 |
| |
|
|
Badtz Maru
|
|
Several people on these boards seem to believe that the presence of a Firepower stat as was in Civ2 would prevent combat upsets where a primitive unit defeats a more powerful one. I'm not seeing it - only two ground units in Civ2 had a Firepower greater than 1, Artillery and the Howitzer. It was mainly reserved for naval vessels and aircraft. The important difference seems to be the actual number of hit points, which varied. Here's the stats on Civ2 units:
Cost Move Att. Def. HP FP
Warrior 10 1 1 1 10 1
Pikemen 20 1 1 2* 10 1
Horsemen 20 2 2 1 10 1
Phalanx 20 1 1 2 10 1
Archers 30 1 3 2 10 1
Chariot 30 2 3 1 10 1
Knight 40 2 4 2 10 1
Elephant 40 2 4 1 10 1
Legion 40 1 4 2 10 1
Catapult 40 1 6 1 10 1
Crusaders 40 2 5 1 10 1
Trireme 40 5 0 3 30 1
Dragoons 50 2 5 2 20 1
Musketeers 30 1 3 3 20 1
Fanatics 20 1 4 4 20 1
Cannon 40 1 8 1 20 1
Ironclad 60 4 4 4 30 1
Frigate 50 4 4 2 20 1
Cavalry 60 2 8 3 20 1
Riflemen 40 1 5 4 20 1
Marines 60 1 8 5 20 1
Artillery 50 1 10 1 20 2
Howitzer 70 2 12 2 30 2
Alpine 50 1 5 5 20 1
Mech Inf. 50 3 6 6 30 1
Armor 80 3 10 5 30 1
Submarine 60 3 10 2 30 2
Destroyer 60 6 4 4 30 1
Cruiser 80 5 6 6 30 2
Battleship 160 4 12 12 40 2
Carrier 160 5 9 1 40 2
AEGIS 120 5 8 8 30 2
Helicopter 100 6 10 3 20 2
Fighter 60 10 4 2 20 2
Bomber 120 8 12 1 20 2
Cruise Msl. 40 12 20 0 10 3
Stlth Bmbr 160 12 14 3 20 2
Stlth Ftr. 80 14 8 3 20 2
As you can see, most of the Ancient through Medieval units had the same number of hitpoints and firepower. Of the ground units, everything else except the Howitzer and Armor have 20. In Civ3 all units have the same basic number of hit points - though we see 2, 3, 4, or 5 hit points, depending on the morale level of the unit, each of those represents 10 hit points that are used in hidden calculations during combat. Defense levels were also much lower in Civ2 in relation to offensive power, so getting the first attack made a lot bigger difference. In Civ2 a Cavalry unit (offense 8, 20 HP) attacking an Armor unit (Defense 5, 30 HP) has a much better chance of winning than a Regular Civ3 Cavalry (Offense 6, 30 HP) attacking a Veteran Tank (Defense 8, 40 HP).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sevorak
|
|
Civ3 has no x10 factor like Civ2.
In Civ3, 1 hp is 1 hp.
-Sev
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Badtz Maru
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sevorak
Civ3 has no x10 factor like Civ2.
In Civ3, 1 hp is 1 hp.
-Sev |
I think you are wrong. I seem to recall one of the developers explaining that each of the hit points is actually 10 that are used in it's internal calculations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sevorak
|
|
You are recalling Civ2. It is well known and was even specified in early previews of Civ3 and its combat system. 1 hp is 1 hp. Otherwise, no one would complain about screwy results.
-Sev
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Badtz Maru
|
|
Well, if I'm wrong, the original point still stands - Firepower is not that important, it's hit points.
I personally like battle to be a bit more random, I think it was a good design decision. In Civ2 you could crush an empire in a few turns if you managed to build a few tanks first, which is pretty unrealistic as wars are frequently lost against technologically inferior opponents.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
*cough* Vietnam *cough*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
Let's explain it for the gazillionth times.
quote:
In Civ2 a Cavalry unit (offense 8, 20 HP) attacking an Armor unit (Defense 5, 30 HP) has a much better chance of winning than a Regular Civ3 Cavalry (Offense 6, 30 HP) attacking a Veteran Tank (Defense 8, 40 HP). |
1 HP in Civ2 is 10 HP. 1 HP in Civ 3 is 1 HP.
quote:
I personally like battle to be a bit more random, I think it was a good design decision. In Civ2 you could crush an empire in a few turns if you managed to build a few tanks first, which is pretty unrealistic as wars are frequently lost against technologically inferior opponents. |
Stop seeing the world as a video game and come back to reality. Tech has nearly always won on the field. For one victory of tech underdog, I can tell you dozens of tech leader. "frequently" is not really the word I would have used.
Now, I was talking about reality. The design decision of making low-tech units to be able to fight against high-tech ones is another story.
quote:
*cough* Vietnam *cough* |
55 000 deads againt 1 100 000. What a defeat. It's public opinion and international reproval that made Viet-nam a defeat. On the battlefields, Viets were constantly beaten. But their dedication to their fight worn slower than the patience of American civilians.
quote:
Desert Storm is not a valid comparison to Vietnam, as all we did was drive a much weaker country out of a recently conquered nation (that would be no bigger than one city even on a huge Earth map) and destroy a chunk of the invader's army. Had we tried to permanently occupy Iraq it would have been a LOT messier. |
The "much weaker country" was supposed to have the 5th most powerful army of the world (ok, I think it was gross overstatement made more for journalistic impact than according to reality). Anyway, the Iraqi army was much bigger than the Allied one, but was technology late. So well, it was slaughtered.
quote:
The "rate of fire" number, effectively, IS firepower!
THEY JUST CHANGED THE NAME!!!
ER
|
1) Rate of fire is for artillery only.
2) It's not a fixed number, it's a random number between 0 and the ROF value.
And now, to explain what is the big deal about firepower :
MODDABILITY and REALISM
Understood ?
I don't want to have my archer able to dish out as much damage per hit as my Sci-fi Mechwarrior with its nuclear shotgun/phaser/antimatter ray/whatever you like. I don't want to have my battleship having as much HP as a galley. I don't want to have my infantry gaining one HP when learning how to fight better (the ancient system of raising A/D value made much more sense). I want to be able to et the HP and the FP according to the UNIT, not the EXPERIENCE STATUT.
Is that so hard to understand ?
I don't care about FP/HP being changed for regular game. I just want to be able to mod the game and make it like I want, because I know that many people would not like a game fit for me. But well, then give me my moddability !
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mawrin
|
|
Think about the Civ3 unit type as representing the "average" capabilities of the unit. So your tanks in Civ3 don't represent just tanks, but also some infantry, artillery, etc. Likewise that cavalry unit isnt just guys with lances or rifles on horseback, they might have acquired mortars, RPGs, a few APCs, etc. over the years. That way the combat system starts to make more sense.
It's possible to build a Warrior unit that lasts the whole game. Do you think Warriors in the 21st century are still wearing loincloths and carrying spears and clubs, just because their great-great-etc grandfathers did? A 21st century AD Warrior unit would wipe the floor with a 40th century BC Warrior unit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FrantzX
|
|
Badtz Maru, the problem is that people are still trying to tank rush as if this was Civ I/II or a RTS. Some just don't understand that you have to fight a lot more conservatively that we have been use to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
The entire 'the whinners just have not changed their civ2 tactics yet' is a red herring, a mindless bit to ignore the basic argument, which is, what should the civ3 combat system be like? I personally love arty, I use it in the dozens, I also use fleets of bombers, and have worn cities down by massive bombardment before attacks- why? Because bombardment and the new way of using air units are the best parts of the Civ3 combat system and I love them. At the same time, I can still easily use tank rushes- the A.I. always keeps meager defenses, and since my modern armor does retreat, all I need its lots of them- no combined arms at all, to take a city, no matter the size or position, especially since the A.I. loves to keep their spearmen around. Remember, utterly random numbers can work for the player also- hey, look, my 2 hp tank just beat 4 fortified, elite, inf in a city of 20 behind a river! How nice....
As I, and Akka, and N. Machiavelli, Venger, and countless other argue is that the FP/HP system creates a far more realisitc and moddifiable combat system than the current one. A wooden galley with 90 men rowing that weights at the most 1000 tons does not, should not, can not, theoretically take as much damage, or more, than a steel warship with 2500 crew and a tonnage of 60,000. A ship armed with a copper ram, and maybe some crude ballista does not, can not, should not be able to defeat a warship with a dozen high caliber, long distance pieces of artillery on it. In Civ2 this was true, in Civ3 it is not: wow! what a great improvement! Civ3 has made the utterly impossible possible!
The only valid argument I have heard for the entire combat system without FP and a low HP number is that it gives a chance, a small but still possible chance, to those that are either hopelessly behind technologically, or lacking of vital resources. The people who make this argument state that it improves gameplay by making the game more challenging. I think that it covers up for deficiencies in other game concepts or the way they were implemented, and that if a civ is that far behind in tech, or so utterly lacking in resources, then it should die, because thats what happens to such civs out there in the cold, hard, world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mawrin
|
|
The combat system in any Civ game is not realistic.
The combat system in any Civ game is not realistic.
Worth saying twice. Civ is as realistic as a game of Risk and a lot more fun. If you want more realism play Europa Universalis II though that stops well before the modern age.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
To Marwin:
Then shouldn't warriors be 30/30/10 and tanks only 1/1/1, I mean, since this combat system is not realistic (nor meant to be) right?
To Dissident:
If I remember correctly, when I first bought Civ2, there were only 2 scenerios in it, and the ability to create them was based on the cheat menu. The editor came into the game only after FW's was released, at least one whole year after civ2 (as an add-on i had to buy), which made it all the way up to v2.69, if i remember correctly, while this patch will be v1.16. So, if infogrames is somewhat intelligent besides being greedy, they will try to keep this game alive as long as civ2 was alive (thus creating an openning for civ4) and will eventually create a worthwhile scenerio editor, since civ3 has great potential. So, continually saying what we want will tell the guys at fixaris what they could, or should, include in those future add -ons. Obviously, those that have been driven to orgasmic extasy by the game as is will not be the likely market for these add-ons, but folk like me will.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frank Johnson
|
 |
Houston, TX
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
I don't understand why no one mentions this, but I think the single largest game balance change between civ2 and civ3 is the fact that in Civ2, city walls were vital in every age, and in civ3 walls are now a moot point.
In civ2....city walls gave +200% defense. The game was balanced in such a way that citieis with walls, hills, mountains, and fortresses were about the ONLY places you could make a defensive stand against a offensive type unit in same tech era.
Without walls or a bonus, the offensive unit would almost always win. With walls the offensive unit would almost always lose. Battles outside of cities themselves were usually limited to killing annoying AI forces would stupidly attacked and killing partisans.
So Civ2 had 2 strategies and 2 ways to play. If you play defensive you, you build walls everywhere. If you're playing offensively you prepare your units to attack enmass to overwhelm cities with walls...while smashing cities without them easily.
This is the big change not anything else. In Civ3....a city is never completely save, nor is it never somewhat protected.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heliodorus
|
|
Colorado
Nov 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
Calling to task for expecting the same cookie-cutter techniques that worked in Civ2 to work in Civ3 is not a red herring. It's an opinion formed by those of us who were smacked upside the head with that realization, and were excited at the possibilities created by such a system.
For those who are egregiously offended by the HP/FP change, I am sorry that you are disappointed (truly, I am). For me, I am very excited about it. I consider myself a true grognard and a hard-core wargamer. I didn't buy Civ3 to exercise that part of my personality. I bought it to exercise the portion that loves to fantasize about how cultures and worlds might have been if...
As such, the combat system is acceptable to me.
The aspect of Civ3 that seems to be most troubling to people is that the mindless pursuit of technology is no longer the ultimate path to victory. There are now other important decisions to make. There are compromises that must be made.
It has been said elsewhere with extreme poignancy that Civ3 punishes excellent play while rewarding mediocre play. I agree with that only in the degree that Civ3 is a game designed to keep a certain degree of competetive balance among all civilizations throughout the progress of the game. If you play excellent, you will still win a lot. If you play mediocre, you will still lose. But Civ3 has created a system MUCH more forgiving of mistakes in play or hardships in a particular game circumstance than any in the past. To me, it's exciting that the margin of victory is razor thin and the margin of error much more forgiving.
I'm sorry more people don't see it that way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
XPav
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heliodorus
For those who are egregiously offended by the HP/FP change, I am sorry that you are disappointed (truly, I am). For me, I am very excited about it. I consider myself a true grognard and a hard-core wargamer. I didn't buy Civ3 to exercise that part of my personality. I bought it to exercise the portion that loves to fantasize about how cultures and worlds might have been if...
As such, the combat system is acceptable to me.
|
Damn straight! If you want a good wargame, go play The Operational Art of War or Combat Mission or something.
After playing those games, one realizes that Civ isn't a wargame by any stretch of the imagination, and any attempt to draw parallels between real life and Civ are COMPLETELY AND UTTER SUBJECTIVE and in the end, FUTILE.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
Sigh...as has been mentioned, firepower and hit points in Civ2 are two sides of the same coin, you cannot discuss one without the other...the key is the transitions in HP and FP, FP determines the shape of a battle, HP determines the result.
Dissident is still soiling his cotton lined panties because alot of gamers with connected lobes find the core combat engine inferior to Civ2...
Heliodrus - you wonder about how cultures might have been...what? Different if you had made a temple in your city? Is that what you are really fanatasizing about? What if...Egypt had built tanks that could be destroyed by cavalry? What if...swordsmen could attack and kill tanks? Come on...
XPav, Civ has always been a war game - try playing a game without fighting someone. Just because it isn't ONLY a wargame doesn't mean a damn thing, conflict is CENTRAL to the concept of the game.
I suggest the pacifist type try Sim City. Or CandyLand.
Venger
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-12-2001 13:39
...
|