Bring Back Probability Curves!!!

[FinnMcCool]

I really like Aussielurker's ideas, and I seriously hope they're implemented in CivIV.

As for EndkiduWarrior, go away. You're talking about the fact that statistical analysis is INAPPLICABLE in any event that has a sample of ONE, which is after all what I'm talking about. Don't lecture me, you ****. What I'm referring to is that given the current system, there is a large probability that some player will see all his Elite units lose against the AI's conscripts. The large-ness of this probability is caused by a flat probability curve. If you have a bell-curve, then it BECOMES POSSIBLE TO CONTROL the events that otherwise would be severely unusual.

I know this game is balanced if you look at it from the perspective of MANY battles, many games, many combats, but I happen to be the one who experienced severely unusual results in all my initial games. Whoddathunk?
All I'm suggesting is to round off the sharp corners, so please don't lecture me.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Finn, a word of advice. If you really want to convince people of your point of view, it DOES NOT help to get aggressive with people-it sounds like flaming and that turns most people off. Seriously I have had SOOO many people disagree with my views, but I have tried to develop a thick skin and try to explain my ideas to them as sensibly or logically as possible. If they still don't like it well, its just one of many ideas I have.

So, just like I said to Ybbor: take a chill-pill, dude-it is, after all, just a game-no need to have an aneurism or get antsy with people!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[FinnMcCool]

Thanks, Aussie. Of course you're right. As I brush off the cabbages thrown by the thought-police's goon squads let me comment that you have the good fortune of having very reasonable ideas, while I on the other hand am willing to investigate some pretty wierd ones, so I guess it makes me something of a lightning rod...

 

[DANGERBOY]

If you have a bell-curve, then it BECOMES POSSIBLE TO CONTROL the events that otherwise would be severely unusual.

No, all you are doing is changing the odds. What you are saying is that when the odds are 4:1, rather than an 80% chance of winning, you want a 95% chance of winning. You still don't have any control over the events, you've merely changed the definitions of the parameters. I once played a game of Axis and Allies where I lost all but one battle roll. I don't think I survived ten turns. I had numerical advantages, but I couldn't roll high to save my life that day. When playing with random events, $h!+ happens.

The current system is actually very easy to predict results. Assuming that one accounts for all the modifiers, it is a straightforward calculation. Under your proposed system, I suddenly have to start looking up values in tables or doing significant additional calculations. So that actually makes it harder to predict outcomes!

 

[ybbor]

...event that has a sample of ONE, which is after all what I'm talking about. Don't lecture me, you ****. What I'm referring to is that given the current system, there is a large probability that some player will see all his Elite units lose against the AI's conscripts. The large-ness of this probability is caused by a flat probability curve. If you have a bell-curve, then it BECOMES POSSIBLE TO CONTROL the events that otherwise would be severely unusual.

in a sampling of one you will not get a sampling of all probablitiy, you are correct there, but the sampling you do get is just as likely to occur in any event sampled in a borad range of probabilities. there is not a large probability, i think what you are trying to say is that there is a disproportiant probability, in which case you would be wrong, while we experience things in the game by 1's wars are not won by 1's, they are won by dozens.

now getting away from your logic/math (i'd say "if you could call it that" but that would be seen as flaming so i won't ), it seems like you want a superior unit to win much more often, but the impact on the game from this would become enourmous. under the current system ancient age would be balanced (unless you have a UU which would put power in the defender), but almost any time after that the defender would become nearly immpossible, looking at current stats, assuming the defender is in a size 7 city, is fortified and on grassland providing a defensive bonus of .85

knight (4) vs. pikeman (5.55) = current sytem a little unfair, your systme would provide a dramtic tilt
knight (4) vs. musketman (7.4) = bad under current, worse under your system
cavalry (6) vs. musketman (7.4) = more or less fair now, aproaching unbalanced under your system
cavalry (6) vs. rifleman (11.1) = horribly biased to the defender, worse under your system
cavalry (6) vs. infantry (18.5) = horribly biased to the defender, worse under your system
tank (16) vs. infantry (18.5) = more or less fair now, aproaching unbalanced under your system
tank (16) vs. mech infantry (33.3): horribly biased to the defender, worse under your system
modern armor (24) vs. mech infantry (33.3) = current sytem a little unfair, your systme would provide a dramtic tilt

your way would make war too hard, your sytem might make more sense if unit values are changed, or anti-class penalties exist, but then why bother if it could be just as balanced under the curent systme by playibng with the new values.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually though, Ybbor, when you consider city combat, I actually think that things SHOULD be tilted in favour of the defender AND that a tank should be at a decided disadvantage in city combat-except against another tank, perhaps!

Still, I reckon that my system WOULD make the combat system a great deal more fair, and finally remove the bulk, if not all, of the wierd anomolies which seem to keep creeping in!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[ybbor]

i'm all for giving the advantage to the defender (well...not really, but i'm not entirely opposed to it), i'm just saying the issue is that his would dramatically increase that to a point of unbalance

 

[sir_schwick]

Hey everybody(espeically Aussie), its your favorite thread self-promoter. I do like your idea of stalemates in pulses of combat. It would definitely be a good compliment to my ideas of fatigue and morale(link coming soon).

As for the probabily issue:
For combat having combat roles each round works well enough. Increase the number of trails per combat(read more HP per unit) and I would be happy.
As for events that have greater strategic impact(GL appearance, culture flips) I think curved generation or what I will call 'pre-generated strings' would be better. This idea is that suppose for event A it had a probabilyt of 1/12. Now how this system works is that several strings 24 numbers long of numbers 1-12 would be generated. EAch one would be rerolled, or have the A result rerolled until the odds matched up. Then you could combine the strings and use that list for however long it is applicable. Of course chaning odds and adjustment would be an issue. jUst some crazy ideas from a shameless self-promoter.

 

[rysingsun]

what is so bad about a spearman once in a while defeating a tank? it happens. furthermore the reduction in the variance of combat also means the reductions in casualties among the stronger unit in combat. in so doing we return to the problem in civ II where units in cities with walls were practically invulnerable to any losses whatsoever. dozens of warrior chariots horsemen and even elephants could be sent against a city defended by nothing but phalanxes and they would get slaughtered. is this what we want to return to?

i believe the development team made a good decision in III by effectively reducing the number of hitpoints on units and thereby increasing casualties on strong units. in II i had games which when over i could see that i had killed hundreds of enemy units at a cost of less than a dozen of my own. i compensated by giving the ai 100-turn or more headstarts on deity level. or i would go into the cheat menu to give them 20 starting cities. im glad that in III i dont have to do such things to give myself a challenge.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think that bombardment and a reduction of defender bonuses pretty much fixed the gross defense advantage present in Civ 2. Reducing HPs just made combat more erratic and seem less consistent(fewer trials).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

There are a couple of other issues which ought to be considered here too. SHOULD a city be able to hold an unlimited number of units fortified within it, and should units have to fight one on one in combats? I feel the answer to both questions is an emphatic NO!!!! In peacetime, especially, a city's size should dictate the maximum number of units that can be stationed there WITHOUT severely reducing the happiness of your citizens. In war, this maximum would be higher, but even then you wouldn't be able to have unlimited numbers. Instead, you might be required to station units very close to a city-in a fort-ready to respond to any encroachments when and if they happen.
The other thing is that I am a strong advocate of 'simultaneous' combat, where all units fight AT ONCE, rather than just one on one-and a system where the distinction between 'attacker' and 'defender' is somewhat broken down.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[Enkidu_Warrior]

As for EndkiduWarrior, go away. You're talking about the fact that statistical analysis is INAPPLICABLE in any event that has a sample of ONE, which is after all what I'm talking about.

no, it isnt. once again you show how little you know about statistics.

(seriously, you're talking to a professional statistician here.)

Don't lecture me, you ****.

i generally find that name calling is that last resort of the intellectually weak.

confucious say never go to battle of wits unarmed.

since you dont want me lecturing you, listen to danger boy, he's got it worked out.

What I'm referring to is that given the current system, there is a large probability that some player will see all his Elite units lose against the AI's conscripts.

just like when you said it the first time, this is patently wrong. unfortunately, this is not the land of oz, and clicking your heels together and saying it three times wont make it come true. sorry!

The large-ness of this probability is caused by a flat probability curve. If you have a bell-curve, then it BECOMES POSSIBLE TO CONTROL the events that otherwise would be severely unusual.

sigh. anyone with even a moderate knowledge of statistics can control the events with either kind of curve.

edit: the elegance of the flat probability curves is that anyone can calculate a pretty good approximation of odds in their heads. kudos to civ3 developers getting that choice right.

...
to be clear - i dont disagree that a change needs to be made, but rather disagree with your reasoning as to why that is so and disagree that your suggestion is a solution.

for example, in my default home mod, i've simply increased the number of hitpoints all units get by 2, which reduces oddball results somewhat, but doesnt eliminate them entirely.

regardless, maybe when you grow up some, you'll take challenges to your thinking a bit better.

EW

 

[sir_schwick]

for example, in my default home mod, i've simply increased the number of hitpoints all units get by 2, which reduces oddball results somewhat, but doesnt eliminate them entirely.

In Civ two the HP were 10 times what they are now. Also they had HP and FP so prevent from ever happening. As I understand it, they eliminated HP and FP because obsolete units would get outclassed way to easily.