Tweet
When people want their firepower back...what they really want back is the firepower/HP model from Civ2.
Well wait a minute Venger! The units in Civ3 have hit points! In levels of 3, 4 or 5!
I hate to tell you, but in Civ2, a 1 HP actually was 10 hit points.
So what does this mean for gameplay? Why are the best Civ2 players dismayed at the current combat system? Few units had more than 1 firepower in Civ2, so what's the difference?
The difference is huge.
It's called statistics and probabilities. You see, when they removed firepower from the FP/HP system (it is a system, they are intertwined), they removed the ability of a unit to do more damage in a combat round than another unit (note bombardment can do more than 1 damage). This means that a unit in Civ2 needs fewer "victories" to destroy a unit than a Civ3 unit (had they the same number of HP, but more on that in a minute). Now this effects the late game units moreso than the early units. They've tried to make up for it, with only fair success, with higher unit values, which means even though it takes more victories in Civ3, the chances of winning the round is higher, so the results should come close to evening out.
Now here's the kicker - it's the HP difference that's causing all the outlier statistical results. By leaving so few rounds of combat between units, they've left the door open to all those goofy results we all have come to know and hate - I actually had a jaguar warrior defend successfully against a cavalry attack on an open plain. I've had an ironclad defeated TWICE by a caravel. The problem lies here: in Civ2, a 1HP unit against a 1HP unit needed 10 victories or hits in combat rounds to win (assuming 1 FP on each). In Civ3, he can need only 3 (or only 2, or up to 5).
In a nutshell, a 4 strength attacker against a 1 defender (no defensive mods) in Civ2 NEVER loses. I mean ever. If you saw it happen, you likely were the only one. Now mind you, most attacks come against a defender fortified or in cover, so a legion attacking warriors likely faced an effective strength of 2, not 1, so gameplay wasn't affected, and legions attacking a warrior were still usually (93% based on a 100% fortified/terrain) victorious. Oh sure, it took some damage, but it never got routed. Now in Civ3, you can have riflemen (attack 4, WHY???) defeated by your lowly 5' mexican rabble up to 16% of the time. And god forbid they have any defensive bonus, you could lose almost half the time! Civ3 hint - never try to conquer tribal peoples with musketeers. Oh sure, I realize much of the new world was conquered this way, but don't try it in Civ3 - you'll simply lose.
Let's look at an example both of same strength combat results and of same unit results.
In Civ2, a 4 strength attack unit attacking a 2 strength defender with equal FP resulted in a 93% chance of victory for the 4 strength unit. Good chances, but you could still lose. Now in Civ3, the chances assuming 3 HP is only 79%. Why the difference? Because in order for a 2 strength unit to defeat a 4 strength unit, he must score a hit against him without being hit back - and at that rate it's a low percentage (.33 x .33 = .11). So there is only an 11% chance that will occur each round. And he'll likely have to do it more than once, because the chances of the inverse happening, of being hit without hitting back, is a whopping 44%. If you started multiplying the percentages, you'll quickly see that as the number of rounds increases, the chances of winning enough rounds to be victorious over a stronger unit decreases, because you have to get that 11% "lucky strike" again and again.
Now let's check unit versus unit. In Civ2, musketeers attacking a roman legion won...pretty much always. Now, in Civ3, musketeers attacking legions - usually lose. In Civ2, a legion attacking cavalry - usually loses. In Civ3 - 50/50. In Civ2, an ironclad attacking a caravel - always wins. In Civ3, an ironclad attacking a caravel loses one time in 5 (and twice in a row in my game).
These are the results you get when you cannot differentiate between ages using the FP/HP model (and it really is that intertwined - FP and HP are two sides of the same coin) with more than let's say an average of 4 combat rounds. The more rounds, the more likely it is the superior unit will win. By giving modern units more hit points in Civ2, they made it unlikely you'd see combat results that deviated from historical or reasonble outcomes.
Now mind you, even though a unit in Civ2 may win against an older unit, let's choose the musketeers versus the legion, that doesn't mean that the first to gunpowder simply rolled the opposition. First, most attacks come against fortified defenders or a defender with some type of terrain bonus. Musketeers attacking a fortified legion still almost always win - 97%. But they also leave the battle with half the hit points they entered it with! This leaves them likely to lose against a counter attack and makes them vulnerable in future offensive operations. If a musket unit attacked a city with two legions in it, it would win the first combat - but a counterattack by the other legion would destroy the musketeer 74% of the time. If the legion didn't counter attack, the chance of the musket unit winning if it attacked the other legion is down to 50%. And if he won THAT, he'd likely be down to just a couple HP, and easy pickings for any unit on the map.
Now, play that scenario in Civ3. A modern gunpowder unit attacks two legions. He loses.
That's all. There is no more. He will not win. Assuming he defeats the first unit, which is only 17% if they are both veteran and if the legion is fortified (assuming 50% bonus for fortification rounded down, to be conservative, and it could be as bad as 5%), he won't survive a second assault. Although, having seen the bizarre results of the combat generator (which I still think has bugs we don't see), anything is possible...it's like a Doug Hennings Combat Engine! Welcome to the magical world of ILLLUUUUUUSION...
This is what your typical historical/TBS/Civ/AoE/YouNameIt gameplayer sees. Battle results that simply defy logic. The unit values are poor to begin with (musketeers are atrocious), and when combined with a combat system that has so few rounds, you are going to see the man bites dog result far too often to be believable, much less enjoyable.
So what is the solution?
There are several options. We could simply reinstitute the FP/HP model. Now because FP/HP are so intertwined, you can get the same basic results using either method. An 3 unit attacking a 3 defender is a 50/50 outcome (assuming same HP). Give the attacker twice the firepower or HP and jump him to 89%.
You could do something similar to get rid of the midgame combat goofiness by giving a bonus of +1 point to the more modern unit per age difference. Hence, a musketeer attacking a warrior get's a +2 bonus because of the two age difference. Hence, a musket unit attacking your spare guys with clubs no longer loses 21% of the time if they are both 3 HP, rather it's down to only losing 6% of the time (still too damn much). While this does help, it's really a be better addressed and more flexible for future scenarios if we simply make fix the combat values and make a more robust combat round model that creates combat that is enjoyable but doesn't require constant suspension of disbelief...
Venger
Well wait a minute Venger! The units in Civ3 have hit points! In levels of 3, 4 or 5!
I hate to tell you, but in Civ2, a 1 HP actually was 10 hit points.
So what does this mean for gameplay? Why are the best Civ2 players dismayed at the current combat system? Few units had more than 1 firepower in Civ2, so what's the difference?
The difference is huge.
It's called statistics and probabilities. You see, when they removed firepower from the FP/HP system (it is a system, they are intertwined), they removed the ability of a unit to do more damage in a combat round than another unit (note bombardment can do more than 1 damage). This means that a unit in Civ2 needs fewer "victories" to destroy a unit than a Civ3 unit (had they the same number of HP, but more on that in a minute). Now this effects the late game units moreso than the early units. They've tried to make up for it, with only fair success, with higher unit values, which means even though it takes more victories in Civ3, the chances of winning the round is higher, so the results should come close to evening out.
Now here's the kicker - it's the HP difference that's causing all the outlier statistical results. By leaving so few rounds of combat between units, they've left the door open to all those goofy results we all have come to know and hate - I actually had a jaguar warrior defend successfully against a cavalry attack on an open plain. I've had an ironclad defeated TWICE by a caravel. The problem lies here: in Civ2, a 1HP unit against a 1HP unit needed 10 victories or hits in combat rounds to win (assuming 1 FP on each). In Civ3, he can need only 3 (or only 2, or up to 5).
In a nutshell, a 4 strength attacker against a 1 defender (no defensive mods) in Civ2 NEVER loses. I mean ever. If you saw it happen, you likely were the only one. Now mind you, most attacks come against a defender fortified or in cover, so a legion attacking warriors likely faced an effective strength of 2, not 1, so gameplay wasn't affected, and legions attacking a warrior were still usually (93% based on a 100% fortified/terrain) victorious. Oh sure, it took some damage, but it never got routed. Now in Civ3, you can have riflemen (attack 4, WHY???) defeated by your lowly 5' mexican rabble up to 16% of the time. And god forbid they have any defensive bonus, you could lose almost half the time! Civ3 hint - never try to conquer tribal peoples with musketeers. Oh sure, I realize much of the new world was conquered this way, but don't try it in Civ3 - you'll simply lose.
Let's look at an example both of same strength combat results and of same unit results.
In Civ2, a 4 strength attack unit attacking a 2 strength defender with equal FP resulted in a 93% chance of victory for the 4 strength unit. Good chances, but you could still lose. Now in Civ3, the chances assuming 3 HP is only 79%. Why the difference? Because in order for a 2 strength unit to defeat a 4 strength unit, he must score a hit against him without being hit back - and at that rate it's a low percentage (.33 x .33 = .11). So there is only an 11% chance that will occur each round. And he'll likely have to do it more than once, because the chances of the inverse happening, of being hit without hitting back, is a whopping 44%. If you started multiplying the percentages, you'll quickly see that as the number of rounds increases, the chances of winning enough rounds to be victorious over a stronger unit decreases, because you have to get that 11% "lucky strike" again and again.
Now let's check unit versus unit. In Civ2, musketeers attacking a roman legion won...pretty much always. Now, in Civ3, musketeers attacking legions - usually lose. In Civ2, a legion attacking cavalry - usually loses. In Civ3 - 50/50. In Civ2, an ironclad attacking a caravel - always wins. In Civ3, an ironclad attacking a caravel loses one time in 5 (and twice in a row in my game).
These are the results you get when you cannot differentiate between ages using the FP/HP model (and it really is that intertwined - FP and HP are two sides of the same coin) with more than let's say an average of 4 combat rounds. The more rounds, the more likely it is the superior unit will win. By giving modern units more hit points in Civ2, they made it unlikely you'd see combat results that deviated from historical or reasonble outcomes.
Now mind you, even though a unit in Civ2 may win against an older unit, let's choose the musketeers versus the legion, that doesn't mean that the first to gunpowder simply rolled the opposition. First, most attacks come against fortified defenders or a defender with some type of terrain bonus. Musketeers attacking a fortified legion still almost always win - 97%. But they also leave the battle with half the hit points they entered it with! This leaves them likely to lose against a counter attack and makes them vulnerable in future offensive operations. If a musket unit attacked a city with two legions in it, it would win the first combat - but a counterattack by the other legion would destroy the musketeer 74% of the time. If the legion didn't counter attack, the chance of the musket unit winning if it attacked the other legion is down to 50%. And if he won THAT, he'd likely be down to just a couple HP, and easy pickings for any unit on the map.
Now, play that scenario in Civ3. A modern gunpowder unit attacks two legions. He loses.
That's all. There is no more. He will not win. Assuming he defeats the first unit, which is only 17% if they are both veteran and if the legion is fortified (assuming 50% bonus for fortification rounded down, to be conservative, and it could be as bad as 5%), he won't survive a second assault. Although, having seen the bizarre results of the combat generator (which I still think has bugs we don't see), anything is possible...it's like a Doug Hennings Combat Engine! Welcome to the magical world of ILLLUUUUUUSION...
This is what your typical historical/TBS/Civ/AoE/YouNameIt gameplayer sees. Battle results that simply defy logic. The unit values are poor to begin with (musketeers are atrocious), and when combined with a combat system that has so few rounds, you are going to see the man bites dog result far too often to be believable, much less enjoyable.
So what is the solution?
There are several options. We could simply reinstitute the FP/HP model. Now because FP/HP are so intertwined, you can get the same basic results using either method. An 3 unit attacking a 3 defender is a 50/50 outcome (assuming same HP). Give the attacker twice the firepower or HP and jump him to 89%.
You could do something similar to get rid of the midgame combat goofiness by giving a bonus of +1 point to the more modern unit per age difference. Hence, a musketeer attacking a warrior get's a +2 bonus because of the two age difference. Hence, a musket unit attacking your spare guys with clubs no longer loses 21% of the time if they are both 3 HP, rather it's down to only losing 6% of the time (still too damn much). While this does help, it's really a be better addressed and more flexible for future scenarios if we simply make fix the combat values and make a more robust combat round model that creates combat that is enjoyable but doesn't require constant suspension of disbelief...
Venger
Comment