Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice

[BomberEscort]

Originally posted by Masquerouge
This is just largely mathematically-based extrapolation of Firaxis and Atari's comments. I can't believe people are actualling begging and praising and yelling at Firaxis to remove a change THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN TESTED IN THE GAME ! And it's a BETA PATCH ! It's just completely insane...

The statistics are telling you how it will work in the game over large trials... Statistical analysis of the algorithm will tell us nothing different than playing the beta will. We are actually saving time and effort by doing the *analysis* now...

Please, just make it an option, with the default as it is now, and has been since the beginning of Civ III.

Also, like I said before... Was the Tank v. Spearman really a problem anyway. I have never seen one example of this, in the form of a saved game. I'm sure they exist and I'm sure they are very rare. It's not broke, so please don't fix it!

 

[Hipshot]

I wont be happy until Civ supports allied victory, its not fun to play with friends if we cant play vs the computer and all win togheter, that isnt fun at al, therefore we dont play much boring...

if not in civ conquest, I WANT it in civ4


....

I was really dissapointed when there was no allied option in standard MP game in Conquest, to play coop agains the computer, seems only like there is that in scenarios

 

[digger760]

Originally posted by Hipshot
I wont be happy until Civ supports allied victory, its not fun to play with friends if we cant play vs the computer and all win togheter, that isnt fun at al, therefore we dont play much boring...

if not in civ conquest, I WANT it in civ4


....

I was really dissapointed when there was no allied option in standard MP game in Conquest, to play coop agains the computer, seems only like there is that in scenarios

I was going to suggest WW2 Pacific, but did'nt see your last paragraph until i hit the reply with quote button.

It seems you want it in the main game, surely if it can be done with scenarios then it can be done in the editor for an epic game.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
I'm really, really worried about the combat calculator change. As SirPleb excellently displayed, even small advantages as swordman vs spearman now becomes almost sure wins. This looks to me as a change that will hurt much more than it helps.

So please, please think twice here. Let me help you by suggesting the sensible solution :
Have a setting in the editor that says how many calculations that should be made for each combat round, and let the user set any number from 1 (as in current versions of the game) to 4 (as you suggest) or even 10.

1, which it has been all the time should be default.

I know quoting from 230 posts back isn't the norm, but this idea from TNO is by far the best I have seen! It allows both sides to be happy, those who like predictable outcomes and those who like the combat system as it is.

Please please please please please listen to the many excellent players in this thread that have expressed concerns over the new system and allow the number of calculations to be settable in the editor (and default it to 1!!).

 

[Aggie]

Originally posted by anarres
I know quoting from 230 posts back isn't the norm, but this idea from TNO is by far the best I have seen! It allows both sides to be happy, those who like predictable outcomes and those who like the combat system as it is.

Please please please please please listen to the many excellent players in this thread that have expressed concerns over the new system and allow the number of calculations to be settable in the editor (and default it to 1!!).

I absolutely agree with anarres that TNO's proposal is the best for both world

 

[Hipshot]

Originally posted by digger760


I was going to suggest WW2 Pacific, but did'nt see your last paragraph until i hit the reply with quote button.

It seems you want it in the main game, surely if it can be done with scenarios then it can be done in the editor for an epic game.

Yes it can be done in the editor, but thats not good, the ideal; would be to be able to start a MP game, any setting, random map whatever, and then select teams just like any warcraft alike, or aoe you name it, then play 2vs2 and when the first player wins the vic.cond. the team wins.

You could play 2vs2 conquest (or what they now call it when you must destroy all other players to win) that would be very fun I think, or maybe as many as 6vs6 or 3vs2vs5 you get the point... of course there will be options for shared vision as soon as you get mapmaking, or something...

maybe this is to big for conquest, I really had hoped for it though, when I saw that it didnt came with PTW. So now I hope again for a CIV4 with better MP options and Allied victory for the people!! (Is it just me who wants this??)


------------


ALSO:

I want to be able to select how many turns to play, and there should be a option called enless or something, that lets you play until a vict.cond is fulfilled, like you can play until year 3000 and then win by culture, I hate when it just ends before I feel that Im done, and then there are no score, and that takes aways some of the meaning to play I think

-----

You guys might think that Im a real negative sucker here, but in the end I just want what I think would be good things for civ, and surely not to hard to implant. Again




Sorry, for my bad grammar and so, im just from another of them by Pentagon blacklisted countries

 

[Gen]

Originally posted by Hipshot

ALSO:

I want to be able to select how many turns to play, and there should be a option called enless or something, that lets you play until a vict.cond is fulfilled, like you can play until year 3000 and then win by culture, I hate when it just ends before I feel that Im done, and then there are no score, and that takes aways some of the meaning to play I think

This at least is possible - when starting a game, click on Game Limits button, a nice popup dialog will appear allowing you to change number of turns in the game (default = 540). It can't be endless since there is a max you can set it to, though. But it can be set quite high (1000 is the limit I think but I'm not sure).

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by Masquerouge


Oh, I do accept that. What I'm worrying about is people getting freaky about projections, not facts or tested things.

The mathematics are valid and are not just projects but are what will happen if the change as described by goes into effect. There is no other way things can happen unless the change is changed or there is a bug in the change. And it is far better to argue about the change based on solid stats than on perceived happenings, which is the whole reason why streakiness is not a real issue but just an illusion of the mind. And since we can already calculate the new stats, we can debate this pending change and hopefully prevent a disasterous change from being made.

One other side bar for the debate, during my combat tests, I found only 80-100 combat rounds were needed for very good convergance of results. (probably the reasonable min is even lower). But if you assume 4 combat rounds per battle, that gives only 20-25 battles needed to converge to the expected probability. I find that number to be quite reasonable. And if more combat rounds are needed for some of the battles, then the number will be even less.

 

[Masquerouge]

Originally posted by etj4Eagle
The mathematics are valid and are not just projects but are what will happen if the change as described by goes into effect.

I did already said the maths were valid. My main concern is that the hypothesises (???) are not 100% sure(that's the "projections"). For instance, it was said that they would be draw, by a Firaxis member, but this was declared wrong by another Firaxis member. Also it was said that there is 4 rolls, but we're not sure they are both for attacker and defender. All that was said is "the attacker gets 4 roll". It's not sure that ONLY the attacker gets its 4 roll, or both the attacker and the defender.
So for the combat RNG (and for that only ! the other issues adressed in the beta patch are clear and fine) we have been told little stuff, that we can not be 100% sure of, and that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
You see why I really really want to test it with the patch before I start complaining

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Masquerouge
Also it was said that there is 4 rolls, but we're not sure they are both for attacker and defender. All that was said is "the attacker gets 4 roll". It's not sure that ONLY the attacker gets its 4 roll, or both the attacker and the defender.

Once again (I answered this in the other thread too). There is not defender roll, and there has never been. First the defender's chance of winning is calculated (say 0.33), then one attacker roll is made. If this roll between 0 and 1 is larger than 0.33 the attacker takes a HP from the defender - if not, the defender takes one from the attacker.
What has been explained by Firaxis is to take the average of four rolls instead of the one. That means that the number will come much closer to 0.5, than before. I don't see what uncertaincy there is.

 

[Justus II]

Originally posted by Masquerouge

So for the combat RNG (and for that only ! the other issues adressed in the beta patch are clear and fine) we have been told little stuff, that we can not be 100% sure of, and that can be interpreted in multiple ways.

Actually, this last part got me thinking, we have not been told anything about *how* the corruption has been fixed. I am sure if it weren't for the combat system change, everyone would like to analyze the actual corruption changes, RCP formula, etc that is being implemented in this patch. After all, C3C originally said that RCP was "fixed", I would like a little more information about how it is fixed. Please??

 

[socralynnek]

Someone said, raising the hp's would do the same as this change.
It would be the opposite. You're right then you say, then the stronger wins more likely, but only this one battle. If you attack with a stack of weaker units then you have a chance to eventually take the stronger unit down.
But with the new system, you would hardly make any damage to a stronger unit, even with stacks.
And one word to probabilities: Someone mentioned the chance of a fortified spear on a hill against a tank were 5 %, and that this was impossible.
I say : Impossible is only a probability of 0 %!
A probability of 5% means, that statistically it will happen every 20th fight! So, there's no problem with the RNG if from time to time a tank looses against a spearman.
But I'm too in the favor of the 'double the hp's ' idea!

 

[Masquerouge]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
What has been explained by Firaxis is to take the average of four rolls instead of the one. That means that the number will come much closer to 0.5, than before. I don't see what uncertaincy there is.

And how can you be certain, before you actually test the Beta patch, that they told us all, or that there won't be another post by a Firaxian saying "wait guys, actually it's this...", or "It's not exactly that, in fact..." ?

It's ironic because actually
1. from what I've read coming from Firaxian, I think the change is not good.
2. I think also that people have correctly interpreted what the change will result in.

But I 'm just saying that we won't be 100% sure before the beta patch come out, and that there's no need to shout and scream at Firaxis until then.

 

[Gen]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne

Once again (I answered this in the other thread too). There is not defender roll, and there has never been. First the defender's chance of winning is calculated (say 0.33), then one attacker roll is made. If this roll between 0 and 1 is larger than 0.33 the attacker takes a HP from the defender - if not, the defender takes one from the attacker.
What has been explained by Firaxis is to take the average of four rolls instead of the one. That means that the number will come much closer to 0.5, than before. I don't see what uncertaincy there is.

Yes, this has been indeed explained by Firaxis that way. But you forget a bit earlier they explained combat engine change quite differently (with draw possibilities). Now, which explanation was correct? First one? Second? Neither? That is the whole uncertaincy Masquerouge is talking about.
You are of course right about how the combat will work but only if the last word Firaxians gave us is true. That may be... uncertain

Edit: cross-posted with Masquerouge...

 

[padlock]

The people who are claiming that the only effect of this change will be to make the game less random and more strategic are missing the point.

If I were to attack a unit whose modified defense value was twice my attack value, I would expect to loose twice as often as I win. That's exactly what happens with the current combat model, with the clarification that this applies not for the combat on a whole, but for an individual round (ie. hit point). This means that if both units start off with 4 hit points, I would expect, on average, for my attacking unit to loose the battle but damge the defender 2 hit points. It would therefore take me an average of 2 attackers to defeat the defender. This is very intuitive since I'm attacking a unit which is twice as strong, and therefore I require twice as many units.

With the new combat system however, I would on average only do 1 hit point of damage for every 2 attackers I loose. That means that I would now need 8 attackers to destroy a defender which is twice as strong.

Now some would argue that there's nothing wrong with this, but I believe that the entire game has been balanced to work the way it currently does, the intuitive way. This change would completely shift the game away from attempting to maintain a delicate balance between increasing production capacity and technological level, to becoming simply a tech race. It would also make it entirely useless to ever build anything other then the units with the best attack/defense strength. Why bother building units which are faster, or slightly cheaper, if they now have disadvantages which are hugely disproportionate to what the original design of the game had intended.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Masquerouge
It's ironic because actually
1. from what I've read coming from Firaxian, I think the change is not good.
2. I think also that people have correctly interpreted what the change will result in.

But I 'm just saying that we won't be 100% sure before the beta patch come out, and that there's no need to shout and scream at Firaxis until then.

I agree with everything you write, except your last line: "and that there's no need to shout and scream at Firaxis until then."

I think there's need to do so - if we don't, we risk having to choose between horrible corruption and GPT bug or horrible combat. If we misunderstood, and Firaxis actually planned something sensible, then there's little harm in showing Firaxis that we care, is it

 

[Master Shake]

I'll probably get razzed for this but I often think I would enjoy playing a "diceless" version of the game. Where the results are one hundred percent predictable. (Diceless combat, not SGL generation etc.)

-mS

 

[Qitai]

The impact of the change is great. But not necessarily bad I think. It reduces randomness of battle. Is it bad? Well, I guess it really depends on if you like an element of "luck" in the game or a more predictable result.

But it will not reduce complains I think. There will always be the uninitiated who will, in future, see their 50 medieval swordmens losing to one spearman fortified in a fortress on a Mountain. And they will say it is impossible, although the new calculator would probably say that is very likely to happen.

The TNO or it should be labelled the "level of randomness in battle" would be the best of both world where you can determine the level of randomness in your own game. This way, both camps are happy.

 

[Sandman2003]

Originally posted by Master Shake
I'll probably get razzed for this but I often think I would enjoy playing a "diceless" version of the game. Where the results are one hundred percent predictable. (Diceless combat, not SGL generation etc.)

-mS

Interesting concept, however real combat is not that predictable now is it?

 

[warren peace]

I think we should give the combat changes a chance before we knock them.

In my playing of C3C I definitely have noticed that combat appears "streaky". It seems that far too frequently an elite unit with 5 HP will be destroyed attacking a weaker unit, with the weaker unit not losing a single hit point. On the coverse side I have also seen too frequently an entrenched defender get eliminated with the attacker not losing a point. I almost get the feeling that the algorithem for random number generation favors having runs of small or large numbers together and this accounts for this behavior.

By averaging four rolls instead of one, it will reduce the variance of the distribution of the random number generator. A key feature of the random number generator is its variance. Two different algorithems could result in a mean number generated of 0.5 but the SD of the distributions could be very different. By using four rolls you are essentially "tightening up" the bell shaped curve.

However, I do agree that the overall effect of this change will be to reduce the "luck" factor in each individual combat. Also, while it is true that the odds of "eliminating" a unit in an unequal situation may be reduced (attacker weaker than defender), the chance of the attacker being eliminated without causing any damage is actually be reduced. So I am not convinced this will have a dramatic effect on gameplay at all.

Warren