DESIGN: Armor and HP's

[Maquiladora]

Thirst

rule of 3s

3 minuets without air

3 days without water

3 weeks without food

Dying of starvation sounds funnier... clearly.

[The Big Mc]

Were going for tank what a bout a war walker

[ctplinuxfan]

Hi,

Hm, wasn't there a unit limit?
Anyways: Perhaps the 100 men are digging a hole huge enough for the tank to fall into?
Or the archers conquer the tank, the winner gets the tank, and 96 archers; the other 3 surviving archers are then within the tank - i.e. canned archers

I vote for option 1).
Perhaps armour/hps can be weighted with the age and an outdated unit has less chance to weaken armor/inflict damage on a modern unit. Units which cannot bombard other armored units cannot inflict damage, if age difference is too high.
Bombarding units should always be able to inflict damage when bombarding, but the damage is decreased by a armor-age weighted difference. E.g. a cannon is outdated against a tank, but is still able to destroy it. A cannon can still inflict unreduced damage to a marine.

Otoh, another techlevels more, guess some archers within a city having a forcefield. Following the armour logic, I think a single tank should have no chance to capture the city, because of the forcefield. Perhaps only a fusion tank or leviathan should have a chance.

Ciao
Holger

[tyrantpimp]

This thread got me thinking about unit morale and dessertion and all sorts of stuff. Seems like at some point archers would just walk of the job. I mean national pride is one thing but fighting a warwalker with sticks is above and beyond the call of duty.

[epeterson]

One word--complicated. This game already has more than enough to simulate some sort of reality. That's why we play it! I can understand the interest in finesseing it but shouldn't you concentrate on working out the really obvious bugs first? Possibly a patch to fix the obvious bugs in a timely manner, then you can concentrate on making this the game of the century.

Regarding the ancient units vs. modern units scenario. I am playing a game with just the 1.11 patch installed and I took 1 battleship, 1 destroyer and 1 PT boat against hoplites, archers and mounted archers and destroyed all 12 of them with no casualties, (only damage). Now, attacking cities with naval units argument aside, I think that was a pretty realistic outcome.

However, there is ALWAYS strength in numbers! If you have one tank against a stack of ancient units there is always the possibility that the tank can be overwhelmed. As mentioned before--(holes dug to capture/destroy tanks), intuitiveness and adaptability can turn the tide of battle. Just ask any navy seal.

I tend to side with Maquiladora on many of these issues. Perhaps the micromanagement can be set aside for the time being and the real business of bug stompin' take its place.

[MrBaggins]

Having armor as an optional immunity/extra defense property assists in fulfilling one of the prime tenents of good game design...

by Brian Reynolds, The Poor Get Richer: The Ancient Art of Game Balance
"Ideally, a game should end at the exact instant a player has effectively been guaranteed victory, a player should be eliminated at the moment victory for him becomes essentially impossible,"

Theres nothing wrong with making obsolescence concrete... Completely obsolete troops shouldn't have ANY effect on game outcome, (and I've shown where archers can completely unbalance a tank battle.) Saying that they don't do significant amounts of damage is a cop-out. They should do none, and we can easily make it so.

Obviously many post-modern units would be utterly invulnerable to ancient units, and many scenario situations would benefit from this possibility too.

Theres really no compelling reason not to implement this, since the current situation isn't ideal in all cases.

Implementing Armor adds zero micromanagement load on the player.

[epeterson]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Theres nothing wrong with making obsolescence concrete... Completely obsolete troops shouldn't have ANY effect on game outcome, (and I've shown where archers can completely unbalance a tank battle.) Saying that they don't do significant amounts of damage is a cop-out. They should do none, and we can easily make it so.

I don't agree. In your scenario you have 6 tanks engaged with 6 opposing tanks and 6 archers. While the tanks are equally numbered and would be engaged basically 1 on 1 you have an additional 6 units on one side that can be forwarding reconnaissance information/setting up traps/resupplying forward units/etc. As I said, there is always an advantage in numbers. They needn't have the latest/greatest equipment to be a force to be reckoned with.

[MrBaggins]

Incorrect. These archers aren't doing damage from forward positions in the example I gave.. the damage they did was purely ranged... I.E. arrows fired at tanks... quite ridiculous.

[epeterson]

Your dissecting it and I think you should be looking at the big picture. Use your imagination. As it is, it certainly doesn't take a year to move a bomber 10 squares does it?! But that is the time-line we deal with because the game is turn-based.

Whether or not the archers are in the front row or back row should be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things...Their ranged attack isn't really worth a crap anyhow against tanks! But it does help; even if only slightly. The game is telling you that numbers do count and you're telling me it doesn't. Remember Custer's last stand?

Just because the guy has a bow and arrow icon does not mean that in a multi-force, (tanks AND archers), action he cannot do other tasks. That is where I'm going with this. If you cannot defeat the enemy with the weapon you have at your disposal, then you will improvise. I don't think a numerical advantage should be so easily discounted.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by epeterson
Your dissecting it and I think you should be looking at the big picture. Use your imagination. As it is, it certainly doesn't take a year to move a bomber 10 squares does it?! But that is the time-line we deal with because the game is turn-based.

The game has an abstract battle system, with a very specific battle order. Front-line units do damage according to A vs D, vs the opposing front line, and Ranged-line units do damage R vs D vs the opposing front line, and aren't directly attacked. Thus the game is stating that ranged units don't approach the opposing front line... thats the job of the Front line attackers. Their only capability to damage the opposing troops is via their ranged weaponry at this range. An archer would not damage a tank in battle... even lots of archers.

Whether or not the archers are in the front row or back row should be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things...Their ranged attack isn't really worth a crap anyhow against tanks! But it does help; even if only slightly. The game is telling you that numbers do count and you're telling me it doesn't. Remember Custer's last stand?

Neither one arrow, or one thousand arrows fired, would damage a tank. Tanks are proof against far more powerful weaponry. Give an example of how any arrow fired from a bow, which if it hit, would do 1/30th of damage to a tank.

Custer's last stand had two opposing forces with relatively similar technology, so its an irrelevant analogy... they had no special defensive capabilities, like body armor.

Just because the guy has a bow and arrow icon does not mean that in a multi-force, (tanks AND archers), action he cannot do other tasks. That is where I'm going with this. If you cannot defeat the enemy with the weapon you have at your disposal, then you will improvise. I don't think a numerical advantage should be so easily discounted.

An archer unit means that he has certain capabilities. He doesn't gain new anti-tank capabilities, even if teamed with a tank.

[epeterson]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Custer's last stand had two opposing forces with relatively similar technology, so its an irrelevant analogy... they had no special defensive capabilities, like body armor.

The US cavalry was always better equipped than the native americans. Albeit not as a significant difference as my comparison between ancient and modern units in CTP2, I was hoping you'd get the jist of what I meant by numerical superiority.

An archer unit means that he has certain capabilities. He doesn't gain new anti-tank capabilities, even if teamed with a tank.

So, even though I am a former metrologist, I am totally incapable of doing anything different?

I would think that if there were somehow a scenario where archers had to group with tanks that the tank commanders could use those archers in a slightly different capacity to assist the tanks in battle. They may not be versed in mobile warfare, but they are familiar with some battle tactics and thus could assist in SOME way! This game is waaaaay too general to focus on the individual characteristics of any 1 unit in an army. Remember, armies work cooperatively; not individually.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by epeterson
The US cavalry was always better equipped than the native americans. Albeit not as a significant difference as my comparison between ancient and modern units in CTP2, I was hoping you'd get the jist of what I meant by numerical superiority.

I get your point about numerical superiority, but certain situations defy this... where there are defensive capabilities that completely defeat offensive capabilities for instance... like arrows vs tank.

So, even though I am a former metrologist, I am totally incapable of doing anything different?

I would think that if there were somehow a scenario where archers had to group with tanks that the tank commanders could use those archers in a slightly different capacity to assist the tanks in battle. They may not be versed in mobile warfare, but they are familiar with some battle tactics and thus could assist in SOME way! This game is waaaaay too general to focus on the individual characteristics of any 1 unit in an army. Remember, armies work cooperatively; not individually.

I don't see how the Archers could assist, from a ranged rank, and thats where they are... abstraction or not.

If you want another example to chew on, consider 12 Fire Triremes vs a Nuclear sub. The nuclear sub would attack the Fire Triemes, kill them and be seriously damaged.

How would you explain that, though?

A sub can stay underwater for months, obviously outrun these vessels, and detect them with sonar... not to mention the fact that its weapons can attack them, without their being able to respond.

What would they do in response?

--

BTW... the poll is showing overwhelming support for some form of armor invulnerability/damage ignoring... so its in as far as I'm concerned.

[epeterson]

Don't get me wrong. I'm open to some of these modifications. I can see from other threads that you are very proficient at what you do. I just don't want you to get mired in what I think are minor details when there is so much to do.

It would be much more unfair if they put the archers in front because then they would be cannon-fod for the first few rounds while his tanks nailed you from the rear ranks with their ranged attack. Now THAT would really suck!

We could argue all day about 'what ifs'. Like an old friend of mine would say: "What if worms had machine guns?" Answer: "Then all the birds would be dead."

I meant no offense with my remarks on this matter. You have put far more work into this project than I. Just consider my input 'food for thought'.

[MrBaggins]

No, I completely respect that, and it is important to examine issues to determine whether they are worthwhile or problematic.

It should be noted that the change we are talking about is a value, that can be used... or left at default, to have no impact on the game. There will be numerous additions to the CTP2 code that will be structured this way also.

The real difference that separates CTP2 from any and every other Civ game is its flexibility, and given a few small but fundemental changes, I'm pretty confident that we'll have the opportunity to solve some game balance, and challenge issues that tend to plague every Civ style game.

It might end up being apparent through playtesting that not every additional control feature that we add is necessary... but its better to have and not need, than not be able to try in the first place.

There's no definitive time table... we aren't rushing a game for Christmas, or Summer... and things will happen at their own pace.

[Matthew Hayden]

Hmm - problem. Erm, may I suggest a combat model and then you can deconstruct it if you see a problem that can be addressed, however, before I lay it down I have this to say -I reserve the right to be wrong- there.




Every unit has Attack, Range, Defense strengths measured in the same way as in CTP1 - meaning you have warriors with an attack value of 1, battleships have 20 for all three.
Then there is firepower, this value denotes the number of hitpoints the opponent loses if this unit either attacks or defends successfully. hitpoints are the health of a unit, which can be decreased by damage in combat

BUT THEN!!

We have ARMOR and DAMAGE

These values are rather more open to discussion than those already discoursed

ARMOR is a kind of toughness thing, meaning that a unit's ARMOR value does not decrease like hitpoints, so a unit with three hitpoints and an ARMOR value of 3 is three times harder to kill for ah opponent than a unit with 3 hitpoints but ARMOR of just 1.

DAMAGE is a different modifier again - this is related to ARMOR in the same way as someone suggested Attack being related to ARMOR - but I suggest it like this; A unit with DAMGE 2 cannot fight fairly against a unit with ARMOR 3 - it's ability to hurt the unit with ARMOR 3 will be retarded by some amount...

P.S - I haven't read the thread yet, and I know that what I'm suggesting is basically in CTP2 already, but I think it's the best possible combat system for a game in which every unit you're moving around probably represents over a thousand people...

I await your spatulas