Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice

[barron of ideas]

I kind of like the change in the combat system because I usually play the Persians and the Immortal is likely to win more. I do think it is bad for the game to impose it on all players who don't like it.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
Having horsemen win 4% of the time against fortified spearmen, isn't something I like to adapt to. I rather not play at all...

I'm not sure how you're figuring that. I figure that a regular horseman (att=2, hits=3, withdraw=50%) vs a fortified regular spearman in ordinary terrain (def=2.7, hits=3) should win 15.4% of the time, withdraw 43.3% of the time, and be destroyed 41.2% of the time.

(Each individual round is 31% for the attacker and 69% for the defender.)

But, either way, if you can't imagine playing the game without a horseman rush, I guess that's up to you.

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ


I'm not sure how you're figuring that.

Someone posted that earlier... but I think it was if the spearman had 3.3 in defense...

 

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Coffee
This is what got me started on Civ. It was the challenge of being able to play and maybe win the Great Games. If the new numbers put that out of reach then where is the fun in that. My nickel.

The computer player needs steep handicaps to be challenging to a human player. You're complaining that if the game gets harder, then it will be challenging to you even with a smaller handicap, and you won't be able to beat it when it has a really, really large handicap? Why isn't that a good thing?

Would you be against improvements to the computer AI, for the same reason?

 

[Speaker]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ


The computer player needs steep handicaps to be challenging to a human player. You're complaining that if the game gets harder, then it will be challenging to you even with a smaller handicap, and you won't be able to beat it when it has a really, really large handicap? Why isn't that a good thing?

Would you be against improvements to the computer AI, for the same reason?

I think you're missing his point DaviddesJ. It's not that the game will be made harder, as Arathorn earlier stated, but rather the range of strategies required to beat it will become much narrower. Would you have fun if the only way to win was with an archer rush? Or what if you could only win by beelining to the Great Library. Or what if you could only win by building a temple first in every city. The more possible ways you can play and still be successful is what makes a strategy game like Civ3 fun. If the combat model changes like the mathematicians/statisticians here think it will (and I have no reason not to believe the theories of players who I know to give utmost care to everything they do on these boards), we will find a game that is a lot less fun to play, and for what? So a few bugs can be patched up.....

 

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by Sandman2003
First, can someone point me to the forums of discontent with the existing combat system (old combat system from vanilla Civ III)? I certainly haven't run across any such forums or any posts on this point. The basic rule in IT is don't muck with something that works. As I see it, the Civ III community in general, is satisfied with the existing system, so no "fix" is required.

Well there are the literally hundreds of threads complaining about the 'randomness' of combat, the ones complaining that the RNG doesn't work, and the ever popular "There is no way my tank should have lost to a spearman" threads. There are an awful lot of them if you look at all.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
Someone posted that earlier... but I think it was if the spearman had 3.3 in defense...

Yeah, I see that now (Fried-Psitalon). But a spearman doesn't have 3.3 in defense.

 

[Sandman2003]

It is good that some testing is being done, and I would like more information on what the nature of these tests is.

For example, the tests could be lets see the outcome of different combat situations eg tank vs spearman, tank vs spearman fortified, tank vs spearman fortified in city over 6 etc. To which the results might be, yes as expected the tank always wins.

Or the tests might be many full games seeing the impact of various respective levels of tech and resources impacting the military flow and ebb of the game.

Obviously the conclusions of the former can easily be radically different from the conclusions of the latter, and the latter makes for a far better test.

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ
But a spearman doesn't have 3.3 in defense.

It get's 2.7 if fortified on flat terrain. 3.5 if fortified on a hill, or in a walled town, or city. 3.2 if fortified on flat terrain and the attacker attacks over a river.

 

[eliliang]

Originally posted by somateria
Second, it must be gratifying for the programmers to know that any changes to the C3C will instantaneously be assessed by an international team of scientists. There are probably more Phd's surreptiously working on the C3C rng issue right now than on super-string theory or global climate change.
I see that most of the theoretical work has already been done, perhaps later I can develop varaince estimators for the proposed combat system. I suggest that we link all our computers together in parallel via the internet and hence create the world's largest supercomputer.

What makes you think C3C isn't contributing to String theory? Actually, the reason I am arguing for going back to the old combat calc is that my C3C scenario is a very sophisticated simulation of finite level truncation of the string field assuming various symmetries of action. My units may look like combat units to the uninitiated, when actually they are space-time components which my C3C scenario is using to estimate the tachyon potential through what only appears to you as combat, but is for me set of stationary stochastic processes used in this calculation. Capiche?

And as for the globally linked supercomputer... oh innocent one, did you think that your Civ3 is actually that slow in MP because its busy with the game? <diabolical laughter in the background>

 

[warpstorm]

 

[Sandman2003]

Originally posted by warpstorm


Well there are the literally hundreds of threads complaining about the 'randomness' of combat, the ones complaining that the RNG doesn't work, and the ever popular "There is no way my tank should have lost to a spearman" threads. There are an awful lot of them if you look at all.

All I ask is that you point me to even one such thread, I would like to see what points are made. Is it a case of blame the RNG for a lack of forethought and backup plans, or is there a real issue with the RNG?

If the issue really was with the RNG I believe there would be more variability with the regular winners of GOTM, and probaly a lot more cursing of rotten RNG luck in the GOTM spoiler threads.

 

[Cornucopia]

What about making the number of dices dependent from the basic absolute difference in attack and defense points?

0-2 Points difference: 1 dice
3-4 Points difference: 2 dice
5-10 Points difference: 3 dice
10 and above Points difference: 4 dice

This way combat between nearly equal units would be like it was before. But if you have a significant quality advantage with your units you will win more often. And it would be almost impossible to win with a spearman against tanks.

Examples:

Warrior attacks Spearman: A1 vs D2 -> 1 dice
Combat would resolve as known.

Cav attacks Musketman: A6 vs D4 -> 1 dice
as above

Cav attacks Pikeman: A6 vs D3 -> 2 dice
improved chance for cav to win

Cav attacks warrior: A6 vs D1 -> 3 dice
Cav is even more likely to win

Tank attacks Spearman: A16 vs D2 -> 4 dice
its very unlikely that the spearman will beat the tank

only my two cent

Cornucopia

 

[Smidlee]

wow . I didn't think they have a patch before christmas . I looking forward to play an epic game now

 

[derekroth]

DON’T PANIC!!!!!

I know this has been rehashed about a million times, but please consider this. There have been references about how the new combat system is going to ruin game play. And this combined with the fact that you have to perform the procedure any given amount of time until a victor is declared, compounds the misbalance even more.

But try this. Consider the old combat system where 60% odds were simply 60% odds. Therefore, for two regular units of 3 hit points you could have the resulting possibilities up to the death of a unit.
“w” indicates a victory for the 60% unit we will say is the attacker.

Possible outcomes for attacker victory

w,w,w
w,w,l,w
w,l,w,w
l,w,w,w
w,w,l,l,w
w,l,w,l,w
w,l,l,w,w
l,w,w,l,w
l,w,l,w,w
l,l,w,w,w

Possible outcomes for defender victory
l,l,l
l,l,w,l
l,w,l,l
w,l,l,l
l,l,w,w,l
l,w,l,w,l
l,w,w,l,l
w,l,l,w,l
w,l,w,l,l
w,w,l,l,l

Now determine the odds of each of these possibilities happening
w,w,w = .6x.6x.6 = 0.216
w,w.l,w or any of the 3 = 6x.6x.6x.4 = 0.0864
w,w,l,l,w or any of the 6 = 6x.6x.6x.4x.4 = 0.03456
l,l,w,w,l or any of the 6 = .6x.6x.4x.4x.4 = 0.02304
l,l,w,l or any of the 3 = .6x.4x.4x.4 = 0.0384
l,l,l = .4x.4x.4 = 0.064

now add
0.216 + (0.0864 x 3) + (0.03456 x 6) + (0.02304 x 6) + (0.0384 x 3) + 0.064 = 1
The fact that this adds to one suggests that I covered all possibilities.

Now add only the values that lead to an attacker (60%) victory.
0.216 + (0.0864 x 3) + (0.03456 x 6) = .68256 or 68.3%

This would suggest that 60% was never really 60%.
If you do the same thing for 70% odds you get 83.7%! Because of this, a spearman should have hardly ever defeated a tank even before the changes. Assuming a spearman with calculated defense of 4 (if that is possible) is attacked by a 16 attack point tank (both regular) there is 80% odds in favor of the tank. But using the above proposal, this would equate to a 94.2% chance of victory for the tank. Also as mentioned by others, veteran and elite units would exacerbate this even more.

I understand that math makes things look much different then they actually appear. I was one of the first ones on this thread to look into this (even if I wasn’t 100% right). But in the past I never felt that my units with 20% to 40% advantages, as in the examples above, were getting any unfair advantage. In fact I perceived it as me loosing when I shouldn’t be. So I guess math can be deceiving.

 

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by Sandman2003


All I ask is that you point me to even one such thread, I would like to see what points are made. Is it a case of blame the RNG for a lack of forethought and backup plans, or is there a real issue with the RNG?

If the issue really was with the RNG I believe there would be more variability with the regular winners of GOTM, and probaly a lot more cursing of rotten RNG luck in the GOTM spoiler threads.

I never said there was a real issue, just there were quite a few threads over the past couple of years. I like the current system.

Since search is not active today I'll find just one. Many of these threads came out a long time ago when Civ3 first came out (mostly by Civ2 players)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71100

 

[SirPleb]

@derekroth: You are quite right in your interpretation of the odds as affected by the number of HP each unit has. The mathematically oriented posts in this thread have already taken that into account. The sample numbers people are giving for old vs. new probabilities include this part of the calculation, so the panic is real...

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by warpstorm
I never said there was a real issue, just there were quite a few threads over the past couple of years. I like the current system.

The current system is'nt bad, but it is a little too random, which this new system was going to remedy.

I have a friend who quit playing Civ3 because of the frustration he felt over the combat system. And he never even had a tank loose to a spearman.

 

[warpstorm]

Here's another

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65359

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by derekroth
DON’T PANIC!!!!!

[. . . .]

This would suggest that 60% was never really 60%.
If you do the same thing for 70% odds you get 83.7%!

This is known and addressed in the "panic-y" posts -- the pre-patch combat odds for success in any given unit-vs-unit battle was never as simple as A/(A+D) - as you point out that applies only to individual HPs, and all the combat calculators out there addressed this. But look at some of the unit-vs-unit battle odds (versus single HP odds) with the proposed change (alexman has even posted a new version of a combat calculator to do so). The changes are material. How significantly and to what extent it effects gameplay is open to debate, but I for one agree with those that believe this is a step backward if it in fact works as we believe it to work.

Because of this, a spearman should have hardly ever defeated a tank even before the changes.

All the more reason to question why one would introduce material, not minor, changes to how combat is resolved in most "normal" game situations versus the rare circumstance of tank versus spear.