Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice

[Arathorn]

I understand it's a beta patch and that ideas change. It's precisely because it's a beta that I'm writing so much about this -- I feel I have a good chance to ensure that this idea is abandoned in beta and never makes it into an official patch.

I think it's great that the Atari/Firaxis/Breakaway trifecta is so willing to solicit feedback in this manner. I hope it doesn't come back to bite them (as beta things get changed/added/dropped, SOMEBODY will inevitably feel that their opinions were slighted).

I guess we'll find out next week. Will there be a separate forum to discuss bugs in the beta patch (please, oh moderator(s)), once it's released?

Arathorn

 

[bru]

I personally am impressed with the quick response to solve issues with the game. I can see the Forums are going to be on fire for some time to come!!

 

[user37852]

Perhaps these new combat calculations could be an option rather than mandatory?

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by bru
I personally am impressed with the quick response to solve issues with the game. I can see the Forums are going to be on fire for some time to come!!

hmm, I don't know if that's a good thing, or a bad thing...

Originally posted by Padma
And one more thing to remember: this is a BETA patch. If we, the playing community (read: beta testers! ), find the patch to be horribly unbalancing, it can be changed/deleted from the *final* patch.

With almost 40,000 users on CFC, and just as much on Apolyton! (probably 60,000 users total from both sites). Talk about the largest Beta Test ever!

Perhaps 1/10th of all civ'ers....

 

[zurichuk]

i'll add my dislike of the newer combat system if it is explained correctly above, there is already a good enough streakiness softener now, hit-points, i'm not sure that 'hit-points squared' is such a good concept, at least make it optional

one way to dampen the effects of streakiness would just be to add more hit-points like in some of the scenarios (ie 5 vet 6 elite for example)

edit, but thanks for the hard work in the patches, great news

 

[Jurimax]

Possible simple solution:


______Anc__-__M A__-__Ind__-__Mod

Con:___2_______3_______4_______5
Reg:___3_______4_______5_______6
Vet:___4_______5_______6_______7
Eli:___5_______6_______7_______8

This are the hitpoints for units of that age.
Another solution could be (as I saw on this forum somewhere),
in combat a unit from another era gets a bonus of 10% (from a higher era off course)

 

[alexman]

Question: does the AI know about this combat odds change, or will it use veteran horsemen to attack fortified veteran spearmen on hills, thinking it might win (when in fact it has just 4% chance of winning)

 

[kokoras]

Well i don't know how it is going to affect the game this new combat system,but since it is a betta patch a test will be the only way to find out if it sould remain or not.The curent combat system is ok for me.
Anyway,thank you Firaxis/Atari and all of you guys who developted this patch so soon,and for paying attention to our threads.

 

[Greebley]

I suggested this int he other thread, but can't you make the new combat vs old combat a preference that you can choose? That way people who like the old can keep it that way. People who like things less streaky can use the new.

Also if it is a game breaker, then people can always choose the old and can still play without needing to wait for the patch.

 

[lhc1971]

I really happy too see a patch coming so soon, I had shelved my copy of C3C untill Jan or Feb, whenever the patch was due.

I am concerned as well about the combat system, I have just a couple thoughts on it.

• If using the new combat system, then it seems obvious too me, that the current unit values are based using the old system. So you will need too change the unit combat numbers like spearman would need too go too 1/3/1 etc. (or whatever), and up the chain with the rest of the units so, they use the new system correctly. I love the idea, I can change my units too fit the patch, and probably be better off. And isn't this the positive approach too accepting a great addition in the patch? I welcome the change.
  
• Someone had mentioned making this an option in the editor, ie. I would be able too say whether it was 1-4x up too 10, and have the option of leaving it default like it is now. That would be B E A utiful! This would be the best gift I get this Christmas!

Lionel

 

[eliliang]

Originally posted by Jurimax
Possible simple solution:


______Anc__-__M A__-__Ind__-__Mod

Con:___2_______3_______4_______5
Reg:___3_______4_______5_______6
Vet:___4_______5_______6_______7
Eli:___5_______6_______7_______8

This are the hitpoints for units of that age.
Another solution could be (as I saw on this forum somewhere),
in combat a unit from another era gets a bonus of 10% (from a higher era off course)

Why does there have to be a solution to this if there is no problem?

Consider:

If you believe that a unit of Type A has a certain probability, p>0, of inflicting a certain amount of damage on unit of Type B, and you also believe that after sustaining an aggregate amount of damage, a unit of Type B will be disabled/destroyed, then it is a mathematical certainty that somewhere, sometime, a unit of Type B will be destroyed by a unit of Type A. If you calculate the frequency with which units of Type A destroy units of Type B, and you think it is not realistic, then you can always change the value of p until the resulting frequency is satisfactory.

On the other hand, if you think that the resulting frequency of destruction is realistic, but that you are upset that, even so, it seems to happen to you more than this computed frequency would suggest, then consider that either the pseudo-random number generator is hosed or that you are wrong in your impression of the frequency that this is happening to you and/or your impression of the frequency with which this should happen to you.

 

[Charis]

First off, a *HUGE* thanks and hats off to Firaxis for working hard and making the extra effort to get the *key* bugs fixed asap

Second, a big thanks to Tavis for not only keeping us up-to-date on these changes, but for answering questions (such as what modified combat meant)

I did want to pop in here and echo comments about how potentially a big change is being made with the modified combat system. Eliliang's approach and graph was nice, except that I think Tavis's comments describe a best 3-of-5 approach. No matter the order calculated or implementation scheme, the units needs to win 3 rolls to get the hp victory.

So the modified probabilty is:

p_mod = p^5 + 5*p^4*(1-p) + 10*p^3*(1-p)^2

In graph below, x-axis is old/existing overall probability of winning and the y-axis would be the new proposed probability...

This is fairly flat in the center but gets rather steep at the ends.
I know this is intentional in that they are trying to reduce the spear-beats-tank event. But it makes a huge impact on a lot of other common situations.

Real-world examples (so to speak )
- Vet Longbow vs Vet spear in the open currently has a 82% chance to win. In the new scheme that jumps to 96% (!)
- Give that poor spear some ground and fortify him, effective defense now 3. Current odds for longbow win are 65%, and with best 3-of-5 it goes up to 77%.
- Cav vs fortified rifle in a city, attack 6 vs let's say modified defense 12. At present the cav wins 17% of the time. Best 3-of-5 cuts his chances by a factor of 4, to just 4%.
- Standard pre-tank where you have to send cavs to take on fortified infantry in the city. Let's use mod defense of 18, and the cav currently wins about 7% of the time. With a little help from artillery and the cav retreat bonus, you can pull it off if you can bring enough cav to the battle. With best-of-5 that 7% drops to 0.3% (ouch!!)

BTW - the numbers for the above scenarios with best of 3 approach (ie roll twice, re-roll once more if a tie) are:
92% for longbow, 72% longbow vs fort spear, 8% for cav on rifle, and 1.4% for cav on infantry. That's a little better, though still somewhat rough on medium-low odds situations.

Again, thanks for the upcoming beta, I look forward to it!!
Charis

 

[derekroth]

I agree with zurichuk (and the others who have mentioned this) that the best method to counteract streakiness would be to increase hit points instead of revising the combat calculator.
However, I still think that the new calculator will be a positive change, and will not upset balance as much as everyone thinks it will. This is what I think is positive about the change.

First and foremost, units from a more advanced era will defeat units from a less advanced one far more frequently. Hence the whole spearman tank thing. I think this is very positive. The Incas and Aztecs were destroyed by a more advanced force that was not even 1% of their forces size. Granted there was more to it than that, but it generally hold true that more advanced forces make quick work of lesser ones. And, there is still a chance that the stronger unit will suffer damage, it is just unlikely that it will be defeated.

Also, just because the stronger value is more favored now does not throw off balance, in my opinion it just forces a change in strategy. For example, in the ancient times when you often get a spearman vs. a swordsman the defender will be more inclined to build city walls. I never used them in Civ III because with the current combat system I don’t think they are really that necessary. Another change in strategy here might include defending cities with offensive units as well as defensive ones. The Persian Immortal will be a juggernaut unless you hit it with a swordsman before it has a chance to attack. And in this case, you will likely win. But the spearman is still useful especially when it comes to upgrading the turn following a new technology.

I also think the new system will be more historically accurate during the cavalry/infantry period (an example, there are others that apply here too). In my mind, this is roughly the period that WWI took place. Some times history favors the defense (such as WWI and the age of the castle during medieval times) while other times favor the attack (such as WWII). I always thought it was ridiculous that I could take huge cities defended by early 20th century equivalent infantry just by massing large amounts of cavalry.

It has also been pointed out that in the case of two units having the same value, the defender is far more likely to win. I think this makes sense also. Given equal abilities, the defender should win against a force of equal size. So basically, it will mean that you need to either use superior units while making an attack, or be prepared to take massive casualties.

I think what this change really does is just redistributes the amount of different unit types the player will make. The non aggressive builder will have to rely on more offensive units than he/she was typically accustomed to. And at times when the best units are defensive, the player will be given more confidence that his/her territory can be held. Most of all, it makes combat outcomes predictable and not just frustrating. But that is only my opinion.

 

[Jurimax]

@eliliang

I meant a solution for the spearman-kills-tank phenomenon. This is the problem they try to solve with the adjustment in the combat calculation. And my table of new hp-values can be considered an alternative solution.

Greetz Jurimax

 

[user37852]

Will these new combat calculation changes have any effect on turn times (game performance)?

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by thatinkjar
Will these new combat calculation changes have any effect on turn times (game performance)?

Probably not much, the calculations done at the moment in civ3 are done MUCH faster then the time it takes to play up the Battle animation.

Try playing without Battle Animations.

 

[Mike B.]

Whoa! Some of you are reading way too much into the "new" combat calculator!

It's not nearly as bad as you are making it sound. The combat calculations have not been made less streaky; they've been made to appear less streaky. The RNG itself has not been changed (the generator is working exactly as it should).

Think of each round of combat as the attacker rolling dice to see if they hit the defender. If the number rolled is greater than or equal to the defense value, the attacker hits; otherwise, the defender hits. The change we made was to the way the attacker rolls the dice. The attacker now rolls multiple times and the result is the average of all the rolls. This makes the combat results be more in line with what you'd expect them to be. It will reduce the luck factor because it eliminates most wild, "unnatural" runs. However, the luck is still present and it even makes lucky wins more meaningful since they are more rare. A single spearman can still beat a single tank but it's highly unlikely that a single spearman will be able to stand up to a stack of tanks (which is as it should be).

Again, though, this is a BETA patch (but several of us have been playing with it for a few months now) so things could change before the final release. I hope this info helps clear some things up .

P.S. I don't know where Jesse got the "rerolling for ties" thing because there are no ties.

P.P.S. One thing missing from the patch notes is that the '*' in the right-click menu used to denote elite units who have produced a great leader has been put back. I'm not sure where it went but it's back now.

 

[padlock]

Originally posted by derekroth
First and foremost, units from a more advanced era will defeat units from a less advanced one far more frequently. Hence the whole spearman tank thing. I think this is very positive.

The problem is that this change doesn't just affect units from different eras, but any units which have even a relatively slight (say 25%) combat advantage after taking into acount all the combat modifiers. Now attacking a fortified spearman with an archer yields a much lower chance of success to even damage let alone defeat the spearman.

Besides, the whole spearman versus tank issue has already been addressed. That's what hitpoints are for. There's already a very low chance for a fully healed veteran spearman to destroy a fully healed veteran tank. In my opinion, there isn't any problem. What this change basically does is square the number of hitpoints of all the units, while combining the results of several 'rolls' so that there isn't even enough granularity to effectively damage the stronger unit.

 

[Charis]

I've been thinking more about the impact of the modified combat system, and while the impact will be significant, it's certainly too early to consider it broken.

That curve is brutal on both ends, 80%->95%, 90%->99%, 10%->1%. But the central part of the curve is near linear. A chance now 60% becomes 68%, and a 70% goes up to 83%.

IMPACT:
- Folks who know how to use terrain, know what the bonuses are, know how to use artillery, will continue to separate themselves who do not.
- Hmm, we may even see more catapults built and used - and trebuchets will really distinguish themselves as a welcome addition to the game compared to vanilla/ptw.
- 'Most' warfare is in the nearly linear range of 33-66%, eg archers on warriors or spears, swords on spears, horses on spears, knights on pikes, longbows on knights, cav on rifles in towns, tanks on infantry, MA on Mech. So again, this won't have a huge effect on 'most' combat situations.
- Where it will matter *more* is MDI vs spear, swords on muskets, cav on pikes, cav on infantry, and increasing your city's population in era of tank on infantry (for higher bonus)
- Resources will be even more strategic. The difference now between musket and pike, or pike vs spear, will become much more important with high-attack units around. Similarly, denying rubber or oil will be even more successful.
- Impact will be rather large on:
* How much more important artillery/bombardment will be
* The pre-tank era of cav vs infantry
* The dominance of immortals, mounted warriors, hoplites, musketeers and other "best-of-breed" UU's which stand out from their contemporaries. (omg, Viking berzerks under this system!)

There will be bigger push to get spears upgraded to spears when MDI's appear, conversely a bigger push to use MDI's before your opponent has pikes everywhere. Likewise a bigger push to go on the offensive with cav before infantry appear.

I like Alexman's comments -- a huge thumbs up to fixing corruption/gpt and major bugs in a quick beta, let us kick this new system around for a while while the earnest developers get feedback, and see if any tweaking is needed for a 'final' patch.


Charis

 

[padlock]

Originally posted by Mike B. FIRAXIS
Whoa! Some of you are reading way too much into the "new" combat calculator!

It's not nearly as bad as you are making it sound. The combat calculations have not been made less streaky; they've been made to appear less streaky. The RNG itself has not been changed (the generator is working exactly as it should).

Think of each round of combat as the attacker rolling dice to see if they hit the defender. If the number rolled is greater than or equal to the defense value, the attacker hits; otherwise, the defender hits. The change we made was to the way the attacker rolls the dice. The attacker now rolls multiple times and the result is the average of all the rolls. This makes the combat results be more in line with what you'd expect them to be. It will reduce the luck factor because it eliminates most wild, "unnatural" runs. However, the luck is still present and it even makes lucky wins more meaningful since they are more rare. A single spearman can still beat a single tank but it's highly unlikely that a single spearman will be able to stand up to a stack of tanks (which is as it should be).

Wow. That changes everything! It sounds like we really did misinterpret what the changes meant. If all it does is average the attacking role, then it isn't nearly as big a change as I feared

Thanks for the clarification Mike