Do we have combat all wrong??

[reds4ever]

it's all down to probality math, i believe!

[Your.Master]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Hmmm... not sure I follow the differnce.

Per Round:

Round 1:

80% chance 4/2 guy (hereafter referred to as "George") hits mr. 1/1 (hereafter referred to as "Crazy Old Bob"...too long, make that "Bob").

if George doesn't hit Bob, Bob hits George.

Result: 1 point of Damage inflicted on one target.

Inevitably this battle, assuming regular units, will go on for less than 5 rounds (3-5, to be exact).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per side:

80% chance George hits Bob.

an INDEPENDENT 20% chance Bob hits George.

Result: 0-2 points of Damage inflicted on neither, one, or both targets.

Theoretically, this battle might not ever resolve, but the chances of that are 1/infinity, and thus 0%, and therefore that will not happen (Theoretically...calculus is SCREWY!). However, this battle could end in three rounds with 5 points of damage inflicted (assuming the game disallows "ties", otherwise, 6 damage points of mutual obliteration could be achieved).

[Venger]

YM has reiterated the difference quite well...

This does change my numbers a bit - not for the better mind you. I had assumed it was per side, not per round. That makes the chances for goofy results even higher than I had predicted...

I am modifying those HP's like a mofo in just a minute!!

Venger

[Venger]

One question -

If we change the HP values, will that screw up the armies?

Reason is, the graphics seem to be such that 20HP is the maximum you can get (an army of four elites would be 20 HP), represented by the graduated HP bar.

If we change the HP, that means that the army could have up to, say, 80 HP. Would that bomb out the game?

Venger

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Your.Master


Per Round:

Round 1:

80% chance 4/2 guy (hereafter referred to as "George") hits mr. 1/1 (hereafter referred to as "Crazy Old Bob"...too long, make that "Bob").

if George doesn't hit Bob, Bob hits George.

Result: 1 point of Damage inflicted on one target.

Inevitably this battle, assuming regular units, will go on for less than 5 rounds (3-5, to be exact).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per side:

80% chance George hits Bob.

an INDEPENDENT 20% chance Bob hits George.

Result: 0-2 points of Damage inflicted on neither, one, or both targets.

Theoretically, this battle might not ever resolve, but the chances of that are 1/infinity, and thus 0%, and therefore that will not happen (Theoretically...calculus is SCREWY!). However, this battle could end in three rounds with 5 points of damage inflicted (assuming the game disallows "ties", otherwise, 6 damage points of mutual obliteration could be achieved).

And that's different because...

[Venger]

Just think about it. In order for a unit to "win" it has to hit without being hit.

That's easy for the 4 unit, and hard for the 1 unit.

The 4 unit has a 64% (80% chance to hit * 80% change of othe runit missing) chance of hitting without being hit.

The 1 unit has a 4% (20% chance to hit * 20% chance of other unit missing) chance of hitting wihtout being hit.

The chance of the 1 unit hitting without being hit in a per round instance is 20%.

See?

Venger

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Venger
Just think about it. In order for a unit to "win" it has to hit without being hit.

That's easy for the 4 unit, and hard for the 1 unit.

The 4 unit has a 64% (80% chance to hit * 80% change of othe runit missing) chance of hitting without being hit.

The 1 unit has a 4% (20% chance to hit * 20% chance of other unit missing) chance of hitting wihtout being hit.

The chance of the 1 unit hitting without being hit in a per round instance is 20%.

See?

Venger

Right, but your math is exactly the same if you carry it out over two rounds of a "rounds" system, no?

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by Venger
One question -

If we change the HP values, will that screw up the armies?

Reason is, the graphics seem to be such that 20HP is the maximum you can get (an army of four elites would be 20 HP), represented by the graduated HP bar.

If we change the HP, that means that the army could have up to, say, 80 HP. Would that bomb out the game?
Venger

Unfortunately, I think it does. I haven't tested it directly (IMO leaders are too rare to waste on armies) but I have seen AI armies composed of one unit.

[Venger]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Right, but your math is exactly the same if you carry it out over two rounds of a "rounds" system, no?

No.

Again, in order to "win" you have to cause more damage than you get. That's doesn't happen very often for the 1 defender. 4%. Chances of getting that twice are REAL low. Even if it lucked out and got it once, the chances are that the exact opposite would happen next round.

Venger

[Marquis de Sodaq]

CivII uses a "per round" method, according to how you define it. The odds of a combat round are calculated based on the attacker's modified attack value vs. the defender's modified defense value. Somebody scores a hit each round - if not the attacker, then the defender by default.

The result is smoothed out by the use of hit points being 10x the number listed in rules.txt. That is, a legion has 10hp, a musketeer 20hp. The warrior in your scenario would have to win 10 times in a row against a legion, not just 1 or 2.

[GePap]

What about bombardment?

Can the 'rate fo fire' or arty and bombers and so forth be changed? If we get to units with 10 hp but arty only does 2 damage still, then arty or bombers become much weaker. Also, if the 'rate of fire' is increased, does this mean that the chances of hitting improvements would rise?

[GePap]

Another quick question?

the explination over changing Hp seems to rely on experience levels, not tech levels. Let say that you say regulars get 4, veteran 6, elites 10 . Well, if warrior becomes elite, does he still not reach 10? Is there a way to limit the ability of units to reach certain experience levels, which according to how the rules edditing was described here, is what determines hitpoints? Also, is there any way of insuring that upgraded units don't lose HP?

[Rusty Nail]

Marqis de S is correct. Both civ2 and civ3 use a per round model where one side has to win a hit. See page 100 of the civ2 manual. Defensive strength represents the damage inflicted on the attacker i.e. with the defender's probabily of winning the round and with the defenders damage defined by his firepower . The major difference betwen civ2 and civ3 is the NUMBER of rounds (greater in civ2) and the concept of firepower, which is always 1 in civ3. This is the model used in the civ3 "civulator". Having more rounds skews the result in favour of the one having a better chance of winning a single round and reduces the standard deviation of the result, i.e fewer outliers. It is a metter of subjective taste as to what level of certaintly you feel is best, i.e chance for the underdog to win. He has a better chance in civ3 than in civ2. But, in a mod, by imodifying the number of hitpoints on both sides we can tailormake this to any standard. This multiplier could even be a parameter that the user could choose.

[Arkatreides]

Re: What about bombardment?

Originally posted by GePap
Can the 'rate fo fire' or arty and bombers and so forth be changed? If we get to units with 10 hp but arty only does 2 damage still, then arty or bombers become much weaker. Also, if the 'rate of fire' is increased, does this mean that the chances of hitting improvements would rise?

Yes it can. I multiplied all the hitpoints by 2 and then realised that bombards were useless. So I multiplied bomard rate of fire by 2 as well and now it evens out. Basically the bomabrd rate of fire is exactly what the firepower in Civ2 was. Un fortunately it only works for bombard units, not regular units.

Armies are not screwed up if you go over the 20HP limit. In fact for a while I had elite units with 20HP and I could easily make a 60HP army. It just doesn't show all the HP dots on the screen, but who cares. The problem with 20HP units (a factor of 4 vs the original setup) is that you cannot multiply bomabrd by 4 as the maximum it allows is 10 and some units like bombers have an original value of 3.

[J10]

Personally, I do not like underdogs to win, I do NOT.

Reason: Battle tactics are made less useful than it was in Civ2 if you screw it up so that underdogs can win.

I mean com'on, yesterday I lost two 5hp Elite Calvaries attacking one 1hp Calvary on grassland in a row, and finally had to kill that 1hp Calvary with a 4hp Calvary which wounded up having 1 hp left. Someone who's still in college doing probability can tell us the chance of that in Civ2 and in Civ3 so we can all be amazed at how sh|t out of luck I was. I'm pretty sure it's a lot more difficult to happen in Civ2 then in Civ3.

And once again, if underdogs are made easlier to win, then battle tactics are not as important anymore, bad news for us warlike leaders