Tried this? (Hitpoint modification)

[dreadknought]

Has anyone tried just using 1 hitpoint for all units to see if this speeds the game.

Moderator Action: Please use *descriptive* titles. At least give posters a clue as to the nature of the thread. --Padma
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=updated_rules_2011

[JonathanValjean]

I can't say that I've tried it, but I think it would guarantee the speeding up of a game!

[Xerol]

well, if you were going to do that, i'd lower the build costs of all units or play with AP on, because all battles would be over in one round, and your fast units wouldn't have a chance to retreat either.

I like to modify the HPs as such, for longer, more interesting battles:
Conscript: 2
Regular: 5
Veteran: 8
Elite:10

The problem with this is that in an army with 4 elite units, it's got 40 HP and doesn't display correctly. But it's otherwise fun.

Another thing that would be interesting: Make it so that as the unit gets promoted, it loses hitpoints. That would make for an interesting MP game, where the players would try to keep their units from being promoted unless they were going after leaders. A HP system for that:
Conscript: 5
Regular: 3
Veteran: 2
Elite: 1

Of course, the AI probably wouldn't do anything different and probably would keep the regulars at home and send the veteran and elites out to battle.

[general_kill]

Yea I modified the hit point so my tanks don't lose to spearmen as much. Armies in my game really means ARMIES. I mean there's no stop those things. If an army is defending a city even without a barracks, good luck trying to take the city. And if they do have a barracks and you are attacking without and bombardment help, you need about 100 tanks to take on a riflemen army. It aint pretty.

[JerEck32]

Just a question and I know I am a newbie but why do the moderators regulate everything? So what if he didn't give a clue as to what his topic is about? Why so strict?

[Strider]

Originally posted by JerEck32
Just a question and I know I am a newbie but why do the moderators regulate everything? So what if he didn't give a clue as to what his topic is about? Why so strict?

Because... if they letted people get away with stuff against the forum rules then just will be just another pile of spam. So they enforce ALL of the rules.

Also questioning a moderator is against the forum rules also.

But CT & Padma.... Be Nice

I thought we were nice. -- Padma

No... I mean to be nice to him sense he questioned your authority... or pretty much not to kick him... I know your nice enough... well... except late at night... then your grumpy... but still a nice grumpy

Of course I get grumpy then. We old folks need our sleep! And he's a newbie, so of course I was nice to him. I just sent him a PM explaining things a little. Now, if he would just read his PMs ... -- Padma

I was thinking about saying that (the you old folks need your sleep), but I decided it was in my better personal interests not to.... Also, I'd be happy to check his PM's for him, but unluckily... I do not know his password .

Good thing, or I'd have to ban you. I may send him an email just to make sure .... -- Padma

Why would you want to ban me? Remember.... You were grandpa before mod .

If you knew/hacked his password, then I'd have to ban you on principle. But since you don't, you're safe (for now). --Padma

How do you know I don't know his password? Can you read my mind? Also.... It's getting late... time for you to become grumpy again

Gol-durned kids these days! No respect for their elders! Why, I oughta ... <grumble> --Padma

I was just helping out my elder... seesh... hey... instead of calling you grandpa... can I call you grumpa?

Just don't call me late to dinner. --Padma

Who said I was going to call you to dinner?

You're not going to call me to dinner? What do you expect me to do, starve? --Padma

[Gen]

This is not a good idea. As QwertySoft pointed out, fast units wouldn't retreat. Also, all bombarding units would be useless (unless lethal).
As for speeding up the game, I'm sure you'll get the same effect with switching battle animations off. It doesn't take much more time to produce few random numbers instead of one to get the battle outcome.

[The Last Conformist]

Well, for improving the running speed of Civ3, I think it's a poor idea.

But perhaps one should make a "Civ1" mod ...

[Mark Young]

It's not the best idea
If you did that then a nuke, warrior, MA etc would all have the same ability and you would only build the cheapest unit cause it would do the same job as the most expensive one.

[BomberEscort]

It also helps to turn unit animation off if you want to speed up the game...

[Turner]

Originally posted by Sir Eric
It's not the best idea
If you did that then a nuke, warrior, MA etc would all have the same ability and you would only build the cheapest unit cause it would do the same job as the most expensive one.

Actually, it would be quite alot like Civ1. Yeah, lose that battleship to a galley!

Know how many battleships I lost to settlers? I can feel the Civ1 GD forum shivering from here. . . .

[BomberEscort]

Originally posted by dreadknought
Has anyone tried just using 1 hitpoint for all units to see if this speeds the game.

I sure hope this isn't the 'fix' Firaxis/Atari has in mind when they say a new combat system...

[dreadknought]

Originally posted by Gen
This is not a good idea. As QwertySoft pointed out, fast units wouldn't retreat. Also, all bombarding units would be useless (unless lethal).
As for speeding up the game, I'm sure you'll get the same effect with switching battle animations off. It doesn't take much more time to produce few random numbers instead of one to get the battle outcome.

Yes my thread title was too vague so I stand corrected

I thought about this some more and heres a few added thoughts while I concede there are difficult problems with this idea.

First I would allow horse -tank-and fast units 2 points and they would get very high retreat bonuses.
Elite units cound get like a 90 percent retreat bonus

land bombard units would be changed to regular land units with added speed and attacks but very low defense to simulate ranged attacks

ships would get higher points scaling up by how advanced they are

Archers-longbowman-musketmen....ect would also get 2 moves to simulate their range attack plus they could blitz attack slower units.

planes would always be lethal but they would always have a rate of fire no higher than 1 except stealth planes (2)

planes would cost more to build

all civs would have planes added to the build often list

any elite unit would get 1 extra life point regardless of unit type which means some tanks-horse elits-could have up to 3 points

Armies could be larger now (up to size 10) and would heal quicker as compared to other units

[The Last Conformist]

Go ahead and make a Civ1 mod ...

I note that your suggestions would make bombers very powerful. Build a SoD of them, and watch the AI's armies disintegrate ...

[Hygro]

Padma, you and Chieftess are nice (I am not familiar with Moonsinger though)

This seems like kind of a neat idea, but it would seriously be like, spearman beating modern armor armies.

[farting bob]

i like cheiftess and padma and althoguh i havent heard much from moonsinger, if seen a few correcting posts and theyve been tough butfair, so god goin. just go easy on me at 3am when i relise its a thursday not friday evening and i haveschol 2morrow (i did that last year. at 1am i relised and got a huge 5 1/2 hours followed by a long day at school..:argh
planes shoudl not have lethal bombardment, casue once you get stealth bombers you woudl become a unstopable offensive force.
i think a good one woudl be to have regs at 2, vets at 3 and elites at 5. 4 units in armies, 5 if you have the pentagon. this does not unbalance the game but puts more pressure if you dont have barracks because you could be fighting units with more than twice your hp.
give land bombardment units lethal ability but up the price by abit so you cant have hords of arty picking of regulars whlst your whoel offensive army is on another front.

[barron of ideas]

Artillery, masses of it, is already too powerful. I have no idea what to do about it, limit the number of guns in a hex due to supply considerations as the ammo requirements for 50 or 100 artillery units is immense. Stacks of artillery with adequate defense for the era ( an army is great, as usually the AI wont attack an army) and relatively few offensive units to take out the one hit point defenders the artillery bombardment produces. Giving lethal bombardment just compounds the problem.

And the AI has no idea how to use artillery in this fashion. I know it takes time to build up that much artillery, but if you start with catpults when available and keep building the available types and upgrading when change happens, you should be able to take a city away from anybody, and keep going, if you can defend your homeland. Moonsinger wrote the definitive stategy about this approach, I think, but others have picked up on it. No matter how many defenders, or the size and natural defenses of the target, if you use enough artillery you can break it open. And the AI won't do that so you should win every game you can get enough artillery together. "Enough" is an elastic concept, more than ten, normally less than 100.

[dreadknought]

Originally posted by barron of ideas
Artillery, masses of it, is already too powerful. I have no idea what to do about it, limit the number of guns in a hex due to supply considerations as the ammo requirements for 50 or 100 artillery units is immense. Stacks of artillery with adequate defense for the era ( an army is great, as usually the AI wont attack an army) and relatively few offensive units to take out the one hit point defenders the artillery bombardment produces. Giving lethal bombardment just compounds the problem.

And the AI has no idea how to use artillery in this fashion. I know it takes time to build up that much artillery, but if you start with catpults when available and keep building the available types and upgrading when change happens, you should be able to take a city away from anybody, and keep going, if you can defend your homeland. Moonsinger wrote the definitive stategy about this approach, I think, but others have picked up on it. No matter how many defenders, or the size and natural defenses of the target, if you use enough artillery you can break it open. And the AI won't do that so you should win every game you can get enough artillery together. "Enough" is an elastic concept, more than ten, normally less than 100.

Well in this mod artillery would not bombard at all but would be a fast and strong land unit with very little defense so the bombard concept would not work.

[farting bob]

no dread, i think arty shoudl be a bombard. since it woudlnt be as good as MA offensive, but woudl cme only a bit before them, thy woudl be as redundant as marines on pangaa are....
arty bmbad things, therefor they shoudl be a bombard unit. lets face it, nowhere woudl you put a load of arty and the few soldiers that use them into a battle onthe front line, they would get slaughtered. put them further back though away from the battle they can make attacks that generally will be more success ful as troops wont just storm it and you loss the arty. it works best from a distance, so arty in the game shoudl remain bomabrd unit and not a offensive land unit.