22-02-2001 08:50									#1
	Ctp2 Combat: Surprising news Tired of ads?

Well, this is news to me, anyway.
I have conducted some tests recently, and found out that the way battles are decided in Ctp2 is different from that in any other civ game. I have sent a letter to Richard asking for confirmation on some of the things I state below, but I feel confident about the statements based upon by observations.

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.

	22-02-2001 10:59									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Wow! Thanks for pointing this out, Wes.

I kind of was guessing points 2-3, but I didn't know for sure.

Point 1 & 4 were things I completely missed.


------------------
phoenixcager of the Civgaming Network.
Visit the CGN forums.

	22-02-2001 17:23									#3
	Remove this text

That means that Attacking with hoplites is more effective than with warriors (in early game).
This would also explain that tanks are the MEGA-Attackers in the game (Good Melee, Superb Ranged, Good defense, Good Firepower and the most important:
Armour!)
I took a whole civ out with one strikegroup of 12 tanks and only lost one of them at their capital.

	23-02-2001 06:44									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Speaking of unit settings...
I have spent more than twice as much time on the unit stats for the Med mod II than I did for the Med mod I. The main reason is the armor category. It gives you the ability to make ancient units impotent against modern units, but it adds another factor to balance when you go from one age to the next, and the results can play havoc when you compare infantry to infantry or infantry to artillery bombardment. I have been totally re-working the stats for the ancient units just this week, when I thought I had these stats worked out weeks ago.

If you were to look at the unit charts when they come out, the artillery units stats may not make sense at first, but they do when you factor in the city defenses available in the age.

Anyway, it is no surprise to me that the stats for the default game could create super-units capable of over-running everything else in the game, since they are so hard to balance.

	28-02-2001 14:14									#5
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

the very first time i played ctp, it take days to get used to combat logic of the game however i have realized that the very important factor is the "flanking" units (knight/cavalry/tank) which attack in every turn regardless where thay are located. (you know infantry and such units attack if they have enemy unit just in front of them, otherwise they simply wait till their budy die and take their place)

so, a question comes to mind, why to use infantry?? they cost to build slightly less than a cavalry or a tank, and they have inefficient usage in combats. doesn't make any sense... ???

and i also have to mention that, paratroopers, and marines have an ability to attack just after unloaded from heli/ship but i do find it again useless since they die quickly without support of heavier units such as tanks..

------------------
-------------------------
without good, no evil
without one, no all
without desire, no need

	03-03-2001 01:03									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, as for infantry, I suppose it'd be cost effective to build if you expect to be outnumbered/evenly matched or as a cheap component to a force that contains flankers as well. (Or even if you expect to be doing most of your damage with ranged attacks from behind the wall of infantry....)

	12-03-2001 02:18									#7
	Support Apolyton

it would seem that the next logical step from here is to attack with a group of defensive melee units and some ranged units, the defensive ones would then protract the battle while the ranged units do the damage