WTF: no firepower?

[HalfLotus]

I have faith that Firaxis has balanced the combat values well. With the amount of playtesting they did, I think they would have noticed most imbalances. Sid, as usual, derives an elegant solution.

[Rakki]

if you have the problem of a phalanx unexpectedly defeating your tank... bring more tanks.....

[Edward]

I, for one, am very happy to see firepower die an anonymous death. It was used to make more modern units have a better chance of beating units from a previous era. However this can just as easily be simulated with higher attack and defense values. The enormous advantage of scaling up the attack/defense values (vs. using hitpoints) is that the system is much easier to understand. Just search the Civ2 strategy forum to see what bewilderment the hitpoint system wrought.

---

In Civ2, a horseman could get pretty torn up when attacking a warrior. As others have pointed out, the hitpoints involved (10 each for Civ2) made sure that the horseman generally won. If Civ3 units only have 3 to 5 effective hitpoints, then the battles would become outrageously capricious. Increases in attack and defense ratings would have much less significance and phalanxes would defeat superior attackers inordinately often. Unless there's been a major change in how combat is conducted (very possible considering our limited knowledge) I can only assume that each listed "hitpoint" (3 to 5) actually represents 10 mini-hitpoints, just like they did in Civ2. To do otherwise would make combat too random. Why defend with 20 shield phalanxes when 10 shield warriors do just about as well (and don't require any research).

The interesting thing is that in Civ3 hitpoints are based on the unit's experience (green, vet, elite). The Civ2 catapult (6 attack, 10 hitpoints) was just slightly better at attacking than the Civ2 musketeer (3 attack, 20 hitpoints). This implies that an elite horseman (2 attack, 50 hitpoints) attacks about as well as a green swordsman (3 attack, 30 hitpoints). Not ever having been in a war in real life I'm not sure how realistic this is (experience being very important - it seems realistic), but it does make experience powerful in Civ3. The Military attribute (easier "vetting") could be a very nice advantage.

Note that the hitpoints are 3, 4, and 5 instead of 1, 2, and 3 so that experience doesn't totally trump technology. (An elite unit is not quite twice as effective as green one.) A side effect of this is that units will have much more hitpoints than they did in Civ2 (3 or 4 on average instead of 1 or 2 on average) meaning that the small differences in attack values will mean big differences in the outcome of battles. The increased hitpoints will reduce randomness. Thus a phalanx won't beat a battleship. However, Bleyn's fears of predictable battles and arms races will be realized. Technologically superior units will have a distinct edge. (Civ3 horsemen will easily crush Civ3 warriors unlike the Civ2 version of the same battle.) The outcome of battles will be much more predictable in Civ3 (some will like this change, some won't). However, retaining the hitpoint system still lets superior numbers overrun better armed foes. A superior foe can still be bled to death.

[Grumbold]

Actually I disagree. Take Panzer vs Pikeman. Lets fortify the pikeman in a walled city (about the only sensible place for it to be other than a mountaintop, which the tank could not reach). FA 16 v DF of 6. The tank is 72% likely to win any given round of combat, and needs to win at least 3 rounds out of 5 (regulars). Using very approximate math that gives a regular pikeman between a 4 and 6 percent chance of winning. For veteran and elite units opposing each other the chances swing even further in favour of the panzer.

Taking AF of 16 against a DF of 9. Thats a 64% chance of winning each round. It still gives them around 88% chance of winning the combat with at least one HP remaining. Again, the odds improve in favour of the attacker with every additional hit point gained.

For anything with a good defence factor, you should be using your artillery to make sure it has as few hit points left as possible and attacking with armies anyway. If the units had 30+ hit points, even a 55%-45% chance would become a virtually guaranteed success every time for the better unit. Things are never that certain. I think when you get playing the game you will find the level of randomness with 3hp pretty tolerable.

What might have been useful for the people who hate statistics is a little (optional) pop-up box when engaging in combat that would have the general give the approximate chances of success. Panzer General series did that quite nicely (although the results there were so random sometimes it made you tear your hair out!)