The main reason to change combat

[GePap]

This thread is based on a post by Akka de Vil in the neverending Dmc507 thread.

The main line of though among the defenders of the combat sysytem is that we, those that dislike it, simply want to be invincible at some late point in the game (where's the fun in that!?). They can't figure out why we just don't create ridiculous A/D numbers to get this effect and leave them (and this forum) alone. Well, thanks to Excelsior (giving credit where credit is due) I already know how to make a trully unbeatable unit without changing a/d numbers (make modern armor move 8, blitz, give ability to bombard, rate of fire 4. NO competition). But being invincible was never the point. The point is giving gamers the best possible tool to customize.
Lets say i want to come up with a unit that has a rare chance in hitting but does horrible damage when it does hit (this is where Akka's post comes in)? 'Well, raise the Attack values' would be the answer. OK, but by doing that I simply increase the chance of hitting, without increasing the possible damage- so in the end I only moved further from my aim. Or what about a unit that almost always hits but does little damage? Or what about a fortress, which takes loads of punishment? With the civ2 combat system I could create all of these, no problem. With the Civ3 system I can't create any of them correctly-not a one.
A/D values are blunt instruments. That 'unecessary complexity' Soren spoke off also created a fine instrument which we gamers could use to create infinite possibilites and fine balances. You can play a sonata on a piano with hammers- but it won't be pretty, and it won't sound the same.

[gamma]

I suppose you have a point there. The closest thing you could make to a unit that hits rarely but damages horribly would be a bombardment unit with attack rating of 1 and rate of fire of 3-5.

Why, exactly, do you want a unit that hits rarely but damages horribly, btw? (I know you gave this as an example, so I'm asking hypothetically here.) The only effect I can see is that it makes combat more random. (A unit that hits often but damages poorly would make combat less random, in contrast.)

[Akka]

Originally posted by gamma
I suppose you have a point there. The closest thing you could make to a unit that hits rarely but damages horribly would be a bombardment unit with attack rating of 1 and rate of fire of 3-5.

Why, exactly, do you want a unit that hits rarely but damages horribly, btw? (I know you gave this as an example, so I'm asking hypothetically here.) The only effect I can see is that it makes combat more random. (A unit that hits often but damages poorly would make combat less random, in contrast.)

A terrorist unit.
A minefield.
A fantasy magical unit from the magical Kingdom of Chaos, that is using the power of Chaos.
A sci-fi unit using a singularity quantic charge whose power is based on probability.
A Long Bertha gun, not accurate but with enormous shells.
A musket (less accurate than a bow but more powerful).
A flamethrower (small Attack rating because you have to come nearly in hand-to-hand, but high damage).
A toxic gaz.
A bomb.
A primitive bomber (already possible with the rate of fire, I cant understand why they took out the FP from other units while they let it for bombardement units).

I could too talk about high attack rating with low FP units, but I think you get the point

[Jack_www]

You do have a good point there about chaning the cobat system so that you can mod the game so that you can make all kind of units. One thing though that I see people complaining how their tank loses to a spearmen, I never have this porblem and at some times for me anyway it seems to easy to take over anther civ, although you have to watch out for cities that revert. One thing if people have problems with the fact that spearmen are beating their tanks is to get the computer to upgrade it's units. Every time I play, for some unknow reason the computer still has 20 or 30 spearmen running around in the modern age, even when it has the tech to make better densive units. If the computer upgraded it's units people would never have to face spearmen if the first place, and thus their tanks would never lose to spearmen.

[Rakki]

that's why I think they got the shooty stuff RIGHT for Civ 2 - increase the firepower but lower the Attack and you would've got something like a terrorist unit...

I don't agree with their design goal of trying to equalize advanced and primitive civs - perhaps they could allow primitive civs to build "terrorist" type units (it'll take a lot of Zulu Impis to wipe out a rifleman, but once ONE Impi manages to get close...)

Anyway, I think the Civ 3 combat system tried to combine Civ 1 and strat wargame and managed to pick out the worst of two.

[Zanzin]

Originally posted by Jack_www
One thing if people have problems with the fact that spearmen are beating their tanks is to get the computer to upgrade it's units. Every time I play, for some unknow reason the computer still has 20 or 30 spearmen running around in the modern age, even when it has the tech to make better densive units.

Good point. Why doesn't the AI upgrade/disband/build more modern defenders? I can't believe this was an intentional thing on Firaxis' part - surely they noticed it was just as stupid as we're noticing it too be, right?

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
The main line of though among the defenders of the combat sysytem is that we, those that dislike it, simply want to be invincible at some late point in the game (where's the fun in that!?). They can't figure out why we just don't create ridiculous A/D numbers to get this effect and leave them (and this forum) alone.

Well now, that's a pretty impressive summary. I had thought all along we were arguing for game play/balance over realism, the repercussions of not having the correct resources, the margin of randomness to combat over the boring unit A always defeats unit B syndrome, the use of combined arms over hapless tactics, etc., etc.

Lets say i want to come up with a unit that has a rare chance in hitting but does horrible damage when it does hit (this is where Akka's post comes in)? 'Well, raise the Attack values' would be the answer. OK, but by doing that I simply increase the chance of hitting, without increasing the possible damage- so in the end I only moved further from my aim.

By raising the attack rating you are raising a units chance to hit and not be hit and by extension raising the amount of a damage a unit is likely to inflict.

Or what about a unit that almost always hits but does little damage?

Raise the attack rating and the hit points of every other unit.

Or what about a fortress, which takes loads of punishment?

Raise hit points.

With the civ2 combat system I could create all of these, no problem. With the Civ3 system I can't create any of them correctly-not a one.

Well now you know, and knowing is half that battle!

Notice I never mentioned fire power in any of the above examples?

A/D values are blunt instruments. That 'unecessary complexity' Soren spoke off also created a fine instrument which we gamers could use to create infinite possibilites and fine balances. You can play a sonata on a piano with hammers- but it won't be pretty, and it won't sound the same.

A scalpel is useless in the hands of a butcher, no?

[WhiteElephants]

Interestingly enough I've heard the same crowd argue that Firaxis should fix the combat because they paid money for the game (etc., etc.) so they shouldn't have to do it themselves and then turn around and say they want to bring back fire power so they can tweek there own mods.

In other words they want a more realistic "fixed" game so they can turn around and "break" it to create less realistic mods.

Save Firaxis the trouble and just "break" the "broken" game, eh?

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
Raise the attack rating and the hit points of every other unit.
Raise hit points.

Unless you know something I don't, there is no way to raise the hitpoints of units in Civ3 except on a per-experience level basis.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Excelsior

Unless you know something I don't, there is no way to raise the hitpoints of units in Civ3 except on a per-experience level basis.

Apparently Venger knows more than both of us, as he has claimed to double the amount of hit points for every unit.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Venger

I've modified all the hit points in the game double - and adjusted the ROF for artillery to try and keep pace.

From the horse's mouth.

[Venger]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Apparently Venger knows more than both of us, as he has claimed to double the amount of hit points for every unit.

Can't help it, I'm a FREAKING GENIUS!!!

I'll attach the picture of the editor. As you can see, the veteran setting is now 8 instead of 4.

The only problems I have found are that combat takes some time longer now, and moving a high HP unit on water leaves graphic marks as the hp stack is higher than the game redraw area - moving removes them, and they aren't all that bad.

You can change the setting for all of them. Armies seem to work just fine, with up to 40 HP in them...

Venger

[Excelsior]

Yeah, he just doubled it for each experience level, i.e., conscript = 4, regular = 6, veteran = 8, elite = 10. I quadrupled it in my copy. It balances out the extreme results and I think it gives combat a feel closer to that of Civ2.

[Venger]

Also, you MUST double the Rate of Fire for bombardment units or you will reduce their effectiveness by a bunch...this is done on the units tab, and don't forget the special units too...

The artillery is kinda cool now - it will do between 1 and 4 HP damage. I like it.

Venger

[Bakunine]

Yes, changing units hit points are very easy, HOWEVER you can just change all the hit for for the levels of experience and not change a particular unit hit points.

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by GePap
This thread is based on a post by Akka de Vil in the neverending Dmc507 thread.

The main line of though among the defenders of the combat sysytem is that we, those that dislike it, simply want to be invincible at some late point in the game (where's the fun in that!?). They can't figure out why we just don't create ridiculous A/D numbers to get this effect and leave them (and this forum) alone. Well, thanks to Excelsior (giving credit where credit is due) I already know how to make a trully unbeatable unit without changing a/d numbers (make modern armor move 8, blitz, give ability to bombard, rate of fire 4. NO competition). But being invincible was never the point. The point is giving gamers the best possible tool to customize.
Lets say i want to come up with a unit that has a rare chance in hitting but does horrible damage when it does hit (this is where Akka's post comes in)? 'Well, raise the Attack values' would be the answer. OK, but by doing that I simply increase the chance of hitting, without increasing the possible damage- so in the end I only moved further from my aim. Or what about a unit that almost always hits but does little damage? Or what about a fortress, which takes loads of punishment? With the civ2 combat system I could create all of these, no problem. With the Civ3 system I can't create any of them correctly-not a one.
A/D values are blunt instruments. That 'unecessary complexity' Soren spoke off also created a fine instrument which we gamers could use to create infinite possibilites and fine balances. You can play a sonata on a piano with hammers- but it won't be pretty, and it won't sound the same.

Let's differentiate two thing here.

If you want to be able to edit the game so that you can put the FP/HP system back in, air units can sink ships, tanks will kill speamen 100% of the time, modern units have more hit points, privateers have an attack of 2, air units have more range, artillery is more powerful etc etc, I am all for it. More options never hurt.

BUT, the default settings are fine for me, as well as a lot others.

So,

if you want more OPTIONS, more EDITING TOOLs, great.
if you want to change the CURRENT RULES, no thanks.

[Venger]

This is true - it's only a partial fix.

Venger

[Bakunine]

Originally posted by Monoriu

if you want more OPTIONS, more EDITING TOOLs, great.
if you want to change the CURRENT RULES, no thanks.

Coudn't agree more.

And as time goes on then people could gang together and make a couple of mods that would be greatly tested and tweaked back and forth so that we could have a couple of "OFFICIAL APOLYTON MODS".

[Lorizael]

Yah I echo the statement that the game works fine as is (expcept for obvious bugs like the Air Superiority thing) but that it could be made better.

Remember in Civ II how there was an option to use Simplified combat. How about an option in the Editor for Complicated combat.

The editor allows us to do a lot more than it did in Civ II (exlcuding Scenario making) but it still didn't meet most people's expectation IMHO.

[GePap]

To whiteElephants

"by raising the attack rating you are raising a units chance to hit and not be hit and by extension raising the amount of damage a unit is likely to inflict'

Obviously, you really did not read my point before thinking up your response. The point is not to insure the unit does alot of damage by always hitting, the idea is to create a unit with a low chance of hitting but the ability to do great damage if it does. Think of it as a very powerful but highly inaccurate weapon, which I can chance to use but might not work, as opposed to something invincible since it always hits. With the current combat system there is no subtlety. All you can do, except with bombardment, is regulate the chance of hitting, not the damage done, which is the point! If you are unble to think outside of Civ3 boudaries as given to you by fixaris, well here;s an example- edit the cannon to have a rate of fire of 3 even as you leave its attack value (and thus chance of hitting) the same. Now, after that, triple the Attack number for a cannon and leave its rate of fire at 1. After doing that, come back and tell me how these are the same unit....



To Monoriu:
I already know how to make sure tanks never lose to spearmen, but as i said before, that's not the point! Let me say it this way. Go back to civ2 as it currently is. You would be able, by editing the rules, create a combat system, that as far as the rules governing chances of hitting go, is the same as civ3. (Give all units 10 HP but FP 2 or 3) Now tell me, can i, with civ3 as it currently is, do the same backwards? No! So why, after 5 years, am I getting something less flexible than before?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the main point. The combat system in civ2 is, as it stands now, more open to modification and gamers doing as they want than the system of Civ3, and the change is radical enough that I fear a simple patch will not be enough to fix it. What i don't get is how civers at this point can defend a system that is less open to gamer experimentation than what we had years ago. Its a step backwards, not forwards.

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by GePap


To Monoriu:
I already know how to make sure tanks never lose to spearmen, but as i said before, that's not the point! Let me say it this way. Go back to civ2 as it currently is. You would be able, by editing the rules, create a combat system, that as far as the rules governing chances of hitting go, is the same as civ3. (Give all units 10 HP but FP 2 or 3) Now tell me, can i, with civ3 as it currently is, do the same backwards? No! So why, after 5 years, am I getting something less flexible than before?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the main point. The combat system in civ2 is, as it stands now, more open to modification and gamers doing as they want than the system of Civ3, and the change is radical enough that I fear a simple patch will not be enough to fix it. What i don't get is how civers at this point can defend a system that is less open to gamer experimentation than what we had years ago. Its a step backwards, not forwards.

No disagreement here. I think that's a valid complaint. I don't want FP/HP, but if some people do, they should have the ability to edit the game to make it happen.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
To whiteElephants

"by raising the attack rating you are raising a units chance to hit and not be hit and by extension raising the amount of damage a unit is likely to inflict'

Obviously, you really did not read my point before thinking up your response.

I thought I answered your post quite accurately.

The point is not to insure the unit does alot of damage by always hitting, the idea is to create a unit with a low chance of hitting but the ability to do great damage if it does. Think of it as a very powerful but highly inaccurate weapon, which I can chance to use but might not work, as opposed to something invincible since it always hits.

The fact remains that statistically you will end up with nearly exactly the same results if you make a unit with 5A and 1FP, or a unit with 1A and 5FP.

With the current combat system there is no subtlety. All you can do, except with bombardment, is regulate the chance of hitting, not the damage done, which is the point! If you are unble to think outside of Civ3 boudaries as given to you by fixaris, well here;s an example- edit the cannon to have a rate of fire of 3 even as you leave its attack value (and thus chance of hitting) the same. Now, after that, triple the Attack number for a cannon and leave its rate of fire at 1. After doing that, come back and tell me how these are the same unit....

Wow! I'm shocked! More insults rather than back up what you claim with emphirical evidence!

I've proved mathematically in several posts in several threads that modifying the fire power in proportion to its attack rating results in nearly identical results. If the 0.0001 percent difference is throwing off your entire strategy you may need to reconsider
(I'll post my evidence when I find it).

[Akka]

Originally posted by Monoriu



Let's differentiate two thing here.

If you want to be able to edit the game so that you can put the FP/HP system back in, air units can sink ships, tanks will kill speamen 100% of the time, modern units have more hit points, privateers have an attack of 2, air units have more range, artillery is more powerful etc etc, I am all for it. More options never hurt.

BUT, the default settings are fine for me, as well as a lot others.

So,

if you want more OPTIONS, more EDITING TOOLs, great.
if you want to change the CURRENT RULES, no thanks.

As they are actually, I think that the Civ3 units are not realistics enough. As common strategies will be exchanged over Internet, as people will share their experience, I would like if possible to have a Civ 3 version that is the "standard" one. So I would like that the CURRENTS RULES change.
Now, that said, I can live with Fireaxis letting the current rules as they are. But I absolutely REQUIRE more editing tools.
So well, all in all I do agree with you, though you would like to see the rules not change, and I would like to see them changing

But I would be perfectly happy with only mod editing. After all, I'm not about playing Civ 3 on YOUR computer

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the main point. The combat system in civ2 is, as it stands now, more open to modification and gamers doing as they want than the system of Civ3, and the change is radical enough that I fear a simple patch will not be enough to fix it. What i don't get is how civers at this point can defend a system that is less open to gamer experimentation than what we had years ago. Its a step backwards, not forwards.

Exactly. In the whole, nearly ALL the things I reproach to Civ3 are things that were obviously better in Civ2 and AC and that they removed. I can live with a game not perfect, but in no way I can understand nor accept that a game is INFERIOR in any point ot its predecessors.

[Akka]

The fact remains that statistically you will end up with nearly exactly the same results if you make a unit with 5A and 1FP, or a unit with 1A and 5FP.

I've proved mathematically in several posts in several threads that modifying the fire power in proportion to its attack rating results in nearly identical results. If the 0.0001 percent difference is throwing off your entire strategy you may need to reconsider
(I'll post my evidence when I find it).

No, that's plain maths, and maths never lie. The results CAN be the same with CERTAIN values, but they can be extremely different with another values.
It's like saying that multiplications and additions give the nearly same results because 1x1000 = 1000 and 1+1000 = 1001. Well they are nearly the same. You won't throw your entire strategy because additions and multiplications are 0,1 % different won't you ?

I'm sorry, but you proved nothing. And you were proved wrong. If you want to see my counter-argument to your "proof" (which is sadly only an example comparable to the one I made with multiplication and addition), please go see my answer in the neverending Dmc507 thread.

[WhiteElephants]

Evidence found:

Unit A with 24 attack and 1 FP = (24/24 + 6)^20 (because we've doubled the hit points to 20) = .8^20 = 0.0115 or 1.2% of the time the unit goes untouched.

Unit B with 12 attack and 2 FP = (12/12 + 6)^10 (again we've doubled the hit points to have a total of 20) = .666^10 = 0.0171 or 1.7 % of the time the unit goes untouched.

So now there's only a half of a percent difference, I will agree that it's a difference nonetheless, but really? Gotta love those stats! And if we carried out the equation the other way, say 1/2 the amount of original hit points the numbers would be even farther apart rather than closer together. Solution? Eliminate FP and reduce hit points as one precludes the other.

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
I've proved mathematically in several posts in several threads that modifying the fire power in proportion to its attack rating results in nearly identical results. If the 0.0001 percent difference is throwing off your entire strategy you may need to reconsider
(I'll post my evidence when I find it).

Do you mean to say that a unit with an attack of 10 and hitpoints of 1 is the same as a unit with an attack of 1 and hitpoints of 10?

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Excelsior


Do you mean to say that a unit with an attack of 10 and hitpoints of 1 is the same as a unit with an attack of 1 and hitpoints of 10?

Do you recall me typing 'hit points' anywhere?

[GePap]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


I thought I answered your post quite accurately.



The fact remains that statistically you will end up with nearly exactly the same results if you make a unit with 5A and 1FP, or a unit with 1A and 5FP.



Wow! I'm shocked! More insults rather than back up what you claim with emphirical evidence!

.

You seems to simply ignore points without thinking about them. Lets go back to Civ2. make a unit with 2/1/1, HP 1 (thus 10) and FP 9. Attack a unit with 1/20/1, Hp 1, FP1. What will happen? One of three things will happen. Either the attacker does no damage at all- since it lost all 10 rounds of combat, with a 2 out of 22 chance of hitting, or the defender was killed and the attcker suffred little or no damage (it hit once or twice early on, and that was enough, since it took out 90% of the enemy strenght in that one lucky shot), or defender wins but badly damaged since it lost once (and thus lost 9 HP) but still won the other 10 times.
Now, change the attacking unit to 18/1/1 with HP 1, FP 1. since this is what you say always works the same, and try things out. Will you get 'similar'results? No. More likely, whichever unit wins will win heavily damaged because of the closeness of the situation (18 out of 38 vs 20 out of 38). You WILL NOT get anywhere near the same set of results as the first experimentt. Please WhiteElephants, try this and see. Then come back.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
You seems to simply ignore points without thinking about them.

That's really petty and annoying I wish you would stop please. I think it's pretty obvious the amount of time and thought I've put into my arguement.

Lets go back to Civ2. make a unit with 2/1/1, HP 1 (thus 10) and FP 9. Attack a unit with 1/20/1, Hp 1, FP1. What will happen? One of three things will happen. Either the attacker does no damage at all- since it lost all 10 rounds of combat, with a 2 out of 22 chance of hitting, or the defender was killed and the attcker suffred little or no damage (it hit once or twice early on, and that was enough, since it took out 90% of the enemy strenght in that one lucky shot), or defender wins but badly damaged since it lost once (and thus lost 9 HP) but still won the other 10 times.
Now, change the attacking unit to 18/1/1 with HP 1, FP 1. since this is what you say always works the same, and try things out. Will you get 'similar'results? No. More likely, whichever unit wins will win heavily damaged because of the closeness of the situation (18 out of 38 vs 20 out of 38). You WILL NOT get anywhere near the same set of results as the first experimentt. Please WhiteElephants, try this and see. Then come back.

Point to me a unit in Civ2 that was capable of destroying one unit in one or two round. Your are using extreme examples to make your point. If there were units with 9FP in Civ I would expect to see units with well over 100 hit points as well. I don't have Civ2, nor do I need to have Civ2, to deduce the results of such a test.

(See the above post where I used the values of artillery from Civ2 with and without firepower. The difference was 1/2%.

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
Do you recall me typing 'hit points' anywhere?

But hit points are linked to firepower.

Assuming equal hitpoints of 10, a unit of 10 attack and 1 firepower vs. a unit of 1 defense and 10 firepower will lose 61% of the time. This is because it essentially has only one hitpoint! It has a 10/11 chance of inflicting 10% damage each round, but each round, there is a 1/11 chance that it will be totally destroyed.