WTF: no firepower?

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by korn469
Anunikoba

the big advantage of vet and elite units is the fact that they have more hitpoints than normal units...if you have an elite rifleman and a regular rifleman in a stack, and a stealth bomber bombards them four times, then the elite rifleman and the regular rifleman will have the same amount of hitpoints (assuming all four bombards were successful) because the regular rifleman could only lose two hit points in a bombard

don't you consider that a problem?

This seems to be assuming that once the regular rifleman has lost its first two hitpoints, it can not be completely eliminated by the third hit of the bombardment.

Has anything actually been said that indicates air bombardment will only damage units, and can not destroy them? In fact has anything been said that land or naval artillery bombardment can only damage and not destroy?

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by korn469
the big advantage of vet and elite units is the fact that they have more hitpoints than normal units...if you have an elite rifleman and a regular rifleman in a stack, and a stealth bomber bombards them four times, then the elite rifleman and the regular rifleman will have the same amount of hitpoints (assuming all four bombards were successful) because the regular rifleman could only lose two hit points in a bombard

don't you consider that a problem?

No, not really. The reason is because, say that these same two units get bombed only 3 times- then the elite unit still has an extra HP. Being bombed four times is sure to demoralize any unit, so I can't see why elite units should get an advantage in such extreme cases of bombardment. Actually, using bombardment to 'equalize' the overall morale of the enemy should be a viable tactic, especially if that enemy doesn't have any air defense.

I do understand the arguement overall, though. One of the things Alpha Centauri did was include reactor types (Hit Point amount) as part of unit attributes. This did make later game units realistically unstoppable by obsolete enemy crap, but at the same time, researching and applying the first reactor upgrade tended to break the game.

I guess, so long as the combat calculations don't have any loopholes like we saw in CivII, I am not disappointed with CivIII implementing raw attack and defense stat resolution to one on one combat- the difference in later era unit stats quickly get larger, so the odds of obsolete units descimating modern tech doesn't seem likely. Compare CivII's unit stats with what we know of CivIII's.

[Grim Legacy]

Hmm I think firepower can indeed be compensated for by Attacks stats and rounds of combat... as long as hit points are still in. To my distress however, I have not seen mention of them at Civ3.com...

I would also guss that it is hit points that make the difference between legion and musketeers.

[Yoleus]

Firepower, hit points

Hold it.
No firepower anymore. Ok, bombardments and tweaked attack ratings could compensate.
But hit points depending only on the "veteran" status? No difference in toughness between an half naked Persian immortal and an Abraham tank?
Peculiar, I would say.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
...but what if it was a Musketman and a swordsman? Would there be a big difference between the two?

A Swordsman -Spanish Sword-and-Buckler- was able to beat an early Musketman, so if they can do it in the game, nothing wrong with it. Just like Swiss Pikes could kill a Knight.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Knigget
If there's no firepower the roman legions and musketmen are equally good...

They are.

Early muskets took a minute to load. Macchiavelli recommended to revive the Legion to fight gunpowder units.

This was in the 16th century, and the man was not a fool.

Only 17th century Muskets and Cannons made ancient units truly obsolete.

[Dutch]

Then we should have several more infantry units. First musketeers with slow-loading and inaccurate weapons (15th century), which might stoop to the ancient tough guys, and later musketeers firing three rounds a minute, to be used in the American revolution age. After that standard Civil War rifleman (also three rounds a minute, but far more accurate ) . And then infantry armed with precision rifles and automatic weapons.

Maybe a little too complicated, but at least upgrading of units is possible for everyone.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Dutch
Then we should have several more infantry units. First musketeers with slow-loading and inaccurate weapons (15th century), which might stoop to the ancient tough guys, and later musketeers firing three rounds a minute, to be used in the American revolution age. After that standard Civil War rifleman (also three rounds a minute, but far more accurate ) . And then infantry armed with precision rifles and automatic weapons.

I think this is in. Or at least close to. On this topic I am optimistic for a change.

[Haphazard]

I'm wondering how these units will regain lost hit points. 1 per turn outside cities on missing a turn, all inside? Won't that reduce the effectiveness of Barracks and the like?

[Bleyn]

Re: Firepower, hit points

Originally posted by Yoleus
Hold it.
No firepower anymore. Ok, bombardments and tweaked attack ratings could compensate.
But hit points depending only on the "veteran" status? No difference in toughness between an half naked Persian immortal and an Abraham tank?
Peculiar, I would say.

Sure there is a difference. The defensive values, which some people seem to be ignoring, play a large role in combat. From what I can see, defensive value represents the ability to shrug off or avoid damage. Hit points is how much damage they can take when they are hit.

We know the Persian Immortal has 4-2 attack-defense stats. If the numbers posted earlier in this thread are anywhere near correct, a regular tank will have 16-10 stats. Taking these numbers, and using the attack calculations from earlier in the thread, we find:
The tank has aprox. 89% chance of hitting each round.
The Immortal has aprox. aprox. 29% chance of hitting each round.

Three hit points apiece for regular units ensures that no unit will ever get less than three chances to hit the other guy. No more quick kills.

In this case, In those three rounds, on average, the Immortal might have gotten one hit. The tank, on the other hand, will have gotten at least two hits, and may also have gotten in its third hit.

Even if the Immortal were an elite, and the tank still only regular, on average, the tank will have gotten 4 hits by the fifth round and has an almost even chance of getting the fifth hit. The Immortal has probably only gotten one hit with a slightly less than even chance of getting the second hit.

The tank might be damaged by the Immortal, but it will almost never be taken out, statistically. And that seems reasonable enough for me.

[korn469]

posted by Bleyn
This seems to be assuming that once the regular rifleman has lost its first two hitpoints, it can not be completely eliminated by the third hit of the bombardment.
Has anything actually been said that indicates air bombardment will only damage units, and can not destroy them? In fact has anything been said that land or naval artillery bombardment can only damage and not destroy?

this is from civ3.com

Bombing mission (bombards the selected square, damaging units, city improvements, and population)

this is from Jeff Briggs in the gamespot interview

For example, cannons have no attack or defensive values (therefore, like workers and other non-combat units, they can be captured), but they have a powerful bombardment value that can be projected into any square within their range.

Bombardment is not limited to targeting enemy units--players can also use it against terrain improvements (roads and the like) and cities (where it may cause a population decrease or destroy city structures).

also bombard attacks in SMAC cannot kill a unit...so i am holding on to my assertion that a unit cannot be completely eliminated by a bombard attack...so if a unit only has three hit points, then it can lose 2 hit points at most to a bombard attack

Anunikoba
No, not really. The reason is because, say that these same two units get bombed only 3 times- then the elite unit still has an extra HP. Being bombed four times is sure to demoralize any unit, so I can't see why elite units should get an advantage in such extreme cases of bombardment.

well using that line of reasoning then why should an elite unit have a 5 to 3 advantage over a regular unit in the first place?

plus other strange thing happens with no subhitpoints
with a single bombard against a regular unit and an elite unit, the elite units goes from being 2/3 more powerful to being twice as powerful powerful
on the second bombard the elite unit is now three times as powerful as the regular unit
on the third bombard the elite unit goes down to being twice as powerful as the regular unit
finally on the fourth bombard the elite unit and the regular unit has the same strength

that pattern seems strange to me

Grim Legacy
Hmm I think firepower can indeed be compensated for by Attacks stats and rounds of combat... as long as hit points are still in. To my distress however, I have not seen mention of them at Civ3.com...

I would also guss that it is hit points that make the difference between legion and musketeers.

hit points are still in but not like in civ2

all units (ancient, middle age, industrial, modern) have the following hit points

regular: 3
vet: 4
elite: 5

posted by Bleyn
The reason is the more hits a unit can take, the more rounds it will take for that unit to be killed. The more rounds, the more likely it is for the strong unit to win.

In fact, you can already see this in the game. For example, in a combat between say, a standard cavalry and a standard spearman, the spearman has a better chance of survival if both are regular than if both are veteran or elite, simply because the longer the combat is stretched out the more the advantage of the cavalry becomes magified. Of course, the best chance of the spearman is if they are elite, and the cavalry is regular, but that is sort of obvious compared to the relationship between the other situations

i want to see math to back up that statement, from my standpoint it seems like the smaller the sample (numer of rounds of combat in this case) the more unreliable the results would be, and that despite the number of rounds of combat that as long as the ratios remained constant that the outcomes should be about the same

lets say you have a vet cavalry unit (6.3.3 4hp) attacking a regular musketman (3.3.1 3hp)
wouldn't the outcomes be the same for the following 2 units (114.57.57 76hp) and (57.57.19 57hp)

i just hope that each hitpoint has subhitpoints like in civ2...if not i can seem problems

[Grim Legacy]

Ah thanks for the info, Korn.

Sadly, this has become another point of concern. Veteran spearmen may be a serious threat to fresh riflemen following this vein. Civ2 was a step away from combat-too-much-dependent-on-luck... but this system looks as if the Luck Factor has made a big re-entry.

As if the load/save option in Civ2 wasn't overly abused already!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by korn469
lets say you have a vet cavalry unit (6.3.3 4hp) attacking a regular musketman (3.3.1 3hp)
wouldn't the outcomes be the same for the following 2 units (114.57.57 76hp) and (57.57.19 57hp)

Multiplying all defense/attack powers by a constant won't make a difference, but multiplying each #of HP by a constant makes a big difference; the spread of probable results is much smaller with large #s of HP. With 76 and 57 HP, it becomes almost impossible for the musketman to actually defeat the cavalry, but with 4 and 3 HP, the odds are much better (~20% I'd say, as a complete guess). Conversely, with high HPs, it becomes virtually certain that the cavalry unit won't get off scot-free, while it has a 8/27 chance of doing so with low HPs. The higher the HPs, the more randomness is removed from the game. Make the HPs high enough, and fights are pre-determined.

[korn469]

KrazyHorse

ok basically this is a statistics problem correct?
the larger the number of rounds the smaller the cofidence interval and all of that jazz right? so if the hitpoints are high enough (like if the units had 30k, 40k, and 50k hitpoints) then when a spearman attacks a tank it would 99.9% of the time inflict 32% damage for example (the 32% damage number was a made up number)

however, after playing a thousand games the number of times a spearman loses to a tank should be about the same no matter if they had .3, .4, .5 hitpoints or 30k, 40k, 50k hitpoints right?

[crmeyer]

Probability of this thread actually making sense and leading to something useful=

Combined intelligence of all posters/number of posters * experience with Civ3

If combined intelligence of all posters = X, and
Number of Posters = Y, then

X/Y * 0 = 0

'Nuff said?