Save hp and firepower in Civ 3!!!

[Cyclotron]

You know, so many people complained about the problem in CTP where a few pikemen in a good position could stomp an armor flat. I think the biggest error of CTP was the lack of firepower and hit point values that were so great in CivII. These values made for interesting and unpredictable units, increasing strategy: For example, a unit with a low attack but high firepower has a low chance of "hitting" the enemy, but if it does it causes massive damage. In CTP, You could jusst tally up the attack/defense values with the terrain bonuses and ahead of time tell who would win. Boring!

Keep hp and firepower in Civ 3!!

[Roman]

You are 100% right about this. However, another problem is that the value of attack, firepower, etc. goes up as single integer numbers, hence making it very difficult to accurately portray differences in power between units. Firaxis might want to take a leaf out of Ctp 2 and instead of a warrior having an attack of 1, it should have 10. All the other stats for all units should be increased proportionally. This systems allows you to create "in between units".

[Grumbold]

CtP certainly made life more flexible by starting with units of 10-10 rather than 1-1. Civ II and CtP may have had different ways of representing the greater effectiveness and durability of modern units but at least in CtP an army of a dozen or more units didn't queue up to fight the enemy one on one.

[EnochF]

I'll agree with both propositions. Keep firepower and hit points, and make them multiples of 10.

(And give obsolete units a penalty against modern units.)

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by EnochF on 02-08-2001 01:35 PM(And give obsolete units a penalty against modern units.)

That's what hp and FP will do; it would be excessive to give obsolete units a penalty AND use the FP/hp system.

I think that 10 might be a bit much. I don't want to be dealing with huge numbers. Maybe, starting at 2 or 5. And all MULTIPLES of 10? That is the exact same as multiples of 1.

[Roman]

Indeed Cyclotron7, only the firepower and hitpoints are required to represent obsolesence.

[Roman]

I would better explain why the multiple of 10 system works better than a standard single integer system.

In Civ 2, the warrior unnit has a defence of 1 and phalanx has a defence of 2. Is the phalanx really twice as good at defending as the warrior? Maybe, but perhaps it is 1.5 times as effective or 2.3 times. If you therefore have a multiple of 10 system, you can more accurately describe the differences between unit strenghts. This system has already been introduced in Ctp2.

Alternatively you could use decimal points to achieve the same thing, but I think most people would be more comfortable with integers.

[Cyclotron]

Oh! I thought you meant MULTIPLES of 10, meaning a warrior would be 10/10 and a phalanx 10/20... 15 and 23 aren't multiples of 10. Just a math mixup... But I still thaink that the lower the numbers, the better. Like 3, or something. But whatever.

[Roman]

Oops, I have said multiply everything by 10? Sorry for the confusion I meant you would multiply everything by 10 if you wanted to keep the stats the same as they are now in Civ2 (which of course you would not).

[Chronus]

The multiple by 10 is good. It helps eliminate the error due to rounding. A veteran warrior, for example, now attacks and defends at 15. Currently, a veteran warrior would get no bonus. This, of course, applies to other situations as well such as a 50% terrain bonus, etc.

[Maxxes]

All elements in combat are multiplied by 8 before calculation in civ2

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Maxxes on 02-10-2001 12:54 AM All elements in combat are multiplied by 8 before calculation in civ2

I didn't know that. Even so, however, the new multiple of ten system (on top of the Civ2 one) would give us better opportunity to customize the units more accurately.

[Chronus]

MAXXES QUOTE:

"All elements in combat are multiplied by 8 before calculation in civ2"

Huh? Where did you learn that? I know the manual talks about hit points in multiples of 10, but I don't recall anything about multiples of 8. Is it in some text file somewhere?

Irregardless of what it is, multiples of 10 obviously makes for easier math than multiples of 8.

[optimus2861]

quote: Originally posted by Chronus on 02-10-2001 09:30 AM Irregardless of what it is, multiples of 10 obviously makes for easier math than multiples of 8.

Actually, on a binary scale, multiplication by 8 is "easier" . Though a 700-MHz processor probably won't see much difference, I'll grant you.

- Ian Merrithew

[Maxxes]

The multiplication by 8 is only internal so it hasn't anything to do with your point Roman. It was a reaction to Chronus about rounding errors with veteran Warriors, no such rounding occurs. It would be downright silly if the defence of a veteran Warrior would be rounded down to 1.