Fire power is not what we need, we need modern units to have more hit points

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by pchang
The math of more HPs vs. higher Hit/Defend numbers is not equivalent. Do the math if you don't believe me. Changing Hit/Defend numbers can alter the probabilities of single combats to the win/loss results match that of adding HPs, but the accumulation of damage is not the same, so the effect of multiple attacks comes out different.

I'm not going to do the math, but I believe you nonetheless.

I'm still not sure it justifies adding more hit points.

[woody]

Originally posted by n.c.
BTW, to any of you who say "fix it in the editor" . . . how do give ancient 1 HP and modern units 3-4? I'll wait for an answer.

Why would you want to "fix" it? You would just end up with an unbalanced and boring game. First guy to tanks and having the right resources would win. Why not just flip a coin, it would be just as fun.

But if you really want to "fix" it, why don't you just increase the offense and defense rating of modern units? The hit points is a red herring. Don't you want modern units to be pretty much invincible to ancient units? If you just increase the hit points, they'll still take damage. Your mind can't handle that.

Since you lack an imagination or the ability to deal with abstraction, I don't know why you're fixated on the tanks vs. spears argument. How do you explain the fact that it takes a destroyer decades to circle the world? How do you explain that leaders live for 6000 years?

It's not reality. Get over it. If you don't like it, play something else.

[Cavalier_13]

Re: Re: My 2 cents.....

Originally posted by Monoriu



Sigh. Yet another example of poor tactical handling.

Sending a few high tech units deep into enemy territory and hope to win by tech superiority is NOT the way to go in civ 3. You need combined arms, numbers, terrain, and micro-management of units to win.

Well, the purpose of the post was not to be debated for it's tactics (as I said above, there are many mitigating circumstances I did not state for the sake of it being irrelevant to the situation) but for the sheer illogic of a bunch of men in tights wielding bows killing my elite army of 4 Modern Armor.

If the opposition was consisting of WWII era tanks, I'd take my lumps and sit quietly, but Longbowmen? For gawds sake, those units are about 500 years apart on the development scale.

As for combined arms, you want that, I suggest CTP2....it had a bettle military model in allowing you to make an army with all the required forces to be successful.

Cavalier

[WhiteElephants]

Re: Armies=HP

Originally posted by GePap
Various times, when making scenerios for Civ 2 I would give some aircraft 3FP to make them killer vs ground units (a-10'a, su-25) but by doing this, I made them very powerful even vs fighters- yes, their defense was only 3 and the F-15 had 12 attack but every time the odd hit would occur the damage done was great and usually my su-25 would survive the F-15; just an example of how trully powerfull FP is.

You do realize then that if you would have just tripled the attack and defense of the unit the results would have been comparable because your new unit would have hit three times more often?

[GePap]

On Tactics and stuff

to Whiteelefants:
I don't recall the Soren argument being proven right: in the previous post, the mathematical analysis given by those who agree with me seemed far more sound (I don't like statistics that much so I will let others carry the torch)

To those who call for strategy:
You are right in calling for combined arms - i love artillery even if they don't kill- I actually like the helicopters, am a great believer in the mass, and i doo mean, mass army and agree completely with the idea that you must use combined arms. Unfortunitelly none of these arguments go to the point: combined arms is key, when fighting opponets of an similar technological level. No one today uses spearmen, bowmen or anything of the sort besides the few remaining stone age tribes and if a modern state- any state-Andorra for god's sake- decided to take them out, they would not need combined arms, huge divisions, so forth since the technological balence would be so out of whack as to be laughable- specially if one side used vehicles of any type. That is the point. If I need to fight an enemy with riflemen, cannons, cavalry and so forth, even in the modern age, then I will bring a huge army with all the trimmings to win, because in reality that is what it will take. But a modern army could go into battle drunk, with a 5 year old general, and just because they can put the most metal in the air, would win. Mnay of us (mee most of the time) don't like to hear this but- put the most metal in the air and you win. PERIOD.

[GePap]

Not the same

You do realize then that if you would have just tripled the attack and defense of the unit the results would have been comparable because your new unit would have hit three times more often? [/QUOTE]

I play tested these scenerios over and over , having the one unit attcked by the same other unit over and over and over just to find out the the consequenses and the fact was that just tripling the defense rating and putting it at 1 hp was neveanywhere the same result as with 3 FP, especially about how much damage each unit took- so based on my own empirical, lab data- the results where never the same. It may seem logical to assume that, but sometimes things don't work like they are logically supposed to.

[WhiteElephants]

Re: On Tactics and stuff

Originally posted by GePap
to Whiteelefants:
I don't recall the Soren argument being proven right: in the previous post, the mathematical analysis given by those who agree with me seemed far more sound (I don't like statistics that much so I will let others carry the torch)

The people who argee with you based their sound mathematical analysis on hit points and firpower, not firepower and the units offensive rating. Now I'll agree that their analysis was sound, but it has precious little to do with fire power and the units offensive rating.

Here's a quote from me. You'll like it, no stats!

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.

[WhiteElephants]

Re: Not the same

Originally posted by GePap
I play tested these scenerios over and over , having the one unit attcked by the same other unit over and over and over just to find out the the consequenses and the fact was that just tripling the defense rating and putting it at 1 hp was neveanywhere the same result as with 3 FP, especially about how much damage each unit took- so based on my own empirical, lab data- the results where never the same. It may seem logical to assume that, but sometimes things don't work like they are logically supposed to.

Bad test. Who said anything about putting it at one hit point? Just change the offensive/defensive rating by the same ratio as you would have changed the fire power. If you intened to triple the firepower, triple the offense and defense.

[Setsuna]

Is it me, or does one side of the argument clock out the same time the other side is clocking in?

[n.c.]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
the skull of some posters here are comprised of a very dense material

Using big words does not make this any less of a personal insult. Did that make it though your skull?

a rather superficial change that would serve only to divert Firaxis's valuable time

So you don't like time-diverting superficial changes? Let's discuss graphics, shall we? (Or perhaps it's okay for that to be important to someone.)

-"I hope this post was constructive"
Perhaps you can point out that part.

Originally posted by woody
Why would you want to "fix" it? You would just end up with an unbalanced and boring game.

Like Civ II and SMAC? Millions of gamers must be wrong?

why don't you just increase the offense and defense rating of modern units? The hit points is a red herring.

The erroneous nature of this comment has been explained many, many times (even on this thread). Maybe one day you will understand.

Don't you want modern units to be pretty much invincible to ancient units?

I want realistic combat. Apparently you are just bright enough to realize that Civ III falls short, so you have to invent motives of those who point it out.

If you just increase the hit points, they'll still take damage. Your mind can't handle that.

Given your failure to understand the combat system, this is hilarious.

How do you explain the fact that it takes a destroyer decades to circle the world? How do you explain that leaders live for 6000 years?

I don't care about the 1st, as the actual year indicated is arbitrary. An explanation of the latter involves the necessities of gameplay. Seems like there is little chance you'll understand.

-"If you don't like it, play something else."
I have. Coming to these forums just gives me a chance to make @sses out of pathetic blowards like you. This was almost too easy, though. Try a little harder next time.

[GePap]

Changing values=no good

FP was so great because it allows one to make a game in which you can try and balance out all the units- remember, I was making a scenerio with many units, so I had to consider the effects on all of them if one is changed dramatically (trippling is a dramatic change) then all would , and whay do i want tanks with a defense of 20? Remeber, I needed a high FP on an aircraft to overcome all the bonuses landunits get in defense, the problem being that there is just one FP rating for both defense and offense so the planes became too good vs. interceptors, which should not be. But to return to the theoretical point, was a Howlitzer twice as good as a cannon? It was many times that, just because of FP (never lost a fortified mech inf to a cannon). Think of it this way:

Unit 1 has 10 HP like unit 2. One has an attack of 2, the other defense 1 but the defender has FP of 2. If the odds come out perfectly in 3 rounds, attacker hit twice, defender only once, but both have suffered the same damage, 2 HP. Now, give both units 10 HP and instead of 1 defense, give defender 2 with FP equal to attacker. Since its 50/50, in three turns one side wins 2, the other 1. OK, is the damage done the same for both sides? No, the unit that won the two turens suffered only one damage, the other 2 HP. Giving the defender a defense of 2 to compansate for getting rid of FP did not give us the same result. This is the crux of my argument.

[Monoriu]

Re: On Tactics and stuff

Originally posted by GePap


To those who call for strategy:
You are right in calling for combined arms - i love artillery even if they don't kill- I actually like the helicopters, am a great believer in the mass, and i doo mean, mass army and agree completely with the idea that you must use combined arms. Unfortunitelly none of these arguments go to the point: combined arms is key, when fighting opponets of an similar technological level. No one today uses spearmen, bowmen or anything of the sort besides the few remaining stone age tribes and if a modern state- any state-Andorra for god's sake- decided to take them out, they would not need combined arms, huge divisions, so forth since the technological balence would be so out of whack as to be laughable- specially if one side used vehicles of any type. That is the point. If I need to fight an enemy with riflemen, cannons, cavalry and so forth, even in the modern age, then I will bring a huge army with all the trimmings to win, because in reality that is what it will take. But a modern army could go into battle drunk, with a 5 year old general, and just because they can put the most metal in the air, would win. Mnay of us (mee most of the time) don't like to hear this but- put the most metal in the air and you win. PERIOD.

That, is precisely the point.

You need combined arms, sufficient units, careful handling of units, good tactical common sense to win against an equal opponent.

You will need the same combined arms, sufficient units, careful handling of units, and good tactical common sense to win against a backward opponent as well. You will just have an easier time, lose fewer units, need a smaller army, and have more room to make mistakes. However, you CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be able to just send a few units into battle blindly and expect to win.

The civ 3 combat system is a lot less forgiving for casual play. You cannot afford to enter "charge forward and crush them" mode even if you are fighting stone age opponents with stealth technology. You will pay the price if you don't want to spend the time to micro-manage.

BTW, Cavalier, if the best unit the AI has is the knight and you are using aircraft carriers, modern tanks and all that, shouldn't you be playing on a higher difficulty level? You won't encounter "their longbowmen killed my modern tank" problems in emperor level very often

[Monoriu]

Re: Re: Re: My 2 cents.....

Originally posted by Cavalier_13


Well, the purpose of the post was not to be debated for it's tactics (as I said above, there are many mitigating circumstances I did not state for the sake of it being irrelevant to the situation) but for the sheer illogic of a bunch of men in tights wielding bows killing my elite army of 4 Modern Armor.

If the opposition was consisting of WWII era tanks, I'd take my lumps and sit quietly, but Longbowmen? For gawds sake, those units are about 500 years apart on the development scale.

As for combined arms, you want that, I suggest CTP2....it had a bettle military model in allowing you to make an army with all the required forces to be successful.

Cavalier

And the purpose of my post was: You'll win if you use good tactics; you'll lose if you use bad tactics. Technology gives you an edge, but you cannot forget tactics even if you have a high tech army.

You can do the same thing in civ3, except that this time you have to move the individual units in the correct order and use each individual unit in the correct situation yourself to create the same effect. CTP2 is just pack the units together and charge forward. You can't do that in civ 3 and that's why I think civ 3 is a lot better.

[n.c.]

Re: Re: On Tactics and stuff

BTW, Pizarro and his ~400 men beat armies with tens of thousands because they had steel and were on horses. Don't believe it? Read Guns, Germs and Steel by Diamond.

Originally posted by Monoriu
The civ 3 combat system is a lot less forgiving for casual play.

That is fine, what is not okay is why this is true and how it gets implemented.

-"shouldn't you be playing on a higher difficulty level?"
Not necessarily, as he may have encountered a seriously backward civ.

[WhiteElephants]

Re: Changing values=no good

Originally posted by GePap
FP was so great because it allows one to make a game in which you can try and balance out all the units- remember, I was making a scenerio with many units, so I had to consider the effects on all of them if one is changed dramatically (trippling is a dramatic change) then all would , and whay do i want tanks with a defense of 20? Remeber, I needed a high FP on an aircraft to overcome all the bonuses landunits get in defense, the problem being that there is just one FP rating for both defense and offense so the planes became too good vs. interceptors, which should not be.

Fire power had nothing to do with your aircraft overcoming the bonuses the land units got in defense. Tripling the firepower only meant that for every successfull attack you did three damage as opposed to one, your chances to inflict damage were the same only every time you did inflict damage is was three times more than usually, which isn't any different from tripling your attack rating in order to hit three times more than usual. To make your unit the way you intended you should have tripled the attack and left the defense and fire power alone. That way the unit would still be weak on defense and strong on offense.

Unit 1 has 10 HP like unit 2. One has an attack of 2, the other defense 1 but the defender has FP of 2. If the odds come out perfectly in 3 rounds, attacker hit twice, defender only once, but both have suffered the same damage, 2 HP. Now, give both units 10 HP and instead of 1 defense, give defender 2 with FP equal to attacker. Since its 50/50, in three turns one side wins 2, the other 1. OK, is the damage done the same for both sides? No, the unit that won the two turens suffered only one damage, the other 2 HP. Giving the defender a defense of 2 to compansate for getting rid of FP did not give us the same result. This is the crux of my argument.

What!? This example is horrible! I can't even discern what the hell you're trying to prove other than the fact that after three rounds with equal attack, defense, and fire power one of the units is going to sustain more damage. How's that any different from any comparison of equal units?

I can't believe you're argueing over who will have taken the most damage by the third round of combat.

The fact of the matter remains that in both cases the odds of winning were 50/50 and the damage taken would be relatively the same at the end of combat. What happens between the third and fourth round is neither here nor there.