The main reason to change combat

[GePap]

This thread is based on a post by Akka de Vil in the neverending Dmc507 thread.

The main line of though among the defenders of the combat sysytem is that we, those that dislike it, simply want to be invincible at some late point in the game (where's the fun in that!?). They can't figure out why we just don't create ridiculous A/D numbers to get this effect and leave them (and this forum) alone. Well, thanks to Excelsior (giving credit where credit is due) I already know how to make a trully unbeatable unit without changing a/d numbers (make modern armor move 8, blitz, give ability to bombard, rate of fire 4. NO competition). But being invincible was never the point. The point is giving gamers the best possible tool to customize.
Lets say i want to come up with a unit that has a rare chance in hitting but does horrible damage when it does hit (this is where Akka's post comes in)? 'Well, raise the Attack values' would be the answer. OK, but by doing that I simply increase the chance of hitting, without increasing the possible damage- so in the end I only moved further from my aim. Or what about a unit that almost always hits but does little damage? Or what about a fortress, which takes loads of punishment? With the civ2 combat system I could create all of these, no problem. With the Civ3 system I can't create any of them correctly-not a one.
A/D values are blunt instruments. That 'unecessary complexity' Soren spoke off also created a fine instrument which we gamers could use to create infinite possibilites and fine balances. You can play a sonata on a piano with hammers- but it won't be pretty, and it won't sound the same.

[gamma]

I suppose you have a point there. The closest thing you could make to a unit that hits rarely but damages horribly would be a bombardment unit with attack rating of 1 and rate of fire of 3-5.

Why, exactly, do you want a unit that hits rarely but damages horribly, btw? (I know you gave this as an example, so I'm asking hypothetically here.) The only effect I can see is that it makes combat more random. (A unit that hits often but damages poorly would make combat less random, in contrast.)

[Akka]

Originally posted by gamma
I suppose you have a point there. The closest thing you could make to a unit that hits rarely but damages horribly would be a bombardment unit with attack rating of 1 and rate of fire of 3-5.

Why, exactly, do you want a unit that hits rarely but damages horribly, btw? (I know you gave this as an example, so I'm asking hypothetically here.) The only effect I can see is that it makes combat more random. (A unit that hits often but damages poorly would make combat less random, in contrast.)

A terrorist unit.
A minefield.
A fantasy magical unit from the magical Kingdom of Chaos, that is using the power of Chaos.
A sci-fi unit using a singularity quantic charge whose power is based on probability.
A Long Bertha gun, not accurate but with enormous shells.
A musket (less accurate than a bow but more powerful).
A flamethrower (small Attack rating because you have to come nearly in hand-to-hand, but high damage).
A toxic gaz.
A bomb.
A primitive bomber (already possible with the rate of fire, I cant understand why they took out the FP from other units while they let it for bombardement units).

I could too talk about high attack rating with low FP units, but I think you get the point

[Jack_www]

You do have a good point there about chaning the cobat system so that you can mod the game so that you can make all kind of units. One thing though that I see people complaining how their tank loses to a spearmen, I never have this porblem and at some times for me anyway it seems to easy to take over anther civ, although you have to watch out for cities that revert. One thing if people have problems with the fact that spearmen are beating their tanks is to get the computer to upgrade it's units. Every time I play, for some unknow reason the computer still has 20 or 30 spearmen running around in the modern age, even when it has the tech to make better densive units. If the computer upgraded it's units people would never have to face spearmen if the first place, and thus their tanks would never lose to spearmen.

[Rakki]

that's why I think they got the shooty stuff RIGHT for Civ 2 - increase the firepower but lower the Attack and you would've got something like a terrorist unit...

I don't agree with their design goal of trying to equalize advanced and primitive civs - perhaps they could allow primitive civs to build "terrorist" type units (it'll take a lot of Zulu Impis to wipe out a rifleman, but once ONE Impi manages to get close...)

Anyway, I think the Civ 3 combat system tried to combine Civ 1 and strat wargame and managed to pick out the worst of two.

[Zanzin]

Originally posted by Jack_www
One thing if people have problems with the fact that spearmen are beating their tanks is to get the computer to upgrade it's units. Every time I play, for some unknow reason the computer still has 20 or 30 spearmen running around in the modern age, even when it has the tech to make better densive units.

Good point. Why doesn't the AI upgrade/disband/build more modern defenders? I can't believe this was an intentional thing on Firaxis' part - surely they noticed it was just as stupid as we're noticing it too be, right?

[WhiteElephants]

Re: The main reason to change combat

Originally posted by GePap
The main line of though among the defenders of the combat sysytem is that we, those that dislike it, simply want to be invincible at some late point in the game (where's the fun in that!?). They can't figure out why we just don't create ridiculous A/D numbers to get this effect and leave them (and this forum) alone.

Well now, that's a pretty impressive summary. I had thought all along we were arguing for game play/balance over realism, the repercussions of not having the correct resources, the margin of randomness to combat over the boring unit A always defeats unit B syndrome, the use of combined arms over hapless tactics, etc., etc.

Lets say i want to come up with a unit that has a rare chance in hitting but does horrible damage when it does hit (this is where Akka's post comes in)? 'Well, raise the Attack values' would be the answer. OK, but by doing that I simply increase the chance of hitting, without increasing the possible damage- so in the end I only moved further from my aim.

By raising the attack rating you are raising a units chance to hit and not be hit and by extension raising the amount of a damage a unit is likely to inflict.

Or what about a unit that almost always hits but does little damage?

Raise the attack rating and the hit points of every other unit.

Or what about a fortress, which takes loads of punishment?

Raise hit points.

With the civ2 combat system I could create all of these, no problem. With the Civ3 system I can't create any of them correctly-not a one.

Well now you know, and knowing is half that battle!

Notice I never mentioned fire power in any of the above examples?

A/D values are blunt instruments. That 'unecessary complexity' Soren spoke off also created a fine instrument which we gamers could use to create infinite possibilites and fine balances. You can play a sonata on a piano with hammers- but it won't be pretty, and it won't sound the same.

A scalpel is useless in the hands of a butcher, no?

[WhiteElephants]

Interestingly enough I've heard the same crowd argue that Firaxis should fix the combat because they paid money for the game (etc., etc.) so they shouldn't have to do it themselves and then turn around and say they want to bring back fire power so they can tweek there own mods.

In other words they want a more realistic "fixed" game so they can turn around and "break" it to create less realistic mods.

Save Firaxis the trouble and just "break" the "broken" game, eh?

[Excelsior]

Re: Re: The main reason to change combat

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
Raise the attack rating and the hit points of every other unit.
Raise hit points.

Unless you know something I don't, there is no way to raise the hitpoints of units in Civ3 except on a per-experience level basis.

[WhiteElephants]

Re: Re: Re: The main reason to change combat

Originally posted by Excelsior

Unless you know something I don't, there is no way to raise the hitpoints of units in Civ3 except on a per-experience level basis.

Apparently Venger knows more than both of us, as he has claimed to double the amount of hit points for every unit.

[WhiteElephants]

Re: Re: Re: The main reason to change combat

Originally posted by Venger

I've modified all the hit points in the game double - and adjusted the ROF for artillery to try and keep pace.

From the horse's mouth.

[Venger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The main reason to change combat

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Apparently Venger knows more than both of us, as he has claimed to double the amount of hit points for every unit.

Can't help it, I'm a FREAKING GENIUS!!!

I'll attach the picture of the editor. As you can see, the veteran setting is now 8 instead of 4.

The only problems I have found are that combat takes some time longer now, and moving a high HP unit on water leaves graphic marks as the hp stack is higher than the game redraw area - moving removes them, and they aren't all that bad.

You can change the setting for all of them. Armies seem to work just fine, with up to 40 HP in them...

Venger

[Excelsior]

Yeah, he just doubled it for each experience level, i.e., conscript = 4, regular = 6, veteran = 8, elite = 10. I quadrupled it in my copy. It balances out the extreme results and I think it gives combat a feel closer to that of Civ2.

[Venger]

Also, you MUST double the Rate of Fire for bombardment units or you will reduce their effectiveness by a bunch...this is done on the units tab, and don't forget the special units too...

The artillery is kinda cool now - it will do between 1 and 4 HP damage. I like it.

Venger

[Bakunine]

Yes, changing units hit points are very easy, HOWEVER you can just change all the hit for for the levels of experience and not change a particular unit hit points.