 |
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
epeterson:
the problem is, that ancient units change significantly combats when used in conjunction with modern units. That's why we are thinking of different ways here.
back to the idea:
Your idea would still have a problem:
a 12 stack attacking 2 tanks could still damage (or even destroy it)
IIRC Archer have FP of 1, so 12 archers = 12 AP's. Not really true.
If we would rebalance everything and say:
Damage = FP - Armor (if < 0 == 0)
How about this? OK, it would mean we have to rebalance all units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Not good, because that would slow down combat...
You essentially want to do full firepower damage to the opposing unit, otherwise you increase the number of combat rounds, and make the rear row more important...
At least, I think so...?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
First: Still working on Einstein 
For the number of rounds per battle:
That would depend on the HP, but not on the Armor.
So to say it easy: (Archer against tank)
1. round
12 archers with 1HP and 1 AP and FP 1
2 Tank with 10 HP and 6 AP and FP 5
The 12 archers attack with the formula (as mentioned above, still working on) the damage they inflict would be (after rounding) 0.
Tanks attacks and because FP > AP, does do damage, actually it 'could' kill with the pure FP 5 archers in 1 round. (1 HP + 1 AP = 2. 5*2/2=5, meaning 5 archers killed)
I assume that damage can be transferred over!!!!!! Not sure if we want to do it, or how it is done in the moment.
2. round
7 archers left.
3. round
2 archers left.
and so on ( in this case one more round)
If we would now stack 10 archers with 2 tanks against 2 tanks.
Attacker:12 archers 1/1/1 and 2 tanks 10/6/5
Defender:2 tanks with 10/6/5
The archers would be finished in 2 rounds.
The stacked tanks (with Archers) could attack) in the meantime the tanks (single), but would in the first round only 'downgrade' the armor.
In the second round we would have
A: 2 tanks 10/6/5
D: 2 tanks 10/1/5
OK the outcome would be still the side with the ancient units having an advantage, but not longer able to inflict damage, it would just distract the fire of the defender (in this case).
One thing I am not sure about though, how is the model working with different kind of units (flanking/defensive/offensive/ranged/planes/ships). In other words who is the prime target of whome?
Example: 12 knights against 12 pikeman. Would it be only the first row fighting?
Or even better:
4 pikeman, 4 knights, 4 archers against the same configuration.
Normally I assume, the 4 archers would attack the 4 pikeman, but what about the 4 knights? Would they attack each other or the pikeman?
In other words, what is the combat model using for 'priorities'?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Hayden
I think a combat system should be thought out practically - there is no magical wall which stops archers from trying to fight against tanks, so don't put any dodgy walls in their way. Instead, why not just make it so that UNIT A, fighting UNIT B, whose ARMOR value is a lot higher than UNIT A's DAMAGE value, will be horribly retarded in combat - thus - your tank will win because of it's stats, rather than because of sum rule that has been put up to stop units from certain ages hurting those of later ages. This age idea is not needed. Sensible use of the ARMOR and DAMAGE values from one end of the game to the other IS!! |
You shall have had a look at some testing (further up the thread) which have been made:
It is unbalacing the complete situation (and another exploit for the human).
In the moment I have some problems regarding the age-determination (or science value).
Any ideas?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
drulius
|
|
Lubbock, Tx USA
Jan 1970
time: 23:33
|
|
I guess this is the dilema. You have 6 tanks defending on open ground, your enemy attacks with a stack of 5 tanks and 6 archers. Sorting rules aside, you would expect your 6 tanks to have a defensive and 6 to 5 numerical advantage over the attackers. The archers shouldn't unbalance the fight, but as it stands now, they virtually guarantee the attacker's success.
The question is do players like this? In SP it becomes a human advantage, in MP everybody can do it, and it gives the lagging player at least a chance to make some hits when their archer/Pikemen stacks get attacked with tanks/artillery. The game is still over, but a few tanks might get knocked off in the process.
I think whatever armor/damage arrangement is used to make archers less potent against tanks, should also make other ranged units less effective against more advanced tech. There's no reason why musket and cannon balls shouldn't bounce off fusion tank armor like arrows should bounce off tank armor. Even exlposive artillery shells might be nullified by anti-ballistic lasers, which could be considered part of the defensive compliment of a fusion tank (they have active-air defense don't they?).
Speaking just in loose terms of the 5 ages in the current game, if a unit is one age behind another, it should still be 100% effective. If it's two ages behind, maybe make it 50% effective (archers on tanks). More than two ages behind, make it 0% effective (cannons on fusion tanks, ironclads on krakens). So the only ages that get completely shut down are Ancient and Renaissance, and modern age units are handicapped 50% against diamond age units only. I'm not talking about putting in global age barriers for combat, but about building into the armor/damage system this kind of effectiveness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
epeterson
|
|
So far it hasn't been mentioned that attacking tanks will ALWAYS have the edge on defending tanks because of the Attack/Defense values.:eyebrow:
I kind of like the idea of the lesser units being used as cannon fod however. At least they would be good for something! Which begs the question... How do units get arranged when they both have the capability of ranged attack? Who takes precedence on the firing line/front row?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by epeterson
So far it hasn't been mentioned that attacking tanks will ALWAYS have the edge on defending tanks because of the Attack/Defense values.:eyebrow:
I kind of like the idea of the lesser units being used as cannon fod however. At least they would be good for something! Which begs the question... How do units get arranged when they both have the capability of ranged attack? Who takes precedence on the firing line/front row? |
well... since attackers and defenders take turns attacking and defending vs one another, differences in A and D usually end up being pretty moot.
One of the suggestions earlier on (by Locutus) was to suggest that defenders should ALWAYS use their D for both attacking and defending (when being on the defensive side of a battle,) and attackers should always use their A (or ranged rating if attacking at range.)
I tend to agree except I think that the D of a city defender should only be enhanced by city walls while he was in a defending round and only enhanced by ballista's etc... while in an attacking round.
As for how and where lines are formed, a grid is made, and unit positioned and sorted by stat priority, based on unit category. I could post the actual code and explain the steps... It usually works pretty well for ground combat, although it occassionally produces odd formations, and pretty much always sucks for naval engagements.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by drulius
*SNIP* Speaking just in loose terms of the 5 ages in the current game *SNIP* |
Right... and since those ages can be modified, we shouldn't tie any defensive or offensive capability to those, or the "difference" between them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
quote:
I agree with Mr. Baggins. In C:CTP, I had a lone Leviathian come upon a 12 stack of Musketeers. They almost destroyed my Leviathian! NO WAY should this happen! |
and that was CtP1.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
You can have a look at this combat sim we made a while back. Look at the formulas involved.
btw its an excel spreadsheet.
hm i cant find the original thread...
 Attachment: ctp2_combat_sim_final_1.zip
This has been downloaded 2 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:33
|
|
I hadn't read the 2nd page of this thread yet (aside from the last post ), but I did some thinking of my own and I independently came to the exact same conclusion as Gilg.
Whatever the combat system will be like, it should be fairly simple and intuitive. People should be able to more or less guestimate the outcome of a battle in advance, at least when it's a 1-vs-1 battle. CtP is a strategy game after all, not a combat simulator.
Attack and Defense are each other's opposites: one increases the chance to hit, the other decreases the chance to be hit. This makes perfect sense and is very intuitive (even if many people misunderstand their exact role in the battle formula). The same should apply to Firepower and Armour: a layman would expect them to be each other's opposites, that would be the most intuitive idea. But this is not how it currently works: FP increases the amount of damage, while Armour basically increases the amount of Hitpoints. That's not what it (intuitively) should do: it should decrease the amount of damage done. That's also what Armour does in RL combat.
Most of the suggestions made so far in this thread (including MrBaggins' "ideal system" as described above) are IMO rather complex and unintuitive, and are therefore not very desirable solutions. The initial thought to use it for immunity is simple and fairly intuitive, but it doesn't meet the intuitive property that Armour should be the exact opposite of FP.
But with a minor change to the existing system we can make it that way: if we change the formula "Damage = FP / Armour" to "Damage = FP - Armour", it does exactly what it intuitively should do: reduce the amount of damage done. It also has the same effect that was initially desired by MrBaggins of making advanced units completely immune to (very) obsolete units. And it also has more or less the same effect as MrBaggins' ideal system in that damage is first subtracted from Armour and only then from Hitpoints, but in a much less complicated and more intuitive manner.
As for lengthening the duration of a battle: that's not a big deal as any extra damage done by ranged units is equally absorbed by the Armour. I didn't have time to do the math, but expect the effect to be zero, or else very little. And even if there's a (small) effect, so what? The player with the best stack composition will win, as it should be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
Most of the suggestions made so far in this thread (including MrBaggins' "ideal system" as described above) are IMO rather complex and unintuitive, and are therefore not very desirable solutions. The initial thought to use it for immunity is simple and fairly intuitive, but it doesn't meet the intuitive property that Armour should be the exact opposite of FP.
|
My ideal solution was based in the concept of making everyone happy... that is the concept of allowing obsolete units to do damage in special circumstances. The problem is that it makes for a less intuitive combat system.
I stand by the original premise, and if you look at it from that viewpoint then FP-Armor works fine (provided the lengthening of combat doesn't influence things... but it was always a very tenuous argument.)
I have no problem with simple... on reflection it works well for us.
There is just one point, and simple additional complexity I'd like to add to the system.
Armor Penetration.
Some weaponry doesn't necessarily do more total damage, but does have the ability to penetrate armor better.
Generally speaking this would apply to bombard units and, for instance, TOW infantry.
In game terms it would be very simple. The AP of the attacking unit would be subtracted from the Armor of the defending unit. Values less than 0 would be 0.
Imagine a situation where a renaissance cannon has hit a tank. The cannon has FP 3 and AP 2, and the Tank has Armor of 4. Without AP, no damage would be done to the tank, since, its armor is higher than the cannon's FP. With AP, the tanks armor is effectively reduced to 2, and 1 damage is done.
Alternately imagine that same cannon hitting ancient warriors. The cannon still has FP3 and AP2, and the warriors have no Armor. Without any armor to reduce, AP does nothing, the cannon does its regular damage of 3 to the warriors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
|
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:33
|
|
Gilg,
In any system we come up with involving immunity, it's always just an option. Whether a modmaker chooses to use it or not is up to him, but at least he can if he wants to. In the system I proposed, if you just make sure the lowest FP value is still higher than the highest Armour value, (some) damage will always be done. How it works out in practice is just a matter of balance.
MrBaggins,
I like it, sounds good to me. Realistic, simple, intuitive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
we're not talking about armor being destroyed...
the formula we're talking about is (in basic/psuedo code)
EffectiveArmor = Armor - Armor Penetration
If EffectiveArmor < 0 Then EffectiveArmor=0
Damage=FP - Effective Armor
If Damage>0 Then HP = HP - Damage
I hope this is clear.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-02-2004 21:21
I found out that there is a limit for the number of combat rounds there is (it’s about the time everybody get bored and goes home :lol
Attachment: 
! You mean the attacker alternates with each round of a battle? So if I have 6 tanks 'defending' a city and you 'attack' with 6 tanks, we both get to use our Attack and Defense rating alternately? I guess the terminology is a little deceiving then...:boggled:
)
|
