Do we have combat all wrong??

[Venger]

Curiously, in each round of combat, is there a per chance hit on each side, or is there only a per chance to win the round? If it's the latter, then the system is already more screwed up than I thought...

Example:

Unit 4/2 attacks unit 1/1.

In the "per side" system, each side has a chance to hit, in this case the attacked would have a 80% chance to hit, the defender a 20% chance to hit. The chance of the defender hitting without the attacker hitting back is a very low 4%.

In the "per round" system, only one side can score a hit, so the attacked has an 80% chance of winning the round, the defender a 20% chance.

What does this mean for gameplay?

Assuming regular units and the per side system, the chances of the defender winning 3-0 is an infintesimal .0064%.

Assuming regular units and the per round system, the chances of the defender winning 3-0 is .8%.

Still small, but 125 TIMES HIGHER than the per side system. It would also explain the bizarre swordsman beats infantry scenario, where winning a round is easier than "going up" a round.

Let me explain -

With even hit points, winning is hitting without being hit. In the per side system, where each side has a chance to hit, this is much more difficult than the per round system. Using the above example, in order to hit without being hit, the 1 strength defender must score a hit (20% chance), and at the same time not be hit (20% chance the attacker misses). Those probabilities combined are only 4%.

Now, if it's per round, the chances are 20%, because if there is only one percentage check for that round of combat, and the defender wins in his 20%, by DEFINITION the other unit does not score a hit. That a 5 times higher chance to succeed.

Now, does anyone KNOW, for sure, that the system in Civ3 is a per round system? Also, can anyone confirm that which I am fairly sure of, that Civ2 was per side?

If Civ2 was per side and Civ3 is per round, that will compound the already statstically screwed up Civ3 system into a unusable mess. Oh wait, I think that's what we have...

Venger

[BigNick]

Re: Do we have combat all wrong??

Originally posted by Venger
Curiously, in each round of combat, is there a per chance hit on each side, or is there only a per chance to win the round?

I'm fairly sure it's the latter. Each 'round', one (and only one)point of damage will be done. In your scenario, this point has an 80% chance of being assigned to the defender and a 20% chance of being assigned to the attacker.

I think this was the case in Civ2 and SMAC, too.

[Venger]

Re: Re: Do we have combat all wrong??

Originally posted by BigNick


I'm fairly sure it's the latter. Each 'round', one (and only one)point of damage will be done. In your scenario, this point has an 80% chance of being assigned to the defender and a 20% chance of being assigned to the attacker.

I think this was the case in Civ2 and SMAC, too.

You know though, I swear I've seen "rounds" where nobody scored a hit though - that would seem to indicate the "per side" argument.

If they both are per round, NO WONDER we see these goofy combat results. Someone in another thread mentioned there may be a way to change the number of HP per experience level - is this true, where is it, and has anyone tried it? This is a godsend if so and could allow those of us who want a sensible combat model to make changes and allow those who wants to sing Kumbaya in Combat Fantasyland to keep the system as is...

Anyone know about this?

Venger

[WhiteElephants]

I'm not sure how the "per side" and "per round" styles of combat differ. Aren't you simply resolving 2 rounds of combat at once? And would there be results were both the attack and defender died in the same round.

Wouldn't that send the realists through the roof?

[Venger]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
I'm not sure how the "per side" and "per round" styles of combat differ. Aren't you simply resolving 2 rounds of combat at once? And would there be results were both the attack and defender died in the same round.

Good question - no, it's not resolving 2 combat rounds at once. Basically, it treats rounds of combat like - rounds of combat, with a chance of success for EACH side, rather than just only one side scoring a hit per round.

Yes - it would results in situations where both died in the same round, except that could simply be in the game mechanics - the defender rolls first in every round. That way you avoid it. I WANT to say I've seen units annihilate each other in Civ2 rarely - but cannot be sure. Maybe I'm thinking of Archon on the C64...heh...

Wouldn't that send the realists through the roof?

I have no more roof left...

Venger

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Venger
Good question - no, it's not resolving 2 combat rounds at once. Basically, it treats rounds of combat like - rounds of combat, with a chance of success for EACH side, rather than just only one side scoring a hit per round.

Yes - it would results in situations where both died in the same round, except that could simply be in the game mechanics - the defender rolls first in every round. That way you avoid it.

Hmmm... not sure I follow the differnce.

[reds4ever]

i agree

[Excelsior]

Re: Do we have combat all wrong??

Originally posted by Venger
Now, does anyone KNOW, for sure, that the system in Civ3 is a per round system? Also, can anyone confirm that which I am fairly sure of, that Civ2 was per side?
Venger

I'm pretty sure that Civ2 used a per round system. The reason that a 4 attack unit versus a 1 defense unit is more likely to lose in Civ3 is because units only have 3-5 hitpoints versus a minimum of 10 in Civ2. Assuming 10 hitpoints each, the odds of a 1 defense unit defeating a 4 attack unit in Civ2 was roughly 1.5%. With 3 hitpoints in Civ3 the probability grows to 5.7%.

I just tested this in Civ2 with legions vs. warriors and I found that not once was the attacking legion defeated. Never did a legion lose more than 50% of its hitpoints. I then edited the rules such that both units had firepower of 3, essentially reducing the hitpoints to 3.33. Thereafter, the legions had a much more difficult go of it. Out of ten subsequent combats, 3 were unharmed, 3 lost 3 hitpoints, 2 lost 6 hitpoints, 1 lost 9 hitpoints, and 1 was destroyed.

[Evil_Eric_4]

Hi Venger.

Ive been wanting to tell you ever since i started reading these forums 2 weeks ago that you are one funny mofo.
always amused by the things you say

(sounds like ive been playing civ3 too much as Im obviously trolling for allies

)

[BigNick]

Re: Re: Re: Do we have combat all wrong??

Originally posted by Venger


You know though, I swear I've seen "rounds" where nobody scored a hit though - that would seem to indicate the "per side" argument.

It would, I've just never seen that myself.

If they both are per round, NO WONDER we see these goofy combat results.

I think it's just a matter of simplicity. Not from a programming perspective, but I don't mind letting it be fairly easy to calculate odds. I'm not sure the per-round system is neccessarily inferior to the RPG-style system you'd originally assumed - it's just a matter of game balance. Under your system units are far less likely to get out of a battle uninjured than in the per-round system, which would probably mean that a powerful (more modern) attacking force might find it a bit tougher to sweep through a primitive empire in a limited period.

[Excelsior]

Re: Re: Re: Do we have combat all wrong??

Originally posted by Venger
Someone in another thread mentioned there may be a way to change the number of HP per experience level - is this true, where is it, and has anyone tried it? This is a godsend if so and could allow those of us who want a sensible combat model to make changes and allow those who wants to sing Kumbaya in Combat Fantasyland to keep the system as is...

Anyone know about this?
Venger

Well, I mentioned it to you in "Is Civ3 even worth it?" a couple of hours ago. It is in the editor under the tab "Combat Experience."

[Green Giant]

Gee, wouldn't it be nice if someone at Firaxis could clear this up for us?

[smellymummy]

Re: Re: Re: Do we have combat all wrong??

Originally posted by Venger
You know though, I swear I've seen "rounds" where nobody scored a hit though - that would seem to indicate the "per side" argument.

not so. every round someone gets hit. it might seem like no one scores a hit, but i'm pretty sure that's just our eyes lying to us.

Originally posted by Venger
Someone in another thread mentioned there may be a way to change the number of HP per experience level - is this true, where is it, and has anyone tried it?

in the civ3 editor - the menu --> Tools --> uncheck "use default rules". click OK on the pop up.

Then, again the menu, go to Rules --> Edit rules (or CTRL R).

Then in the rules editor, go to the "Combat Experience" tab.

You can then rename each experience level and adjust the amount of HP accordingly. In essence you can give "conscripts" the name of "draftees" or maybe "suckers" however you can assign them an HP of 10. Maybe even 50, who knows..... I haven't tried it

[Excelsior]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Do we have combat all wrong??

Originally posted by smellymummy
You can then rename each experience level and adjust the amount of HP accordingly. In essence you can give "conscripts" the name of "draftees" or maybe "suckers" however you can assign them an HP of 10. Maybe even 50, who knows..... I haven't tried it

It only goes up to 20.

[Altuar]

Re: Re: Re: Do we have combat all wrong??

Originally posted by Venger
You know though, I swear I've seen "rounds" where nobody scored a hit though - that would seem to indicate the "per side" argument.
Venger

Venger, I cant prove this but statistically your per side argument does not hold true...

If that were the case, early battles between warriors would have a 50% chance of missing a hit every round. This is not the case. I have seen the "misses" as they are, but they occur very occasionally, and I think this occurs due to insychronization between unit animation/sound effects and the actual timing of the rounds.