Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice
- Thread starter Tavis
- Start date
I think that people often do not understand how big of an effect terrain and other bonuses have for defenders. I know I usually think of a spearman as having a "defense of 2," and only really think of defense bonuses when attacking across a river or onto higher ground. But like has been said, when attacking a fortified spearman in a town (grassland), the spearman now defends at 2.7, not 2. I think this could be what makes the results seem so random to unsuspecting attackers.
He knew what defense he had. He was using spearmen on Mountains, with Forts, and I think there might have been a river, but I'm not sure. He had a total of atleast 6.25 in defense with those spearmen, and still he lost like 4 in a row against archers, or sworsmen. That pissed him off.
He do like games like Advance Wars, where the battle outcome is always the same. (Except for some Generals). And I believe he likes chess too.
Well assume that there was a river and he was attacked by swordsmen and everyone had 3 hp. Under these assumptions, losing 4 in a row should statistically occur once in 500 battles. Given that a game can have 350 turns, this starts to not look like it should be a total surprise when it does happen, even if the PRNG is completely fair and its results well distributed. And if your friend was upset at it happening that once so much so that he even remembers the circumstances, well..., then really it's a good thing for him to stick with his deterministic games...
Sandman2003
Prince
Thank you for the reference. As you correctly point out, no one of these posts is actually raising an issue in regards their satisfaction or otherwise of the RNG, just discussing streakiness in geenral. And, as you posted in that thread,
"There is no statistical evidence that the RNG is broken and quite a bit that shows that it is a fairly standard linear congruential style RNG.
BTW, if you never had streaks, that would be a sign of a bad RNG. Streaks do happen in random sets of data."
So back to my original point, why even look at changing the RNG?
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
A poster a while backed hacked into the PRNG that is used by civ (vanilla civ before the final patch) and ran a standard statistical test suite on the PRNG. The PRNG used by the game passed the tests showing the proper behavoir.
So unless the PRNG algorithim has changed in the patches or the expansions, we know that the algorithim is fine and is not streaking or having any other undesired behavoir.
Unfortunately with the search down I can't find the thread. I believe it was the Combat Test Map thread of either Mike or Jeff (been too long and its too late for me to remember exactly). The test suite used by the poster I believe was DIEHARD or something like that.
On the issue of the change, I would have to agree with the other posters that this approach is not the right way to address this perceived issue. A more narrow approach that focuses only on the real area of concern would be much better. And besides the negative balancing issues caused by this change, gameplay will be substantialy changed since everything has essentially changed. One thing for sure though, is that artillary will be far more important. You'll want to redline your opponent if they have a higher D value than your attacker's A value.
Cabbit
Part-time Spaceship
Obvious solution to the Tank vs. Spearmen problem:
Just give the tanks a 300% combat bonus vs. spearman (ala pikemen vs. horsemen in Civ II)
Seriously, is the patch out or is this all just, (largely mathematically-based) speculation? I think the most important test as to whether this actually affects gameplay is to play the game.
Just give the tanks a 300% combat bonus vs. spearman (ala pikemen vs. horsemen in Civ II)
Seriously, is the patch out or is this all just, (largely mathematically-based) speculation? I think the most important test as to whether this actually affects gameplay is to play the game.
Sandman2003
Prince
Originally posted by ainwood
On the plus-side, this will "encourage" more thought being given to terrain in terms of attacking and defense.
Is our new Civ3 GOTM administrator just stirring, or do you have a genuine concern that players do not take much account of terrain? And, if this is indeed an issue to address then why not address it directly by increasing defensive bonuses of various terrain types?
Personnally, I think the existing defensive bonuses are about right, btw.
I must really pull out my Hitchikers Guide and repeat its comforting words on the cover "DON'T PANIC."
Yes, if the new combat system is implemented it will CHANGE the game. Many people who have made modifications will have to readjust those mods. Our personal rules for engaging in warfare will CHANGE. There may be more games that are not won by domination or conquest (especially at higher levels of play), and more games won by domination or conquest at the lower levels.
It will be different, and I am not enthusiastic at how more complicated the odds will be to calculate, since I have always approximated it in my head. In addition, my mod increases defensive combat bonuses of fortifying and rivers (coupled with higher attack values for "defensive" foot units).
One of the really exciting things for me about the new combat system is that for a while it will be like the transition from Civ2 to Civ3. We will get to RE-learn how it works, and how to use it well.
--
Now, about those "unintentional" war-causing collisions with my submarines, I want it fixed NOW! :rant:
I would really rather not have to escort all my subs with surface ships. Hopefully, it is already fixed in the Beta and they just didn't mention it (PLEASE)!
Yes, if the new combat system is implemented it will CHANGE the game. Many people who have made modifications will have to readjust those mods. Our personal rules for engaging in warfare will CHANGE. There may be more games that are not won by domination or conquest (especially at higher levels of play), and more games won by domination or conquest at the lower levels.
It will be different, and I am not enthusiastic at how more complicated the odds will be to calculate, since I have always approximated it in my head. In addition, my mod increases defensive combat bonuses of fortifying and rivers (coupled with higher attack values for "defensive" foot units).
One of the really exciting things for me about the new combat system is that for a while it will be like the transition from Civ2 to Civ3. We will get to RE-learn how it works, and how to use it well.
--
Now, about those "unintentional" war-causing collisions with my submarines, I want it fixed NOW! :rant:
I would really rather not have to escort all my subs with surface ships. Hopefully, it is already fixed in the Beta and they just didn't mention it (PLEASE)!
Masquerouge
Deity
This is just largely mathematically-based extrapolation of Firaxis and Atari's comments. I can't believe people are actualling begging and praising and yelling at Firaxis to remove a change THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN TESTED IN THE GAME ! And it's a BETA PATCH ! It's just completely insane
The violence and outrage in some posts are IMHO lacking respect and acknowlegment to Firaxis's great work. Hey, they released a a patch quite early, after all, and all they get is some Fanatics (
) running and yelling all over the places with their arms up in the air 
SirPleb
Shaken, not stirred.
If you accept that:Originally posted by Masquerouge
I can't believe people are actualling begging and praising and yelling at Firaxis to remove a change THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN TESTED IN THE GAME ! And it's a BETA PATCH ! It's just completely insane
1) Some of us know what we're talking about and can make reasonable projections about a change's impact on the game, and
2) The corruption and/or gpt bug in the original Conquests release have a huge and negative impact on gameplay,
Then you'll see that this isn't insane.
Speaking for myself, I find the corruption bugs in Conquests so severe that I have no interest in playing it any more until a fix becomes available. I also think that the described change to the combat calculations will have so severe an impact on playability that I won't want to play Conquests with that change either. So you can see why I'm anxious to see this change removed before the patch is released. If it isn't removed I expect I'll end up using Play The World until there's another patch. That makes this an important issue now.
Of course you may not accept the assumptions I placed at the start of this post. Even if you don't accept them, I hope that you now understand how someone could be very concerned about the described change
TheNiceOne
Emperor
Well, taking the average number from four rolls is about as horribly bad as the first misinterpretion of the change. For those of you who fall asleep when reading the more mathematical posts, here is a simple example:
Assume you play a board game where you need to roll six on a normal six-sided dice. Everyone knows that your chance is 1/6 = 16.67%. Now assume that this board game is changed so that your average of four rolls have to be six. That means that you need to roll 6 all four times to get an average of six!
Changing this board game from rolling once to rolling four times, decreases your probability from 16.7% to 1/6^4 = 0.077%!
Now, this is an extreme example. But as others have shown, this suggested change makes horses close to unusable against anything stronger than a warrior, and UUs like the Greece hoplite and the Persian immortal becomes god-like.
I will again propose the sensible solution I made on page one that Warpstorm also has voiced:
Add a setting, which is the number of rolls to take the average from. The default should be 1, since that's how CIV3 has been all the time, but anyone who wishes may increase this to 2, 3, 4 or even higher.
Assume you play a board game where you need to roll six on a normal six-sided dice. Everyone knows that your chance is 1/6 = 16.67%. Now assume that this board game is changed so that your average of four rolls have to be six. That means that you need to roll 6 all four times to get an average of six!
Changing this board game from rolling once to rolling four times, decreases your probability from 16.7% to 1/6^4 = 0.077%!
Now, this is an extreme example. But as others have shown, this suggested change makes horses close to unusable against anything stronger than a warrior, and UUs like the Greece hoplite and the Persian immortal becomes god-like.
I will again propose the sensible solution I made on page one that Warpstorm also has voiced:
Add a setting, which is the number of rolls to take the average from. The default should be 1, since that's how CIV3 has been all the time, but anyone who wishes may increase this to 2, 3, 4 or even higher.
Masquerouge
Deity
Oh, I do accept that. What I'm worrying about is people getting freaky about projections, not facts or tested things.
Oh, I see. I'm just talking about the way people complain of the combat change and ask for its removal before they even tested it ! Of course the GPT and corruption bugs MUST be corrected, and I'm glad, really glad Firaxis adressed that as fast as possible. And again, it's just the combat RNG craze that I find a bit overheated. Just that
Yes, I understand why you're concerned. Heck, I'm concerned too, because it seems a big change. The only difference is that I'll give it a go in the patch, because I can't say for sure what the impacts are before I tested it. A lot of excellent mathemathical demonstrations were made, but I'm like St Thomas, I must see to believe
. And it's a Beta patch... All I am saying, is give change an chance
And I really found that some posts went a bit too far over the line.
Here is Firaxis coming to tell us that a Beta patch is coming out quite soon so we can test and give feedback, and some answers are just "You idiots, why did you change the combat RNG ?"
But hopefully Firaxians are intelligent people that are used to such things
Hope this clarification helps, Sirpleb !
Kylearan
compound eye
I'd like to add my concern about the planned pRNG change - please don't do this, as this will completely alter the nature of the game and probably destroy the fine balance it has achieved!
I'm only playing my 3rd SG now, but have played and discussed over 30 Epcs at the Realms Beyond tournament. I'm feeling comfortable on Deity and love to play variant-style games, and herein lies the rub for me: As Arathorn has mentioned earlier, this change will most probably narrow our strategies considerably and kill the game for me. And as others have mentioned already, it won't get rid of the problem of streaks.
Problem of streaks? Well, what problem? Streaks are a natural phenomenon of randomness, albeit the human mind has difficulties in grasping the concept of randomness intuitively. When we lose our fortified spear behind walls on a hill to an attacking archer, we cry "Damn streaks! Firaxis, do something about the broken pRNG!". But if, later in the game, one of our attacking cavs takes out the fortified infantry in a size 13 city, we only think "Yes!!! Gotcha!" and feel we have somehow deserved this luck.
There's nothing to be changed here in my book - the planned "solution" will not remove the problem (that isn't one in the first place) but will make the game much more shallow.
To be fair, I will give the new patch a chance before making my final decision, although I think the implications of this change can be anticipated quite good by doing the math.
But I also like to use the opportunity to thank Firaxis/Breakaway Games for all the great work they've done in the past! I seldomly have seen a company that was so committed to fine-tuning a game over such a long period of time, and that was willing to hear out its fans in the process. Thank you very much for a truly superb game!
-Kylearan
I'm only playing my 3rd SG now, but have played and discussed over 30 Epcs at the Realms Beyond tournament. I'm feeling comfortable on Deity and love to play variant-style games, and herein lies the rub for me: As Arathorn has mentioned earlier, this change will most probably narrow our strategies considerably and kill the game for me. And as others have mentioned already, it won't get rid of the problem of streaks.
Problem of streaks? Well, what problem? Streaks are a natural phenomenon of randomness, albeit the human mind has difficulties in grasping the concept of randomness intuitively. When we lose our fortified spear behind walls on a hill to an attacking archer, we cry "Damn streaks! Firaxis, do something about the broken pRNG!". But if, later in the game, one of our attacking cavs takes out the fortified infantry in a size 13 city, we only think "Yes!!! Gotcha!" and feel we have somehow deserved this luck.
There's nothing to be changed here in my book - the planned "solution" will not remove the problem (that isn't one in the first place) but will make the game much more shallow.
To be fair, I will give the new patch a chance before making my final decision, although I think the implications of this change can be anticipated quite good by doing the math.
But I also like to use the opportunity to thank Firaxis/Breakaway Games for all the great work they've done in the past! I seldomly have seen a company that was so committed to fine-tuning a game over such a long period of time, and that was willing to hear out its fans in the process. Thank you very much for a truly superb game!
-Kylearan
Aggie
Deity
I am afraid that we have to go for the new patch. The corruption and gpt bugs are even worse than the suggested changes in the RNG calculation
Isak
Civ4 Scenario Designer
Originally posted by Masquerouge
Yes, I understand why you're concerned. Heck, I'm concerned too, because it seems a big change. The only difference is that I'll give it a go in the patch, because I can't say for sure what the impacts are before I tested it. A lot of excellent mathemathical demonstrations were made, but I'm like St Thomas, I must see to believe
And it's a Beta patch... All I am saying, is give change an chance
I'm with you 110% on that. Let's see how it works out in an actual game. That's what a beta is all about anyway, right?
What about the other changes? (remember those??). I for one am looking forward to the SHIFT-U bug being fixed, and the World Seed option. Two thumbs up for those (and more
)And I really found that some posts went a bit too far over the line.
Here is Firaxis coming to tell us that a Beta patch is coming out quite soon so we can test and give feedback, and some answers are just "You idiots, why did you change the combat RNG ?"
But hopefully Firaxians are intelligent people that are used to such things
I'm sure they have an excellent kill-filter for such stuff by now
Similar threads
