Naval Promotion System Overhaul [WORK IN PROGRESS]

[raystuttgart]

Nevertheless, I still think that also these 20 or more new promotions could be achieved with the simple version and the complex alternative is not required.

It could, but it would get really messy, crammed and ugly.

• The player would be hit by too many Promotions choices each level up and simply be confused
  
• Also AI could never ever choose properly if I hit it with 10 choices each level up
• Many of these Promotions would be designed for "Stone, Paper, Cissor" System that only makes sense with clearly distinct Unit Categories (using "UnitCombatTypes")
• With the "simple system" of 5 UnitCombat Categories this is not well designed, this is just flooding with masses

Trust me with this:
It will only get nice and interesting to add so many distinct and diverse Promotions if I differentiate the Unit Categories and their Promotion Trees (by using UnitCombatTypes) more.

Important lesson from game design:
Flooding a player with choices is like giving him no choices at all.
(He will be so confused and overwhelmed that he can not make meaningful strategic choices anymore.)

----

With Land Units we also have several military categories.
(Artillery, Gun, Melee and Mounted.)

Why have only one military category for Ships?
(Warships)

----

After thinking about it really in detail and making my concept yesterday I really want this:
"Stone, Cissor and Paper" for Naval Combat using Promotions to also specialize into Roles by strategic choices (of Warships)

--> "Complex and diverse variant" for UnitCombatTypes (can differentiate different WarShip Classes properly, because it has 3)

I do not want to have this anymore because it is boring and does not offer real choices for strategy and specialization:
"Bigger is better" for Naval Combat using Promotions just to get stronger and stronger without real thinking (of Warships)

--> "Simple and clean variant" for UnitCombat Types (can not differentiate different WarShip Classes because it has only 1)

----

I know you can hardly imagine what this can become because it has never been done in Civ4Col.
(It has however been done already very often in other turn based games.)

As I said so often, have some trust in your feature designer.
(I have invested several hours of conceptional work in designing this yesterday.)

----

By the way:
I will later apply the same "Stone, Cissor and Paper" principals when I design "Land Combat".
(We will also use Promotions for it in the background but Land Unit Combat can also directly use Unit modifiers and Land Units are more "Stone, Cissor, Paper" by default already.)

 

[Mr. ZorG]

what is this "Stone, Cissor and Paper" system? how will it work?

 

[raystuttgart]

what is this "Stone, Cissor and Paper" system?

It is a very known children's game in the western countries.

• Stone beats Cissors
  
• Cissors beats Paper
• Paper beats Stone

It reflects a "Traingular-Power-System" where each choice

• can always be beaten by another
• can always beat another

It is a very "instable balance of power".
(Thus always interesting because you can never be sure to win.)

In one situation your choice was great and you win.
But in the other situation your choice was really bad and you lose.

Thus you kind of need to guess the situation in advance to make the right choice.
If you mispredict the (upcoming) situation and thus make the wrong choice you have a problem.

----

It is also a very common design pattern used in strategic games to create asymetric Unit-Balancing.
(It is e.g. used in Star Craft and many other games.)

 

[Mr. ZorG]

this game is also known in our country) I wanted to clarify, maybe something else was meant.

Isn't the battles implemented the same way now? there were times when a simple Privateer would sink a Frigate with +30 Strength. and after the battle he had no injuries. or the line infantry, attacking the native warrior, died.

 

[raystuttgart]

Isn't the battles implemented the same way now?

Currently the battles are mainly influenced by 2 factors:

• base Combat Strength [+ Modifiers from Terrain + bonusses from normal Promotions]
  
• a random value that is applied on top

I want to add a third strategic factor:

• base Combat Strength [+ Modifiers from Terrain + bonusses from normal Promotions]
  
• a random value that is applied on top
• strategic Promotion Tree choices (Specialization Paths) to specialize for certain roles / situations

----

Example:

A Frigate (Medium Warship) will get 3 exlusive choices of Specialization Paths (Promotions-Subtree)
(You can only take 1 of them and if you do the other 2 will not be available anymore.)

A) Specialize to withstand against much stronger "Heavy Warhsips" (without directly getting blown apart)
B) Specialize to more efficiently fight against other "Medium Warships" (to have some advantage and thus usually win)
C) Specialize to catch and fight against "Interception Ships" and "Pirates" (to eliminate them withoug giving them a chance to flee)

So e.g. if you choose A (instead of B or C):

* "Heavy Warships" will not kill you that easily (you are a bit stronger against them)
* Other "Medium Warships" are equally strong as you (unless they specialized against you)
* "Interception Ships" and "Pirates" can simply run away from you without having the chance to attack them

So your choices of Promotions will impact the usefulness depending on the situation / role.
(In some situations your choice will really help you, in other situations it will not matter, in again other situations it will be really bad)

----

Every "UnitCombatType" (Class of Ships) will get the chance in its Promotion Tree to specialize for specific roles.
However this comes for the cost of missing out other great Promotions for other roles (thus not being able to specialize for them).

To summarize

• These strong "Specialization Promotion Paths" will be absolutely exclusive to each other.
• Each UnitCombatType will get the choice between 3 different specializations.
• The Roles available for UnitCombatType A will look very different than for other UnitCombatTypes B ("Heavy Warhips" will get totally different specialization choices that e.g. "Pirates" or e.g. "Interception Ships")
  
• Only about 25% of the Promotions will be "Specialization Promotions" but they will be very strong for a specific role (and as I tried to explain useless for others)
  
• The other 75% of the Promotions will be normal "Always Useful Promotions" (stronger, faster, better) - basically like the current ones but more meaningfully chosen for a specific UnitCombatTyoe

----

I hope it gets a little bit clearer now, what I mean with "Stone, Cissor and Paper" system.
(Parts of the Promotion Tree of a UnitCombatType will be exlusive branches where you have to decide for one direction or the other.)

 

[Mr. ZorG]

I almost like this concept. however, something needs to be done with the random value that is applied from above. otherwise, the events of which I spoke will occur again.

 

[raystuttgart]

... however, something needs to be done with the random value that is applied from above. ...

Civ Combat System has always been with random factor.
(Just as almost all turn based combat systems of other games as well.)

What is the problem with it - because I actually like it that way?
A deterministic combat system (without any randomness) would be incredibly boring because always predictable without surprise.

I hope you are not thinking about removing it, because that would go way too far for me.
Removing the randomness from Civ4Col / WTP Combat System is something I would definitely veto.

I will however listen to your idea first, before I directly reject, because maybe I misunderstand.
So what do you imagine we should do with the randomness?

----

The Promotion System I talk about will not remove randomness and is not even intended to do so.
It will however heavily influence the chances.

I give you an example from real world:

• A soccer club does improve its chances to win by buying the best possible players.
• But this still does not guarantee that the club will win every game.
• If it would win every game nobody would ever watch the soccer games anymore.

The Civ4Col Combat System is based on the same idea.
(The Promotions I am talking about can be compared to the players.)

----

Summary:

I see absolutely no problem in the "randomness" of Naval Combat and have no intention to remove or change it. I am even absolutely against removing it and would always veto such a suggestion.
(Such an extreme change would most likely also never ever be accepted by all team members or by community majority - even if myself would not veto it.)

 

[Ramstormp]

Civ Combat System has always been with random factor.
(Just as almost all turn based combat systems of other games as well.)

What is the problem with it - because I actually like it that way?
A deterministic combat system (without any randomness) would be incredibly boring because always predictable without surprise.

I hope you are not thinking about removing it, because that would go way too far for me.
Removing the randomness from Civ4Col / WTP Combat System is something I would definitely veto.

I will however listen to your idea first, before I directly reject, because maybe I misunderstand.
So what do you imagine we should do with the randomness?

----

The Promotion System I talk about will not remove randomness and is not even intended to do so.
It will however heavily influence the chances.

I give you an example from real world:

• A soccer club does improve its chances to win by buying the best possible players.
• But this still does not guarantee that the club will win every game.
• If it would win every game nobody would ever watch the soccer games anymore.

The Civ4Col Combat System is based on the same idea.
(The Promotions I am talking about can be compared to the players.)

----

Summary:

I see absolutely no problem in the "randomness" of Naval Combat and have no intention to remove or change it. I am even absolutely against removing it and would always veto such a suggestion.
(Such an extreme change would most likely also never ever be accepted by all team members or by community majority - even if myself would not veto it.)

I believe he was referring to what seemed extremely, unrealistically random. Maybe F.C. Stuttgart can beat Bayern München one out of 10 times, but probably not with the score 11-0

 

[Mr. ZorG]

I am not saying that it needs to be removed. then it will really be boring. however, when one Native warrior kills the Line Infantry, it is overkill. if he reduces her HP (-10% ...- 60% - random), I can understand that. but destroy ...
is it possible to slightly reduce the influence of this random value?

 

[raystuttgart]

is it possible to slightly reduce the influence of this random value?

It is possible and it has been done before.

e.g.

• In the past all Combat was until one side was death. Now some Combat ends with both sides only being damaged. (Limitted internal combat rounds.)
• In the past the fights were even more extremely randomize. Now if one side is extremely superior (I think if it is 4 times as strong including all Terrain and Promotion Bonusses), it definitely kills the weaker.

But it is a too hot topic to simply do it without proper discussion / clarification.
This is way more than s small XML balancing change as this involves coding that can not easily be reverted.

Please open a new thread to discuss it.
If possible please also explain in more detail what you expect.

 

[Mr. ZorG]

ok i will try to explain in a new topic.

 

[devolution]

@raystuttgart

Here are my thought on the current naval balancing (note that this applies to land combat as well but that should be a separate discussion):

The introduction of the limited combat rounds feature has magnified the effect of combat strength (CS) differences. A CS ratio of 2.5-ish or more will usually mean that the stronger unit has a 0% probability of loosing combat within the 7 round limit, at worst the combat will end in a draw. The result is that strong units can attack much weaker units with impunity. To make matters worse, one can opt to "save up promotions" that will then insta-heal the victor. If you are lucky you may even capture the looser!

I propose the following:

- Ships no longer heal, they have to be repaired. This will force the attacker to at least spend some resources (i.e. opportunity cost) on preserving his combat advantage. Since the looser is usually sunk anyway this does not impose an additional cost on them. It should be possible to repair ships in Europe (or other ports) for a small fee in perhaps 1 turn?
- Remove the ability to occasionally capture ships. This is simply too much of an advantage, not only do you win - you also get a free ship!
- The repair cost should scale with the damage and the strength of the ship. Strong
ships will cost more to maintain / "upkeep"

I'd also like the following to be applied to all units regardless of land/sea:

- Promotions only heal in friendly territory (and perhaps less in neutral territory). This hands the advantage back to the defender which will still heal from promotions when defending inside their own territory. It should help nerf conquest and the micro-management of promotions a bit.

Edit:
It appears that these issues have been discussed before:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-seas-in-the-wilderness.638024/#post-15259652

 

[raystuttgart]

Here are my thought on the current naval balancing:

Thanks.

(note that this applies to land combat as well but that should be a separate discussion):

I am fully aware of that, but I have to fry one fish after the other.
Naval Combat was pushed on top of the my todo list because fo the discussion about "Integrating V's SubMod".

... has magnified the effect of combat strength (CS) differences.

And see again, here you diverge 100% with e.g. @Mr. ZorG
It is simply not possible to make everybody happy because everybody has a different personal taste ...

@devolution : "Strong Units always win or at least get killed way too rarely!!!"
@Mr. ZorG : "Strong Units (like "European Line Infantery") should never be killed by weaker Units (like "Natives") !!!"

Oh boy, I just wished there would at least sometimes be a consense so I knew what I should balance or implement ...

--------

The introduction of the limited combat rounds feature has magnified the effect of combat strength (CS) differences.

Regarding "limited combat rounds":

We really had massive discussions already in the past that Combat was too random.
That is why e.g. limited combat rounds (originally the idea is from @Commander Bello) was implemented.

At first I was very very critical but then I played with it for a while and got used that much more fights ended without one side death / both sides damaged but still alive.
(It is not only an advantage for the "stronger Unit". It also helps the "weaker Unit" that was lucky and survived.)

And yes, this is an advantage for Human Player in both cases !!!
But also again it is simply that more fights end without death - usually both Units damaged but still alive.

• If the weaker Unit was lucky and still survived it can try to run away and heal. --> AI is simply too stupid to run away.
  
• If the stronger Unit was unlucky and got heavily damaged it can try to fortify and heal and attack again next time. (Becaus usually the weaker Unit is also heavily damaged) --> AI is simply too stupid to fortify and heal.

For a Human this is actually interesting and immersive, because not every battle end in one army being completely destroyed. (Often both armies withdraw to regroup after heavy damages.)
For AI this is very bad because it is too stupid to either run away and heal or to fortify and heal and attack again.

Summary:

This was actually a good gameplay change that made many people happy in the end and mostly ended the discussions about "extremen RNG".
But it definitely increased the advantage that Human Player has in Combat because AI already is extremely bad strategically (getting the right Units) and extremely bad tactically (acting accordingly in Combat situations).

We however can not remove every interesting gameplay feature again after about 5 years that our players got used to it.
And as you see some Players like @Mr. ZorG still complain about bad RNG because they sometimes lose a battle against a weaker AI unit.

I will definitely not remove the "limited combat rounds" again, since I still vividly remember how many discussions we had about "bad & unfair RNG" before. (already in TAC)
The absolutely only solution I can imgaine is that we somehow teach AI to use this change similar to the way a Human Player does. (see bullet points above)

I know that it is extremely difficult to teach AI to be as smart strategically and tactically to compete with Human Player.
But again, we could solve a lot of this by giving AI hidden "easier rules" that a Human Player would never notice if we did not tell him ...

--------

Ships no longer heal, they have to be repaired. This will force the attacker to at least spend some resources (i.e. opportunity cost) on preserving his combat advantage. It should be possible to repair ships in Europe (or other ports) for a small fee in perhaps 1 turn?

Again, this is thinking again from an AI perspective not necessarily from a gameplay perspective.
And yes, from AI perspective you are right, but only if you assume - which is in fact currently the case - that the winner is usually the Human Player.

So your solution currently is:

Let us make this more tedious for Human Player so he can not use his advantages of "having won" as efficiently anymore - because AI can not do it either.
Because all this does is to have the Human Player waste even more time to sail to a port or Europe and repair their instead of just wasting the turns to repair on the Ocean.

And I think you even already taught AI to sail to Europe or a friendly city to repair. Which makes absolute sense for AI.
But why force the same behaviour on Human Players that can act much smarter.

So again, yes it would help AI, I agree. But I also fully see that tediousness is not good for gameplay.
(I can already hear the casual players screaming at me for having introduced such tediousness of having to sail to Europe or a friendly City all the time to repair.)

We can not force AI logic rules (which make sense for AI) on Human Players to prevent the Human Player from having too many advantages.
It will simply not be fun for a Human Player to have to play by AI rules all the time because it will remove lots of interesting decisions and freedom of choice.

--------

Remove the ability to occasionally capture ships. This is simply too much of an advantage, not only do you win - you also get a free ship!

Again, you are absolutely correct about this being an advantage for Human Player because he simply wins more often.
But that is not the problem of the "capturing of ships", which in itself is a fun an interesting feature that many many players cheered for, when I introduced it.

We are dangerously close to go on a crusade to remove several fun features simply because AI is not as smart in Combat and thus loses battles more often.
But we have to try to cure the actual disease here instead: AI needs to get smarter strategically and tactially in order to win more battles.

By the way:

• Capturing Ships happens only a small percentag the times you win if I remember correctly. (And the captured Ship is also heavily damaged.)
• In an equal battle of 2 equally strong sides this advantage levels out. (It is simply a small "Hey I got a cool reward" moment.)
• In e.g. the endfight of the battle of idependence the Fleet of the King is massively stronger than your own and this will not be an advantage anymore.

Summary:

Let us stop just thinking with these glasses on

• "AI is too stupid to compete against Human."
• "Thus we should remove every tiny feature that Human could use better."

If we do, we will end up with a totally boring and uninteresting game because absolutely every feature in the game can be used better by the Human.
We need to find other solutions than "Let us strip this game of features to make it simple for AI.

Only these solutions will work:

• We achieve to make AI smarter. --> I know you work on this.
  
• We implement hidden / unnoticable easier AI rules / AI cheats. --> I accept that you do not like that but this alternative still exists.

--------

Strong ships will cost more to maintain / "upkeep"

Fully agree.

Considering "Upkeep":

As you know this feature is accepted and planned.
But as I said above, I can only fry one fish after the other.

--------

Final word:

Seriously let us please once and for all stop this "crusade of removing features ..." !
AI is not the only thing that counts. Diverse gameplay and interesting feaetures are just as important.

If we alway only think about "Can AI handle this just as well as Human Player" I can instantly stop my work as a feature designer.
(Because every complex and interesting feature I could make will always be easier for Human player to use than for AI.)

I fully agree with you considering AI problems of certain features but we need to find other solutions.
Thus please also consider my point again to additionally / temporarily also use this "solution":

• Giving AI hidden easier AI game rules and cheats that are so subtle that a Player would not notice if we would not tell him what we actually did.

 

[raystuttgart]

Hi guys,

this thread has become a massive collection about "Everything we could possibly change in Combat".
Although there are good and useful discussions in there and also some interesting ideas, we should not span the discussion in this single thread too wide.

I know, I offered to discuss some other ideas about "Naval Combat Balancing" ...
But see, I was talking about small XML changes and we ended up discussing about

• "reducing RNG in Combat"
• "totally removing several other features from the mod"
• AI problems considering combat
• ...

Those are big topics on their own that would deserve separate threads if we really wanted to continue discussing them.

Let us please keep the discussion in this thread a bit more limitted to things, which I can realistically tackle now.
(I can not solve all problems of the mod and implement all missing features of the mod within a couple of weeks.)

Those are the things I can and will now work on next:
(Thus, let us discuss these first and then move to the next topics.)

• Rebuild of the Naval Promotion System
• small XML balancing related to Naval Combat

It will make my life easier because otherwise I spend most of the time writing posts and explaining instead of actually modding the new stuff the few hours I am allowed to sit on my desk a day.
(I fully understand you like this mod and have 1000 ideas you all want to have discussed and solved right now ... but I am just human and my health and private life does not allow me to mod full time.)

 

[Mr. ZorG]

Ray, I never said about

"totally removing RNG from Combat"

. there is no need to invent something that does not exist.

@devolution : "Strong Units always win or at least get killed way too rarely!!!"
@Mr. ZorG : "Strong Units (like "European Line Infantery") should never be killed by weaker Units (like "Natives") !!!"

my translator reports that these are almost equivalent phrases.

and I was talking about a one-on-one battle. it is clear that many Native warriors will destroy any single unit. however, I promised a new topic. she's here.

 

[raystuttgart]

Ray, I never said about . there is no need to invent something that does not exist.

You are right, it is just what I had first understood.
And thus the discussion accidently went in that direction - which was my fault though.

You just want to further reduce RNG and not totally remove.
(I corrected my post.)

my translator reports that these are almost equivalent phrases.

No, they are actually contrasting.
(The small differences in phrasing are most likely a bit tough for a translator.)

You say: "Too much RNG" --> Strong Units can lose (and it happens too often).
@devolution says: "Limited Combat Rounds have removed a lot of RNG" --> Strong Units almost always win. (Weak Units have no chance.)

Maybe I misunderstand though.

 

[Mr. ZorG]

We still ended up discussing RNG in general and it is a big topic in itself.

ok

(The small differences in phrasing are most likely a bit tough for a translator.)

Yes, most likely. but I propose to discuss this in another topic. this topic is about Naval))

 

[ConjurerDragon]

...

• Double Movement on Large Rivers (already part of Large Rivers)

Didn´t you at one time argue to get away from percentages due to the problems of them adding up to high when it was about yields and experts?
Ingame as far as I noticed percentages like 100% more yields for an expert have been replaced by fixed numbers to prevent those problems
100% more speed sounds just like one of those gone bonuses.

• loot (gold) when sinking Trade Ships

I can see a profit in returning a captured ship to port as a prize. Or scuttling it after moving the cargo to the own ship. But sinking an enemy trade ship in a battle without boarding and capturing it giving gold out of midair?

IMO, no - there already is the risk of the merchant ship to slip away and flee and sinking the ship is another risk to lose the ship and it´s cargo.

• - 1 turn to travel between colonies and Europe / Africa / Portugal

When a turn is a full year or even when a turn is only a half year, shouldn´t any and all ships move across the Atlantic between Europe and american waters in 1 turn?
On Columbus first voyage, when europeans still had no clue about the trade winds and currents, he needed around two months from Spain to the Carribean.

 

[raystuttgart]

@ConjurerDragon

The problem is, that you only have a tiny part of the information to understand my concept.
I would simply need to long to explain all details (e.g. which UnitCombatType gets what and how late in the Tree) and discuss it now.

Simply wait for my first draft and you will have a better base to discuss.
Until "river_merge" is published we decided that we will not work on big features like this anyways.

Have a little patience.

 

[raystuttgart]

Just bumping "ACCEPTED" old concepts so they get further up in the queue again.