 |
|
Adrien
|
|
The following is a mathematical analysis of the Civ3 combat system.
Because there are no phalanxes in Civ3, and battleships can't directly attack land units, there is no more danger of a phalanx-battleship win.
How about something equally ridiculous, then? Say a hoplite attacking a panzer.
A panzer has an attack of 16. A hoplite has a defense of 3.
Therefore, the hoplite has a 3/19 chance, a 15% chance of winning a combat, while the panzer has a 16/19 chance or an 85% chance.
This means, under the old Civ1 system, that 15% of the time, the hoplite will kill the panzer.
As I don't actually HAVE THE GAME yet, all I can do is speculate randomly. Is there a hit-point system?
If so, how many hit points do different units have?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grunthex
|
|
Calgary
Oct 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
Uh, units have between 2 and 5 hp, not 10. Depending on their veterancy. (Uh, experience. Veterancy isn't really a word)
Conscripts (rarely seen, only if you draft, or upgrade a regular) have 2
Regulars 3
Veterans 4
Elites 5
Most units by the time you're fighting a bit are veterans or elites, because you have barracks. So the hoplite needs 4 or 5 of those 15% chances to kick in before 4 or 5 of the 85%. Not often. But it can happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sevorak
|
|
Indeed, hit points is what's really at the core of the combat complaints.
Many people point to a lack of Firepower as the source of the combat troubles, but it is interesting to note the answer to this question: Which units in Civ 2 had Firepower 2?
The answers are: Cruiser, AEGIS Cruiser, Battleship, Carrier, Submarine, Artillery, Howitzer, Helicopter, Fighter, Bomber, Stealth Bomber, Stealth Fighter.
Gunpowder units in Civ 2 were NOT distinguished by firepower. They were distinguished by Hit Points. Musketeers, for example, were only 3.3.1 as opposed to the 3.2.1 of Archers - yet they made FAR superior defenders than Archers because they had 20 hit points as opposed to 10. Riflemen were only 5.4.1 - but they beat 6.1.1 Catapults consistently because they had 20 hp and the catapults had 10 and 1 firepower. Even ARMOR had the SAME firepower as a warrior - just 1! Where Armor shone through was its 30 hp, only matched on land by the Mech Inf.
Higher hit points naturally tilt combats toward whichever side has the numerically superior combat rating in the combat in question, even if both sides have the same number of hit points.
In battles of Tanks (16.8.2) against Pikemen (1.3.1), when both sides have 1 hit point (the Civ 1 System), the Tanks win a flat 84% of the time. When they each have 3 hit points, the Tanks win about 96% of the time.
The system in Civ 3 whereby all hit points are created equal and each unit has between 2 and 5 of these magical things is deliberately slanted towards giving a better chance to the low-tech unit. Not a complaint, just an observation.
However, it is interesting to note not the chances of victory, but the most likely result in each of the combats. For example, while regular Modern Armor attacking an elite Pikeman wins 95.7% of the time, it is only 55% likely that the Modern Armour will win five hits in a row, destroying the Pikeman untouched. In 45% of all cases, the Modern Armour will suffer some kind of damage, and in some cases be destroyed.
A better example would be veteran Modern Armor taking on a veteran fortified Musketman in a City. The Modern Armor wins 94% of the time, but will only escape untouched 34% of the time. Now the chances of this in Civ2 were similar, even in 15-2 battles like Veteran Armor vs. Phalanx, but due to the higher number of hit points, getting through untouched didn't mean as much since since even three or four hits-against tended to mean little against hit point totals of 30 or 40 - they hurt, but not seriously - 10% impairment per battle was livable. But in Civ3, losing a hit point is 20% of the total at minimum. What this means is that older units can sometimes pull off unusual results.
Consider the Greek Hoplite and the standard Swordsman. Assume as its adversary, the Modern Armor. One can build three Hoplites and two swordsmen for the price of one Modern Armor. Assume that the six units defend a single city, and are all veteran. Assume further that the Modern Armor is also veteran. When the Armor attacks, its chance of victory is 97.3% - but its chance of escaping undamaged in each attack is only 43.5%. It attacks three times and wins all of the combats - the most likely result being that it suffers two points of damage. Then the swordsmen attack. They have a 47% chance of inflicting one point of damage each upon the Modern Armor. The most likely result is that the Modern Armor is left with one hit point and all the Ancient era units are dead. Victory for the Modern Armor! (yet it's two full ages ahead of the ancient units, and won just barely)
When you consider this in an entire full-game context, the savings the Greek player must have gotten from skipping up to 51 technologies and building Hoplites and Swordsmen instead suggest that the Greek player would have more forces at his disposal - two to three more Swordsmen and the Armor dies.
Consider units that are less separated on the technology tree. Put a Tank up against two Hoplites and two Swordsmen (equal cost, again). Assume that the Hoplites are in the open and unfortified. The Tank attacks and kills them both, with only a 47% chance of winning flawlessly - most likely, the Tank takes a point of damage. The Swordsmen then counter - the Tank has only a 31% chance of beating off one of them without damage. Ancient units in equal cost have a 13% chance of destroying the Tank outright in this combat scenario, while the Tank has only a 2% chance of emerging unscathed.
Now of course, technology provides many other benefits in terms of city improvements and the like, such that I'd argue that any Civilization with Industrialization should be able to at least mostly make up the shield/gold deficiency they will have from pursuing technology instead of sheer unit mass. But I'm guessing that when MP rolls around, we are going to see a lot more ancient-era mass unit swarms - especially since cost/power ratio falls off in the Middle Ages (60 for a 2.4.1 musket, for example).
No complaints, just observations. I think it's interesting, that's all.
-Sev
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sevorak
Indeed, hit points is what's really at the core of the combat complaints.
Many people point to a lack of Firepower as the source of the combat troubles, but it is interesting to note the answer to this question: Which units in Civ 2 had Firepower 2? |
Keep in mind that the other side of the FP coin is hit points - a 3 HP 1 FP unit is equivalent to fighting a 1 HP 3 FP unit, for the most part.
Also, keep in mind that HP's in Civ2 represented 10 hit points, not 1.
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adrien
How about something equally ridiculous, then? Say a hoplite attacking a panzer.
A panzer has an attack of 16. A hoplite has a defense of 3.
Therefore, the hoplite has a 3/19 chance, a 15% chance of winning a combat, while the panzer has a 16/19 chance or an 85% chance.
This means, under the old Civ1 system, that 15% of the time, the hoplite will kill the panzer.
As I don't actually HAVE THE GAME yet, all I can do is speculate randomly. Is there a hit-point system?
If so, how many hit points do different units have? |
Hit points in Civ2 are different than Civ3. Civ2 HP are actually 10 hit points.
Now, your percentages are way off...
The chances of a Panzer defeating a Hoplite is 92% at worst.
Of defeating a fortified Hoplite is at worst 82%. A bit low.
Of defeating a Hoplite with a 100% terrain/fortification bonus is 58% - that's too low in my opinion. But overall the balance is okay.
Having an FP or HP modifier would help...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sevorak
|
|
quote:
the importance of artillery to soften up targets prior to attacking. Taking a hit point or two off of the defender will always mean an easier job for the attacker. |
Take that and post it up on the wall in big red letters. The real winner in this combat system is the artillery unit. Build lots of artillery - especially when taking on a city with a barracks, where all the defenders heal every turn so you need to either destroy the barracks (with a currently nonfunctional precision strike or with random shelling) or do all the damage you can in one turn. Similarly, a lot of defensive artillery will hopefully do the job on incoming attacking units, turning the hit point advantage the other way.
For that matter, build barracks and lots of them. The 1 extra hit point from units starting at Veteran cannot be underestimated, nor can the value of forcing your opponent to cart along a wagonful of slow-moving artillery.
-Sev
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mister Hand
|
|
Another factor to consider in the "Panzer vs. Hoplite" scenario is that the Panzer can retreat if it gets reduced to 1hp, while the Hoplite cannot. This means that even if the battle goes horribly wrong, the Panzer still can live to fight another day and have another shot at the Hoplite.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barnacle Bill
|
 |
Somewhere on the wine dark sea
Oct 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Although the stock Civ2 did not use firepower to distinguish gunpowder units from earlier ones, it could be used that way in mods. In my own personal use mod, I had actually had defined several eras as follows:
Era 1 (pregunpowder) - FP=1
Era 2 (matchlocks, 16th & 17th Centuries) - FP=2
Era 3 (flintlocks, 18th Century & Napoleonic) - FP=3
Era 4 (steam age 19th Century) - FP=4
Era 5 (world wars) - FP=6
Era 7 (modern) - FP=7
Units that had extra firepower in stock Civ3 recieved 1 higher than normal for their era.
Unfortunately, there were no quite enough unit slots (considering the ones hard-coded for barbarian use) to do what I wanted fully, even with the extras available in the Civ2 expansions. So, I had to make some compromises, but the final result still worked better than stock Civ2 (which was better than stock civ3). I also played around with hit points, attack factors & defense factors, progressively raising the playing fieldd in each era. The idea was that the more eras you were behind the harder it got to beat quality with quantity.
The problem is that in Civ2 you had plenty of knobs to tweak, but not enough unit slots.
In Civ3, you have no spare unit slots (unless you wack the UU's, or use Grampos's copy tool) as the editor stands today, and you've lost both firepower & hit points as knobs to tweek. This is a step backwards. You know what, I don't really care how it works in stock Civ3 so long as I can change it in my own copy.
BTW, I think the way artillery & air units work is a giant leap forward. Both changes are things I've wanted in the Civ combat system even before Civ I (you do realize Sid boosted it from Empire in the first place, don't you?). In Civ2, I actually did try to make artillery useless in the field by giving them all the "negates city walls" bit and cutting their attack factors in half and setting their defense to 0. Unfortunately, the AI would not use them right - kept sending them out unescorted, attacking units in the field with them, etc...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
G.A
|
|
Kiev, Ukraine
Nov 2001
time: 07:16
|
|
Though the idea might also be lying deeper - this is all made to make you never think of overtaking a whole country, that has accidentally been stuck in the ancient era with just one tank. Just drop a bomb or two onto the city in question, and your tank`s chances of getting out of this unharmed increase greatly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sevorak
|
|
WhiteElephants,
When referring to Civ2 hit points and firepower, the hit point stat is considered x10, since that's how it was in Civ2. The firepower stat is not. Therefore, Armor (10.5.3 3/1) had 30 hit points, and did 1 point of damage every time it won a combat round. A Howitzer (12.2.2 2/2) had 20 hit points and did 2 points of damage every time it won.
Therefore, a 1/3 unit is not really any more disadvantaged than a 3/1 unit in combat. A few unlucky breaks could cause the 1/3 unit to perish prematurely, but even then, that's 5-10 lucky shots in a row (since it has 10 hp).
Bubba_B,
The manual has nearly every unit's statistic wrong. Don't trust it. It only has about six or so non-Ancient stats right, so far as I can tell: Transport, Musketman, Musketeer, Modern Armor, Army, Leader. Every other line is flawed in some way. The Cavalry has 3 defence, just like a Knight.
-Sev
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-11-2001 03:41
|