Hit Points and Firepower

[Taurus]

I've just noticed that I never pay any attention to them.

And now I know that I'm wrong in doing so, so could someone, please, tell me how does the Hit Points number and the Firepower number get into the equations?
What are their effects?

------------------
"But as time goes on, they, as all men, will find that independence was not made for man - that it is an unnatural state - will do for a while, but will not carry us on safely to the end..." Aldous Huxley in "Brave New World"
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Taurus (edited April 15, 2001).]</font>

[Scouse Gits]

Yes - see the current thread here.

------------------
Scouse Git[1] -- git1@scousers.net

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[Guest]

Taurus, check the threads http://www.apolyton.net/forums/Forum...001929.html?29 and http://www.apolyton.net/forums/Forum.../001944.html?8 in Civ2 General/Help section for the answer.

[Roman]

Taurus, see the relevant GL thread, which explains everything you want to know about Civ2 combat in great detail.

[Taurus]

Thanks, I learned a valuable lesson.

[debeest]

The following formula will tell you everything you need for practical purposes about calculating relative strength of units. It isn't strictly accurate, but you won't be able to tell the difference.

unit strength = attack (or defense) strength x HP x FP

For example, a howitzer attacks as 12 x 2 x 3 = 72. Mechanized infantry defend as 6 x 3 x 1 = 18.

You can figure in the multipliers for veteran status, terrain, fortifications, etc., at any point because all the factors are multipliers.

Note that this will give you the relative strength of the units, not the chance of winning the battle. The stronger unit has a higher probability of winning the battle than you'd think just by comparing the unit strengths. For example, a horseman (2 x 1 x 1 = 2) attacking a warrior (1 x 1 x 1 = 1) has somewhat better than a 2-to-1 chance of winning.

On average, the winning unit will lose strength proportional to the losing unit's share of this equation. For example, horsemen attacking warriors will, on average, lose 1/2 of their strength. Chariots attacking warriors will lose, on average, 1/3 of their strength. Howitzers attacking fortified mech infantry will lose 27/72 of their strength. This varies widely through random variation, though.

[East Street Trader]

Thanks, debeest, that's handy - and very clearly put.

[SlowThinker]

No, this is not handy! This is wrong.

debeest,
I must disagree.

See Marquis' http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum1/HTML/001944.html?25. But he didn't add an example yet, see Civ2 General: What is the difference between firepower and attack points? (may be on second page of the forum now), posted April 10, 2001 14:50.

You need two numbers to describe combat abilities of a unit:

1. modified attack (or defense) strength (with multipliers for veteran status, terrain, etc.)
2. HPxFP

[debeest]

ST, the good Marquis' detailed formula may be more precisely accurate than mine (I don't know how it was derived, but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy). But FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, my formula is accurate. It's also quite easy to use, as compared to the strikingly complicated formula given by the Marquis.

We agree that the battle calculation depends on HP, FP, and attack/defense strength. I'm just saying that a very simple formula will give you information that's just as useful as the complicated formula.

[SlowThinker]

deebest,

quote: Originally posted by deebest But FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, my formula is accurate.

IMHO your formula is bad. There are two mistakes in your thougts:

a) combat (see info: Combat Modifiers and Calculation for the definition of "combat")
warrior vs. vet warrior:
wins of combat are divided with a ratio 1 : 2, not 1 : 1.5
A big difference!

b) battle
A small superiority in the number of combat wins include a big superiority in battle winning (see aidrik's example: 29% for warrior vs. warrior)
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited April 19, 2001).]

[debeest]

ST, you'll note that my post clearly states that the formula calculates relative STRENGTH, and that the stronger unit will win the BATTLE more often than the simple ratio of strengths. Think about it: a unit that's ten times as strong as another unit will not lose one of eleven battles, it'll lose maybe one in a hundred or a thousand. If you want to calculate exact probabilities of winning a specific battle, then use the complicated formula. If you want to have a clear sense of which unit is stronger, and by what ratio, you can use mine and get your answer in about two seconds. You'll know, reasonably accurately, which unit would win the battle, and that will help you decide whether to fight or not. That's the point.

Airdrik, I don't know what data you're using (maybe tests with enhanced-hit-point units?), but it doesn't match my experience at all. My simple formula, derived from the manual's description of combat, closely matches my experience. Equal units going head-to-head split their battles. Note, again, that I am NOT saying a unit with a 3:2 strength advantage will win 3/5 of its battles. It'll win much more than that, though not the 97.5% that you indicate. But on average, it'll suffer 2/5 damage in doing so.

[SlowThinker]

quote: Originally posted by debeest Equal units going head-to-head split their battles.

My experience is similar to aidrik's. Go to cheat menu, put 10 warriors against 10 warriors and watch.
Theory says taht combat wins (attacker:defender) will be divided with a ratio 7:9. IMHO the practice corresponds with the theory.

quote: Originally posted by debeest If you want to have a clear sense of which unit is stronger, and by what ratio, you can use mine and get your answer in about two seconds. You'll know, reasonably accurately, which unit would win the battle, and that will help you decide whether to fight or not.

See a) in my last post: the inexactitude is large enough. You will presume wrong results in many instances:
a warrior with 10HP attacks a vet warrior with 6HP.
You will suppose the attacker will win (10 : 6*1.5=9)
But the correct result (even without a 1/8 bonus for the defender) is 10 : 6*2=12
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited April 19, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited April 19, 2001).]

[airdrik]

A problem with your formula is warrior vs. warrior, 1x1x1:1x1x1=1:1, means that the attacking warrior wins about 50% of the time where as the actual figure is around 29%, and non-vet warrior vs. vet warrior 1:1.5, means that the attacker wins about 40% of the time, when the actual figure is about 2.5%. If I was using your formula, I would be very dissappointed to find out that my warriors (phalanx, etc.) almost allways loose when attacking other warriors (horsemen, chariots, elephants, etc. as if anyone would ever use warriors in this way)

[DaveV]

Here's how I figure it: if my modified attack strength is higher than the defender, I win . If my modified attack strength is lower, I will lose units in proportion to the the ratio of the strengths. For example, I have a huge stack of veteran elephants on ships. They find an enemy city on a river. I assume the city is defended by three veteran phalanxes, with a unmodified defense strength of 6.75 ( 2 def * 1.5 vet bonus * 1.5 river bonus * 1.5 fortified bonus). Since my elephants attack at 6, the modified defense strength is 7.5. So I expect to lose three elephants (each of whom will do 6 damage, lowering the phalanxes' effective strength to 1.5), and have three elephants take 25% damage (from the hitpoints left after killing the first round of elephants). This disregards the 1/8 defender advantage (the odds are really 5.875 to 7.625), and also disregards the luck factor. But it's a good rule of thumb for estimating results.

Second example: if the defenders are veteran pikemen, they get another 1.5 bonus for an unmodified defense strength of 10.125, and a modified strength of 14.25(!). So I would expect to lose two elephants and have a third damaged to about 50% for each defending pikeman.

Third example: if the defenders are non-veteran musketeers, their defense is the same as the vet phalanxes. But because they have double hitpoints, their effective strength is doubled to 15. So, like the pikemen, it will take three elephants to kill each defender.

[Edward]

quote: Originally posted by DaveV on 04-20-2001 01:41 PM ...with a unmodified defense strength of 6.75 ... Since my elephants attack at 6, the modified defense strength is 7.5. ...for an unmodified defense strength of 10.125, and a modified strength of 14.25(!).

DaveV,

I think I understand your unmodified attack and defense strengths. They seem to be just the debeest method and seem to include every factor I can think of. How are you getting your "modified" defense strengths?


Marquis de Sodaq's accurate but complex SUMn(COMB) method favors combat value over hitpoints. I assume Sodaq's method favors the vet pikemen over newbie musketeers when defending against elephants.

debeest's method ranks them as equivalent:
pikemen = 2 def * 2 vsMount * 1.5 vet * 1.5 river * 1.5 fortified = 13.5 debeest strength
musketeers = 3 def * 2 doubleHitPoints * 1.5 river * 1.5 fortified = 13.5 debeest strength

Your method ranks the newbie musketeers slightly better:
pikemen = 14.25 DaveV strength
musketeers = 15 DaveV strength


I fear I must stick with debeest's method since it's the only one I understand.