The main reason to change combat

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Excelsior


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.

Fire power is linked to hit points, but hit points are not linked to fire power.

Again, and again, and again the examples given are with highly unlikely extremes. Are you honestly going to use a unit with 10FP against other untis with 10 hit points? If you were to do that why not just pick a number between 1 and 10 and the closest one wins? Rather than aplly any amount of strategy you would have effectively reduced that game to a game of chance.

Take a typical Civ2 unit and remove fire power by proportion to attack and you get nearly exactly the same results.

[GePap]

Here are the results of my experiment in civ2:
All units regular, all units in grassland, both defendor and attacker:
First round: Attacker has 2/1/1 Hp1, FP9
Defender has 1/20/1 Hp1, FP1
Out come of 12 tries: Attacker wins 4: 2 times, with green healthbar, 1 yellow, 1 red. Defender wins 8 times: 6 times healthbar red, 2 times healthbar green.

Second round: Attacker has attack 18/1/1 HP1,FP1
Defender has 1/20/1 HP1,FP1.
Outcomes. Attacker wins 12 times (I personally don't know why- does grassland have a minus in civ2?) Healthbar green 4, yellow 6, red 2.

WhiteElephgants: The fact that you don't have civ2 means everything! When you say, why have a unit FP 9 with other units HP 10, well, as I said , because you want a unit that seldom hits but does great damage. This is great if you want to have a sci-fi mod or fantasy mod and have very precise unit types.(many people like to use the game engine to manufacture their own new game worlds as they did with civ2) Look at my test results. With the attackers configured as it is in test number one, i have a unit that can either give me almost complete victory or fail but be close. The second set is simply a slaughter- no fun. That is the eentire point of this thread. Having a FP/HP system allows for endless customization by gamers. If you like the system as is, fine, never touch it and leave the editor alone. Many of us like to play around and create a new experience. We did with Civ2- we want to do it with civ3.

[WhiteElephants]

Mod away my friend though I doubt you'll ever find me playing it. From what I gather from your posts your going to have a game that's based on who's the luckiest player of the day. It's nice to see you've kept this within the realm of actual application.

Here's another proposition for you. Go back and redo your first test. In all likelyhood the results will be very different each time.

Good luck.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants From what I gather from your posts your going to have a game that's based on who's the luckiest player of the day.

As opposed to a combat system based ENTIRELY on percentages. "Will my rifleman be lucky enough to kill this Warrior? Hrmm, I don't feel particularly fortunate today, so I better withdraw."

[GePap]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
Mod away my friend though I doubt you'll ever find me playing it. From what I gather from your posts your going to have a game that's based on who's the luckiest player of the day. It's nice to see you've kept this within the realm of actual application.

Here's another proposition for you. Go back and redo your first test. In all likelyhood the results will be very different each time.

Good luck.

Thank you-

How else should i implement a kamakaze attack, a terrorist attack, and any of the other low probability, high damage attacks that are possible? My point is that my experiemnt can well find aplications, but the system in Civ3 does not allow me to make such changes and imagine such possibilities. Do I ask for you to play mods? No. But it is not your decision either to tell me that i can't. The main point , for a third time, is that I am unable to understand why, after giving us the ability to customize 4 years ago (from when Fanatstic Worlds came out) they, in the next installment of the series, took it away. Maybe my notion of some sort of progression along with revolutionary changes is utterly misguided.

[Dienstag]

Good job, GePap, trying to explain this stuff. Becuase I know what you've been saying is true, and becuase I hope that it will help guys like WhiteElephants who have doubts, I crunched the numbers and came up with this based on the above experiment:

Case 1: Attacker 2/1/1, hp:1 fp:9 vs Defender 1/20/1, hp:1 fp:1
Case 2: Attacker 18/1/1, hp:1 fp:1 vs Defender 1/20/1, hp:1 fp:1


____________________Case 1________Case 2

Attacker wins with:
10 __________________0.00826________0.00057
9___________________0.01503________0.00299
8___________________0.02049________0.00866
7___________________0.02484________0.01824
6___________________0.02822________0.03120
5___________________0.03079________0.04598
4___________________0.03266________0.06050
3___________________0.03393________0.07278
2___________________0.03470________0.08140
1___________________0.03505________0.08569

Total Attacker Wins:___0.26397________0.40801


Defender wins with:
10 __________________0.38554________0.00163
9___________________0.00000________0.00773
8___________________0.00000________0.02013
7___________________0.00000________0.03814
6___________________0.00000________0.05871
5___________________0.00000________0.07787
4___________________0.00000________0.09221
3___________________0.00000________0.09984
2___________________0.00000________0.10050
1___________________0.35049________0.09521
Total Defender Wins:__0.73603________0.59197

Total Somebody Wins:__1.0000________1.0000*

*ignore rounding errors. It checks. Really.

A quick study of these numbers shows that combat result probabilities are significantly different, even though attack*firepower is the same in both cases. It really adds another dimension to unit capabilities, which has been utilized to great effect in many Civ2 mods.

WhiteElephants, would you consider retracting your statement that statistically you get nearly the exact same results? I think we should be able to agree that these results are correct and that there is a valid place for them in Civilization games.

EDIT: Stupid formatting problems, sorry. Anyone know a good way to post tables?

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Dienstag
WhiteElephants, would you consider retracting your statement that statistically you get nearly the exact same results? I think we should be able to agree that these results are correct and that there is a valid place for them in Civilization games.

Sorry, I won't. Your tables are interesting, but prove nothing I already didn't know. Given that you increase the fire power of a unit to insanely high amounts you will of course see statistical significance.

Run your same test with a typical Civ2, preferably one with 2 fire power, then reduce the fire power of one unit to one and increase its attack by two fold. Compare results, statistical significance? No.

Your asking Firaxis to modify its entire combat system to satisfy this one extreme result. I hardly think that qualifies for a total revamp of the combat system when you can get nearly the same results otherwise.

How else should i implement a kamakaze attack, a terrorist attack, and any of the other low probability, high damage attacks that are possible?

Why not make a unit with bombardment and increase its attacks per turn, give it low hit points and a low defense, and a low attack rating as well? You might hit, you might not, you might do a lot of damage, you might not. Either way it is vulnerable to a counter attack.

The arguement for adding fire power continually changes, first it was for sake of realism, then it was for because it made a big difference in combat, etc., etc. Now we've reduced the reasons to it's lowest common denominator and it's for that fact that some peole want to create one kind of unit for their mod with a huge amount of firepower. I don't think this example justifies bringing back fire power. You, and others, apperently do. Me, if I was a modder, would be rallying for the modification of hit points based on units rather than based on a system of morale upgrades. I can think of hundreds of applications for that, yet the only application presented for adding fire power is one and it is of the extreme.

[GePap]

WhiteElephants:
First, an FP/HP system is more realistic that the current one anyway, so that argument has not changed, This new argument I put forward is an addtional argument and is also meant to show that there are sound gameplay reasons to bring back FP.
Second, saying that we should run our tests with 2 FP add nothing. Fine, if the HP and FP amounts are similar, you are correct. BUt they don't have to be similars in any way- realism in no way call for this. You can have a weapon that can deal huge amounts of damage without being able to take much back. Any bomb by itself- high FP, no HP. Also, kamakazes are suicide. They are not open to counteraattack since they are dead. So are most terrorist bombers. What you suggest does not accurately model them.
Do I ask Fixaris tommodify the entire combat system to get a extreme result only? NO. Look at what you said, that you want to de-link HP from experience. Well, that was a quality of the Civ2 combat system! In Civ2 you could decide what the HP of units would be, from 10-90, depending on the type of unit you wanted to make. You seem to want this ability also. Well, the Civ2 combat system had it. In Civ2 we were given 3 independant variables- A/D values (the chances of hitting), HP (the amount of damage a unit can take) and FP (the amount of damage a unit inflicts). Here in Civ3 we have 1 independent variable in A/D values, and while we can change HP values, this, as you point out, is coupled with experience which also makes it dependent on things the gamer can't control.
Let me finish by asking a simple yet vital question: What's wrong with FP? I know you say that FP is the same as HP, but only up to a point, which you admit [but call anything after that point 'extreme']. We have shown you a way in which a high FP makes a difference, so still, why argue agaist it? Heck, if Fp=HP then in no way would the current combat system change unless you (which you don't seem ever inclined to do) decided to mod it yourself by changing the FP. I have to say that your argument is based more on 'keep status quo' instead of 'FP will ruin the combat system, ruins gameplay' and in my view, its an argument, but not the best out there.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
Let me finish by asking a simple yet vital question: What's wrong with FP? I know you say that FP is the same as HP, but only up to a point, which you admit [but call anything after that point 'extreme'].

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Where did I ever say HP = FP? No where, because I never said it. Aren't you one of the posters who claims I never read your posts? Figures.

We have shown you a way in which a high FP makes a difference, so still, why argue agaist it? Heck, if Fp=HP then in no way would the current combat system change unless you (which you don't seem ever inclined to do) decided to mod it yourself by changing the FP.

You've given one extreme example that you feel should dictate the cousre of the entire combat system. I don't feel that way.

I have to say that your argument is based more on 'keep status quo' instead of 'FP will ruin the combat system, ruins gameplay' and in my view, its an argument, but not the best out there.

With regards to your earlier quote I would have to say you don't even understand my arugement as it has little to do with hit points in relationship to fire power. I will restate it for you.

There is no need to add fire power back into the system as you can modify a unit's attack rating and have VERY similar results. The only time this does not apply is if you increase fire power to extremely high values in comparison to hit points. If hit points were also increased to extremely high values you would again get VERY similar combat results with regards to an increase in fire power over an increase in attack rating.

(While this isn't my arguement it still holds true): Increasing fire power increases the randomness of combat, increasing hit points lowers the randomness of combat. If you want combat to be more random instead of increasing fire power decrease hit points. Unfortunatley you can't do this in the editor, but there a infinite applications that will alter combat results with regrads to hit points, while there is only one application of fire power that alters combat significantly which requires a unbalancing amount of fire power.

[GePap]

WhiteElephants:
I will agree with you when you say that increasing the HP in general will make the combat system less random. I would add than in many ways, increasing the FP works the same as decreasing the HP (as you say). At this point, I don't think we disagree on the math.
I do disagree with your analysis that there are no usefull applications for the FP. Again, let me return to my formula. A/D = chance of hitting. HP= damage potential, HP= ability to take punishment. Now, let say I wanted to model two units, let say a soviet JS2 vs a german Panther tank. The JS2 could take more damage than the panther, so higher hp. That's simple enough. OK, now the JS2 had a higher caliber main gun which could do more damage than a Panther could. At the same time, the Panther had better gunnery so its chances of hitting were better. Here then, you may start seeing my point. Should the JS2 have a higher attack value than the Panther? It's gun does more damage, but the gunnery is inferior. So how do i model realisitc combat results. In real life, the JS2 had an edge, but it was not absolute, since a good panther crew could take them out. With FP as an included variable, I can decide that while i will give the Panther a higher Attack value (because it does have a better chance of hitting the enemy) I will give the JS2 higher FP with just a slightly lower attack value.With these three independent variables I am better able to model combat that I am able with two. It's fine to just have HP if what you want to model is an M1A1 vs. a guy on a horse (pretty deterministic outcome) but if I want to model 2 different types of modern armor (M1A1 v. T-90) then having FP makes my life a lot easier. Again, having FP allows for better mods in the future than the current sytem allows.

[GePap]

Seems my last reply was somewhat ignored. Hope this isn't

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
Now, let say I wanted to model two units, let say a soviet JS2 vs a german Panther tank. The JS2 could take more damage than the panther, so higher hp. That's simple enough. OK, now the JS2 had a higher caliber main gun which could do more damage than a Panther could. At the same time, the Panther had better gunnery so its chances of hitting were better. Here then, you may start seeing my point. Should the JS2 have a higher attack value than the Panther? It's gun does more damage, but the gunnery is inferior. So how do i model realisitc combat results. In real life, the JS2 had an edge, but it was not absolute, since a good panther crew could take them out. With FP as an included variable, I can decide that while i will give the Panther a higher Attack value (because it does have a better chance of hitting the enemy)

Or, if you worked from a base of 10 hit points, you could lower the Panther's hit points by 2 effectively giving every unit with 10 hit points a 20% increase in fire power. Or if you feel that doesn't suit you increase the Panthers hit points to 15 (giving it 50% more fire power against any other unit) and JS2's hit points to 22.5 (giving it 50% more fire power than the Panther)

Let's work with the system we have in place and attempt to slightly alter it rather than call for a total over haul to satisfy certain (rare?) circumstance that can be created using a slightly modified system.

[GePap]

To WhiteElephants:
But as you pointed out earlier, with the sytem we have we can't control the HP of units in any way other than experience settings- so an elite Panther would have more HP than a regular JS2. So, even the suggetion you call for can't be done with our current system, and for me to implement it, i would need a NEW SYSTEM. So while the boys at fixaris are getting a new system for me to implement your suggestion, they can always just bring back FP anyway.

[WhiteElephants]

So, in other words, you agree that there's no need to bring back fire power? Instead you/we should focus our energy on allowing us to modify hit points independent of morale, yes? A simple solution to a problem made complex, no?

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
So, in other words, you agree that there's no need to bring back fire power? Instead you/we should focus our energy on allowing us to modify hit points independent of morale, yes? A simple solution to a problem made complex, no?

Either way requires a new system. From a programming standpoint, giving the units individual HP values is only slightly less time-consuming than re-implimenting FP. That being the case, why not simply add FP, and give the option such as the one given in Civ2, i.e. 'Simple' or 'Advanced' combat.

Arguing which one is 'better' is pointless. It's like arguing Coke vs Diet Coke; both are different enough that people have preferences, but they are still just Coke. No matter how compelling one side thinks their arguement is, they are never going to convert the other, so we may as well just give up and instead agree that both should be present. If you want to have the current system, fine, choose 'simple' or 'civ3-style' combat; if you want FP, fine, choose 'advanced' or 'civ2-style' combat. Can we agree on that, or does it REALLY have to be one or the other simply so that one of us can be 'right'?

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli

Either way requires a new system. From a programming standpoint, giving the units individual HP values is only slightly less time-consuming than re-implimenting FP. That being the case, why not simply add FP, and give the option such as the one given in Civ2, i.e. 'Simple' or 'Advanced' combat.

It seems the mechanics and system of values for hit points are already in the game we simply need a way to override the values of hit points assigned by morale. Is that easier to do? I would think so, but I'm not a programmer.

[GePap]

To WhiteElephants:
The changes you are calling for seem to me to be more dramatic than adding FP. First, FO is already in the game, for bombardment units: its called 'rate of fire'. How difficult it would be to give all non-bombardment units different rates of fire, well, I am not a programer either.
As to decoupling the HP from experience levels: well, experience is linked with getting leaders and getting leaders with getting armies, and getting armies with 3 different small wonders. So would not going around and messing with the whole 'experience' superstructure created by Fixaris affect more game systems than the FP change we call for? When making changes, we have to look at all elements. Putting back FP would only affect combat and the ability of gamers to modify. Messing with experience may unbalance a lot of other game concepts.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


It seems the mechanics and system of values for hit points are already in the game we simply need a way to override the values of hit points assigned by morale. Is that easier to do? I would think so, but I'm not a programmer.

Not at all. All FP it requires is a few extra strings since it is really just another variable. Hell, if I wasn't so afraid of being sued, I'd crack it myself. All it would take is a day or two of work.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by GePap
To WhiteElephants:
The changes you are calling for seem to me to be more dramatic than adding FP. First, FO is already in the game, for bombardment units: its called 'rate of fire'.

Not exactly. Rate of fire is actually a range of numbers from 0 to X. Example, a bombard unit with a ROF of 3 can do anywhere from 0 to 3 points of damage if it hits. FP, on the other hand, is a fixed number. A unit with a FP of 2 will always inflict a damage of 2 when it hits. (well, except in CTP, wherein they have an addition value of 'armour' that will lessen the FP of the opposing unit.)

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap

As to decoupling the HP from experience levels: well, experience is linked with getting leaders and getting leaders with getting armies, and getting armies with 3 different small wonders. So would not going around and messing with the whole 'experience' superstructure created by Fixaris affect more game systems than the FP change we call for? When making changes, we have to look at all elements. Putting back FP would only affect combat and the ability of gamers to modify. Messing with experience may unbalance a lot of other game concepts.

I see your point concerning great leaders, but I don't think changing hit points would change that. You would still need a elite unit (or whatever it is) in order to have a chance at getting a great leader. The only draw back is that that elite status doesn't mean much in terms of the game anymore as it wouldn't count towards a higher amount of hit points.

Preferably I would like morale to modify A/D ratings based on a percentage for each level of morale just as it was in Alpha Centauri, (elite units would have a +50% attack and defense) though that would call for a huge change in the combat system (I think).

Not exactly. Rate of fire is actually a range of numbers from 0 to X. Example, a bombard unit with a ROF of 3 can do anywhere from 0 to 3 points of damage if it hits. FP, on the other hand, is a fixed number. A unit with a FP of 2 will always inflict a damage of 2 when it hits. (well, except in CTP, wherein they have an addition value of 'armour' that will lessen the FP of the opposing unit.)

I'm not really clear on whether that is a variable number for when, and if, it hits or if it does one point of damage each time it hits and the RoF is the number of chances it gets to hit. Thoughts?

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants

I'm not really clear on whether that is a variable number for when, and if, it hits or if it does one point of damage each time it hits and the RoF is the number of chances it gets to hit. Thoughts?

Attack/Defense decides whether or not a unit will hit another unit. For bombard, it's the unit Bombard attack number. RoF then decides, "Now that I have just hit the guy, how much damage can I inflict?" Take for example, a Cannon. It has no attack number and instead a bombard strength i.e....stats are: 0(8),0,1.
This means that it's bombard strength acts as though it were a normal attack number in regards as to whether or not it will hit. The RoF for a cannon is, I think, 2. This indicates that if the cannon makes a successfull bombardment (decided by it's bombard strength vs opponants defense, terrain, etc), then it will then inflict between 0 and 2 damage points. Another random number sequence determines this new 'dice roll'. FP acts in the same way, except that deals a fixed damage if it hits.

Example: A cannon w/o FP wold have the same opportunity to hit a unit as a cannon with FP would. The difference is that the cannon with a RoF deals from 0 to 2 damage, but the FP cannon always deals 2. Understand?

[King of Rasslin]

Its OK to mine grassland now! This isn't Civ2!

The really tough defenders (esp. infantry) reflect the wars of the past very well. WWI was about infantry and artillery, and a slow starvation or wearing down of the enemy. At that point, you burn farms and destroy roads. You weaken the infantry with artillery until you can beat them with sheer mass.

Then the tank is invented. Now you can use artillery to weaken them and easily come out on top. With enough tanks, you don't even need to bomb them! Even with the 6+ city defence bonus, an army of tanks can go 50/50 with infantry with moderate success.

12+ cities are destroyed by knocking down the population. My fav part of Civ 3 is the new concept of having to slowly weaken them with catapults and cannons until they submit or are destroyed.

After modern armor, resources are gold. If you can't make mech infantry, you are dead. It isn't the combat that is unbalanced.

Some people still think you can roll over the Persians in 3 turns with their tanks. War is now about resources and corruption makes it impossible to go with freakishly large empires.

The hit point system is already in the game. It's called making an army. And the Veteran/Elite difference is also large. Weak civs often turn into training grounds for my men.

The combat is balanced, you just have to get used to hauling around artillery. I find air power a bit too weak, IMO. It isn't really very strong, but it's "power" is in the distance it can be used.

Until you get the aircraft carrier, they are not even used because of their lack of power compared to the artillery. I could see a use for air for bombing enemy ships at medium range, a little farther than artillery.

That is, if the comp made navies

While i don't like those warriors killing my cavalry, it doesn't happen often enough to be a serious problem. I wish leaders would appear more often though.

The system is balanced, so i wouldn't change it.

[GePap]

Rasslin:
The point of my thread is that an FP/HP system would allow for greater cuztomization of units and generally better combat results. It would probably do nothing to change the current system if you left it alone.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Its OK to mine grassland now! This isn't Civ2!

The really tough defenders (esp. infantry) reflect the wars of the past very well. WWI was about infantry and artillery, and a slow starvation or wearing down of the enemy. At that point, you burn farms and destroy roads. You weaken the infantry with artillery until you can beat them with sheer mass.


.........

While i don't like those warriors killing my cavalry, it doesn't happen often enough to be a serious problem. I wish leaders would appear more often though.

The system is balanced, so i wouldn't change it.

Wow. That had absolutely nothing to do with the topicon hand: FP. It may help to read the comments in the post before you reply instead of just the title, just a thought.

That is, if the comp made navies

Well, I'd like to play your game. I always seem to have to deal with almost infinite AI navies (well, in any difficulty above Warlord, anyway).

Bravo.