ALT key Roll-Over Combat Calc Bug

BomberEscort

BomberEscort

Don't be alarmed; this is a kindness
Supporter
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Messages
1,131
Location
Kansas City
In this demonstration of what I believe is a minor bug, I have modified the Musketman to have a +50% Bonus against Archery Units. All other values remain as their Civ IV defaults.

In this first picture (Musketman v. Archer #01) the values should be as follows:

Musketman -- 9 Strength + 50% v. Archer = 13.5 Strength
Archer -- 3 Strength

What shows is 9.0 v 2.0, Now the ratio is the same for both. but notice the green highlighted +50% text is meant to be added to the green 9.0 attacker text, but it is instead taken from the red 2.0 defender text (actually it is 3.0 / 1.5 = 2.0, where the 1.5 represents the attackers 50% bonus, but it is removed from the defenders value not added to the attackers value like it should be. This caused me much confusion)
 
Now for the next one...

Notice it should be (following the color codes)

Musketman 13.5
Archer 5.25 (5.3 since it goes to the nearest tenth)

What Civ is doing is leaving the 50% attack off of the attack value and removing it from the defenders value (I don't even know how they get the 3.8 here)
 
And the final one...

This is the way it should work.

8.0 for the Preatorian vs 4.5 (3.0 + 50% for forest)
 
With Promotions (Combat 1 & 2) all is well...

Knight 12.0 (10 Base + 20% from Combat 1 & 2)
Archer 5.3 (3 Base + 75% from Terrain and River)
 
Throw in unit specific promotions (Cover : +25% vs Archery Units) and the wheels fall off again...

Should be:

Knight 12.5 (10 Base + 25% v Archers)
Archer 4.5 (3 Base +50% from Forest)
 
There is something wrong with the calculations of the odds when unit specifics are throw into the mix. It appears that the bonus is subtracted from the defender instead of added to the attacker.

I tried looking for the combat calcs in python/XML files but I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for. It appears to be a simple math error though and should be any easy fix if one knows where to look. Comments welcome...
 
ainwood said:
Some bonuses are added to the attacker; some are removed from the defender. Its a bit confusing and not at all intuitive, but the actual results are OK though.
Click to expand...

My point exactly... It is confusing and should be consistent. Notice in my first post I say the results (the ratios) are right on, some are off a bit, but not too much. I'd just like to know how to fix this for myself :-( Little things like this *bug* me....
 
BomberEscort said:
Notice it should be (following the color codes)

Musketman 13.5
Archer 5.25 (5.3 since it goes to the nearest tenth)

What Civ is doing is leaving the 50% attack off of the attack value and removing it from the defenders value (I don't even know how they get the 3.8 here)
Click to expand...

Here's how it came up with 3.8 (note, confirms exactly what you've been saying).

50% Tile Bonus + 25% River Bonus - 50% Attacker Bonus = 25% total bonus

3 * 1.25 = 3.75 (rounded to 3.8)

Curious, how do these same scenarios calculate when the archer is doing the attacking?
 
I don't see how we could consider this a bug or wrong calculation of odds.

13.5 to 3 and 9 to 2 gives the same mathematical result. Hence there is no mathematical error.
The problem here is that you missuse the meaning of odds. Odds does not mean sum of bonus of a unit vs sum of bonus of another unit, it means chances of a unit to win against another unit. Now, since it is not relevant if the bonus is added to the attacker or subtracted from the defender, the choice the programmers made is obvious and not at all confusing to me, but actually quite helpful. In fact, if you're going to tell me that I have 13,5 against 3 chances to win, or much worse 13,5 against 5.25... I'll have to think about it a while. If it's my wife she'll probably have to pick up a calculator and do some maths. To find what ? To find that odds are 9v2 or 9v3,8. It's quite obvious how clearer it is for the human mind to understand odds if the first number is an integer. Hence fractional operations are done on the second number, the one of the defender, and not on both number. It's a very handy operation which saves us a lot of thinking and I would thank the programmers for thinking about it ;)
 
onedreamer said:
I don't see how we could consider this a bug or wrong calculation of odds.

13.5 to 3 and 9 to 2 gives the same mathematical result. Hence there is no mathematical error.
Click to expand...

Yes the ratio for round wins is the same, but the damage dealt is considerably different. Of course this is moot given that it is implemented the way it is, but still interesting.

Attacker 9 vs Defender 2
A wins roughly 81.8% of rounds, D gets the other 18.2%
A deals 8.1 damage per round win, D deals 0.09 per win

Here's the fun part. :lol:

Attacker 13.5 vs Defender 3
A wins roughly 81.8% of rounds, D gets the other 18.2%
A deals 12.15! :eek: damage per round win, D deals 0.13 per win
 
???

I'll have to repeat myself:
The problem here is that you missuse the meaning of odds. Odds does not mean sum of bonus of a unit vs sum of bonus of another unit, it means chances of a unit to win against another unit.
Click to expand...

Odds are simply the chance of winning, where do you get the information that the odds will be used in the calculation of damage ???
 
Based on snepp's observation of the Apolyton quote and the information provided in that quote, it does make a difference if the bonus is added to the attacker or subtracted from the defender. Hence, like I said, a minor bug.

Now, the question remains, what can be done about it? Is it something we can fix with python and/or XML knowledge (of which I have neither) or is it a hard coded problem?
 
Really weird. If we had a good combat estimator (I'm working on one right now), we could determine whether the displayed odds are correct or if the actual computed odds as presented were right. A big ole stack combat (say 10,000) would probably be statistically significant enough to determine which behavior is actually calculated.

Arathorn
 
snepp said:
...Curious, how do these same scenarios calculate when the archer is doing the attacking?
Click to expand...

They appear to be correct

Archer attacks Musketman (Modified for +50% v Archery Units, all other values are default):

Archer = 3.0
Musketman = 13.5 (9.0 + 50%)
 
Here is an Archer attacking a modified musketman of Hills...

Again all is well.

Archer = 3.0
Musketman = 15.8 (9 + (50% + 25%))
 
Throw in unit specific promotions (Cover : +25% vs Archery Units) and the wheels fall off again...

Should be:

Knight 12.5 (10 Base + 25% v Archers)
Archer 4.5 (3 Base +50% from Forest)
Click to expand...
BomberEscort...would you be willing to create a stack of 10000 of this combat and run it? Should be able to make them all on 2 squares and just stack attack. Hopefully I'll have an answer to what the values SHOULD be for both 12.5 vs. 4.5 and the displayed 10 vs. 3.8 then.

Note: It'd be easier without the first strike odds. That wasn't displayed. Are knights immune to first strike?

Arathorn
 
Just to confirm the odds for 1 Archer v 1 Musketman or 3 Archers v 1 Musketman are the same. This doesn't seem right. I don't think the calc takes into account stack attacks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aurelesk
Unit comparison between Civilization V and VI
Replies
17
Views
2K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Recursive
  • Locked
New BETA Version - 4.5.1 (February 28, 2024)
9 10 11
Replies
211
Views
25K
Recursive
Recursive
The_J
Old World update #119
Replies
15
Views
2K
Nikolai II
Nikolai II
The_J
Old World update #120
Replies
8
Views
1K
The_J
The_J
M
Simple fix using AI friendly/Existing Game Mechanics to end the World of Axeman and the World of Catapults
Replies
2
Views
1K
MassRiflemen
M
Top Bottom