DESIGN: Armor and HP's

[Gilgamensch]

epeterson:

the problem is, that ancient units change significantly combats when used in conjunction with modern units. That's why we are thinking of different ways here.

back to the idea:

Your idea would still have a problem:

a 12 stack attacking 2 tanks could still damage (or even destroy it)

IIRC Archer have FP of 1, so 12 archers = 12 AP's. Not really true.

If we would rebalance everything and say:

Damage = FP - Armor (if < 0 == 0)

How about this? OK, it would mean we have to rebalance all units.

[MrBaggins]

Not good, because that would slow down combat...

You essentially want to do full firepower damage to the opposing unit, otherwise you increase the number of combat rounds, and make the rear row more important...

At least, I think so...?

[The Big Mc]

Not good when I did work on the hurricane unit I found out that there is a limit for the number of combat rounds there is (it’s about the time everybody get bored and goes home )

[Gilgamensch]

First: Still working on Einstein

For the number of rounds per battle:

That would depend on the HP, but not on the Armor.

So to say it easy: (Archer against tank)

1. round
12 archers with 1HP and 1 AP and FP 1
2 Tank with 10 HP and 6 AP and FP 5

The 12 archers attack with the formula (as mentioned above, still working on) the damage they inflict would be (after rounding) 0.
Tanks attacks and because FP > AP, does do damage, actually it 'could' kill with the pure FP 5 archers in 1 round. (1 HP + 1 AP = 2. 5*2/2=5, meaning 5 archers killed)

I assume that damage can be transferred over!!!!!! Not sure if we want to do it, or how it is done in the moment.

2. round
7 archers left.

3. round
2 archers left.

and so on ( in this case one more round)

If we would now stack 10 archers with 2 tanks against 2 tanks.
Attacker:12 archers 1/1/1 and 2 tanks 10/6/5
Defender:2 tanks with 10/6/5

The archers would be finished in 2 rounds.
The stacked tanks (with Archers) could attack) in the meantime the tanks (single), but would in the first round only 'downgrade' the armor.

In the second round we would have
A: 2 tanks 10/6/5
D: 2 tanks 10/1/5

OK the outcome would be still the side with the ancient units having an advantage, but not longer able to inflict damage, it would just distract the fire of the defender (in this case).

One thing I am not sure about though, how is the model working with different kind of units (flanking/defensive/offensive/ranged/planes/ships). In other words who is the prime target of whome?

Example: 12 knights against 12 pikeman. Would it be only the first row fighting?
Or even better:
4 pikeman, 4 knights, 4 archers against the same configuration.

Normally I assume, the 4 archers would attack the 4 pikeman, but what about the 4 knights? Would they attack each other or the pikeman?

In other words, what is the combat model using for 'priorities'?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
I assume that damage can be transferred over!!!!!! Not sure if we want to do it, or how it is done in the moment.

Not unless it has Trample

[Gilgamensch]

[Matthew Hayden]

I think a combat system should be thought out practically - there is no magical wall which stops archers from trying to fight against tanks, so don't put any dodgy walls in their way. Instead, why not just make it so that UNIT A, fighting UNIT B, whose ARMOR value is a lot higher than UNIT A's DAMAGE value, will be horribly retarded in combat - thus - your tank will win because of it's stats, rather than because of sum rule that has been put up to stop units from certain ages hurting those of later ages. This age idea is not needed. Sensible use of the ARMOR and DAMAGE values from one end of the game to the other IS!!

[Maquiladora]

I agree Matthew. (except armour isnt needed)

The majority of those polled thing that there should be some cut-off point, where an obsolete unit can no longer damage a unit at all, in certain situations.

No. The majority of people have voted for "HP's are for HPs.. Armor for immunity/other defensive property". Whats certain is that armour shouldnt affect HP. Its no surprise to me the most popular poll choice is the one with 2 answers in it, one of them being VERY general.

My overriding feeling is that I can think of many other things programmers could be spending their time on, instead of something that isnt really broken. Im sure most of us have played civ3, lets be thankful its not that random eh? But lets also consider that a little uncertainty IS fun, i should know, ive played well over two hundred CtP1/2 MP games.

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by Matthew Hayden
I think a combat system should be thought out practically - there is no magical wall which stops archers from trying to fight against tanks, so don't put any dodgy walls in their way. Instead, why not just make it so that UNIT A, fighting UNIT B, whose ARMOR value is a lot higher than UNIT A's DAMAGE value, will be horribly retarded in combat - thus - your tank will win because of it's stats, rather than because of sum rule that has been put up to stop units from certain ages hurting those of later ages. This age idea is not needed. Sensible use of the ARMOR and DAMAGE values from one end of the game to the other IS!!

You shall have had a look at some testing (further up the thread) which have been made:

It is unbalacing the complete situation (and another exploit for the human).

In the moment I have some problems regarding the age-determination (or science value).

Any ideas?

[drulius]

I guess this is the dilema. You have 6 tanks defending on open ground, your enemy attacks with a stack of 5 tanks and 6 archers. Sorting rules aside, you would expect your 6 tanks to have a defensive and 6 to 5 numerical advantage over the attackers. The archers shouldn't unbalance the fight, but as it stands now, they virtually guarantee the attacker's success.

The question is do players like this? In SP it becomes a human advantage, in MP everybody can do it, and it gives the lagging player at least a chance to make some hits when their archer/Pikemen stacks get attacked with tanks/artillery. The game is still over, but a few tanks might get knocked off in the process.

I think whatever armor/damage arrangement is used to make archers less potent against tanks, should also make other ranged units less effective against more advanced tech. There's no reason why musket and cannon balls shouldn't bounce off fusion tank armor like arrows should bounce off tank armor. Even exlposive artillery shells might be nullified by anti-ballistic lasers, which could be considered part of the defensive compliment of a fusion tank (they have active-air defense don't they?).

Speaking just in loose terms of the 5 ages in the current game, if a unit is one age behind another, it should still be 100% effective. If it's two ages behind, maybe make it 50% effective (archers on tanks). More than two ages behind, make it 0% effective (cannons on fusion tanks, ironclads on krakens). So the only ages that get completely shut down are Ancient and Renaissance, and modern age units are handicapped 50% against diamond age units only. I'm not talking about putting in global age barriers for combat, but about building into the armor/damage system this kind of effectiveness.

[epeterson]

So far it hasn't been mentioned that attacking tanks will ALWAYS have the edge on defending tanks because of the Attack/Defense values.:eyebrow:

I kind of like the idea of the lesser units being used as cannon fod however. At least they would be good for something! Which begs the question... How do units get arranged when they both have the capability of ranged attack? Who takes precedence on the firing line/front row?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by epeterson
So far it hasn't been mentioned that attacking tanks will ALWAYS have the edge on defending tanks because of the Attack/Defense values.:eyebrow:

I kind of like the idea of the lesser units being used as cannon fod however. At least they would be good for something! Which begs the question... How do units get arranged when they both have the capability of ranged attack? Who takes precedence on the firing line/front row?

well... since attackers and defenders take turns attacking and defending vs one another, differences in A and D usually end up being pretty moot.

One of the suggestions earlier on (by Locutus) was to suggest that defenders should ALWAYS use their D for both attacking and defending (when being on the defensive side of a battle,) and attackers should always use their A (or ranged rating if attacking at range.)

I tend to agree except I think that the D of a city defender should only be enhanced by city walls while he was in a defending round and only enhanced by ballista's etc... while in an attacking round.

As for how and where lines are formed, a grid is made, and unit positioned and sorted by stat priority, based on unit category. I could post the actual code and explain the steps... It usually works pretty well for ground combat, although it occassionally produces odd formations, and pretty much always sucks for naval engagements.

[epeterson]

Okay, now I'm really ! You mean the attacker alternates with each round of a battle? So if I have 6 tanks 'defending' a city and you 'attack' with 6 tanks, we both get to use our Attack and Defense rating alternately? I guess the terminology is a little deceiving then...:boggled:

I had always ASSuMEd that it worked the way that Locutus is suggesting it should! It certainly sounds logical and any weakness a tank gets in defense is probably nullified, even improved, by fortification and city defense improvements. The reasoning for an attacking tank to get some sort of initial advantage is because of its mobility; whereas the defending tanks would be immobile trying to defend a piece of land.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by drulius
*SNIP* Speaking just in loose terms of the 5 ages in the current game *SNIP*

Right... and since those ages can be modified, we shouldn't tie any defensive or offensive capability to those, or the "difference" between them.

[The Big Mc]

we should also alow for a moder to make a 7th age