Project Perfect Mod Forums
:: Home :: Get Hosted :: PPM FAQ :: Forum FAQ :: Privacy Policy :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Register :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in ::

The time now is Wed Jul 24, 2024 2:59 am
All times are UTC + 0
[Lore] HP/Damage in C&C - Influence of Skill & Equipment
Moderators: Global Moderators, Red Alert 2 Moderators
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [6 Posts] Mark the topic unread ::  View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message

Joined: 22 Mar 2015

PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 3:16 pm    Post subject:  [Lore] HP/Damage in C&C - Influence of Skill & Equipment Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Not sure if this fits here, but this is supposed to provide a model that explains the material cause of different HP values of different units in C&C.
The premise of this model is that Red Alert 2 (RA2), Tiberian Sun (TS) and Generals (Gen) happen in universes with the same laws of nature, even when they don't have an accepted point of divergence (POD) within the timeframe depicted in the C&C games (e.g. we don't know how Generals/ZH happens - we know it probably happens in a world which lacks the POD that leads to RA, but it's clearly not our universe). I will leave out RA and TD for now. I think RA can be modelled, but there is some more complicated math required, while TD doesn't seem to fit with the others at all. I have only tentatively tried to make sense of RA3 and TW and think they might be able to fit in, and I might supplement it later.

Let's compare some numbers first:

  • Civilian (TS): 50 HP
  • Civilian (RA2): 50 HP
  • Civilian (Gen): 50 HP
  • Light Infantry (TS): 125 HP
  • GI (RA2): 125 HP
  • Conscript (RA2): 125 HP
  • Ranger (Gen): 180 HP
  • Red Guard (Gen): 120 HP
  • Rebel (Gen): 120 HP

The fact that, in all three games, civilians have the same HP, and we have no reason to think that they would die to significantly more or less damage in each universe, I would think it's sensible that 50 HP represents the same amount of health in each universe: a civilian from TS could wander into RA2 and his HP value would be the same.

Next, let's look at the units with 125 HP: the Light Infantry, GI and Conscript all wear significant body armor. So does the Ranger at 180 HP. It's likely that the body armor in TS and Gen is more advanced than that of GIs and Conscripts in the 1970's. TS takes place in the late 2030s, while Gen takes place within a few years starting in 2013. Advances in body armor technology certainly seem plausible between 2013 and the late 2030s. When considering whether body armor in TS is more advanced than in Gen, we should not be deceived by looks: Body armor, especially Nod's, in TS certainly looks very futuristic. Nod body armor already looks very futuristic in Ren, which takes place late into the events of TD (so, late 1990s) - nevermind that the appearance of Nod infantry, and the Nod armory and vehicle pool, in Ren does not at all correspond to what we see in TD. Still, even if we assume no progress in body armor technology has been made between 2013 and the late 2030s, it's also unlikely that body armor in the late 2030s would be inferior to that used in 2013. If body armor in 2013 is equal or inferior to that used in 2030, why do Rangers in 2013 have 180 HP, whereas Light Infantry in 2030s only have 125 HP?

Further, in Gen, the Red Guard and Rebel are not using body armor, yet they have HP values approaching that of the well-armored TS Light Infantry (120 HP vs 125 HP). As we have derived from the case of Civilians, those HP really represent the same value in their respective universes.

The difference between Rangers on the one side, and Red Guards and Rebels on the other would be easily explained by the Rangers' body armor. However, as we have seen, body armor does not explain the difference between Rangers and Light Infantry. The simplest explanation, I think, is that the HP values differ not because there is a difference in body armor, but because there is a difference the body to negate damage. What could account for this difference? Surely, there are more resilient people, and the Rangers represent an elite force, perhaps physically superior to conscript Red Guards and Rebel tribal militia. I'm not sure how realistic that supposition is: are you really going to need fewer bullets to kill the former than the latter? What would, however, certainly account for increased survivability would be the ability to evade more bullets. Thus, the HP differential largely represents an element of avoiding being hit. To this, we might object that, ever since TD, we actually already have hits and misses represented by game element of whether projectile or explosion actually makes contact with the target (Spread/Cell, Inaccurate, FlakScatter, Scatter, ScatterVSInfantry...). There is also the graphically represented element of "Prone" for avoiding damage. However, there is a precedence for a non-graphical element: this is the Verses. We know that the low anti-infantry rating of, for example, AP, represents low accuracy of tank cannons against small and evasive little infantry. Unlike Verses and ProneDamage, where damage depends on the exact type of damage exposed to, higher HP would represent a flat increase in the ability to evade/avoid damage from all types of damage equally.

(It's also possible that Rangers really have more HP than Red Guards and Rebels because of their body armor, but that Light Infantry, at equal or superior body armor, have less HP because of significantly inferior skill - but that forces us to take the pretty unintuitive idea that Light Infantry are significantly less trained than Red Guards and Rebels.)

This explanation also tallies with another interesting aspect: infantry armed with large, bulky launcher weapons is notoriously weaker than their gun-armed counterparts:

  • Rocket Infantry (TS): 100 HP
  • Flak Trooper (RA2): 100 HP
  • Missile Defender (Gen): 100 HP
  • Tank Hunter (Gen): 100 HP
  • RPG Trooper (Gen): 100 HP

The units in question all wear armor comparable to their gun-armed counterparts, but it would make sense for a large and bulky weapon to restrict your mobility sufficiently to make you less able to avoid being hit.

Finally, of course, Light Infantry, GI and Conscript do have 125 HP, whereas Red Guard and Rebel only have 120 HP. While it can be argued that Chinese mass infantry might have lesser training and so lesser skill than the more professional Light Infantry and GI, and less decisively it could be argued that they have less training than Conscript, there is a much clearer commonality between the three types that have 125 HP, and between the two types that have 120 HP: the ones with 125 HP all wear body armor, while those with 120 HP do not. Having body armor should do something to help with survivability. And both of these considerations fit perfectly with the idea that having body armor indeed adds +5 HP to infantry.

Let's look at Tesla Trooper; he has 130 HP and wears heavy armor. I think in this case, larger portion of HP is owed to armor, not to superior evasion/avoidance. Indeed, we would think that the heavy armor, just like heavy weapon, would reduce evasion/avoidance, and so the damage resistance provided by heavy armor overcompensates for the evasion reduction it gives to its wearer, resulting in net +5 HP.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Missile Trooper

Joined: 01 May 2020

PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I wish we could do the vortigaunt charge before firing its weapon.
I have them but still have no idea how to do it.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Mar 2015

PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I think you meant to reply to the "Converting Valve Stats" thread. Actually, it's very easy to do - incorporate charging frames into the SHP right before the firing frames, then add FireUp to the art INI section.


Next part of this thread's project: let's look at RA's stats. Something interesting to be revealed!

  • Civilian (RA) have 25 HP
  • Rifle Infantry (RA) have 50 HP
  • Grenadier (RA) have 50 HP
  • Rocket Infantry (RA) have 45 HP
  • Flamethrower (RA) have 40 HP
  • Engineer (RA) have 25 HP
  • Spy (RA) have 25 HP
  • Thief (RA) have 25 HP
  • Einstein (RA) have 25 HP
  • Medic (RA) have 80 HP
  • General (RA) have 80 HP
  • Tanya (RA) has 100 HP

Let's calibrate. Is it likely that European Civilians in 1950s have as much survivability as civilians in 1970s US, Europe and Russia, 2013 middle-east, or 2030s in TS? I think the answer has to be yes. So, 25 HP of Civilian in RA is the same survivability as 50 HP of Civilian in TS/RA2/Gen.

Now we have calibrated. Let's see what happens if we apply multiplier "x2" to the HP values:

  • Rifle Infantry would have 100 HP in RA2
  • Grenadier would have 100 HP
  • Rocket Infantry would have 90 HP
  • Flamethrower would have 80 HP
  • Engineer would have 50 HP
  • Spy would have 50 HP
  • Thief would have 50 HP
  • Einstein would have 50 HP
  • Medic would have 160 HP
  • General would have 160 HP
  • Tanya would have 200 HP

Now, Einstein in RA and RA2 is literally the same character, so (even now he is a bit older in RA2), he should have the same stats! And it turns out that he does: applying "x2" multiplication, result is 50 HP, which is exactly what Einstein's HP are in RA2. But how do we explain that Rifle Infantry and Rocket Infantry are so much weaker than RA2 GI and Conscript, who have "x2.5" of Rifle Infantry's HP in RA?

Let's look at their equipment. Both Rifle Infantry and Rocket Infantry appear to use same armor, which is appropriate for the time: combat fatigues and helmet, but no body armor. Should we conclude that body armor after all makes +25 HP difference? But then why GLA Rebels in tribal clothing and without even a helmet have 120 HP? Do they have the better training for evasion/cover than Rifle Infantry?

I think looking at RA3 will help decide. In RA3, Conscript have 100 HP, while Peacekeeper have 150 HP. Also, we find Engineers which have 50 HP. There are no Civilians in RA3, so I think best is to use Engineers for calibration. Is it likely that RA3 Engineers have same survivability as RA2 Engineers? I think so. They appear to have the similar equipments. RA3 takes place after RA2, so it's more likely they are even more survivable than RA2 Engineers due to technological progress in armor. So it's likely that Engineer of RA3 with 50 HP would be at least as survivable as RA2 Engineer with 75 HP. This means that, in RA2, RA3 Engineer would have 75 HP (multiplier "x1.5").

To me, the conclusion that Chinese Red Guard have better ability than Soviet Conscripts is very implausible! But, as neither is using the body armor, the different HP values have to be down to damage mitigation ability.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Location: Fineland

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

HP values alone mean nothing, you also have to take into account the units' armor types and weapons.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Mar 2015

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Well, since you know HP is 1:1 convertible from TS and Gen to RA2, you know you can convert damage 1:1 too. I also think it makes sense to say that the armor type of Civilian in TS, Gen and RA2 is the same: they are all wearing just ordinary street clothing (RA2 beach civilians are even mostly naked), so we know that any damage type deals the same damage to them in each of the games: if Gen's "SMALL_ARMS" DamageType deals 100% damage to a Civilian in the Gen universe, then it would also deal 100% damage to a Civilian in the TS and RA2 universes.

I completely agree that the other armor types are more complicated to convert, though.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Mar 2015

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

For example, I think it's sensible to think that bullets are the same in Gen/TS/RA2, and do damage in the same way in all of these games. We also know that while low accuracy is factored into the AP warhead as a damage penalty against infantry, we don't see any damage penalty against infantry for small arms, regardless of who fires them - Rebels or highly-trained Rangers. So obviously, their gun skill doesn't factor into it.

And yet, "SA" warhead has different Verses against other types of armor between Gen and RA2, but even between TS and RA2! We can debate whether there is a revolution in bullet-casting between those games, and TS bullets are made of some different alloy or whatever, but if I had to chose, I would say that the reason that bullets do different damage% in those games is because armor of the same name isn't the same in RA2 as it is in TS. However, that has its own problems, because we have vehicles in both games (CAR and PICKUP for example), which are a) probably nearly identical between games, b) have real-world counterparts and are probably not produced with any new fancy alloy/armor by the time of TS, so we can't explain why they should have an armor type that reacts differently to bullets. It's all very interesting, you are right.

Between TD and TS, however, we have one perfect continuity, which is Mammoth Tank. Mammoth Tank exists in both games, they are pristine and unaltered in TS, so all of their stats should be the same. That said, I am not sure whether TD Mammoth Tanks are lore-wise the same as RA Mammoth Tanks, but if they are, then that's a 1:1 conversion chain between TD/RA/TS.


I did some research on "SA" warhead and armor types.

  • In RA, SA deals 60% to "light" armor.
  • In TS, SA deals  40% to "light" armor.
  • In RA2, SA deals 50% to "light" armor.
  • In RA, SA deals 50% to "wood" armor.
  • In TS, SA deals 60% to "wood" armor.
  • In RA2, SA deals 75% to "wood" armor.

All other verses are identical for "SA" warhead between those games (or else the armor type was added in RA2 and so does not exist in the other games (which means the damage would default to 100%).

Who uses "light" armor in RA?

  • V2 Launcher
  • MRJ
  • Mobile Gap Generator
  • Artillery
  • MCV
  • Ranger
  • Truck
  • Scout Ant
  • Badger Bomber
  • Submarine
  • Mig
  • Yak
  • Transport Helicopter
  • Factory
  • Ship Yard
  • Sub Pen

Who uses "wood" armor in RA?

  • Barbed Wire Fence
  • Power Plant
  • Advanced Power Plant
  • Soviet Tech Center
  • Allied Tech Center
  • Hospital (obsolete?)
  • Bio-Research Laboratory (obsolete?)
  • Soviet Barracks
  • Allied Barracks
  • Kennel
  • Service Depot
  • Iron Curtain Device
  • Forward Command Center
  • Chronosphere
  • Pillbox
  • Camo Pillbox
  • Refinery
  • Silo
  • Radar
  • Gap Generator
  • Something called "auxiliary decorative building", ID "MISS". Not sure what it is.
  • All civilian buildings
  • Queen Ant

Between these and RA2, the difference is actually quite easy to explain, because the armor types of the same between RA and TS, and RA2, are not the same lore-wise.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [6 Posts] Mark the topic unread ::  View previous topic :: View next topic
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on DiggShare on RedditShare on PInterestShare on Del.icio.usShare on Stumble Upon
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group

[ Time: 0.1546s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0088s) ][ Debug on ]