Probability and Combat

[Adrien]

The following is a mathematical analysis of the Civ3 combat system.


Because there are no phalanxes in Civ3, and battleships can't directly attack land units, there is no more danger of a phalanx-battleship win.


How about something equally ridiculous, then? Say a hoplite attacking a panzer.


A panzer has an attack of 16. A hoplite has a defense of 3.


Therefore, the hoplite has a 3/19 chance, a 15% chance of winning a combat, while the panzer has a 16/19 chance or an 85% chance.

This means, under the old Civ1 system, that 15% of the time, the hoplite will kill the panzer.

As I don't actually HAVE THE GAME yet, all I can do is speculate randomly. Is there a hit-point system?

If so, how many hit points do different units have?

[jbird]

I believe you misspoke. Your example is of a Panzer attacking a Hoplite, not the converse. Just clarifying.

Jbird

[WhiteElephants]

Therefore, the hoplite has a 3/19 chance, a 15% chance of winning a combat, while the panzer has a 16/19 chance or an 85% chance.

Not true. At least the way I understand it. The hopilite would need to win 10 successfull rounds (given that I'm assuming each unit has 10 hit points) at 15% each round, which would further skew that results in favor of the Panzer given that the Panzer would most likely score 10 hits faster than the hopilite would. I'm not sure how you would express that mathematically, but I'm sure someone will take that honors.

I suppose it's similar to saying the odds of rolling a six on a six sided die are 1/6, but the odds of rolling a six ten times in a row are significantly different.

[Grunthex]

Uh, units have between 2 and 5 hp, not 10. Depending on their veterancy. (Uh, experience. Veterancy isn't really a word)

Conscripts (rarely seen, only if you draft, or upgrade a regular) have 2
Regulars 3
Veterans 4
Elites 5

Most units by the time you're fighting a bit are veterans or elites, because you have barracks. So the hoplite needs 4 or 5 of those 15% chances to kick in before 4 or 5 of the 85%. Not often. But it can happen.

[WhiteElephants]

Thanks for the clarification. I don't have the game and was basing combat on the 10 hit point system in SMAC, but I'm sure you got the jist of my post nonetheless.

[Kc7mxo]

And due to some rather whatever system that firaxis appears to be useing for their random numbers, it seems to happen a little bit too often.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
And due to some rather whatever system that firaxis appears to be useing for their random numbers, it seems to happen a little bit too often.

That doesn't surprise me when we're only talking about 2-5 hit points.

[Sevorak]

Indeed, hit points is what's really at the core of the combat complaints.

Many people point to a lack of Firepower as the source of the combat troubles, but it is interesting to note the answer to this question: Which units in Civ 2 had Firepower 2?

The answers are: Cruiser, AEGIS Cruiser, Battleship, Carrier, Submarine, Artillery, Howitzer, Helicopter, Fighter, Bomber, Stealth Bomber, Stealth Fighter.

Gunpowder units in Civ 2 were NOT distinguished by firepower. They were distinguished by Hit Points. Musketeers, for example, were only 3.3.1 as opposed to the 3.2.1 of Archers - yet they made FAR superior defenders than Archers because they had 20 hit points as opposed to 10. Riflemen were only 5.4.1 - but they beat 6.1.1 Catapults consistently because they had 20 hp and the catapults had 10 and 1 firepower. Even ARMOR had the SAME firepower as a warrior - just 1! Where Armor shone through was its 30 hp, only matched on land by the Mech Inf.

Higher hit points naturally tilt combats toward whichever side has the numerically superior combat rating in the combat in question, even if both sides have the same number of hit points.

In battles of Tanks (16.8.2) against Pikemen (1.3.1), when both sides have 1 hit point (the Civ 1 System), the Tanks win a flat 84% of the time. When they each have 3 hit points, the Tanks win about 96% of the time.

The system in Civ 3 whereby all hit points are created equal and each unit has between 2 and 5 of these magical things is deliberately slanted towards giving a better chance to the low-tech unit. Not a complaint, just an observation.

However, it is interesting to note not the chances of victory, but the most likely result in each of the combats. For example, while regular Modern Armor attacking an elite Pikeman wins 95.7% of the time, it is only 55% likely that the Modern Armour will win five hits in a row, destroying the Pikeman untouched. In 45% of all cases, the Modern Armour will suffer some kind of damage, and in some cases be destroyed.

A better example would be veteran Modern Armor taking on a veteran fortified Musketman in a City. The Modern Armor wins 94% of the time, but will only escape untouched 34% of the time. Now the chances of this in Civ2 were similar, even in 15-2 battles like Veteran Armor vs. Phalanx, but due to the higher number of hit points, getting through untouched didn't mean as much since since even three or four hits-against tended to mean little against hit point totals of 30 or 40 - they hurt, but not seriously - 10% impairment per battle was livable. But in Civ3, losing a hit point is 20% of the total at minimum. What this means is that older units can sometimes pull off unusual results.

Consider the Greek Hoplite and the standard Swordsman. Assume as its adversary, the Modern Armor. One can build three Hoplites and two swordsmen for the price of one Modern Armor. Assume that the six units defend a single city, and are all veteran. Assume further that the Modern Armor is also veteran. When the Armor attacks, its chance of victory is 97.3% - but its chance of escaping undamaged in each attack is only 43.5%. It attacks three times and wins all of the combats - the most likely result being that it suffers two points of damage. Then the swordsmen attack. They have a 47% chance of inflicting one point of damage each upon the Modern Armor. The most likely result is that the Modern Armor is left with one hit point and all the Ancient era units are dead. Victory for the Modern Armor! (yet it's two full ages ahead of the ancient units, and won just barely)

When you consider this in an entire full-game context, the savings the Greek player must have gotten from skipping up to 51 technologies and building Hoplites and Swordsmen instead suggest that the Greek player would have more forces at his disposal - two to three more Swordsmen and the Armor dies.

Consider units that are less separated on the technology tree. Put a Tank up against two Hoplites and two Swordsmen (equal cost, again). Assume that the Hoplites are in the open and unfortified. The Tank attacks and kills them both, with only a 47% chance of winning flawlessly - most likely, the Tank takes a point of damage. The Swordsmen then counter - the Tank has only a 31% chance of beating off one of them without damage. Ancient units in equal cost have a 13% chance of destroying the Tank outright in this combat scenario, while the Tank has only a 2% chance of emerging unscathed.

Now of course, technology provides many other benefits in terms of city improvements and the like, such that I'd argue that any Civilization with Industrialization should be able to at least mostly make up the shield/gold deficiency they will have from pursuing technology instead of sheer unit mass. But I'm guessing that when MP rolls around, we are going to see a lot more ancient-era mass unit swarms - especially since cost/power ratio falls off in the Middle Ages (60 for a 2.4.1 musket, for example).

No complaints, just observations. I think it's interesting, that's all.

-Sev

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
And due to some rather whatever system that firaxis appears to be useing for their random numbers, it seems to happen a little bit too often.

Sounds pretty aenecdotal. Back it up...

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Grunthex
Uh, units have between 2 and 5 hp, not 10. Depending on their veterancy. (Uh, experience. Veterancy isn't really a word)

Conscripts (rarely seen, only if you draft, or upgrade a regular) have 2
Regulars 3
Veterans 4
Elites 5

What really burns my ass is that all along I've heard these people pissing and moaning about atrillery being too weak and only taking off a hit point or two and the whole time I'm thinking that this is based on a 10 hit point system. Bah! One or two hit points is between 20 and 66 percent!

[Dis]

edit: my mistake, you did include those

[Venger]

Originally posted by Sevorak
Indeed, hit points is what's really at the core of the combat complaints.

Many people point to a lack of Firepower as the source of the combat troubles, but it is interesting to note the answer to this question: Which units in Civ 2 had Firepower 2?

Keep in mind that the other side of the FP coin is hit points - a 3 HP 1 FP unit is equivalent to fighting a 1 HP 3 FP unit, for the most part.

Also, keep in mind that HP's in Civ2 represented 10 hit points, not 1.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Adrien

How about something equally ridiculous, then? Say a hoplite attacking a panzer.

A panzer has an attack of 16. A hoplite has a defense of 3.

Therefore, the hoplite has a 3/19 chance, a 15% chance of winning a combat, while the panzer has a 16/19 chance or an 85% chance.

This means, under the old Civ1 system, that 15% of the time, the hoplite will kill the panzer.

As I don't actually HAVE THE GAME yet, all I can do is speculate randomly. Is there a hit-point system?

If so, how many hit points do different units have?

Hit points in Civ2 are different than Civ3. Civ2 HP are actually 10 hit points.

Now, your percentages are way off...

The chances of a Panzer defeating a Hoplite is 92% at worst.

Of defeating a fortified Hoplite is at worst 82%. A bit low.

Of defeating a Hoplite with a 100% terrain/fortification bonus is 58% - that's too low in my opinion. But overall the balance is okay.

Having an FP or HP modifier would help...

Venger

[GePap]

All hail Sevorak

Finally someone has made a complete, well balanced, carefully constructed, and simple to follow argument on the vagaries of the current combat system without igniting a firestorm about whether the combat system is 'broken'. I would say that I think it was not a wise decision by Fixaris since it forces players in the late ages to have to build vast armies even to deal with much technologically backward units (which their greater industry and economies allow them too) which means horrendous amounts of micromaneging later on.

Again, good work Sevorak and that post should be put up as its own thread.

[Bubba_B]

Originally posted by GePap
All hail Sevorak

Finally someone has made a complete, well balanced, carefully constructed, and simple to follow argument on the vagaries of the current combat system without igniting a firestorm about whether the combat system is 'broken'. I would say that I think it was not a wise decision by Fixaris since it forces players in the late ages to have to build vast armies even to deal with much technologically backward units (which their greater industry and economies allow them too) which means horrendous amounts of micromaneging later on.

Again, good work Sevorak and that post should be put up as its own thread.

I agree gj guys nice thread

and yes increased hit points would make a great difference Fraxis!!

Can this be done in the editor(by unit)??? Cant remember.

[Bubba_B]

*BUMP*

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Bubba_B
I agree gj guys nice thread

and yes increased hit points would make a great difference Fraxis!!

Can this be done in the editor(by unit)??? Cant remember.

Hit points can only be changed globally for the different experience levels. You cannot change them for individual unit types.

As for Sev's post, all it did for me was point once again to the importance of artillery to soften up targets prior to attacking. Taking a hit point or two off of the defender will always mean an easier job for the attacker.

[Sevorak]

the importance of artillery to soften up targets prior to attacking. Taking a hit point or two off of the defender will always mean an easier job for the attacker.

Take that and post it up on the wall in big red letters. The real winner in this combat system is the artillery unit. Build lots of artillery - especially when taking on a city with a barracks, where all the defenders heal every turn so you need to either destroy the barracks (with a currently nonfunctional precision strike or with random shelling) or do all the damage you can in one turn. Similarly, a lot of defensive artillery will hopefully do the job on incoming attacking units, turning the hit point advantage the other way.

For that matter, build barracks and lots of them. The 1 extra hit point from units starting at Veteran cannot be underestimated, nor can the value of forcing your opponent to cart along a wagonful of slow-moving artillery.

-Sev

[Mister Hand]

Another factor to consider in the "Panzer vs. Hoplite" scenario is that the Panzer can retreat if it gets reduced to 1hp, while the Hoplite cannot. This means that even if the battle goes horribly wrong, the Panzer still can live to fight another day and have another shot at the Hoplite.

[Bubba_B]

I agree combined arms attacks are the way to go, bombard then attack.
Having said that I think the big issue I've seen on these threads is the defensive value of modern units. example: Reg Calvary 3 hit points and 2 defense don't stand much of a chance against a 4 hit point 4 attack long bowman. Just dont seem right to have that inbalance. Hell I had a modern tank beat by a calvary unit today!!
Combat needs a little tweaking.

[Barnacle Bill]

Although the stock Civ2 did not use firepower to distinguish gunpowder units from earlier ones, it could be used that way in mods. In my own personal use mod, I had actually had defined several eras as follows:

Era 1 (pregunpowder) - FP=1
Era 2 (matchlocks, 16th & 17th Centuries) - FP=2
Era 3 (flintlocks, 18th Century & Napoleonic) - FP=3
Era 4 (steam age 19th Century) - FP=4
Era 5 (world wars) - FP=6
Era 7 (modern) - FP=7

Units that had extra firepower in stock Civ3 recieved 1 higher than normal for their era.

Unfortunately, there were no quite enough unit slots (considering the ones hard-coded for barbarian use) to do what I wanted fully, even with the extras available in the Civ2 expansions. So, I had to make some compromises, but the final result still worked better than stock Civ2 (which was better than stock civ3). I also played around with hit points, attack factors & defense factors, progressively raising the playing fieldd in each era. The idea was that the more eras you were behind the harder it got to beat quality with quantity.

The problem is that in Civ2 you had plenty of knobs to tweak, but not enough unit slots.

In Civ3, you have no spare unit slots (unless you wack the UU's, or use Grampos's copy tool) as the editor stands today, and you've lost both firepower & hit points as knobs to tweek. This is a step backwards. You know what, I don't really care how it works in stock Civ3 so long as I can change it in my own copy.

BTW, I think the way artillery & air units work is a giant leap forward. Both changes are things I've wanted in the Civ combat system even before Civ I (you do realize Sid boosted it from Empire in the first place, don't you?). In Civ2, I actually did try to make artillery useless in the field by giving them all the "negates city walls" bit and cutting their attack factors in half and setting their defense to 0. Unfortunately, the AI would not use them right - kept sending them out unescorted, attacking units in the field with them, etc...

[TCO]

Hubba bubba,

Even in Civ2, a cavalry unit (A = 8) could take out a tank (D = 5). PROVIDED THE CAVALRY ATTACKED FIRST. The key is to use your offensive units for offense, not defense.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
Although the stock Civ2 did not use firepower to distinguish gunpowder units from earlier ones, it could be used that way in mods. In my own personal use mod, I had actually had defined several eras as follows:

Era 1 (pregunpowder) - FP=1
Era 2 (matchlocks, 16th & 17th Centuries) - FP=2
Era 3 (flintlocks, 18th Century & Napoleonic) - FP=3
Era 4 (steam age 19th Century) - FP=4
Era 5 (world wars) - FP=6
Era 7 (modern) - FP=7

Was it easier or harder to beat the AI after these changes?

[G.A]

Though the idea might also be lying deeper - this is all made to make you never think of overtaking a whole country, that has accidentally been stuck in the ancient era with just one tank. Just drop a bomb or two onto the city in question, and your tank`s chances of getting out of this unharmed increase greatly.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Venger
Keep in mind that the other side of the FP coin is hit points - a 3 HP 1 FP unit is equivalent to fighting a 1 HP 3 FP unit, for the most part.

I know Soren said something similar to this too, but I have to disagree since a one hit point 3 fire power unit is far more susceptible to being destroyed in the first round of combat and never getting a shot off in return, which would make that unit more of a suicide bomber offensive unit as opposed to the 3 hp 1 fp unit who would be more suited for a role of defense or attrition. I think the only time these two units would be comparable is if they face one another being that one hit from either unit would kill the other, but that usually isn't the case in Civ.

What would really make a difference would be the units offensive and defensive stats. Obviously a 1 hp 3 fp unit with a decent defensive stat would still make it a pretty chancy unit to use on the defense given that it could be quite easily killed by a lucky shot, but give that unit a decent offensive rating and you've got yourself a nice fanatic.

To go along with the analogy wouldn't you want a 2hp 2fp unit over either of those listed above?

Disclaimer: Firepower is the amount of hit points taken from the opponent when a successful attack is made, no?

[Bubba_B]

Originally posted by GP
Hubba bubba,

Even in Civ2, a cavalry unit (A = 8) could take out a tank (D = 5). PROVIDED THE CAVALRY ATTACKED FIRST. The key is to use your offensive units for offense, not defense.

OK probably should have left off the part about the calvary beating my Tank. It took away from the focus of the post, which is this........
Should a (Insert primative unit here) have a more than 50% chance of beating a (Insert more advanced unit here) on a regular basis.

Heck, looking through the chart a Knight has a 3 def to a Calvary's 2 def?!?!

Units that have a 50% chance or better of beating a unfortified calvary:
Swordsman
Legionary
Immortal
Longbowman
Knight
Samurai
So on and so forth........you guys got the manual

and that don't factor in hit points.

Oh well, if that don't do it......
den me speak not so gud, me must b stoopid

I guess I'll edit up my calvary's defense, Hubba Hubba

[WhiteElephants]

How many of those units can the cavalry retreat from or is that only when they attack?

[Bubba_B]

It says in the manual when attacking or being attacked a mobile unit can retreat. However, if both you and the opponent reach 1 HP it is a battle to the death.That happens alot.

That said:

Horseman 2 att
War Elephant 4 att
Knight 4 att
Mounted Warrior 3 att
War chariot 2 att
Babylonian bowman 2 att

Have a 50% chance or better at beating a unfortified calvary and they will not let you retreat.



I think I'm beginning to babble

P.S. is my sarcasam meter broke??

[Sevorak]

WhiteElephants,

When referring to Civ2 hit points and firepower, the hit point stat is considered x10, since that's how it was in Civ2. The firepower stat is not. Therefore, Armor (10.5.3 3/1) had 30 hit points, and did 1 point of damage every time it won a combat round. A Howitzer (12.2.2 2/2) had 20 hit points and did 2 points of damage every time it won.

Therefore, a 1/3 unit is not really any more disadvantaged than a 3/1 unit in combat. A few unlucky breaks could cause the 1/3 unit to perish prematurely, but even then, that's 5-10 lucky shots in a row (since it has 10 hp).

Bubba_B,

The manual has nearly every unit's statistic wrong. Don't trust it. It only has about six or so non-Ancient stats right, so far as I can tell: Transport, Musketman, Musketeer, Modern Armor, Army, Leader. Every other line is flawed in some way. The Cavalry has 3 defence, just like a Knight.

-Sev

[Bubba_B]

So when does the patch to the manual come out

Boy is my face red!

Can't use the manual for the forum.......

Oh well, Cav same as knight with no hit point diffrence still don't seem right.

Thanks Sev, dont get me wrong I like the game but dang they sure did rushed some things.
Air Superiority Bug.....How did they miss that!!