Fire power is not what we need, we need modern units to have more hit points

[n.c.]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
I should ask you to show us an example of modern units facing swordsmen at all.

Finally someone else says what I have been trying to get across for days!



Of course, it's used an an example of the most common faulty logic on these threads: "you can't complain about lack of realism because I have an example you didn't mention."



How to fix? 1) Have civs eventually learn techs of their niehbors, and 2) require upgrading or retiring of units. Not that difficult.

[WhiteElephants]

Fair enough, but that logic is only faulty in that we are presented with a game, that by definition isn't "realistic" or an attempt to be so, and then are arguing over realistic combat when before turn 1 elements of the game are unrealistic. In other words, I was attempting to use their own faulty logic to defeat their own faulty arguement.

I think a simple change in graphics would appease those who are infuriated by a musketmen defeating a tank, but isn't that a waste of time as it's only a graphical change and not a statistical change?

For instance the musketmen could be modified to look more like a modern day militia unit and hell, even change the name if need be, yet retain the same statisitics. Sort of like the partisan units that sprung up in Civ2.

[n.c.]

Not all reality shortcomings are equal. Specifically, they are not equally annoying. Some are downright unavoidable.

A graphics change would help.

[Setsuna]

Good grief, some of you are dense.

Changing the graphics would do nothing to help. It's a superficial change that would serve only to divert Firaxis's valuable time and make it less likely that we'd see any real fixes.

[Cavalier_13]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Well, in regards to your poor tactical abilty I don't think you need to say a single word more as we are all thoroughly convinced.

What's wrong with my tactical abilities?

Cavalier

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Setsuna
Good grief, some of you are dense.

Changing the graphics would do nothing to help. It's a superficial change that would serve only to divert Firaxis's valuable time and make it less likely that we'd see any real fixes.

I was under the impression that most of the dissatisfaction revolved around the concept that such and such ancient unit defeated my such and such modern unit, which is claimed to be realistically impossible. The counter claim to that is that such and such unit couldn't co-exist in a realistic setting and that said unit is really a weak modern version of such and such, but still looks like said ancient unit.

Now as far as density is concerned I feel the skull of some posters here are comprised of a very dense material that will not allow for the synapses of imagination to connect properly as imagining that the said ancient unit is actually a weak version of the modern unit only still looking like the ancient unit isn't that much of an imaginative leap and yet satisfies both arguments.

And yes, all along I've seen this arguement as a rather superficial change that would serve only to divert Firaxis's valuable time and make it less likely that we'd see any real fixes.

Frankly, all the proposed fixes can be done through the editor by increasing or decreasing attack and defense ratings. By increasing either you are in effect giving a unit more hit points by reducing the chance that the unit will be hit at all. The same goes for firepower.

I hope this post was constructive and not a simple complaint as I've seen far too often in this thread.

[GePap]

I have to agree with n.c. over forcing units to be upgraded. As I said in a different post, after nationalism is discovered by a civ, there is no reason for any lower class infantry to be around whatsoever since at 4/6/1 it is as good or better that any earlier unit at all and needs NO RESOURCES whatsoever. Perhaps if they were made cheaper (why does making one from scratch cost as much as cavalry) would encourage the A.I. to do the upgrading.

As for FP/HP and aircraft, Fixaris did screw up: they give us acombat system that calls for real combined arms strategy and using mass armies but then make it a statistical crapshoot and make airpower almost a non-issue

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Cavalier_13


What's wrong with my tactical abilities?

Cavalier

If you can demonstrate for us the fine tuned tactics of dumping four units (tanks to be more specific) into hostile territory I'll refer to you from here out as Generall Patton, but for now you'll remain a Colonel Sanders in my book.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Frankly, all the proposed fixes can be done through the editor by increasing or decreasing attack and defense ratings. By increasing either you are in effect giving a unit more hit points by reducing the chance that the unit will be hit at all. The same goes for firepower.

I think that this argument, the Soren argument, was disproven in an earlier post. While it does make the lower unit hitting less likely, it should already be. Think of Caveliers argument: Modern armor defends at 16 in an army ( at least 16 HP) and he must have had terrain bonuses and such- the attackers at best had 4 or just 1, and they still win. Remeber that it takes three resources to make these babies and they are beaten by units that take no resources to make. Cavalier gives us a great reason to put in FP besides HP. If a unit with 16 HP could not last, then whats the point?

[pchang]

The math of more HPs vs. higher Hit/Defend numbers is not equivalent. Do the math if you don't believe me. Changing Hit/Defend numbers can alter the probabilities of single combats to the win/loss results match that of adding HPs, but the accumulation of damage is not the same, so the effect of multiple attacks comes out different.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
I think that this argument, the Soren argument, was disproven in an earlier post. While it does make the lower unit hitting less likely, it should already be. Think of Caveliers argument: Modern armor defends at 16 in an army ( at least 16 HP) and he must have had terrain bonuses and such- the attackers at best had 4 or just 1, and they still win. Remeber that it takes three resources to make these babies and they are beaten by units that take no resources to make. Cavalier gives us a great reason to put in FP besides HP. If a unit with 16 HP could not last, then whats the point?

Refer to one of my earlier posts where I disprove the disprove. Soren never mentioned anything about hit points.

Cavalier dumped an army consisting of 4 tanks with no support into enemy territory expecting to conquer the civiliation and was attacked by several units and on the sixth attack his army was reduced to ashes. Now mind you that his tanks, that are primarily weapons used for offense, found themselves attacked by an underpowered yet overwhelming force of units. I actually find his example a demonstration of poor tactics.

I don't know what tanks defend at, nor do I know how many hit points his army would have had. What I do know is that tactics that rely on "the all mighty tank" are poor tactics. Judging from the his arguement I can only assume that he, and you, feel a army consisting of four elite tanks should be powerful enough to overtake any lesser civilization, which I don't happen to agree with. I think there are many here who can attest to the pitfalls of combat in Civ2 that relied on this type of "realistic" logic.

[DrSpike]

As interesting as discussions about realism are they don't get to the heart of the issue because, as many have said, the game is an abstraction of reality. However, I don't accept the argument that the situation we have now with lots of ancient units easily outclassing a few advanced units is necessary for gameplay. In civ2 being first to discover gunpowder for example was a great force, but it didn't end the game, it just gave that player a window of opportunity.

Of course all comparisons with civ2 or other ganes with firepower are tricky anyway, because the support system in this game is completely different. You were never going to get armies of the size you get now in civ3. Whether the addition of firepower (or similarly a HP change for modern units) would work well as regards balance in the new setting I'm unsure, cos I've just finished my first game. I feel quite strongly that balance in a new game is very hard to call; it was many games into civ2 and smac before I understood the balance, and it is no different here.

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by Cavalier_13
Lemme enlighten some people up with a story from one of my games....

The year is 1937. Huge Map. 16 Civs.

I am the most advanced in terms of technology. I create an army comprised of 4 ELITE MODERN ARMOR( I have the Pentagon Small Wonder). The Zulus, for reasons known only to them, decide it's time to get it on. Woohoo I think, knowing I need some of their space!

I load the army up and take it to them. I disembark with that Army and they attack the next turn. Their attack force consists of 7 Longbowmen, 5 Impi and 2 swordsmen.

Haha, they don't stand a chance! Wrong........after the 6th attack by the longbowmen, my Army of MODERN ARMOR is toast. Say WHAT???

By sheer LOGIC, that should not have happened. I don't know about any of you, but I have yet to see an M1A2 Abrams tank fall to a bunch of Archers. If they could, well, the Afghans could use bows and armor to punch through advanced ceramic plate armor! I can picture the news now......200 Taliban warriors, armed with state of the art Longbows from the middle ages have successfully destroyed the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th Armored Divisions in Kabul today.......General Got-his-arse-kicked commented on the fact that superiour numbers defeated them. "How can you expect 50 tanks with the latest in armor and weaponry AND a 105MM canon to compete with 200 men firing bows and arrows?" was the defensive answer of Defence Secretary Who-needs-tech-when-you-got-numbers concerning this report.

In related news, the German Luftwaffe has recently recommissioned 4000 WI-era bi/tri-planes and analysts conclude the US Air Force, consisting of inferiour F-15's and F-16's, the US Navy, consisting of F-14's and F-18's and Bomber Command, consisting of invisble F-117 and B-2 aircraft will be in deep trouble if the Germans turn hostile.

More at 11.....

Need I really say more?

Cavalier

Sigh. Yet another example of poor tactical handling.

Sending a few high tech units deep into enemy territory and hope to win by tech superiority is NOT the way to go in civ 3. You need combined arms, numbers, terrain, and micro-management of units to win.

Your mistakes:

1. If you make a landing in AI territory, it WILL rush every unit he can grab to attack you as soon as possible. Your first priority is to hold the beach. You should have landed defensive units first. Tanks are NOT defensive units. Try mech. infantry. If you want "reality", did the Allies land a few tank regiments in Normandy in D-day? Nope, infantry and paratroops went there to secure the ground first. Imagine trying to take the beach with tanks first.....

2. Did you land on a mountain squre? By your results I don't think you did.

3. Why do you land only one army there? Its hopelessly insufficient. A successful invasion usually involves at least 10-15 units. I use 300. What do you hope to accomplish with 4 units?!?!?!

4. Where is your supporting artillery? You NEED combined arms in civ3 to do anything. An invasion force with 100% tanks? That's very poor military planning.

[GePap]

As i said not far above, for those that think all it will take is more hitpoints, look at armies- Armies are units with extra HP- this is specially true when the Army is made up of all equal units - and we still have gotten stories of Modern Armies loosing against ancient enemies- Ask Cavelier_13. If units had FP as well, then these situations would be far less likely. The reason Howlitzers were such killers in Civ2 was not the 14 attack but the 2 FP on top of that. A unit with 28 attack but 1FP would not have been equally as effective. Various times, when making scenerios for Civ 2 I would give some aircraft 3FP to make them killer vs ground units (a-10'a, su-25) but by doing this, I made them very powerful even vs fighters- yes, their defense was only 3 and the F-15 had 12 attack but every time the odd hit would occur the damage done was great and usually my su-25 would survive the F-15; just an example of how trully powerfull FP is.

[Cavalier_13]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


If you can demonstrate for us the fine tuned tactics of dumping four units (tanks to be more specific) into hostile territory I'll refer to you from here out as Generall Patton, but for now you'll remain a Colonel Sanders in my book.

Ah ha!

Well, you'd have to have understood the whole situation and the way the land is divided and such.

The Zulu's best unit was a knight. I dumped my first army as a spearhead to see from where the enemy would congregate (the AI tends to simply take all available units and swarm the opposition) and I had my aircraft carriers and battleships on the coast ready to hit any troop stacks with bombardments. The instand an AI unit is not at 100% strength, it tends to pack up and head to the nearest city to regroup.

I had another army and some other miscellaneous troops about to disembark once the AI's turn was over.

So, as you see, I was NOT expecting the AI to be able to beat back an ELITE army of Modern Armor with Longbowmen. Hence the reason for the drop into enemy territory.

And for the record, I hate dirty-bird.

Cavalier

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by pchang
The math of more HPs vs. higher Hit/Defend numbers is not equivalent. Do the math if you don't believe me. Changing Hit/Defend numbers can alter the probabilities of single combats to the win/loss results match that of adding HPs, but the accumulation of damage is not the same, so the effect of multiple attacks comes out different.

I'm not going to do the math, but I believe you nonetheless.

I'm still not sure it justifies adding more hit points.

[woody]

Originally posted by n.c.
BTW, to any of you who say "fix it in the editor" . . . how do give ancient 1 HP and modern units 3-4? I'll wait for an answer.

Why would you want to "fix" it? You would just end up with an unbalanced and boring game. First guy to tanks and having the right resources would win. Why not just flip a coin, it would be just as fun.

But if you really want to "fix" it, why don't you just increase the offense and defense rating of modern units? The hit points is a red herring. Don't you want modern units to be pretty much invincible to ancient units? If you just increase the hit points, they'll still take damage. Your mind can't handle that.

Since you lack an imagination or the ability to deal with abstraction, I don't know why you're fixated on the tanks vs. spears argument. How do you explain the fact that it takes a destroyer decades to circle the world? How do you explain that leaders live for 6000 years?

It's not reality. Get over it. If you don't like it, play something else.

[Cavalier_13]

Originally posted by Monoriu



Sigh. Yet another example of poor tactical handling.

Sending a few high tech units deep into enemy territory and hope to win by tech superiority is NOT the way to go in civ 3. You need combined arms, numbers, terrain, and micro-management of units to win.

Well, the purpose of the post was not to be debated for it's tactics (as I said above, there are many mitigating circumstances I did not state for the sake of it being irrelevant to the situation) but for the sheer illogic of a bunch of men in tights wielding bows killing my elite army of 4 Modern Armor.

If the opposition was consisting of WWII era tanks, I'd take my lumps and sit quietly, but Longbowmen? For gawds sake, those units are about 500 years apart on the development scale.

As for combined arms, you want that, I suggest CTP2....it had a bettle military model in allowing you to make an army with all the required forces to be successful.

Cavalier

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
Various times, when making scenerios for Civ 2 I would give some aircraft 3FP to make them killer vs ground units (a-10'a, su-25) but by doing this, I made them very powerful even vs fighters- yes, their defense was only 3 and the F-15 had 12 attack but every time the odd hit would occur the damage done was great and usually my su-25 would survive the F-15; just an example of how trully powerfull FP is.

You do realize then that if you would have just tripled the attack and defense of the unit the results would have been comparable because your new unit would have hit three times more often?

[GePap]

to Whiteelefants:
I don't recall the Soren argument being proven right: in the previous post, the mathematical analysis given by those who agree with me seemed far more sound (I don't like statistics that much so I will let others carry the torch)

To those who call for strategy:
You are right in calling for combined arms - i love artillery even if they don't kill- I actually like the helicopters, am a great believer in the mass, and i doo mean, mass army and agree completely with the idea that you must use combined arms. Unfortunitelly none of these arguments go to the point: combined arms is key, when fighting opponets of an similar technological level. No one today uses spearmen, bowmen or anything of the sort besides the few remaining stone age tribes and if a modern state- any state-Andorra for god's sake- decided to take them out, they would not need combined arms, huge divisions, so forth since the technological balence would be so out of whack as to be laughable- specially if one side used vehicles of any type. That is the point. If I need to fight an enemy with riflemen, cannons, cavalry and so forth, even in the modern age, then I will bring a huge army with all the trimmings to win, because in reality that is what it will take. But a modern army could go into battle drunk, with a 5 year old general, and just because they can put the most metal in the air, would win. Mnay of us (mee most of the time) don't like to hear this but- put the most metal in the air and you win. PERIOD.

[GePap]

You do realize then that if you would have just tripled the attack and defense of the unit the results would have been comparable because your new unit would have hit three times more often? [/QUOTE]

I play tested these scenerios over and over , having the one unit attcked by the same other unit over and over and over just to find out the the consequenses and the fact was that just tripling the defense rating and putting it at 1 hp was neveanywhere the same result as with 3 FP, especially about how much damage each unit took- so based on my own empirical, lab data- the results where never the same. It may seem logical to assume that, but sometimes things don't work like they are logically supposed to.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
to Whiteelefants:
I don't recall the Soren argument being proven right: in the previous post, the mathematical analysis given by those who agree with me seemed far more sound (I don't like statistics that much so I will let others carry the torch)

The people who argee with you based their sound mathematical analysis on hit points and firpower, not firepower and the units offensive rating. Now I'll agree that their analysis was sound, but it has precious little to do with fire power and the units offensive rating.

Here's a quote from me. You'll like it, no stats!

I don't think I agree with you here as I'm unsure as to where you came up with these results considering you don't know the hit points or defense of said units or even which unit attacked. For example, what if both units had 20 defense and 20 hit points?

What Soren was suggesting is that one unit is two times more likely to hit that the other, but hitting twice is still merley the equivelent of hitting once for the other unit so there'e not much difference. Giving a unit 10 attack and 2 firepower is nearly the same as giving a unit 20 attack and 1 firepower because one unit is likely to hit twice as much as the other, but causes only 1/2 as much damage. No where does he suggest that the two units should square off and there would be no difference.

In the creation of a unit there is no point in adding firepower when you might as well just add to the attack rating and have nearly the same unit. So rather than add un-needed complexity to the combat system simply create a unit with a higher attack rating or higher defense so they will hit more often rather than hit less often for more damage.

In your pursuit of less chancy results I would think you'd be in favor the removal of firepower as it tends to skew results that could easily be considered in a simple offense vs. defense rating comparison. I think it's the same system except the needless complexity is removed. I don't see a need for complexity for the sake of complexity, or in order to satisfy one's need for a complex game.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
I play tested these scenerios over and over , having the one unit attcked by the same other unit over and over and over just to find out the the consequenses and the fact was that just tripling the defense rating and putting it at 1 hp was neveanywhere the same result as with 3 FP, especially about how much damage each unit took- so based on my own empirical, lab data- the results where never the same. It may seem logical to assume that, but sometimes things don't work like they are logically supposed to.

Bad test. Who said anything about putting it at one hit point? Just change the offensive/defensive rating by the same ratio as you would have changed the fire power. If you intened to triple the firepower, triple the offense and defense.

[Setsuna]

Is it me, or does one side of the argument clock out the same time the other side is clocking in?

[n.c.]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
the skull of some posters here are comprised of a very dense material

Using big words does not make this any less of a personal insult. Did that make it though your skull?

a rather superficial change that would serve only to divert Firaxis's valuable time

So you don't like time-diverting superficial changes? Let's discuss graphics, shall we? (Or perhaps it's okay for that to be important to someone.)

-"I hope this post was constructive"
Perhaps you can point out that part.

Originally posted by woody
Why would you want to "fix" it? You would just end up with an unbalanced and boring game.

Like Civ II and SMAC? Millions of gamers must be wrong?

why don't you just increase the offense and defense rating of modern units? The hit points is a red herring.

The erroneous nature of this comment has been explained many, many times (even on this thread). Maybe one day you will understand.

Don't you want modern units to be pretty much invincible to ancient units?

I want realistic combat. Apparently you are just bright enough to realize that Civ III falls short, so you have to invent motives of those who point it out.

If you just increase the hit points, they'll still take damage. Your mind can't handle that.

Given your failure to understand the combat system, this is hilarious.

How do you explain the fact that it takes a destroyer decades to circle the world? How do you explain that leaders live for 6000 years?

I don't care about the 1st, as the actual year indicated is arbitrary. An explanation of the latter involves the necessities of gameplay. Seems like there is little chance you'll understand.

-"If you don't like it, play something else."
I have. Coming to these forums just gives me a chance to make @sses out of pathetic blowards like you. This was almost too easy, though. Try a little harder next time.

[GePap]

FP was so great because it allows one to make a game in which you can try and balance out all the units- remember, I was making a scenerio with many units, so I had to consider the effects on all of them if one is changed dramatically (trippling is a dramatic change) then all would , and whay do i want tanks with a defense of 20? Remeber, I needed a high FP on an aircraft to overcome all the bonuses landunits get in defense, the problem being that there is just one FP rating for both defense and offense so the planes became too good vs. interceptors, which should not be. But to return to the theoretical point, was a Howlitzer twice as good as a cannon? It was many times that, just because of FP (never lost a fortified mech inf to a cannon). Think of it this way:

Unit 1 has 10 HP like unit 2. One has an attack of 2, the other defense 1 but the defender has FP of 2. If the odds come out perfectly in 3 rounds, attacker hit twice, defender only once, but both have suffered the same damage, 2 HP. Now, give both units 10 HP and instead of 1 defense, give defender 2 with FP equal to attacker. Since its 50/50, in three turns one side wins 2, the other 1. OK, is the damage done the same for both sides? No, the unit that won the two turens suffered only one damage, the other 2 HP. Giving the defender a defense of 2 to compansate for getting rid of FP did not give us the same result. This is the crux of my argument.

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by GePap


To those who call for strategy:
You are right in calling for combined arms - i love artillery even if they don't kill- I actually like the helicopters, am a great believer in the mass, and i doo mean, mass army and agree completely with the idea that you must use combined arms. Unfortunitelly none of these arguments go to the point: combined arms is key, when fighting opponets of an similar technological level. No one today uses spearmen, bowmen or anything of the sort besides the few remaining stone age tribes and if a modern state- any state-Andorra for god's sake- decided to take them out, they would not need combined arms, huge divisions, so forth since the technological balence would be so out of whack as to be laughable- specially if one side used vehicles of any type. That is the point. If I need to fight an enemy with riflemen, cannons, cavalry and so forth, even in the modern age, then I will bring a huge army with all the trimmings to win, because in reality that is what it will take. But a modern army could go into battle drunk, with a 5 year old general, and just because they can put the most metal in the air, would win. Mnay of us (mee most of the time) don't like to hear this but- put the most metal in the air and you win. PERIOD.

That, is precisely the point.

You need combined arms, sufficient units, careful handling of units, good tactical common sense to win against an equal opponent.

You will need the same combined arms, sufficient units, careful handling of units, and good tactical common sense to win against a backward opponent as well. You will just have an easier time, lose fewer units, need a smaller army, and have more room to make mistakes. However, you CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be able to just send a few units into battle blindly and expect to win.

The civ 3 combat system is a lot less forgiving for casual play. You cannot afford to enter "charge forward and crush them" mode even if you are fighting stone age opponents with stealth technology. You will pay the price if you don't want to spend the time to micro-manage.

BTW, Cavalier, if the best unit the AI has is the knight and you are using aircraft carriers, modern tanks and all that, shouldn't you be playing on a higher difficulty level? You won't encounter "their longbowmen killed my modern tank" problems in emperor level very often

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by Cavalier_13


Well, the purpose of the post was not to be debated for it's tactics (as I said above, there are many mitigating circumstances I did not state for the sake of it being irrelevant to the situation) but for the sheer illogic of a bunch of men in tights wielding bows killing my elite army of 4 Modern Armor.

If the opposition was consisting of WWII era tanks, I'd take my lumps and sit quietly, but Longbowmen? For gawds sake, those units are about 500 years apart on the development scale.

As for combined arms, you want that, I suggest CTP2....it had a bettle military model in allowing you to make an army with all the required forces to be successful.

Cavalier

And the purpose of my post was: You'll win if you use good tactics; you'll lose if you use bad tactics. Technology gives you an edge, but you cannot forget tactics even if you have a high tech army.

You can do the same thing in civ3, except that this time you have to move the individual units in the correct order and use each individual unit in the correct situation yourself to create the same effect. CTP2 is just pack the units together and charge forward. You can't do that in civ 3 and that's why I think civ 3 is a lot better.

[n.c.]

BTW, Pizarro and his ~400 men beat armies with tens of thousands because they had steel and were on horses. Don't believe it? Read Guns, Germs and Steel by Diamond.

Originally posted by Monoriu
The civ 3 combat system is a lot less forgiving for casual play.

That is fine, what is not okay is why this is true and how it gets implemented.

-"shouldn't you be playing on a higher difficulty level?"
Not necessarily, as he may have encountered a seriously backward civ.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
FP was so great because it allows one to make a game in which you can try and balance out all the units- remember, I was making a scenerio with many units, so I had to consider the effects on all of them if one is changed dramatically (trippling is a dramatic change) then all would , and whay do i want tanks with a defense of 20? Remeber, I needed a high FP on an aircraft to overcome all the bonuses landunits get in defense, the problem being that there is just one FP rating for both defense and offense so the planes became too good vs. interceptors, which should not be.

Fire power had nothing to do with your aircraft overcoming the bonuses the land units got in defense. Tripling the firepower only meant that for every successfull attack you did three damage as opposed to one, your chances to inflict damage were the same only every time you did inflict damage is was three times more than usually, which isn't any different from tripling your attack rating in order to hit three times more than usual. To make your unit the way you intended you should have tripled the attack and left the defense and fire power alone. That way the unit would still be weak on defense and strong on offense.

Unit 1 has 10 HP like unit 2. One has an attack of 2, the other defense 1 but the defender has FP of 2. If the odds come out perfectly in 3 rounds, attacker hit twice, defender only once, but both have suffered the same damage, 2 HP. Now, give both units 10 HP and instead of 1 defense, give defender 2 with FP equal to attacker. Since its 50/50, in three turns one side wins 2, the other 1. OK, is the damage done the same for both sides? No, the unit that won the two turens suffered only one damage, the other 2 HP. Giving the defender a defense of 2 to compansate for getting rid of FP did not give us the same result. This is the crux of my argument.

What!? This example is horrible! I can't even discern what the hell you're trying to prove other than the fact that after three rounds with equal attack, defense, and fire power one of the units is going to sustain more damage. How's that any different from any comparison of equal units?

I can't believe you're argueing over who will have taken the most damage by the third round of combat.

The fact of the matter remains that in both cases the odds of winning were 50/50 and the damage taken would be relatively the same at the end of combat. What happens between the third and fourth round is neither here nor there.