Fix The Rng

[socralynnek]

PLEASE fix the Random Number Generator. In the past few games themselves I have lost 3 warriors to 1 warrior on plains, a numid to a warrior on plains, and stuff like that. I play MP, in a league so that just makes it that much worse. PLEASE fix this, I am pretty much fed up with it.

Don't fix it, if it ain't broken.
People have run statistical tests over the (P)RNG and it fullfills all criterias one can come up with.
We can discuss about changing the Combat System or hitpoints etc., but the RNG is just fine.
(Always remember:Spear happens...)
And I'm pretty sure, that there were situations where your warrior has defeated 3 enemy warriors...

 

[dh_epic]

Not just because I like outside the box thinking...

But I think a greater variety of military strategy would be a better solution to the random number problems. Rewarding people for good formations and timings and such, as opposed to just bringing a superior unit to an inferior unit and going at it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

And how is that?

Wondering how one could minimize such occurances without messing with the pRNG? Others have already given multiple solutions. Or why one wouldn't want to mess with the pRNG? Well, I think the burden of proof is on those who do not want to keep a near-perfect pRNG.

 

[toh6wy]

There are just two things I'd really like to see in Civ combat: that there be not only defense bonuses, but also attack bonuses (e.g. if you attack a unit on plains with a unit in forest, then the unit in the forest would surprise the other unit and have the advantage), and that there be modifiers vs. certain units (or at least certain types of units). Then TOW infantry could be more than just a unit to upgrade all of your old guerrillas to.

 

[Tsunami23]

Well one thing I do not like is how if 1 unit is on hills, with 1 defense, and another unit is on hill, with 1 attack and attacks unit A, he has a worse chance of winning then the defending unit. If a unit attacks from the same type of land it the defensive unit shouldn't get defensive cover.

 

[warpstorm]

Because he has to leave his hill and attack you on yours.

 

[Volstag]

PLEASE fix the Random Number Generator. In the past few games themselves I have lost 3 warriors to 1 warrior on plains, a numid to a warrior on plains, and stuff like that. I play MP, in a league so that just makes it that much worse. PLEASE fix this, I am pretty much fed up with it.

How does one "fix" a random number generator? Make it "more random"? And keep in mind that the AI receives as many "bad" roles as you do.

(As an aside: no one whines when the RNG is in their favor.)

-V

 

[Volstag]

While adding another layer of tactical depth/complexity to Civ IV would be interesting, it has the potential of "monstering" the mechanics (not to mention the length of an average game) to an almost unplayable state.

-V

 

[Gingerbread Man]

While adding another layer of tactical depth/complexity to Civ IV would be interesting, it has the potential of "monstering" the mechanics (not to mention the length of an average game) to an almost unplayable state.

-V

Couldn't agree with you more. These people who REALLY want an extra tactical mode, even a switch to RTS mode for each battle, dont realise that it would totally ruin the game. After about the 6th cavalry charge, I'd be sick of these battles. But I wouldn't be able to leave it up to the computer to calculate the battle - it would probably let a spearman defeat a tank every now and then and completely defeat the purpose of tactical-mode battles, turning it into a short-lived gimmick.

 

[Tsunami23]

How does one "fix" a random number generator? Make it "more random"? And keep in mind that the AI receives as many "bad" roles as you do.

(As an aside: no one whines when the RNG is in their favor.)

-V

Of course nobody whines when the RNG is in their favor.

And no, not make it "More random." The whole point of this thread isn't to say "The RNG in this game is lame, and their should be straight wins from stronger units." Some of you guys think that is what I am saying. I'm just saying make it a tiny bit less random, thats all.

 

[Tsunami23]

You guys obvously misunderstood me.

 

[baseballfan45]

I like your thinking. Combine both the non-linear and higher number principles. It would really increase the importance of Barracks and elites.

Conscript - 5
Regular - 10
Veteran - 20
Elite - 40

Of course for Civ 3 purposes, bombardment weapons would need to multiple their Fire Rates accordingly, and you would have to turn off combat animations for mod purposes(each unit would take 5 mins to fight).

sorry im going back to an old issue but....
Elites would be way to powerful, and im pretty sure only battelships had 40hp in civ 2, and that hp was based on technology, eg-warrior 5hp, tank 30 hp
instead maybe it could be
conscript -2hp
regular no bonus
veteran +2hp
elite +4hp

 

[grs]

Why is it that everytime I read a post about "fix rng", I hear "make me win everytime"?

But maybe thats just me...

 

[Volstag]

The whole point of this thread isn't to say "The RNG in this game is lame, and their should be straight wins from stronger units."

Edit: My finely crafted retort is rendered useless when I notice the "ISN'T".

-V

 

[sir_schwick]

The solution is simple. Increase the number of HP. That would make battles go more to predicted results due to an increase in the number of rounds.

I personally would like to see a return to the Firepower system, since it made era jumps more noticable while keeping era-similair units about even.

BTW, on the new HP per unit, my suggestion was purely arbitrary to demonstrate what I mean. ON fibonaci numbers, you should probably start at the second 1 instead of the first, or bring back the SMAC morales with those HP modifiers.

 

[socralynnek]

Of course nobody whines when the RNG is in their favor.

And no, not make it "More random." The whole point of this thread isn't to say "The RNG in this game is lame, and their should be straight wins from stronger units." Some of you guys think that is what I am saying. I'm just saying make it a tiny bit less random, thats all.

If it was less random then it's broken. A random number generator generates numbers between 0 and 1 which should be equally distributed and which should be independent (s.t. after a number you can't say which number comes next).
This works statistically. It's what the game makes of the numbers. About this we can discuss. The RNG is fine and can't be less random (how would you define less random, by the way?)
If you want stronger units to win more often, we can discuss about making the number grow stronger, or increasing HPs(which I consider a good idea)

So, please discuss about the Combat System and not the RNG.
(Then you shouldn't feel misunderstood.)

 

[The Last Conformist]

And no, not make it "More random." The whole point of this thread isn't to say "The RNG in this game is lame, and their should be straight wins from stronger units." Some of you guys think that is what I am saying. I'm just saying make it a tiny bit less random, thats all.

And how is making the pRNG less random (ie, worse) going to help with weird combat results, precisely?

 

[sir_schwick]

And how is making the pRNG less random (ie, worse) going to help with weird combat results, precisely?

It is not, I agree.

BTW, has anyone seem warpstorm lately? He would probably know why the Civ 3 developers reduced the number of HP per units from 10-40 to 2-5.