Changes in the combat system.

[Mr. ZorG]

Hello everyone.

in my opinion, the current combat system needs changes. surely many had it when one Native warrior destroyed the Line Infantry or the Veteran Infantry Soldier. and the Native Warrior took no damage. or when the Privateer could sink the Frigate. I had it all.

I think this is unfair and wrong. I agree that stronger troops can be damaged, even heavily damaged, but they should not be destroyed.

what do you think about this? ..

 

[raystuttgart]

I agree that stronger troops can be damaged, even heavily damaged, but they should not be destroyed.

A stronger Units should never ever get killed in battle with a weaker one?
(The worst it could then happen to it be heavily damaged.)

This is an absolute no-go for me, because it would remove all risk of losing a strong Unit and thus all fun.
You could basically fight Natives (with your stronger military Units) and never lose a single Units - if you are just a little careful and have damaged Units retreat and heal.

I mean, who is stupid enough to attack 10 Units with only 3 Line Infantery so he is not able to protect the wounded Units to then have these wounded Units that actually survived retreat and heal?
I always mass my units at one point (e.g. a village) so I can overwhelm my enemies with superior force. Then I heal my wounded Units and then I move to the next point to fight there again.

This alone already avoids losing too many Units because my wounded Units can usually still heal without always being killed by other still healthy attackers.
But even using these tactics with the current RNG I still occassionally lose one or two really powerful Units.

With your suggested chance using my tactics I would almost never ever lose a powerful Unit anymore.
Because a Unit would never again directly die in the first Combat and I would almost always (about 19 out of 20 cases) get a chance to retreat and heal.

-------

To my opinion:

This is not realistic. Because as another community member said:
Even Bavaria Munich (best German soccer team) sometimes loses against VFB Stuttgart (the soccer club in my home town - realistically though much weaker) or other weaker clubs.
And also in history there have been many cases / historic reports where weaker armies have succeeded fully destroying stronger armies. (By luck, by terrain advantage, ...)

It is also not fun. Because as I said, no risk no fun.
If you are only a little bit smart in your tactics you would completely rip apart all Native Tribes (which have much more Units than you, but all massively weaker).
Simply take care that at the point you attack you mass enough forces to not get overwhelmed. Retreat and heal as necessary.

-------

Considering the current RNG I have also see absolutely no problems.
(Because there already is a solution for both, see below.)

• Hardcore Players live with the RNG and accept bad luck.
• Casual Players can simply save and load if they feel something was unfair.

Why destroy gameplay for "Hardcore Players" that like the current RNG if "Casual Players" that do not like it can always use the save system?
Both sides should be happy.

-------

Summary:

From my side a veto if you really want to completely remove the case that "stronger Units get killed in a Combat against weaker Units".
(It is not ok that all risk in a Combat is removed simply if your Unit is strong enough. A small risk needs to stay. The rest is statistical chance.)

Sorry, but maybe I have misunderstood your intentions again.

 

[Nightinggale]

Right now: Each round there is a winner and the loser takes damage.

I wonder what would happen if we changed combat to be of the Dungeons and Dragons nature as in each round each unit has one attack, which may or may not hit and if it hit, damage is random within a certain range. Defense could then be split into two parts: avoidance and armor, which reduce the risk of being hit and reduce damage respectively. We could also add number of attacks each round. This would allow two units to do the same max damage, but one has a single strong attack, which might miss while the other one has many attacks where some hit, making damage more predictable. While the latter might sound better, if they fight a unit with armor saying -2 damage from each attack, the many weak attacks becomes much worse.

For the time being I view this mainly as a thought experiment. I'm quite far from doing anything regarding combat. It would be a significant task, which alters the game quite a lot, meaning not only will programming be an issue, game balance would be severely affected as well.

 

[raystuttgart]

At the moment, all outcomes are possible.
(But the statistical chances are still correct.)

Combat in Civ4Col is simply not deterministic. It is simply random based.
It is based on chances but used the "Combat Strength Ratio" as base for the battle computations.
If you want, you can check the statistics by simply having enough fights to get empirical values: They match.

The only big change that comes on top is this here:
(Which reduces the "extremely bad outcomes" already because not all fights end in death.)

Limited Combat Turns
--> Some fights end before one side died (Which has been discussed in another thread)
--> Before that change all fights were till the death of one side. (And we had much more discussions about bad RNG.)

-------

Thus statistically all outcomes are possible.
But their distribution is also statistically correct - under the consideration "Limited Combat Turns" of course.
And it considers Combat Strength incl. Terrain, Promotions ... correctly as well.
There is no cheating or any wrong computation or anything like that going on.

In the current system it is simply possible and still happens - althoug statistically unlikely - that a Strong Unit gets directly killed in the first Combat against a much weak Unit.
(Of course if it is already weakened by a previous Combat it is not a "Strong Unit" anymore in comparison.)

So the big question is simply:
Do we want to completely remove bad luck?

As I said already, you already can remove the bad luck component.
Simply save and load! (Your solution is already there. No code change needed.)

 

[Mr. ZorG]

A stronger Units should never ever get killed in battle with a weaker one?

@raystuttgart , you came up with something that doesn't exist, again. perhaps the translator could have translated it wrong. I'll try again, with simple sentences.

you have one unit of the Line Infantry. it is attacked by one unit of Native Warriors. sometimes it happens that a unit of the Line Infantry dies, but a unit of Native Warriors does not take damage. that's what I was talking about. and although such cases are very rare, it is extremely unpleasant. in my opinion this should not be.

yes, a unit of the Line Infantry can take any damage in a battle with a unit of Native Warriors. but not perish. but the second or third detachment of Indigenous warriors, attacking after the first, can destroy the Line infantry.

I hope now I have explained clearly.

The save-load option you proposed is unacceptable. I can't save the game before every attack. this is absurd.

 

[raystuttgart]

... perhaps the translator could have translated it wrong.

Yes, sadly it seems it did.
(Or you have not fully read my post - which is long I have to admit because I really tried to explain in detail.)

yes, a unit of the Line Infantry can take any damage in a battle with a unit of Native Warriors. but not perish. but the second or third detachment of Indigenous warriors, attacking after the first, can destroy the Line infantry.

I fully understood that you were talking about the first fight only, but it is still a veto.
(And in my text I wrote nothing else - because I explained about retreating and healing for the next fight.)

see here:

Because a Unit would never again directly die in the first Combat and I would almost always (about 19 out of 20 cases) get a chance to retreat and heal.

-----

I want that in the first fight the Strong Unit could be killed already by the Weak Unit.
Not only in the second or third attack / detachment when the Strong Unit is already weakened and thus not a Strong Unit anymore (considering Combat Strenght).

I do not want any fully security in first Combat, I want at least some small statistic risk.
Because "no risk, no fun".

There is nothing wrong with "bad luck" as there is nothing wrong with "good luck".
Both are fine and fun in a game and there is no reason to remove either one for me.

See, I am simply a big fan of balance in both directions.
I am sorry, but this suggestion is simply way too extreme for me.

I can't save the game before every attack.

Why not, it takes almost no time to save and load with shortcuts.
I have saved myself sometimes to ensure not to lose a unit.

I fully accept though that you do not want to.
That is your choice, but it would remove the bad luck risk as well.

----

I think this is unfair and wrong.

If you read literature, there is nothing that is fairer than real randomness.
But "Random" has and always will be one of the most argued and discussed topics in computer games.

It is the way our brain works.

We simply forget the 10 times we were lucky ...
But the 2 times we were unlucky we will always remember ...

----

Summary:
Touching the RNG to remove bad luck is and will always be a nogo for me.
(I tried to explain in detail above why I think that way.)

 

[Tugboatspotter]

It has always been RNG in this game

Sure, you can save and reload, but why not embrace it? I'm so use to bad luck that I expect it - would never think of save/reloading one combat.

If your unit is so precious then don't roll the dice.

 

[Tugboatspotter]

I think these rules should be left as it is.

The mod is mature and the rules have been established through exhaustive feedback already. If there is to be changes, I can see this descending into chaos with diverse view points, and conflicting ideas and all sorts of crazy suggestions where nobody really wants to go.

 

[Mr. ZorG]

however, it happens in my games. Yes, it happens very rarely, but it happens. and this is puzzling.
you do not read all together, but only a separate part. for example, where it says that my unit is dying. and for some reason you ignore the part about the fact that the enemy unit does not receive damage.
but ok, I heard your point of view on this issue. this topic can be deleted. it does not carry any constructive development.

 

[raystuttgart]

however, it happens in my games.

Of course it happens.
It already happened to me too.

and this is puzzling.

What is puzzling about that?
It is simply how random works.

• Sometimes you are extremely unlucky and a weak Units wins against your strong Unit without a scratch.
• Sometimes you are also extremely lucky and your Strong Units wins 3 fights against weaker Units without a scratch.

It is however not "just luck" it is statistical distribution based on the Combat Strength (that uses Terrain, Promotions, ...).
(You can calculate your chances to win or to have one of the rare events above happen just like you can e.g. in Poker.)

Every chance for every single outcome can be calculated (or at least estimated).
Thus it is not pure luck ! (Poker is also not pure luck. There is mathematics in there.)

You can easily figure out for yourself if you want to take the risk or not.
For me there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. (My personal taste of course.)

and for some reason you ignore the part about the fact that the enemy unit does not receive damage.

Because it does not change anything considering my opinion:

• With Random every outcome is simply possible. Some are more likely some are less. (statistical distribution curve)
• Bad luck is just as valid and important for a game as good luck. Because no risk, no fun. (see e.g. Poker which I play a lot by the way)
  
• Solution "save and load using shortkeys" is already there and works nicely and fast without code change (Although some people may not accept this as solution)

it does not carry any constructive development.

No, it won't lead to anything. This is simply too radical for me.
In this case our personal tastes are too different.

----

And in this case also it also injures one of my "design / modding rules":

Never operate the patient if not necessary.
(Meaning that there never needs to be a code change if there already is another easy solution that works.)

I know you do not like my suggestion to save and load (using shortkeys).
But it could really already solve your problem with preventing "bad luck".

 

[raystuttgart]

@Mr. ZorG
There is a mod for Civ4BTS that pretty much seems to do what you describe here: Custom Combat
(It seems to be pretty new.)

A programmer could adapt it most likely quite easily to Civ4Col / WTP.
So maybe keep this in mind for the future because a modmod might be interested to adapt it.

----

It is still a nogo for me to do something like that because it would really reduce fun for me.
But maybe the team will change its mind in the future as well.

 

[Mr. ZorG]

thanks, Ray. I'll ask him.

 

[Schmiddie]

At the moment I do not see any necessity to change the current combat system. Of course there is always some room of improvement for everything. However, currently it works fine. We should stop opening new worksites for working features.

Hence, "VETO" from my side to relevant changes.

 

[Mr. ZorG]

I realized that you are not yet ready to accept any changes to the combat system. I want to do this for my tests. your veto won't matter.

 

[Schmiddie]

Sorry, but this is not correct. In your own version you can of course do what you want. However, my post was related to the current branch of this mod. Please do not mix personal taste with features of this mod. When I say something like "veto" it is of course related to the current version of the mod....

 

[nci]

Do we want to completely remove bad luck?

Definitely not!

 

[raystuttgart]

... not yet ready to accept any changes to the combat system.

That is not correct.

All I do not want to do is mess with the random.
But I can imagine many other changes.

And as you might imagine as always I already have concepts and plans ...
(Some are many years old and had been discussed in RaR already.)

e.g.

• I currently started balancing Promotion to have choices make a bigger differences.
• Later I plan to balance Units and Professions differently thus again have choices (of buying and equipping) make a bigger difference.
• Again later I plan to balance Terrains and Terrain Features differently to have choices (of combat sites) make a bigger difference.
• ...

Other features are also already accepted and planned.
(All of them having impact / side effects on the Combat System.)

• Militariy Upkeep
• Rebuild of Artillery / Cannons from pure Units to Professions (with Experts)
  
• ...

See, where I am going to?

• I want the player to have active influence.
• I want strategy and choices matter.
• I still however want to have risks and rewards balanced.

----

Whoever is interested in more explanations:

Spoiler :

I simply have "design rules" that I try to follow in all my features and changes and hate to break.
(Rules that I have learned from online lessons, lectures and books about game design and experienced to be correct for many years.)

e.g. these:

Balancing and Choices

1a) In every feature (e.g. like the Combat System) "good" and "bad" needs to stay balanced.
Thus if I would start reducing "bad luck" I would have to start reducing "good luck" as well.

1b) If you add advantages (rewards) to a feature you need to also add risk (potential damage) to a strategy to a feature and or to a choice.
Avoid to have 1 perfect strategy or choice that is always better because it gets boring and will be abused.

1c) Give the players meaningful choices that support their playstyles but still give them reasonable guidance to avoid heavy player mistakes.
Thus I do not like to implement changes like you suggested, because it is not really related to player strategy and player choices.

Design Decisions and their Consequences

2a) Make decisions in your game design (e.g. balancing) and take the time to follow them consequently and completely.
Never offer 2 contradicitng options if as consequence you only implement (or balance) each inconsequently and incompletely.

2b) It is simply not possible to satisfy everybodies personal taste.
There simply is no "right and wrong" in personal taste and arguing about it is pointless.

2c) It is ok for your design decisions considering a feature or a change to cause strong feelings and thus do not be afraid of such decisions.
If the majority of your core players later really loves what you did, you made the right choice but if nobody really cares, your change was pointless and thus probably wrong.

Reasonable Coding

3a) Never make unnecessary coding changes if there already exists another easy to use solution.
Simply because such coding changes are not always easy to revert and may have serious unexpected side effects.

3b) Try to keep your design, your technical solution and your code changes simple.
Do what is needed to make your concept work nicely but never do "everything you tecnically can" because your game (or mod) will otherwise become a nightmare to maintain or adapt.

...

----

Sorry guys for lecturing again ...
But it may help to understand why I support or reject certain changes.

Some players may not understand why these design rules are important for me.
But maybe simply check your favourite games and ask yourself if they did follow these rules above or not ...

----

Summary:

I do want and plan to change or improve the Combat System dramatically once I find the time and if we find a consense ...
Of course I absolutely accept that our vision and modding philosophie will need to be matched and discussed step by step as well.

 

[Mr. ZorG]

excuse me, but again I could not convey my idea correctly. in the last words, I didn't mean the current branch of this mod to everyone. only for me.
let's finish the discussion. what Ray said on the summary suits me)

 

[raystuttgart]

I didn't mean the current branch of this mod to everyone. only for me.

I fully understand that you would like to do it in your private version.
As long as the current development branches we all share are not messed up without consent, there is no reason to argue.