LK Planning thread

Thanks for the links, I did catch these. I also drew up a graph for the results of this best-3-of-5 approach, and responded in the thread mentioned. For completeness, I'll show a link to the graph here, where the x-axis is old/existing overall probability of winning and the y-axis would be the new proposed probability...

NewCombatGraph.jpg


That's brutal on both ends, 80%->95%, 90%->99%.
Impact will be rather large on:
- How much more important artillery/bombardment will be
- The pre-tank era of cav vs infantry
- The dominance of immortals, mounted warriors, hoplites, berzerks (gasp!), musketeers and other "best-of-breed" UU's which stand out from their contemporaries.

But... the linearity in the central part of the graph suggests things aren't going to be hopeless or 'broken'. A 60% chance to win just goes up to 68%, and a 70% chance goes up to 83%. Folks who know how to use terrain, know what the bonuses are, know how to use artillery, will continue to separate themselves who do not. Gosh, we may even see more catapults built and used - and trebuchets will really distinguish themselves as a welcome addition to the game compared to vanilla/ptw.

'Most' warfare is in the nearly linear range of 33-66%, eg archers on warriors or spears, swords on spears, horses on spears, knights on pikes, longbows on knights, cav on rifles in towns, tanks on infantry, MA on Mech. Where it will matter *more* is MDI vs spear, swords on muskets, cav on pikes, cav on infantry, and increasing your city's population in era of tank on infantry.

Charis
 
This change has absolutely nothing to do with 'streakiness'. Sirp and I ran some tests a while back, and Civ3's RNG is not streaky at all. Any result is equally likely to be followed by any other result. This hasn't changed.

This is 100% pandering to the whiners that had spearmen beating their tanks. Nobody seems to understand (I'm preaching to the choir in this thread, I know) that that happening on occasion is a *designed feature* of the game, to reduce the impact of drastic technology and resource differences and give the little guy a bit more of a chance.

Seems the hordes don't want balance; they just want to crush anything in sight. And Firaxis caved. Way to patch a minor issue and totally blow the balance of the rest of the game.

Now where's that GalCiv purchase page...
 
Originally posted by T-hawk
Now where's that GalCiv purchase page...
Click to expand...


Well I already own it.
If the Combat gets as screwed as I feel it could - that may become my primary game.
 
New info has been posted in the combat thread.

Think of each round of combat as the attacker rolling dice to see if they hit the defender. If the number rolled is greater than or equal to the defense value, the attacker hits; otherwise, the defender hits. The change we made was to the way the attacker rolls the dice. The attacker now rolls multiple times and the result is the average of all the rolls.

Charis, care to run some more binomial graphs? Also, was your previous graph showing the outcomes of each HP battle or each entire combat (you can run for 4 HP as the most common case) ?
 
So it sounds they're going to do the equivalent of replacing a 1d12 roll with a 2d6 roll.

As if increasing the cost of the Jaguar Warrior to twenty shields didn't cripple it enough, this sure will! EDIT: Now I have the game I see it's fifteen shields, that'll still make it a good unit.

This will magnify even small differences, so that things like fortifying will be critical. Sounds like a warrior attacking another warrior fortified on grassland will have only ~35% chance to win.

Sirp
 
:cry:
I still dont want to believe this is really happening....
 
T-hawk, since it's likely to get lost in the thread (now buried 5 pages behind the current post, as it is), here's the Graph you requested -- it looks at the overall battle of two vet units:

NewCombatGraphFour.jpg


"Notice in particular how steep the 'battle' curve gets if you average four rolls. It gets steeper if elites instead of vets are used.

There are two lines in the plot. Ignoring retreats, a 4 attack vet vs a modified 7-defense unit, like MDI or Knight on Musket fortified in a city. Currently a 22% chance to win the battle, would be 4.6% rolling twice, or just 0.6% rolling four times. Huge difference! Second ex: 6 attack cav is coming after my fortified pikeman (mod defense of 4). The attack ratio of 1.5 means a 60% chance of winning any given hp translates to a 71% chance to win under the current system, up to 83% if avg of two rolls, and up to 93% with four rolls. :eek:

The hp scheme and the avg-rolls scheme both try to steepen the curve, but the combination is especially potent in effect. " :hammer:

Charis
 
This whole debate has been done over and over again in many Strategy games, dating back to the roll-the-dice board wargames in the 70's .

The real core issue is that this sub-genre (Turn-based Strategy Games) attracks fans who are very detail oriented and factual based. I dare say that many of us are borderline anal-retentive, but that may not be a popular observation! *ahem* Anyways. A certain percentage of these fans like the certainty of an outcome and like to reduce all elements of randomness as much as possible in the issue of "fairness". The problem arises in that this kills the fun of playing the game in the first place! Randomness has its place in these games, and striking the balance line of unfair randomness and enough randomness to make a game addictive is a very fine art that will never be agreed upon by more than half of a particular game's fans.

My opinion is they shouldn't have messed with the calculations.
 
Originally posted by Rubberjello
This whole debate has been done over and over again in many Strategy games, dating back to the roll-the-dice board wargames in the 70's .
Click to expand...

I am not the only wargamer hear? :D

=================

from Jesse (via mail)
The change to the combat system has been cut from the v1.10 Patch

[dance] [dance] [dance]
 
from Jesse (via mail)
The change to the combat system has been cut from the v1.10 Patch

[dance] [dance] [dance] [/B]
Click to expand...

It is good to know that they listen...

Or perhaps they just tested it and realized how much it would screw up the game :)

-Sirp.
 
It is time to start the debate for LK60. Long-term plans include another world map game, but I haven't finished upgrading the game to conquests. This also needs a lot of play testing, as I had to rebuild all unit upgrade paths and civs again.

Always War (monarchy) - Armies clearly help the military side, but how bad does the inability to rush key wonders (Sun Tzu, Leo's, Great Library, etc.) hurt? By late game we could afford a city to get ToE, but the early game is a much harder challenge.

European Epic - Once again we play the Europe scenario, except this time we MOD the scenario to eliminate victory points, make the game length 540 turns, etc to play like a typical game. Yes, that means domination is 2/3rd of the map!

New World - We will play the new world scenario. Nothing else special.

Slow Moving Civ - Fast moving units may only operate within our borders. To initiate an attack outside of our borders we must send in the infantry (swords, mdi, rifles, etc). Slow moving bombard units may join the stack. This will be played at Emperor.

Signed up:
Always War
LKendter

European Epic
LKendter

New World
LKendter

Slow Moving Civ
LKendter
 
It was a long time since I played an Always War. They are always a challenge, and it would be fun to see if the new might of armies will outweight the inability to rush wonders.

European Epic left me with a bone to pick as well. I would want a rematch against the uppity Abbasids.

Grimjack
 
Signed up:
Always War
LKendter
Grimjack


European Epic
LKendter
Grimjack


New World
LKendter


Slow Moving Civ
LKendter
 
I :love: bombardment, so I would be interested in the slow moving civ game. I would be interested in the New World one also, but I can't do both simultaneously.
 
I can't do both simultaneously.
I only plan to do the one with the most interest. No clear winner yet...


Signed up:
Always War
LKendter
Grimjack


European Epic
LKendter
Grimjack


New World
LKendter
Rubberjello


Slow Moving Civ
LKendter
Rubberjello
 
Not much interest so far.

Is there anything you would like to see here?
 
I would play the AW game if it were AWE and on a standard map, and I would also play the New World Scen. I have no preference between the two assuming you're willing to up the difficulty of the AW game and keep the map size down. I couldn't commit to a 48hr turnround for an AW game on a large map.
 
I would play the AW game if it were AWE
Sorry, but I am going to stick with Monarchy. LOTR12 blowout is why I don't want AWE.



Signed up:
Always War
LKendter
Grimjack


European Epic
LKendter
Grimjack


New World
LKendter
Rubberjello
mad-bax



Slow Moving Civ
LKendter
Rubberjello
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Demigod help
Replies
19
Views
1K
Spoonwood
S
M
The Ottoman Thread
Replies
14
Views
838
AOS9001
AOS9001
BlackBetsy
Poll on Greatest HOF Game Ever - Nominations
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
BlackBetsy
BlackBetsy
T
conquest, new alliances
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
justanick
J
Hickman888
The Greece Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
trexeric
trexeric
Back
Top Bottom