LK Planning thread

[LKendter]

It is time to at least start mapping out future LK games. This is the future plans for the conquest series:

LK World Map - I need to upgrade and redo the game for conquest. This game could not survive without a working fp and the gpt bug around. This will not start until these issues are patched. We would play at demigod, but minus the extra settler.

Lets go medieval -
Conquest #4, the middle ages that is a full blown 540 turn game.

Let's find the new world -
Conquest #6, Age of Discovery. The game is just 150 turns. I am not sure if 5 of 10 player turns map more sense.

Back to Europe -
Conquest #8, Napoleonic Europe. As the game is just 96 turns, each player round would be just 5 turns.

Victory in the pacific -
Conquest #9, WWII in the pacific. This is a large # of units, but short scenario. Each player round would be just 5 turns.

Generic Demigod Game -
A basic game using one of the new civs.

I don't plan any conquest variants or deity games until the GPT bugs and FP bug is fixed.

Let me know what sounds interesting.

Lee

 

[meldor]

Going Medievil sounds like it would be interesting to me.

 

[LKendter]

Conquest #4
meldor


Conquest #6


Conquest #8


Conquest #9


Generic Demigod Game

 

[hotrod0823]

I think Middle ages is the way to go !

 

[LKendter]

Conquest #4
meldor
hotrod0823


Conquest #6


Conquest #8


Conquest #9


Generic Demigod Game

 

[ToddMarshall]

I'd have interest in #4 for sure, and possibly #6. I'd like to be able to say I actually was able to win a game with you. After that allways war/never resources game, I'm ready to try again .

 

[Grimjack]

I would like game #4. Game #6 as dutch would be a challenge, although the FP issues will make it perhaps a bit too harsh.

Grimjack

 

[LKendter]

Conquest #4 is FULL.

I will get it started later today.

 

[LKendter]

As my signature says - I am taking a break from civ.

I feel the GPT bug has really screwed the game up. A perfect example was LOTR11 with Egypt sitting on absurd amount of cash due to the bug. We did take all those Egypt cities and cash rushed massive amount of units due to the cash. Instead of an interesting fight - the game was a blowout in the end.


The gpt bug is also screweing with the science pace, and other issues. For the moment the 3 LK games will finish. Nothing new until the gpt issue is fixed. I even wonder if some of the alliance insanity in LK57 is due to gpt and more money for people to spend.

This thread will reopen with game ideas once the game is fixed.

 

[Coffee]

I read that a patch is due in mid January. I'll be holding back from playing C3C until then also.

 

[Arizona_Steve]

Lee, I have to concur with your point of view. With LotR11 finished, I am only committed to MLDR04 - all other civving activity has stopped.

The GPT and corruption bugs are game breakers in my opinion, and until they're fixed, this game is not fun to play.

 

[ToddMarshall]

I'm with you on that as well. Im going back to ptw till it is fixed. Not just the gpt, but the broken FP is ruining the fun as well. Humans are usually much better at placing an FP than the AI, and the fact that we can't build the FP in RBC3a might end up being a diffrence maker.

 

[LKendter]

the broken FP is ruining the fun as well.

Believe me I was disgusted in LK56 when I got a military leader, rushed the fp, and got NOTHING for it. It is worse now that I realize how much better armies are.

 

[Charis]

Ouch, I didn't know the discontent ran so deep. I'm enjoying the expansion quite a bit so far, but I've avoided going too deep in difficulty yet because of the severity of the bugs. It's like playing a variant where you can't build an FP and where the AI get large economic bonuses

It's basically a conflict of expectations vs reality. On some of your game the difficulty/game choices were made to achieve a certain level of difficulty, and now through no fault of your own the games are more or less screwed. I didn't have much in the way of expectations yet and so when something unexpected occurs such that a scenario game is very much in jeopardy for a very strong SG team, I think that's great Like you said too, the new armies have been a blast.

In any case, I do agree they're major issues and do look forward to a patch asap. Keeping the game in moderation til then will be nice in avoiding burnout, and some other players who were on the edge of burnout now have a very good reason to take a breather and relax with something else for several weeks.

Charis

 

[Darkness]

Aggie posted this at CDZ, unfortunately this only the BETA patch, so who knows how long we'll have to wait for the real one:
But at least they're already working on patching something...


Aggie:
-----------------------------------------------
Firaxis will be releasing a BETA patch (v1.10):

Updates BETA v1.10:
CIV III: CONQUESTS BETA v1.10
* Fixed issues with corruption

* Fixed issues with double gold being awarded

* Shifted minimap and unit info boxes slightly
inward to prevent problems with scrolling and
button-clicking.

* Re-enabled Intel optimizations from PTW.

* Fixed issue that caused scientific leaders to
use only the first name in the list.

* Fixed issue that caused selections on the
Foreign Advisor screen to be cleared.

* Modified combat calculations to make combat
appear less "streaky." Combat results are now
calculated multiple times before determining a
result. This should reduce spearman defeating
Tanks and other extremely frustrating combat
results.

* Optimized main menu code.

* Cleaned up INI preferences code

* Fixed issue with the audio preferences (sound
volume).

* Greatly improved the ability of Seafaring civs
to start near the coast. It should happen most
of the time now.

* Fixed numerous problems with Seafaring civs
starting near the coast in hotseat games.

* Implemented Seafaring civs starting near the
coast in MP games.

* Updated the interface on the world chooser
screen so selected options were more apparent.

* Fixed upgrade all bug (for units that do not
have the upgrade ability but are part of the
upgrade chain).

* Added feminine titles for Despotism,
Feudalism, and Fascism (for English default
rules only!).

* Editor: Added Flavors to the Import dialog.

* Corrected display of silk as luxury in city
view in Rise of Rome

* Corrected Scourge of God splash screen art in
Fall of Rome

* Build road/fort animations now show for
Legionary in Fall of Rome

* Cataphract now uses Ancient Cavalry art in
Middle Ages

* Corrected Mining tech art in Age of Discovery

* Text: Several civilopedia fixes (mostly
spelling, grammar, spaces)

---------------- Features --------------------
* Implemented ability to enter a seed value on
the world setup screen. It is located in the
upper-right corner. Any character can be entered
as the seed. If the seed is 0 (the default), it
will generate the world normally. If every
character is a number, the value is interpreted
as the seed value and used to generate the
world. In all other cases, a hash table formula
is applied to the string to generate a unique
value that is used to generate the world. While
it is technically possible for two different
strings to evaluate to the same seed, it is
unlikely (i.e., SEED is not the same as DEES --
upper- and lower-case letters will yield
different results as well).

* Implemented the "Play Last World" option. This
option appears on the main menu after playing
the first SP random-map game. When chosen, the
player is taken to the world chooser with the
seed filled in and all the previous settings
selected. The player can make any changes or
keep the world exactly the same. Note that if
ANY changes are made on this screen, the map
that is generated will be different. Next the
player is taken to the player setup screen with
all the civs and settings from the previous game
selected. Again, the player can make any changes
or keep the settings the same. If ANY civs are
changed, player starting locations MAY change
(depending on the number of seafaring civs,
actually).

* Implemented support for CAPS LOCK to work as
the SHIFT key to skip unit movement animations
(so you don't have to hold shift for the AI's
turn to skip the animations).

* The MP timer values are now read from
scenarios (the default values remain unchanged).

* Editor: Added MP timer values to the Scenario
Properties. There are 3 values: Base, Per Unit,
and Per City (with defaults of 24, 1, and 3,
respectively). They represent the Base amount of
time per turn + the amount of time Per Unit +
the amount of time Per City (number of
units/cities used each turn are based on the
player with the most units and the player with
the most cities on that turn). The values can
range from 0-100. The higher the number, the
more time per turn. FOR INTENSE FAST MP GAMES
PLAY THE CONQUESTS FAST MP scenario that is
provided with the Patch.

Good news? I'd say so.
--------------------------------------------------

 

[Arathorn]

* Modified combat calculations to make combat
appear less "streaky." Combat results are now
calculated multiple times before determining a
result. This should reduce spearman defeating
Tanks and other extremely frustrating combat
results.

This is terrible news. The PRNG worked well before and now it will, indeed, be more predictable, as was the complaint. I'm extremely disappointed. Randomness is streaky. Non-streaky means not random means exploitable means less fun. Bah!

Arathorn

P.S. Where's the link where this is listed, so I can complain there, too?

 

[LKendter]

Originally posted by Charis
Ouch, I didn't know the discontent ran so deep.

I suggest you read around - LOTR10 now has 2 players who don't want to try Sid again until post patch. Many other threads have people really annoying with the fp / gpt bugs.


As for me - Galactic Civ is being played. Got my first normal game that feels like strong position with building 3 of the early wonders. I only have planets in my home section - build all those 13/14 with double PQ improvements have created a 7 or 8 decent worlds.

I just hope I can get back into civ post patch...
To many other things starting to fill in that time.

 

[Ridgelake]

Those would be enormous improvements. Lets hope they come through soon!

 

[Charis]

I'm with Arathorn on his comments about

"* Modified combat calculations to make combat
appear less "streaky." Combat results are now
calculated multiple times before determining a
result. "



Perhaps this is just poorly worded, but that phrasing is just plain ignorant. 'Streaky', if that were true at all would be due to a poorly implemented prng, and if that were so it should be fixed. "Modifiying" calculations to avoid upsets would turn combat into a total rock-scissors-papers game and utterly ruin combat.

Let's say one took a 'best of 3' approach to who wins:
50-50% remains 50-50 (as it would for best of 'any')
67-33% chance becomes 74/26%
80-20% chance becomes 90/10%

But it gets worse, as that's just one shot. In Civ3, the roll is made for each HP - which is the main design mechanism for avoiding spear vs tank wins already. So let's look at a scheme where a longbow takes on a spear, both vets. For each die roll (each hp) the longbow has a 2/3 chance of winning that round (4 / (4+2)) if there's no defense bonus.

The chance for the spear to win is not 33%, but rather the binomial result of having to go through a best-of-7 world series (ie first one to score four wins is the victor, due to the hps)
At present then, the underdog's chance to win are
0.33^7 + 7*0.33^6*0.67 + 21*0.33^5*0.67^2 + 35*0.33^4*0.67^3 = 17.3% i.e., out in the open, the longbow beats down the spear 82.7% of the time, which is about right.

What would it mean to make each 'shot' for one hp the best 2 of 3 rerolls? The longbow's chances go up to 92%, so you've cut the chances of the spear winning by over a factor of two. That's a huge effect for a pretty small change. If the new averaging process were to be best 3-of-5, the odds go to 96% vs 4%.

Some more examples:
A) longbow vs a spear with bonus so it's 4 on 3: now wins 65%, a best 2-of-3 averaging would see him win 72%. (best 3-of-5 -> 77%)
B) You have several cav going to go up against fortified rifles in a city, let's say attack 6 vs modified defense of 12. At present the cav will win 17% of the time. Best 2-of-3 avg makes that 8%, and best 3-of-5 cuts it to 4%, yikes!
C) Make those infantry fortified in a tough city and how does it look? Let's use modified defense 18, currently the cav would win 7% of the time. Bad odds, but throw in retreats and with a little bombard support you have a chance if well played. Best 2-of-3 avg would win just 1.4%, and 3-of-5 cuts that to 0.3%. Double yikes!

I'll have to look at the thread and try to figure out what this beta is going to try to do. The other improvements do sound good though

EDIT -- I should have looked in the other thread first. They re-roll each shot 4 times and in case of tie, do it one more time. That makes it a best-of-5 in that you need 3 roll-wins no matter what.
So look at the best-of-5 results above.

Charis

(PS as far as LOTR10... well, that's why it's "scouting" Sid! I sure hope they didn't expect to beat it first time around for a 1.0 version. Heck, if they do, it's not Sid-ly enough!)

 

[Arathorn]

Check out

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71474

where the announcement of the public beta was made (make sure you read post http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1424703#post1424703) and

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71519

for a thread dedicated to the new combat system.

It makes my skin crawl just thinking about how broken it will be. And the thing is, all it does is make the difference in strengths more important...it will still be just as streaky (with modified odds) as the old system. Blech. Chime in with your disapproval where it has a good chance of being read.

(Edit: As for LotR10, I think we're all happy we're playing it, but we're not going to try again until things are fixed. It's not about losing -- it's about a broken game. And, Lee, sorry for the threadjack.)

Arathorn