[Lore] HP/Damage in C&C - Influence of Skill & Equipment

NCoder · Soldier **Joined**: 22 Mar 2015

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.

Mr.Hymn · Missile Trooper **Joined**: 01 May 2020

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

NCoder · Soldier **Joined**: 22 Mar 2015

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.

Crimsonum · Seth **Joined**: 14 Jul 2005 **Location**: Fineland

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

_________________

NCoder · Soldier **Joined**: 22 Mar 2015

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.

NCoder · Soldier **Joined**: 22 Mar 2015

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.

-----

Update:
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.