Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Dragonlord
Personally, I'm disappointed not to be able to try out the new combat system! IMO this beta patch would have been a golden opportunity to actually try out a potentially unbalancing feature before it becomes final!

But the problem is that since the patch is so necessary (to fix corruption and GPT bugs), this wouldn't be an opportunity to try out the feature, but rather us being forced to use this "feature" or live with corruption/GPT bugs for maybe half a year.

Now what are they going to do? Either implement it or not in the final patch - THEY will make the decision, not we! This is not to knock the Firaxians, but I feel all the theoretical ranters here have shot themselves (and us) in the foot! It's all very well to make statistical analyses, nothing against it, but actual playtesting is something else entirely ... great work taking away our chance!

It is also possible that Firaxis takes their time to do it right. Personally, I don't feel the need for any changed combat, but if they implemented it as suggested by Warpstorm and me, by having it as an option, not only old/new, but rather a number from 1 upwards that say the number of rolls to take the average from, then everyone will be happy.

The one thing I don't understand is everyone making such a fuss over a preliminary change - it could have been eliminated from the final patch if it was REALLY as bad as many of you were saying...

The fuss is because it doesn't matter whether this patch is called beta or not. The fact is that this is the patch we must live with for 4-6 months or so.

That said, I have actually been convinced (sort of) that there are better options available for reducing random chance. My personal favorite would be increased hitpoints by era, e.g. all medieval units having one more HP than ancient age etc.

For me, that is a bad idea. The only era I feel the need for any less randomness is in the ancient age. The reason for this is that wars then are with relatively few units, so a few unlucky rolls may wreck the day. In later ages it is much easier to build up a so big force that occasionally bad luck can be recovered from.
Your suggestion about adding HP per era makes the randomness biggest in the ancient era where it should be smallest.

 

[Tavis]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne

But the problem is that since the patch is so necessary (to fix corruption and GPT bugs), this wouldn't be an opportunity to try out the feature, but rather us being forced to use this "feature" or live with corruption/GPT bugs for maybe half a year.

Other than the half year part, you nailed that one TheNiceOne.

The plan for the addition was always to make it a configurable option. However, it's always better to hardcode for initial testing. I liked the change a lot, but as it has been correctly stated in the forums - Civ3 was designed with 1 roll, better to fix what was actually 'really' broken (corruption) then dig into playing with the other gameplay algorithms.

My primary concern was for multiplayer - the game is already time consuming, if you suddenly add on needing 5 warriors to kill a spear that wasn't fortified standing on desert then games would be REALLY long... most of the tests I ran initially were with higher A/D level units or with 31 AI and things were really smooth. After sending out the list and getting initial feedback, I got these test results:

(test performed attacking 0 terrain bonus tile defended by an unfortified unit (if fortified F<unitname>)

10 Warrior vs 10 Spearman

1 Warrior Win, +3 other HP's, 3 PROMO's

10 Warrior vs 10 FSpearman

4 HP's removed 2 PROMO

10 Archers vs 10 Spearman

6 Archer Wins -2HPRatio, 1 PROMO

10 Archers vs 10 FSprearman

4 Archers Wins +3HP

Once towns, forts, hills, rivers, and mountains were added it became apparent that the Ancient Era would require significant rebalancing (especially if you ended up without iron!!)

My final tests were 20HP vs 20HP with a 100 percent offensive bonus and a 100 percent defensive bonus. You already know the result.



Keep the feedback coming! The patch is now 1.11 - I'll re-rerun the tests to make sure Mike isn't trying to be funny =)

Jesse

 

[Charis]

Tavis --

Indeed TheNiceOne is correct on that account. I'm glad you got to do some 'live testing' to confirm these issues. The beta with a fix of corruption/gpt issues will be a real Christmas gift

@col, well said!

Charis

PS - tomart109 off-topic: Coca-Cola was caught surprised for two main reasons. First, the CEO who led the company for almost 60 years and to a place of dominance had just stepped down, and it was a newbie leader who pulled the trigger on changing the formula. The previous chief would never have considered that. Second, this came in response to the "Pepsi Challenge" which went so well -- this little upstart competitor had come within about 3% of having an equal market share with Coke. Coke new *something* had to be done, but wasn't sure what, and so they came out with a 'new and improved' formula that (guess what...) tasted more like Pepsi. After several months of campaigning by loyal fans, they returned with Classic Coca Cola and their share went back up again, higher than it was before. The marketing fiasco of the century ended up not too bad for them, thanks to their willingness to listen to their fanbase.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Tavis, thanks for the reply. Let me add that I think you'rte doing a very good job.

My half year estimate was based on your? first post stating that the official patch will come in Q2, whiich is 3.5 - 6.5 months from now. If we get it earlier, I will be really happy.

When it comes to ancient era balancing, check my new thread on the topics of the effects. As shown there, it will for example have the same effect as giving fortified spearmen on plains a defense of 16.6 when being attacked by warriors.

Anyway, now I look forward to the patch again, and if the new combat model becomes a setting where you choose a number from 1 upwards, I will even try it with 2 (but probably not higher).

 

[Masquerouge]

Yes, the figures you got out in your other thread, TheNiceOne are... well, frightening !
And given you've simulated 4 million runs, you're way over the minimum size needed for statistics to be meaningful ( abit over 800, IIRC my math classes)

 

[Buckets]

Thanks so much. This is a great looking patch.

As wary as i am of the new combat system, i am intruiged if you guys are endorsing it. The potentail change to the game is so profound, it's hard to say without playtesting whether it will be good or bad. Look forward to seeing it in a future beta, perhaps?

 

[Dragonlord]

Originally posted by Aggie

EDIT: The posters you refer to in this thread are all HIGHLY regarded in the civ-community. Some of them are master CIV players and others have created great strategy articles in which they uncovered the mysteries and mechanics of the game! [/B]

I know that very well and I wasn't meaning to knock either Firaxis or the other posters. In fact, I applaud all the work they have done to analyse the possible effects the new RNG will have..

I stand by my own opinion, though: I would still like to have tried it and believe a reduction of the random factor in combat would be good.
As also already stated, there might well be better ways of doing it - let's see what Firaxis actually comes up with in the final patch!

BTW, I still think we could have lived with the beta patch for a few weeks, even if the proposed new system had proved unbalancing.. we've managed even with the recent corruption and gpt bugs, haven't we?

Or have many of you REALLY stopped playing because of them? No true Civ-fanatic would, don't you think?

But: water over the dam! The majority has prevailed (though I saw quite a few other 'pros' on this, too!)

 

[Aggie]

Originally posted by Dragonlord
Or have many of you REALLY stopped playing because of them? No true Civ-fanatic would, don't you think?

I have played a LOT of CIV3 games and I can't live with the inferieur current version of C3C. I play PTW instead...

Also I am not able to start a new C3C PBEM game until the patch comes out. All my opponents want to wait. Same with the SG's here: they all appear to wait for the new patch before they start a new one.

I am eagerly awaiting the day that I really can enjoy C3C though

 

[Dragonlord]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne

It is also possible that Firaxis takes their time to do it right. Personally, I don't feel the need for any changed combat, but if they implemented it as suggested by Warpstorm and me, by having it as an option, not only old/new, but rather a number from 1 upwards that say the number of rolls to take the average from, then everyone will be happy.

I agree completely on this! I would be completely happy having it as an option!

For me, that is a bad idea. The only era I feel the need for any less randomness is in the ancient age. The reason for this is that wars then are with relatively few units, so a few unlucky rolls may wreck the day. In later ages it is much easier to build up a so big force that occasionally bad luck can be recovered from.
Your suggestion about adding HP per era makes the randomness biggest in the ancient era where it should be smallest.

I agree at least partially: there would be no effect WITHIN the ancient age and a reduction in randomness in the higher ages, right. I was thinking mostly of the effect on newer units vs. older units, the Tank vs. Spearman thing.

My main point, though, is that different opinions about this and other issues are possible and I will accept them as valid. In theory, everyone can configure his own game as he likes it with the editor - except that with even the smalles modification, it no longer counts for the (personal) HoF!

I mean, hey!, the HoF has TWO functions, IMO: comparisons between players, and personal comparisons, beating one's own score.
For the first function, I accept that modding games would make them incomparable - so mark modded games with an asterisk, for crying out loud!
Then we could configure our games as each likes it and not always have to find the compromise which satisfies all..which is practically impossible!

 

[anarres]

I'm a little late to the party, but THANK YOU!!

 

[kokoras]

Since the new one is about to come sould we have to istall the first 1.02 that was released a couple of weeks ago or it doesn't matter,i mean the new patch will include the previous or not?

 

[Catt]

I posted a "thanks" at 'Poly and wasn't going to repeat the message here . . . but especially for the follow-up post to TNO explaining about your revisiting the ingame effects after reading the feedback here.

Originally posted by Tavis

Keep the feedback coming! The patch is now 1.11 - I'll re-rerun the tests to make sure Mike isn't trying to be funny =)

Unless I am wildly mistaken, I think it is safe to assume that the responsiveness and engagement you've displayed at the fan sites will ensure plenty of feedback (hopefully constructive and reasoned) from the hard-core players

 

[Thunderfall]

Originally posted by kokoras
Since the new one is about to come sould we have to istall the first 1.02 that was released a couple of weeks ago or it doesn't matter,i mean the new patch will include the previous or not?

I guessed you didn't read the ADDENDUM on the main site news post .

"The patch is for all languages. The new text in the labels.txt just won't be translated. Since the patch will NOT include ALL of the ROW 1.02 files, ROW owners should patch 1.02 BEFORE installing Beta v1.10. -- Jesse"

 

[TrailblazingScot]

When a controversial change is made in a patch it would be good if those changes were done in such way that they could be toggled on and off. For example any changes to the combat calculator could have a major effect on the game that many players will dislike. Would it be too hard to have in place the option to revert to the original system?

I'd hope that in the patch they'd consider changing the allocation of traits as it is rather boring how many civs are seafaring and agricultural, these traits are VERY much over-used. Not that I, nor anyone else is bound to use the traits given to us

P.S As regarding corruption. Can't we just have corruption apply to trade (or the option for that to happen), I really, really hate corruption on my production as it means that trying to recreate the British Empire on a large World Map is v.unrewarding.

 

[Revolutionary]

Hi I've been reading about this combat system change for a while now even thou I just registered, at first I was all excited about this change, finally my tanks and cavalry won't have to worry about those cunning spearman .

But now I realize that this new system will unbalance the combat portion of the game especially in the Ancient era, there will be almost no defence in small citys against Swordsman unless you build walls, play as the Greeks, or have a large counterstrike force and unfortunately in the higher levels were the AI out number you and is usually in the tech lead you'll have no hope to win.

With this new system you might as well give all your cities to the AI even thou they probably have 2-3 times the number of cities you have. A great solution would be to simply give ALL units more HP like many have suggested, this solution will be better then the bonus HP per era which won't help in the Ancient era were unlikely outcomes affect you the most.

 

[warpstorm]

Actually, Revolutionary, giving all units more hits will eventually lead to this same effect. At around 12 hits each (+4 for each level of experience), you would see more or less the same effect that people are complaining about.

Actually, I think a little less hitpoints are needed, as you are only knocking off one hit per attack. (I don't feel like breaking out a calculator and finding out for sure).

 

[Master Shake]

What is ROW?

-mS

 

[warpstorm]

Rest Of the World.

 

[Master Shake]

Ah, as in, if I were using a non-american version I would need to patch 1.02 first, but since I'm not, I don't?

-mS

 

[Black Waltz]

Does the UK contituite 'rest of the world'?