What people mean about firepower...

[Venger]

Re: I like it, dammit...

Originally posted by Easy Rhino
But there's nothing wrong with an A/D/HP system.

Not if the A and D and HP make sense. Right now they don't, and give you combat results that show it.

One think I like about it is that it's possible (or, more possible) for a swarm of weaker attackers to bring down a tough defender.

This has always been the case. Four chariots could roust a fortified rifleman unit. But one chariot couldn't.

Venger

[uXs]

quote from me:

Because no matter what you do, if you keep chance in, at some point some horribly weak unit will destroy some horribly powerful one.

quote from venger:

This has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Why do you want to argue it?

---

Chance = something that can happen.
If it's impossible for a weak unit to destroy a powerful unit, it can't happen and therefore there is no chance. What are you arguing here ? Either you want chance or you don't. Make up your mind.

uXs

[TCO]

I'm glad you've finally squared away this part of your argument. It's been funny watching you all display your ignorance of the Civ2 combat system while trying to compare 2 and 3. Serves to nicely undercut the "whiner" credibility.

[barefootbadass]

Geez Venger, lay off of this and try attacking strategically and with enough units to eliminate the element of chance.

The extreme situations of like warrior in a field beating marine are very rare. Not rare like winning the lottery rare but rare enough to make your whining ridiculous. Even with superior units within the same age, I consistently win without ridiculous numerical advantages.

[LRotan]

Chance is all well and good if units are somewhat close in tech. Like a rifleman beating an infantry or marine. I can accept that. I can even accept a pikeman beating infantry occasionally. When my battleship attacks a galley and gets crushed, however, there is something horribly wrong.

That isn't whining, that's common sense. I don't even like it when *my* units fend of attacks from a far superior foe. I have no problem with being annihilated. It's just a game, but I don't want to win like that, nor do I want to lose like that. I'm fine with chance as long as it makes some sense. The aforementioned example and the countless other results like it that I've experienced make no sense whatsoever.

LR

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by LRotan

That isn't whining, that's common sense.

LR

It IS whining, because, like you say, its just a game.

[LRotan]

It is just a game, yes, but it isn't whining my friend. It's a legitimate concern from someone who paid money for the game. I'm not asking you to agree with my position. If you're happy with the game, great! I'm glad to hear it. However, calling everyone who doesn't think every part of the game is fantastic or even good a whiner is a bit narrow minded.

LR

[Venger]

Originally posted by barefootbadass
Geez Venger, lay off of this and try attacking strategically and with enough units to eliminate the element of chance.

Who wants to build 1000 units just to make sure the poor combat mechanics don't screw you? I want a fair fight, not a tedious one.

The extreme situations of like warrior in a field beating marine are very rare.

A regular marine attacking an unfortified veteran legion will lose about 1 time every 6 attacks. Fortify him and it goes to 1 time in 4. That's too damn high, a marine is a very late game unit that SHOULD NOT LOSE to a legion, ever.

Not rare like winning the lottery rare but rare enough to make your whining ridiculous.

The only whining comes from you obsequious ankle grabbing peons who cannot stand that some of us aren't lobotomized and realize that the game is less enjoyable with the current non-sensical combat issues.

Even with superior units within the same age, I consistently win without ridiculous numerical advantages.

Come up with actual numbers instead of your anecdotal homilies. Musketeers cannot attack and defeat a spear unit more than 50% of the time, much less one that's fortified. THAT IS BROKEN. And no amount of your blindness will change that.

Venger

[Easy Rhino]

Originally posted by Venger
Come up with actual numbers instead of your anecdotal homilies. Musketeers cannot attack and defeat a spear unit more than 50% of the time, much less one that's fortified. THAT IS BROKEN. And no amount of your blindness will change that.

a) infantry units aren't meant to be attack units, mobile units are.

b) the strategic maxim since... forever, has been that the attacker needs 3:1 odds to have a chance of succeeding.

ER

[korn469]

a) infantry units aren't meant to be attack units, mobile units are

then why did they even include marines in the game? they have one big advantage and that is attacking from ships, but then they only have six attack, so they are pathetic in the role they fill

[Wrong_shui]

Theres two sides in this argument:-

People who want Superior units to be infinitly better than inferior units.

People who will swallow whatever Firaxis gives them and smile happily.

I guess they cant accept firaxis did something wrong.

[JimMac]

While waiting for my copy of Civ3 to arrive from Amazon.uk, I find that I browse more of Apolyton than I normally would, and I find this thread sliding down page 2.

So I hope this bumps it to the first page for a while for others to comment/note, as it is far and away the best analysis of the idiosyncrasies of Civ 3 combat system.

Good job Venger

JimMac

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Rusty Nail
I believe Soren's above comment on the equivalence of doubling the firepower and doubling the hit points is incorrect. A firepower of two means that a hit does twice the damage, so a defender who originally had two HP has the equivalent of one hit point if the attacker doubles his firepower.
Example: A=6, D=4; prob. round win to A is=0.6. Suppose both have 2 HP and firepower of 1.

Case 1:Prob. A wins = =.36 (in 2 rounds) +0.288 (in 3 rounds) =0.648

Case 2: Double A's firepower to 2. This is equivalent to reducing D's hit points to 1.

Prob A wins: 0.6 (1 round) + 0.24 (two rounds) =0.84

Case 3: Double A's hit points relative to Case 1, i.e. to 4HP (Soren's claim).

Prob A wins: 0.36 (in 2 rounds) + 0.288 (in 3 rounds) + 0.173 (in 4 rounds) + 0.092 (in 5 rounds) = 0.913.

Doubling hit points would seem to be a much stronger change than doubling firepower. Conclusion: The civ2 model is far more flexible, and is not replicable in civ3.

Actually you're incorrect because the fact remains that Soren never referred to hit points in the quote. His quote was in regards to fire power and offense attack ratings, not hit points.

"Firepower added needless complexity to the game. For example, there is no significant difference between a unit with an offence of 10 and a firepower of 2 and a unit with an offense of 20 and firepower of 1..."

If there is no difference, then a unit with firepower 10 and attack of one is the same as a unit with an attack of 1 and a firepower of 10.

What would happen if a 1/10FP unit fought a 10/1FP unit?

You'd end up with two scenarios:

A totally dead 10/1 unit and damaged 1/10 unit.
A toally dead 1/10 unit and an undamaged 10/1 unit.

I don't think I agree with you here as I'm unsure as to where you came up with these results considering you don't know the hit points or defense of said units or even which unit attacked. For example, what if both units had 20 defense and 20 hit points?

What Soren was suggesting is that one unit is two times more likely to hit that the other, but hitting twice is still merley the equivelent of hitting once for the other unit so there'e not much difference. Giving a unit 10 attack and 2 firepower is nearly the same as giving a unit 20 attack and 1 firepower because one unit is likely to hit twice as much as the other, but causes only 1/2 as much damage. No where does he suggest that the two units should square off and there would be no difference.

In the creation of a unit there is no point in adding firepower when you might as well just add to the attack rating and have nearly the same unit. So rather than add un-needed complexity to the combat system simply create a unit with a higher attack rating or higher defense so they will hit more often rather than hit less often for more damage.

In your pursuit of less chancy results I would think you'd be in favor the removal of firepower as it tends to skew results that could easily be considered in a simple offense vs. defense rating comparison. I think it's the same system except the needless complexity is removed. I don't see a need for complexity for the sake of complexity, or in order to satisfy one's need for a complex game.

[volcanohead]

Finally...

Good job Venger,

I was quite sceptical of the anti-civ3 combat system crowd at first, but some more game time and Venger's summary in this thread have convinced me there is a real issue with the Civ3 combat.

The problem is quite simply the side-effect of undersampling a statistical system. Toss a coin three times and your odds of getting 3 heads or tails in a row is 25%. Toss that coin 30 times and the chance they are all heads or all tails is bugger all.

Undersampling is the major reason we see some 'outliers' (caravel impressively taking out ironclad, for example) rather more often than the ADM values would suggest. Venger has quite elegantly put his finger on this, and it was a job well done. However, there remains several issues about the integration of this combat system with the rest of the game that we need to think about before being sure that changing this system is the best thing to do.

Unfortunately, many people in our community have a rather blinkered viewpoint: either the game is perfect and any criticism is defined as 'whining' (a curious term used mostly by people who haven't played all that much or who are unable to see that God did not design this game, people did, and therefore EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING is fair game for modification and improvement), or realists such as Venger who quite justifiably wish to see real-world type common sense reactions and effects within the game.

The problem with the realist point of view is that Civ 3 is absolutely not an attempt to reproduce reality. It says it is, the marketing blurb makes a big deal about it, but there are far too many abstractions to really claim that this is a model of the world and its peoples. What we actually have is a more complex version of Risk.

My personal viewpoint is that, for now, I do not want to change the combat system. I like the fact that sometimes wacky things happen. I like not wiping the floor with everyone with one tank. I think there is a good balance in the game, not realistic, not accurate, but fun.

In time however, particularly if MP happens (which of course is dependent on Firaxis resolving the much greater problem of slow game turns...), I can see that being a technological superstate that is destroyed by 500 Impis could be annoying, to say the least. Perhaps the combat system could be altered for an all human game, but against the AI it's fine as it is, for me, and for now.

V

[Rusty Nail]

WhiteElephant: OK.Your point is well taken, but Soren is still wrong. Referring to my above post, consider now:
Case 4: We double A's FP to 2 and halv his attack to 3. D is unchanged at D=4, FP=1, but his hit points are now reduced effectiely to HP=1 from HP=2 before (one hit and he is dead). So:

Prob A wins a round is now 3/3+4 =0.4286

Prob A wins = 0.4286 in 1 round + (1-0.4286)x0.4286 in 2 rounds
= 0.674, which is not the same as 0.648 as in Case 1 as claimed by Soren.

In this case the two results are fairly close. I have not analyzed other cases. Soren's claim may be a reasonable first approximation, but it is not correct mathematically. Further analysis is required to determine how good an approximation it might be. If the differences are always small, then he does have a good point. Maybe somebody out there can look at some other cases based on typical civ2 FP values.