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

[WhiteElephants]

10 % chances to do 5 damages is NO WAY the same than 50 % chances to do 1 damages. I hope this math rule will one day enter in the skull of people mislead by Soren's talk about firepower.

You are correct in your assertation, but have incorrectly applied it to the game. At no time does a unit ever have a base hit percentage as you have suggested -- i.e. 10% vs. 50%. To fit your example we would have to use a 1A 5F unit and a 9A 1F unit vs. a 9D unit.

The math for the 1A 5F unit -- (1/1+9) = 10% chance to hit.

The math for the 9A 1F unit -- (9/9+9) = 50% chance to hit.

Now being that one unit has 5 fire power I don't think it too much of a strech to assign each unit with a least 10 - 20 hit points (without the fire power you really don't need high amounts of hit points unless you are attempting to make combat more certain).

Now granted I don't have the math to calculate the exact odds for damage taken, I do know the math for calculating the chance that the units will go unscaythed.

Given that each unit would have 20 hit point --

The 1A 5F unit would have a (.10^4 = 0.0001 or a 1/100 percent chance of killing a 10D 20HP unit without taking damage.

The 9A 1F unit would have a (.5^20) = 0.00001 or a 1/1000 percent chance of killing a 10D 20HP unit without taking damage.

While I grant you the 1A 5F unit is 100 times more likely to go untouched, we're still not even in the realm of tenths of a percentage difference.

It would roughly be the equivelant of giving a unit a 10,000 Attack rating and another unit a 100,000 Attack rating and having them attack a unit with 1D expecting to see a noticable difference in the results. Is there a difference? Sure, but to notice the difference you would have to play Civ for decade upon decades, if not centuries, and compile the data to compare in the end -- I don't think this game has that kind of shelf life -- during the regular course of the game it makes very little difference.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Ok, man, I am thankful that you try to help me, but you get me wrong : I can tweak Civ 3 to give the units the stats I want and make them able to hit more or less often during fight. That's not the point. I stated lenghtly about how HP/FP are useful for modding, for creating, and said that it has a DIFFERENT effect than changing the A/D rating.
There is a whole bunch of things in statistics, not only the end result. HP/FP allow to play on these subtle difference rather than just using a rough way of changing A/D and get an average result.
I require HP/FP back in the game for allowing more modding, more tweaking, more customisation. Because the customisation I can do right now does not satisfy me.

I would argue that you don't need to have fire power, but with a change of hit points AND attack/defense you would get the results you desire.

[Akka]

Gosh, it scare me to do so, because I plainly hate maths, but it seems that I'll have to do some precise exemples to prove anything. Well anyway the statistics and probabilities are part of the programm of this year, it'll help me to refresh them for the final exam

Ok, first :

Given that each unit would have 20 hit point --

The 1A 5F unit would have a (.10^4 = 0.0001 or a 1/100 percent chance of killing a 10D 20HP unit without taking damage.

The 9A 1F unit would have a (.5^20) = 0.00001 or a 1/1000 percent chance of killing a 10D 20HP unit without taking damage.

While I grant you the 1A 5F unit is 100 times more likely to go untouched, we're still not even in the realm of tenths of a percentage difference.

It would roughly be the equivelant of giving a unit a 10,000 Attack rating and another unit a 100,000 Attack rating and having them attack a unit with 1D expecting to see a noticable difference in the results. Is there a difference? Sure, but to notice the difference you would have to play Civ for decade upon decades, if not centuries, and compile the data to compare in the end -- I don't think this game has that kind of shelf life -- during the regular course of the game it makes very little difference.

I'll first just take a counter-example. I'll use yours, but changing the HP to 5 rather than 20.
First unit : 10 % chances to win flawlessly (one round).
Second unit : 0,5^4 = 0,0625 => 6,25 %.
Here we just come from simple to double. And here it's in the world of the 3 %, not the tenth of percent.

It would roughly be the equivelant of giving a unit a 10,000 Attack rating and another unit a 100,000 Attack rating and having them attack a unit with 1D expecting to see a noticable difference in the results.

Now, with the new results (that we obtained ONLY by changing the HP/FP), it's roughly equivalent of giving a unit a 24 in attack and another a 15. The difference between a modern armor and a unit inferior to tanks (remember, it's not EQUIVALENT, it's just to give a VAGUE idea about the outcome).

Why it changes is because X % of winning is not only this X % in stat.
To explain better, I'll take a practicable example : you have to measure the average height of a certain quantity of people.
Suppose that you have one who is 1,70 m then one who is 1,75 m then one who is 1,80 m then on who is 1,65 m then one who is 1,85 m. The average is 1,75 m.
Now take another population. They are five too, and they respectively are 2 m / 1,5 m / 1,95 m / 1,75 m / 1,55 m.
You can see that the average is the same. Though, you can't say that they are the same population. In one case, the biggest difference with the average is 10 cm. In the other, it's 25 cm. What it means is that though the average is the same, you tend to have greater differences in size in one group than in other. Which means that they are statistically different.

There is basically two things :
1 - The average : it's what we use the most. One 5A unit hit one 5D unit an AVERAGE of 50 % of the time (provided there is not any bonuses).
2 - The dispersion : it's how likely any result is about to be far from the average. In Civ 1, with only one HP, the dispersion was bigger than in Civ 2 => "bogus" results happened more often.

Now, changing the A/D rating is only affecting the average (if you double the attack rating for a unit, you double it's probability to hit). The dispersion is influenced by HP/FP : the more rounds there is, the more the outcome tend to favor the unit which has the better chances of winning.

Basically, HP/FP allow people to chose the "randomness" of the fight : the more the HP, the less the dispersion. The more the FP, the more the dispersion. Only giving HP would allow moders to reduce the overall dispersion of all units (or make a single unit more resistant to damage if putting more HP only to her). Giving the FP allow to CUSTOMIZE the dispersion/randomness of EVERY units. That's a MAJOR point for modders.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Basically, HP/FP allow people to chose the "randomness" of the fight : the more the HP, the less the dispersion. The more the FP, the more the dispersion. Only giving HP would allow moders to reduce the overall dispersion of all units (or make a single unit more resistant to damage if putting more HP only to her). Giving the FP allow to CUSTOMIZE the dispersion/randomness of EVERY units. That's a MAJOR point for modders.

Right, but you don't need both HP and FP. You only need one or the other.

I would also like to point of that in your example you used a very low amount of hit point in relation to fire power that would therefore accentuate the differences. I don't think choosing twenty hit points was a ridiculous as choosing five given the fact that no unit in Civ2 had a fire power of 5 while some had over 30 hit points. I could do the same thing with your results by adding more hit points which would further demonstrate that there isn't much of a difference.

If you want 5FP unit with 5HP units your going to get extremely wild results, far stranger than the results put forth in this thread. As far as your arguement goes I think it's moot as you continually alter the numbers to suit the results. In all practicality no one is going to be interested in playing a game with units that have 5HP along side units with 5FP. It would result in a virtual crap shot where the lucky player, not skilled player, wins. If your going to post some convincing numbers I think it should be numbers within the realm of reality -- not reality as in realism, but reality as in someone might actually make a unit as such.

[Akka]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Right, but you don't need both HP and FP. You only need one or the other.

Look, Whiteelephant, you're constantly half-reading the posts you're answering to. One thing good to change would be to really read them, it's tiring to tell you ten times the same things. Read that :

"Only giving HP would allow moders to reduce the overall dispersion of all units (or make a single unit more resistant to damage if putting more HP only to her)."

Understood ? Only HP would not allow to make a single unit deal a lot of damage compared to others. All units would inflict the same damages, they would just be able to bear more or less damages. Not inflict more.
Gotcha ?
Understanding the difference between ONE unit and ALL the units ?

Now read carefully, because I don't want to repeat myself : HP/FP are to the dispertion rate the exact equivalent of what A/D are about the average. Saying we can use only HP with a constant FP of 1 is about the dispersion like saying we can use only Attack rating with a constant Defense of 1 about the average.
Understood ?

I would also like to point of that in your example you used a very low amount of hit point in relation to fire power that would therefore accentuate the differences. I don't think choosing twenty hit points was a ridiculous as choosing five given the fact that no unit in Civ2 had a fire power of 5 while some had over 30 hit points. I could do the same thing with your results by adding more hit points which would further demonstrate that there isn't much of a difference.

Man, if you want to prove something with maths, then you're about using maths. What I proved was that FP/HP could NOT be simulated by improving the A/D ratings only. If you would adding more HP, it would prove MY explanation : that HP/FP does NOT influence the results in the same way than A/D.
I was not talking about a GAME example, I was talking about a MATH example. To explain that A/D and FP/MP are not the same thing.

If you want 5FP unit with 5HP units your going to get extremely wild results, far stranger than the results put forth in this thread. As far as your arguement goes I think it's moot as you continually alter the numbers to suit the results. In all practicality no one is going to be interested in playing a game with units that have 5HP along side units with 5FP. It would result in a virtual crap shot where the lucky player, not skilled player, wins. If your going to post some convincing numbers I think it should be numbers within the realm of reality -- not reality as in realism, but reality as in someone might actually make a unit as such.

Ok, dude, have you ever heard about modding ? You know, when you invent your own units, when you test your imagination, this kind of stuff.
I have an average HP of 5 and an average FP of 1. I want make a very DAMAGING unit (bomb, fireball, terrorist, toxic gas, flamethrower...). I want then this unit to be able to wipe out any other unit in one shot. Why ? Because it would fit in my mod and because I'm in the mood to do it.
I don't give a shît about the results becoming random, because it's the very PURPOSE of that unit. Yes, this unit, here. Not ALL the units of the game. One. Or two. Or whatever the number I want. It's called MODDING. i.e. giving the game special features.
If I want to create the Warp Gun which inflict obscene amounts of damage while hitting practically never and being extremely easy to destroy, I would use a FP of 10 or 15 and set it's HP to 1 and it's attack to 2. I can't just change it's Attack rating because the idea is that it's not about hitting often, it's about hitting nearly never. But killing in one shot. I just CAN'T create it without FP/HP.
Understood ?

[Sevorak]

karlmarx9001,

Good analysis with the warriors, tanks, production and maintenance costs.

Now, if you had only added in the savings for the warrior side concerning all the technology they didn't have to research, we may be on to something here.

Let's do that now.

Assume for the sake of simplicity that the advanced civilization gives away its tech to about half of the other civilizations in the game, and we can assume 8 civs. The tech multiplier based off of that is a simple 1/2 then.

Heading straight for Motorized Transportation, bypassing EVERY optional tech (simplicity's sake again) we end up with 47 techs at a total tech cost of 2196. Standard map makes the tech cost 24, so we get 24*2196*4/8 = 26,352 gold to research all of those technologies, assuming *no* beaker overflow (simplicity again).

Furthermore, let's assume that each side will have enough banked gold to maintain their army for a period of twenty turns.

So we change the example a bit:

473 warriors, 473/turn upkeep
+26,352 gold from not having to research tech
-9460 for 20 turns of upkeep

47 tanks, 47/turn upkeep
+12,543 gold from not having to maintain warriors
-940 for 20 turns of upkeep

The result is actually +5,289 for the warrior side, with which you could rush-build 88 more warriors (and keep them for 20 turns each).

Final situation looks more like:

561 warriors, 561/turn upkeep
47 tanks, 47/turn upkeep

This allocates just under 12 warriors per tank. Assuming the tanks strike first, 47 of them kill two warriors each without trouble. Each tank has a 77% chance to take no damage in one attack, and a 59% chance to take no damage in two attacks. Therefore, of the total 47*4 = 188 hit points that the tank army contains, on average and at minimum (since 'damaged' results include results where the tank takes 2, 3, or 4 points of damage), 58 of them are lost in the attack phase. Then the warriors counter attack. There are now only 467 warriors. When a warrior attacks, a tank has only a 65% chance of escaping without damage. Therefore, 467 attacking warriors do a total of 163 damage to the tanks' remaining pool of 130. However, we are neglecting two important conditions here. First, the possibility that one of the 561 warriors deals two or more damage. We will assume the chance is two percent, combining attacking and defending percentages. With two percent of the warriors dealing two damage, we gain 11 points of damage to raise the total to 174. Then, we consider the probability of the tanks promoting to elite, which has a chance of 98%, meaning that 46 tanks promote, raising their hit points to 176.

So after that huge bloody battle of mutual destruction, a single tank lives at 2 hp. Note that in every case I have rounded up decimals in favour of the tanks and rounded down decimals against the warriors, so the results may be a little off. I'd call it a toss-up between the warriors and tanks, myself.

Of course, since this example involves great abstraction of a large number of variables, it, like the example before it, proves nothing. Just a different way of looking at the problem

-Sev

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Look, Whiteelephant, you're constantly half-reading the posts you're answering to. One thing good to change would be to really read them, it's tiring to tell you ten times the same things.

Understood ? Only HP would not allow to make a single unit deal a lot of damage compared to others. All units would inflict the same damages, they would just be able to bear more or less damages. Not inflict more.
Gotcha ?
Understanding the difference between ONE unit and ALL the units ?

No, I don't understand, because you could increase attack and get the same results. Meaning a unit would hit more often thus causing more damage in the same proportion of a unit that hits less often and causes more damage.

Now read carefully, because I don't want to repeat myself : HP/FP are to the dispertion rate the exact equivalent of what A/D are about the average. Saying we can use only HP with a constant FP of 1 is about the dispersion like saying we can use only Attack rating with a constant Defense of 1 about the average.
Understood ?

No I don't understand why you need both when one (hit points) is sufficent. No need to repeat yourself.

Man, if you want to prove something with maths, then you're about using maths.

I can not make heads or tails of this sentence.

What I proved was that FP/HP could NOT be simulated by improving the A/D ratings only. If you would adding more HP, it would prove MY explanation : that HP/FP does NOT influence the results in the same way than A/D.

I never claimed adjusting A/D would compensate for FP/HP, only that A is equivelent to FP.

Ok, dude, have you ever heard about modding ? You know, when you invent your own units, when you test your imagination, this kind of stuff.
I have an average HP of 5 and an average FP of 1. I want make a very DAMAGING unit (bomb, fireball, terrorist, toxic gas, flamethrower...). I want then this unit to be able to wipe out any other unit in one shot. Why ? Because it would fit in my mod and because I'm in the mood to do it.

Give the unit an extremely high attack rating. Problem solved.

I don't give a shît about the results becoming random, because it's the very PURPOSE of that unit.

Well, look how far we've come from the original arguement.

Yes, this unit, here. Not ALL the units of the game. One. Or two. Or whatever the number I want. It's called MODDING. i.e. giving the game special features.
If I want to create the Warp Gun which inflict obscene amounts of damage while hitting practically never and being extremely easy to destroy, I would use a FP of 10 or 15 and set it's HP to 1 and it's attack to 2. I can't just change it's Attack rating because the idea is that it's not about hitting often, it's about hitting nearly never. But killing in one shot. I just CAN'T create it without FP/HP.
Understood ?

Point taken considering modding, but haven't you taken this arguement to the extreme to prove your point?

[Hunter Hutchins]

"modern times, it is superior technology that wins wars, not superior numbers."

Cortez 1519: 200 vs 60,000

Hmm.

[N. Machiavelli]

WhiteElephants, try this for an example using what Akka le Vil is saying about FP Let's pit two units against one another; a Rifleman (with a rifle, not an AT missle) and a tank (we'll even use an American WWII Sherman, so no advanced targeting systems). Now, we can agree (I hope) that attack/defense ONLY means the percentage that one unit has of hitting the other, right? Ok. Considering that the tank is slow as **** and is not going anywhere in a hurry, we can assume that from a range of 100 yards, the average rifleman could shoot hit it nearly every time, ok? In contrast, the rifleman himself is more agile and is harder to hit with that cannon, agree? Therefor is not resonable that the rifleman would have a higher attack rating than the tank, since his odds are better at hitting the tank than vice versa? Ok, good. Still with me?

Now, this is where FP comes in. Sure, the rifleman can hit the tank with ease, but I'm sure we can agree that the bullet isn't going to do jack against that plating? In contrast, if that tank shell scores a direct hit on the rifleman, he will cease to exist. I hope we can agree that a .40 bullet does not deal the same destruction as a 105 mm tank shell. (NOTE: we'll assume 10 HP each unit in this scenario, the HP is adjustable as long as it's in scale with the FP) Therefor, using FP, we could assign the rifleman a FP of 1 and the Tank a FP of 10. Agree?

Ok, using this model we have a situation where the rifleman could hit the tank whenever he wants to, but can only scratch the paint as opposed to the tank which has a real hard time hitting that infantryman, but will kill him in one hit. Got that? Using the current Civ3 model, you cannot reach the same results by simply raising the tank's attack level higher. The whole point is to create a sort of all-or-nothing chance for the rifleman. The rifleman even has odds on his side at defeating the tank, but if the tank ever actually gets lucky enough to hit him, it's over. You raise the tanks attack to astronomical levels and ensure that he's going to win every time, but you don't want that, you want a unit that is going to achieve NO damage ata ll except for the few times it scores a hit. Then BAM, game over.

[Nuke gay whales]

Originally posted by Sevorak
karlmarx9001,

This allocates just under 12 warriors per tank. Assuming the tanks strike first, 47 of them kill two warriors each without trouble. Each tank has a 77% chance to take no damage in one attack, and a 59% chance to take no damage in two attacks. Therefore, of the total 47*4 = 188 hit points that the tank army contains, on average and at minimum (since 'damaged' results include results where the tank takes 2, 3, or 4 points of damage), 58 of them are lost in the attack phase. Then the warriors counter attack. There are now only 467 warriors. When a warrior attacks, a tank has only a 65% chance of escaping without damage. Therefore, 467 attacking warriors do a total of 163 damage to the tanks' remaining pool of 130. However, we are neglecting two important conditions here. First, the possibility that one of the 561 warriors deals two or more damage. We will assume the chance is two percent, combining attacking and defending percentages. With two percent of the warriors dealing two damage, we gain 11 points of damage to raise the total to 174. Then, we consider the probability of the tanks promoting to elite, which has a chance of 98%, meaning that 46 tanks promote, raising their hit points to 176.

So after that huge bloody battle of mutual destruction, a single tank lives at 2 hp. Note that in every case I have rounded up decimals in favour of the tanks and rounded down decimals against the warriors, so the results may be a little off. I'd call it a toss-up between the warriors and tanks, myself.

-Sev

Wow... If all this math and calculations are correct, then doesn't this PROVE the original point? Something MUST be wrong with the combat system if a battle between warriors (bare-chested men with rusty axes in loin cloths) and tanks (with armour plating, cannons and mounted machine guns) ends up being a draw??? Please, I don't care how many of these "warriors" there were, the only thing that would slow the tanks down would be the time it would take to clean the body parts from the tank's tread... just running the hairy buggers over would be sufficient, you wouldn't even need to fire any of the tanks cannons or machine guns - it would be a waste of ammo…

[Sevorak]

As I said initially, the calculations prove nothing.

Among the many factors I abstracted:

-City improvements of any kind, including Wonders of the World.
-Type of government.
-Optional techs researched.
-Effect on one or both civilizations due to war with a third (fourth, fifth etc.) civilization.
-Any tactical application of the troops involved (such as parking the tanks on mountains)
-Money needed to be spent on entertainment.
-More or less civilizations in the game.
-Size of map.
-Amount of cities.
-Any trade at all with another civilization.
-Effect of barbarians.
-Difficulty level.
-Turns in revolution.
-Civilization strengths.
-Promotions before the battle.
-Naval, air, and artillery considerations.
-The effect of armies and/or the creation of Great Leaders.
-Strategic resource availability.

Just a sampler. My point was less that 561 warriors tie 47 tanks than the fact that within limits, you can throw numbers around whatever way you like and get something out of it. Perhaps the sarcasm in the initial comments in my first post was mis-appreciated?

-Sev

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Hunter Hutchins
"modern times, it is superior technology that wins wars, not superior numbers."

Cortez 1519: 200 vs 60,000

Hmm.

As I've mentioned before, the numbers were way more even than that. The bulk of Cortez's forces came from various factions whom the Aztecs had subjugated. Since they didn't bother to assimilate them or control them in any way other than the fear that the Aztecs could destroy them, they were easy to recruit. Even after that, the Aztecs still almost managed to win (Not to mention they almost killed Cortez.)

That said, I hate undermining those I agree with. >_<

[Akka]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
No, I don't understand, because you could increase attack and get the same results. Meaning a unit would hit more often thus causing more damage in the same proportion of a unit that hits less often and causes more damage.

Ok. I spent several posts ONLY to try to explain you that it's NOT THE SAME AT ALL. What it means is either :
- you don't read my posts
- you're mentally challenged and don't understand them
- you're basically trolling

Anyhow, I see no point to continu. I already explained you the difference one thousand times, if you want answers then just scroll back and pay more attention at what I already told you.

No I don't understand why you need both when one (hit points) is sufficent. No need to repeat yourself.

Same as above. Go back reading or stop trolling or buy a brain.

I never claimed adjusting A/D would compensate for FP/HP, only that A is equivelent to FP.

Give the unit an extremely high attack rating. Problem solved.

Same as above.

[woody]

Originally posted by Nuke gay whales
I don't give a flying duck about the math... COMMON SENSE tells me that a group of men with pointed sticks could NEVER, EVER successfully defend against a group of tanks - period. If you like to get your calculator out every time you feel the need to rationalize the results - fine, but I can simply observe this occurring, and KNOW that it is wrong.

Your problem is that you expect Civ3 to be a tactical combat simulator. It isn't. It's an epic strategy game. Combat is only a small part, and it has to be balanced well enough to make the overall game fun. If tanks were invincible to more primitive units the game wouldn't be fun. If you can't suspend your "realism" 1% of the time that a spearman beats an armor attack, then Civ type games are not for you. You should be playing a tactical wargame, where different ages don't overlap.

Maybe Firaxis should allow units to have their own hitpoint multipliers (you don't need firepower). Then you can change the rules to be more like Civ2, which is what you seem to prefer. Just don't expect a balanced game to come out of it.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Setsuna


As I've mentioned before, the numbers were way more even than that. The bulk of Cortez's forces came from various factions whom the Aztecs had subjugated. Since they didn't bother to assimilate them or control them in any way other than the fear that the Aztecs could destroy them, they were easy to recruit. Even after that, the Aztecs still almost managed to win (Not to mention they almost killed Cortez.)

That said, I hate undermining those I agree with. >_<

Yes, but Cortez basically had nothing by European standards of the day. Properly understood, Cortez would not even have 1 unit on the Civ3 scale. Let's consider what would have happened if the Spanish had deployed an full Civ3 unit to invade the Aztec Empire instead.

In modern times, "unit=division" fits the scale of the game very well, in terms of the size of the map and number of units in play. A 20th Century division is typically about 10 combat battalions, about 500 guys in a battalion (of infantry, anyway). Coincidentally, a Roman Legion was 10 Cohorts of about 500 guys (480, really, but that is "about 500"). So, going up from a Roman Legion to a modern division is (in addition to re-equipping the infantrymen) a matter of adding a big wad of support troops - a modern division's 10,000-15,000 (depending on the army) guys is 2/3-3/4 support troops.

BTW, Roman Legions routinely defeated hordes of barbarian warriors, greatly outnumbering the legionaries, whose arms & armor were as "modern" as their own. This was a matter of being trained to operate as a mutually-supporting formation of "soldiers" as opposed to a mass of "warriors". This tactical organization & coordination stuff is "technology", too, in the Civ sense.

A 16th Century Spanish Tercio consisted of 10 companies of 300 men or 12 companies of 250 men (3000 guys either way). Two companies were harquebusiers (guys with matchlock firearms) and the rest were pikemen with significant portions of their bodies covered by plate armor. This was a combined arms formation trained to manuever together, and was the building block of then-contemporaty Spanish armies (and the very much terror of Europe to the same extent as the German Panzers c. 1940). I would consider this the least that could be represented by one "unit" in Civ3 - but really a unit is more like two Tercios. Tercio companies are a bit light to be considered battalion equivalents, so you could reasonably say a Legion upgrades to a unit consisting of 2 Tercios and that unit eventually upgrades to a 20th Century infantry division.

OK, so now let's look at the Aztecs. The elite Jaguar "knights" had quilted cotton armor, light shields and wooden clubs set with obsidian (volcanic glass) to produce the stone-age functional equivalent of a sword. The masses had stone-tipped spears or relatively weak bows firing stone-tipped arrows. Their tactical sophistication was about on par with those Gauls Caesar beat up on with great regularity.

A steel sword or pike head can readily penetrate quilted cotton armor, especially if you thrust with the point. Stone or obsidian is not going to penetrate steel plate armor, so the Aztecs have to aim for unarmored parts of the Spaniards. Aztec armor is useless against the matcklocks, while an arrow that hits a Spaniard probaly has <50% chance of hitting a part not covered by steel, and lots of those parts an arrow would not take out the victim (a ball from a matchlock will shatter the bones in an arm or let, etc...). So even if the effective range of the two weapons (considered as mass fire aimed at an enemy formation rather than a particular enemy soldier) is equal, the Spanish have a huge qualitative edge.

So, a single "unit" of 16th Century Spanish infantry should have no problem polishing of 60,000 Aztecs (let's call that 10-12 units, assume 1 in 5 are Jaguar Knights and the rest are spearmen). In fact, Caesar's 10 Legion could probably handle them.

Now let's replace our 2 Tercios with a WWI Infantry division. OK, now all of our troopies have 5 shot (10 for Brits) bolt-action rifles, and every company has a belt-fed, water-cooled heavy machinegun (neglecting divisional artillery). The Brits lost something like 100,000 guys charging in machinegun fire on the first day of the Somme offensive. What do you think happens to our Aztecs? Then fast-forward to WWII - add in mortars at the company level, light automatic weapons at the squad level. Then fast-forward to modern - all the riflemen now have automatic weapons. Now make it an armored division - about 1 battalion in 3 is now replaced by tanks (call it 25 or more tanks per battalion), and each infantry squad is mounted in an IFV. Tanks & IFV's mount coaxial machineguns on the main weapon turret, plus probably a heavy machinegun on the commander's hatch. Plus, if you are fighting an enemy without tanks the loadout for the main gun will be beehive rounds - think of it as a 120mm bore shotgun (Isreali tankers on the march like to keep one of those up the spout to deal with wire-guided AT missile crews). Get the picture?

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
...tactical organization & coordination stuff is "technology", too, in the Civ sense...

I guess this is where I fundamentally disagree with the "modern units must always win" supporters. Once adapted to the nature of modern warfare and trained appropriately, minimally equipped infantry can be surprisingly effective. Modern armies have been completely changing their command and control systems in order to counter the modern guerilla warfare that proved so effective in several theatres against their high tech but rigid armies since WWII.

If you look at Civ and see a pike unit that will march onto the battlefield in tight formation with big pointy sticks to oppose the machine gunners they have been living next door to - or even fighting - for the last century then I can understand why you want them to lose. Every time. Despite mud, fog, night ambush or anything else. What I see is a bunch of troops who will have adapted fast but be using low-tech tools to get the job done. You don't need to have discovered the tank in order to develop and employ anti-tank tactics. Rather than face the enemy in open battle, over the course of the extended period a turn represents they will be using all the tricks at their disposal to inflict harm on the enemy. If you want to talk real life comparisons, they'll have smuggled AK47's and land mines no matter how stone-age their own country might be or tight an embargo you try to put on them.

[woody]

Originally posted by Grumbold If you look at Civ and see a pike unit that will march onto the battlefield in tight formation with big pointy sticks to oppose the machine gunners they have been living next door to - or even fighting - for the last century then I can understand why you want them to lose. Every time. Despite mud, fog, night ambush or anything else. What I see is a bunch of troops who will have adapted fast but be using low-tech tools to get the job done. You don't need to have discovered the tank in order to develop and employ anti-tank tactics. Rather than face the enemy in open battle, over the course of the extended period a turn represents they will be using all the tricks at their disposal to inflict harm on the enemy. If you want to talk real life comparisons, they'll have smuggled AK47's and land mines no matter how stone-age their own country might be or tight an embargo you try to put on them.

They don't even need modern weapons. They could use their pointy sticks to lay over pits duggen into the ground. With a bit of camoflage, a tank could fall into the pit. The pikemen could then bury the tank, killing the driver inside.

It only takes a little amount of imagination to come up with ideas on how modern tanks could lose 1% of the time to guys with spears. Just a little! The Civ3 haters can't even come up with that small amount of imagination. Sad.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Ok. I spent several posts ONLY to try to explain you that it's NOT THE SAME AT ALL. What it means is either :
- you don't read my posts
- you're mentally challenged and don't understand them
- you're basically trolling

You have yet to mathematically explain the difference. You can tell me there different all day long, you can attempt to belittle my arguement by claiming it is a troll, and you can even try to degrade me with childish insults, but the one thing you've failed to do was prove mathematically, within the bounds of practicality, how a unit with more fire power stastically differs from a unit with more attack.

The only instance you can refer to where there are fundemental differences is in the case of a unit with fire power that is equal, if not more than, the amount of hit points the unit he is attack has. I don't feel this quantifies for a dramatic change in the combat system to appease this one request for an extremely unstrategic luck of the die unit.

[Venger]

Originally posted by woody
They don't even need modern weapons. They could use their pointy sticks to lay over pits duggen into the ground. With a bit of camoflage, a tank could fall into the pit. The pikemen could then bury the tank, killing the driver inside.

Why do you insist on A-Team or McGyver combat models?

It only takes a little amount of imagination to come up with ideas on how modern tanks could lose 1% of the time to guys with spears. Just a little! The Civ3 haters can't even come up with that small amount of imagination. Sad.

Who hates Civ3? Repeating a false assertion won't make it right...

Venger

[karlmarx9001]

I didn't include the cost of research in my tank vs. warrior analysis because I couldn't come up with a good way to discount the side benefits to researching technology. You get lots of other stuff you need to actually win the game from technology, so you can't just claim the full cost of researching up to tanks against them. I can't imagine a zero-technology civ that would be able to support 561 warriors, for example.

Anyway, to the 561 warriors vs. 47 tanks example:

'This allocates just under 12 warriors per tank. Assuming the tanks strike first, 47 of them kill two warriors each without trouble. Each tank has a 77% chance to take no damage in one attack, and a 59% chance to take no damage in two attacks. Therefore, of the total 47*4 = 188 hit points that the tank army contains, on average and at minimum (since 'damaged' results include results where the tank takes 2, 3, or 4 points of damage), 58 of them are lost in the attack phase. Then the warriors counter attack. There are now only 467 warriors. When a warrior attacks, a tank has only a 65% chance of escaping without damage. Therefore, 467 attacking warriors do a total of 163 damage to the tanks' remaining pool of 130. However, we are neglecting two important conditions here. First, the possibility that one of the 561 warriors deals two or more damage. We will assume the chance is two percent, combining attacking and defending percentages. With two percent of the warriors dealing two damage, we gain 11 points of damage to raise the total to 174. Then, we consider the probability of the tanks promoting to elite, which has a chance of 98%, meaning that 46 tanks promote, raising their hit points to 176.'

The math is correct, but one of your starting assumptions is way off:

'Furthermore, let's assume that each side will have enough banked gold to maintain their army for a period of twenty turns.'

That's 10,000 gold for the warriors vs. 1000 gold for the tanks. *Of course* if you give the warrior side 9000 free gold they'll win! If you just bought more tanks with the 9000 extra upkeep money, that roughly doubles the size of their tank army, and they'll have about 40 tanks left after the warriors attack.

Also, you can't seriously factor the entire cost of getting far enough up the tech tree to produce tanks into the cost of the tanks themselves; the empire that gets all the way to the industrial age will able to far, far outproduce one that didn't research at all and spent the money on warriors. As just a quick example, the extra production you'd get from researching railroads along the way will probably let you add another 40 tanks or so. This is going off the rails into entire-game speculation land. As a summary:

An equal "cost" of tanks are at least twice as effective as an equal "cost" of warriors. I suspect the multiplier is much, much higher, but it's hard to properly discount the side benefits of the technology you research to get to tanks.

The gain from technology is interesting, now that I look at it. Railroads increase the factors of production of any given square by about 25%, assuming 2 food/1 production/1 trade per square. A factory + coal plant combo costs 360 and doubles production, resulting in somewhere around another 40 tanks if you use part of your 4600 production for 46 tanks to build those two buildings before starting your tanks. Aquaducts increase a cities FOPs by at least 25%, probably more. Those are the easy ones, too; it wouldn't surprise me if an industrial era city is at least 2.5 times as productive as a stone age one, all else being equal.

[karlmarx9001]

Another bit I forgot: comparing attack vs. defense like this without terrain is a bit silly, considering the way the game is actually played. I'd guess the average defense bonus units have, weighted for frequency, across the game when I play is somewhere between 10 and 50%, depending on how frequent you think city attacks are.

[karlmarx9001]

A thought: figuring out how effective warriors will be at killing tanks in the open isn't an evaluation of the game balance, or the combat system in general, or even realism; it's an evaluation of how warriors will fare against tanks that are being misused (that is, tanks defending). If you're going by the realism standard, modern militaries don't buy tanks and leave them parked defending places; there's better ways to defend. If you're using the gameplay balance standard, you shouldn't defend with units not meant to defend.

A more accurate measurement, for both realism and game balance, would be to look at warriors assaulting infantry, which cost 10% and have a 50% higher defense value. Even comparing a 2 to 1 or 1 to 1 tank/infantry mix would be more useful.

Either of those, of course, would be a much better deal than just tanks, going off the previous analysis (where tanks are 50% better if you factor the entire tech cost to research them into the purchase price).

Civilization abstracts out the movement part of post-stone age combat (that is, everything past horseman) through the "this unit is good at attacking and moving but lousy at defense" shorthand. The system isn't that bad, it just gets kind of fuzzy when comparing the extremes. Tweaking firepower, hit points, and the like won't remove this, as it's fundamental to the design that movement units will suck on defense.

[Sze]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I guess this is where I fundamentally disagree with the "modern units must always win" supporters. Once adapted to the nature of modern warfare and trained appropriately, minimally equipped infantry can be surprisingly effective. Modern armies have been completely changing their command and control systems in order to counter the modern guerilla warfare that proved so effective in several theatres against their high tech but rigid armies since WWII.

If you look at Civ and see a pike unit that will march onto the battlefield in tight formation with big pointy sticks to oppose the machine gunners they have been living next door to - or even fighting - for the last century then I can understand why you want them to lose. Every time. Despite mud, fog, night ambush or anything else. What I see is a bunch of troops who will have adapted fast but be using low-tech tools to get the job done. You don't need to have discovered the tank in order to develop and employ anti-tank tactics. Rather than face the enemy in open battle, over the course of the extended period a turn represents they will be using all the tricks at their disposal to inflict harm on the enemy. If you want to talk real life comparisons, they'll have smuggled AK47's and land mines no matter how stone-age their own country might be or tight an embargo you try to put on them.

You may want to check what side of the argument you're on. What you're saying is that ancient units gain more battlefield 'clout' or 'savvy' when the enemy forces get more technologically advanced for a cost of zero. That's precisely what is wrong with the combat system, ancient units are too powerful in comparison with the amount of research they require.

The problem with not having HP/FP is not necessarily losing fights outright, although that is frustrating; it's getting your high-tech units damaged so frequently by mediocre units. Damaged units waste several turns returning to a home city, repairing, and redeploying. The Egyptians are currently kicking my butt on my coast with a bunch of ironclads vs. my battleships. I can only take out one ot two before I lose 3 turns to repairing them. I'll do better if I stop building battleships and start building ironclads and that's just wrong. Why did I waste my time researching batleships?

[Sevorak]

'Furthermore, let's assume that each side will have enough banked gold to maintain their army for a period of twenty turns.'

Sorry, bad wording there. I didn't mean adding any extra gold. I meant, assume that out of the warriors' 13,809 gold advantage, they reserve enough in order to maintain their army for 20 turns. You can see this in the math where I kick off 9,460 for twenty turns of upkeep for the warriors and where I knock off only 940 for the tanks, resulting in a final modifier of +5,289 for the warriors. No one's getting extra gold. All clear now?

Also, you can't seriously factor the entire cost of getting far enough up the tech tree to produce tanks into the cost of the tanks themselves; the empire that gets all the way to the industrial age will able to far, far outproduce one that didn't research at all and spent the money on warriors. As just a quick example, the extra production you'd get from researching railroads along the way will probably let you add another 40 tanks or so. This is going off the rails into entire-game speculation land.

Precisely my point! I agree completely. Then you have to factor in the tile penalty or bonus from being in different forms of government, then factor in the tech costs for researching those forms of government, then add in the effects of six turns of revolution each, unless it's religious, in which case you have to fiddle with that too. Oops, just got more complicated. It IS off the rails in entire-game speculation land, and you and I could spit numbers at each other from here to eternity and never prove a thing Besides, I don't mind the combat system as it is, anyway, so my patience would run out early

The only way this is ever going to get properly tested is in a thousand or so MP games, and who's up for that? Not me, for sure, even assuming MP shows up sometime soon. Maybe there is a universal way to compare units, but if there is, it certainly won't be short enough to fit in a forum post

-Sev

[The Rook]

Sorry, this thread is just too long to read the whole thing, but I'd like to add something.

I think once a Civ enters into the industrial age, all of his preindustrial units should automatically be upgraded to Militia units. These units represent the rag-tag armies of 3rd world nations. They should fall somewhere inbetween Musketeers and Riflemen. No nation today uses spearmen, even the most backward of nations has some kind of small arms, and these guys HAVE taken out tanks, helos, and even modern warships.

When my modern tank gets beaten by some archer from ancient time, it's my assumption, that somebody supplied them with anti-tank weapons.

[Venger]

A decent enough suggestion, but this upgrade should still require a cost of some level - either 10 shields per unit, even 10 gold per unit, should be extracted, period. Or, at least the Civ has the option to upgrade, so if they don't have the money, they can get the money, for the upgrade.

Militia - 4/4/1.

Venger

[The Rook]

Originally posted by Venger
A decent enough suggestion, but this upgrade should still require a cost of some level - either 10 shields per unit, even 10 gold per unit, should be extracted, period. Or, at least the Civ has the option to upgrade, so if they don't have the money, they can get the money, for the upgrade.

Militia - 4/4/1.

Venger

Makes sense. How about the final upgrade for all of the ancient units is the militia. Warriors, Pikemen, Swordsmen, Longbowmen, all upgrade to militia when militia becomes available.

[Vympel]

A lot of good ideas have come out of this thread. I personally think the combat system should be tweaked. The best thoughts that have come out, IMHO, are

1: Units that are two eras behind should die. Period. No fight, no chance of winning, they just die. Its not a question of balance, if you're playing so that someone is that many advances ahead of you, you SUCK, and deserve to lose. If you've given such a virtuoso performance that you're two eras ahead of some poor schmuck (or the AI), then you should be rewarded with a swift, stunning victory in which you GRIND THEM INTO THE DIRT. One era behind, ok you've got a better chance, but more advanced units need to have a better ratio of success, the rewards of high tech units are simply too small. Battleship vs Ironclad classic example.
2: Each era should have a basic unit that requires no resources.

IMPROVE the game. Enough with the Firaxis can do no wrong attitude: perfect example:

">>Air units can't sink naval units: this is a design decision I agree with. If they can, then once air power is researched there will be absolutely no reason to build any naval units but transports.<< "

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. In the *REAL* world, modern warships SHOOT at aircraft that are attacking them. Give destroyers, battleships (despite common opinion, a battleship is an extremely tough target for air attack, tons of AA guns) and especially AEGIS cruisers the capability to defend against air units like SAMs or *something*. AEGIS cruisers, destroyers, and battleships should ALL have the ability to use cruise missiles once you get the cruise missile.

[karlmarx9001]

'That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. In the *REAL* world, modern warships SHOOT at aircraft that are attacking them. Give destroyers, battleships (despite common opinion, a battleship is an extremely tough target for air attack, tons of AA guns) and especially AEGIS cruisers the capability to defend against air units like SAMs or *something*. AEGIS cruisers, destroyers, and battleships should ALL have the ability to use cruise missiles once you get the cruise missile.'

Ships firing back would be cool, but it changes airpower from being flying artillery into just a unit with a lot of movement. Not necessarily a bad thing, it just doesn't look like what Sid intended originally.

Cruisers and destroyers carrying cruise missiles would be nice; as it is I rarely build a navy.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Sze
You may want to check what side of the argument you're on. What you're saying is that ancient units gain more battlefield 'clout' or 'savvy' when the enemy forces get more technologically advanced for a cost of zero. That's precisely what is wrong with the combat system, ancient units are too powerful in comparison with the amount of research they require.

The problem with not having HP/FP is not necessarily losing fights outright, although that is frustrating; it's getting your high-tech units damaged so frequently by mediocre units. Damaged units waste several turns returning to a home city, repairing, and redeploying. The Egyptians are currently kicking my butt on my coast with a bunch of ironclads vs. my battleships. I can only take out one ot two before I lose 3 turns to repairing them. I'll do better if I stop building battleships and start building ironclads and that's just wrong. Why did I waste my time researching batleships?

I've stayed consistently on one side of the arguement. Modern low-tech infantry ARE more effective than their counterparts 1000 years ago because even if they are identical in terms of equipment, their leaders will be educated or just naturally gifted in modern tactics and capable of devising better strategies. The strategies used in ancient times changed dramatically from generation to generation as new weapons, formations and strategies were tried out. Expecting them to freeze into some sort of unchanging time capsule so they march in formation to attack a tank is totally unrealistic.

The reason you research new units is so that, unit for unit, your guys win. Regularly. If you are having problems because your unit has to retire hurt after destroying only two of the enemy then you have allowed yourself to become outnumbered 3:1 or worse. That is your choice, and you should be glad because building libraries instead of more pikemen is probably what gave you the technological edge in the first place. In resource terms, the enemy has permanently lost the cost of 2 ironclads for a temporary ineffectiveness of one battleship worth of yours. You are winning!

Build railroads, harbors and barracks in strategic places and you can lose almost no downtime to heal in a modern war. I've had absolutely no difficulty winning any war I got involved in with even marginal tech superiority, let alone a whole Era. Once you have destroyed a significant proportion of the enemy's massive war machine, the fact that you are producing 10 good units for every 15-20 mediocre ones they do is ensuring you victory since almost none of your units die so your swelling army can kill more and more of theirs every turn.

I don't believe anyone here is a weak enough player to be losing their wars if they have huge tech advantages unless they have no army at all. They are just upset because it isn't quite as easy to win as they want it to be.