

[BulMaster]

hmmm uuh hmmm all this sounds fun, but we do miss a point: How on earth can a tank atack a spearman? Seriously this thing is ILLOGICAL what they kept their spear guys on stasis aborad the enterprise? or in ancient history museum and were revived when the tank came! I don't mind when the spear dude kills my tank I laugh at it but what i get upset about is how they left that nonsence continune in the game!

Still it is hillarious to see the tank explode by the punching of a spear

[bvoncranium]

BulMaster made a good point:
How on earth can a tank atack a spearman? Seriously this thing is ILLOGICAL

It IS hard to picture.
However, even in the real world the attacker has no control over what the defender chooses to defend with. I imagine that somewhere in the world there are tanks overrunning virtually-defenseless positions (and civilians), with similar odds.

That said, I'll bet there are many Spearmen who read Apolyton, and would be willing to take their chances.

I know that if tanks rolled into my neighbourhood, there's no way I'd wait for the army to defend my property (if you lived in Canada you'd appreciate why). Yes, I'd be in the basement looking for my ancient weapon faster than you can say "Honey did you sell my spear in the garage sale last summer?".

Ah well... probably better to enjoy the game than let it drive you crazy. Cheers, bvc

[BulMaster]

yeah true let the game go wild and we end in a psycho hospital

[bvoncranium]

Well after 83 votes and around 900 views the results are resoundingly decisive:
About half of the voters want the combat system changed (or are just cranky), and the other half either like the combat system the way it is and/or like bananas.

From this vote I'd conclude that:
1) Firaxis/Atari won't do much to change the combat math
2) They may have to put more bananas in the game, given the influential nature of that part of the vote.

Your most humble pundit - bvc

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by bvoncranium
Well after 83 votes and around 900 views the results are resoundingly decisive:

From this vote I'd conclude that:
1) Firaxis/Atari won't do much to change the combat math
2) They may have to put more bananas in the game, given the influential nature of that part of the vote.

Your most humble pundit - bvc

Although I'm not American, my conclusioin is a little different......

Bananas = Ralph Nader

[Executor]

I just had a veteran battleship (unharmed at start) lose when attacking a veteran galleon. Makes me wish I still had my Civ2 CD. Why the hell did they remove those extra stats (firepower?) when creating Civ3?

[vmxa1]

You can get Test Of Time. But seriously, I thought I would be able to post my modern armour losing to a spear from last night.
It drop two hit points right away, but rallied back to defeat this uber spear. It is rather rare to fight a spear, but once in a while you find a civ that did not upgrade or was just isolated very early and allowed to hang on.
It would have been very funny.

[LzPrst]

hmmm uuh hmmm all this sounds fun, but we do miss a point: How on earth can a tank atack a spearman? Seriously this thing is ILLOGICAL what they kept their spear guys on stasis aborad the enterprise? or in ancient history museum and were revived when the tank came! I don't mind when the spear dude kills my tank I laugh at it but what i get upset about is how they left that nonsence continune in the game!

read your history children. When italy invaded ethiopia they had a few tanks and the defenders (outside the capital where there were riflemen) were mostly spearmen. ACTUAL SPEARMEN! and they defeated the tanks from time to time. apparently there was a report by an italian soldier of ethiopian warriors running up to the side of a tank and ripping of the tracks with their bare hands...
goooooo ethernopians! though the italians were never big on war after 200 AD

[vmxa1]

Why read history as we have seen what update infantry can do with MA in IROQ, nothing.

[bvoncranium]

Executor elocuted:
I just had a veteran battleship (unharmed at start) lose when attacking a veteran galleon.

Are you sure the galleon wasn't The Black Pearl? :-)

[Fatwreck]

I voted never, because now the AI actually upgrades its units so we don´t have to face the problem anymore!

[Flip McWho]

Unless your so far in front of your opponent that they don't have anything better.

[Fatwreck]

then you need to go up a difficulty level

[Flip McWho]

But it's easy where I'm at now

[bvoncranium]

Skill-testing question for you sharp math-types:

If you compare the probability of the Tank winning in Case#1 and Case#2 below, does it have the same chance of winning? If not, which probability of winning is greater?

Case#1: A veteran Tank on the Plains attacks an unfortified veteran Spearman on an adjacent Plains, with no improvements (town, radar, etc) or advantageous terrain (river) involved.
Unit Attack = 16, Unit Defense = 2

Case#2: A veteran Spear on the Plains attacks an unfortified veteran Tank on an adjacent Plains, with no improvements (town, radar, etc) or advantageous terrain (river) involved.
Unit Attack = 1, Unit Defense = 8

If needed, I'll post the correct answer in the coming week.
Have fun - bvc

[vmxa1]

Case 1 att wins 99.4$

Case 2 att win .25%

Not much difference.

[bvoncranium]

Close vmxa1. Bonus points for replying first.
There's a subtle variation that goes beyond plugging the stats into a combat probability program or utility though...
BTW, more bonus points for anyone who can explain the differences between the outcomes for the two cases.
- bvc

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by bvoncranium

BTW, more bonus points for anyone who can explain the differences between the outcomes for the two cases.
- bvc

• 10% defender bonus for plains - Defending Tank gets more bonus than defending Spear. So case 1 is 16 vs 2.2 and case 2 is 1 vs 8.8;
• Tank has retreat ability of (I think) 67% for veteran.

[bvoncranium]

Thriller's right:

• 10% defender bonus for plains - Defending Tank gets more bonus than defending Spear. So case 1 is 16 vs 2.2 and case 2 is 1 vs 8.8;
• Tank has retreat ability of (I think) 67% for veteran.

It is the Tank's retreat probability that, strangely enough, reduces the probability of a win for the Spearman AND for the Tank.

One way to describe it is:

a) With no retreat, there are 8 possible outcomes for this battle in terms of hp for each unit, each with a certain probability. The sum of probabilities in this case line up with vmxa1's post.

b) With retreat, there are 12 possible outcomes for the battle in terms of hp for each unit. In the 4 cases wherein the Spear has been lucky enough to take the Tank to 1 hp, the Tank has a good chance of withdrawing, which drastically reduces the Spear's real chance of victory. Also in the 4 cases wherein the Tank goes to 1 hp and retreats, it cuts off a number of it's own paths to victory, thereby reducing its total chance for victory.
The net effect is that both units have a lower chance of victory than in the no-retreat case, with the difference taken up by the probability that no-one wins (4 retreat outcomes).

If anyone is interested I can post the math at a later date.

What's more pertinent is:
1) The Tank's chance of winning is very high.
2) The Tank's chance of surviving is even higher.
3) The Tank's chance of losing is extremely small - if this happens to you, and there are no mitigating factors, you have no luck at all.

Go get 'dem Spearfolk! - bvc