I still look farward to trying the new combat system. I think that the calculations are for the most part true, but maybe it is strategy that is thrown off ballance more than gameplay. Perhaps it would have just implemented some kind of firepower value instead.
Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice
- Thread starter Tavis
- Start date
Isak
Civ4 Scenario Designer
Wow, this thread grew fast 
In case no one else remembered, please give Mike a Beer
In case no one else remembered, please give Mike a Beer
Nad
Known Troublemaker
I don't want to drift too off-topic here but I would not want any such system! Effectively you're talking about taking randomness out of the game. The whole purpose of randomness is that nothing *has* to occur, which means there is no possibility of *knowing* what is to come (the best you can do is predict based on probability). If you have a system which gears towards *forcing* a certain outcome simply based on an overriding limit you're removing randomness!
Think of this (simplified) example for your SGL suggestion. If there were 100 techs and the chance of SGLs was 5%, I would *know* that if I got every tech first I would get 5 SGLs...it's fixed, no randomness, no fun...the only variation would be when they occurred, not if they occurred. That destroys the very fabric of a game based on endless possibility, you reduce the scope for each game to be unique.
At the moment, based on the above example, I would *expect* to get 5 SGLs, but I have no *knowledge*...I might get 3 or 4, I might get 6 or 7, I might get 0, I might get 10. Most likely I will get about 5, but there is no *certainty*...this makes the game so much more interesting, I must have a more varied strategy since I cannot rely on getting the right number of SGLs. This in turn means every game will be different, what you propose would mean every game ever played would get 5 SGLs.
Nad
Known Troublemaker
Originally posted by eliliang
There is no randomness. There is only uncertainty.
Thanks for helping out a historian talking science
Posk
Chieftain
I like to play a hotseat game with my fincee and now that I have installed conquests we can't do this. The only solution offered to me by the tech support is to wait for this new patch but I read the description and this is not one of the fixes listed. Does anybody know if this problem is fixable or if it will be with this patch?
THanks,
Clint
THanks,
Clint
Charis
Realms Beyond
Here's a look at how the need to win multiple shots (hps) in a battle compounds with the beta multiple-attack-roll system. It shows the same lines as shown earlier, the chance to win a given hp with an average-two and average-four method, but then continues to ask who wins the battle when two 4-hp units square off.
Notice in particular how steep the 'battle' curve gets if you average four rolls. It gets steeper if elites instead of vets are used.
There are two lines in the plot. Ignoring retreats, a 4 attack vet vs a modified 7-defense unit, like MDI or Knight on Musket fortified in a city. Currently a 22% chance to win the battle, would be 4.6% rolling twice, or just 0.6% rolling four times. Huge difference! Second ex: 6 attack cav is coming after my fortified pikeman (mod defense of 4). The attack ratio of 1.5 means a 60% chance of winning any given hp translates to a 71% chance to win under the current system, up to 83% if avg of two rolls, and up to 93% with four rolls.
The hp scheme and the avg-rolls scheme both try to steepen the curve, but the combination is especially potent in effect.
Charis
Notice in particular how steep the 'battle' curve gets if you average four rolls. It gets steeper if elites instead of vets are used.
There are two lines in the plot. Ignoring retreats, a 4 attack vet vs a modified 7-defense unit, like MDI or Knight on Musket fortified in a city. Currently a 22% chance to win the battle, would be 4.6% rolling twice, or just 0.6% rolling four times. Huge difference! Second ex: 6 attack cav is coming after my fortified pikeman (mod defense of 4). The attack ratio of 1.5 means a 60% chance of winning any given hp translates to a 71% chance to win under the current system, up to 83% if avg of two rolls, and up to 93% with four rolls.
The hp scheme and the avg-rolls scheme both try to steepen the curve, but the combination is especially potent in effect.
Charis
Nad
Known Troublemaker
I agree wholeheartedly with that, but I'm not talking about *relying* on randomness (uncertainty
), I'm talking about its existance. As I said, in your suggestion there would be no difference in SGL appearance, there would be the same number every game if you force appearance towards an overall limit.If you take that argument to its extreme, it means abolishing the RNG completely...if you just want to rely on skill with no luck element at all then everything can be programmed to occur exactly as your limit implies, ie, every possibility *will* occur and there would be *no* possibility of any luck-based outcome. Effectively, Civ 3 becomes chess...
Colonel Kraken
Deity
This is awesome! What a great feature. I hate having to go into the ini and find the world seed, load it into the editor, save the map as a scenario, then play it again. This will be great when I find a map I currently like and just want to play on it again.
The rest of this patch sounds very promising. I'm quite surprised we're seeing this so quickly. Good job.
--CK
I would find it boring if Civ became too predictable. As has been said, it would reduce to simple maths. I might as well play chess if each battle outcome doesnt have an element of unpredictability. I would miss the excitment of the unexpected victory, the unexpected reversal. Its much more fun when you expect to win or lose but you have a little hope.
I would regard this as a major backward step in gameplayability.
I would regard this as a major backward step in gameplayability.
Fried-Psitalon
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2003
- Messages
- 40
Just food for thought: when the communities of Apolyton and Civ Fanatics are both screaming "bloody murder, bad idea" from the most respected corners of both halls...
maybe it's time to take another look at whether or not this should be in the patch.
I'm not sure how anyone can look at this information and feel this is a good thing for civ.
maybe it's time to take another look at whether or not this should be in the patch.
I'm not sure how anyone can look at this information and feel this is a good thing for civ.
barron of ideas
Barron
I believe the posts here that predict the stronger units will rule their era. As an exponent of the Perisan Immortal (4-2-1) plus industrious workers and free scientific advances at era-change time and cheap libraries, and other science buildings, this is not bad news for me. Or my Ottoman friends who's Spahi (8-3-2) will rule the Cavalry era. And finding Iron, and later, saltpeter will make all the difference in the world to how much fun your game will be.
This is obviously what the developers intended, to show the superiority of countries from Asia Minor. Long live the Persians and Turks. The rest of you guys can go lose.
This is obviously what the developers intended, to show the superiority of countries from Asia Minor. Long live the Persians and Turks. The rest of you guys can go lose.
Cruise
Warlord
Looking at Fried's post, this means horsemen are becomign quite useless.
somateria
Chieftain
First, thanks to Firaxis for working hard to get a patch out so soon. Fixes for the gpt and corruption issues will be greatly appreciated.
Second, it must be gratifying for the programmers to know that any changes to the C3C will instantaneously be assessed by an international team of scientists. There are probably more Phd's surreptiously working on the C3C rng issue right now than on super-string theory or global climate change.
I see that most of the theoretical work has already been done, perhaps later I can develop varaince estimators for the proposed combat system. I suggest that we link all our computers together in parallel via the internet and hence create the world's largest supercomputer.
I too share the concern that changes to the RNG for combat could have quite substantial effects on gameplay and strategy. I'm not sure what the intent of the rng change is. If the concern is merely to avoid the spear beats tank problem, then there are many ways to fix this without dramatically altering gameplay. If the concern is to avoid frustration with relatively improbable, unfavorable combat outcomes by making combat more predictable, I fear that the proposed "fix" will have numerous unintended and negative consequences relative to strategy. Personally, I like the uncertainty associated with never quite knowing where the fine line is between crushing victory and humiliating defeat. The possibility of failure is what makes victory sweet. Many studies have show that rats and humans are FAR more interested in success when it is uncertain (e.g., gambling) than when it is predictable, even if the expected probability of success if the same.
Opinions might change if people actually "test" the new system, and that can be sorted out through play-testing . . . BUT, I think the "tragedy" (just a game, right?) here would be if people did not use the patch because they felt that the negative consequences of the rng fix outweighed the obvious and universally welcomed benefits of the gpt/corruption fixes.
So my two cents is, include the proposed rng fix in some form as a flag or a preference, but don't force people to accept that rng "fix" to take advantage of the gpt/corruption fixes. Then, let the community decide how to deal with the rng issue.
Second, it must be gratifying for the programmers to know that any changes to the C3C will instantaneously be assessed by an international team of scientists. There are probably more Phd's surreptiously working on the C3C rng issue right now than on super-string theory or global climate change.
I see that most of the theoretical work has already been done, perhaps later I can develop varaince estimators for the proposed combat system. I suggest that we link all our computers together in parallel via the internet and hence create the world's largest supercomputer.
I too share the concern that changes to the RNG for combat could have quite substantial effects on gameplay and strategy. I'm not sure what the intent of the rng change is. If the concern is merely to avoid the spear beats tank problem, then there are many ways to fix this without dramatically altering gameplay. If the concern is to avoid frustration with relatively improbable, unfavorable combat outcomes by making combat more predictable, I fear that the proposed "fix" will have numerous unintended and negative consequences relative to strategy. Personally, I like the uncertainty associated with never quite knowing where the fine line is between crushing victory and humiliating defeat. The possibility of failure is what makes victory sweet. Many studies have show that rats and humans are FAR more interested in success when it is uncertain (e.g., gambling) than when it is predictable, even if the expected probability of success if the same.
Opinions might change if people actually "test" the new system, and that can be sorted out through play-testing . . . BUT, I think the "tragedy" (just a game, right?) here would be if people did not use the patch because they felt that the negative consequences of the rng fix outweighed the obvious and universally welcomed
benefits of the gpt/corruption fixes. So my two cents is, include the proposed rng fix in some form as a flag or a preference, but don't force people to accept that rng "fix" to take advantage of the gpt/corruption fixes. Then, let the community decide how to deal with the rng issue.
Even though I haven't seen it yet, I'm with Fried on this one. horsemen and swords are pretty much the best two units in any ancient era game (save for UUs). It makes resourceless starts an almost instant game over. That horsemen could very well be an archer. If a fortified spear on flatlands can win 96% of the time, just imagine how it's going to do inside a town behind walls/city, on a hill and behind a river!
In SP, you *know* the AI's gonna plop 2-3 defenders per city. In MP, you don't know - it could be 15. (that happened in a game with Mo D, and I attacked with 20-25 gallic swords - couldn't take the city...). The only hope is to be 1 era up, otherwise it turns into a defensive slugfest.
Similar threads
