Why the big deal over Firepower in Civilization 2?

[Badtz Maru]

Several people on these boards seem to believe that the presence of a Firepower stat as was in Civ2 would prevent combat upsets where a primitive unit defeats a more powerful one. I'm not seeing it - only two ground units in Civ2 had a Firepower greater than 1, Artillery and the Howitzer. It was mainly reserved for naval vessels and aircraft. The important difference seems to be the actual number of hit points, which varied. Here's the stats on Civ2 units:

Cost Move Att. Def. HP FP
Warrior 10 1 1 1 10 1

Pikemen 20 1 1 2* 10 1

Horsemen 20 2 2 1 10 1

Phalanx 20 1 1 2 10 1

Archers 30 1 3 2 10 1

Chariot 30 2 3 1 10 1

Knight 40 2 4 2 10 1

Elephant 40 2 4 1 10 1

Legion 40 1 4 2 10 1

Catapult 40 1 6 1 10 1

Crusaders 40 2 5 1 10 1

Trireme 40 5 0 3 30 1

Dragoons 50 2 5 2 20 1

Musketeers 30 1 3 3 20 1

Fanatics 20 1 4 4 20 1

Cannon 40 1 8 1 20 1

Ironclad 60 4 4 4 30 1

Frigate 50 4 4 2 20 1

Cavalry 60 2 8 3 20 1

Riflemen 40 1 5 4 20 1

Marines 60 1 8 5 20 1

Artillery 50 1 10 1 20 2

Howitzer 70 2 12 2 30 2

Alpine 50 1 5 5 20 1

Mech Inf. 50 3 6 6 30 1

Armor 80 3 10 5 30 1

Submarine 60 3 10 2 30 2

Destroyer 60 6 4 4 30 1

Cruiser 80 5 6 6 30 2

Battleship 160 4 12 12 40 2

Carrier 160 5 9 1 40 2

AEGIS 120 5 8 8 30 2

Helicopter 100 6 10 3 20 2

Fighter 60 10 4 2 20 2

Bomber 120 8 12 1 20 2

Cruise Msl. 40 12 20 0 10 3

Stlth Bmbr 160 12 14 3 20 2

Stlth Ftr. 80 14 8 3 20 2

As you can see, most of the Ancient through Medieval units had the same number of hitpoints and firepower. Of the ground units, everything else except the Howitzer and Armor have 20. In Civ3 all units have the same basic number of hit points - though we see 2, 3, 4, or 5 hit points, depending on the morale level of the unit, each of those represents 10 hit points that are used in hidden calculations during combat. Defense levels were also much lower in Civ2 in relation to offensive power, so getting the first attack made a lot bigger difference. In Civ2 a Cavalry unit (offense 8, 20 HP) attacking an Armor unit (Defense 5, 30 HP) has a much better chance of winning than a Regular Civ3 Cavalry (Offense 6, 30 HP) attacking a Veteran Tank (Defense 8, 40 HP).

[Sevorak]

Civ3 has no x10 factor like Civ2.

In Civ3, 1 hp is 1 hp.

-Sev

[Wrong_shui]

I was gonna say he was wrong, I just couldnt be arsed.

Im sure venger will tell him.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Sevorak
Civ3 has no x10 factor like Civ2.

In Civ3, 1 hp is 1 hp.

-Sev

I think you are wrong. I seem to recall one of the developers explaining that each of the hit points is actually 10 that are used in it's internal calculations.

[Sevorak]

You are recalling Civ2. It is well known and was even specified in early previews of Civ3 and its combat system. 1 hp is 1 hp. Otherwise, no one would complain about screwy results.

-Sev

[Badtz Maru]

Well, if I'm wrong, the original point still stands - Firepower is not that important, it's hit points.

I personally like battle to be a bit more random, I think it was a good design decision. In Civ2 you could crush an empire in a few turns if you managed to build a few tanks first, which is pretty unrealistic as wars are frequently lost against technologically inferior opponents.

[Libertarian]

*cough* Vietnam *cough*

[Dis]

this looks familiar...

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Libertarian
*cough* Vietnam *cough*

*cough* Desert Storm *cough*

[Badtz Maru]

Yeah, I think we all can remember how easily we conquered Iraq and made it the 51st state...

Desert Storm is not a valid comparison to Vietnam, as all we did was drive a much weaker country out of a recently conquered nation (that would be no bigger than one city even on a huge Earth map) and destroy a chunk of the invader's army. Had we tried to permanently occupy Iraq it would have been a LOT messier.

[Easy Rhino]

wait a sec!

The "rate of fire" number, effectively, IS firepower!

THEY JUST CHANGED THE NAME!!!


ER

[Akka]

Re: Why the big deal over Firepower in Civilization 2?

Let's explain it for the gazillionth times.

In Civ2 a Cavalry unit (offense 8, 20 HP) attacking an Armor unit (Defense 5, 30 HP) has a much better chance of winning than a Regular Civ3 Cavalry (Offense 6, 30 HP) attacking a Veteran Tank (Defense 8, 40 HP).

1 HP in Civ2 is 10 HP. 1 HP in Civ 3 is 1 HP.

I personally like battle to be a bit more random, I think it was a good design decision. In Civ2 you could crush an empire in a few turns if you managed to build a few tanks first, which is pretty unrealistic as wars are frequently lost against technologically inferior opponents.

Stop seeing the world as a video game and come back to reality. Tech has nearly always won on the field. For one victory of tech underdog, I can tell you dozens of tech leader. "frequently" is not really the word I would have used.
Now, I was talking about reality. The design decision of making low-tech units to be able to fight against high-tech ones is another story.

*cough* Vietnam *cough*

55 000 deads againt 1 100 000. What a defeat. It's public opinion and international reproval that made Viet-nam a defeat. On the battlefields, Viets were constantly beaten. But their dedication to their fight worn slower than the patience of American civilians.

Desert Storm is not a valid comparison to Vietnam, as all we did was drive a much weaker country out of a recently conquered nation (that would be no bigger than one city even on a huge Earth map) and destroy a chunk of the invader's army. Had we tried to permanently occupy Iraq it would have been a LOT messier.

The "much weaker country" was supposed to have the 5th most powerful army of the world (ok, I think it was gross overstatement made more for journalistic impact than according to reality). Anyway, the Iraqi army was much bigger than the Allied one, but was technology late. So well, it was slaughtered.

The "rate of fire" number, effectively, IS firepower!

THEY JUST CHANGED THE NAME!!!


ER

1) Rate of fire is for artillery only.
2) It's not a fixed number, it's a random number between 0 and the ROF value.



And now, to explain what is the big deal about firepower :

MODDABILITY and REALISM

Understood ?
I don't want to have my archer able to dish out as much damage per hit as my Sci-fi Mechwarrior with its nuclear shotgun/phaser/antimatter ray/whatever you like. I don't want to have my battleship having as much HP as a galley. I don't want to have my infantry gaining one HP when learning how to fight better (the ancient system of raising A/D value made much more sense). I want to be able to et the HP and the FP according to the UNIT, not the EXPERIENCE STATUT.
Is that so hard to understand ?
I don't care about FP/HP being changed for regular game. I just want to be able to mod the game and make it like I want, because I know that many people would not like a game fit for me. But well, then give me my moddability !

[Mawrin]

Think about the Civ3 unit type as representing the "average" capabilities of the unit. So your tanks in Civ3 don't represent just tanks, but also some infantry, artillery, etc. Likewise that cavalry unit isnt just guys with lances or rifles on horseback, they might have acquired mortars, RPGs, a few APCs, etc. over the years. That way the combat system starts to make more sense.

It's possible to build a Warrior unit that lasts the whole game. Do you think Warriors in the 21st century are still wearing loincloths and carrying spears and clubs, just because their great-great-etc grandfathers did? A 21st century AD Warrior unit would wipe the floor with a 40th century BC Warrior unit.

[FrantzX]

Badtz Maru, the problem is that people are still trying to tank rush as if this was Civ I/II or a RTS. Some just don't understand that you have to fight a lot more conservatively that we have been use to.

[GePap]

Red Herring

The entire 'the whinners just have not changed their civ2 tactics yet' is a red herring, a mindless bit to ignore the basic argument, which is, what should the civ3 combat system be like? I personally love arty, I use it in the dozens, I also use fleets of bombers, and have worn cities down by massive bombardment before attacks- why? Because bombardment and the new way of using air units are the best parts of the Civ3 combat system and I love them. At the same time, I can still easily use tank rushes- the A.I. always keeps meager defenses, and since my modern armor does retreat, all I need its lots of them- no combined arms at all, to take a city, no matter the size or position, especially since the A.I. loves to keep their spearmen around. Remember, utterly random numbers can work for the player also- hey, look, my 2 hp tank just beat 4 fortified, elite, inf in a city of 20 behind a river! How nice....
As I, and Akka, and N. Machiavelli, Venger, and countless other argue is that the FP/HP system creates a far more realisitc and moddifiable combat system than the current one. A wooden galley with 90 men rowing that weights at the most 1000 tons does not, should not, can not, theoretically take as much damage, or more, than a steel warship with 2500 crew and a tonnage of 60,000. A ship armed with a copper ram, and maybe some crude ballista does not, can not, should not be able to defeat a warship with a dozen high caliber, long distance pieces of artillery on it. In Civ2 this was true, in Civ3 it is not: wow! what a great improvement! Civ3 has made the utterly impossible possible!
The only valid argument I have heard for the entire combat system without FP and a low HP number is that it gives a chance, a small but still possible chance, to those that are either hopelessly behind technologically, or lacking of vital resources. The people who make this argument state that it improves gameplay by making the game more challenging. I think that it covers up for deficiencies in other game concepts or the way they were implemented, and that if a civ is that far behind in tech, or so utterly lacking in resources, then it should die, because thats what happens to such civs out there in the cold, hard, world.