Save hp and firepower in Civ 3!!!

Roman · February 8, 2001, 14:06

You are 100% right about this. However, another problem is that the value of attack, firepower, etc. goes up as single integer numbers, hence making it very difficult to accurately portray differences in power between units. Firaxis might want to take a leaf out of Ctp 2 and instead of a warrior having an attack of 1, it should have 10. All the other stats for all units should be increased proportionally. This systems allows you to create "in between units".

Grumbold · February 8, 2001, 14:11

CtP certainly made life more flexible by starting with units of 10-10 rather than 1-1. Civ II and CtP may have had different ways of representing the greater effectiveness and durability of modern units but at least in CtP an army of a dozen or more units didn't queue up to fight the enemy one on one.

EnochF · February 8, 2001, 14:35

I'll agree with both propositions. Keep firepower and hit points, and make them multiples of 10.

(And give obsolete units a penalty against modern units.)

Cyclotron · February 8, 2001, 15:59

quote:

Originally posted by EnochF on 02-08-2001 01:35 PM(And give obsolete units a penalty against modern units.)

That's what hp and FP will do; it would be excessive to give obsolete units a penalty AND use the FP/hp system.

I think that 10 might be a bit much. I don't want to be dealing with huge numbers. Maybe, starting at 2 or 5. And all MULTIPLES of 10? That is the exact same as multiples of 1.

Roman · February 8, 2001, 16:05

Indeed Cyclotron7, only the firepower and hitpoints are required to represent obsolesence.

Roman · February 8, 2001, 16:12

I would better explain why the multiple of 10 system works better than a standard single integer system.

In Civ 2, the warrior unnit has a defence of 1 and phalanx has a defence of 2. Is the phalanx really twice as good at defending as the warrior? Maybe, but perhaps it is 1.5 times as effective or 2.3 times. If you therefore have a multiple of 10 system, you can more accurately describe the differences between unit strenghts. This system has already been introduced in Ctp2.

Alternatively you could use decimal points to achieve the same thing, but I think most people would be more comfortable with integers.

Cyclotron · February 8, 2001, 19:12

Oh! I thought you meant MULTIPLES of 10, meaning a warrior would be 10/10 and a phalanx 10/20... 15 and 23 aren't multiples of 10. Just a math mixup... But I still thaink that the lower the numbers, the better. Like 3, or something. But whatever.

Roman · February 8, 2001, 19:28

Oops, I have said multiply everything by 10? Sorry for the confusion I meant you would multiply everything by 10 if you wanted to keep the stats the same as they are now in Civ2 (which of course you would not).

Cyclotron · February 9, 2001, 01:18

You know, so many people complained about the problem in CTP where a few pikemen in a good position could stomp an armor flat. I think the biggest error of CTP was the lack of firepower and hit point values that were so great in CivII. These values made for interesting and unpredictable units, increasing strategy: For example, a unit with a low attack but high firepower has a low chance of "hitting" the enemy, but if it does it causes massive damage. In CTP, You could jusst tally up the attack/defense values with the terrain bonuses and ahead of time tell who would win. Boring!

Keep hp and firepower in Civ 3!!

Chronus · February 9, 2001, 23:07

The multiple by 10 is good. It helps eliminate the error due to rounding. A veteran warrior, for example, now attacks and defends at 15. Currently, a veteran warrior would get no bonus. This, of course, applies to other situations as well such as a 50% terrain bonus, etc.

Maxxes · February 10, 2001, 01:54

All elements in combat are multiplied by 8 before calculation in civ2

Roman · February 10, 2001, 10:18

quote:

Originally posted by Maxxes on 02-10-2001 12:54 AM
All elements in combat are multiplied by 8 before calculation in civ2

I didn't know that. Even so, however, the new multiple of ten system (on top of the Civ2 one) would give us better opportunity to customize the units more accurately.

Chronus · February 10, 2001, 10:30

MAXXES QUOTE:

"All elements in combat are multiplied by 8 before calculation in civ2"

Huh? Where did you learn that? I know the manual talks about hit points in multiples of 10, but I don't recall anything about multiples of 8. Is it in some text file somewhere?

Irregardless of what it is, multiples of 10 obviously makes for easier math than multiples of 8.

optimus2861 · February 10, 2001, 12:49

quote:

Originally posted by Chronus on 02-10-2001 09:30 AM
Irregardless of what it is, multiples of 10 obviously makes for easier math than multiples of 8.

Actually, on a binary scale, multiplication by 8 is "easier"

. Though a 700-MHz processor probably won't see much difference, I'll grant you.

- Ian Merrithew

Maxxes · February 10, 2001, 14:32

The multiplication by 8 is only internal so it hasn't anything to do with your point Roman. It was a reaction to Chronus about rounding errors with veteran Warriors, no such rounding occurs. It would be downright silly if the defence of a veteran Warrior would be rounded down to 1.

Roman · February 10, 2001, 17:21

quote:

Originally posted by Maxxes on 02-10-2001 01:32 PM
The multiplication by 8 is only internal so it hasn't anything to do with your point Roman. It was a reaction to Chronus about rounding errors with veteran Warriors, no such rounding occurs. It would be downright silly if the defence of a veteran Warrior would be rounded down to 1.

I see.

February 10, 2001, 17:25

This is the way I feel about combat. Let used the Pikeman. He should be able to defeat a Phalanx, Hoplite, Knight, Samural, Warrior because he can put his pike into the ground when you attack and impaired you. On the other hand a bowman standing or riding a horse should be able to defeat a Pikeman. Even if the Pikeman charge the Bowman. A good Bowman at 20 yards probably could hit you with 2 to 3 arrows before you would reach him. A Samural and a Swordman should be about even. A Warrior would loose to everyone. At the battle of Little Big Horn the Indians (with some guns) defeated Custer and his cavalry. So a Cavalryman would defeat Pikeman, Phalanx, Hoplite, Knight, Samural, and Warrior, he would not automatic defeat a Longbowman standing or riding unless he is using a rifle. And none of the above would ever defeat a tank. To defeat a tank a soldier would need a bazooka or an L. A. R. A Tank might (If lucky) damage an airplane. The first kill by an airplane in the Korean war was an F4U Corsair defeating a Mig 15. In Vietnam 2 A-1 Skyraider shot down 2 Mig 17s. Today a pilot in a prop job would have to be very lucky. A city without AntiAir missile or guns would never shoot down a bomber. Gun are good to about 15,000 feet, after that has to be a missile. However if the plane is an attack fighter he could be hit and damage by a modern rifleman. There is a movie about this in Vietnam. The F-117 would survive 90% of the time. The F-117 in Serbia was sighted and then shot down. The B-2s that flew to Serbia was never sighted by eyes or radar and survive. A fighter up looking for a B-2 will probably find him 25 to 40% of the time. I saw a B-2 at Travis AFB last summer doing flybys. When he turn so that all you could see is a line in the sky, it was hard to see him just 2 to 3 miles away. Also I have seen a U-2 disappear at about 15 thousands feet on a clear day. It is the paint they used. We never lost a single SR-71 to enemy action although they have tried many times. So the spy plane in the game should never be damage. The SR-71 flies to high and to fast to be hit. There is no air up there for a missile to guide on. The story go that when the pilot see the smoke from the missile disappear (above 65,000)he make a turn and the missle cannot follow him. In the U-2 it is a bit harder. He flies at about 80,000 ft. He is going around 500 mph. If turn to hard, one wing will stall (the lower wing tip), and the upper wing tip will go supersonic and rip the airplane apart. In the movie 13 days the U-2 evading the SAMs is not correct. In Russia the russian shot several missile at our U-2 and finally the plane ran into some of the debris and was shot down, not from a direct hit. I thing this is enough for now.

------------------

loinburger · February 11, 2001, 00:21

The question is: are we playing Civ, or are we playing a wargame? Are the two one and the same? I for one do not think so; Civ so much more than just a simplified wargame. The more accurate you make the combat system ("Okay, my Horse Archers have a range of 3 and a combat speed of 5 and an armor rating of 2 and an evasion rating of 4 and a maneuverability rating of 5 and a firepower of 2 and a to-hit rating of 8 against targets with combat speeds of 2 or less, but the enemy legion is Elite so they now have a combat speed of 3 so my to-hit rating is decreased to 5 but my firepower increases to 3...") the more you turn Civ III into a wargame and the less you turn it into the sequel to Civ II and Civ I.

Don't get me wrong, I love accuracy in wargames, and I love to have units with fifty different stats that I can compare with my enemy's stats so that I can maneuver the battle in my favor ("Let's see, my maneuverability goes down to 3 in a level 3 swamp, but the horse archer's maneuverability goes down to 1, so I'll fight the battle there, except that my combat speed is 1 and the archer's range is still 3 so they get six free shots on me whereas on the plains they'll only get two free shots..."). I just don't think that accuracy is a necessity in Civ III. Sure, it doesn't make sense that pikemen could destroy a tank; in a decent tactical wargame it could never happen. But, in a tactical wargame such a battle would never take place; this is Civ, and battles like this could very likely take place at one point or another. So what do we decide? "The tank wins because it makes sense"? No. We say "The pikemen might win, because we're playing Civ." Don't try to turn Civ III into something it isn't. HP and firepower are all well and good. Don't ask for anything more; we don't need a x10 combat system, we don't need additional stats like combat range or combat speed or maneuverability etc., because by doing so you are asking Firaxis to turn Civ III into "Wargame that allows for obscenely one-sided battles."
[This message has been edited by technophile (edited February 10, 2001).]

Roman · February 11, 2001, 01:01

quote:

Originally posted by optimus2861 on 02-10-2001 11:49 AM
Actually, on a binary scale, multiplication by 8 is "easier"

.

True, but for humans, decimal system is easier and computers nowadays are so fast anyway...

February 11, 2001, 01:39

Besides, the superior tech unit dosen't always win in real life... I just saw a documentary about how a Zulu army (Warriors) deystroyed a British army (Riflemen). Which is similar to the Pikeman vs. Tank scenario.

Theben · February 11, 2001, 05:26

In addition, the pikemen, who realize that they can't go up against tanks, use guerilla warfare, and build hidden pitfalls for tanks to tumble into, put up roadblocks (fallen trees), cause rockslides on mountain paths, etc.

Henrik · February 11, 2001, 05:29

quote:

Originally posted by Trachmir on 02-11-2001 12:39 AM
Besides, the superior tech unit dosen't always win in real life... I just saw a documentary about how a Zulu army (Warriors) deystroyed a British army (Riflemen). Which is similar to the Pikeman vs. Tank scenario.

Zulus where more like pikemen agaisnt riflemen, it is still a great victory though.

February 11, 2001, 14:30

I did not read the book about that battle, but I did see the movie base on the book. The Zulu had several thousand warrior there and the British had a 100 or so soldiers. The battle laster several days to. The battle of little bighorn was fought in one day and the indians won with bows and arrows with some gun. Again there were several thousand indians against 200 soldiers. The bow and arrow showed to be the more deadlier weapon then a pike.
Let's get down to the real issue. Is Civ 3 going keep automatic upgrade or is it going to adopt Call to Power 2 method of building each new unit individually. A number of CTP player including myself keep our older units around to died in glorious battle with the enemy. Sometimes they actually do minor damage to the enemy, and then we send in our upgraded units for the kill. If Civ 3 automatic upgrades each unit then we will not be keeping older units. Remember, in Civ 2 only the civilization that built Leonardo da Vinci workshop received the automatic upgrades and therefore there will still be older units in the game going up against tanks and at no time should an older unit defeated a tank. Also at no time should a city defeate a battleship unless it has shore batteries or artillery in place.
Let's face it 2 riflemen in a city sinking a battleship, not very real.
[This message has been edited by joseph1944 (edited February 11, 2001).]

loinburger · February 11, 2001, 22:18

quote:

Originally posted by joseph1944 on 02-11-2001 01:30 PM
...at no time should an older unit defeated a tank. Also at no time should a city defeate a battleship unless it has shore batteries or artillery in place.
Let's face it 2 riflemen in a city sinking a battleship, not very real.

So what if it isn't real? We're not talking about "Realistic Wargame," we're talking about Civ III. A pikeman should be able to defeat a tank; in real life this might not happen, but in real life a pikeman would never fight a tank. It's a game! It doesn't have to make sense!

Adm.Naismith · February 12, 2001, 10:12

technopile, while I agree with you about CIV isn't only a wargame, and shouldn't be changed to detail too much that part (i.e. no need for ammunition and fuel resupply), I don't agree that combat can be fully unrealistic.

While old units in proper terrain and large force can win against more modern units, I don't want to see pikeman shot down planes or destroy tanks.

Keep warfare at strategic level, don't change playability for unneeded complexity, but don't trash (simple) realism just for fun (NOT in a Civ game, I mean).

I can live without problem with a flight sim that let you directly jump on action, without the mess and boring of take off, mission approach and landing (don't take me literally, I'm thinking about the old "Wings" - athmosferic and funny), surely I don't like a game (training level apart) where I can hit the enamy with my plane and shot it down without a scratch on my plane paint

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

loinburger · February 12, 2001, 11:54

The Bombardment rules for SMAC take care of most of the realism you've mentioned, in my opinion. Just like a bombarding unit can only be counterattacked by another bombarding unit, so too will an airplane (doing bombardment damage) be unable to be damaged by pikemen. The same is true of the battleship example.

I have no problem with adding domains to unit types (for example, pikemen cannot damage an airplane). I do have a problem with saying "my tank should never lose to a pikeman because a tank is a modern unit and the pikeman is a renaissaince unit."

Cyclotron · February 12, 2001, 15:07

quote:

I do have a problem with saying "my tank should never lose to a pikeman because a tank is a modern unit and the pikeman is a renaissaince unit."

I completely agree. This would make the game grossly unfair for players behind in tech and is unrealistic.
I can see even a whole division of mech. infantry being overwhelmed by legions avoe them on the hills, charging down in vast hordes.

None of this "never lose" stuff.

bagdar · February 12, 2001, 16:41

yes, but "vast hordes" imply stacked combat. what if we don't have it?

Cyclotron · February 12, 2001, 16:47

No, it doesn't. What about CivII style, legions charging over and over and over... slowly wearing down the target.

bagdar · February 13, 2001, 15:19

quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-12-2001 03:47 PM
No, it doesn't. What about CivII style, legions charging over and over and over... slowly wearing down the target.

Ok, I missed the point. But still, this implies that you'll still waste the first batch of attackers, and try to be content with the last few legions which succeed in destroying the Mech.Inf.