Anyone Else Go Back to FFH2 version 22?

[loki1232]

So a few days ago I reduced the "Combat_Die_Sides" value in the global defines. I chagned it from 1000 to 200. Suddenly the game works like it should. Heroes are overpowered, but a hell of a lot more fun since now they can fight in battles with less than 99.9 % odds and almost certainly win.

So yeah, i'd recommend this for everyone, as long as you don't mind it being a little unbalancing.

 

[Nimbus]

So a few days ago I reduced the "Combat_Die_Sides" value in the global defines.

Are you sure this is in the globaldefines, i looked in both 0.22h and 0.23c and do not see "Combat_Die_Sides" anywhere, even searched for it in quite a few other folders too.

 

[Sureshot]

i believe hes using Smart Orcs mod?

 

[loki1232]

Nope, no mods.

Open the FfH editor, go to line 170 of the page "Global Defines".

It's right under Max_Hit_Points.

Not sure how to find it withotu the editor though.

 

[Nimbus]

I was looking in the wrong file

I saw a GlobalDefinesAlt.xml I see a GlobalTypes.xml and a CIV4GlobalTypesSchema.xml and started my searches there

thank you

 

[Sarisin]

Just to finish off my CSI work...

I spoke too quickly yesterday. I wanted to play further to get a sample size of 100 battles with the combat odds 90% or greater.

In the next 15 battles I lost 10 of them! Included were back-to-back losses of 99.9% (Stooge/Hill Giant Larry with Combat V and Orcish to a basic barb Lizardman), and, yes, 100% (Elven Horseman with 100 XP to a barb basic Warrior).

In the next 32 battles I logged to bring the sample to 100, I lost 14. So, the final count was 22 out of 100 battles lost. Doesn't that seem a little out of whack?

As mentioned it is tough when you lose a hero. I hate that! However, the reason I went back to version .22 was that I was tired of losing so many veteran units - units that had built up a lot of XP that is necessary to take on stronger units that appear later. It was really frustrating to keep losing veteran units to units (mostly barbs) with no experience at all. It just became very tough to built up a veteran army.

Again, I know the game settings you choose has something to do with whether this bothers you and 'drives' you back to the earlier .22 version. In a 'Normal' game (normal speed, medium map, no raging barbs/aggAI, not many AI civs), you would have, what, maybe 100 battles in your whole game? Sorry, I never played with those specs. In my typical game (huge map, Epic, raging barbs/aggAI, 10 AI civs), I often have a body count over 1,000. That's a lot of battles, a lot of 90% or greater combat odds, and, you get tired of those losses. Also, in my games you really need that veteran army as the barbs keep coming. One of the greatest fun challenges is when the AI starts spawning Tier IV barbs in the late-game. If your vets are all dead, you cannot overcome the numbers.

So maybe you might not even see a problem with the combat/combat odds. I see it, and I think the small stat sample above shows the problem.

Anyway, I hope some of the discussion above leads to a fix. If not, I'm happy playing .22. I really don't think there was much of a difference between .22 and .23 other than this problem. I just hope the next version doesn't have the combat problem of .23.

 

[vorshlumpf]

Hmm, I wonder what's different between your setup and mine. I, as you know, play Marathon speed and my current game has had over 2000 battles. I've lost a few 0.1% battles, but that doesn't seem too out of whack. If I had time, I'd do a similar combat survey.

 

[Sarisin]

Hmm, I wonder what's different between your setup and mine. I, as you know, play Marathon speed and my current game has had over 2000 battles. I've lost a few 0.1% battles, but that doesn't seem too out of whack. If I had time, I'd do a similar combat survey.

I think we 'discussed' this before, Niilo.

The big difference between our game settings is the number of AI civs we both use. You said you use a total of 16, and I use 10. IMO, with all those civs you would get some action the first 500 or so turns, but assuming not too many civs get knocked out, even a huge map would fill up by expansion, and the barbs would get pushed off the map. You wouldn't have as many battles unless there are a lot of wars with the AI civs - I think you mentioned you do use the AggAI setting.

Also, I have given up on Marathon for reasons discussed in another thread.

If you played your game to a time victory and I played mine to the same, you should have more battles. However, I usually find that 2 or more AI civs are taken out early so that leaves only 8 on the board - expansion is a lot tougher then as the barbs pick on you more often.

Anyway, my test was just about 350 turns into an Epic .23 game. I am back to my .22 game now.

 

[vorshlumpf]

This is still the game I started with your configuration parameters... (other than the marathon setting). I'm down to 5 rival civs on a huge map that is almost completely covered with barbarian cities and wolf packs. As I said above, I've had over 2000 battles myself.

When I said I wonder what's the difference between us, I'm wondering why I've had so many more battles and I'm not seeing the same combat issues that you (or some others) have seen. I'm not disbelieving your observations, but I'm a very rational, scientific individual - so I figure there's got to be some key difference to our games that is doing this. And, since it is combat odds, a central part to the game itself, the differences would have to be something like FfH patch (which is the same) or CivIV patch (I haven't updated mine). I'm just grasping at straws.

 

[loki1232]

Are you both using the shortcut? (just checking)

 

[Bringa]

Loki: just changing combat die sides breaks a lot of things. Here's a very quick writeup of what you can do to make combat more fair:

1) change max_hit_points to a much higher value (1000 for instance)
2) change the heal values by multiplying them with the same number (10 in my example)
3) change siege damage accordingly.

In short, the easiest way of doing it is to use Smarter Orcs because we've taken that change in there already. Xanaqui has also done a lot of other changes to the code to make sure this modification works with combat odds, with the AI, with first strikes/stone skin etc. Overall it leads to a much fairer, less arbitrary combat.

 

[loki1232]

What does changing the combat die break? I've got one unrepeated crash, but everything else seems normal.

 

[xanaqui42]

What does changing the combat die break? I've got one unrepeated crash, but everything else seems normal.

Personally, I'm more confused as to what changing the combat die fixes. At least in actual combat, all that reducing the Combat die size would seem to do is to decrease the number of steps slightly, and change the size of others. The vast majority of the time, it should give the same result.

 

[Sarisin]

This is still the game I started with your configuration parameters... (other than the marathon setting). I'm down to 5 rival civs on a huge map that is almost completely covered with barbarian cities and wolf packs. As I said above, I've had over 2000 battles myself.

When I said I wonder what's the difference between us, I'm wondering why I've had so many more battles and I'm not seeing the same combat issues that you (or some others) have seen. I'm not disbelieving your observations, but I'm a very rational, scientific individual - so I figure there's got to be some key difference to our games that is doing this. And, since it is combat odds, a central part to the game itself, the differences would have to be something like FfH patch (which is the same) or CivIV patch (I haven't updated mine). I'm just grasping at straws.

I think you know that games can be very different.

But, I think you are experiencing the other point I made about the proliferation of barb cities. I had a similar game like yours recently. It was such a joke. There were only a few civs left. The barbs had most of the map. Their cities were building Wonders like crazy. And, the really bizarre thing was - there were no raging barbs coming to get me. As you said, the open spaces were filled with animals, mostly wolves, which couldn't cross into my borders. I opened up the World Builder to see what was going on. There must have been at least 20 barb cities...and, each one had at least 7 defenders. The barbs were actually turtling up!!! Whenever I went out to try and get them (what a switch, eh?) the animal attacks were just crazy.

You are right. It is easy to get over 2,000 battles in a game like that.

I haven't updated my patch either. Although I ran the test and got those results, I think enough players have mentioned they have noticed a lot of 90+% combat losses to know something is going on.

In addition to what you see here, I have had five PMs telling me they have been seeing the same thing. However, instead of going back to .22H, they just use quick save before almost every battle like I was doing before too.

 

[loki1232]

Personally, I'm more confused as to what changing the combat die fixes. At least in actual combat, all that reducing the Combat die size would seem to do is to decrease the number of steps slightly, and change the size of others. The vast majority of the time, it should give the same result.

I don't know why, but it makes things more random. Like try it out with a quick test if you feel that FfH is way too random atm.

 

[vorshlumpf]

But, I think you are experiencing the other point I made about the proliferation of barb cities. I had a similar game like yours recently. It was such a joke.

I don't think this is a joke, nor does a point deserve to be made. If you start a raging barbs game with the default number of civs on a huge, non-standard map (no continents, all land), you should expect a lot of barb cities. That's how the game is coded. If you want less barb cities, change the settings in the XML/Excel.

 

[giddion]

No one would complain if they were winning with 0.01% odds.

On a side note and most likely the wrong place to post but I saw Smarted Orcs mentioned. Since applying smarter orcs I have noticed it takes substantially longer for the end of turn to complete, like a good 20 secs.

I used to reload from saves after losing these high 90% odds, but have since just played on. I find that I am winning quite a few 30% odd battlesnow as I have changed my strategy to include a "lamb to slaughter", attack with smaller units to increase odds for the better units.
Plus losing a hero is not the end of the world anyway... i find my magi do a lot more... It does bite but you can find a new one...

 

[xanaqui42]

On a side note and most likely the wrong place to post but I saw Smarted Orcs mentioned. Since applying smarter orcs I have noticed it takes substantially longer for the end of turn to complete, like a good 20 secs.

Yes; one of the present major problems with Smarter Orcs is that it's slow. I do intend to address that, but it may take a little while, as I'm in the middle of a defect fix that's taking far longer than I expected.

 

[Sarisin]

No one would complain if they were winning with 0.01% odds.

.

Absolutely!

But, I have to ask. How many of them have you won? Then, compare that total to the number of 99.9 or 100% battles you have lost. See a difference?

Would you go against Acheron with your National Hero, Gilden Silveric, knowing the odds of you winning are .01%?

Truth be told, most of us don't fight many battles with unexpendable units when the odds are less than 90%. It just doesn't make sense to risk a Hero or veteran unit with what is going on with the combat.

 

[Sarisin]

I don't think this is a joke, nor does a point deserve to be made. If you start a raging barbs game with the default number of civs on a huge, non-standard map (no continents, all land), you should expect a lot of barb cities. That's how the game is coded. If you want less barb cities, change the settings in the XML/Excel.

As I have mentioned before, Niilo, there is a better way than having to go in and fiddle with the code for each game.

Just stop moving the Armageddon Counter forward when a barb city is razed. Aren't the barbs supposed to be bad guys anyway? If you take out one of their cities something good should happen. Or, at the very least, nothing at all.

Or, maybe assign a lower fraction for AC movement when a barb city is razed.

Honestly, I prefer to play a game without making adjustments to the code. So instead of starting a game as you described at Marathon, I use Epic speed, then I am able to offset a bit the way barb cities pop up and are razed by the AI.

I just can't see why you would need to adjust the code when you playing the game using the default settings, though.