How are the stats calculated.

[rah]

Mark,
If these stats are left in the profile section only, within two weeks they will be forgotten and ignored by all the regulars. All we'll see is an occasional thread in the OT by a newbie asking what the heck they are, and the regulars will routinely answer for the post count. To add to the fun one of two things must be done.

1. Post then again under the avatars. But since the calcs are a little inconsistent in terms of value, the interest will fade, just a little more slowly.

2. Are you ready for this one. PERSONAL CHALANGES
The algorythms for D&D style combats are not complex. They've been around for so long that there are probably many floating around for free. Think of the potential. Any animation would be hilarious. EVC goes on a tirade and goes over the edge. "I challange you to a duel" or even team combats (to even up the odds so a Ming wouldn't win everytime)

This could be a great concept if taken to it's logical conclusion. Think of all the extra posts that it would generate.

RAH
I am not joking. Crazy maybe, but serious.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by JohnIII
Way to avoid the question Mark. Asher (for once) has a good point, why don't you count OT?

And panag (and Ming) answered to Asher perfectly, so why would he (Mark) have to respond in a serious way?

Edit: added mention of Ming... Responded originally back on page 8...

[MarkG]

The algorythms for D&D style combats are not complex

so you're against the civ2 combat formula?

[Immortal Wombat]

I like rah's idea. And I would like my Immortality to be taken into account.

[Skanky Burns]

I like the Civ 3 combat formula, since its obvious that we spearmen (lower level people) will be up against tanks (Ming, et al). Taking that analogy to its logical conclusion using the Civ 3 combat model...

[FlameFlash]

I am a fan of Rah's idea... however I'm wondering a little about why it would be posted on a Civ site...

unless you guys are about to start expanding into other realms too...

A: 22 | D: 66 | M: 25 | HP: 34

Boy, I'm a quick medium guy...

Edit: ((Updated stats and added smilies...)) and another thought... wouldn't different "units" (I'm more of a CTP player, after all) have different abilities...

If you go the Rah combat strategy then we'd need to be able to choose an area that our unit would be part of (ie. land, sea, air, space, all, etc.)

Personally it's starting to smell like just an old-time MUD rather than Civ anymore after all the customizations.

[aaglo]

IW, immortals can be 'disabled'... You know, I have stoning gaze -5 resistance

[Immortal Wombat]

That won't help you take my stats. I'll be rock solid.

[aaglo]

IW - you'll be turned to solid (and as usual - immobile) rock under my .... "treatment"...

[rah]

Originally posted by MarkG

The algorythms for D&D style combats are not complex

so you're against the civ2 combat formula?

No, A civ2 combat would work fine. I just figured there would be less copywrite issues with D&D style since it's been around longer and been modified/ripped off so many more times. More freeware in this mode.

Actually, I like Skanky Burns's idea. So the weaker person has a higher chance to win.

Any algorythm would keep the idea entertaining.

Think of the fun of MING VS AH.
ARE YOU READY TO RUMMMMBBBBBLLLLLLEEEEE.

RAH

[Immortal Wombat]

aaglo - I'd fall on you.

[aaglo]

Now, that's the thing worries me...

[MarkG]

well rah, could you be so kind to find me the civ2 combat formula?

[rah]

Lo and behold, it's posted on a site where you know the owners.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22856&pagenumber=1

All the specs are there.
And the calculations.
You don't even need all of it, a simplified version would be sufficient.


RAH

[Chris 62]

I liked the first way better, it seems the HP isn't quite right.