Isak
Civ4 Scenario Designer
Not razzed, just gently nodded in the direction of hardcore wargames.
Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice
- Thread starter Tavis
- Start date
Not razzed, just gently nodded in the direction of hardcore wargames.
Masquerouge
Deity
Originally posted by TheNiceOne
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
Oh yes, there's need to do so, I'll scream and shoot allright if things go wrong, BUT once the beta has started, because that's what a Beta's for
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Whoa, this thread grew fast!
I'm not going to read thru all fourteen(!) pages ATM, but I just wanted to say that I, too, am highly concerned about the advertized combat resolution change. Others have already detailed just how huge it is; humongous.
So, any Firaxian who might be reading this, if you indeed implement it, PLEASE make it optional. I'd like to be able to play with the corruption bug fixed without having the combat system changed beyond all recognition.
In addition, if it's not all too much, I'd like to think of the reasoning behind chosing this particular solution to the "streak" problem (I don't think it needs fixing, but that's another story); I can easily think of several more transparent ways of doing it, which would require less number crunching to boot. The only "advantage" of the present scheme I can think of is that it preserves outward appearances (ie, no changes in unit stats), but when the underlaying structure changes, I want outward appearances to follow suit.
I'm not going to read thru all fourteen(!) pages ATM, but I just wanted to say that I, too, am highly concerned about the advertized combat resolution change. Others have already detailed just how huge it is; humongous.
So, any Firaxian who might be reading this, if you indeed implement it, PLEASE make it optional. I'd like to be able to play with the corruption bug fixed without having the combat system changed beyond all recognition.
In addition, if it's not all too much, I'd like to think of the reasoning behind chosing this particular solution to the "streak" problem (I don't think it needs fixing, but that's another story); I can easily think of several more transparent ways of doing it, which would require less number crunching to boot. The only "advantage" of the present scheme I can think of is that it preserves outward appearances (ie, no changes in unit stats), but when the underlaying structure changes, I want outward appearances to follow suit.
Just to follow up on what I said above, if reducing the amount of luck in the game is interpreted as acheiving the expected results more frequently, as opposed to skewing the statistical distribution so that the stronger unit wins a disproportionate amount of time, then the new combat method doesn't achieve that at all.
Instead, take a look at my example above and imagine that each unit had 40 hit points as opposed to 4. It would still take on average 2 units to defeat a unit which is twice as strong... the intuitive result. The only change would be that it would far more often take exactly 2 units, as opposed to 1 or 3 or 4. This would reduce the "random" element without grossly affecting the balance of the game by changing each units relative value, the way the proposed system would do.
You know, I would actually prefer this to the proposed combat system, however not with the rule that the stronger unit always wins with no damage. Instead, I'd like to see the stronger unit win but take an amount of damage proportional to the difference in combat strenght. For example if unit with an attack of 3 attacks a defender with a (modified) defense of 1, I would like to see the attacker win and take a 33% hit point hit. The only thing is that because CIV3 has so few hit points per unit, the rounding errors would be to big, so they'd have to multiply all hit points by 10 or so.
In any case, the new combat rules are still awfull and game unbalancing
Ebomb808
Chieftain
After reading the statistical analysis from all of you and being a Electrical Engineer PHD with an emphaiss in statistics i completely agree that the change from one roll to four will increase the probability of the unit with higher value to win. However all this complaining that the game is going to be ruined is inaccurate and wrong.
Argument: The loss of randomness will narrow strategy because you are eliminating some of the randomness in battle.
This effectively make strategy broaden. Now instead of the same strategy that all these deity players are upset about having to change, i.e. building a ton of units and overwhelming the opponet no matter the tech gap, will need to be altered. Forgotten units and improvements like Catapults, Cannons, City Walls will all become necessary elements depending on where you stand in the tech race. Instead of just marching 40 swords at the enemy you might need to build 15 catapults to make the odds better for your attacking swords to win. To me the fact that combat was so random was an exploit used by players to win on the harder difficulty levels (Notice that these are players with the loudest complaints). No more building huge armies and forgetting about the tech race. Diplomacy, Espionage also become much more important to choose your targets in war more effectively.
To me the game just became much more historically accurate. And will be much more enjoyable. Thank You Firaxis for truly improving the game, now instead of sending 30 knights at a stack of rifleman i will realize that they will be shot down like they would be on a real battlefield.
Argument: The loss of randomness will narrow strategy because you are eliminating some of the randomness in battle.
This effectively make strategy broaden. Now instead of the same strategy that all these deity players are upset about having to change, i.e. building a ton of units and overwhelming the opponet no matter the tech gap, will need to be altered. Forgotten units and improvements like Catapults, Cannons, City Walls will all become necessary elements depending on where you stand in the tech race. Instead of just marching 40 swords at the enemy you might need to build 15 catapults to make the odds better for your attacking swords to win. To me the fact that combat was so random was an exploit used by players to win on the harder difficulty levels (Notice that these are players with the loudest complaints). No more building huge armies and forgetting about the tech race. Diplomacy, Espionage also become much more important to choose your targets in war more effectively.
To me the game just became much more historically accurate. And will be much more enjoyable. Thank You Firaxis for truly improving the game, now instead of sending 30 knights at a stack of rifleman i will realize that they will be shot down like they would be on a real battlefield.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
One thing that we really need fixed (and we were told it was fixed in PTW1.27 and then C3C) is the PBEM LOAD BUG.
I know this post will get hidden in the millions of emails about the new combat system, but it is very important to remove a glaring and game-killing bug. Please add this to the patch - some of us PBEM'ers feel we have been forgotten forever.
I know this post will get hidden in the millions of emails about the new combat system, but it is very important to remove a glaring and game-killing bug. Please add this to the patch - some of us PBEM'ers feel we have been forgotten forever.
anarres, you might want to make that request in
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71487
which is a thread started by Tavis to ask for other improvements/bug fixes people want and is much less congested with traffic. It'll be easier to find there (and might even be more appropriate there).
Arathorn
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71487
which is a thread started by Tavis to ask for other improvements/bug fixes people want and is much less congested with traffic. It'll be easier to find there (and might even be more appropriate there).
Arathorn
Ozymandous
Prince
Umm, WTH would you have an unfortified spearman facing a swordsman in open terrain ANYWAY??
Add the 50% bonus from the spearman being in a walled town or on any terrain other than open plains or grassland and see what your results will be!
Face it, if you're leaving unfortified spearmen to face swordsmen on open terrain you have more than the combat calculations to worry about; you need to learn to use more tactical sense in picking your fights. You may need to learn to play the game better as well but that's beside the point.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Ebomb808: While what you say has some merit, those forty Swordsmen are a poor example; since the defender they're going to face most frequently is a Spearman fortified in a city on open ground (effective defense 2.7), they're actually going to win more and under the old system. Quite noticeably more, infact.
Also, I'd like to hear the reasoning about Catapults, Cannons and City Walls becoming more important. So, why not make the opposite case:
Taking cities defended by spears with swords just got easier; less need to bring along catapults.
On the higher levels, you're unlikely to get Cannons long before the AI gets Riflemen, and a Rifleman fortified in a city defends at 11.1 minimum; higher than a Cannon's bombard strength. Ergo, Cannons just lost some of their offensive potential.
Hm, I can't offhand think of any way in which the new system decreases the effectiveness of city walls. But I leave explaining how they got more effective to you!
And the human player consistently outnumbering the AI on deity is hardly an issue; anyone who can achieve that deserves to win.
And I heartily disagree about increased realism! Forget about units from different tech levels - the big change here is the reshaping of the matchups between contemporary units, like the abovementioned Swordsman/Spearman issue. And charging knights into pike blocks in open terrain just became a noticeably better idea.
Also, I'd like to hear the reasoning about Catapults, Cannons and City Walls becoming more important. So, why not make the opposite case:
Taking cities defended by spears with swords just got easier; less need to bring along catapults.
On the higher levels, you're unlikely to get Cannons long before the AI gets Riflemen, and a Rifleman fortified in a city defends at 11.1 minimum; higher than a Cannon's bombard strength. Ergo, Cannons just lost some of their offensive potential.
Hm, I can't offhand think of any way in which the new system decreases the effectiveness of city walls. But I leave explaining how they got more effective to you!
And the human player consistently outnumbering the AI on deity is hardly an issue; anyone who can achieve that deserves to win.
And I heartily disagree about increased realism! Forget about units from different tech levels - the big change here is the reshaping of the matchups between contemporary units, like the abovementioned Swordsman/Spearman issue. And charging knights into pike blocks in open terrain just became a noticeably better idea.
Masquerouge
Deity
Mmh yes I really hope it works that way !
Charis
Realms Beyond
Some comments on recent posts...
padlock makes a very good point on the 'intuitiveness' of the attack/defense values, in that now a 2 unit hitting a 4 unit will lose about twice as many hp's as it gives. One had to make a mental adjustment for terrain, but you didn't need a computer to know what your chances were. The loss of intuitiveness is a good point, and not an insignificant problem.
Masquerouge... I'm just not seeing the yelling and screaming you're talking about. Knowledgeable folks are making the effort to make sure that people understand the magnitude/impact of the proposed new combat system. People are expressing 'concern' here much more than ranting -- this thread is surprisingly civil compared to many other bulletin boards I've seen
Ebomb808 makes a point I agree with that strategy won't go away and that new strats will evolve. But the comments on higher diff players seem a bit off. Cats, cannons, city walls, bombing and terrain are not at all "forgotten" elements, they're the bread and butter of the advanced player. Marching 40 swords at an enemy? On Deity with the number of cities you can found before the AI has grabbed everything in sight you'll never see this many, or by the time you did the AI would have muskets. Combat and warfare by top players on highest difficulty level is never a matter of superior numbers! Nor would such a player ever wait until his expected foe got to Nationalism to attack with Knights. This is a strawman. The need for tech and diplomacy will not increase, rather the number of valid options other than beeline mil tradition will decrease. Finally, if the best players around are the ones showing concern over a change, I would be prone to listen. (Although again, their tone has not been one I would characterize as 'loud complaining') Read one of the succession games played on deity lvl and you'll see the strategy and finessed us is far more important than overwhelming numbers. The issue we're raising is that such skill will not be enough when faced a technologically superior foe, but we'll need to increase our production by a factor of about 3 to be able to make the same gains -- and I'll tell you, that factor of 3 is just not there to be had.
The very fact that there are dozens of players saying this change is "no big deal" shows precisely why some of us are making the effort to demonstrate mathematically the impact of the changes. An excellent programmer is one who understands the desired effect well, writes logical code, tests, and has a keen eye for game balance. Most however don't have a PhD level grasp of statistics, nor do they have the time to play a wide assortment of diety level games to fully know the full impact of proposed changes. (That combination of skill and interest is for nutcases )
Perhaps the suggestion of leaving it an option for changing would be good. Mike B is our INI friend -- perhaps ROLLSTOAVG could be an option in the INI file? Default it as you wish, but setting it to 1 gives old-style combat, =4 gives the steeper combat described (and heck, setting it to 100 gives nearly 100% deterministic outcomes for the few people asking for that). In fact, is there any reason why for the sake of the beta you couldn't do that, even if it were removed from the final patch? That way the more rabid elements of the fanbase could do some rather extensive testing
I'll finish by reiterating my thanks to Firaxis for both their committment to a quality game and for making the effort to keep the gaming community informed. I look forward to the beta with whatever changes it has/doesn't have
Charis
padlock makes a very good point on the 'intuitiveness' of the attack/defense values, in that now a 2 unit hitting a 4 unit will lose about twice as many hp's as it gives. One had to make a mental adjustment for terrain, but you didn't need a computer to know what your chances were. The loss of intuitiveness is a good point, and not an insignificant problem.
Masquerouge... I'm just not seeing the yelling and screaming you're talking about. Knowledgeable folks are making the effort to make sure that people understand the magnitude/impact of the proposed new combat system. People are expressing 'concern' here much more than ranting -- this thread is surprisingly civil compared to many other bulletin boards I've seen
Ebomb808 makes a point I agree with that strategy won't go away and that new strats will evolve. But the comments on higher diff players seem a bit off. Cats, cannons, city walls, bombing and terrain are not at all "forgotten" elements, they're the bread and butter of the advanced player. Marching 40 swords at an enemy? On Deity with the number of cities you can found before the AI has grabbed everything in sight you'll never see this many, or by the time you did the AI would have muskets. Combat and warfare by top players on highest difficulty level is never a matter of superior numbers! Nor would such a player ever wait until his expected foe got to Nationalism to attack with Knights. This is a strawman. The need for tech and diplomacy will not increase, rather the number of valid options other than beeline mil tradition will decrease. Finally, if the best players around are the ones showing concern over a change, I would be prone to listen. (Although again, their tone has not been one I would characterize as 'loud complaining') Read one of the succession games played on deity lvl and you'll see the strategy and finessed us is far more important than overwhelming numbers. The issue we're raising is that such skill will not be enough when faced a technologically superior foe, but we'll need to increase our production by a factor of about 3 to be able to make the same gains -- and I'll tell you, that factor of 3 is just not there to be had.
The very fact that there are dozens of players saying this change is "no big deal" shows precisely why some of us are making the effort to demonstrate mathematically the impact of the changes. An excellent programmer is one who understands the desired effect well, writes logical code, tests, and has a keen eye for game balance. Most however don't have a PhD level grasp of statistics, nor do they have the time to play a wide assortment of diety level games to fully know the full impact of proposed changes. (That combination of skill and interest is for nutcases
)Perhaps the suggestion of leaving it an option for changing would be good. Mike B is our INI friend -- perhaps ROLLSTOAVG could be an option in the INI file? Default it as you wish, but setting it to 1 gives old-style combat, =4 gives the steeper combat described (and heck, setting it to 100 gives nearly 100% deterministic outcomes for the few people asking for that). In fact, is there any reason why for the sake of the beta you couldn't do that, even if it were removed from the final patch? That way the more rabid elements of the fanbase could do some rather extensive testing
I'll finish by reiterating my thanks to Firaxis for both their committment to a quality game and for making the effort to keep the gaming community informed. I look forward to the beta with whatever changes it has/doesn't have
Charis
Slax
Prince
Is it statistically possible to get the average of 1 and a half random values?
Ebomb808
Chieftain
Taking cities defended by spears with swords just got easier; less need to bring along catapults.
Here is a definitely a way where city walls become more effective. You might need to build them to help a city that is on a flatland. Also defending catapults also might become more beneficial with the increased effectiveness of swords in this situation. Both were something that under the current rules were my lowest build priority, and that changing might be good.
On the higher levels, you're unlikely to get Cannons long before the AI gets Riflemen, and a Rifleman fortified in a city defends at 11.1 minimum; higher than a Cannon's bombard strength. Ergo, Cannons just lost some of their offensive potential.
I have used cannons effectively vs. Fortified Rifleman. This will become a larger focus if my offensive units are less effective, as will frigate and ironclad bombardment as well.
And the human player consistently outnumbering the AI on deity is hardly an issue; anyone who can achieve that deserves to win.
Agreed if you can consistently outnumber the AI during each Age you definitely deserve to win.
And I heartily disagree about increased realism! Forget about units from different tech levels - the big change here is the reshaping of the matchups between contemporary units, like the abovementioned Swordsman/Spearman issue. And charging knights into pike blocks in open terrain just became a noticeably better idea.
I think this change only reinforces how important territory is, A spearman on flatland will lose more often. However a spearman on hill or in a jungle is still quite the force if not more. Doesn't this scream more strategy, every move will be important because ending a turn on different terrain is the difference between life and death for each unit.
Here is a definitely a way where city walls become more effective. You might need to build them to help a city that is on a flatland. Also defending catapults also might become more beneficial with the increased effectiveness of swords in this situation. Both were something that under the current rules were my lowest build priority, and that changing might be good.
On the higher levels, you're unlikely to get Cannons long before the AI gets Riflemen, and a Rifleman fortified in a city defends at 11.1 minimum; higher than a Cannon's bombard strength. Ergo, Cannons just lost some of their offensive potential.
I have used cannons effectively vs. Fortified Rifleman. This will become a larger focus if my offensive units are less effective, as will frigate and ironclad bombardment as well.
And the human player consistently outnumbering the AI on deity is hardly an issue; anyone who can achieve that deserves to win.
Agreed if you can consistently outnumber the AI during each Age you definitely deserve to win.
And I heartily disagree about increased realism! Forget about units from different tech levels - the big change here is the reshaping of the matchups between contemporary units, like the abovementioned Swordsman/Spearman issue. And charging knights into pike blocks in open terrain just became a noticeably better idea.
I think this change only reinforces how important territory is, A spearman on flatland will lose more often. However a spearman on hill or in a jungle is still quite the force if not more. Doesn't this scream more strategy, every move will be important because ending a turn on different terrain is the difference between life and death for each unit.
DaviddesJ
Deity
While I do like the idea of making AI defense a bit stronger, overall I think the described combat mod is a pretty bad idea. If the goal is to make the AI stronger, a better way to do it would be to just add a multiplier that applies to AI combat values (both attack and defense). Then you could set this at 1.1 or 1.2 or whatever. And I think I agree that making combat much more predictable (i.e., the stronger unit wins much more consistently) will reduce the range of strategies, by forcing players to build only the units with the highest A and D values.
Ebomb808
Chieftain
I completely understand your point of view. It is very difficult especially with these rules to compete with an AI that has a large technology gap. But isn't this Historically accurate. Shouldn't it be very difficult to defeat a Foe that is more advanced than you. I know that is difficult to win the tech race on deity and above, but not impossible. Its not that you will need to be ahead, you just need to keep pace. With the introduction of SGL's, elimination of MGL's great wonder rushing, minimum research gambit to 50 turns, and now this proposed combat change, i think Firaxis is trying to make it so you can't ignore the tech race. Definitely tough to swallow if you are strictly a Warmonger. But i would say its more fun and challenging to try and adapt, then complain for the status quo.
CenturionV
Warrior Forever
I don't know why so many people are worried about these changes? Civ has is finally getting rid of a problem i've hated ever since i played my first game of civ 1, There is NO chance at ALL EVER of a spearman even damageing a tank, or even a geurilla its just inpossible, thats why even the poorest countries DO NOT use hand to hand weapons, it would be a slaughter EVERY time not 1 man on the high tech side would die.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
CenturionV: You are realizing that this won't solve the Tank-losing-to-Spearman problem, only make it less common?
Ebomb808: We've all used Cannons against fortified Riflemen. It's just that that tactic just got less effective. Of course, charging them with Cav also got less attractive, so I'll have to see it in game 'fore I can tell how the new system redefines the balance at that point.
I'll just forget about bombarding Riflemen with Frigates; the chance of hitting was abysmal before; now it's started digging.
To the point I was discussing, namely realism, it's immaterial if the changed Pike/Knight matchup leads to more interesting strategic decisions, altho I doubt it does.
DaviddesJ: I doubt the idea was strengthening the AI; it basically helps the more technologically advanced side, and on the lower and middle levels that's frequently the human.
Ebomb808: We've all used Cannons against fortified Riflemen. It's just that that tactic just got less effective. Of course, charging them with Cav also got less attractive, so I'll have to see it in game 'fore I can tell how the new system redefines the balance at that point.
I'll just forget about bombarding Riflemen with Frigates; the chance of hitting was abysmal before; now it's started digging.
To the point I was discussing, namely realism, it's immaterial if the changed Pike/Knight matchup leads to more interesting strategic decisions, altho I doubt it does.
DaviddesJ: I doubt the idea was strengthening the AI; it basically helps the more technologically advanced side, and on the lower and middle levels that's frequently the human.
Similar threads
