Civ IV combat odds are rigged.

This whole thread reminds me when I played Lineage II. The craft recipes are with 60% chance of success. Which means 3-4 fails in a row are common providing every day there were many thousands of crafts on one server. So every one who had 3-4 fails in a row started to complain about the rigged odds. Of course no one complained when he had 3 successes in a row

The combat system in Civ IV has a lot of flaws. I have played war games since the late 1960's and it's hard for me to accept the combat systems used by Civ over the years.

I think the difference between simulation games and Civ is that Civ game designers have decided that you can win (no matter what the combat odds) opposed to how badly you will loose. Historically when your army gets broken up you loose horribly. They chase you down and kill you for the rest of the day.

If I have twelve units facing ten units with the persistent prediction of winning of 99.2% of the time, and then I come through with one unit surviving this "epic" battle I feel like I've been screwed. I'm willing to believe that the RNG is fair, but something is wrong.

You have noticed that no matter who you attack, the defense will be the best defender against that type of attacker. And when you attack it will be against the worst possible defender.

I don't think I've imagined that.

MeatUnit2 said:

The combat system in Civ IV has a lot of flaws. I have played war games since the late 1960's and it's hard for me to accept the combat systems used by Civ over the years.

I think the difference between simulation games and Civ is that Civ game designers have decided that you can win (no matter what the combat odds) opposed to how badly you will loose. Historically when your army gets broken up you loose horribly. They chase you down and kill you for the rest of the day.

If I have twelve units facing ten units with the persistent prediction of winning of 99.2% of the time, and then I come through with one unit surviving this "epic" battle I feel like I've been screwed. I'm willing to believe that the RNG is fair, but something is wrong.

You have noticed that no matter who you attack, the defense will be the best defender against that type of attacker. And when you attack it will be against the worst possible defender.

I don't think I've imagined that.

Click to expand...

Something isn't wrong--your heavily favored forces were probably poorly led or supplied, or insert whatever other storied reason here. Nobody is guaranteed a victory in battle, and history is rife with examples of "superior" forces getting cut down to size. However, in the long run, you will win the war if you consistently fight battles where you are heavily favored to win, even if you lose a couple along the way.

As a wargamer, you might enjoy the AGEod games I alluded to above. I've been trying a few of them recently and they are loads of fun.

The most "perfect" from chances point of view battle system was in Civ II. But the devs dumped it ASAP... which means a lot of people prefer the "save and reload until win" approach (with the corresponding option for the game "seed" turned off) so the devs decided to dump it.

PS. I read somewhere a study which says about 70% from the people prefer to play the games with cheats.

What would be wrong with a system where all the damage in a fight would be known in advance? E.g. in a 25%/75% fight the loser would die and the winner would suffer 1/3 as much damage.

No randomness. No cheating called for. Totally fair. Everybody's happy. Nobody's astonished.

Battle tactics would be virtually the same, you'd still attack when you knew you'd lose individual fights, then clean up the damaged defender with a fresh unit. It would help to know more accurately how many units to bring but that's all.

Yeah yeah go ahead, tell me "real life is full of uncertainty". I play computer games because I can't deal with real life Give me determinism.

No randomness. No cheating called for. Totally fair. Everybody's happy. Nobody's astonished.

Click to expand...

Civ V almost did this, but screwed it over by still making it a bit random, and now whether units inflict damage or get the kill can be a screwjob either way; unexpected win (when you intended to damage to red and then finish off with ranged) can put your unit in a suicide position w/o control on your part..."decisive victories" that don't kill the unit can be equally terrible.

Yahtzee, Poker and Backgammon do this too!

ParadigmShifter said:

Yahtzee, Poker and Backgammon do this too!

Click to expand...

dont get me started on getting AA cracked on the flop vs KK

AK catching a flush on the turn on a one suited board

suited connectors missing all cards when you're in a tourney and blinds are astronomically high

The worst part about combat is that there's a 2 move 2 str barbarian unit and that's where rng screwjobs tend to hurt the most, in the beginning. Losing your first unit to a wolf (or was it a panther) at 3% odds for them is more than annoying since you suddenly have your scouting crippled.

Kid R said:

What would be wrong with a system where all the damage in a fight would be known in advance? E.g. in a 25%/75% fight the loser would die and the winner would suffer 1/3 as much damage.

No randomness. No cheating called for. Totally fair. Everybody's happy. Nobody's astonished.

Battle tactics would be virtually the same, you'd still attack when you knew you'd lose individual fights, then clean up the damaged defender with a fresh unit. It would help to know more accurately how many units to bring but that's all.

Yeah yeah go ahead, tell me "real life is full of uncertainty". I play computer games because I can't deal with real life Give me determinism.

Click to expand...

It sounds good until you realise that stacking will make it impossible to clear off damaged units, as they will always be defended by stronger units. It also means that AGG leaders will be completely overpowered, as even a 10% boost in strength will guarantee that they die and your unit lives (albeit damaged). That way, instead of needing somewhat more units to clear out a stack of AGG units, you'll need double the number of units to get rid of them (because every single first-hitter is going to lose). Civ5's deterministic combat is a step in the right direction, but then it takes 2 steps back and trips over because it doesn't fit into an empire-building game and there is no room to maneuver.

I've also been of the opinion that unit healing should not be free, there has to be some kind of hammer-associated cost to it.

Nick Carpathia said:

It sounds good until you realise that stacking will make it impossible to clear off damaged units, as they will always be defended by stronger units.

Click to expand...

How is this different to the current situation? Yes there are always stronger units, always until the strong defenders have all been weakened or killed.

Nick Carpathia said:

It also means that AGG leaders will be completely overpowered, as even a 10% boost in strength will guarantee that they die and your unit lives (albeit damaged).

Click to expand...

Clearly combat-based traits/bonuses/promotions need not be the exact same ones used with a different combat system. For example aggressive could be more like its name and have a boost only when attacking. So terrain defence bonuses would usually win out.

Nick Carpathia said:

Civ5's deterministic combat is a step in the right direction, but then it takes 2 steps back and trips over because it doesn't fit into an empire-building game and there is no room to maneuver.

Click to expand...

Yes definitely agree Civ 5 combat has some good ideas - 1UPT is a completely different ball game so it had to be really though. Combat with huge randomness would be even harder to stomach than in 4 because it's a much larger fraction of your forces at risk on each fight.

Kid R said:

What would be wrong with a system where all the damage in a fight would be known in advance? E.g. in a 25%/75% fight the loser would die and the winner would suffer 1/3 as much damage.

No randomness. No cheating called for. Totally fair. Everybody's happy. Nobody's astonished.

Battle tactics would be virtually the same, you'd still attack when you knew you'd lose individual fights, then clean up the damaged defender with a fresh unit. It would help to know more accurately how many units to bring but that's all.

Yeah yeah go ahead, tell me "real life is full of uncertainty". I play computer games because I can't deal with real life Give me determinism.

Click to expand...

If you want to play Diplomacy, go play Diplomacy. Determinism is fine for seriously abstracted games, but Civ isn't quite on that level.

To some degree, I would agree that the effect of the RNG on combat should be reduced, but only in the face of adding leadership for units, command chains, logistics, effective combined arms (like merging every all the individual units you build into divisions, corps, and armies) to account for effects the RNG is currently accounting for.

Nick Carpathia said:

It sounds good until you realise that stacking will make it impossible to clear off damaged units, as they will always be defended by stronger units. It also means that AGG leaders will be completely overpowered, as even a 10% boost in strength will guarantee that they die and your unit lives (albeit damaged). That way, instead of needing somewhat more units to clear out a stack of AGG units, you'll need double the number of units to get rid of them (because every single first-hitter is going to lose). Civ5's deterministic combat is a step in the right direction, but then it takes 2 steps back and trips over because it doesn't fit into an empire-building game and there is no room to maneuver.

I've also been of the opinion that unit healing should not be free, there has to be some kind of hammer-associated cost to it.

Click to expand...

Combine all the units into a single stack, which you give general orders to (and possibly assign generals to). Complete and utter routs would be relatively rare and would require a lot of planning and the right leadership to execute--usually, the defeated force would be pushed back and be "passive" until it regained cohesion and could fight again. Having dedicated pursuit forces separate from your main army could keep pace and inflict more casualties on your opponent.

The unit healing problem is the worst part of the Civ series. You could always have a basic AGEod-style replacement system where you have to produce special replacement units that will refill your units on the field. Or have a Paradox-style manpower system.

Example: I have a force comprised of 8 musketmen, 2 grenadiers, 1 cannon, and 1 cavalry, each with 100 points of strength. It is merged into one super-unit, and proceeds to engage an enemy army of similar composition. After a battle, I have lost 230 points of musketmen strength, 30 points of grenadier strength, and 70 points of cavalry strength. No unit is eliminated, but they are all weakened.

I have built two gunpowder unit replacements, so after letting this force sit in a city or a fort for one turn, 200 points of strength are returned to my muskets and grenadiers. However, my cavalry is still weak because I didn't have a cavalry replacement ready to go. In another battle, if I lose the remaining 30 points of cavalry strength, that unit is removed from the game and I have to rebuild the unit from scratch.

@Antilogic, which AGEod game would be best to start with? I had a look the other day and there are about 6 of them and I couldn't decide. They seem quite pricey games otherwise I'd have just taken pot luck.

To some degree, I would agree that the effect of the RNG on combat should be reduced, but only in the face of adding leadership for units, command chains, logistics, effective combined arms (like merging every all the individual units you build into divisions, corps, and armies) to account for effects the RNG is currently accounting for.

Click to expand...

This would be how I'd see it too, maybe not all those exact things but certainly some more factors affecting combat. Generally I'm against adding complexity (cue Nimoy engineering quote ), but in this case I think it could make battle management an interesting part of the game if it wasn't taken so far it became the *whole* game. I.e. it would have to be possible for quick-click players to just blitz through with reasonable expectation that the default options would be not too disadvantageous.

It is just streaky, something you can find in many games..
what happens regularly is that i lose a bunch of 70% type battles in a row, and on the other hand win some of those 25% when a city has tough defenders.

The chances of this happening 3-4x in a row are very very low, and it happens way too often for making a case that this is a flawless rng.

Kid R said:

@Antilogic, which AGEod game would be best to start with? I had a look the other day and there are about 6 of them and I couldn't decide. They seem quite pricey games otherwise I'd have just taken pot luck.

Click to expand...

Have any favorite wars or time periods? Generally, there are a lot of units to keep track of, and several ways to attack your objectives with generally limited resources. This gives the game great replay value, but puts pressure on the new player. Pick a time period you are familiar with or maybe try a few of their demos (I think they have free downloads for demos).

I wouldn't recommend the original Birth of America or Napoleon's Campaigns--they were fairly early releases with the game engine, Wars in America is a superior sequel to the original, and they might be working on a similar new Napoleon title.

I started with ACW from a friend (so I didn't pay, yay!), but I really fell in love with Rise of Prussia. I like the time period of Wars in America, but I don't have the hang of it yet.

This would be how I'd see it too, maybe not all those exact things but certainly some more factors affecting combat. Generally I'm against adding complexity (cue Nimoy engineering quote ), but in this case I think it could make battle management an interesting part of the game if it wasn't taken so far it became the *whole* game. I.e. it would have to be possible for quick-click players to just blitz through with reasonable expectation that the default options would be not too disadvantageous.

Click to expand...

I am against adding complexity for complexity's sake, but that's not what we are talking about here. I think it would be unreasonable to design a system where muskets with Combat or Drill I will always beat muskets without it (or any other unit). I think it would be unreasonable to make an even worse rock-paper-scissors system than already exists.

I'd actually argue building a combat engine that allows multiple units to fight at once makes more sense and would be simpler from a game interface perspective than the glorified solo combat we have now. The only buttons you would have to click are ones setting your combat stance--whether you want a sustained attack, all-out assault, or a feint/early retreat for attrition (you will get used to it quickly in the AGEod engine). The oft-useless fort in Civ games serves a purpose of healing your units on the fronts as well as conveying supplies--to make it simple, your units would only be in supply if they were within X tiles of a friendly-controlled fort. Otherwise, you get a combat penalty. There are many ways where these improvements can be incorporated simply, and without complicated interface changes (literally, it's one or two extra lines on a mouseover).

Mylene said:

It is just streaky, something you can find in many games..
what happens regularly is that i lose a bunch of 70% type battles in a row, and on the other hand win some of those 25% when a city has tough defenders.

The chances of this happening 3-4x in a row are very very low, and it happens way too often for making a case that this is a flawless rng.

Click to expand...

It's not as low as you would think. Randomly-generated numbers have streaks, it's more of a human thing to point them out and say there's a pattern where there isn't.

If it really bothers you so much, turn on new random seed on reload and reload when you lose at 99.9%.

I think the RNG works fine but the way that the game simulates combat has some serious flaws. I realize that Civ 4 is not a simulation game but I do think that the combat system could be improved using the elements already in place.

Those with C++ knowledge would be better able to confirm this, but I think that there is a combat results table (or tables) that defines possible combat results given the calculated combat odds. The RNG determines which of those results occurs.

The defined combat results are limited in number, and include:
Attacker is totally destroyed
Defender is totally destroyed
Attacker takes damage
Defender takes damage.

I'm over-simplifying but there is a finite number of combat results on that table.

I would like to add one: Refuses to attack.

Historically, refusing to attack against overwhelmingly superior forces is pretty common. This is a real possibility that is almost always ignored in games.
Certainly there are examples of suicide attacks but these are much less common than events where troops refuse to attack. Suicide attacks just get more attention because they are so unusual.

I'm not suggesting that Refuses to attack should ever reach a 100% probability, but I think it should be one of the possible outcomes when the odds of an attack succeeding reaches very low levels of probability of success, and when the odds of success reach 0% the possibility of a Refuses to attack result should be pretty high.

I realize that the addition of a Refuses to attack result would change accepted tactics used in the game (such as "then you suicide all of your siege units against the units in the city") but it would apply to the AI as well.

Would units refusing to attack frustrate players? At first I'm sure it would, but developing a military doctrine of sending your troops on suicide missions as standard operating procedure is just exploiting a flaw in the combat results table.

An argument against the addition of Refuses to attack is that it might slow the game down, particularly prior to the Modern Age. More realism does not necessarily translate into more fun. I would make the odds of Refuses to attack pretty low to avoid bogging down combat.

--------------------------------- and another tweak (even further off-topic I'm afraid)

There are certain cultures that are historically less likely to refuse to attack in hopeless situations; the Japanese come to mind. The addition of a promotion line that would decrease the chances of a Refuses to attack result would take care of this. This promotion line would have to be made available to every civ, in order to keep from messing up the game balance. But this is a much more complicated mod, I think, than changing the combat results table to include Refuses to attack and has a much higher risk of unforeseen consequences.

Sorry if this post should have appeared in a Mod thread. I'm not a programmer and it seemed almost on-topic in this thread. For the most part Mod threads are highly technical and this proposal is more conceptual.

One last thought...

When the odds of success are very high (it seems like 99+% keeps getting mentioned, but in my opinion this should take place when odds are even lower) I don't think Attacker is totally destroyed should be an option. Failing to win such an attack should result in an Attacker takes damage result. I think fiddling a bit with the combat results table(s) would remove a lot of the frustration (and the questions about the RNG being rigged) if attacking units were damaged rather than totally destroyed.

Last night i was attacking a city that had a stack of longbows defending. I had cannons and calvary including one general that was promoted to his eyeballs. After after bombarding I was ready to attack with my calvary. The first 3 attacks were 63, 72, and 78. (I didn't want to kamikaze my cannons because it takes so long to get them into the battle.) I lost all three. The first i shrugged off because 63 isn't that great. The next one irritated me. The third one had me thinking reload. Finally on the fourth I won a 90+ and i decided that the odds would even out and I should quit being a baby and just get on with it. On my next attack with my super hero general unit with 98+ odds I lost again. 4 out of 5 losses when every one of them were above 60% and two were above 90? That's just impossible!

I've often lost 3 or 4 in a row with odds above 70%. In fact it happens every game, Something isn't right.

@Boutte2

You had bad luck. Five attacks is too small a sample to be statistically meaningful. I feel your pain but on large samples the RNG has been shown to be working "properly".

Question: would you have felt better if your two 90+% attacks had resulted in your units taking damage rather than being totally destroyed? Less frustrated?
I know I would.

Boutte2 said:

Last night i was attacking a city that had a stack of longbows defending. I had cannons and calvary including one general that was promoted to his eyeballs. After after bombarding I was ready to attack with my calvary. The first 3 attacks were 63, 72, and 78. (I didn't want to kamikaze my cannons because it takes so long to get them into the battle.) I lost all three. The first i shrugged off because 63 isn't that great. The next one irritated me. The third one had me thinking reload. Finally on the fourth I won a 90+ and i decided that the odds would even out and I should quit being a baby and just get on with it. On my next attack with my super hero general unit with 98+ odds I lost again. 4 out of 5 losses when every one of them were above 60% and two were above 90? That's just impossible!

I've often lost 3 or 4 in a row with odds above 70%. In fact it happens every game, Something isn't right.

Click to expand...

The chance of that happening, excluding the battle you won to keep things simple, is 1 in thousand. As I have lost a one in a million battle once, something is right. Of course you can lose 3 or 4 in a row with say 75 % odds. That's one in a 64 chance. If you fight a lot, it is bound to happen.