We are talking about gameplay CenturionV... To hell with reality!!! 
Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice
- Thread starter Tavis
- Start date
I agree this is a hokey improvement that won't give its intended results.
I betcha General Custer wish he would have had 4 chances not to get smacked down.
That is just how battles are sometimes won, the winner wins because of some fluke of chance. That chance doesn't exist any longer if this takes effect.
Park Ranger
Wonder hog
First off, I'm delighted to hear that the BETA patch will address the gpt and corruption issues. I also really like the map generator seed feature. If I understand correctly then I will be able to restart games on the same map while changing the difficulty (among other things).
But this new combat calculator thing...makes me nervous. I recall the last days I played CIV II, which used a complicated system of HP, firepower, and muliple rollls to determine combat outcomes. Gave us very predictable reults, it did. Tech advantage was everything. IIRC, a single fortified rifleman could hold off a dozen or more knights if behind walls or in the mountains. Maybe realistic, but the play in CIV II was basically the more advanced (technologically) civ always won.
With CIV III some streakiness was brought back in, but the HP aspect mitigates the randomness somewhat . Indeed, sometimes HP is more important to consider than actual A/D values. Just take the Ancient Cavs produced by the SoZ wonder. Same stats as the Celtic Sword, but the extra HP puts them in another league.
I'm pretty good with maths but I'm having trouble with one thing: does it make a difference if the combat calculator, when using those four random numbers, averages the numbers themselves or just averages the results (ie: w,w,l,w = W) when determining the outcome for each 'hit' ? I can see how averaging the numbers themselves skews probabilities, but does the same hold true if only the result (ie w or l) is averaged?
In any case, I dislike the idea of having to use a calculator to understand my chances in battle. When the civilopedia says that mountains confer a 100% defense bonus, I want to be able to account for that in my tactics. I can add these bonuses up in my head and then compare the HP of the two units to get an idea of what my chances are, then decide how much bombardment to use, etc.
But if a warrior vs warrior on flat terrain is not 1:1 (or 1.1), I'd like to see that reflected in the A/D values and not have to call up Alexman's new calculator.
But this new combat calculator thing...makes me nervous. I recall the last days I played CIV II, which used a complicated system of HP, firepower, and muliple rollls to determine combat outcomes. Gave us very predictable reults, it did. Tech advantage was everything. IIRC, a single fortified rifleman could hold off a dozen or more knights if behind walls or in the mountains. Maybe realistic, but the play in CIV II was basically the more advanced (technologically) civ always won.
With CIV III some streakiness was brought back in, but the HP aspect mitigates the randomness somewhat . Indeed, sometimes HP is more important to consider than actual A/D values. Just take the Ancient Cavs produced by the SoZ wonder. Same stats as the Celtic Sword, but the extra HP puts them in another league.
I'm pretty good with maths but I'm having trouble with one thing: does it make a difference if the combat calculator, when using those four random numbers, averages the numbers themselves or just averages the results (ie: w,w,l,w = W) when determining the outcome for each 'hit' ? I can see how averaging the numbers themselves skews probabilities, but does the same hold true if only the result (ie w or l) is averaged?
In any case, I dislike the idea of having to use a calculator to understand my chances in battle. When the civilopedia says that mountains confer a 100% defense bonus, I want to be able to account for that in my tactics. I can add these bonuses up in my head and then compare the HP of the two units to get an idea of what my chances are, then decide how much bombardment to use, etc.
But if a warrior vs warrior on flat terrain is not 1:1 (or 1.1), I'd like to see that reflected in the A/D values and not have to call up Alexman's new calculator.
Ozymandous
Prince
Ah, have you ever played anything beyond Regent difficulty? It's not uncommon to have the AI be far ahead when playing Deity or Sid level.
Bam-Bam
Hammerhead
IMO--this is the correct way to address whatever streakiness is perceived in the pRNG. Of course, then there is the issue of how to visualize 40hp, or to fairly represent it as 1-4 hp (round, truncate, etc.) Perhaps the game could even keep track of the exact number (0-40) and then only display 1-4. That would certainly put another wrinkle into combat; i.e., how healthy ARE my troops....which would not necessarily be a bad thing.
Ozymandous
Prince
Looks like some people will have to start using more catapults, trebuchet's, cannon and artillery to make the odd's still 4 HP vs. 1 HP to make the odd's better. I know you (Charis), Arathorn, T-Hawk, etc know to use artillery-type units but it seems a tad silly to run all these numbers asuming it will always be "1 unforitified spear on open terrain vs. one swordsman" as some people seem to base their entire opinion of "the system is broke" on.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Well, the current graphics handles up to ~20 HP fine, and that's already the CivII level of combat predictiveness for post-gundpowder units.
What ought to be done if the HP totals are increased is having multiple "HP loss rounds" for each "Animation round" of combat; if we, say trebled the HP counts, we should how three HP rounds resolved durin one round of animations. I've tested a couple of double HP mods, and those extra combat rounds do add up.
What ought to be done if the HP totals are increased is having multiple "HP loss rounds" for each "Animation round" of combat; if we, say trebled the HP counts, we should how three HP rounds resolved durin one round of animations. I've tested a couple of double HP mods, and those extra combat rounds do add up.
Justus II
General Staff
Will bombardment use the same 4-roll process? If so, then bombarding units will become less effective, not more. As it is now, bombardment units tend to work best in stacks, because of the miss rate, chance of hitting population/buildings, etc. IIRC, the base bombard defense for buildings/citizens is 16, meaning the chances for even artillery to score hits will diminish, and Cannons and below will rapidly approach zero. Even defensive units fortified in cities frequently have a better (modified) defense strength than the bombard units, which will only be exacerbated by this new system.
Bam-Bam
Hammerhead
Now wait a minute, Ozy--further pushing the reliance on artillery (which the AI does not use effectively) is not a game balancing option. To me, the downside to this is that there is more likelihood that use of fast units in the pre-tank world will be severely degraded.
The game balance for combat is pretty good--perhaps a MINOR tweak or two. In fact, upping the hp by a factor of 10 is also not balancing. Perhaps by a factor of 2-4, but that remains to be seen. The fact that the proposed mod (as we understand it based on Firaxis' statements) is such a MAJOR change is what worries me the most.
The game balance for combat is pretty good--perhaps a MINOR tweak or two. In fact, upping the hp by a factor of 10 is also not balancing. Perhaps by a factor of 2-4, but that remains to be seen. The fact that the proposed mod (as we understand it based on Firaxis' statements) is such a MAJOR change is what worries me the most.
DaviddesJ
Deity
It seems irrelevant whether the AI is stronger or weaker at the "lower and middle levels". I certainly don't care one way or the other. But I'd guess most players playing at these levels would like the game to be easier, and aren't likely to adopt strategies like rushing a few strong units with several weaker ones anyway (nor are they going to need to), so I doubt there will be any adverse effect from their POV.
I'm personally only thinking about what happens at Deity-plus, or in MP play, as that's all that really matters to me.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
But the game designers were presumably thinking of all levels!
I am, BTW, myself one of those players who play "lower and middle" levels (monarch/emperor), and I fairly frequently throw outdated units at modern ones, for the simple reason it works. But as I've stated repeatedly, I don't primarily care about the matchups across tech levels, but within tech levels. The new system is, for instance, on the whole going to strengthen the defender, because a fortified defensive unit in a city typically has a higher effective defense factor that the attack factor of a contemporary offensive unit.
Oh, and I certainly don't want the game to be any easier; in my ideal world, the AI would be clever enough that Regent gave a good challenge.
I am, BTW, myself one of those players who play "lower and middle" levels (monarch/emperor), and I fairly frequently throw outdated units at modern ones, for the simple reason it works. But as I've stated repeatedly, I don't primarily care about the matchups across tech levels, but within tech levels. The new system is, for instance, on the whole going to strengthen the defender, because a fortified defensive unit in a city typically has a higher effective defense factor that the attack factor of a contemporary offensive unit.
Oh, and I certainly don't want the game to be any easier; in my ideal world, the AI would be clever enough that Regent gave a good challenge.
barron of ideas
Barron
I am looking forward to the change in combat, not just because it validates my choice of Persians as the civilization of choice, but because of the opportunity to learn a new style of play.
Pick hilltops for your town sites. build baracks first (or at least early) so your units will have 4 hit points. Build catapults, etc with bombardment ability. Before you can do that (Math is expensive) think about archers as part of a garrison as they have defensive fire somewhat like a cat.
Building all one type of troop may not be a good idea anymore, if it ever was. Combined arms is going to be big. Unless you have an uber-type with more hit points and especially higher offense number than the defender. Example, Cav versus spear/pike, Tank versus rifles.
Walls become more important expecially on the edges of empires where the towns are less likely to be size 7+ or 13+ with their accompanying higher defensive bonus. The Great Wall stops being a consolation prize for losing a better wonder.
Playing Island maps will be more popular so not every AI will be able to exploit their higher attack unit at your expense, if all you can build is spearmen.
Persians, Greeks and Romans will be the civilizations to play or avoid if you want a real challenge. Diety playeers may have to step down a level and play on reasonable levels with the rest of us if they want to win.
No-one but the very best will even consider SID. Sudden Death (not sure what to do with the I. Sudden Ignoble Death? Now there will be holes too deep to dig your way out of.
Reload and play another game if you don't find Iron? Saltpeter? Some days you are the tank, some days the spearman. Somehow I am the spearman more than the tank.
Pick hilltops for your town sites. build baracks first (or at least early) so your units will have 4 hit points. Build catapults, etc with bombardment ability. Before you can do that (Math is expensive) think about archers as part of a garrison as they have defensive fire somewhat like a cat.
Building all one type of troop may not be a good idea anymore, if it ever was. Combined arms is going to be big. Unless you have an uber-type with more hit points and especially higher offense number than the defender. Example, Cav versus spear/pike, Tank versus rifles.
Walls become more important expecially on the edges of empires where the towns are less likely to be size 7+ or 13+ with their accompanying higher defensive bonus. The Great Wall stops being a consolation prize for losing a better wonder.
Playing Island maps will be more popular so not every AI will be able to exploit their higher attack unit at your expense, if all you can build is spearmen.
Persians, Greeks and Romans will be the civilizations to play or avoid if you want a real challenge. Diety playeers may have to step down a level and play on reasonable levels with the rest of us if they want to win.
No-one but the very best will even consider SID. Sudden Death (not sure what to do with the I. Sudden Ignoble Death? Now there will be holes too deep to dig your way out of.
Reload and play another game if you don't find Iron? Saltpeter? Some days you are the tank, some days the spearman. Somehow I am the spearman more than the tank.
Ozymandous
Prince
You were offended because I said if you have an unfortified spearman in open terrain vs. a swordsman you need to learn to play the game?
Grow a little thicker skin? I don't think I have faced the situation you were so "worried" about since my second game of Civ3 about a year ago. Using terrain and "artillery" type units helps a lot, too bad more people don't understand that.
Do people really want a unit initially available having a 66% chance to take out an attacking cavalry? (hoplite, fortified in a town on a hill with walls or in a city) So much for any offense in the game at all, just about. Unless you're lucky enough to get an immortal army vs. spears. Changes strategy to luck, from what I'm seeing.
In regards to artillery, while currently the expected value for the number of artillery to redline two fortified infantry in a metro on flatlands is 15, which I find reasonable, I'd hate to lug the 36 that would be required under the new system (assuming artillery fire counts as one attack getting 4 averaged rolls AND that the second round hits 1/2 the time if the first does).
Civ2 was all about tech. Civ3 is all about options -- but that might be changing.
Arathorn
In regards to artillery, while currently the expected value for the number of artillery to redline two fortified infantry in a metro on flatlands is 15, which I find reasonable, I'd hate to lug the 36 that would be required under the new system (assuming artillery fire counts as one attack getting 4 averaged rolls AND that the second round hits 1/2 the time if the first does).
Civ2 was all about tech. Civ3 is all about options -- but that might be changing.
Arathorn
Ozymandous
Prince
My comment was in response to all the calculations being run assuming both units have 4 HP. If the opposing unit only has 1 HP then the odd's aren't that much different than now, assuming the "math guru's" are correct, and I have little reason to doubt they are wrong.
If the AI doesn't use artillery well then I guess they will be easier to defeat, correct? Simply hold up inside your city, wait for them to lose all their attacking units then go slaughter them. (/tongue in cheek)
In any event, I was simply trying to provide an answer to all the "4 vs 4" examples given as if there was NO way in the game currently to get a unit below 4 HP, which some seem to overlook.
barron of ideas
Barron
It will be a different game, Arathorn. You will learn to love it. Or not. Change is the iron law of life. You adjust, and then you die.
It will be different, if getting to Mil Trad is the only way to go, or if people get concerned about defense and cavalry have no chance any more. I am not sure which to expect, so lets try it and figure out how to handle the change to machine gus, trenches and gas warfare. Its about to be WW! instead of WW2 and blitzkrieg. Maybe. I like the idea of hoplites holding off Cavalry, but then, I am maybe more of a builder. What you can't take in a direct offensive, maybe you can take by being sneaky. Air combat is supposed to be a lot more intense and have more options. Maybe I will get to it, instead of winning or losing in the Cavalry age.
Farmers gambits may still be the way to go, later converting your paper cutouts to the best defenders you can, so diplomacy becomes more important, and cultural victory (city flips) a big, big deal. I don't know I will like it, but I am willing to try. If I have to play on a lower level, it isn't the end of the world. I am pretty sure I can win on Chieftan, even with the new combat system.
It will be different, if getting to Mil Trad is the only way to go, or if people get concerned about defense and cavalry have no chance any more. I am not sure which to expect, so lets try it and figure out how to handle the change to machine gus, trenches and gas warfare. Its about to be WW! instead of WW2 and blitzkrieg. Maybe. I like the idea of hoplites holding off Cavalry, but then, I am maybe more of a builder. What you can't take in a direct offensive, maybe you can take by being sneaky. Air combat is supposed to be a lot more intense and have more options. Maybe I will get to it, instead of winning or losing in the Cavalry age.
Farmers gambits may still be the way to go, later converting your paper cutouts to the best defenders you can, so diplomacy becomes more important, and cultural victory (city flips) a big, big deal. I don't know I will like it, but I am willing to try. If I have to play on a lower level, it isn't the end of the world. I am pretty sure I can win on Chieftan, even with the new combat system.
You don't get it do you? I was merely doing a comparison of stats. I wasn't worried at all about the specific situation.
I could have chosen a Spearman defending in a walled town on a hill instead (defense 4.5), vs a Swordsman. In that situation the Swordsman had a good chance before, now he will have a lot less chance.
Hmm...the entire game decided on the starting location because all that matters is how much land I can acquire peacefully. 4-turn settler factor = victory, no 4-turn settler factory = defeat. Well, that was a "fun" game...what's next?
I can assure you that I won't learn to love something as broken as I understand this proposed combat system to be. Or the game around it. It just eliminates too many possibilities and narrows the gameflow. Not interested. Not that I couldn't learn it, but I can see from here the direction it would go. I can still play PTW, though.
Arathorn
I can assure you that I won't learn to love something as broken as I understand this proposed combat system to be. Or the game around it. It just eliminates too many possibilities and narrows the gameflow. Not interested. Not that I couldn't learn it, but I can see from here the direction it would go. I can still play PTW, though.
Arathorn
The major affect of this change is that it completely alters the balance of the game.
Think about it, the unit combat values were all picked so that they fit in with the current game mechanics:
Unit costs, the tech required (and tech costs) to build specific units, terrain modifiers, government support costs, resources, relationships between combat values, unit speed and special abilities (ie. paratroopers, marines), etc...
It was all balanced based on the existing system which had a linear relationship between unit power (ie if unit x has twice the stats of unit y, then it is twice as powerful), the new combat system will throw all of that out the window!
For example, now doing something as simple as fortifying a single unit will often be better then having 2 non-fortified ones of the same type. Clearly the opportunity costs are out of whack.
Think about it, the unit combat values were all picked so that they fit in with the current game mechanics:
Unit costs, the tech required (and tech costs) to build specific units, terrain modifiers, government support costs, resources, relationships between combat values, unit speed and special abilities (ie. paratroopers, marines), etc...
It was all balanced based on the existing system which had a linear relationship between unit power (ie if unit x has twice the stats of unit y, then it is twice as powerful), the new combat system will throw all of that out the window!
For example, now doing something as simple as fortifying a single unit will often be better then having 2 non-fortified ones of the same type. Clearly the opportunity costs are out of whack.
Similar threads
