Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice
- Thread starter Tavis
- Start date
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
So, this is roughly the same as if units have 4 times as many hit points (okay, that's a simplification of the statistics). This will definitely drive the combat way towards the average result. As such, it will make it so that the unit with the higher modified stat almost always wins.
DaviddesJ
Deity
I think favoring higher-quality units somewhat more than in the original game won't "break" the game. It seems like it could be better in some cases, and we can certainly adapt. It's not nearly the same as outright bugs, like the problems with the corruption calculations.
It seems like it might make defense a bit easier for the computer player (e.g., it will be harder to take out fortified spearmen in cities, with swordsmen, or to take out pikemen, with medieval infantry or knights). Since it's usually the computer defending, and me attacking, this sounds good to me, as it makes the game harder.
It seems like it might make defense a bit easier for the computer player (e.g., it will be harder to take out fortified spearmen in cities, with swordsmen, or to take out pikemen, with medieval infantry or knights). Since it's usually the computer defending, and me attacking, this sounds good to me, as it makes the game harder.
barron of ideas
Barron
Attacking 4 strength units (immortals, knights, Mideval Infantry, longbows will have a bigger advantage on a spear, in a city (2 becomes 3 defense?) than they do now. It does not make defense easier for the AI in the ancient era. However, as soon as pikemen (or the Greeks with 1-3-1 hoplites from the beginning, or Romans with 3-3-1 Legions on defense) appear, 4 to 4.5 defense will be less successful.
This patch will drive the offensive players to the Persians, and the defenders to Greeks and Romans. The fast or cheap UU and the archer rush will likely become things of the past. Any advantage, by attacker or defender becomes multiplied over what we are used to. Attacking with warriors or their equivalent UU at strength 1 will be a mugs game. You will lose. Attacking with strenght 2 units will seldom work, unless the target is a warrior or equivalent defense 1 unit. Several 2 to 3 attacks (archer or horse versus defending spear in a city) becomes well, dumb. You are far more likely to promote the defender than defeat him.
It changes the game, a lot. The same way some people reload and try again if they get a dry start, or a cold (turunda) start, will happen, after ironworking is researched and there is no iron in reach. Except it will be worse. You might be able to handle a tough start, but no iron so you have no attack strenth 3 or 4 units, and no pikes for defense 3 when the later attackers come at you with strenth 4 or higher and it is game over. And there will be a later hurdle, if there is no saltpeter for muskets (defense 4 (6 when in cities) when cavalry at attack 6 arrive at Mil Trad. If you fall behind in tech, you likely are toast.
This patch will drive the offensive players to the Persians, and the defenders to Greeks and Romans. The fast or cheap UU and the archer rush will likely become things of the past. Any advantage, by attacker or defender becomes multiplied over what we are used to. Attacking with warriors or their equivalent UU at strength 1 will be a mugs game. You will lose. Attacking with strenght 2 units will seldom work, unless the target is a warrior or equivalent defense 1 unit. Several 2 to 3 attacks (archer or horse versus defending spear in a city) becomes well, dumb. You are far more likely to promote the defender than defeat him.
It changes the game, a lot. The same way some people reload and try again if they get a dry start, or a cold (turunda) start, will happen, after ironworking is researched and there is no iron in reach. Except it will be worse. You might be able to handle a tough start, but no iron so you have no attack strenth 3 or 4 units, and no pikes for defense 3 when the later attackers come at you with strenth 4 or higher and it is game over. And there will be a later hurdle, if there is no saltpeter for muskets (defense 4 (6 when in cities) when cavalry at attack 6 arrive at Mil Trad. If you fall behind in tech, you likely are toast.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
How about a dial-a-variance setting? One that lets the player choose a number at the start of the game from 1 (the current scheme) to 4 (the beta described here) or maybe even higher. Let us choose according to our tastes. I'd probably choose 2 under that scheme.
It is not just that the game is harder, rather there are aspects that will be just *broken* and also that from metagame strategy perspective balance is thrown:
* Unequal distribution of resources means that a) certain civs will NOT be able to catch up, b) builder civs will trust to greater defense but be horribly vulnerable to military advances, and, c) in the reverse, a civ gaining, say, MT next to a civ without saltpeter will have even more of a field day than now.
* Certain UUs are insane, as will be subsequent Armies of those same UUs.
* Overall strategic choice is diminished... "scientific warmongering" (i.e., a race to Cavs) will stand head and shoulders above all other metagame strats.
Broken and Boring.
* Unequal distribution of resources means that a) certain civs will NOT be able to catch up, b) builder civs will trust to greater defense but be horribly vulnerable to military advances, and, c) in the reverse, a civ gaining, say, MT next to a civ without saltpeter will have even more of a field day than now.
* Certain UUs are insane, as will be subsequent Armies of those same UUs.
* Overall strategic choice is diminished... "scientific warmongering" (i.e., a race to Cavs) will stand head and shoulders above all other metagame strats.
Broken and Boring.
barron of ideas
Barron
Concerning the superiority of the Persians in this new patch, bets are off if they need to attack the Greek Hoplite at 4 to 3x1.5 for city they are a lot more likely to lose than they used to. Lets make that the superiority of Asia Minor and Greece.
The Roman Legion isn't shabby either, with 3-3-1 going for it. If you weren't sure you wanted to attack, or you don't like Persia's color scheme, the Romans have a lot going for them, assuming you get Iron in reach. Early research will likely be for Ironworking the same way it used to be for Pottery (granaries) and cermonial burrial (temples). A no-brainer. If you don't have iron, and your friendly neighbors do, you may find them dropping by with a request for all your cities.
The Roman Legion isn't shabby either, with 3-3-1 going for it. If you weren't sure you wanted to attack, or you don't like Persia's color scheme, the Romans have a lot going for them, assuming you get Iron in reach. Early research will likely be for Ironworking the same way it used to be for Pottery (granaries) and cermonial burrial (temples). A no-brainer. If you don't have iron, and your friendly neighbors do, you may find them dropping by with a request for all your cities.
DaviddesJ
Deity
If you don't like the advantages of some UUs, you can just not play with those civs, particularly in MP where balance between players is important. Or if you really want to play with those civs in SP, play at a higher difficulty level. I don't think the issue that changing combat resolution favors some civs over others is a real one.
I won't disagree that iron is more important, but it was already very important. The prospect of one player having better access to iron than another is already a balance issue for MP games. This may make that worse, but it's not a huge change.
I won't disagree that iron is more important, but it was already very important. The prospect of one player having better access to iron than another is already a balance issue for MP games. This may make that worse, but it's not a huge change.
First, thankyou for the quick patch delivery 
Secondly, i would like to remind the developers of thier long history of attempting to fix one thing, only to break something else or even make worse the situation they want to fix.
Why fix a random system that has become acceptable? The only reason i can see is that this is yet another attempt by the developers to limit the ability of the humans to walk all over thier precious AI.
The reason we can do it is because we micromanage our workers better. There is no memory in this poor head of any attempt by the programmers to improve the AI workers. They continue to prefer irrigation over all other things.
Instead of breaking the combat system, why not spend a little time on improving the AI workers? More mining = more AI units=less ability to walk over them thus saving the precious AI from certain doom AND it will make the harder levels harder.
Secondly, i would like to remind the developers of thier long history of attempting to fix one thing, only to break something else or even make worse the situation they want to fix.
Why fix a random system that has become acceptable? The only reason i can see is that this is yet another attempt by the developers to limit the ability of the humans to walk all over thier precious AI.
The reason we can do it is because we micromanage our workers better. There is no memory in this poor head of any attempt by the programmers to improve the AI workers. They continue to prefer irrigation over all other things.
Instead of breaking the combat system, why not spend a little time on improving the AI workers? More mining = more AI units=less ability to walk over them thus saving the precious AI from certain doom AND it will make the harder levels harder.
DaviddesJ
Deity
This seems wrong to me. Cavalry will be less effective against contemperaneous defenders (fortified Musketmen in cities). The reason that Cavalry work is that their speed allows them to mass against an individual defensive strongpoint; the defender can't have enough defenders everywhere. So you can beat down the 1 or 2 tough defenders, and then clean up. This gets harder if those tough defenders are harder to take out.
Coffee
Cdn Expat
Great work on Charis's, T-Hawk, Arathorn, LKendter & Ridgelakes part to get the message out there. I support there ideas strongly.
In particular LKendter says:
I have been involved in 58 sg, over a dozen gotm, and plenty of solo games I am not taking this one lightly. I helped a win in a 5-city conquest game at deity and several other crazy deity variants. I have no question I will beat Sid at some point.
This is what got me started on Civ. It was the challenge of being able to play and maybe win the Great Games. If the new numbers put that out of reach then where is the fun in that. My nickel.
In particular LKendter says:
I have been involved in 58 sg, over a dozen gotm, and plenty of solo games I am not taking this one lightly. I helped a win in a 5-city conquest game at deity and several other crazy deity variants. I have no question I will beat Sid at some point.
This is what got me started on Civ. It was the challenge of being able to play and maybe win the Great Games. If the new numbers put that out of reach then where is the fun in that. My nickel.
Sandman2003
Prince
I would like to add my voice to the chorus of discontent to the proposed combat calculator changes.
First, can someone point me to the forums of discontent with the existing combat system (old combat system from vanilla Civ III)? I certainly haven't run across any such forums or any posts on this point. The basic rule in IT is don't muck with something that works. As I see it, the Civ III community in general, is satisfied with the existing system, so no "fix" is required.
In any bell shaped probability curve, there is a real probability, though low, of extreme events. eg the much touted tank losing to a spearman, or perhaps the more likely stack of cavalry losing to a super spearman. These low probability events are perceived to be streakiness. The whole concept of streakiness is simply a perception issue. If you wish to remove this perception, then you would need to remove the RNG, and have a chess-like outcome. eg a vet long bow faces a vet warrior ignoring defence bonuses for now - there is a four to one attack strength to defense strength therefore longbow gets loses 1 hp, warrior dies - every time. I would rather have the RNG.
In assessing the battle plan, the sensible player would take into account that an unlikely outcome is possible, and revise the plan in such an event. The fact that the same people continue to post the best results in GOTM month after month clearly shows that the occurence of low probability events is not currently game unbalancing.
Civ I allowed for some rather unbalanced combat results. Civ II overcompensated for these. Civ III brought back balance to the system. It doesn't need changing further.
If people really want to change the expected outcomes of battles they can already mod attack and defense strengths or hp values.
Currently the expected outcome of a battle can be reasonably intuitively determined from an almost linear comparison comparison of relative attack strength versus relative defense strength. The proposed system massively complicates the situation so that an intuitive linear strength comparison is rendered useless. (Yes I know the determination of the final outcome is exponential due to hit points, but at least you can readily estimate your ability to inflict hit point damage)
As noted by other posters, this proposed change reduces strategic options (to get a tech or resource lead and crush oponents). It also increases potential game unbalancing luck. Imagine an even tech game where everyone gets to replacement parts and you do not have rubber, you would be toast.
The best players of the game are the best because they understand how the game mechanics actually play out in practice. It is particularly evident that the best players are united in their dislike of this suggested change. Please take note.
Even looking at the posts in this forum, and it seems to be growing rather fast, naturally there are those in favour and those against the combat system changes. However, I haven't seen any of those people in favour make a case for why a change to the old system is necessary, so leaving a lot of disgruntled people opposed to the combat changes.
Beyond the combat system, everything else is welcome, and thanks for generating a patch so quickly.
First, can someone point me to the forums of discontent with the existing combat system (old combat system from vanilla Civ III)? I certainly haven't run across any such forums or any posts on this point. The basic rule in IT is don't muck with something that works. As I see it, the Civ III community in general, is satisfied with the existing system, so no "fix" is required.
In any bell shaped probability curve, there is a real probability, though low, of extreme events. eg the much touted tank losing to a spearman, or perhaps the more likely stack of cavalry losing to a super spearman. These low probability events are perceived to be streakiness. The whole concept of streakiness is simply a perception issue. If you wish to remove this perception, then you would need to remove the RNG, and have a chess-like outcome. eg a vet long bow faces a vet warrior ignoring defence bonuses for now - there is a four to one attack strength to defense strength therefore longbow gets loses 1 hp, warrior dies - every time. I would rather have the RNG.
In assessing the battle plan, the sensible player would take into account that an unlikely outcome is possible, and revise the plan in such an event. The fact that the same people continue to post the best results in GOTM month after month clearly shows that the occurence of low probability events is not currently game unbalancing.
Civ I allowed for some rather unbalanced combat results. Civ II overcompensated for these. Civ III brought back balance to the system. It doesn't need changing further.
If people really want to change the expected outcomes of battles they can already mod attack and defense strengths or hp values.
Currently the expected outcome of a battle can be reasonably intuitively determined from an almost linear comparison comparison of relative attack strength versus relative defense strength. The proposed system massively complicates the situation so that an intuitive linear strength comparison is rendered useless. (Yes I know the determination of the final outcome is exponential due to hit points, but at least you can readily estimate your ability to inflict hit point damage)
As noted by other posters, this proposed change reduces strategic options (to get a tech or resource lead and crush oponents). It also increases potential game unbalancing luck. Imagine an even tech game where everyone gets to replacement parts and you do not have rubber, you would be toast.
The best players of the game are the best because they understand how the game mechanics actually play out in practice. It is particularly evident that the best players are united in their dislike of this suggested change. Please take note.
Even looking at the posts in this forum, and it seems to be growing rather fast, naturally there are those in favour and those against the combat system changes. However, I haven't seen any of those people in favour make a case for why a change to the old system is necessary, so leaving a lot of disgruntled people opposed to the combat changes.
Beyond the combat system, everything else is welcome, and thanks for generating a patch so quickly.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2001
- Messages
- 20,063
At the most basic level this will tend to draw combat toward the 50% result. If an attack should win more then 50% of the time, the odds increase. If an attack should loss more then 50% of the time, the odds decrease. Sorry, I don't see this as a plus.
microbe
Cascaded Mansion
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 4,596
Well, I'm glad that a patch is coming out, but I am disappointed in seeing that some "enhancements" instead of "bugs" have been added, at least at this point.
It is a very bad idea to add enhancements now, while there are major bugs as show-stoppers of the game.
Sure people may say "this is a nice feature" "it's trivial to do and cannot break anything". Maybe. But in general as engineering and product management, this is a bad idea and should not have been done.
It's not that I don't like enhancements. I'd rather they do it after all major bugs are sorted out.
And yes, I think the changes to combat system is exactly this kind of things we shouldn't do at this point in time.
It is a very bad idea to add enhancements now, while there are major bugs as show-stoppers of the game.
Sure people may say "this is a nice feature" "it's trivial to do and cannot break anything". Maybe. But in general as engineering and product management, this is a bad idea and should not have been done.
It's not that I don't like enhancements. I'd rather they do it after all major bugs are sorted out.
And yes, I think the changes to combat system is exactly this kind of things we shouldn't do at this point in time.
Sandman2003
Prince
Totally agree. Sort out identified bugs first, and make a patch for these things available. Look at enhancements second.
eric2075
Warlord
Thank you, I enjoyed that very much.
qazxc
Chieftain
- Why not try a biased roulette wheel with a difference?
For example: In the case of an attacking unit with a fitness of 8 and a defending unit with a fitness of 4, a roulette wheel with 12 slots is built and spun, resulting in 66% chance of a hit for the attacker.
The difference would come in refining the result, that is to say, if the units belong to the same era then the result stands. If not, then the result is multiplied (or divided) by a factor.
This factor may be anything. For me the logical choice is era.
If the difference in era is 1, then the advanced attacker scores 72% (66*1.1) toward a win. If the defending unit is an era more advanced then attacker, it scores 60% to a win (66/1.1).
A modern tank attacking a spearman, a pikeman or a musketman in the open would always win. Against a rifleman is 96%, against infantry 77%, against Tow infantry 63%, against modern infantry 57%, as it should be.
I believe that the above method parallels the current one while adjusting for tanks versus spears. After all, its not my fault if Carthage keeps their Numidians on the payroll while Im building tanks.
qazxc
For example: In the case of an attacking unit with a fitness of 8 and a defending unit with a fitness of 4, a roulette wheel with 12 slots is built and spun, resulting in 66% chance of a hit for the attacker.
The difference would come in refining the result, that is to say, if the units belong to the same era then the result stands. If not, then the result is multiplied (or divided) by a factor.
This factor may be anything. For me the logical choice is era.
If the difference in era is 1, then the advanced attacker scores 72% (66*1.1) toward a win. If the defending unit is an era more advanced then attacker, it scores 60% to a win (66/1.1).
A modern tank attacking a spearman, a pikeman or a musketman in the open would always win. Against a rifleman is 96%, against infantry 77%, against Tow infantry 63%, against modern infantry 57%, as it should be.
I believe that the above method parallels the current one while adjusting for tanks versus spears. After all, its not my fault if Carthage keeps their Numidians on the payroll while Im building tanks.
qazxc
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I don't think this is right. Since some people at Firaxis have been playing with this for a little while, I hope one will say they haven't noticed this.
Similar threads
