Removing hitpoints and firepower

[LuKo]

The combat mechanics is rather complicated in civ2 and it's mostly fine but I find both hitpoints and firepower as ideas which bring more harm than good. They obscure true statistics of an unit (e.g. that Musketeer attacks better than Legion) and I feel that the developers didn't grasp the idea perfectly (e.g. HP of Armor and firepower of Howitzer seem out of place). Therefore, I would like to remove these attributes (flatten across all units) and compensate with basic statistics. Surely it will cause some changes in powerlevel but I think it is worth it. However, I still want to keep it as similar to vanilla combat as possible and I wonder whether anybody analyzed how the new statistics should look like in such a scenario. E.g. the Musketeer has currently A&D of 3 with 2 HP. Simply doubling A&D would make it significantly stronger, while changing it to 4 would nerf it. I guess A&D of 5 is the most appropriate but if there are any additional considerations you can share with me it would be much appreciated.

Similarly, if there is a reason why nobody is messing with these two attributes, please let me know.

 

[Dadais]

I do like the depth firepower and hitpoints are giving in civ2.
This allows canonglasses units and many other combinaisons, which we wouldn't have with a flat system.

On the other side, I won't condamn microprose on its choices for particular units, as I can't remember in years of basic game playthroughs as a child blaming a lack of balance on this point.

Just another point of view.

 

[LuKo]

This allows canonglasses units and many other combinaisons, which we wouldn't have with a flat system.

Glasscannon can be easily done in this system, e.g. 16ATK/1DEF (1/1 HP/FP). With one-stat system (vide Civ4) it is much harder, but HP/FP is not needed. Giving Howitzers additional HP&FP actually increases its defence.

However, if there are any other roles which will be lost its good to know. E.g. I know about the Pearl Harbour rule which nerfs ships in port and is based on those statistics but I feel that it is not that relevant and possibly can be reproduced with just DEF nerf once we have C# based Civ2...

 

[Dadais]

Glasscannon can be easily done in this system, e.g. 16ATK/1DEF (1/1 HP/FP).

This is not a canonglass (realising the correct word in english is glass canon, I'll alter from there).

Both 4,2, 1,4
and 2,4, 1,4 are.

 

[Bultro]

I agree with LuKo, that was a complication that doesn't really add fun to the game. According to how combat works and the laws of probability, 3/3 musketeers with 2xHP should perform roughly the same as 6/6 musketeers with normal HP.
You can easily try it by editing the rules.txt. Set everything to 1h,1f, and instead use them as multipliers for attack/defense; for example, Fighter would become 16/8.
I've never tried because I'm used to the default units anyway. It was a useless complication for newcomers

 

[Dadais]

According to how combat works and the laws of probability, 3/3 musketeers with 2xHP should perform roughly the same as 6/6 musketeers with normal HP.

I disagree.

Then, with what kind of effect on repetition of fights and the ability for the unit to sustain as such ?

 

[WildPony]

I agree with LuKo, that was a complication that doesn't really add fun to the game. According to how combat works and the laws of probability, 3/3 musketeers with 2xHP should perform roughly the same as 6/6 musketeers with normal HP.
You can easily try it by editing the rules.txt. Set everything to 1h,1f, and instead use them as multipliers for attack/defense; for example, Fighter would become 16/8.
I've never tried because I'm used to the default units anyway. It was a useless complication for newcomers

In my experience through testing, 2 Hit Points instead of 1 seems to increase both the offense and the defense of the unit by approximately x 1.44. Thus a Musketeer has an adjusted offense of about 4.33 and defense of about 4.33. Based on the game's description of what Hit Points (supposedly) do, i had predicted a 6/6, but it became clear to me that Catapults with 6 attack hit much harder than Muskets. Pretty sure i had tested the overall offense of crusaders (5 attack) as stronger than Muskets and Knights/lElephants (4 attack) as weaker, but it has been a fair number of years.

 

[Bultro]

Ok I found an explanation. My calculations are based on what the manual says:
probability to hit = your strength / (your strength + their strength)
But the manual lies! It is explained here:

The Complete Civilization II Combat Guide v1.1 - CivFanatics

The Complete Civilization II Combat Guide v1.1 By: Marquis de Sodaq (a.k.a. Sodak) INTRODUCTION This document contains all there is to know about how combat works in Civilization II, by Microprose. Although it claims to be complete, there are some issues that need resolution. An occasional...

www.civfanatics.com

The real mathematics are absolutely obscure and crazy. You just can't adjust the musketeer's strength with a simple number, because it also depends on the enemy's values.
I'm even more convinced that this was a useless complication.
What about FreeCiv? did they replicate this strange system or the manual's rule?

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

I'll preface by saying that the OP seems to be suggesting aping Civ3, which did away with HP/FP in favour of augmented base stats. I've actually been chipping away at a "Civ2.5", so if I can get upgrade lines properly sorted we can see how well this translates to the old engine.

The details of the maths largely fly over my head, but I'd actually argue HP/FP are phenomenally underutilized. Civ2 introduced the stats to address the phalanx-beats-battleship scenarios of the original game, with later-era units generally becoming overall 'tougher': gunpowder infantry are standardized 2HP, artillery's bonus firepower can punch through walled defenders, and tanks are the durable powerhouses we'd expect. Vanilla mods have mostly followed this frame, but as I highlighted once before, one scenario took a creative approach of giving foot soldiers low FP but high HP and armoured vehicles the opposite. The effect balances tanks' high ATK/DEF against infantry with better staying power: vehicles hold initiative in open fields (like IRL), but terrain/city defensive bonuses mean entrenched soldiers can actually withstand armoured assaults. It leads to more tactical play, as tank spam is no longer a cost-effective strategy when going toe-to-toe against units a fraction of their production cost.

 

[Petromax]

Doesn't the simplified combat option already do this?

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Yes and no: Simplified Combat removes HP/FP but doesn't modify basic strength to compensate, so later-game units actually perform worse. It also reduces combat to the all-or-nothing die-roll of Civ1, whereas the OP still wants damage to be a thing: "1 HP" translates as 10 hitpoints in the actual battle calc, so there's still a safety check on phalanx-beats-battleship flukes.

 

[dalauder]

I'll preface by saying that the OP seems to be suggesting aping Civ3, which did away with HP/FP in favour of augmented base stats. I've actually been chipping away at a "Civ2.5", so if I can get upgrade lines properly sorted we can see how well this translates to the old engine.

The details of the maths largely fly over my head, but I'd actually argue HP/FP are phenomenally underutilized. Civ2 introduced the stats to address the phalanx-beats-battleship scenarios of the original game, with later-era units generally becoming overall 'tougher': gunpowder infantry are standardized 2HP, artillery's bonus firepower can punch through walled defenders, and tanks are the durable powerhouses we'd expect. Vanilla mods have mostly followed this frame, but as I highlighted once before, one scenario took a creative approach of giving foot soldiers low FP but high HP and armoured vehicles the opposite. The effect balances tanks' high ATK/DEF against infantry with better staying power: vehicles hold initiative in open fields (like IRL), but terrain/city defensive bonuses mean entrenched soldiers can actually withstand armoured assaults. It leads to more tactical play, as tank spam is no longer a cost-effective strategy when going toe-to-toe against units a fraction of their production cost.

How's your Civ2.5 coming along?

I've done quite a few modifications to units, which I think make it a better game. But I've also made the game offense-heavy late, because I think it should be able to end (or just trade mutual destruction, which is realistic). Zeppelins are my most interesting change though.

I added in naval mines today. Those are, as yet, untested.

Has anyone experimented with hit points or firepower greater than 4? I remember 4 being the max according to the manual, but does it break any game equations?

 

[duplj]

Has anyone experimented with hit points or firepower greater than 4? I remember 4 being the max according to the manual, but does it break any game equations?

As far as I remember, the limitation of 4 applies to the AI for calculating the most powerful squad from the entire list of squads that the AI can build, there the durability and firepower are summed up and limited to 4
There seem to be no restrictions for battles directly, you can change the values and observe. For example, when two squads fight, a cycle of strikes will be launched. If the probability of striking falls to the attacker, he strikes a strike equal to his firepower (let it be 8 for example), then the defender receives a strike reducing durability by 8 hit points. The next round is calculated again and if the strike is now made by the defender with firepower, for example, equal to 4, the attacker will receive damage of 4 hit points. The probability of who will strike, the defender or the attacker, is determined in each round taking into account the randomness divided by the increased attack value of the squad that attacks, and exactly the same thing happens with the squad that is defending, but there the randomness is divided by the increased defense value of the squad. The increased attack and defense values also include bonuses and penalties from flags, terrain, buildings, etc. If the remainder of the attacker's division is greater than the remainder of the defender's division, the attacker will strike and vice versa. The strength of the strike is determined by the firepower of the unit that strikes.

 

[dalauder]

As far as I remember, the limitation of 4 applies to the AI for calculating the most powerful squad from the entire list of squads that the AI can build, there the durability and firepower are summed up and limited to 4
There seem to be no restrictions for battles directly, you can change the values and observe. For example, when two squads fight, a cycle of strikes will be launched. If the probability of striking falls to the attacker, he strikes a strike equal to his firepower (let it be 8 for example), then the defender receives a strike reducing durability by 8 hit points. The next round is calculated again and if the strike is now made by the defender with firepower, for example, equal to 4, the attacker will receive damage of 4 hit points. The probability of who will strike, the defender or the attacker, is determined in each round taking into account the randomness divided by the increased attack value of the squad that attacks, and exactly the same thing happens with the squad that is defending, but there the randomness is divided by the increased defense value of the squad. The increased attack and defense values also include bonuses and penalties from flags, terrain, buildings, etc. If the remainder of the attacker's division is greater than the remainder of the defender's division, the attacker will strike and vice versa. The strength of the strike is determined by the firepower of the unit that strikes.

Thanks. That makes me want to modify my "Naval mines" unit. They're bound to coasts like Triremes and move slowly and are hidden like subs, and can't attack. But I want them to have the possibility of significant damage with their large defense. I'm not sure if it'll work.

I found out with my Zeppelin that aerial carrier units have infinite flight turns, but a maximum speed of 1. There's some weird combination of unintended interactions happening.

 

[rhy]

Thanks. That makes me want to modify my "Naval mines" unit. They're bound to coasts like Triremes and move slowly and are hidden like subs, and can't attack. But I want them to have the possibility of significant damage with their large defense. I'm not sure if it'll work.

I found out with my Zeppelin that aerial carrier units have infinite flight turns, but a maximum speed of 1. There's some weird combination of unintended interactions happening.

I love the idea of AirShip units! Zeppelin is a name brand of AirShip. Like Toyota for car. Full disclosure: OpenAirShips.com is me.

 

[Istinggar]

HP/FP is extremely easy to grasp once you know what it actually means. A unit with double the HP can last twice as long in combat, while a unit with double FP kills the enemy twice as fast. This knowledge tells us two things, the first is that the same proportional increase to either stat will represent statistically the exact same result, a 1HP/2FP unit is literally indistinguishable from a 2HP/1FP unit in terms of combat performance.

The second thing is that this allows us to compare complex and simple units. If we have a musketeer, 3 attack and 2 HP, attacking a unit, this will be statistically equivalent to TWO chariots, 1 HP each and 3 attack, attacking successively, effectively combining into a 2 HP unit with 3 attack, it's that simple! This means that you can easily normalize units via considering them as multiples of simpler units: a dragoon (2HP/1FP) is worth 2 crusaders for a +25% shield increase, a fighter is worth 4 elephants (2HP/2FP = 4 base units) for a +50% shield increase, an artillery is 1.333 times a tank (2HP/2FP vs 3HP/1FP = 4 vs 3) while costing 37.5% less! That last one is relevant to me because before i grasped HP/FP mechanics i actually thought the tank was stronger than the artillery! Now comparisons go from being weird and imprecise to being exact and impactful.

In my experience through testing, 2 Hit Points instead of 1 seems to increase both the offense and the defense of the unit by approximately x 1.44. Thus a Musketeer has an adjusted offense of about 4.33 and defense of about 4.33. Based on the game's description of what Hit Points (supposedly) do, i had predicted a 6/6, but it became clear to me that Catapults with 6 attack hit much harder than Muskets. Pretty sure i had tested the overall offense of crusaders (5 attack) as stronger than Muskets and Knights/lElephants (4 attack) as weaker, but it has been a fair number of years.

I once tried this method of normalizing via attack and defense stats, but its too unwieldy because it doesn't provide an intuitive way to generalize unit comparisons, like what is the effective attack/defense multiple between a 4HP/9FP unit and a 5HP/7FP unit? With the above method, it's as simple as normalizing to 36 base units vs 35 base units, so we know they're nearly equivalent.