 |
| |
|
|
ctplinuxfan
|
|
Hi,
Hm, wasn't there a unit limit?
Anyways: Perhaps the 100 men are digging a hole huge enough for the tank to fall into?
Or the archers conquer the tank, the winner gets the tank, and 96 archers; the other 3 surviving archers are then within the tank - i.e. canned archers 
I vote for option 1).
Perhaps armour/hps can be weighted with the age and an outdated unit has less chance to weaken armor/inflict damage on a modern unit. Units which cannot bombard other armored units cannot inflict damage, if age difference is too high.
Bombarding units should always be able to inflict damage when bombarding, but the damage is decreased by a armor-age weighted difference. E.g. a cannon is outdated against a tank, but is still able to destroy it. A cannon can still inflict unreduced damage to a marine.
Otoh, another techlevels more, guess some archers within a city having a forcefield. Following the armour logic, I think a single tank should have no chance to capture the city, because of the forcefield. Perhaps only a fusion tank or leviathan should have a chance.
Ciao
Holger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
epeterson
|
|
One word--complicated. This game already has more than enough to simulate some sort of reality. That's why we play it! I can understand the interest in finesseing it but shouldn't you concentrate on working out the really obvious bugs first? Possibly a patch to fix the obvious bugs in a timely manner, then you can concentrate on making this the game of the century.
Regarding the ancient units vs. modern units scenario. I am playing a game with just the 1.11 patch installed and I took 1 battleship, 1 destroyer and 1 PT boat against hoplites, archers and mounted archers and destroyed all 12 of them with no casualties, (only damage). Now, attacking cities with naval units argument aside, I think that was a pretty realistic outcome.
However, there is ALWAYS strength in numbers! If you have one tank against a stack of ancient units there is always the possibility that the tank can be overwhelmed. As mentioned before--(holes dug to capture/destroy tanks), intuitiveness and adaptability can turn the tide of battle. Just ask any navy seal.
I tend to side with Maquiladora on many of these issues. Perhaps the micromanagement can be set aside for the time being and the real business of bug stompin' take its place.
Last edited by epeterson on 18-02-2004 at 03:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Having armor as an optional immunity/extra defense property assists in fulfilling one of the prime tenents of good game design...
quote:
by Brian Reynolds, The Poor Get Richer: The Ancient Art of Game Balance
"Ideally, a game should end at the exact instant a player has effectively been guaranteed victory, a player should be eliminated at the moment victory for him becomes essentially impossible,"
|
Theres nothing wrong with making obsolescence concrete... Completely obsolete troops shouldn't have ANY effect on game outcome, (and I've shown where archers can completely unbalance a tank battle.) Saying that they don't do significant amounts of damage is a cop-out. They should do none, and we can easily make it so.
Obviously many post-modern units would be utterly invulnerable to ancient units, and many scenario situations would benefit from this possibility too.
Theres really no compelling reason not to implement this, since the current situation isn't ideal in all cases.
Implementing Armor adds zero micromanagement load on the player.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
epeterson
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Theres nothing wrong with making obsolescence concrete... Completely obsolete troops shouldn't have ANY effect on game outcome, (and I've shown where archers can completely unbalance a tank battle.) Saying that they don't do significant amounts of damage is a cop-out. They should do none, and we can easily make it so. |
I don't agree. In your scenario you have 6 tanks engaged with 6 opposing tanks and 6 archers. While the tanks are equally numbered and would be engaged basically 1 on 1 you have an additional 6 units on one side that can be forwarding reconnaissance information/setting up traps/resupplying forward units/etc. As I said, there is always an advantage in numbers. They needn't have the latest/greatest equipment to be a force to be reckoned with.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Incorrect. These archers aren't doing damage from forward positions in the example I gave.. the damage they did was purely ranged... I.E. arrows fired at tanks... quite ridiculous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
epeterson
|
|
Your dissecting it and I think you should be looking at the big picture. Use your imagination. As it is, it certainly doesn't take a year to move a bomber 10 squares does it?! But that is the time-line we deal with because the game is turn-based.
Whether or not the archers are in the front row or back row should be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things...Their ranged attack isn't really worth a crap anyhow against tanks! But it does help; even if only slightly. The game is telling you that numbers do count and you're telling me it doesn't. Remember Custer's last stand?
Just because the guy has a bow and arrow icon does not mean that in a multi-force, (tanks AND archers), action he cannot do other tasks. That is where I'm going with this. If you cannot defeat the enemy with the weapon you have at your disposal, then you will improvise. I don't think a numerical advantage should be so easily discounted.
Last edited by epeterson on 18-02-2004 at 04:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by epeterson
Your dissecting it and I think you should be looking at the big picture. Use your imagination. As it is, it certainly doesn't take a year to move a bomber 10 squares does it?! But that is the time-line we deal with because the game is turn-based.
|
The game has an abstract battle system, with a very specific battle order. Front-line units do damage according to A vs D, vs the opposing front line, and Ranged-line units do damage R vs D vs the opposing front line, and aren't directly attacked. Thus the game is stating that ranged units don't approach the opposing front line... thats the job of the Front line attackers. Their only capability to damage the opposing troops is via their ranged weaponry at this range. An archer would not damage a tank in battle... even lots of archers.
quote:
Whether or not the archers are in the front row or back row should be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things...Their ranged attack isn't really worth a crap anyhow against tanks! But it does help; even if only slightly. The game is telling you that numbers do count and you're telling me it doesn't. Remember Custer's last stand?
|
Neither one arrow, or one thousand arrows fired, would damage a tank. Tanks are proof against far more powerful weaponry. Give an example of how any arrow fired from a bow, which if it hit, would do 1/30th of damage to a tank.
Custer's last stand had two opposing forces with relatively similar technology, so its an irrelevant analogy... they had no special defensive capabilities, like body armor.
quote:
Just because the guy has a bow and arrow icon does not mean that in a multi-force, (tanks AND archers), action he cannot do other tasks. That is where I'm going with this. If you cannot defeat the enemy with the weapon you have at your disposal, then you will improvise. I don't think a numerical advantage should be so easily discounted. |
An archer unit means that he has certain capabilities. He doesn't gain new anti-tank capabilities, even if teamed with a tank.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by epeterson
The US cavalry was always better equipped than the native americans. Albeit not as a significant difference as my comparison between ancient and modern units in CTP2, I was hoping you'd get the jist of what I meant by numerical superiority.
|
I get your point about numerical superiority, but certain situations defy this... where there are defensive capabilities that completely defeat offensive capabilities for instance... like arrows vs tank.
quote:
So, even though I am a former metrologist, I am totally incapable of doing anything different?
I would think that if there were somehow a scenario where archers had to group with tanks that the tank commanders could use those archers in a slightly different capacity to assist the tanks in battle. They may not be versed in mobile warfare, but they are familiar with some battle tactics and thus could assist in SOME way! This game is waaaaay too general to focus on the individual characteristics of any 1 unit in an army. Remember, armies work cooperatively; not individually. |
I don't see how the Archers could assist, from a ranged rank, and thats where they are... abstraction or not.
If you want another example to chew on, consider 12 Fire Triremes vs a Nuclear sub. The nuclear sub would attack the Fire Triemes, kill them and be seriously damaged.
How would you explain that, though?
A sub can stay underwater for months, obviously outrun these vessels, and detect them with sonar... not to mention the fact that its weapons can attack them, without their being able to respond.
What would they do in response?
--
BTW... the poll is showing overwhelming support for some form of armor invulnerability/damage ignoring... so its in as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
No, I completely respect that, and it is important to examine issues to determine whether they are worthwhile or problematic.
It should be noted that the change we are talking about is a value, that can be used... or left at default, to have no impact on the game. There will be numerous additions to the CTP2 code that will be structured this way also.
The real difference that separates CTP2 from any and every other Civ game is its flexibility, and given a few small but fundemental changes, I'm pretty confident that we'll have the opportunity to solve some game balance, and challenge issues that tend to plague every Civ style game.
It might end up being apparent through playtesting that not every additional control feature that we add is necessary... but its better to have and not need, than not be able to try in the first place.
There's no definitive time table... we aren't rushing a game for Christmas, or Summer... and things will happen at their own pace.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Matthew Hayden
|
 |
Great Britain
Aug 2000
time: 05:33
|
|
Hmm - problem. Erm, may I suggest a combat model and then you can deconstruct it if you see a problem that can be addressed, however, before I lay it down I have this to say -I reserve the right to be wrong- there.
Every unit has Attack, Range, Defense strengths measured in the same way as in CTP1 - meaning you have warriors with an attack value of 1, battleships have 20 for all three.
Then there is firepower, this value denotes the number of hitpoints the opponent loses if this unit either attacks or defends successfully. hitpoints are the health of a unit, which can be decreased by damage in combat
BUT THEN!! 
We have ARMOR and DAMAGE
These values are rather more open to discussion than those already discoursed
ARMOR is a kind of toughness thing, meaning that a unit's ARMOR value does not decrease like hitpoints, so a unit with three hitpoints and an ARMOR value of 3 is three times harder to kill for ah opponent than a unit with 3 hitpoints but ARMOR of just 1.
DAMAGE is a different modifier again - this is related to ARMOR in the same way as someone suggested Attack being related to ARMOR - but I suggest it like this; A unit with DAMGE 2 cannot fight fairly against a unit with ARMOR 3 - it's ability to hurt the unit with ARMOR 3 will be retarded by some amount...
P.S - I haven't read the thread yet, and I know that what I'm suggesting is basically in CTP2 already, but I think it's the best possible combat system for a game in which every unit you're moving around probably represents over a thousand people...
I await your spatulas 
Last edited by Matthew Hayden on 19-02-2004 at 04:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
drulius
|
|
Lubbock, Tx USA
Jan 1970
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
The game has an abstract battle system, with a very specific battle order. Front-line units do damage according to A vs D, vs the opposing front line, and Ranged-line units do damage R vs D vs the opposing front line, and aren't directly attacked. Thus the game is stating that ranged units don't approach the opposing front line... thats the job of the Front line attackers. Their only capability to damage the opposing troops is via their ranged weaponry at this range. An archer would not damage a tank in battle... even lots of archers. |
The game plays such that it's cheaper and still effective to hold on to ancient ranged units and use them as cheap backups in a half stack of tanks than to actually build modern ranged backups for your whole army and pay the modern maintenance. Since the ai can't stack units effectively, it becomes a human exploit. That's why I voted for armor. The ai doesn't have to think to take advantage of armor, it becomes built into the system. It becomes possible for a very small very modern force to completely dominate a much larger older force, to finish a game off when you know you've won (or to make you quit and start a new game when you know you've lost). It also becomes more of a balancing act building enough but not too many units before each upgrade you research.
I think we should carry the concept out so that modern units fighting diamond age units represents the same kind of absurdity as arrows damaging tanks, so that cannon and artillery shells would be bouncing off the armor of fusion tanks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
I agree with the last few posts, except... we need a definitive formula... something that can be coded. Just "reduce the damage" doesn't work...
I don't believe that we should have armor in the future age, that is proof against modern age weaponry, however intreuging and "realistic" that might be, in a particular game concept.
The problem is that it produces a late game imbalance, that makes scientific development the most important game concept of all... you just reach the future age, first, upgrade and all of these future units would just overrun anything else in the game...
It takes away choices... don't bother building up production (except for Commerce TI's) or population in late game, just go for science.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gilgamensch
Formula:
If age difference > 1, no damage
If age difference = 1, damage = ((Attack-Defence)/2)-ArmorPoints (if negative = 0 ) (provided I understood the basic principle of CTP2 damage
If age difference = 0 normal damage.
This would mean that ancient units in a stack still will change the outcome, but they would be just a different way of armor/distraction to the other side, not longer being an active part.
The only thing I would like to see taken out of this formula would be ranged units like catapult/canon/and so on, as they still could inflict damage.
Before people are complaining about how a catapult could do damage: Like greek fire and similar, they were not only throwing stones 
Another formula I am still working on, would involve good old Einstein Might be overall easier, just depending on either the age difference or the overall cost to research. |
If the age difference is 1-4 (and your view of how many ages we should be dealing with probably different from mine- "STONE AGE","METAL AGE", "CLASSICAL", "IMPERIAL","MEDIEVAL"(maybe 2 early and late),"RENAISSANCE","INDUSTRIAL","MODERN","GENETIC","FUTURE")... then the existing system of doing reduced damage (by later units having more hits and firepower) already works fine, in my view.
Also... I think that "Ages" are the wrong way to go about this... a modern infantry unit can be hurt in ways a tank unit can't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
The argument for using ages or techs doesn't hold water. Paratroopers might be equivalent in age or tech development to Tanks, but Tanks have far higher damage resilience to ancient weaponry.
You have to have separate numbers for this stuff.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
That would depend (how I am thinking about) on the Armour value. High Armour value would mean (in case of age difference) lower possible damage.
Even archers would have a hard time damaging para-troopers, I agree they could damage a platoon, but hardly ever wipe it off (generaly speaking). I know, you could give the archers poisened arrows and in a Jungle they could wipe them off.
So it would be to the moders (depending then on the AP) how they see it.
Let's say for example (not yet with formula) tank would have 100 AP, para's 10, Archers 2. Attack would be Archers 2, para's 40, tank again 100:
As para's would be close enough in age they could damage/kill the tank, but the archer wouldn't stand really up to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
There is already lower possible damage... that would be the relative number of hit points to the firepower of the unit in question. Given the differences in age, these will be significant, anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gilgamensch
*SNIP*
If age difference = 1, damage = ((Attack-Defence)/2)-ArmorPoints (if negative = 0 ) (provided I understood the basic principle of CTP2 damage
*SNIP* |
Actually, no...
Attack and defence give the chance to hit, they are unrelated to damage...
Firepower is the single damage component right now
Essentially...
Damage= FP/Armor (not rounded)
That is then subtracted from the units HP.
BUT... HP's are always 10.
What this basically means is that FP is damage done to (Armor*HP) hitpoints.
===
Here's my current thought on an ideal system.
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
*SNIP*
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.
|
In addition to this I'd
- Have armor protect totally (no damage done to either armor or hit points) where the armor is 4x(I think... maybe more?) than the effective firepower.
- To deal with the fact that some attacks penetrate armor better than others, we could just include an ArmorPenetration modifier (like +2, +1, +0, -1... just a positive or negative int) that effects the firepower, just for the purposes of determining whether it does damage to the armor, HPs or not at all (effective Firepower). Bombard units might have +1 or +2 for their AP rating.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Peter Triggs
|
|
Gone Fishin, Canada
Jan 2000
time: 05:33
|
|
Hit Points are always 10 only in the vanilla game (and SAP, I think). In both Cradle and CTC we changed them to increase with tech.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Its a start, yes... but it falls apart when an archer has a chance of doing 1/30th total damage to a tank. Given the fact that this unit could have lots of chances in an equal front line battle, it creates an unbalance which is unreasonable.
Basically any unit can ALWAYS damage another... its just a question of how much right now. The majority of those polled thing that there should be some cut-off point, where an obsolete unit can no longer damage a unit at all, in certain situations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Triggs
Hit Points are always 10 only in the vanilla game (and SAP, I think). In both Cradle and CTC we changed them to increase with tech. |
Its still always FP doing damage to Armor*HPs, because fractional damage is done.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-02-2004 00:58
firepower of the unit.
|