View Full Version : Suggestion re combat system


kolokol
Mar 01, 2012, 08:06 AM
NB. I no nothing about modding - just a fan of the mod

I know I'm not the only one who gets upset about random luck rolls in the combat system. I thought up an idea, but I don't know if it could be done, or if it should.

The idea is: make all battles at fx 90%+ an automatic win and conversely for under 10% automatic loss. I think that's rather reasonable. I was thinking maybe one could reuse the code for free wins in the difficulty settings.

Doesn't eliminate luck but eliminates the most aggregious luck-screw.

Could this be done? Should it be done?

DRJ
Mar 01, 2012, 08:47 AM
Should it be done? No.

Battles often are easy enough - and if you think that 90% chance is good but lose and thus brought one or two units less to take a city you have to deal with the consequences, over the games you will know that 90% is not 100% and that sometimes a bit more preperation makes it really 100%...

Even Heroes can die! (although there is a new promotion in the chatter, that will allow them to be somehow reborn, I recall)

Koshling
Mar 01, 2012, 08:50 AM
NB. I no nothing about modding - just a fan of the mod

I know I'm not the only one who gets upset about random luck rolls in the combat system. I thought up an idea, but I don't know if it could be done, or if it should.

The idea is: make all battles at fx 90%+ an automatic win and conversely for under 10% automatic loss. I think that's rather reasonable. I was thinking maybe one could reuse the code for free wins in the difficulty settings.

Doesn't eliminate luck but eliminates the most aggregious luck-screw.

Could this be done? Should it be done?

Also voting no. 90% is not that high anyway. If you have 10 fights in a turn you should expect to lose 1 if they are all 90% odds. Hand raised stealth units would be too easy to promote up and would be essentially imortal if you used them carefully with such a change.

Hanny
Mar 01, 2012, 08:57 AM
Master of Mana uses an equipment mechanism to allow armour/weapons/items for units that further increase units values, this stretches the odds to reduce the luck elemnt in game.

However luck is a vital element in combat and i see no good reason at present to warrant easing its effect.

platyping
Mar 01, 2012, 09:36 AM
If you are complaining that losing at 90+% is luck, so make it anything above 90 == autowin.
Then when you lose at 89% you will complain it is luck again...

BlueGenie
Mar 01, 2012, 11:42 AM
I agree with keeping it as it is. 90% I have never consider a sure win anyway, nine out of ten wins at most, less if playing at Deity level.
I do get a little peevish when losing battles at 99+% though, but I'm still not counting them as sure wins, I know I can lose them anyway.
And like people have stated, it's not that hard to arrange a fight at 90+% to come a lot closer to 100%, if not actually getting it there. Surround and Destroy, Great General, get one or more promotions before tackling that enemy stronghold.

Cheers

strategyonly
Mar 01, 2012, 03:04 PM
I do get a little peevish when losing battles at 99+% though, Cheers

Yeah this happens to me alot also, i look at 99. . .% and think i got this made in the shade and poof i lose the battle, i think i almost broke a vein one day:mad::lol::lol:


Do NOT take these as insults, just responses to your suggestions, nothing wrong with that, and always and i mean always make suggestions, thx.

JosEPh_II
Mar 01, 2012, 03:40 PM
Wow kolokol, that buckshot must have really stung! Blasted out of the sky like a you were the last duck of the Duck season. And not even one "well.....lets think about this" just Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, NO Boom! :p .

Sorry man.

JosEPh

Sgtslick
Mar 01, 2012, 05:16 PM
isn't there a BUG option > force combat odds or something

Hydromancerx
Mar 01, 2012, 06:18 PM
Sounds like you guys need some anger management. :pat:

Though its nice to hear you guys are so passionate about the game.

BlueGenie
Mar 02, 2012, 08:45 AM
Hey. *grin* I at least gave some hints as to what can be done. *smile*

Cheers

Nevets_
Mar 02, 2012, 09:50 AM
Just think, for every time your 90% odds City Raider 4 swordsman dies to a longbowmen, there was (on average) a 90% odds neanderthal vs. scout attack that failed (and whose odds you didn't even know!). And while you might like that swordsman, but by that point you've got 20 more. Back when you were getting kicked around by cavemen twice your size that single scout was far more important.

That leads me to another idea, would it be possible to include combat odds in the combat log? So when you lose a unit on defense you know what odds the attacker had? Might help to alert players to future AI problems if they see suiciding 0% attacks.

DRJ
Mar 02, 2012, 10:43 AM
That leads me to another idea, would it be possible to include combat odds in the combat log? So when you lose a unit on defense you know what odds the attacker had? Might help to alert players to future AI problems if they see suiciding 0% attacks.


iT IS IN COMBAT LOG oh sry aps lock. Just take a look and zoom the hitpoints down you see what chances the AI had before fight.
I just looked at those AI odds for calculating early battles for comming games, for instance I learned that a (strength 3) bear has 28,1% attacking a guerrilla 1 / woodsman 1 promoted wanderer on a forest hill (% together =strength 3,50)...

So yes, wanderers can take on strength 3 units if you pick the right place and maybe defend it a few turns to dig in...

kolokol
Mar 02, 2012, 02:39 PM
Alright fair enough. I'm not usually one to complain about luck, I just get so frustrated when in the early game you lose that absolutely vital woodIII shock II axe. Without that guy its impossible to prevent an AI choke. Atleast I haven't found a way.

How do you guys prevent those 7-10 unit chokes the ai sends at you when you can't afford more than 10 units tops yourself without going broke?
Is sourround and destroy the answer 'cus I haven't tried that feature

(immortal, start as minor)

JosEPh_II
Mar 02, 2012, 06:18 PM
I don't use the Start as Minor Option anymore. The AI is getting better all the time. So I feel it's unnecessary, unless you Like to get whomped 90% of the time! ;) :mischief: :lol:

JosEPh :)

Sgtslick
Mar 05, 2012, 02:41 PM
Alright fair enough. I'm not usually one to complain about luck, I just get so frustrated when in the early game you lose that absolutely vital woodIII shock II axe. Without that guy its impossible to prevent an AI choke. Atleast I haven't found a way.

How do you guys prevent those 7-10 unit chokes the ai sends at you when you can't afford more than 10 units tops yourself without going broke?
Is sourround and destroy the answer 'cus I haven't tried that feature

(immortal, start as minor)

I usually just ignore them, get the -10% hp to adjacent units and if they go to attack your city and take damage they retreat to heal like haha

Also i find pillage is your friend, get in there and pillage the sh1t outta there improvements so they have trouble reinforcing.

Hydromancerx
Mar 05, 2012, 05:41 PM
Also i find pillage is your friend, get in there and pillage the sh1t outta there improvements so they have trouble reinforcing.

Yeah if there was ever an incentive to pillage it would be during this time in the game.

MMX5000
Mar 06, 2012, 07:41 AM
You know, I never liked pillaging, mostly because it meant I'd have to just rebuild it all after I took over. But now with rogues, I cant help myself. I've been destroying just about every improvement I can see since they apparently are too stupid to build rogues to fight back.

TowerWizard
Mar 06, 2012, 08:48 AM
since they apparently are too stupid

I do not pillage based on the exact opposite logic: since the AI is stupid, I am not going to take advantage of that, causing them to be even less of a threat to me. I would rather like to have a unit, called Foreign Contract Worker or something, able to "reverse pillage", that is, build improvements in enemy lands so that the AI can become more of a threat. Like, I am getting money from the AI in exchange for building improvements for them.

Idea: Foreign Contract Worker

National Units (max 2)
Can be built only if you have Civic: Open Borders active.
Costs double the cost of a Worker
Cannot Attack or Defend
Can explore rival territory
Can build improvements only in rival territory and only within the fat cross of a rival city
Cannot pillage
Builds Improvements in 1 turn (since it takes just one turn to pillage, also to make them better than the enemy's own workers)
Can not build an Improvement to replace another Improvement already built (to stop potential abuse)
Gets triple normal pillage amount of gold for building Improvements (that is, if you would get 10 gold for pillaging a Mine, you get 30 gold for building it)
Teleports back to Capital after having built an improvement (to stop you from draining the enemy's coffers with a needless amount of Improvements).

DRJ
Mar 06, 2012, 09:30 AM
I do not pillage based on the exact opposite logic: since the AI is stupid, I am not going to take advantage of that, causing them to be even less of a threat to me. I would rather like to have a unit, called Foreign Contract Worker or something, able to "reverse pillage", that is, build improvements in enemy lands so that the AI can become more of a threat. Like, I am getting money from the AI in exchange for building improvements for them.

Idea: Foreign Contract Worker

National Units (max 2)
Can be built only if you have Civic: Open Borders active.
Costs double the cost of a Worker
Cannot Attack or Defend
Can explore rival territory
Can build improvements only in rival territory and only within the fat cross of a rival city
Cannot pillage
Builds Improvements in 1 turn (since it takes just one turn to pillage, also to make them better than the enemy's own workers)
Can not build an Improvement to replace another Improvement already built (to stop potential abuse)
Gets triple normal pillage amount of gold for building Improvements (that is, if you would get 10 gold for pillaging a Mine, you get 30 gold for building it)
Teleports back to Capital after having built an improvement (to stop you from draining the enemy's coffers with a needless amount of Improvements).


Yes the contract worker could also solve the problem that the AI tends to pay 3500 gold for a buffalo worker while I have to pay 911 gold for Elephant Riding tech to them. (eternity speed that is). Disabling worker trade and enabling contract workers would really help balancing the system a lot.

EDIT: what about if the contract worker is, like a spy, unattackable by thiefs and bandits etc?

EDIT2: ah you included that already by "cannot attack or defend" I think...

TowerWizard
Mar 06, 2012, 09:42 AM
Yes the contract worker could also solve the problem that the AI tends to pay 3500 gold for a buffalo worker while I have to pay 911 gold for Elephant Riding tech to them. (eternity speed that is). Disabling worker trade and enabling contract workers would really help balancing the system a lot.

EDIT: what about if the contract worker is, like a spy, unattackable by thiefs and bandits etc?

EDIT2: ah you included that already by "cannot attack or defend" I think...

Glad you liked the idea. The "cannot attack or defend" line is there to make them into civilians: they cannot kill other units, and are killed automatically if they are attacked. It would be nice if the enemy could not kill them with thieves and such, though, since then they can kill them without declaring war, and that is not what I had in mind. If this is a possible mechanic, then yes, make them unattackable by invisible units. They can still be killed by Mercenary type units, since they have Hidden Identity, but that is ok in my book.

Koshling
Mar 06, 2012, 12:53 PM
Glad you liked the idea. The "cannot attack or defend" line is there to make them into civilians: they cannot kill other units, and are killed automatically if they are attacked. It would be nice if the enemy could not kill them with thieves and such, though, since then they can kill them without declaring war, and that is not what I had in mind. If this is a possible mechanic, then yes, make them unattackable by invisible units. They can still be killed by Mercenary type units, since they have Hidden Identity, but that is ok in my book.

No specific opinion on the contract worker idea (it's interesting though), but I just wanted to say that disabling worker trade i not (part of) the answer. Fixing the way workers are valued is a better approach. This is already somewhat different between current SVN and release v21, but if you se obviouly bad pricing in the current SVN version please post a save game with your observations.

DRJ
Mar 06, 2012, 03:54 PM
No specific opinion on the contract worker idea (it's interesting though), but I just wanted to say that disabling worker trade i not (part of) the answer. Fixing the way workers are valued is a better approach. This is already somewhat different between current SVN and release v21, but if you se obviouly bad pricing in the current SVN version please post a save game with your observations.

Ok I have experimented a bit with trying to buy/sell workers...turns out the egyptians want to buy a normal worker for ~350, a buffalo worker for ~700
while another AI wants ~1300 gold from me if I want to buy a buffalo workers of theirs

So far so good, only that sometimes the AI really bets thousands of gold to get one of your buffalo workers. I had this a few times in this game, I don't know what triggers it.

My last autosave is from 340 AD and it happened now in 349 AD (see screenie). I don't know if it's reproducable but I will post the last autosave and the save of the turn it happens (I will neglect the request now), hope it helps.
Current version SVN from yesterday (1965 I guess).

EDIT: I neglected the request in screenie and when it was my turn I asked AI Mansa to buy a buffalo worker from me he wanted to give me only 603.
What possibly could have triggered him to value that buffalo so much higher during his turn??

Btw. any idea how to get more space for attachments here? Had only space for the screenie... Or how to find earlier attachments easily so I can delete precious civfanatics history for new stuff? :sad:

Koshling
Mar 06, 2012, 04:07 PM
Ok I have experimented a bit with trying to buy/sell workers...turns out the egyptians want to buy a normal worker for ~350, a buffalo worker for ~700
while another AI wants ~1300 gold from me if I want to buy a buffalo workers of theirs

So far so good, only that sometimes the AI really bets thousands of gold to get one of your buffalo workers. I had this a few times in this game, I don't know what triggers it.

My last autosave is from 340 AD and it happened now in 349 AD (see screenie). I don't know if it's reproducable but I will post the last autosave and the save of the turn it happens (I will neglect the request now), hope it helps.
Current version SVN from yesterday (1965 I guess).

EDIT: I neglected the request in screenie and when it was my turn I asked AI Mansa to buy a buffalo worker from me he wanted to give me only 603.
What possibly could have triggered him to value that buffalo so much higher during his turn??

Btw. any idea how to get more space for attachments here? Had only space for the screenie... Or how to find earlier attachments easily so I can delete precious civfanatics history for new stuff? :sad:

I can't answer that without a save game so I can reproduce it I'm afraid. I would hazard a guess that the trade value in some cases it uses is based on its evaluation of how YOU should value it, and in other cases on how IT values it, but I'm not certain.

DRJ
Mar 06, 2012, 04:19 PM
ok I have deleted some older save games I posted... here my last autosave before the bug and the save from the turn after I neglected the request of Mansa. Hope it helps. Hopefully you can reproduce it it by just pressing end turn end turn from autosave... If not, it has either to be something I triggered as player (which is unlikely, since I didn't have interaction in his land or traded since some turns or something between Mansa and other AI.
Another suggestion is that with recalculation of assets some calculations where multiplied like they had been with power or GP rate etc as you stated?

BlueTemplar
Mar 06, 2012, 04:50 PM
The idea is: make all battles at fx 90%+ an automatic win and conversely for under 10% automatic loss.
I'm sorry but that's an awful idea. Why would you want to stack the odds even more against the losing side?
If you want 0% chances of losing, get a great commander with some Tactics promotions. It's quite easy to get 100% withdrawal chances that way...

Sgtslick
Mar 25, 2012, 04:56 AM
there is a BUG option- force original odds i think.