I'm afraid there's no point me replying if you didn't understand my already perfectly clear post. Most of what you've written you wouldn't have written if you understood my post and most of what you've written is just more contradictory jumbles, unreferenced statements and attempts to put words in my mouth that aren't there. I'd be happy to fully analyise your post, word for word, but you wouldn't take the blindest bit of notice, just as you didn't with that post.
Civ 3 math problems
- Thread starter ZergMazter
- Start date
Desertsnow
πr²
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,794
That reminds me of something I read once; I don't remember the exact wording or who said it, but it was along the lines of "in anything requiring skill and luck success lies not in managing the skill but in managing the luck." This means know when the odds are against you, and how to mitigate the situation.
Desertsnow
πr²
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,794
(please delete this double post.)
No please, go ahead.
I'll elaborate a bit on what I said. Please give me your best Buttercup reply. Make it go into the Hall of Fame. Please include some arguments like I try below.
My reply:
So you call it 'eliminating randomness'... I call it playing the game and putting the odds in my favor.
I embrace both things, the fact that there's chance/randomness/odds, and the fact to play with it; bombardment. You think they are exclusive of each other. I don't.
No. I like it that 2vs1 isn't an auto win. That'd be boring. Therefore - bombardment, or just more units in order to secure a win...
thanks for you psychoanalysis. I will inform my doctor that I'm close to being cured and can be moved outside maximum security.
And no... I just play the game and put the odds in my favor. Which is pretty much ANY game/sport/competition EVER.
maybe they just don't agree with you, but alright...
Ah so you like it when you win the jackpot, but not when you don't win anything at all. What a surprising insight.
Before I reply, what is the reason for posting quotes at me?
How does the quote relate to basic random in the framework of a game? And how does the quote relate to extreme and stupid random in the framework of a game?
@theov - your rantings are fun to read, but as usual make little sense, my previous paragraphs were about the difference between normal game random and extreme and stupid game random, none of your points address this, and it's this avoidance of this point that makes all your replies pointless - "I like it that 2vs1 isn't an auto win" is your prime argument for liking randomness, yet we are clearly discussing, at least my paragraph's primary point, was that the best Unit in the game should not have the same element of random as 2 similar units - because it's a management game which is supposed to reward you for advancement. As long as refuse to explain why it's 'enjoyable' for a Modern Armour to struggle to kill a red-lined Ancient Cavalry beyond "WELL I LIKE IT SO THERE" then there's little point us discussing this any further...
Lord AJ
The Quartermaster
Although this question isn't aimed at me, I'd like to answer since I bear a similar viewpoint .
There's nothing enjoyable to get a modern armor killed at the hands of an ancient cavalry. Nothing at all. What is enjoyable though is the fact that even if your military is 2 eras ahead of your opponent you just can't sit back and relax that there's no force that can defeat you now. Although the chances of losing the modern armor are slim, it is still not impossible. This adds another element to the game where a player in order to protect a 120s unit will put bombard units or other support units in the stack. This way, the game compels us to take precautions in case the unlikely (READ: not impossible) happens. So yeah I do feel the pain when I lose a costly/advanced unit to an inferior one but I prefer to take it as a lesson that "from the next time bring some artillery unless you're prepared for the risk"
@Buttercup You have mentioned in some places that the end game gets boring for you when the AI is unable to provide any resistance. Imagine if even what randomness is there was removed, then many of us would abandon the game as soon as we reached the modern armor since they'd be completely invincible.
I'm not talking 'enjoyable' here. It's just a matter of probability and you can have a bad roll of the dice. That sucks. Sure. So?
A modern armor (MA) shouldn't struggle vs a red lined ancient cavalry (AC)...however it could because:
MA has an attack of 24. the AC has a defense of 2. So you'd expect the MA to have a 11 out of 12 chance to win one rounds. (a little less taken the terrain bonus into account)
Given that the AC is redlined and the MA has (say) 3 health points, well, you only need one in 3 rounds to be succesfull.
But if the AC is on a mountain or in a Metro, its odds go up.
So yeah, if you attack a fortified MA on a mountain, from across the river in a fortress.... then your odds are not so far ahead of you anymore. And I like that. That there is a chance to lose, even if the odds are in your favor.
You may not agree with this idea... and that's alright.
No... no... three times no... the reason I get bored at end-game is not because it's too easy, but precisely because it's too repetitive. Too many units having to be moved at too slow a pace to feel like the exact domination level you should be feeling if you have achieved a wholesome advantage. The end-game steamrolling is exactly the reward for gaining a strong advantage. This is the case with every strategy game.
You are talking about enjoyable here, read your own previous posts.
And I know what the stats are, the debate is whether you like the stats or not. Your reading of the stats is all well and good, but it doesn't take into account the defence value of the advanced unit - the developers failed to quantify the defence value of advanced units when assessing how to randomise the game. It really is that simple.
that's why there's nukes, man.
I added some extra units end-game in my mod. Maybe you're interested. Could be fun. I'll add a nuke launcher with 5 ground movement with blitz if you like.
ok
walletta
King
I recently had a red-lined marine hold a town against a series of attacks I would have expected it (him?) to lose (tanks and what not). That gave me joy.
Desertsnow
πr²
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,794
happens. *colondee*
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
And I'm glad it does, or my current mostly-random DG game would already be completely carbonised, instead of just lightly-browned toast.
Spoiler :
So right now, I'm quite glad the RNG rolls 'uphill' from time to time.
Marines are of the same era as Tanks.
If by LBM you mean Longbowmen, then Longbowmen are of the same era as Musketmen.
But, yes, I've no doubt someone can find a use for this random absurdity feature, it is in the game and ways to mitigate/use it have been found. If it wasn't in the game then you wouldn't care at all and find different ways to game the system, the absurdity of the random is not justified simply because it exists and people have figured ways to game it, saying you've found a use for it does not create an argument that a better system couldn't have been used, it merely states a neutral fact - that it exists and there are some circumstances where it can be mitigated/used.
Technically true, but attack 16 against defence 6 is as if there was an entire era between them.
Not true as you ignore the similarity between their attack scores and similarity between their defence scores, the total of each being remarkably similar, which, if you'd been following what I originally posted, is what really matters when assessing old versus new units and the rather odd nature of the battle mechanics of this game.
*sigh*, a statement of fact about how the current system operates does not make a case for why that system is preferable - at least it neither adds to nor disproves a single thing I've said. ie: if you haven't understood a thing I've said so far there's not a lot more I can say that would make my comments any clearer than they already are, I'd just be repeating myself, which as you know, mindless repetition is not my strong point 
.
.
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
OK then, how about this? The current system is very simple, and therefore decipherable even with only basic mathematical knowledge (Yay! On topic!
). Which means that an average player who- knows the various defensive bonuses (IIRC, they're listed in the manual, even if not in the Civ'pedia -- and they're certainly accessible via the Editor)
- understands how those bonuses, the A/D values, and the RNG, are applied by the game to determine battle-outcomes
- can do basic arithmetic
Sure, the actual combat-results might not conform exactly to the player's predictions on a per-unit basis, and the short-term aggregated results might even also fail to live up to the player's hopes/ expectations. Speaking personally, that element of uncertainty is what makes Civ more interesting than a purely deterministic game, like Go or chess. If I know for sure that I'm going to win (or lose!) before I even start, then why bother playing?
And also, the random allows for the possibility of better results than the player even dared to dream of. I mean,
must happen at least as frequently in the player's favour as vice versa (i.e. not very often, either way) but strangely enough, I don't think I've ever seen any complaints about 'unfair combat-results' when the player's Spear is victorious... 
And another advantage of a simple combat-system: when playing mods/scenarios,a player will easily be able to transfer their epic-game experience to make similar outcome-predictions for units with altered A/D-values, HP-bonuses, etc. And if they later get into modding Civ3, they can also use that knowledge to significantly decrease the
probability even further, if it really bothers them that much...The degree of uncertainty when the usually mid sized armies engage seems really important to me. It creates a strong incentive to build one more swordsmen, one more cannon, one more cavalry etc.. Of course it not be just one more unit, it will be a whole bunch more of units, after all the enemy builds more military aswell. What a wonderful arms race.
Similar threads
