 |
| |
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:12
|
|
Is CtP2's system for determining combat good for Civ3? You can find WesW's thread explaining that (curious) system here.
In it he notes:
quote:
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.
|
Well, stacking is a great CtP addition, but from the looks of things, we can see some serious problems with the way battles are resolved.
1. The first point makes sense to a degree...but why should an attacker's terrain count unless he's firing from a distance? If the defender is at the base of a mountain (held by swordsmen) in plains, why should a group of swordsmen get a mountain bonus if they have to engage in the plains?
2. Why should a unit's defense strength count for its attack? Sure...a tank has some solid armor, but does that make its guns fire more powerfully?
3. Making cities harder to capture is nice, but I don't think this was the way to do it.
4. Again, it would be very nice to see ranged units make a much bigger diffence in games, but making other units simply not damage each other as often seems yet another silly way to achieve one's goal.
My conclusion: CtP2's method sucks.
While nobody wants Civ3 to be a war-only game, I can confidently say that if the war aspect of it is weak and makes little or no intuitive sense, something will be seriously wrong. So let's hear how YOU think battels should be resolved in Civ3!
P.S. Some VERY good discussions on this took place on The List. Check it out if you are really interested in this topic.
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited February 23, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-02-2001 16:55
|