 |
| |
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
As has been mentioned, Armor is effectively a hit point value, and HP's have been standardized at 10. Armor basically divides damage... effectively multiplying the standard HP value.
There is really no purpose to having 2 values for what is the same thing.
We've got a few choices
- Leave it as it is. No downside... but no upside either
- Ignore/remove Armor, use HP for unit hit values. We have finer control over how much damage a unit can take... in 10'ths of the current system
- Use HP for unit hit values and make Armor a useful property. Again.. finer control over how much damage a unit can take... and allows for differences in damage resistance beyond HP's and Defense.
I'd suggest that Armor be used for "immunity"... that is Attack values *LOWER* (modified? unmodified? thoughts?) than the Armor value are ignored and cause 0 damage.
Thus Spearmen can NEVER hurt Tanks... unless their attack value is modified to be above the Armor value of the Tanks (that is... if we go the modified route.)
We'd probably need and want very few units to have immunity, if at all... but it would probably be a very useful property... particularly for scenarios.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tyrantpimp
|
|
That makes sense to me it could open up some possibilities. Perhaps armor options could be decided in the build que that way you could have heavily armored units which would have penalties eg: moving slower and more expensive but would be harder to kill and light armored tanks which would be faster and cheaper but easier to kill
I think this is a very realistic approach
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
HP's are for HPs. Ignore (remove) Armor value.
Maybe they were forced by the lawyers to put Armour in and hide hit points, "HP" being very civ, but theres no need for armour now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
I think that the name issue is spurious.
Firstly, Firaxis/Sid certainly doesn't own the idea or trademark of "hitpoints", or even units on a map having hitpoints.
CTP and its mod makers have made many enhancements to the Civ concept, which have shown up subsequently in Civ3... like Empire based support, abstract trade and unit upgrading, for example. CTP is always going to have a substantially different look and feel, unless we duplicate most of the concepts... units, techs and wonders, for example. There, however, is plenty of scope to make a historically meaningful game, without infringing.
As for Armor being a better name... maybe... but since its a nebulous, abstract concept, I really don't mind the name "Hitpoints". The way Armor has been implemented either is meaningless, or unflexible, however.
I personally very much like the idea of introducing the concept of some small degree of immunity... very obsolete attacks should be futile against very high tech units...
The benefit to this is that differences in A/D don't have to be so massive between multiple age differences... you just make values below a threshold ineffective.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
For example...
Tank facing an army composed of Modern Infantry, supported by 6 ancient archers.
In the current game, the archers would do some small amount of damage to the tank... in reality, no amount of arrows (or any human powered weapon) would damage the tank...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
quote:
I think that the name issue is spurious. |
Didnt Activision have to rename the "Temple" to Shrine and "Phalanx" to Hoplite for CtP2? I know they definately had to change the difficulty names, Deity to "Impossible" etc.... which i would like to see return BTW.
Perhaps some kind of "threshold" could be used for a new kind of Armour rating as you mentioned Baggins, but id prefer the keep things simple. I dont have a problem with an Archer damaging a Tank extremely small amounts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Sure... but as many and more improvements and units had precisely the same names...
The big difference was in Wonders... Activision changed many, if not most. Interestingly Firaxis copied "The Internet" Wonder basically down to the effect, for Civ3, from CTP/2 (cos it certainly wasn't in Civ2.)
I think the look and feel thing is a lot more complicated that just a name, where there is no trademark for it. I don't think we have any issue at all with "HP".
As for the Armor issue... I'm not sure how it will turn out in play. All I know for certain... is that some people are driven nuts by the Spearman/Tank issue (although admittedly less so in CTP, since its been masked by combined arms, largely.)
If people want to use the threshold... for their play.. its a really simple change. Obviously scenario designers may wish to use it too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
dp
Last edited by MrBaggins on 03-02-2004 at 01:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tyrantpimp
|
|
Well to be fair if ugrading units is going to be written into the code there wont be many instances of archers fighting tanks it could be a moot point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Yeah but itll always be an option not to use the unit updater, and sometimes i might not update my ancient lookout archers, for unit support reasons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tyrantpimp
|
|
Well if those are our options then the archers shouldnt stand a chance against the tanks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Archers already dont stand a chance against the Tanks, the chance is small enough now IMO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
I wanted to set up a test. 6 Tanks & 6 Archers on 6 Tanks. I hypothesized that the archers would consistantly unbalance the battle. I think I found a bug... aka odd design decision, in setting up the situation, however.
If you attack with a group of 6 Tanks and 6 archers on that group of 6 Tanks, then the sort will place 4 of the archers on the front line... for some innane reason.
I'll start a thread about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
I voted for the wrong thing - i meant the first option.
I think having two values is a good and useful thing, it can be used to help with the spearman verses tank type situ. The values can certainly do with tweaking i guess to help in this.
As for the wierd archer in the frontline thing, i've seen it and been annoyed by it many times.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Ok... I worked out how to do a fairer test...
I removed the Tanks ranged ability, so it wouldn't prefer being in the back, along with its flanking category and isflanking.
I did the tests by creating new batches of units in the cheat editor in the same game, rather than reloading.
I noticed that the attacked always seemed to have the advantage. I wanted to see if archers ranged ability would be enough to overcome a defensive advantage so I set up an intially unbalanced test... repeated 20 times.
5 attacking tanks vs. 6 defending tanks. Equal terrain.
Attacker wins 2. (both times 1 tank remaining)
Defender wins 18. (1 tank remaining 16 times. 2 tanks remaining 2 twice)
Then...
5 attacking tanks & 7 archers vs. 6 defending tanks. Equal terrain.
(Attacker has 1 more front line attacker than intended, but its the weakest frontline offensive unit possible)
Attacker wins 15.
-1 time 1 tank remaining & 1 archer remaining
-9 times 1 tank remaining & 3 archers remaining
-1 time 2 tanks remaining & 3 archers remaining
-4 times 3 tanks remaining & 5 archers remaining
-1 time 4 tanks remaining & 5 archers remaining
Defender wins 5
-4 times 1 tank remaining
-1 time 2 tanks remaining
It seems that large numbers of obsolete troops can, in large enough quantities, unbalance a situation, even in a situation, where they should have no significant effect on the outcome.
Of course, you could increase the attack and defense ratings of subsequently advanced units, by a multiple, making the difference larger... but I think there should be the option to have an defensive threshold, to demonstrate very large differences in attack and defensive capability... aka arrows vs. tank.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
I voted option 1:
Reason: When a technical advanced CIV comes in touch (conqueres) a weaker one, the weaker one has a hard time defending:
1.) America South/Middle/North
2.) Australia
continue if you want.
What skywalker mentioned is not (I think) what most people here had in mind, differences because of ages.
A nowadays militia might be able to destroy a tank (like Russia-Afganistan/USA-IRAQ/......) but that would be a different unit, what we have not been talking about.
But the way how I was thinking about: It doesn't make any sense having an outdated unit destroying a modern one (at least two ages difference). It might be able to damage it, but it shall not be able to destroy. (I was only thinking of a indian (Jungle) with a pipe(?) blowing a arrow with poison onto the driver of a jeep, would still work, but you wouldn't be able to destroy the jeep or the complete platoon). So I would rather prefer a mixture:
Damage Yes, but not able to kill/destroy a modern unit (again two ages difference).
Reason for 2 ages:
An Archer can still kill a musketeer, but he will already have a hard time injuring an infrantry unit (bodyarmor and further range of weapons).
just my 2 cents for the moment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Very interesting, but theres a problem with the system...
Units do a number of very small damages, as per firepower... so 1,2 or 3 damage, per hit for example.
Ablative damage each turn would be very interesting, though...
So, each turn, each unit started with a fresh value of X Armor (based on the value in units.txt,) and when it takes damage, damage which would ordinarily be caused to it, is first removed from the armor, before removing hitpoints.
I.E.
On this turn, Tank has, say, 30 HP's and 6 Armor.
Its bombarded, for 1 damage. It now has 5 armor, but still has 30HP's.
It attacks another unit. The other unit manages to score 4 attacks, each doing 2 damage (2 firepower) on our Tank, prior to it being destroyed.
This would remove all of the 5 remaining armor, and 3HP, leaving the tank with 27HP's.
The next turn (its next owner player's turn, not every turn) it would start with 27HP's and 6 Armor.
===
There are a couple of ways that you could slightly extend the system... by only having armor protect against attacks where the current armor was 2x or more than the firepower of the attack...
I.E.
A Rifleman (Firepower of 2) hits a Tank with Armor 5. 2 damage is done to the armor... none to the HP's.
Another Tank (Firepower of 3) hits a Tank with Armor 5. No damage is done to the armor (armor wasn't 2x or more than the firepower,) and 3 damage done to the Tank's HP's.
===
There's no micromanagement... nothing to "do" per se. It just abstracts some additional level of resilience for certain units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
A hundred men (forget that they have bows) could disable a Tank surely?
I just hope that adding new levels to combat adds to the fun and doesnt add unnecessary complexity (for human and/or AI), because its work for nothing otherwise. Im perfectly happy with HP's only, ive never craved more complexity to that side of combat, just better balancing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
So at range they all spread out, the Tank wont be able to get them all, they rush the Tank and climb up on it, what hes gonna do, drive all day with them sat on top hoping theyll die of hunger?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
A Tank can maneuver quicker than a human can deal with. A 30mph Tank is awfully difficult to "jump on to". The Tank can position itself whereever it wants and shoot the archer guys... pick them off, even if they are spread out.
Al Quaeda tried rushing tanks with guys with machine guns (in buses.) Those tactics made no impression.
RPG's are a bit different, but as has been mentioned, they wouldn't be archers any more.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2004 08:05
I am serious.The name/idea of Armour makes more sense.
|