WTF: no firepower?

[izmircali]

From the review units only have attack, defense, and hit points (which are standardized). Granted it looks like units will also have special abilities (the editor screenshot had a tab) so I hope that helps. Also combat is done in rounds instead of to the death.

But I don't see why firepower was eliminated, i mean a tank obviously has more firepower than a phalanx. Same goes with diffent hit points. Perhaps they combined firepower (since it appeared to be a multiplier to attack or defense) into the two stats but I have my doubts on this new combat system.

Anyone else know better? did i read this preview wrong?

[Dutch]

I wonder about the same thing. Perhaps this has something to do with the new capabilities of bombardment, etc.? I mean, in Civ I a battleship could attack a phalanx and be destroyed by it. In Civ II, this was almost impossible, although the phalanx could damage the battleship slightly. In Civ III (and also in real life), the battleship will (I think) be able to bombard and the destroy the phalanx from a distance, without the phalanx being able to inflict damage at all.

So, when it comes to ground units, perhaps there is a solution of this kind that will replace firepower.

[Stuie]

They have increased Attack and Defense power of many units to accomodate for the loss of "firepower". Examples:

Unit Attack.Defense

Spearman 1.2
Swordmen 3.2
Musketman 3.3
Cavalry 6.3
Tank 16.10
Modern Tank 24.14

So it should all work out.

[splangy]

actually, all units have a firepower of 1, so the chance of a phalanx beating a battleship is REALLY low, much lower than in civ1, and about the same (maybe larger, but not much) in civ2...

[Dutch]

Right. Sounds acceptable. Can't quite lose the idea that the firepower system of Civ II was more advanced, though.

[campmajor!]

I disagree. If you take the example of that battleship versus phalanx, then IMO it is unrealistic that the battleship is damaged by that phalanx!

So by replacing firepower by a bombardment possibility, they made it more realistic and therefore a more advanced system.

[Dutch]

I agree to that!

My example perfectly shows how Civilization has evolved through the ages.

I merely think that when it comes to plain ground combat (phalanx versus armor, etc.), the firepower system seemed to have a technological edge. But, of course, it may be rendered obsolete by the new Combat Engine advance.

[Jason Beaudoin]

I just hope that a Musketman doesn't loose to a Phalax very often. I mean, the technologies are totally different, and the Musketman are far superior.

[Zanzin]

People, if it was Activision making this game, a phalanx probably would beat a battleship. But, it is Firaxas making the game, they "appear" to have their heads screwed on, so I'm sure that they've got everything worked out - i.e. no phalanx victorys over battlships!!

A musketeer vs a swordsman might be closer though....who knows

[dainbramaged13]

Jason, thats one thing Im not so sure about... all the stats for early units seem very low to me.. they dont strt getting big enough until about industrial age.

[albiedamned]

I suspect that removing firepower was part of the simplification effort we've read about. Just glancing at the attack and defense strength is all you need to know now. And of course you have to consider the morale (regular/veteran/elite).

As for a 3/3 musketeer taking on a (presumably) 1/2 phalanx, the musketeer should win but will take some damage, given equal morale. I don't think this is unrealistic. Musketeers do have firearms, but the primitive gunpowder weapons were slow to load and unreliable, so it's not inconceivable that a hand-to-hand combat unit like the phalanx could get in and do some damage.

[Jason Beaudoin]

Well, regardless of what can beat what... I wouldn't want to see an army of spear throwers beating up on an army of riflemen. That isn't only inaccurate, but it's agrivating and not very much fun. You would expect that a civilization that is vastly more advanced than another, would easily take out a bunch of rock throwers.

What is the difference between a rifleman and a phalanx, other than their attack, defence ratings? Is there anything that distinguishes these units appart other than those ratings? Is there anything that would almost certainly guarantee that the rifleman would win?

[Dutch]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin

What is the difference between a rifleman and a phalanx, other than their attack, defence ratings? Is there anything that distinguishes these units appart other than those ratings? Is there anything that would almost certainly guarantee that the rifleman would win?

I join in the question choir. Technically, if you have 20 phalanx fighting 1 rifleman, a few phalanx might prevail and kill off the rifleman. Perhaps this could happen in real life, though, if the rifleman ran out of ammo.

[Jason Beaudoin]

I shouldn't put much faith in Gamespots preview because I'm noticing a ton of errors in this so called "preview". They're saying that if a unit with an attack factor of 9 attacks a unit with a defence fact of 1, it has a 90% chance of victory.

Really? So if a tank takes on a warrior, their is a 10% chance that it will be killed? That better not be true! The warrior should have about 0.01% chance of not being crushed under the tanks tracks!!!

Ok... I really need Firaxis to come in here to save us from this delema!

[ChrisShaffer]

It's not a 90% chance of winning the entire battle, it's a 90% chance of winning each round of the battle. The warrrior would need to win three rounds before the tank won three rounds - highly unlikely. Also, the tank has a higher movement rate, and thus can break off the combat when injured and retreat to fight another day -- should luck be against it.

[Jason Beaudoin]

Ya... you're right ChrisShaffer.

...but what if it was a Musketman and a swordsman? Would there be a big difference between the two?

I guess we'll have to see.

[izmircali]

The rounds thing is also what gets me. Lets take the Phalanx vs Armor scenario (based on what we know). It said a 90% chance of winning in any given round and it goes 3 to five rounds. So elites can go more rounds than "green" units which is good. But really, an elite bunch of phalanxes (even the Theban sacred Band) I doubt can go more rounds than a green (3) or veteran (4) armor.

I'm hoping that tanks will have a ranged attack (not bombardment) as do gunpowder units (I think there was a ranged attack capability, can anyone else confirm that?)

[StratAll]

Hey,

I think what they meant with the 90% thing is this :

X = Attacker's attack rating + Defender's defense rating.

% chance attacker wins = Attacker's attack rating / X
% chance defender wins = Defender's defense rating / X

That way you have X = 9 + 1 = 10
And since the attacker has 9 attack it's 9/10 = 90%

And this happens every round until either one's hitbar is depleted.

So as for a phalanx versus a battleship (I'm assuming 24 attack rating because I'm too lazy to check the screenshots) (and assuming they have 3 hitpoints either because of normal morale?)

Attacker % = 24 / (24+2) = 92.3%
Defender % = 2 / (24+2) = 7.6%

So the chance for the battleship to win with 3-0 is
(92,3%)^3 = 78.6%
Come to think of it, that's quite low. Firaxis, please help?

Anyway, the odds for a phalanx to beat a battleship would be
the sum of a 0-3, 1-3 or 2-3 victory for the phalanx which is lower than 0.05%

But with only the 78.6% chance for a battleship to get unharmed in an encounter with phalanx I fear there must be more to the calculation system.

Just my two cents.

[hexagonian]

The realistic battle results may very well hinge on the hp numbers now. It is too bad that FP numbers are not in the mix though, because this would allow for a greater degree of flexibility and control on establishing realistic results.

As long as Firaxis have the hitpoints worked out correctly, then in a straight up battle, advanced units should be able to defeat earlier units (Note that ctp1 had 10hp for all units in the default game, as well as a standard FP of 2 for all units , which was the cause of the unbalanced combat results - but ctp2 had not only different hp/attack/defend numbers for all units, but also different FP and Armor numbers, which allowed for realistic results.)

I have a feeling that there will be some undesirable results, based more on whether a unit is wounded - but this could be offset, for example, by limiting whether ancient units can even have the ability to inflict damage on air units.

[Jason Beaudoin]

You're calculations are wrong, StratAll. I wish I was a math person so that I could show you, but I know that Krazyhorse can figure it out.

[KrazyHorse]

EDIT: see my next post

[KrazyHorse]

Anyway, the odds for a phalanx to beat a battleship would be the sum of a 0-3, 1-3 or 2-3 victory for the phalanx which is lower than 0.05%

Actually, this part is wrong. Good spotting.

The odds for a phalanx to beat a battleship are closer to the order of ~.5%

[hexagonian]

Anyone taking into account if the Phalanx is bunkered down with some defensive 'assistance'???

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
Well, regardless of what can beat what... I wouldn't want to see an army of spear throwers beating up on an army of riflemen. That isn't only inaccurate, but it's agrivating and not very much fun. You would expect that a civilization that is vastly more advanced than another, would easily take out a bunch of rock throwers.

How is it that it is inaccurate to have an army of spearthrowers beat up on an army of riflemen? After all it happened only a little more than 120 years ago during the Anglo-Zulu War.

At the Battle of Isandlwana on Jan. 22nd, 1879, an army of Zulus armed mainly with spears, attacked and slaughtered a large portion of a British army (armed with rifles) that had been marching against them. Some 1300 British officers and men died in that battle.

Admitedly, there were a large combination of factors that played into that victory, and in that same day at the Battle of Rourke's Drift, a force of a well-led and fortified unit of approximately 140 Welsh infantrymen were able to hold off 4000 troops of that Zulu army, but it can happen.

Superior technology does not always mean victory, as armies have discovered to their misfortune time and again throughout history.

[StratAll]

KrazyHorse,

You're right, that last one should be more like 0.35%. My mistake!

[KrazyHorse]

Ahh...the Zulu war. Brought up on both sides of the "pointy sticks can't beat guns" debate. What happened the day after the Battle of Isandlwana, Hex? I'll give you a hint: the British didn't lose this battle.

[hexagonian]

Actually, I don't mind seeing the very rare 'unbelievable' battle results, because it actually makes the game more fun - I just do not want to see it happen on a regular basis.

I do hope that removing the FP numbers does not make it happen too much though.

[Grumbold]

Sigh. Tanks are not invincible. Some people have amazing misconceptions about how great they are. Shove a tree branch or rail in the tracks and they are immobilised. Block the vision slits and they are blind. One molotov cocktail and the crew are roasting. Catch them in camp and killing the sentries allows you to overrun the whole unit. Blow up their supply dump and they are immobile and out of ammo. Spear armed infantry had good successes against tanks in WW II and the post war history of Afghanistan should show you just how effective lightly armed troops can be. The key is not to fight head on but rely on guerrilla tactics and ambushes. In cities or bad terrain the infantry even have the advantage. Good leadership and appropriate use of combined arms is the important thing. One incompetent general can get whole divisions captured or killed.


On the civ combat thing, it will make a difference if a 60% attack chance will result in an automatic loss on failure (the old Civ I method) or whether the defender performs a reciprocal attack in order to score a hit. For instance:

6 v 4 = 60% chance per round of attacker scoring a hit
1 v 4 = 25% chance per round of defender scoring a hit

That would change the success odds significantly.

Either way I can't see anyone except the most hardened militarists trying to conduct a campaign in the early years. Its going to take stacks of bombards to shift the odds away from the defender with all the early stuff having such low attack ratings.

[Jason Beaudoin]

Ya... the British may have taken a beating, but the Zulus out numbered the British by a huge factor. The British simply couldn't kill the Zulu warriors fast enough.

So... in a game scenario, if there were about 10 phalaxes beating up on one rifleman... ok... let them win. That wouldn't bother me, but a one on one battle, forget it.

[Knigget]

If there's no firepower the roman legions and musketmen are equally good...

Say it ain't so