The main reason to change combat

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli

Either way requires a new system. From a programming standpoint, giving the units individual HP values is only slightly less time-consuming than re-implimenting FP. That being the case, why not simply add FP, and give the option such as the one given in Civ2, i.e. 'Simple' or 'Advanced' combat.

It seems the mechanics and system of values for hit points are already in the game we simply need a way to override the values of hit points assigned by morale. Is that easier to do? I would think so, but I'm not a programmer.

[GePap]

Bigger mess

To WhiteElephants:
The changes you are calling for seem to me to be more dramatic than adding FP. First, FO is already in the game, for bombardment units: its called 'rate of fire'. How difficult it would be to give all non-bombardment units different rates of fire, well, I am not a programer either.
As to decoupling the HP from experience levels: well, experience is linked with getting leaders and getting leaders with getting armies, and getting armies with 3 different small wonders. So would not going around and messing with the whole 'experience' superstructure created by Fixaris affect more game systems than the FP change we call for? When making changes, we have to look at all elements. Putting back FP would only affect combat and the ability of gamers to modify. Messing with experience may unbalance a lot of other game concepts.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


It seems the mechanics and system of values for hit points are already in the game we simply need a way to override the values of hit points assigned by morale. Is that easier to do? I would think so, but I'm not a programmer.

Not at all. All FP it requires is a few extra strings since it is really just another variable. Hell, if I wasn't so afraid of being sued, I'd crack it myself. All it would take is a day or two of work.

[N. Machiavelli]

Re: Bigger mess

Originally posted by GePap
To WhiteElephants:
The changes you are calling for seem to me to be more dramatic than adding FP. First, FO is already in the game, for bombardment units: its called 'rate of fire'.

Not exactly. Rate of fire is actually a range of numbers from 0 to X. Example, a bombard unit with a ROF of 3 can do anywhere from 0 to 3 points of damage if it hits. FP, on the other hand, is a fixed number. A unit with a FP of 2 will always inflict a damage of 2 when it hits. (well, except in CTP, wherein they have an addition value of 'armour' that will lessen the FP of the opposing unit.)

[WhiteElephants]

Re: Bigger mess

Originally posted by GePap

As to decoupling the HP from experience levels: well, experience is linked with getting leaders and getting leaders with getting armies, and getting armies with 3 different small wonders. So would not going around and messing with the whole 'experience' superstructure created by Fixaris affect more game systems than the FP change we call for? When making changes, we have to look at all elements. Putting back FP would only affect combat and the ability of gamers to modify. Messing with experience may unbalance a lot of other game concepts.

I see your point concerning great leaders, but I don't think changing hit points would change that. You would still need a elite unit (or whatever it is) in order to have a chance at getting a great leader. The only draw back is that that elite status doesn't mean much in terms of the game anymore as it wouldn't count towards a higher amount of hit points.

Preferably I would like morale to modify A/D ratings based on a percentage for each level of morale just as it was in Alpha Centauri, (elite units would have a +50% attack and defense) though that would call for a huge change in the combat system (I think).

Not exactly. Rate of fire is actually a range of numbers from 0 to X. Example, a bombard unit with a ROF of 3 can do anywhere from 0 to 3 points of damage if it hits. FP, on the other hand, is a fixed number. A unit with a FP of 2 will always inflict a damage of 2 when it hits. (well, except in CTP, wherein they have an addition value of 'armour' that will lessen the FP of the opposing unit.)

I'm not really clear on whether that is a variable number for when, and if, it hits or if it does one point of damage each time it hits and the RoF is the number of chances it gets to hit. Thoughts?

[N. Machiavelli]

Re: Re: Bigger mess

Originally posted by WhiteElephants

I'm not really clear on whether that is a variable number for when, and if, it hits or if it does one point of damage each time it hits and the RoF is the number of chances it gets to hit. Thoughts?

Attack/Defense decides whether or not a unit will hit another unit. For bombard, it's the unit Bombard attack number. RoF then decides, "Now that I have just hit the guy, how much damage can I inflict?" Take for example, a Cannon. It has no attack number and instead a bombard strength i.e....stats are: 0(8),0,1.
This means that it's bombard strength acts as though it were a normal attack number in regards as to whether or not it will hit. The RoF for a cannon is, I think, 2. This indicates that if the cannon makes a successfull bombardment (decided by it's bombard strength vs opponants defense, terrain, etc), then it will then inflict between 0 and 2 damage points. Another random number sequence determines this new 'dice roll'. FP acts in the same way, except that deals a fixed damage if it hits.

Example: A cannon w/o FP wold have the same opportunity to hit a unit as a cannon with FP would. The difference is that the cannon with a RoF deals from 0 to 2 damage, but the FP cannon always deals 2. Understand?

[King of Rasslin]

Tactics have changed

Its OK to mine grassland now! This isn't Civ2!

The really tough defenders (esp. infantry) reflect the wars of the past very well. WWI was about infantry and artillery, and a slow starvation or wearing down of the enemy. At that point, you burn farms and destroy roads. You weaken the infantry with artillery until you can beat them with sheer mass.

Then the tank is invented. Now you can use artillery to weaken them and easily come out on top. With enough tanks, you don't even need to bomb them! Even with the 6+ city defence bonus, an army of tanks can go 50/50 with infantry with moderate success.

12+ cities are destroyed by knocking down the population. My fav part of Civ 3 is the new concept of having to slowly weaken them with catapults and cannons until they submit or are destroyed.

After modern armor, resources are gold. If you can't make mech infantry, you are dead. It isn't the combat that is unbalanced.

Some people still think you can roll over the Persians in 3 turns with their tanks. War is now about resources and corruption makes it impossible to go with freakishly large empires.

The hit point system is already in the game. It's called making an army. And the Veteran/Elite difference is also large. Weak civs often turn into training grounds for my men.

The combat is balanced, you just have to get used to hauling around artillery. I find air power a bit too weak, IMO. It isn't really very strong, but it's "power" is in the distance it can be used.

Until you get the aircraft carrier, they are not even used because of their lack of power compared to the artillery. I could see a use for air for bombing enemy ships at medium range, a little farther than artillery.

That is, if the comp made navies

While i don't like those warriors killing my cavalry, it doesn't happen often enough to be a serious problem. I wish leaders would appear more often though.

The system is balanced, so i wouldn't change it.

[GePap]

Well, the point being...

Rasslin:
The point of my thread is that an FP/HP system would allow for greater cuztomization of units and generally better combat results. It would probably do nothing to change the current system if you left it alone.

[N. Machiavelli]

Re: Tactics have changed

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Its OK to mine grassland now! This isn't Civ2!

The really tough defenders (esp. infantry) reflect the wars of the past very well. WWI was about infantry and artillery, and a slow starvation or wearing down of the enemy. At that point, you burn farms and destroy roads. You weaken the infantry with artillery until you can beat them with sheer mass.


.........

While i don't like those warriors killing my cavalry, it doesn't happen often enough to be a serious problem. I wish leaders would appear more often though.

The system is balanced, so i wouldn't change it.

Wow. That had absolutely nothing to do with the topicon hand: FP. It may help to read the comments in the post before you reply instead of just the title, just a thought.

That is, if the comp made navies

Well, I'd like to play your game. I always seem to have to deal with almost infinite AI navies (well, in any difficulty above Warlord, anyway).

Bravo.