Do Away with RNG (Random Number Generator)

[Krunchyman]

I think that for Civ 5, the random number generator for attack sequences needs to be replaced. I think units should behave like they do in real time strategy games, and should attack as an army. In Civ 4, units travel in groups, but it never affects combat. If units stopped operating so randomly, it would remove unfair attack sequences like medieval infantry dying to spearmen or warriors. Ever seen the spearman versus tank video on youtube? I also think, like I said, units should attack as an army, versus the current stack method, where units challenge each other individually. Just imagine a full scale battle with massive artilley and tanks bombarding relentless infantry and planes all at once.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think that for Civ 5, the random number generator for attack sequences needs to be replaced. I think units should behave like they do in real time strategy games, and should attack as an army. In Civ 4, units travel in groups, but it never affects combat. If units stopped operating so randomly, it would remove unfair attack sequences like medieval infantry dying to spearmen or warriors. Ever seen the spearman versus tank video on youtube? I also think, like I said, units should attack as an army, versus the current stack method, where units challenge each other individually. Just imagine a full scale battle with massive artilley and tanks bombarding relentless infantry and planes all at once.

It wouldn't necessarily be horrid, but 1UPT is better...

 

[Onionsoilder]

I think that for Civ 5, the random number generator for attack sequences needs to be replaced.

Nah.

1) Civilization is not an RTS.
2) The fact that the RNG exists means you need to plan better and make good use of strategy. If X amount of this unit beat X amount of that unit, the game would be pretty boring.
3) In real life, there are all kinds of random factors that can influence a battle. Instead of emulating each of these factors separately, it's much simpler just to use the RNG.
4) The RNG would still have to be present on map generation unless you're using pre-made maps, which can get boring pretty quickly. A civ with a good start could win the game easily then, because th civ that got good initial rolls would never suffer from bat later rolls.

 

[LDiCesare]

Some randomness is good. War is not something predictable, things often go wrong, and the RNG emulates that.

 

[Sonereal]

I think that for Civ 5, the random number generator for attack sequences needs to be replaced. I think units should behave like they do in real time strategy games, and should attack as an army. In Civ 4, units travel in groups, but it never affects combat. If units stopped operating so randomly, it would remove unfair attack sequences like medieval infantry dying to spearmen or warriors. Ever seen the spearman versus tank video on youtube? I also think, like I said, units should attack as an army, versus the current stack method, where units challenge each other individually. Just imagine a full scale battle with massive artilley and tanks bombarding relentless infantry and planes all at once.

I, uh, can't really understand the idea behind this. Units traveling in groups affect the greater battle or do you believe that having only trebuchets in a group doesn't affect anything?

Medival infantry can realistically be killed by a spear man or warrior. The chances are very small and is reflected with the RNG.

Seriously, stop acting like its 50/50 chance all the time. Things like terrain, unit advantages, disadvantages, promotions, and luck are represented using RNG.

 

[Jayrad]

Yeah it isn't as bad as it used to be in civ 4 the RNG is 50% str. 30% terrain 10% promotions and 10 % luck but in Civ3 it was 50% Strength or ATK/DEF value 20% terrain and 30% luck so its getting better.

 

[Meteora]

The RNG in CIV4 is better than CIV3; but it could use an improvement. I don't like it when sometimes I get combat odds of 80-90% and three times in a roll my units would die. Like wtf?

 

[Sonereal]

The RNG in CIV4 is better than CIV3; but it could use an improvement. I don't like it when sometimes I get combat odds of 80-90% and three times in a roll my units would die. Like wtf?

....which reflects luck and the fact that nothing goes off without a hitch a 100% of the time.

 

[Furiey]

Even if the units moved as an army as in RTS games they still use a RNG to calculate what happens, so units operating as an army is a seperate issue from doing away with the RNG. Without a RNG exactly the same outcome would occur every time the same 2 types of units met. To me that would be too predictable and boring.

 

[spammikone]

Does OP mean that when units lose their "attack sequence" roll, they lose their turn to attack? This sounds like how interruptions are done during opponents turn in a tactical squad strategy, but then again it only changes the roles of the sides - defender becomes an attacker, and I'm 99% sure Civilization 4 doesn't work like this.

Or units would have some attack phase which determines if attack was landed before damage calculations start? Or something else?

It's been years since I've played Civilization 4 last time and don't remember its combat mechanics, but surely Civ 4 didn't had something like these? More like when unit attack, its and defenders combat values are calculated as they are - as in they won't change their roles during battle or the values won't meaningfully change?

Next thing I need to understand what relations does "attack sequence" have to stack mechanics and "attacking as an army"? OP's post is very confusing.

And lastly, why does this result in getting rid of RNG? Does OP know what RNG is? Also, does OP know because RTS'es are real-time, they do not tend to have "attack sequences" other than units own attack speeds which act independently from their enemies (yeah I know it might seem tanks could be pounding each other in turns...)? Can OP name a single RTS which does not use RNG in its damage calculations? I can name wholly two RTS games where every attack has an fixed damage value and accuracy is consistent and predictable (I think), I'm sure there is more, but can you name one?

 

[evirus]

The RNG in CIV4 is better than CIV3; but it could use an improvement. I don't like it when sometimes I get combat odds of 80-90% and three times in a roll my units would die. Like wtf?

thats not how probability works, for each attack you get a 90% chance to win, that doesn't mean if you attack twice, both with a 90% chance to win, that your chance of winning at least one of those attacks is 180%, the chance of winning is still only 90% for each battle, probabilities don't add up like you think they do. and it takes a considerably large sample size before probability starts becoming visible(law of large numbers).

 

[Psycadelic_Magi]

I think in his recent talk about player psychology in game design sid meier said something about that if you are attacking and the odds are say 95% and you lose, the player will consider this to be unfair and that this is something wrong with the game; but if the player is attacking where the odds are just 5% and they win, they'll think they just got lucky, and that its a perfectly normal thing.
Random numbers are annoying some of the time but you gotta have them to keep the game interesting, to give the underdogs a chance, even if the underdog is the AI player, which we probably won't enjoy.

 

[evirus]

I think in his recent talk about player psychology in game design sid meier said something about that if you are attacking and the odds are say 95% and you lose, the player will consider this to be unfair and that this is something wrong with the game; but if the player is attacking where the odds are just 5% and they win, they'll think they just got lucky, and that its a perfectly normal thing.
Random numbers are annoying some of the time but you gotta have them to keep the game interesting, to give the underdogs a chance, even if the underdog is the AI player, which we probably won't enjoy.

thus there is the following t-shirt:

 

[Hypernova]

1UPT will pretty much work as the OP describes, with huge armies fighting over many turns and supporting fire etc.

And the random number generator seems to be gone in Civ V at least in the way it works in Civ IV. Non-fatal combat means that now it will be rare for a unit to be killed in one attack at all.

As other posters have said, some randomness is good, but as it currently stands I agree with the OP it is far too much. I wouldn't mind the occasional misnomer so long as in most individual cases you could be pretty certain how it would turn out. This doesn't make the game too predictable, the fairly predictable nature of combat on a micro level will not really detract from the unpredictable nature of whole wars (or even whole battles), it will merely add more tactics by allowing decisions to have knowable consequences rather than everything just being another dice roll.

 

[TheDS]

In Massive Assault, there's practically no randomness in combat; it's pretty much entirely skill. My mind isn't big enough to calculate it in advance, but I've generally got a good "feel" for whether a force will win against an enemy. It's a fun game, but it could use a little bit of randomness to throw off the people who CAN calculate all that in their heads.

Civ1 and Civ2 had stupid-levels of randomness. Civ3 improved it a little and Civ4 has taken a lot of it away. A mere 10% strength bonus is enough for a win about 80% of the time, depending on the specifics of the battle. Just bring a second unit and you win.

If you fight 100 battles at 90% odds, count on losing 10 of them. Playing the odds isn't a guaranteed victory, unless you're the house. They play millions of "games" a day; even a 51-to-49 game pays them big time over the long haul. They don't need to cheat. And it's why you can't win. (Well, that, and they'll break your legs or ban you if you win too big.)

Eventually ya gotta roll snake-eyes or boxcars.

 

[Earthling]

It wouldn't necessarily be horrid, but 1UPT is better...

It's a far better idea than 1UPT, but then again, almost anything is. And on top of that, reducing random chance will be integral to 1UPT's success.

I, uh, can't really understand the idea behind this.

Seriously, stop acting like its 50/50 chance all the time

If you lack understanding, perhaps it is more worth your own time to read some background, say the strategy section articles for the various civ games, to understand the mechanics behind the game. The OP's proposal was not really misinformed.

 

[spammikone]

If you lack understanding, perhaps it is more worth your own time to read some background, say the strategy section articles for the various civ games, to understand the mechanics behind the game. The OP's proposal was not really misinformed.

Hey, since you seem to understand, could you translate what the OP's proposal is? I'm still out with that army attacking and attack sequences concept and how they are related.

 

[Earthling]

Well, the OP's proposal actually isn't going to happen in civ 5, which will have a one-unit-per-tile system by all indications. But I'd say what he would want to see implemented, and in relation to previous civ games, is a way to incorporate battles between an entire stack in just battles between armies, with results going accordingly.

This could feasibly be done in civ 4 for instance and could be used as a way to
a) reduce the effect of random chance
b) generally change/alter focus of the combat system.

Now other people constantly propose silly stuff like real-time battle maps as in the Total War series but that's not necessary for this idea/or the OP; that's an irrevelent debate. What the system would more be like, comparing between old and new:

Currently: Two axes want to attack an archer in the city. They both have to attack individually and could live or die.

Army/Stack Attack: Both axes attack together, thus the result is probably that the archer dies, and 0-1 axes die or they both take some damage.

This could be extended to larger armies - say 6 horseman vs. 1 spear and 5 axemen. Instead of the player attacking with individual units, the "army attack" would calculate it's odds and come up with something like

"3-4 horsemen die or are wounded, 3-5 defending axemen die or wounded, spear is wounded" rather than the current system where attacking one at a time you see a few horse vs. spear battles.

The system would reduce the "top defender" rule where hard counters are overly annoying in previous civ games, and have to introduce it's own rules for calculating strength/flexibility/whatever of an army.

The reason this probably won't be in civ 5, is that despite the fact that people constantly put out random ideas about it, a way to makes "armies" probably just won't exist. Units will have combat one-by-one and indeed only one at a time fit into a tile. Though, the related proposals are all the people who suggest merging units into a "warrior-archer" unit instead of an individual warrior and individual archer unit. Again, the result being that battle takes place between armies, and in a battle maybe some units from each army die, rather than in previous civ versions simply having one unit fight exactly one other unit, where one of the two usually must die.

 

[Sonereal]

If you lack understanding, perhaps it is more worth your own time to read some background, say the strategy section articles for the various civ games, to understand the mechanics behind the game. The OP's proposal was not really misinformed.

-Bleh, deleted my post. Didn't want to be dragged into another pointless conversation over an idea that won't be implemented-