Unit attack/defend values: meaningless in C3C?

[luther blissett]

After playing C3C for about a week, I've come to the following conclusion:

Unit values (ie, the attack/defend value of each unit in Civ 3) don't actually mean anything in Civ 3 Conquests. Maybe it's a bug in 1.22, I just don't know. For example:

The attack/defend value of a tank is 16/8. This means that if one tank attacks another tank of equal health on equal terrain, it has twice the chances of winning than the defending tank.

Try actually doing it. You'll find that the chances are just about even. Therefore, it doesn't seem like the attack/defend values of units in C3C mean anything at all, and that there is no real difference between offensive units (tanks) and defensive units (infantry, etc).

Has anyone else noticed this?

Blissett

 

[Tomoyo]

No. Were there defensive bonuses?

 

[Zakharov]

Tomoyo is right. Don't underestimate defensive bonuses. If a tank is fortified on a mountain across a river (for example) then the stats become 16 attack vs 20 defence.

 

[Theoden]

How many attacks did you make? If it wasn't a sufficient high number then there is a pretty high chance that it was just ruled by luck.
I am completely sure there is no such bug as Attack/Defense values being broken.

 

[budweiser]

So, are you saying that in C3C, you only need to produce warriors and you can win?

 

[Pfeffersack]

And don't forget that the defender gets a defense bonus even on flat terrain - 10%.

 

[ybbor]

was it in a city? that can give preety high bonuses above size 12

 

[The Omega]

The attack/defend value of a tank is 16/8. This means that if one tank attacks another tank of equal health on equal terrain, it has twice the chances of winning than the defending tank.

No, the attacking tank does not have twice teh chances of winning. ALL terrain tiles give defensive bonuses, so even if it was just plains, the tank gets a 10% bonus. Also, if it was fortified, the bonus increases (Can't remember how much). Also, it could all just be bad luck with the RNG.

 

[faizy999]

For a offensive unit we only need a high attacker point???. because sometime i lost my legions by fighting with a warrior who attacking on fortified legion.
IS there some good calculating device for calculating the results of fighting before fighting.

 

[The Omega]

For a offensive unit we only need a high attacker point???. because sometime i lost my legions by fighting with a warrior who attacking on fortified legion.
IS there some good calculating device for calculating the results of fighting before fighting.

There is, but I don't know where.

 

[gunkulator]

There is a combat calculator here

 

[luther blissett]

According to the combat calculator, my tanks should have been winning 80% of the time against his defending tanks, but it was more like 50/50. I'm pretty sure I have the terrain right and everything. Maybe there are hidden bonuses to AI units in 1.22? I don't know. I'm stumped.

 

[Tomoyo]

Let's see the exact test.

 

[Woody]

According to the combat calculator, my tanks should have been winning 80% of the time against his defending tanks, but it was more like 50/50. I'm pretty sure I have the terrain right and everything. Maybe there are hidden bonuses to AI units in 1.22? I don't know. I'm stumped.

The RNG will give streaks of unlikely outcomes, that is how a RNG works. Having only a 50% win ratio when an 80% ratio is expected over 100 or so combats would be expected using a good RNG. You only get 80% wins if you look at thousands of combats.

 

[FinnMcCool]

posted by Woody:
The RNG will give streaks of unlikely outcomes, that is how a RNG works. Having only a 50% win ratio when an 80% ratio is expected over 100 or so combats would be expected using a good RNG. You only get 80% wins if you look at thousands of combats.


That, precisely, is why the combat system needs some adjustment. Several arguments have been made in these forums, between players who love this game and want to defend its system, and those who know about wargame odds-making ranges and want to see this great game fit into them...

What I've learned about "combat odds" in Civ# is that a unit's "combat strength" doesn't actually have anything to do with its ability to win a COMBAT, it only has to do with the unit's ability to win a single ROUND... Thus, units like a Spearman can conceivably cause serious damage to a Modern Unit like a Tank, given the odds.

Consider: There aren't any units in the standard C3C which have a "HitPoint Bonus" (you can create them if you want, and I have, but not in the basic version...) So. Therefore, any Spearman has a real chance to cause a Modern Tank unit to loose 1/3 of its total strength. This is caused by the wierd combat system in Civ, where "Attack and Defense values" have nothing at all to do with the unit's PHYSICAL strength, but only governs the unit's ability to inflict one hit of damage. And ALL UNITS INFLICT ONE HIT OF DAMAGE. From the Warrior to the F-15, all units inflict one hit of damage in each round of combat, and all units have the same number of Hit Points.

The only solution under the present system is to increase advanced units by adding "HP bonus" in the Conquests Editor...

 

[ybbor]

posted by Woody:
The RNG will give streaks of unlikely outcomes, that is how a RNG works. Having only a 50% win ratio when an 80% ratio is expected over 100 or so combats would be expected using a good RNG. You only get 80% wins if you look at thousands of combats.


That, precisely, is why the combat system needs some adjustment. Several arguments have been made in these forums, between players who love this game and want to defend its system, and those who know about wargame odds-making ranges and want to see this great game fit into them...

What I've learned about "combat odds" in Civ# is that a unit's "combat strength" doesn't actually have anything to do with its ability to win a COMBAT, it only has to do with the unit's ability to win a single ROUND... Thus, units like a Spearman can conceivably cause serious damage to a Modern Unit like a Tank, given the odds.

Consider: There aren't any units in the standard C3C which have a "HitPoint Bonus" (you can create them if you want, and I have, but not in the basic version...) So. Therefore, any Spearman has a real chance to cause a Modern Tank unit to loose 1/3 of its total strength. This is caused by the wierd combat system in Civ, where "Attack and Defense values" have nothing at all to do with the unit's PHYSICAL strength, but only governs the unit's ability to inflict one hit of damage. And ALL UNITS INFLICT ONE HIT OF DAMAGE. From the Warrior to the F-15, all units inflict one hit of damage in each round of combat, and all units have the same number of Hit Points.

The only solution under the present system is to increase advanced units by adding "HP bonus" in the Conquests Editor...

2 probelms:
1) there are hit ppint bonuses in for ancient cavalry and the war elephant.
2) percentage of winning a round=percentage of winning an entire battle

 

[FinnMcCool]

ppppppppblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblbpppppppppppbbbbbbbblblblblblblbttttt!!!!!!!

 

[FinnMcCool]

After a few breathers, I VERY RELUCTANTLY submit this response to

2 probelms:
1) there are hit ppint bonuses in for ancient cavalry and the war elephant.
2) percentage of winning a round=percentage of winning an entire battle


#1 is irrelevant. We're talking about the combat system for all units.
#2 is just incorrect. It's mathematically correct, but it isn't a useful equation for calculating the chance of winning a battle. The complaints are coming from players who object to a VERY HIGH Combat Strength losing 1/3 of it's total viability due to a single round losing against a very weak unit.

The fact that any unit can inflict a a"win" in a combat round, makes the combat round more important than the overall battle...

I'd hate to send a tank into a town with a fortified spearman knowing that it might take near-complete destruction in the battle...

 

[Tomoyo]

How high would "VERY HIGH" be? It does not lose 1/3 of it's viability. Injured units can heal. Dead ones cannot.

 

[FinnMcCool]

OK, at least the thrust of the conversation has shifted. I feel a certain satisfaction in raising the question, about combat strength and a unit's value.

Basicly, the "combat strength" of a unit isn't the same as it's probability of victory, and that fact is a novelty to traditional wargamers. What we're seeing here is the results of Civ3 fanatics trying to defend their love, while unfortunately ignoring standard wargaming tactics.

A unit's "Hit Points" is the most significant statistic for survival. "Combat Strength" and "Combat Defense" are nothing more than probability numbers, not physical strength numbers.