We need an option to double unit hitpoints!

[DrFell]

The low standard hitpoint values are fine for SP, though annoying at times. They could be disastrous for MP. Firaxis are apparently taking a lot of the randomness which decides MP out of the game optionally (like huts, and unequal starts), so why not cut down on the battle randomness? MP duels at least are decided often by a few battles, as are any early rush strats. An important part of MP is the early stage, where borders are set, and resources are claimed. It takes a lot of skill to use as few units as you can in this stage to go as far as possible.

The randomness as it is changes all that. A player can send out a few warriors and end up killing all your horsemen, PURELY BY CHANCE. This happened in civ2, but in civ3, warriors taking out attacking horsemen happens every few battles. MP duels are going to be cross-my-fingers-and-hope-for-the-best affairs if combat stays the way it is.

Solution? Put in an option to double units hitpoints. It also needs to double artillery rates of fire. This cuts down combat randomness considerably, and is optional. It'd be easy to stick in the game, and wouldn't need much testing. Why not?

[WarpStorm]

Make a scenario and do it yourself. If people like it they'll use it.

[WarpStorm]

BTW, I disagree with the double hitpoints myself and like the random factor. Different strokes and all.

[DrFell]

No good for MP. You need a standard ruleset. Mods don't work, I've never seen one used for Civ2, for example. I'm talking about making this optional anyway, if you like the randomness just leave it off. It's not as if there wouldn't still be a massive random factor in the game, still moreso than civ2. Still almost enough to wreck MP (by turning it into a game of 'he who's luckiest with battles wins the game'. Making combat results more predictable adds more strategy to the game, and increases the cost of making poor moves).

[WarpStorm]

Well, Firaxis said that unless you are using custom resources (artwork etc.), the host can force a mod on the players.

[Zachriel]

Re: We need an option to double unit hitpoints!

Originally posted by DrFell
The low standard hitpoint values are fine for SP, though annoying at times. They could be disastrous for MP.

The combat "randomness" is not randomness, but probability; much like deciding how much to bet on the chance of filling a straight in Poker, or the probable location of the last trump in Bridge. There is a specific and known answer to these questions.

Luck is the perception. Odds are the reality.

Poor gamblers rely on luck. "The last time I won, I had a rabbit's foot in my pocket. The rabbit's foot must be lucky." "It's been red five times in a row. I will bet on black." "I can predict the outcome of the RPNG because I have observed it to be streaky." Good gamblers rely on odds and take advantage of the poor decisions of those who rely on luck.

In PtW, you should seriously consider your "chances" of victory before initiating combat.

[DrFell]

Of course, I'm not proposing taking all of the chance out of the combat system. I'm not complaining about losing a couple horsemen to warriors, etc. I expect and accept casulties in war purely from bad luck on my part. But I still feel it happens way too frequently. Put it this way - combat is indeed probability-based, but the probabilities have been evened out a great deal when compared to civ2. I do always consider the probabilities when doing combat (although most of it's subconscious now, I have a feel for where and when to attack and the chances of success), and this is fine when you have the time to build up a decent sized attack force, plan it all out, etc. But the early stages of games, duels especially, involve a few units out scouting territory and claiming resources and map regions. A couple victories at this early stage can easily lead to a player gaining control of the lion's share of resources and territory which generally equates to victory unless the leading player makes some terrible mistakes. There's nothing more frustrating in this early stage than to lose a horsman to a warrior in an important situation, say involving the control of an iron resource, when you attacked the warrior as it was sitting on a grassland square.

For fun games, this might be OK. Lots of players are out there just for the fun of the game, win or lose. But for competitive play, things are different. It's a shame the old GameLeague forum isn't still up. It'd prove my point perfectly - civ2 'greats' ceaselessly whining about hut luck and poor start locations. Now, civ3 fixies the hut and start locations problems to some degree. But all we'll end up hearing is how 'the dark god of civ' lost to the 'duelmaster' because of a few chance horsemen combats in the early game. Mods don't cut it either, for competitive play you NEED a standard, and although the civ2 rules could easily be tweaked to improve MP considerably, they never were.

So, remove huts. Take out barbs. Even-out start locations. All this can be done in PTW right now, and we're still in the beta stage. Why not go one step further, and (optionally) differentiate combat probabilities to a greater degree?

[WarpStorm]

Frankly, that style of play sounds real boring, to me. If I want one-on-one with no chance of luck and even starting locations, I'll play chess. I guess I'm just in it for fun, so my opinion doesn't count.

Like I said, get a mod adopted by those who want to play that way. It will be easy to have someone play your mod.

BTW, there is a standard and it has the standard hit points. What you are proposing changes the game radically. It gives a major advantage to higher tech units.

[WarpStorm]

According to Firaxis, beta means all features are "frozen". All that will be done between beta and shipping is bug fixes.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DrFell
Of course, I'm not proposing taking all of the chance out of the combat system. I'm not complaining about losing a couple horsemen to warriors, etc. I expect and accept casulties in war purely from bad luck on my part. But I still feel it happens way too frequently.

I understand your point. The earlier in the game it is, the more "luck" affects the final result thousands of years (and hours of gameplay) later. C'est la guerre.

On the other hand, I think that citypacking (ICS) will be the greatest threat to the game.

[Q Classic]

double unit hitpoints? won't that still leave probability of win/loss pretty much the same?

[WarpStorm]

No, the shape of the curve will be much steeper. There will be much less outliers. This will affect the results of combat by skewing the results greatly in favor of higher tech units. Any player who gets even a little behind the tech or resource game, may as well bow out, because they won't have much of a chance to get a come back. With the current scheme, outdated units (or no resource units) can occasionally kill enemies and give you a fighting chance. Doubling the hits will keep this from happening.

As an actual example, an 6 hit horseman beats an 6 hit warrior in an open field 85% of the time. If they both have only 3 hits the horseman wins only 76% of the time.

As another example, a 6 hit tank beats a 6 hit rifleman fortified in a city 73% of the time. If they both have the default 3 hits, the tank only wins 67% of the time (and the tank is more likely to come out injured).

Like I said earlier, this style of game has no appeal to me. Make a mod for your league to play. It'll only take about 30 seconds to do and the game will use it automatically.

[DaveV]

DrFell - if you want to hear whining, wait until someone gets a very early great leader in an MP game. If elimination of random "surprise, you win" events is the goal, I'd think the ability to disable great leaders is at least as important as a hitpoint boost.

[WarpStorm]

While we are at it why don't we all play on maps that have nothing but shielded grassland, so that we don't have a surprise where one player gets an advantage. We should give each player at least one of each resource and luxury in the starting city, too. Turn off goody huts and barbarians and AI players because these add randomness. Why settle for doubling hit points, if we do 10x the number of hits there will be almost no unexpected combat results. We should get rid of all custom civs too, since one player might get a weaker civ. Turn off great leaders too. I'm pretty sure that these are all doable in the editor.

This will be a true test of skill.

[DrFell]

A very early great leader would indeed be a huge advantage. Imagine building pyramids around 3000BC on a doubled production game. Still, you do get a chance to ambush the leader if you have any nearby units unless it appears right next to or inside the civ's borders. It's quite possible it would have to travel several turns over open countryside before reaching home.

WarpStorm, I'm only saying it should be made an option, one I'd personally play with all the time, but I'm sure players used to the old system would use it (tournaments, civfan GOTM, hall of fame highscore games etc would stick to the old rules.) I'm one who favors as many possible options for MP as Firaxis can squeeze in, to satisfy every player. I for one hate going all out science, researching the best military techs (say chivalry when everyone else has not yet got pikemen) putting great effort into it, and yet find my military completely destroyed by obsolete archers and spearmen.

Also, I think it's every players 'duty' to try to remain competitive through resources and techs. If you do neglect tech research or if you do fail to plan for when resources arrive you're going to have to catch up by trading or allying with friendly players in bigger games. Take out the resource luck by spreading out and claiming large tracts of varied land, controlling them militarily if not by colonies. Build a big army if you don't control much land, and be ready to take a resource by force as soon as you get the tech to see it. If you don't take precautions, you should pay for your mistakes.