Jurimax
Duke of Flanders
Exactly as I thought, no need to overreact and wait for confirmation and explanation from 'official' sources.
Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice
- Thread starter Tavis
- Start date
It seems that several old fixes got lost. For example, the AI now irrigates grasslands in despotism again, which had been fixed by Soren in a previous patch. The AI sumbarine war declaration is another example of something that was fixed and is now broken again.
The current battle calculation is flawed 
, but the proposed in beta 1.10 of Conquest remedy is even worse 
. Remember the goal - to mitigate the probability of impractical outcomes without unbalancing the game. Here is my solution (just 2 cents actually) 
Roll the dice (the way it is done now). After you get an outcome, toss an unbiased coin - 50/50 chances for both combatants
If the toss confirms the roll, then the outcome for 1HP is decided.
If not, then do TWO more rolls and tosses. Now we have SIX outcomes. Assign weight of a roll to 2 and weight a toss to 1. Whoever gets better score wins the battle for 1HP
[dance] [dance] [dance]
, but the proposed in beta 1.10 of Conquest remedy is even worse . Remember the goal - to mitigate the probability of impractical outcomes without unbalancing the game. Here is my solution (just 2 cents actually) Roll the dice (the way it is done now). After you get an outcome, toss an unbiased coin - 50/50 chances for both combatants
If the toss confirms the roll, then the outcome for 1HP is decided.
If not, then do TWO more rolls and tosses. Now we have SIX outcomes. Assign weight of a roll to 2 and weight a toss to 1. Whoever gets better score wins the battle for 1HP
[dance] [dance] [dance]
What you are doing is effectively changing the PRNG. By averaging a number of rolls, you have changed the statistical distribution of results. This effectively changes the relative probability of discrete events (wins vs. losses).
Let me show this more graphically by exaggerating your example. Think of the attacker rolling a 10 sided dice with sides numbered from 1 to 10. Say that the defender has a defense value of 4. So as in your example, if the number rolled is greater than or equal to 4, the attacker hits, otherwise the defender hits. In this scenario, with one roll, the attacker hits 7 out of 10 times or 7/10 probability of the attacker hitting. Your example might be that we roll the dice 4 times and take the average. Well lets take this to an extreme so that I can graphically show you the effect of this change in distribution. Let's say that we roll the dice a TRILLION times and take the average of these rolls. What is the result? Intuitively, you should sense that the average will tend to stay close to the mean, or 5 1/2. Well 5 1/2 is greater than 4. Even without computing the exact odds, I think you would agree that in this case, the odds that the average are greater than or equal to 4 is much greater than 7/10 now.
So you see, this algorithm does change the resulting probabilities in much the same way as Tavis's original description.
Describe exactly how you are doing this (how many rolls, etc.) and we can calculate mathematically the exact effect.
BTW, I don't feel this is the right way to remove even the "perception" of streakiness, nor would I agree that removing the "perception" of streakiness is what should even be done if all it is, is a perception and not a reality.
T-hawk
Transcend
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.
No big change? Hardly! I fear this is even a *bigger* change than the way we'd interpreted it before.
With 4 rolls, over half of the attacker's outcomes (after averaging) will be within 20% of it's given attack number. I'm going to do some more binomial calculations now...
No big change? Hardly! I fear this is even a *bigger* change than the way we'd interpreted it before.
With 4 rolls, over half of the attacker's outcomes (after averaging) will be within 20% of it's given attack number. I'm going to do some more binomial calculations now...
Nad
Known Troublemaker
Oh man, what a joke... 
Please take the sensible option and leave the option for the old system to remain in force too. Please, please, please, please, please.....I don't want to be forced to give up Civ 3!!!
Please take the sensible option and leave the option for the old system to remain in force too. Please, please, please, please, please.....I don't want to be forced to give up Civ 3!!!
T-hawk
Transcend
Maybe the real solution is just to code in "if attack>=16 and defend <=3 then attacker wins". I say this only half in jest.
Anyways, we still need a bit more information on how exactly combat works. It isn't as simple as the attacker rolling a number (either once or averaging multiple rolls) and beating the defender's value. If that were true, a 6-attack cavalry could never win a round against a 10-defense infantry.
I guess that in this case it would be the defender rolling a number from 1 to 10, and the attacker rolls a number (or averages multiple rolls) from 1 to 6?
edit: Padlock said basically the same thing in the next post.
Anyways, we still need a bit more information on how exactly combat works. It isn't as simple as the attacker rolling a number (either once or averaging multiple rolls) and beating the defender's value. If that were true, a 6-attack cavalry could never win a round against a 10-defense infantry.
I guess that in this case it would be the defender rolling a number from 1 to 10, and the attacker rolls a number (or averages multiple rolls) from 1 to 6?
edit: Padlock said basically the same thing in the next post.
I think we're misinterpriting again. There's no way that an attack of 10 versus a defense of 4 means they generate a random number between 1 and 10 and see if that is bigger than 4.
If that was the case, then a unit with an attack of 6 would statiscally lose more often then not against a defense of 4 (since the average attack roll would be 3). Rolling multiple times would only tend to bring the averaged attack closer to the statistical average, thus increasing the odds of the attack loosing. This obviously can't be right!
If that was the case, then a unit with an attack of 6 would statiscally lose more often then not against a defense of 4 (since the average attack roll would be 3). Rolling multiple times would only tend to bring the averaged attack closer to the statistical average, thus increasing the odds of the attack loosing. This obviously can't be right!
I want to add to the chorus of people who say thank you, Firaxis, Breakaway, and Atari, for delivering a patch very quickly! It is really nice to know that you care about your games and will listen to your customers.
As for the combat calculations, Mike B's further explantion helps describe what is happening. If I understand his post correctly, he is saying that only the attacker's roll is made multiple times. So it's likely result will be near the mean. The defender's role will still be completely random.
This clearly is less of an impact than if both sides were regressed to the mean with multiple rolls. Still, less overall randomness will occur in combat.
In harkening back to my civ history, I always hated the spear defeating the battleship in Civ 1. I firmly supported the hitpoint system as it DID fix that problem. The current system works well. The proposed system may also work ok, but I have a hard time seeing how it will improve the overall gameplay.
Stepping back and looking at the big picture of probabilities for combat outcomes. On one one side, you have the Civ1 model where there was only 1 roll to determine the entire combat outcome. On the other end of the spectrum is a pure, automatic win-loss based on probability with no damage to the winner. If you have a 51% chance of winning, you automatically win with no damage. That is the other extreme. The current system and the proposed system fall somewhere in between on the outcome probability spectrum.
As others have described in this thread, the implications of this change will be that tech advances and resources will become even more powerful. I believe that it was Arathorn who mentioned that this change WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES. It will reduce the ability to swarm with numbers. Strategy will become much more one-dimentional. For a strategy based game, that is not a Good Thing (TM).
An old proverb comes to mind here: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The current system ain't broke. Please don't "fix" it.
I suspect that it will get implemented anyway. So I will ask this of you, Firaxis. If you really must implement this system, please give us the option at new game start-up to keep the current system or use the new one. Similar to the way that AI aggression is now handled. This way, everyone can play the way that they like best.
As for the combat calculations, Mike B's further explantion helps describe what is happening. If I understand his post correctly, he is saying that only the attacker's roll is made multiple times. So it's likely result will be near the mean. The defender's role will still be completely random.
This clearly is less of an impact than if both sides were regressed to the mean with multiple rolls. Still, less overall randomness will occur in combat.
In harkening back to my civ history, I always hated the spear defeating the battleship in Civ 1. I firmly supported the hitpoint system as it DID fix that problem. The current system works well. The proposed system may also work ok, but I have a hard time seeing how it will improve the overall gameplay.
Stepping back and looking at the big picture of probabilities for combat outcomes. On one one side, you have the Civ1 model where there was only 1 roll to determine the entire combat outcome. On the other end of the spectrum is a pure, automatic win-loss based on probability with no damage to the winner. If you have a 51% chance of winning, you automatically win with no damage. That is the other extreme. The current system and the proposed system fall somewhere in between on the outcome probability spectrum.
As others have described in this thread, the implications of this change will be that tech advances and resources will become even more powerful. I believe that it was Arathorn who mentioned that this change WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES. It will reduce the ability to swarm with numbers. Strategy will become much more one-dimentional. For a strategy based game, that is not a Good Thing (TM).
An old proverb comes to mind here: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The current system ain't broke. Please don't "fix" it.
I suspect that it will get implemented anyway. So I will ask this of you, Firaxis. If you really must implement this system, please give us the option at new game start-up to keep the current system or use the new one. Similar to the way that AI aggression is now handled. This way, everyone can play the way that they like best.
My intuition agrees with T-hawk. I think the averaging will be even worse.
As a couple examples (not exactly accurate as I can't think today), a longbow vs. a fortified spear will win each hp about 68-69% of the time, whereas before it did so 57% of the time. Against a spear in the open, it will be about 83% of the time with the new way. I'm still working on better numbers. But this is not a good idea.
Arathorn
As a couple examples (not exactly accurate as I can't think today), a longbow vs. a fortified spear will win each hp about 68-69% of the time, whereas before it did so 57% of the time. Against a spear in the open, it will be about 83% of the time with the new way. I'm still working on better numbers. But this is not a good idea.
Arathorn
Kami_Mercenary
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2
Ok people now think about this. If your army is comprised of mostly weaker units than your enemy, did it occur to you that you mighht *deserve* to lose? If your forces are weaker than resort to diplomacy duh. Otherwise you deserve to get whipped if you're attacking someone better than you. Here's a hint. Spend some turns getting tech advances and building a better military. Then you won't have reason to whine so much because you'll stand a better chance. I mean, come on people. This is NOT going to ruin the game, if it was do you think that these people who are highly intelligent and understand the game better than we do would willingly make the game worse? Don't be dumb.
Nad
Known Troublemaker
EDITED. I am feeling abit upset this issue and Kami-Mercenary did not deserve this retort
But does it deserve to lose 100% of the time? And if not, how much less than 100%? The latter is what we are discussing right now. If it does deserve to lose 100% of the time, then no dice rolling at all will be necessary and Civilization 3 can become a game like chess.
I'm not sure where this attitude comes from, but many of the players urging that the new combat calculations be reconsidered are some of the best Civ3 players in the world (T-Hawk, Charis, Sirpleb, Arathorn, LKendter, Nad, Alexman, Ridgelake, etc), who know it just as well as any of the developers.
Similar threads
