Thread Tools
Old October 22, 2001, 07:11   #61
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
Originally posted by korn469
KrazyHorse

ok basically this is a statistics problem correct?
the larger the number of rounds the smaller the cofidence interval and all of that jazz right? so if the hitpoints are high enough (like if the units had 30k, 40k, and 50k hitpoints) then when a spearman attacks a tank it would 99.9% of the time inflict 32% damage for example (the 32% damage number was a made up number)

however, after playing a thousand games the number of times a spearman loses to a tank should be about the same no matter if they had .3, .4, .5 hitpoints or 30k, 40k, 50k hitpoints right?
No, sorry Korn. Every hitpoint that needs to be removed reduces the chance that the less likely event will occur. A 60-40 chance is pretty risky with 1 hp. Every time you repeat the chance, the more likely it will be that the 60% has come up more times than the 40%. So 1000 1 hp fights will come out appriximately 60/40 but 1 1000hp fight should come out in favour of the stronger opponent ~99% of the time, the winner having a spread of results centered around 400 hp left.
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old October 22, 2001, 07:28   #62
Deathwalker
Prince
 
Deathwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 671
I personally feel that the Firepower unit option was never fully used in Civ 2. After all there is not way a Phalanx no matter how unlikley is going to damage a tank. So the fire power should ahve been a lot higher in comparisaon.
__________________
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow. As surely as night follows day.
Deathwalker is offline  
Old October 22, 2001, 07:54   #63
Bleyn
Warlord
 
Local Time: 07:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally posted by Grumbold


No, sorry Korn. Every hitpoint that needs to be removed reduces the chance that the less likely event will occur. A 60-40 chance is pretty risky with 1 hp. Every time you repeat the chance, the more likely it will be that the 60% has come up more times than the 40%. So 1000 1 hp fights will come out appriximately 60/40 but 1 1000hp fight should come out in favour of the stronger opponent ~99% of the time, the winner having a spread of results centered around 400 hp left.
Grumbold, Thank You! Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!

I knew there was a flaw in his reasoning, I even sort of knew what it was, but as how to explain it properly, I wasn't sure I could do it. I think your explaination sums it up very well.

The way things are now, there is that freak chance that a much weaker unit will win. And rightly so. I've said it before and I will say it again, history has shown far too often that superior weapons do not equal victory.

Increase the hitpoints enough and that starts to go away. Increase them too much and in a one on one fight the stronger unit will always win, and wheres the fun in that? The game would just devolve back into the arms race that Sid and company are trying to lift it out of.
Bleyn is offline  
Old October 22, 2001, 08:59   #64
Bleyn
Warlord
 
Local Time: 07:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 254
I have a question on the combat system that make me wonder if we really have all the data we need to evaluate it properly. I've looked, here and elsewhere, and I can't find any good answers on them.

Are the attack-defense numbers in combat actually calculated the same way as in Civ2? Or has it changed? Let me explain what I mean, and maybe someone has some good info on how it will really work.


In Civ2, combat was calculated by taking the modifed attack number of the attacker (A) and the modified defense number of the defender (D) and using the formulas:

(A + D) = X
A/X = attackers chance of winning each round of combat
D/X = defenders chance of winning each round of combat

With Civ2 combat, every round during combat had a winner, and damage was assigned to the loser until one or the other died(or in rare cases retreated).


With what little I'd see on the mechanics of Civ3 combat (and having forgotten how it worked previously), I'd been thinking it would work slightly different in Civ3. I'd thought that the calculations would work like this:

Aa = Attackers attack rating
Ad = Defenders attack rating
Da = Attackers defense rating
Dd = Defenders defense rating

Aa/(Aa+Dd) = Attackers chance of hitting the defender each combat round
Ad/(Ad+Da) = Defenders chance of hitting the attacker each combat round

And with these formula, I was seeing four possible results each round of calcuations, attacker hits, defender hits, both hit and neither hit.

To give an example of the difference between the Civ2-style system and the system I was envisioning lets take a battle between a Cavalry and a Musket using the Civ3 stats stated earlier in this thread. Cavalry 6.3 and Musket 3.3

Civ2-style:
6 + 3 = 9
6/9 = 66% chance for Cavalry to win each round
3/9 = 33% chance for Musket to win each round
2/3 of the rounds Cavalry scores damage
1/3 of the rounds Muskets score damage

What I thought:
6/(6+3) = 66% chance for Cavalry to hit in a round
3/(3+3) = 50% chance for Musket to hit in a round

In 1/3 of the combat rounds, both units would hit for damage.
In another 1/3 of the rounds, the cavalry would hit and the musket would miss.
In 1/6 of the rounds, the muskets would hit and cavalry would miss.
And in the final 1/6 of the rounds, both would miss.

The Musket has a somewhat greater chance of damaging the Cavalry, but in the long run, Cavalry would still win most of the time.


To me this second system made sense. It fit with what was given to us about combat and hitpoints in the GameSpot article. It would extend battles more than the older method would with what we know right now about hitpoints. Admittedly, there is the slight chance that a combat could take an extremely long time to finish if both sides kept missing, but I don't think that would happen very often. Eventually someone will win, or someone will retreat.

And it made sense historically. Battles do not always have a clear winner and loser. Sometimes the battle ended in a draw. Sometimes it ended with both sides so shattered that neither could be said to have a cohesive fighting force anymore and no-one really won.
Bleyn is offline  
Old October 22, 2001, 09:17   #65
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
Originally posted by Deathwalker
...After all there is not way a Phalanx no matter how unlikley is going to damage a tank. So the fire power should ahve been a lot higher in comparisaon.
Please read my post at the tail end of page 1 of this thread. There absolutely are many ways that tanks can be defeated by hopelessly underequipped infantry, it just takes the correct approach. Now in broad daylight on a flat plain with unopposed vision for 2,000 metres, I'll give you the 100% tank win scenario.
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old October 22, 2001, 12:19   #66
Jason Beaudoin
Prince
 
Local Time: 09:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 478
Grumbold: You keep talking in terms of one phalax against one tank... but if you want to get technical on the subject, I think each unit represents a plattoon or a group of many tanks or many phalaxes.

Now... if you were to put a real live scenario in place and pitch a group of tanks against guys holding spears, I don't think the spears would do very much against tanks.

Sure... people can set tanks on fire, put things in their tracks, etc, etc, but I believe that in most cases... indeed, in almost every case, a person holding a spear in no match for a tank.

And if you want to get real crazy... how about if we were to bring a group of phalaxes magically from the past into the present, and put them up against some tanks... hummm... I'm not sure they'd be able to stand their ground, let alone fight after seeing a group of those things coming at them. Even if they got used to the idea of seeing a tank, I'm not sure they'd know how to fight one.

Regardless of real life scenarios, I think the point of all this is: If a tank could be defeated regularly by a phalax unit, what would be the point of investing all of the resources needed to build a tank. Why not just build phalax after phalax and be done with it.

In my opinion, I don't think a phalax should have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a battle against a tank, and I believe that Firaxis has made the odds quite improbable... and rightfully so!
__________________
Of the Holy Roman Empire, this was once said:
"It is neither holy or roman, nor is it an empire."
Jason Beaudoin is offline  
Old October 22, 2001, 13:19   #67
KrazyHorse
Deity
 
KrazyHorse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 138% of your RDA of Irony
Posts: 18,577
Quote:
Originally posted by korn469
KrazyHorse

ok basically this is a statistics problem correct?
the larger the number of rounds the smaller the cofidence interval and all of that jazz right? so if the hitpoints are high enough (like if the units had 30k, 40k, and 50k hitpoints) then when a spearman attacks a tank it would 99.9% of the time inflict 32% damage for example (the 32% damage number was a made up number)

however, after playing a thousand games the number of times a spearman loses to a tank should be about the same no matter if they had .3, .4, .5 hitpoints or 30k, 40k, 50k hitpoints right?
Nope. Your post is self-contradictory. If you have a giant # of HPs, then it's true that you almost always come up with the "expected" result. This in and of itself proves that the number of upsets (spearman wins) is much higher with proportonally lower HPs.

BTW, fractional HPs don't make any sense. Lose a round, lose a HP.
__________________
04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
In Memoriam Adam Smith: a brilliant man, taken too soon
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
KrazyHorse is offline  
Old October 22, 2001, 14:04   #68
SlowThinker
GameLeagueApolytoners Hall of Fame
King
 
SlowThinker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Posts: 2,603
Quote:
Originally posted by Bleyn
(A + D) = X
A/X = attackers chance of winning each round of combat
D/X = defenders chance of winning each round of combat
...
Civ2-style:
6 + 3 = 9
6/9 = 66% chance for Cavalry to win each round
3/9 = 33% chance for Musket to win each round
2/3 of the rounds Cavalry scores damage
1/3 of the rounds Muskets score damage
This is wrong.
The cavalry takes a "bonus":
9 + 3 = 12
9/12 = 75% chance for Cavalry to win each round
3/12 = 25% chance for Musket to win each round

See Info: Combat (GL) thread.


I suggest the Boco's combat calculator to count combat probabilities:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=25493
SlowThinker is offline  
Old October 22, 2001, 14:16   #69
Marquis de Sodaq
King
 
Marquis de Sodaq's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: ... no, a Marquis.
Posts: 2,179
ST, you beat me to it!

I just browsed this forum for the first time in months - a combat discussion, woo hoo! PLEASE FOLLOW THE LINK IN SLOW THINKER'S POST if you have any questions about how CivII combat works! That explains in great detail how it all works in CivII. This thread is full of misinformation and guesses. Some of you are correct about the basic problem, tho. The formula from the manual is hopelessly inaccurate.

Hit points in Civ3 are most likely x10, just as in CivII, as reducing them to 3,4,or 5 would greatly increase the likelihood of improbable outcomes.

Attack and defense strengths were all multiplied by 8 in CivII. Greater numbers mean fewer improbable outcomes.

It is purely a statistics problem, namely the likelihood of unit A winning X rounds against unit B. Attack and defense strength figure most heavily into the equation, followed by hit points, and firepower was the least influential element.
__________________
The first President of the first Apolyton Democracy Game (CivII, that is)

The gift of speech is given to many,
intelligence to few.
Marquis de Sodaq is offline  
Old October 22, 2001, 14:30   #70
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
grumbold and krazyhorse

ok i see the flaw in my thinking i was assuming that unit losses would be the same when in fact in the long run only hitpoint losses would be the same

if you had 1 1000 battle with 6/4 odds of victory and 1000 1 hitpoint battles with 6/4 odds, then the number of hitpoints lost will be the same correct? except that in the first case, the stronger unit will almost always win taking 40% damage, and in the second case the stronger unit will win 60% of the time, so it should lose about 400 units correct?

ok now is there any mathematical system that firaxis could adopt that would mean in a 6:4 battle that the first unit would win 60% of the time, yet that the bombard system wouldn't have the flaws i pointed out earlier nor would the healing system have the flaws Haphazard pointed out?

Bleyn

i liked your system, it seems like a better way of handling combat than in civ2

also realize that it is possible for two elite four unit armies to face off against each other, so the combat rounds in civ3 have to be longer, at least when armies are involved
korn469 is offline  
Old October 22, 2001, 14:51   #71
Oerdin
Deity
 
Oerdin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In a bamboo forest hiding from Dale.
Posts: 17,436
Re: WTF: no firepower?
Quote:
Originally posted by izmircali

. Perhaps they combined firepower (since it appeared to be a multiplier to attack or defense) into the two stats but I have my doubts on this new combat system.
Anyone else know better? did I read this preview wrong?
I also have my doubts about the new combat system. I fear that in their zeal to deinfasize combat Fraxis may have totally neutered the combat system. I was hoping that Sid would use the "Ranged vs frontline" way of classifying units from CTP2. Activision did a mediocre job executing it but the idea was great.
Oerdin is offline  
Old October 23, 2001, 06:56   #72
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
Korn, I don't see the bombard problem in quite the same way as you do. You seem to be saying it is unfair that after a significant number of bombards both regular and elite units will be only one hit point from death and that this disadvantages the elite unit because it is a lower percentage of its total hitpoints than the regular unit. I look at it that after any number of bombards the chance of the elite unit being better off is significant but diminishing as more strikes are made. The effort applied to kill an elite unit is still considerably higher than would be needed for a regular. If you can waltz around with huge stacks of artillery and not care how many hits it takes then you've already won the game so the exact combat mechanics are irrelevant. Hypothetically giving all elites +1 defence rating might do what you ask but this is more significant in the early game when attack numbers are much lower.


Jason I was not talking 1v1, but typically an infantry formation has 10-20 times the number of troops as an armoured formation has tanks. The successes the Afghanistan resistance had against the Russians were not usually down to antitank weapons so they could equally be equiped with spears as rifles. It was down to ambushes, night infiltrations and attacks on the supply columns. If that is not good enough there is an example just before WWII of African tribesmen literally sprinting up to the sides of tanks and throwing railroad ties into the tracks. Naturally they suffered heavy casualties but they won the battle. The tribesmen were effectively bronze age infantry but having grown up in the modern world they learned how to combat modern weapons.

The problem I have with Civ, I suppose, is that the terrain factors are universally applied and no account is taken of tactical manoeuvre. Armour should rule the open tiles but be disadvantaged in cities and rugged terrain where infantry can get within assault range far more easily. There is a very good reason why modern armies still have far more infantry than tank formations. I'd quarter tank combat strengths in jungle and mountains (enterable only by road), halve them in forest and cities. If the enemy are dug in defending a city you shell them with artillery and then send in your infantry. You don't order an armoured assault.
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old October 23, 2001, 12:48   #73
HalfLotus
Never Ending Stories
King
 
HalfLotus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
[SIZE=1]
The problem I have with Civ, I suppose, is that the terrain factors are universally applied and no account is taken of tactical manoeuvre. Armour should rule the open tiles but be disadvantaged in cities and rugged terrain where infantry can get within assault range far more easily. There is a very good reason why modern armies still have far more infantry than tank formations. I'd quarter tank combat strengths in jungle and mountains (enterable only by road), halve them in forest and cities. If the enemy are dug in defending a city you shell them with artillery and then send in your infantry. You don't order an armoured assault.
I like your reasoning, but having unit specific terrain advantages is just too much. Trying to remember ADM+Hitpoints for all units is plenty. Add in different values for each terrain and unit and thats a lot of numbers. Remember, Firaxis shoots for fun and accessibility in games.
HalfLotus is offline  
Old October 23, 2001, 13:02   #74
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Korn, I don't see the bombard problem in quite the same way as you do. You seem to be saying it is unfair that after a significant number of bombards both regular and elite units will be only one hit point from death and that this disadvantages the elite unit because it is a lower percentage of its total hitpoints than the regular unit. I look at it that after any number of bombards the chance of the elite unit being better off is significant but diminishing as more strikes are made. The effort applied to kill an elite unit is still considerably higher than would be needed for a regular. If you can waltz around with huge stacks of artillery and not care how many hits it takes then you've already won the game so the exact combat mechanics are irrelevant. Hypothetically giving all elites +1 defence rating might do what you ask but this is more significant in the early game when attack numbers are much lower
grumbold my problem is solely with the limited number of damage states...now if a regular unit can take 5% or 10% damage from a bombard then i cease having a problem, but if a single successful bombard will always inflict 1/3 damage on a regular unit then i find that a shame, especially since with two bombards the regular unit would be as weak as it is going to get, that seems to trivialize the entire system to me...i am worried that without subhitpoints that combat mechanics in civ3 could cause many problems
korn469 is offline  
Old October 23, 2001, 15:15   #75
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
Terrain differences for certain types of unit were not a problem even in gamer friendly games like the Panzer/Allied General series. Having very simple one-size-fits-all terrain effects plus very limited hitpoints per unit are in keeping with the Firaxis aspiration to move back toward the Civ1 simplicity. Lets hope they've guaged it right and all our different reservations are groundless.
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old October 23, 2001, 19:45   #76
HalfLotus
Never Ending Stories
King
 
HalfLotus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,238
I have faith that Firaxis has balanced the combat values well. With the amount of playtesting they did, I think they would have noticed most imbalances. Sid, as usual, derives an elegant solution.
HalfLotus is offline  
Old October 23, 2001, 20:43   #77
Rakki
Warlord
 
Rakki's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:53
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 160
if you have the problem of a phalanx unexpectedly defeating your tank... bring more tanks.....
Rakki is offline  
Old October 26, 2001, 18:49   #78
Edward
Warlord
 
Local Time: 09:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 267
I, for one, am very happy to see firepower die an anonymous death. It was used to make more modern units have a better chance of beating units from a previous era. However this can just as easily be simulated with higher attack and defense values. The enormous advantage of scaling up the attack/defense values (vs. using hitpoints) is that the system is much easier to understand. Just search the Civ2 strategy forum to see what bewilderment the hitpoint system wrought.




In Civ2, a horseman could get pretty torn up when attacking a warrior. As others have pointed out, the hitpoints involved (10 each for Civ2) made sure that the horseman generally won. If Civ3 units only have 3 to 5 effective hitpoints, then the battles would become outrageously capricious. Increases in attack and defense ratings would have much less significance and phalanxes would defeat superior attackers inordinately often. Unless there's been a major change in how combat is conducted (very possible considering our limited knowledge) I can only assume that each listed "hitpoint" (3 to 5) actually represents 10 mini-hitpoints, just like they did in Civ2. To do otherwise would make combat too random. Why defend with 20 shield phalanxes when 10 shield warriors do just about as well (and don't require any research).

The interesting thing is that in Civ3 hitpoints are based on the unit's experience (green, vet, elite). The Civ2 catapult (6 attack, 10 hitpoints) was just slightly better at attacking than the Civ2 musketeer (3 attack, 20 hitpoints). This implies that an elite horseman (2 attack, 50 hitpoints) attacks about as well as a green swordsman (3 attack, 30 hitpoints). Not ever having been in a war in real life I'm not sure how realistic this is (experience being very important - it seems realistic), but it does make experience powerful in Civ3. The Military attribute (easier "vetting") could be a very nice advantage.

Note that the hitpoints are 3, 4, and 5 instead of 1, 2, and 3 so that experience doesn't totally trump technology. (An elite unit is not quite twice as effective as green one.) A side effect of this is that units will have much more hitpoints than they did in Civ2 (3 or 4 on average instead of 1 or 2 on average) meaning that the small differences in attack values will mean big differences in the outcome of battles. The increased hitpoints will reduce randomness. Thus a phalanx won't beat a battleship. However, Bleyn's fears of predictable battles and arms races will be realized. Technologically superior units will have a distinct edge. (Civ3 horsemen will easily crush Civ3 warriors unlike the Civ2 version of the same battle.) The outcome of battles will be much more predictable in Civ3 (some will like this change, some won't). However, retaining the hitpoint system still lets superior numbers overrun better armed foes. A superior foe can still be bled to death.
Edward is offline  
Old October 26, 2001, 20:47   #79
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:53
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
Actually I disagree. Take Panzer vs Pikeman. Lets fortify the pikeman in a walled city (about the only sensible place for it to be other than a mountaintop, which the tank could not reach). FA 16 v DF of 6. The tank is 72% likely to win any given round of combat, and needs to win at least 3 rounds out of 5 (regulars). Using very approximate math that gives a regular pikeman between a 4 and 6 percent chance of winning. For veteran and elite units opposing each other the chances swing even further in favour of the panzer.

Taking AF of 16 against a DF of 9. Thats a 64% chance of winning each round. It still gives them around 88% chance of winning the combat with at least one HP remaining. Again, the odds improve in favour of the attacker with every additional hit point gained.

For anything with a good defence factor, you should be using your artillery to make sure it has as few hit points left as possible and attacking with armies anyway. If the units had 30+ hit points, even a 55%-45% chance would become a virtually guaranteed success every time for the better unit. Things are never that certain. I think when you get playing the game you will find the level of randomness with 3hp pretty tolerable.

What might have been useful for the people who hate statistics is a little (optional) pop-up box when engaging in combat that would have the general give the approximate chances of success. Panzer General series did that quite nicely (although the results there were so random sometimes it made you tear your hair out!)
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team