 |
|
Jason Beaudoin
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970
time: 00:15
|
|
Ya... there you go... that needs some clarification on how that works.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
Actually, I do not think either is improbable, since they both happened...
It could be argued that superior weaponry always should win the battle, and it is the basis for the argument that phalanxes should never beat a tank - and this was the main argument in the ctp1 thread when this issue came up. When playing that game though, it really did not happen to me because the whole basis of combat was to build up a balanced force with ranged and unranged units - using the bombard capability to seriously weaken the target before going in for the kill, which I normally did.
I do think that many of those unusual results that were reported were partially due to a players lack of understanding of the combat system. To be fair though, their viewpoint was a valid one - as planes could actually be shot down by spearman, which was totally unrealistic. This was due to the fact that there were also a lot of defensive modifiers available - (city walls/terrain/fortify) that would bring up the numbers of the weaker unit too.
I am not totally familiar with the combat system of civ3, having not followed it extensively (too many ongoing threads in this forum to cover), but I'm assuming that with air units, for example (as this was the case with SMAC) certain ground units cannot counter against air units, especially pre-modern units. If this is the case for civ3, this will very good and should go a long way towards making sure that unrealistic attacks do not occur.
After all, from a truly realistic standpoint, a phalanx should not even be allowed to fire back at a battleship, and if there is the ability of a phalanx being able to do so, then combat is not going to be well-thought out. (and yes, I realize that a phalanx could sneak aboard a battleship and subdue the crew too, but that actually is quite a stretch for me)
As for the combat results from different land units from differenty ages, this issue is a little harder to clearly define, because incidents such as what occured in the Anglo-Zulu war show that there are times that superior weaponry does not always carry the day. My hope is that from a probability standpoint, there should always be a slight uncertainty in any battle, but this needs to be slight, at most.
Your battleship/phalanx example was based on no terrrain/fortify/walls issues too, which means that if the battleship (or tank) were to attack the phalanx who was well fortified with these bonuses, then the numbers end up getting skewed more in favor of the phalanx to inflict and possibly destroy the battleship. This may not be good, IMO.
And with the removal of firepower as a means to counter that effect, then the whole system is based on the combat numbers, (and HP, if those are different from unit to unit). CTP1 tried to use this system, and they had the same results that were in civ1.
A question...Is there different HP for each unit, because if this is the case, then civ3's system might work as advertised. But there will be times that a weakened superior unit will be defeated by a healthier inferior unit - which may then give an accurate reflection of what does happen in a battle.
And since combat will be different from the past, with troops rotating in and out of battle, then this may also give more conventional results. I am glad to see the whole idea of the winner take all approach gone, when one superior unit wipes out an entire stack of inferior units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grunthex
|
|
Calgary
Oct 2001
time: 22:15
|
|
Korn, I agree with your point that it doesn't leave enough... damage states I guess you'd call it, for the units. But even if it's not possible to modify hp by age, which I really hope for, you could still, I'm fairly certain, multiply the hp by say, a factor of 4, couldn't you?
Assuming the editor supports this of course, you could change the hp from 3/4/5 for reg/vet/elite units to 12/16/20 without really changing the delicate balance Firaxis has surely worked really really hard on. You'd not change the combats, but you'd have much more variation in the damage level afterwards.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grunthex
|
|
Calgary
Oct 2001
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
Grunthex
well it might be that each hit point has 10 subhitpoints, so a 3 hp regular unit really has 30 hitpoints, i really hope that the damage states (good term btw!  ) aren't so limited |
Woo, I figured out how to quote!
I've been thinking a bit more about it, and I'm not so sure my idea is actually as simple as it first looks on the face of it. Probably why I'm not a game designer.
Firstly, I'm not willing to wrack my brains for the math, but I'm no longer certain multiplying the hp equally actually leaves the combat odds unchanged. Obviously it would if Attack=Defense, but outside of that, it SEEMS to me, that the more imbalanced the numbers, the more we'd be tilting the odds in the large numbers favour. You'd see a small difference with say, a 3 on 2, a larger with an 8 on 3. Someone with more math than I can conjure up just after midnight might want to see if the odds of overall victory change if the units both have 3 hp, compared to say, 9.
Secondly, with combat being subdivided into rounds, what if a combat can only run X rounds, and then it's a draw? I seem to recall artillery vs. artillery battles in SMAC worked that way, and if all combat here does, we'd be leaving a LOT of draws out there.
Thirdly, artillery itself. Bombarding HAS to be a limited number of rounds, almost certainly, (talking straight bombardment, with no counter-attack). This would make bombardment near useless unless you could also modify the number of rounds bombardment continued for.
The ideal case would be your last one, where each hp was already subdivided by Firaxis. Otherwise, I guess we'll just have to wait until we see the game to see. I'm perfectly willing to play a game (or 12) to see how the out-of-the-box balance/damage runs. Firaxis has done pretty good so far, maybe I'm speculating for nothing.
Last edited by Grunthex on 20-10-2001 at 11:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Anun Ik Oba
|
 |
Grace of God
Sep 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
But percentage of health doesn't matter since the HPs are counted as whole numbers.
I would rather look at it like this:
Regular unit- I I I
Veteran- I I I I
Elite- I I I I I
Where a regular unit would be Dead, a veteran or elite unit might survive with one or two more hits.
Saying that a regular unit with one HP left is at 34% strength, but an elite unit with one HP left is only at 20% strength is very misleading, as both units still attack and defend with the same attributes. The only difference, of course, is that the elite unit has that extra 'chance' to make/take a hit that the regular and vet doesn't get.
But really, I know what the whole argument is: we really don't want Panzers taking ANY damage from Warriors, etc., since this seems unrealistic. Well, even a guy with just a rock could probably do some damage to a Panzer, if he dropped that rock in the gas tank.  But I for one like to see impossible odds beaten, at least every so often, and I doubt that many Warriors will be putting up successful offensives against Germany's armored elite.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bleyn
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grunthex
Woo, I figured out how to quote!
I've been thinking a bit more about it, and I'm not so sure my idea is actually as simple as it first looks on the face of it. Probably why I'm not a game designer.
Firstly, I'm not willing to wrack my brains for the math, but I'm no longer certain multiplying the hp equally actually leaves the combat odds unchanged. Obviously it would if Attack=Defense, but outside of that, it SEEMS to me, that the more imbalanced the numbers, the more we'd be tilting the odds in the large numbers favour. You'd see a small difference with say, a 3 on 2, a larger with an 8 on 3. Someone with more math than I can conjure up just after midnight might want to see if the odds of overall victory change if the units both have 3 hp, compared to say, 9.
|
Grunthrex, I was working on a reply on exactly these same lines to point out that exact problem. Increasing the hitpoints of units does significantly swing the balance in favor of the stronger unit.
The reason is the more hits a unit can take, the more rounds it will take for that unit to be killed. The more rounds, the more likely it is for the strong unit to win.
In fact, you can already see this in the game. For example, in a combat between say, a standard cavalry and a standard spearman, the spearman has a better chance of survival if both are regular than if both are veteran or elite, simply because the longer the combat is stretched out the more the advantage of the cavalry becomes magified. Of course, the best chance of the spearman is if they are elite, and the cavalry is regular, but that is sort of obvious compared to the relationship between the other situations.
I could try showing some math to back it up, but it becomes very long rather quickly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bleyn
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
Anunikoba
the big advantage of vet and elite units is the fact that they have more hitpoints than normal units...if you have an elite rifleman and a regular rifleman in a stack, and a stealth bomber bombards them four times, then the elite rifleman and the regular rifleman will have the same amount of hitpoints (assuming all four bombards were successful) because the regular rifleman could only lose two hit points in a bombard
don't you consider that a problem? |
This seems to be assuming that once the regular rifleman has lost its first two hitpoints, it can not be completely eliminated by the third hit of the bombardment.
Has anything actually been said that indicates air bombardment will only damage units, and can not destroy them? In fact has anything been said that land or naval artillery bombardment can only damage and not destroy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Anun Ik Oba
|
|
Grace of God
Sep 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
the big advantage of vet and elite units is the fact that they have more hitpoints than normal units...if you have an elite rifleman and a regular rifleman in a stack, and a stealth bomber bombards them four times, then the elite rifleman and the regular rifleman will have the same amount of hitpoints (assuming all four bombards were successful) because the regular rifleman could only lose two hit points in a bombard
don't you consider that a problem? |
 No, not really. The reason is because, say that these same two units get bombed only 3 times- then the elite unit still has an extra HP. Being bombed four times is sure to demoralize any unit, so I can't see why elite units should get an advantage in such extreme cases of bombardment. Actually, using bombardment to 'equalize' the overall morale of the enemy should be a viable tactic, especially if that enemy doesn't have any air defense.
I do understand the arguement overall, though. One of the things Alpha Centauri did was include reactor types (Hit Point amount) as part of unit attributes. This did make later game units realistically unstoppable by obsolete enemy crap, but at the same time, researching and applying the first reactor upgrade tended to break the game.
I guess, so long as the combat calculations don't have any loopholes like we saw in CivII, I am not disappointed with CivIII implementing raw attack and defense stat resolution to one on one combat- the difference in later era unit stats quickly get larger, so the odds of obsolete units descimating modern tech doesn't seem likely. Compare CivII's unit stats with what we know of CivIII's.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grim Legacy
|
|
War Machine, Barbaric King, Relentless, Remorseless, Guiltless and Unclean!
Aug 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
Hmm I think firepower can indeed be compensated for by Attacks stats and rounds of combat... as long as hit points are still in. To my distress however, I have not seen mention of them at Civ3.com...
I would also guss that it is hit points that make the difference between legion and musketeers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yoleus
|
|
Hold it.
No firepower anymore. Ok, bombardments and tweaked attack ratings could compensate.
But hit points depending only on the "veteran" status? No difference in toughness between an half naked Persian immortal and an Abraham tank?
Peculiar, I would say.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Haphazard
|
|
I'm wondering how these units will regain lost hit points. 1 per turn outside cities on missing a turn, all inside? Won't that reduce the effectiveness of Barracks and the like?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bleyn
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yoleus
Hold it.
No firepower anymore. Ok, bombardments and tweaked attack ratings could compensate.
But hit points depending only on the "veteran" status? No difference in toughness between an half naked Persian immortal and an Abraham tank?
Peculiar, I would say. |
Sure there is a difference. The defensive values, which some people seem to be ignoring, play a large role in combat. From what I can see, defensive value represents the ability to shrug off or avoid damage. Hit points is how much damage they can take when they are hit.
We know the Persian Immortal has 4-2 attack-defense stats. If the numbers posted earlier in this thread are anywhere near correct, a regular tank will have 16-10 stats. Taking these numbers, and using the attack calculations from earlier in the thread, we find:
The tank has aprox. 89% chance of hitting each round.
The Immortal has aprox. aprox. 29% chance of hitting each round.
Three hit points apiece for regular units ensures that no unit will ever get less than three chances to hit the other guy. No more quick kills.
In this case, In those three rounds, on average, the Immortal might have gotten one hit. The tank, on the other hand, will have gotten at least two hits, and may also have gotten in its third hit.
Even if the Immortal were an elite, and the tank still only regular, on average, the tank will have gotten 4 hits by the fifth round and has an almost even chance of getting the fifth hit. The Immortal has probably only gotten one hit with a slightly less than even chance of getting the second hit.
The tank might be damaged by the Immortal, but it will almost never be taken out, statistically. And that seems reasonable enough for me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
posted by Bleyn
This seems to be assuming that once the regular rifleman has lost its first two hitpoints, it can not be completely eliminated by the third hit of the bombardment.
Has anything actually been said that indicates air bombardment will only damage units, and can not destroy them? In fact has anything been said that land or naval artillery bombardment can only damage and not destroy? |
this is from civ3.com
quote:
Bombing mission (bombards the selected square, damaging units, city improvements, and population) |
this is from Jeff Briggs in the gamespot interview
quote:
For example, cannons have no attack or defensive values (therefore, like workers and other non-combat units, they can be captured), but they have a powerful bombardment value that can be projected into any square within their range.
Bombardment is not limited to targeting enemy units--players can also use it against terrain improvements (roads and the like) and cities (where it may cause a population decrease or destroy city structures). |
also bombard attacks in SMAC cannot kill a unit...so i am holding on to my assertion that a unit cannot be completely eliminated by a bombard attack...so if a unit only has three hit points, then it can lose 2 hit points at most to a bombard attack
quote:
Anunikoba
No, not really. The reason is because, say that these same two units get bombed only 3 times- then the elite unit still has an extra HP. Being bombed four times is sure to demoralize any unit, so I can't see why elite units should get an advantage in such extreme cases of bombardment. |
well using that line of reasoning then why should an elite unit have a 5 to 3 advantage over a regular unit in the first place?
plus other strange thing happens with no subhitpoints
with a single bombard against a regular unit and an elite unit, the elite units goes from being 2/3 more powerful to being twice as powerful powerful
on the second bombard the elite unit is now three times as powerful as the regular unit
on the third bombard the elite unit goes down to being twice as powerful as the regular unit
finally on the fourth bombard the elite unit and the regular unit has the same strength
that pattern seems strange to me
quote:
Grim Legacy
Hmm I think firepower can indeed be compensated for by Attacks stats and rounds of combat... as long as hit points are still in. To my distress however, I have not seen mention of them at Civ3.com...
I would also guss that it is hit points that make the difference between legion and musketeers. |
hit points are still in but not like in civ2
all units (ancient, middle age, industrial, modern) have the following hit points
regular: 3
vet: 4
elite: 5
quote:
posted by Bleyn
The reason is the more hits a unit can take, the more rounds it will take for that unit to be killed. The more rounds, the more likely it is for the strong unit to win.
In fact, you can already see this in the game. For example, in a combat between say, a standard cavalry and a standard spearman, the spearman has a better chance of survival if both are regular than if both are veteran or elite, simply because the longer the combat is stretched out the more the advantage of the cavalry becomes magified. Of course, the best chance of the spearman is if they are elite, and the cavalry is regular, but that is sort of obvious compared to the relationship between the other situations |
i want to see math to back up that statement, from my standpoint it seems like the smaller the sample (numer of rounds of combat in this case) the more unreliable the results would be, and that despite the number of rounds of combat that as long as the ratios remained constant that the outcomes should be about the same
lets say you have a vet cavalry unit (6.3.3 4hp) attacking a regular musketman (3.3.1 3hp)
wouldn't the outcomes be the same for the following 2 units (114.57.57 76hp) and (57.57.19 57hp)
i just hope that each hitpoint has subhitpoints like in civ2...if not i can seem problems
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
lets say you have a vet cavalry unit (6.3.3 4hp) attacking a regular musketman (3.3.1 3hp)
wouldn't the outcomes be the same for the following 2 units (114.57.57 76hp) and (57.57.19 57hp) |
Multiplying all defense/attack powers by a constant won't make a difference, but multiplying each #of HP by a constant makes a big difference; the spread of probable results is much smaller with large #s of HP. With 76 and 57 HP, it becomes almost impossible for the musketman to actually defeat the cavalry, but with 4 and 3 HP, the odds are much better (~20% I'd say, as a complete guess). Conversely, with high HPs, it becomes virtually certain that the cavalry unit won't get off scot-free, while it has a 8/27 chance of doing so with low HPs. The higher the HPs, the more randomness is removed from the game. Make the HPs high enough, and fights are pre-determined.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-10-2001 20:10
) . And then infantry armed with precision rifles and automatic weapons.
|