Following the no-rng Battles option that works well here and is currrently on Pull Request, (it is discussed here https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/quick-questions-quick-answers.647831/post-16459422 ) and which I still have to apply to air combat too, here are some other options on my TODO list.
And yes, I might seem a bit maniac on the matter, totally personal ofc, this is just options that would be disabled by default.
I like the fact that each option can be chosen individually, to suit everyone's style. The only matter is that it would increase the number of checkboxes in options significantly (5).
Feel free to comment.
1) No-rng subdues (hunting)
Each unit that can fight has a new not-so hidden var attached to it. Some sort of subdueCount.
It starts at 50. Each fight, it is increased by the chances of subdue the opponent (so if 0, stays the same). If this sum is >=100 then the opponent is subdued and the subdueCount goes back -100.
Example with 37% : 50, 87, 124=24 (success), 61, 98, 135=35 (success), 72,...
So overall each unit will have exactly the expected % of success. Promotions still have the same "game value".
Evolving values are not a problem.
The only thing is that it is now predictable, so you can plan a bit. Which while this is an aberation to most, is totally the goal to me
UI wise, using same example as above, the text at rollover "37%: Subdue Animal" would become "37%: Subdue Animal (+50=No)" then next fight "37%: Subdue Animal (+87=Yes)" or something like that. Trying to keep it plannable but very short.
2) No-rng capture
Exactly the same as subdue but with another var for each unit (the one that captures), lets call it captureCount.
Ofc the reduction to capture chances from the other unit still apply, it simply still changes the computation of the +value (and if 0 well then 0, works). No changes to be done or problems here either.
3) No-rng spies (chances of success/failure)
Same idea as subdue but civ-wide instead of unit-wide. Because if it was linked to each spy, none would be able to ever survive in the long run unless it only does actual 100% jobs.
So here it makes the game a tiny bit easier since you can plan which one to "suicide" and which ones to keep if you are carefull. RP-wise we can totally call them decoy: you lure the counter-intelligence services after some spy so you can succeed in your other more important mission.
Cost-wise (spy points) it doesn't change a thing because failed mission cost 0 anyway. Cost-wise (unit/prod) it reaches indeed the average expected, minus the small bonuses of having better promotions in the long run since you can plan who to keep. Seems ok to me.
Will have to think about the "success but discovered part", shouldn't be hard to include.
Ofc you can still keep the option deactivated, which is the default to all of this stuff, don't worry.
4) No-rng withdraw
Again not really possible to do it unit-linked because each failure = unit death (as for spies) so 49% would be 0% in fact.
Debatable:
We could have attached it to the civ doing the withdraw roll (as for spies), but I wonder if it's not better to link it to the human player civ. And let it be owner based when no human player involved on either side of the withdraw.
I mean my goal is to make things more predictable for the player, keeping the average result of each mechanic. So that he feels neither lucky/unlucky overall and able to plan. I don't really care that the AI/Animals/... is averagely lucky or not on small actions (it already cheats due to handicap anyway).
Let it be two new numbers oppWithdrawCount and myWithdrawCount, for each civ. And always use the human value when one of the protagonist is human.
So yes it also means you can "plan your bad luck" on a small animal running away before avoiding a real AI civ's unit running away. Again while this is an aberation to most, it is predictable so I think I'm ok with it.
And if both player are human in a fight (multi), let the owner do the counting, as per AI vs AI.
The other possibility is to have only one of the 2 var, but I think I like it less.
Again, feel free to comment.
EDIT : And I admit I give 0 promise as to IF or WHEN this will be done (I hope I will do it ofc), but still nice to plan it and share ideas for now anyway.
And yes, I might seem a bit maniac on the matter, totally personal ofc, this is just options that would be disabled by default.
I like the fact that each option can be chosen individually, to suit everyone's style. The only matter is that it would increase the number of checkboxes in options significantly (5).
Feel free to comment.
1) No-rng subdues (hunting)
Each unit that can fight has a new not-so hidden var attached to it. Some sort of subdueCount.
It starts at 50. Each fight, it is increased by the chances of subdue the opponent (so if 0, stays the same). If this sum is >=100 then the opponent is subdued and the subdueCount goes back -100.
Example with 37% : 50, 87, 124=24 (success), 61, 98, 135=35 (success), 72,...
So overall each unit will have exactly the expected % of success. Promotions still have the same "game value".
Evolving values are not a problem.
The only thing is that it is now predictable, so you can plan a bit. Which while this is an aberation to most, is totally the goal to me
UI wise, using same example as above, the text at rollover "37%: Subdue Animal" would become "37%: Subdue Animal (+50=No)" then next fight "37%: Subdue Animal (+87=Yes)" or something like that. Trying to keep it plannable but very short.
2) No-rng capture
Exactly the same as subdue but with another var for each unit (the one that captures), lets call it captureCount.
Ofc the reduction to capture chances from the other unit still apply, it simply still changes the computation of the +value (and if 0 well then 0, works). No changes to be done or problems here either.
3) No-rng spies (chances of success/failure)
Same idea as subdue but civ-wide instead of unit-wide. Because if it was linked to each spy, none would be able to ever survive in the long run unless it only does actual 100% jobs.
So here it makes the game a tiny bit easier since you can plan which one to "suicide" and which ones to keep if you are carefull. RP-wise we can totally call them decoy: you lure the counter-intelligence services after some spy so you can succeed in your other more important mission.
Cost-wise (spy points) it doesn't change a thing because failed mission cost 0 anyway. Cost-wise (unit/prod) it reaches indeed the average expected, minus the small bonuses of having better promotions in the long run since you can plan who to keep. Seems ok to me.
Will have to think about the "success but discovered part", shouldn't be hard to include.
Ofc you can still keep the option deactivated, which is the default to all of this stuff, don't worry.
4) No-rng withdraw
Again not really possible to do it unit-linked because each failure = unit death (as for spies) so 49% would be 0% in fact.
Debatable:
We could have attached it to the civ doing the withdraw roll (as for spies), but I wonder if it's not better to link it to the human player civ. And let it be owner based when no human player involved on either side of the withdraw.
I mean my goal is to make things more predictable for the player, keeping the average result of each mechanic. So that he feels neither lucky/unlucky overall and able to plan. I don't really care that the AI/Animals/... is averagely lucky or not on small actions (it already cheats due to handicap anyway).
Let it be two new numbers oppWithdrawCount and myWithdrawCount, for each civ. And always use the human value when one of the protagonist is human.
So yes it also means you can "plan your bad luck" on a small animal running away before avoiding a real AI civ's unit running away. Again while this is an aberation to most, it is predictable so I think I'm ok with it.
And if both player are human in a fight (multi), let the owner do the counting, as per AI vs AI.
The other possibility is to have only one of the 2 var, but I think I like it less.
Again, feel free to comment.
EDIT : And I admit I give 0 promise as to IF or WHEN this will be done (I hope I will do it ofc), but still nice to plan it and share ideas for now anyway.
Last edited: