Resolving Combat in Civ3...Do it like CtP2?

yin26 · February 23, 2001, 07:55

Is CtP2's system for determining combat good for Civ3? You can find WesW's thread explaining that (curious) system here.

In it he notes:

quote:

1)In combat rounds, the attacker and defender take turns attacking one another. As most of us know, in other games, the attacker does all the attacking, with the percentage to score a hit determined by comparing the attacker's attack value to the defender's defense value, which includes all modifiers such as terrain and city improvements added to it. If the attacker hits, then the defender loses a point. Otherwise, the attacker loses a point.

In Ctp2, the attacker takes its swing, and if he misses, I believe that nothing happens to either unit. Next, the defender takes a swing, with the chance to hit computed by comparing the defender's attack value versus the attacker's defense value, with any terrain and improvement bonuses gained from the attacker's square factored into the equation.

The opposing units take turns swinging at one another, with ranged units firing each round, until one or the other is destroyed.

This new combat resolution setup has huge effects on the outcome of battles, and explains a few things that have confused us since the game came out.

First of all, the attacker's square is just as important as the defender's square. A unit on a mountain attacking a unit on grassland has a huge advantage.

Secondly, the power of a unit in battle depends upon both its attack and defense values, regardless of whether it is attacking or defending. I think this may explain some of the strange unit row placements that we see in the game.

Thirdly, this explains the function of city improvements such as Ballista Towers and Battlements. With the new setup, these improvements have an effect when a city is attacked, even though they give a bonus to defending units' attack values.

Fourth, since units often miss and afflict no damage on each other, ranged units may have a greater effect over the course of the longer battles.

Well, stacking is a great CtP addition, but from the looks of things, we can see some serious problems with the way battles are resolved.

1. The first point makes sense to a degree...but why should an attacker's terrain count unless he's firing from a distance? If the defender is at the base of a mountain (held by swordsmen) in plains, why should a group of swordsmen get a mountain bonus if they have to engage in the plains?

2. Why should a unit's defense strength count for its attack? Sure...a tank has some solid armor, but does that make its guns fire more powerfully?

3. Making cities harder to capture is nice, but I don't think this was the way to do it.

4. Again, it would be very nice to see ranged units make a much bigger diffence in games, but making other units simply not damage each other as often seems yet another silly way to achieve one's goal.

My conclusion: CtP2's method sucks.

While nobody wants Civ3 to be a war-only game, I can confidently say that if the war aspect of it is weak and makes little or no intuitive sense, something will be seriously wrong. So let's hear how YOU think battels should be resolved in Civ3!

P.S. Some VERY good discussions on this took place on The List. Check it out if you are really interested in this topic.
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited February 23, 2001).]

Nikolai · February 23, 2001, 09:26

I don't have CTP2, but I have seen that most of the posters in this forum don't like it. Therefore I trust you and votes NO!

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Well....

Roman · February 23, 2001, 09:28

No!! I don't like this way of resolving battles. Essentially it means that a good atacking unit will also be good for defending a city, since the attack value is also used for defenders. This partially eliminates the choice you have to make between attack and defence.

Please just keep the Civ2 method, or take some suggestions from the list, but don't use this way to resolve battles!

Grumbold · February 23, 2001, 09:51

I think CtP2 makes some important innovations which should be kept in, but other ideas are failures. Making use of the attackers terrain bonuses is nonsense. Making a defending unit actually try and damage an attacker is good. That makes far more sense than saying if the attacker misses it takes damage itself. I'd also advocate that when in a walled city fight, cavalry should be treated as infantry. No-one ever stormed the walls on horseback and the game does not permit sallies.

Henrik · February 23, 2001, 10:08

Yes, they did, but not untill they had bombarded the wallsso that there was holes and openings (your idea is good but artillery could be used first to soften the walls).

Grumbold · February 23, 2001, 10:23

You breach the walls before sending in an infantry assault. A horseback charge over rubble would be like deliberately riding over caltrops! I can only see cavalry charging if we are talking about a pretty flimsy barrier.

Henrik · February 23, 2001, 10:46

Which is what was left of the walls when the siege mortars of the 17th century was done whit them (usually a storming wasn't necesary, when there where large openings in the walls the cities would capitulate).
Ofcourse there where lots of infantry and dragoons (infantry moving on horseback) taking part in the storming too.
[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited February 23, 2001).]

airdrik · February 23, 2001, 14:03

I agree that they should not use this method. But range should have some effect: A unit with a range of 2 (average archer unit) would get 2 free attacks (not hits, though) on a unit with a range of 0 (average pre-gunpowder infantry/cavalry). Of course to compensate mobility would have to be inluded so that that archer would only get 1 hit on a cavalry.

Urban Ranger · February 24, 2001, 08:24

There's one thing I have always wondered: why is combat always to the death? What happened to a very basic concept named retreat? I think the possible outcome of combats should include:

CornMaster · February 26, 2001, 18:29

Combat should be based on both Attack and Defence. The Attacker would get the first try to attack. He would inflict X damaged based on Y Firepower (And a bonus for first attack, 125% maybe??). Then if the defender isn't destroyed he should counter attack with his attack based on X * % Hit Points Left (Ex. Armor 10 * .70 = 7 attack). Then the attacker would attack again but without the bonus and the same formula (Ex. Armor 10 * .30 = 3 attack). The defending would work the same. You could also add a prompt between each attack to retreat or withdraw.

This would have to be better explained but in principle, a very good idea. (It would all be automated of course)

Edit: Opps I should have read the quote in the first post. Basically what I was thinking about.

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"If LESS is MORE, just think of how much MORE, MORE would be!"
I AM CANADIAN!
Civfanatics.com Civ 2 Multiplayer Ladder!
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.
[This message has been edited by CornMaster (edited February 26, 2001).]