DESIGN: Armor and HP's

[Maquiladora]

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.

That would be helpful

[Aias]

I agree with Mr. Baggins. In C:CTP, I had a lone Leviathian come upon a 12 stack of Musketeers. They almost destroyed my Leviathian! NO WAY should this happen!

A unit updater would keep stuff like this from happening, unless you want to save a few warriors to 'attack' a city so you can see their defensive units.

[Myrddin]

That's what the Retreat button is for

[Maquiladora]

I agree with Mr. Baggins. In C:CTP, I had a lone Leviathian come upon a 12 stack of Musketeers. They almost destroyed my Leviathian! NO WAY should this happen!

and that was CtP1.

[Gilgamensch]

I had a look back in this thread, but I wasn't able to find it.

What is the actual formula used in the moment?

How are the values used in the moment, like the archer with
Attack 10
Defense 10
ZBRangeAttack 20
Firepower 1
Armor 1
MaxHP 10

And no, I still haven't got the code even unzipped

[Maquiladora]

You can have a look at this combat sim we made a while back. Look at the formulas involved.

btw its an excel spreadsheet.

hm i cant find the original thread...

[Locutus]

The thread (including my cool Maple formulas ) is here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=71437

[Maquiladora]

mmmmm maple (no drool smiley! )

I cant believe i posted on Christmas Eve at 8:30pm.

[Locutus]

I hadn't read the 2nd page of this thread yet (aside from the last post ), but I did some thinking of my own and I independently came to the exact same conclusion as Gilg.

Whatever the combat system will be like, it should be fairly simple and intuitive. People should be able to more or less guestimate the outcome of a battle in advance, at least when it's a 1-vs-1 battle. CtP is a strategy game after all, not a combat simulator.

Attack and Defense are each other's opposites: one increases the chance to hit, the other decreases the chance to be hit. This makes perfect sense and is very intuitive (even if many people misunderstand their exact role in the battle formula). The same should apply to Firepower and Armour: a layman would expect them to be each other's opposites, that would be the most intuitive idea. But this is not how it currently works: FP increases the amount of damage, while Armour basically increases the amount of Hitpoints. That's not what it (intuitively) should do: it should decrease the amount of damage done. That's also what Armour does in RL combat.

Most of the suggestions made so far in this thread (including MrBaggins' "ideal system" as described above) are IMO rather complex and unintuitive, and are therefore not very desirable solutions. The initial thought to use it for immunity is simple and fairly intuitive, but it doesn't meet the intuitive property that Armour should be the exact opposite of FP.

But with a minor change to the existing system we can make it that way: if we change the formula "Damage = FP / Armour" to "Damage = FP - Armour", it does exactly what it intuitively should do: reduce the amount of damage done. It also has the same effect that was initially desired by MrBaggins of making advanced units completely immune to (very) obsolete units. And it also has more or less the same effect as MrBaggins' ideal system in that damage is first subtracted from Armour and only then from Hitpoints, but in a much less complicated and more intuitive manner.

As for lengthening the duration of a battle: that's not a big deal as any extra damage done by ranged units is equally absorbed by the Armour. I didn't have time to do the math, but expect the effect to be zero, or else very little. And even if there's a (small) effect, so what? The player with the best stack composition will win, as it should be.

[Gilgamensch]

I have thought about this one as well, but it would not protect certain units from powerfull ancient units, like cannon against fusiontank or even hover-infantry. That doesn't make sense. Age shall have an influence as well.

I am still looking into Einstein's theory (with the help of the combat simulator of Maq). I haven't finished it yet

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Locutus
Most of the suggestions made so far in this thread (including MrBaggins' "ideal system" as described above) are IMO rather complex and unintuitive, and are therefore not very desirable solutions. The initial thought to use it for immunity is simple and fairly intuitive, but it doesn't meet the intuitive property that Armour should be the exact opposite of FP.

My ideal solution was based in the concept of making everyone happy... that is the concept of allowing obsolete units to do damage in special circumstances. The problem is that it makes for a less intuitive combat system.

I stand by the original premise, and if you look at it from that viewpoint then FP-Armor works fine (provided the lengthening of combat doesn't influence things... but it was always a very tenuous argument.)

I have no problem with simple... on reflection it works well for us.

There is just one point, and simple additional complexity I'd like to add to the system.

Armor Penetration.

Some weaponry doesn't necessarily do more total damage, but does have the ability to penetrate armor better.

Generally speaking this would apply to bombard units and, for instance, TOW infantry.

In game terms it would be very simple. The AP of the attacking unit would be subtracted from the Armor of the defending unit. Values less than 0 would be 0.

Imagine a situation where a renaissance cannon has hit a tank. The cannon has FP 3 and AP 2, and the Tank has Armor of 4. Without AP, no damage would be done to the tank, since, its armor is higher than the cannon's FP. With AP, the tanks armor is effectively reduced to 2, and 1 damage is done.

Alternately imagine that same cannon hitting ancient warriors. The cannon still has FP3 and AP2, and the warriors have no Armor. Without any armor to reduce, AP does nothing, the cannon does its regular damage of 3 to the warriors.

[Locutus]

Gilg,
In any system we come up with involving immunity, it's always just an option. Whether a modmaker chooses to use it or not is up to him, but at least he can if he wants to. In the system I proposed, if you just make sure the lowest FP value is still higher than the highest Armour value, (some) damage will always be done. How it works out in practice is just a matter of balance.

MrBaggins,
I like it, sounds good to me. Realistic, simple, intuitive.

[Gilgamensch]

That was also one thing going through my mind, but it would mean a complete rewriting of all mods. (introduction of a new field)

And it might have problems again, although that would be mainly based on balancing. A cannon shall not really be able to damage (except maybe scrapping the paint) of even a hover infrantry.

But I would happily agree to MrBaggins suggestion of introducing a value for AP. I think we just have to do a lot of brain washing storming on it to balance it correctly.

But one thing I would suggest is (for better balancing it):

sorry if I don't use C++

If Armor > AP no_damage
else
(open for discussion, as I don't like the idea of armor being destroyed)
HP=HP - FP (and armor left unchanged)


again simplified as modifiers would apply (terrain/city/....)

[MrBaggins]

we're not talking about armor being destroyed...

the formula we're talking about is (in basic/psuedo code)

EffectiveArmor = Armor - Armor Penetration
If EffectiveArmor < 0 Then EffectiveArmor=0
Damage=FP - Effective Armor
If Damage>0 Then HP = HP - Damage

I hope this is clear.

[Locutus]

Or to put it even simpler:

Damage = FP - Armor - AP (where Damage >= 0)