Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice
- Thread starter Tavis
- Start date
Tacit_Exit
King
The Battle of Britain should be able to occur in Civ. If the above odds calculations are correct then a 4 to 1 advantage is pretty much ALWAYS doom for the weaker.
Sure, we all hate losing 'Tanks to Spearmen', but its great to hold a city against overwhelming odds occasionally. How good would 'The Two Towers' be if Helms Deep were lost to the Uruk-Hai, as it surely would with this odds system.
Sure, we all hate losing 'Tanks to Spearmen', but its great to hold a city against overwhelming odds occasionally. How good would 'The Two Towers' be if Helms Deep were lost to the Uruk-Hai, as it surely would with this odds system.
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
Since CIV3 team abandon the "fortress" strategy, gaming is becoming better and better!!!
A big THX to all Firaxis guys and other CIV team fellows, specially the ones posting here
Good Job
Have to download the patch
A big THX to all Firaxis guys and other CIV team fellows, specially the ones posting here
Good Job
Have to download the patch
Roland Johansen
Deity
It's great that you made a patch this soon. Thank you very much.
I'm also concerned about the changes to the combat system. This change will of course let the stronger unit win more often, but even a small difference in strength between two units will result in an almost sure win for the stronger unit. It will even be difficult for the weaker unit to damage the stronger unit. Especially in the beginning of the game (swordsmen vs spearmen) this will be unbalanced.
Everyone here assumes that the rerolling happens per hitpoint and not per combat. I also think that is what Tavis meant, but a rerolling per combat would not have very bad results. I'll explain what I mean by using an example:
Vet. Swordsman vs Vet.spearmen on grasland fortified (def 2.7), reroll three times and take the middle result:
Hypothetical outcome:
Swordsman wins with 1 hp left
Swordsman wins with 2 hps left
Spearman wins with 2 hps left.
Middle result would be swordsman wins with 1 hp left. That would be the most average result of the three. This of course will cause the stronger unit to win more often than in the basic Civ3 combat system but the weaker one will still be able to damage the stronger one. This is very difficult with the system that is implemented in the present beta patch.
Anyone like the above proposal?
I wouldn't mind keeping the present combat system though.
I'm also concerned about the changes to the combat system. This change will of course let the stronger unit win more often, but even a small difference in strength between two units will result in an almost sure win for the stronger unit. It will even be difficult for the weaker unit to damage the stronger unit. Especially in the beginning of the game (swordsmen vs spearmen) this will be unbalanced.
Everyone here assumes that the rerolling happens per hitpoint and not per combat. I also think that is what Tavis meant, but a rerolling per combat would not have very bad results. I'll explain what I mean by using an example:
Vet. Swordsman vs Vet.spearmen on grasland fortified (def 2.7), reroll three times and take the middle result:
Hypothetical outcome:
Swordsman wins with 1 hp left
Swordsman wins with 2 hps left
Spearman wins with 2 hps left.
Middle result would be swordsman wins with 1 hp left. That would be the most average result of the three. This of course will cause the stronger unit to win more often than in the basic Civ3 combat system but the weaker one will still be able to damage the stronger one. This is very difficult with the system that is implemented in the present beta patch.
Anyone like the above proposal?
I wouldn't mind keeping the present combat system though.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
I actually like the sounds of the new combat calculation method. Random results would be reduced, but not removed. However given the reaction I think making this optional would probably be wise.
Looking forward to the patch.
Looking forward to the patch.
Another problem with the combat change is that it would greatly reduce the chances of a larger number of weaker units being successfull against a smaller number of stronger ones. While this is desirable to a certain extent, I think the balance is just about perfect right now.
The change will effectively make unit strengh MUCH more important then absolute numbers, which will make tech progress (and access to resources) far more important then they are now.
In short, it will have a massive effect on the balance of the entire game.
The change will effectively make unit strengh MUCH more important then absolute numbers, which will make tech progress (and access to resources) far more important then they are now.
In short, it will have a massive effect on the balance of the entire game.
I'd add my voice to both choruses - many many many thanks for the quick production of a beta patch that fixes the FP and double gpt bugs,
[dance] 
[dance]
and also please take out the combat "de-streaker" or the patch won't go on my PC. Combat results calculations should not be changed until the player/modder can tweak it from the current default, as you've already done with the excellent AI aggressiveness and now the map seeding adjustment in the beta C3C patch.
[dance]
[dance] and also please take out the combat "de-streaker" or the patch won't go on my PC. Combat results calculations should not be changed until the player/modder can tweak it from the current default, as you've already done with the excellent AI aggressiveness and now the map seeding adjustment in the beta C3C patch.
Great news about the beta patch.
About the combat calculator...
1- A higher bell curve is still a bell curve, and of all the people in all the world who will ever play this game, and in all that combat there will still be spearmen defeating tanks. And sure enough there will still be complaints about it.
2- For all the complaints about spearmen that go away, there will be complaints akin to "OMG i have no iron this game is not fair" that will come to haunt two-fold. Maybe more.
3- Why best out of 5? why not best out of 3 or 7 or 101?
About the combat calculator...
1- A higher bell curve is still a bell curve, and of all the people in all the world who will ever play this game, and in all that combat there will still be spearmen defeating tanks. And sure enough there will still be complaints about it.
2- For all the complaints about spearmen that go away, there will be complaints akin to "OMG i have no iron this game is not fair" that will come to haunt two-fold. Maybe more.
3- Why best out of 5? why not best out of 3 or 7 or 101?
Thanks to those who pointed out that my math was not totally correct. I did forget to include all the different permiatations of the possibilities. Even with this though the end result is similar to what I suggested. Socralynnek pointed out that my 77% would actualy be 72%. And the tank vs. spearman would be about 97% instead of 98%. Thanks for correcting me, I should have noticed that.
I don't see why Firaxis is making the rules so complex. If they think the battles are unbalanced, why don't they simply change the Win-Percentages...? because, that is basically what the multiple combat calculation does.
I have seen a lot of figures appearing about the new combat calculation - though not yet the numbers that I obtained.
I think this is the calculation to win 1HP:
1HP Win% =
(W%)^4 + (=4 wins)
4*(W%)^3*(1-W%) + (=3 wins + 1 loss)
6*(W%^2)*(1-W%)^2*W% (=2 wins + 2 losses + 1 extra win!)
With W% I mean the chance of winning (decimal format: e.g. 0.6 chance)
This yields the following conversion table showing old and new figures:
0,1 0,00856
0,2 0,05792
0,3 0,16308
0,4 0,31744
0,5 0,5
0,6 0,68256
0,7 0,83692
0,8 0,94208
0,9 0,99144
1 1
So, if Firaxis wants to rebalance the battles and units, let them use these numbers and just calculate once...
It will save them some CPU time.
These were the figures, if I'm not mistaking... My feeling though tells me that this change is not a good idea.
I have seen a lot of figures appearing about the new combat calculation - though not yet the numbers that I obtained.
I think this is the calculation to win 1HP:
1HP Win% =
(W%)^4 + (=4 wins)
4*(W%)^3*(1-W%) + (=3 wins + 1 loss)
6*(W%^2)*(1-W%)^2*W% (=2 wins + 2 losses + 1 extra win!)
With W% I mean the chance of winning (decimal format: e.g. 0.6 chance)
This yields the following conversion table showing old and new figures:
0,1 0,00856
0,2 0,05792
0,3 0,16308
0,4 0,31744
0,5 0,5
0,6 0,68256
0,7 0,83692
0,8 0,94208
0,9 0,99144
1 1
So, if Firaxis wants to rebalance the battles and units, let them use these numbers and just calculate once...
It will save them some CPU time.
These were the figures, if I'm not mistaking... My feeling though tells me that this change is not a good idea.
Justus II
General Staff
After quickly playing with Alexman's calculator, I noticed something interesting. Not only does it exagerate the advantages of the attacker/defender with an existing advantage, it also seems to magnify the difference of the base 10% defensive bonus. Try just a standard, warrior vs. warrior battle, 1 vs. 1.1 with the defensive bonus for open terrain, and for regulars, the defender will win 60% of the time! Veterans it improves to 62%. So even in an "even-up" fight, this will change the expected results.
What about the effects of Defensive Bombard, Retreats, Radar Towers, Barricades etc... It is incomplete at this time...
Also, did anyone else notice on the front page that the full patch will not be release until Q2 2004! Why so long?
The problem of simply modifying unit values to increase the discrepancy in strengh is similar to the proposed system in that it would increase the the advantage to the stronger unit for every round in the combat.
I like the idea that the stronger unit wins, but takes some damage in the process (a lot of damage if the units are close to each other in strength, and less so if the descrepency is bigger).
Simply increasing the number of rounds of combat (ie. the number of hit points) while keeping the strengths the same will accomplish this.
If they have to make a change, I would rather they do that then what they are proposing. It wouldn't affect the win/lose outcome of an individual battle (compared to what they're proposing), but would make it more likely that the winner would take some damage.
Personally however, I'm fine with the existing pre-patch combat system.
I like the idea that the stronger unit wins, but takes some damage in the process (a lot of damage if the units are close to each other in strength, and less so if the descrepency is bigger).
Simply increasing the number of rounds of combat (ie. the number of hit points) while keeping the strengths the same will accomplish this.
If they have to make a change, I would rather they do that then what they are proposing. It wouldn't affect the win/lose outcome of an individual battle (compared to what they're proposing), but would make it more likely that the winner would take some damage.
Personally however, I'm fine with the existing pre-patch combat system.
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
Both examples are on weak legs: Helms Deep WOULD have been lost except for timely help from outside (Eomer and Gandalf, not to mention the trees from Fangorn).
The Battle of Britain was only an air battle, remember.. and it's debatable whether Britain would have been able to hold out if Hitler had concentrated his forces (as we all know to do in Civ, right?), instead of attacking the Balkans, North Africa and Russia.
I don't really get why everyone here is so down on the new RNG system: all it really does is 'flatten out' the random factor, making it more likely that the stronger unit will win... as it's supposed to, IMHO!
Are you guy's all roulette players or crap shooters? Personally, I like my games of chance with a higher 'brains to luck - ratio'. I don't WANT my perfectly planned attack to fail because some implausibly lucky spearman kills off 5 of my Knights one after the other!
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
This is how I see it, too, exactly! And IMO thats good! No more huge stacks of horsemen killing off tanks, as an extreme example.. Remember what happened to the Polish Cavalry against Nazi tanks...
The chances are now MORE in favour of the unit with the higher attack value then it should. A swordsman with 3 against a spearman with 2, has a higher chance then it should.
A Swordsmen vs a unfortified Spearman (2.2 on normal terrain). Which is 3 vs 2.2 (which would mean the swordsman should have about 60% chance to win), will mean that the Swordsman will have 84.4% chance with the new system.
More precisely -
If the probability of a 'w' is q where q lies on the interval [0,1], and the probability of an 'l' is 1-q, then:
(a) the probability of 4 w's is
(a) the probability of 3 w's and an l is
(a) the probability of 2 w's and 2 l's is
(a) the probability of 1 w and 3 l's is
(a) the probability of 4 l's is
Therefore, if the probability of a win in this new system of odds is p (where a win requires at least 3 w's out of 4), then obviously
Clearly this transformation from q to p changes the distribution. Plotted below (courtesy of Mathematica
) is q vs. p:
What this does not do is eliminate the streakiness of the results, except as a side-effect.
Mathematically, the only real way to eliminate streakiness is to use a better pseudo-random number generator. In particular, a good choice of a very fast random number generator with extremely low periodicity is the Mersenne Twister: Mersenne Twister web page (with code).
Even with the best pseudo-random number generator, streaks will occur with proper statistical frequency. This statistical frequency may seem higher than "common sense" might suggest, merely because the human mind notices streaks more than non-streaks and tends to note them, distorting the "observational frequency"...
Except that the game is now more random in far worse ways. I don't mind randomness in individual battles since they happen so frequently in the game that they tend to balance out and approach their statistically expected results. However now, things like random start position away from any iron (which only happens once) will put me at a massive disadvantage since I can no longer make up for the lack of powerfull units with other strategies.
Similar threads
