"Luck" Ruins civ's "professional" appeal.

[A+ombomb]

I know there have been lots of complaints about luck already, so I won't go into that directly. The purpose of this is to point out how luck affects the ability of civ to generate long lasting appeal for a professional gaming community. Civ is a great game - we all know this. But I would really like to see it along the lines of other great games that have worldwide professional communities. Civ *won't* have this, because it's too LUCK oriented. I'll admit that civ4 is big steps above previous civs, luck wise, but why not use systems already around for the combat systems, for example? A somewhat Warcraft 3 style of combat would be perfect for civ. Doesn't anyone else really like the idea of civ someday having a true professional community?

 

[fret]

Im not sure what you mean by 'professional community'?

I dont think Civ will ever have a community to match (in terms of size) that of the big online FPS or MMORPG games.

I dont think its down to an element of luck within the game, i just dont think Civ has the same amount of mass appeal.

Turn based stratagy is not a mass appeal genre.

Personally, I prefer it that way.

 

[AvianAvenger]

I dont like the role that luck plays in the combat system, i would like a more chess like combat system... but that would require some major changes to unit stats & combat code.

A warcraft stlye combat system would suck, the only strategy that game has is to pump out the cheapest ranged unit as fast as possible and you win. Warcraft & CnC generally adopt the rock/paper/scissors style in which e.g. AA beats Aircraft - Aircraft beats Tank - Tank beats AA.

By chess like, i mean that each unit has its advantage's but can be easily taken out by any other unit if used the wrong way, i hate the current system in which one archer on a hill easily defends attacks from every direction & then only takes one turn to heal up. The way in which units heal is just stupid, the stack-of-doom technique seems to be the only way to get anything done in game.

Another thing that i reckon should be changed is the number of units allowed on a single tile, it should either be limited to 1 or 3, i would prefer 1. That way a more tactical use of the terrain could be used.

 

[Arcadian83]

I like Civ4's health and combat odds system. It can be rendered quite predictable with adequate use/loss of artillery, and sheer quantity of units. It's more realistic, balanced, and fun than previous Civ games. It's not overly difficult to get odds of 95% - 100% odds for would-be elites. At that point the element of chance determines if and how much they get injured, which of course affects future battles until they heal. This is playing it safe and efficient with an oversized force.

As the difficulty level or skill of opponents increases, one has to take more risks and slimmer odds. Even a craps-shoot of bad odds like 0% is given a chance to injured the enemy so future attacks have a chance of killing it. Odds add a fun less-than-predictability to the game. A battle could poorly despite your best planning, forcing you to regroup. In the end they all average out, anyways.

Warcraft 3 will always be better at being like Warcraft 3 than any other game. Imitating it is a recipe for mediocrity. While graphically glitchy at times, Civ4's combat system is innovative and has captured a strong niche audience.

On a note of personal opinion, I'd much rather have the loyal, friendly, productive hobbyist community that Civ already has than some G4 MTV-ish professional gaming community. They would attract a shady opportunist element and hordes of l33t griefers. They would just move on to the next, more hardware-intensive game that comes out.

 

[AvianAvenger]

Oh, and also units should be able to choose which units they are attacking, when you have one stack v's another stack, i mean. Having horsemen ramming themselves onto pikemen just because the enemy happens to have some in their stack is just stupid.

One horseman to another -
"Duh frank, do you think we with our superiour movement should flank these heavily armored pikemen and side swipe those archers like we were ordered or just go over the top of them"
"Gee bill, your such an idiot. we will be able to take them out quicker if we just go over the top"
"Frank, your so smart"

 

[Mutineer]

Luck in civ4 is very small factor.
If anyone refure to luck in order to justify a loss he is wrong.

 

[AvianAvenger]

Luck in civ4 is very small factor.
If anyone refure to luck in order to justify a loss he is wrong.

Your dead wrong there, luck has to do with anything in the game which is random. Which happens to be just about everything in the game... such where you are placed on a map, what resources are near, where the closest civs are.
Units can luck out in combat when the odds are in their favour, even when the odds are stongly in there favour... this is definatly no fault of the player, when this happens. You cannot blame the player when his decision was a smart one yet he losses anyway. Its the metaphorical equivilant of doing an exam answering every question right and then failing because of no particular reason.

There is a saying "A bad tradesman blames his tools" but what the **** would a tradesman do if each moment he went to use his tool it changed between a spanner and a hammer?

 

[alpha wolf 64]

i've always wished that combat was decided stack vs stack with each unit getting a strategy. Then by examinung the strategies involved with terrain, and number of units, damage would be asessed.

 

[JavierLQ]

What I think people may not think about(or understand) that if some of the "luck" factors where to be changed, it would ruin the game...

What do I mean? Well one of the most interesting things about the game is having to change your strategy because of what is available to you.

Using egypt, you may want to beeline to animal husbandry and make chariots/horse archers to push a rush on the enemy...but what happens when you find there are no horses near you...or you lack a strategic resource for a unit that is fount on your enemies side, and the only way to be able to come out of it alive is attack first, and grab that resource (these are just examples).

This makes things exciting, and makes you *gasp* think! If things were changed to where you KNEW that two tiles away you will have copper, then 5 tiles away you get iron..and later on oil, game would get stale. It would become something like Age of the Empires where skill was decided whoever could click fastest to have so many villigers by X-minute and hten swarm the enemy with the same unit (extreme example). It works for a real time strategy game like AoK as there are other factors involved (such as what you DO in a battle), but it does not work for a turn based game.

Same for combat...If you knew that having X unit would always beat X unit getting rid of the "luck" factor, combat would get stale as in a turn based game all you do is point and click..there is no flanking, no strategic retreat while they get bombarded with artillery etc.
Every unit having at least some chance of winning (most of the time at least) makes it all the better, as you will get a surprise. If you cannot take a city because all of a sudden 1 unit defeats by some luck(having like 5% chance to win or something), then that should teach you one thing...bring more units than you need in case this happens.

As far as the stack of doom goes, catapults/cannons are your friend. Sure it may not be the answer to everything, but it makes huge strides to lower the effectiveness of a SoD and makes you think twice when placing all your units in one tile when you know your enemy has some catapults nearby.

As far as being able to pick what kind of units I want to attack, while yes it would make sence to have your calvalry attack the archers rather than the pikeman, it actually makes me want to bring a couple of each unit to counter this. Perhaps the answer for this would be give certain units (such as calvalry or tanks or heli's) a promotion (perhaps after strength 3 as to not make it too easy, and make only the vets be able to do it) that alllows them to choose who they attack. However, then you have to think, would such units become overpowered as they could attack who they want, then run away? Something to htink about...

*edited to add in one more point

It was mentioned by the original poster that somewhat of what he wants is a more realistic combat system. Being able to "command" your units to attack a certain unit or flank the enemy (think Total war series) is what I gather (maybe he does nto want something that far, but something that aims to being more realistic). The poster also mentioned limiting the number of units per square. This is where I have some problems. How realistic is that then...say that a tile represents a 5x5 miles piece of land (jsut a number for example, I am not sure in what each square actually represents in each kind of map), why then could I only have one group of a unit in a 5x5 space?

I understand that neither system is perfect, as I am sure you could admit to, but imho we have the best compromise (best doesnt mean perfect....)

 

[King Flevance]

I dont like the role that luck plays in the combat system, i would like a more chess like combat system... but that would require some major changes to unit stats & combat code.

A warcraft stlye combat system would suck, the only strategy that game has is to pump out the cheapest ranged unit as fast as possible and you win. Warcraft & CnC generally adopt the rock/paper/scissors style in which e.g. AA beats Aircraft - Aircraft beats Tank - Tank beats AA.

By chess like, i mean that each unit has its advantage's but can be easily taken out by any other unit if used the wrong way, i hate the current system in which one archer on a hill easily defends attacks from every direction & then only takes one turn to heal up. The way in which units heal is just stupid, the stack-of-doom technique seems to be the only way to get anything done in game.

Another thing that i reckon should be changed is the number of units allowed on a single tile, it should either be limited to 1 or 3, i would prefer 1. That way a more tactical use of the terrain could be used.

I agree 100%. How much room is in the idea of strategy for "random"? They contradict. A story about a general being asked by his sergeant what to do:

Sergeant: The time to attack is now, sir. What would you have us do?
General: Eh, I don't care. Let's just pick something from a hat.

I would like to see some actual strategic layers come in now. This is Civ 4 amd we are still playing civ 1 basically. I mean, Civ 1 was great. Every sequel has definatley added something. I would think that by part 4 we wouldn't be gutting it back down to 1 like a de-evolution process. I would like to see something new and inventive.
I am not saying Firaxis is completely univentive, though. The new improvements were a nice attempt at expanding the players options with the terrain. But as far as I'm concerned, they can have the watermills back. Workshops too if I was able to mine flatland again and I dont use workshops much. My point is even though this was a good attempt, there is a "best improvement" for every tile.

The combat system is so weak. In Civ 1 days is was pretty average but now, it is rather lame. Especially, concerning the requirements to the game, we should have been given alot more in regards to combat than 1 unit on a tile "smacking" another. I would like to see formations come in or battlefield zoom or something. One other thing that bothers me, is why in the name of all that is good, have we still yet to move onto a much more efficient hexagon map?!?

Figured I may as well throw in my $.02.

 

[fret]

I would like to see some actual strategic layers come in now.

The Civ - Total War hybrid beast edges ever closer...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I agree 100%. How much room is in the idea of strategy for "random"? They contradict. A story about a general being asked by his sergeant what to do:

Sergeant: The time to attack is now, sir. What would you have us do?
General: Eh, I don't care. Let's just pick something from a hat.

OK, This approach is what Makes civ GOOD

Actually what happens is this

Sergeant: The time to attack is now, sir. What would you have us do?
General: Pick the Strategy that is the best for the situation.

The Seargent (unit) automatically picks the best Tacitcal approach to attacking the region that you told it to attack. That Strategy has an X% chance of succeeding given the situation (the Sergeant even Tells you the chance of this attack succeeding, given the Terrains, the unit characteristics, the chance of the enemy picking the Tactic that will work against this, etc.)


What you Don't want is Well, I've got a Horse unit so I pick X tactic, or All these tactic's chances of success depend on what tactic the defender chooses.

In either of those cases the 'tactic' becomes a stupid thing to decide either automatic (only one best) or meaningless (all equal as far as you know) [ so in this case the stupid meaningless decision was incorporated into a roll of the dice]

Finally that level of Decision making is WAY below Civ's level of resolution... you might as well have a Civic choice determining if you drive on the right or left hand side of the road.

Now a trully complex sub battle system would be nice (for the first 50 turns) then it would get WAY too long and boring... plus Hitting 'auto-resolve' would mean you lose battles that you would have won if you had taken 3 minutes to resolve each battle.



The fact is they need to keep combat simple (I personally think combat in the Civ games takes too much micromanagement already) so that you only need to make important decisions, risk this for that type ones.

Luck allows a bit of variation that keeps in interesting, Civ is not Chess, and it Shouldn't be (Chess is only interesting because it is extremely limited)


PS I do agree with a Hexagon map though, that would be nice.

 

[fret]

I think the complaint is that when there are two stacks of units, the General has no strategic control over where and how his forces attack.

ie, he cant sit his archers at the back firting volleys, while gaurding them from the oppenenents mounted troops with pikemen. Obviously, his own mounted troops will be gaurding his flanks. etc. etc.

Real battle tactics, not simply an automated version of Top Trumps where the defender always gets to choose the best card to play.

 

[King Flevance]

Yeah, that particular part was an amusing little rediculous feel behind "Civ 4". It is what I think of when I lose with 94% chance of victory, sometimes 98%. I remember one game I lost about 4-6 90+% odds combats in 1 round. Trying to take out the dang invader.

I would so love for civ to have a battlefield zoom. So much. You just... don't understand. hehe. Seriously, ... so much.

Anyways, I know that the RNG god is what has made civ popular and whatnot. I just think it is getting rather lame. Especially when graphics were hit so hard. If they would have pulled back a bit on this we may have gotten smart enough AI to do a battlefield zoom. But even as is, the AI is too stupid to understand it.

I have been craving it so much me and friend have went on to back to AOW2. I don't mind watching him take his turns and vice versa because we discuss that player's tactics in the battle or root for the opponent.

 

[JavierLQ]

Yeah, that particular part was an amusing little rediculous feel behind "Civ 4". It is what I think of when I lose with 94% chance of victory, sometimes 98%. I remember one game I lost about 4-6 90+% odds combats in 1 round. Trying to take out the dang invader.

While reading this, I am thinking about the many times where many people were given up for deafeted, as in a scenerio where they were overwhelmed by 3 or 4 times, yet somehow..they managed to succeed with better training, sheer wheel, or just brilliant commanding...They were few, as the scenarios you just said are.
I cannot think of an example, as it is rather late, but I am sure people have heard of these instances.

In many cases I think that this game is too good for its own good. It is a great game, as I am sure none here can deny, however since it brings together so many things, people naturally want more. They want the best in every single aspect to be included in the game.

It will truly be grand when we a great game like civ with the combat system of a game like Total war. However, look at what THAT series sacrified in order to have what it does...the city building is not anywhere near as complex as that in civ.

It is all about give and take...sacrificing one thing for another. Perhaps one day a game will be "perfect", entergrating the best from every game out there...but that day is, in my opinion, far from today.

 

[Wyz_sub10]

Skill is the ability to exploit your good luck and the enemy's bad luck, and recover from your bad luck.

Exactly.

It's unrealistic to exclude factors like "luck" (or, more accurately, "probability"). Sometimes it rains on the battlefield. Sometimes the supply lines are cut. You play the hand your dealt.

 

[fret]

The fairness of the system is not in question.

It would be a better situation if the very highly unlikely didnt occur on a dice roll for human or AI.

 

[AvianAvenger]

Exactly.

It's unrealistic to exclude factors like "luck" (or, more accurately, "probability"). Sometimes it rains on the battlefield. Sometimes the supply lines are cut. You play the hand your dealt.

Its a game not a simulation, a turn takes up approximately 1 year. That means my army i have just attacked with has 365 days to choose from... not all of them can be raining with supply lines cut, I dont believe an army would ever choose to attack on a day in which it has the dis-advantage if it has that long to make the decision.

 

[fret]

Exactly.

It's unrealistic to exclude factors like "luck" (or, more accurately, "probability"). Sometimes it rains on the battlefield. Sometimes the supply lines are cut. You play the hand your dealt.

I would love for factors such as weather, supply lines etc to have a direct effect on battles.

They could be controled by RNG luck and add an extra dimensin to a more complex battle oriented warfare system based on skill.

 

[AndreasS]

I cant believe some people dont want any luck involved in the battlesystem.

Luck is important, because it increases the importance of good skills. A good commander knows how to maximize his luck, and decreasing his misfortune....

Think about that, you people who wants a brainless 100% win, 0% lose chance game......