Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
What is the corruption bug?!?
I've heard, but I don't know what it is
I've heard, but I don't know what it is
New Combat System
- Thread starter BomberEscort
- Start date
kryszcztov
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 2,423
I voted "no". Though I don't exactly know how it works... But before reading all these threads speaking of it, I immediately saw what change it would bring, just by reading the announcement, so I couldn't be wrong ! 
The maths that were done today are more frightening than my first thoughts.
I think one thing that could work is : Firaxis/Breakaway, take a small group of super beta testers that you know are good players and intelligent people (sorry for the word), and let them test the new combat model in some games, and wait for their results. I believe every game should work like this, I have already posted a similar thought on another forum (hey, it's in my sig !!
).
One thing I would be very unpleased with is the new combat model being an option : then why not putting every aspect of the game as an option ? I can't even find out if plague has eventually been implemented in C3C, I just saw a scenario called "with plague", so I guess it is an option, but I'm not sure. No : no more option ! Barbs and AI agressiveness are the kind that should be, but not such things as a combat model !
The maths that were done today are more frightening than my first thoughts.I think one thing that could work is : Firaxis/Breakaway, take a small group of super beta testers that you know are good players and intelligent people (sorry for the word), and let them test the new combat model in some games, and wait for their results. I believe every game should work like this, I have already posted a similar thought on another forum (hey, it's in my sig !!
).One thing I would be very unpleased with is the new combat model being an option : then why not putting every aspect of the game as an option ? I can't even find out if plague has eventually been implemented in C3C, I just saw a scenario called "with plague", so I guess it is an option, but I'm not sure. No : no more option ! Barbs and AI agressiveness are the kind that should be, but not such things as a combat model !
Catt
Emperor
The question really deserves to be answered when we see the effect in action (and any corresponding changes to other parts of the game that might mitigate the known mathematical outcomes of the change).
That said, I already voted "no." My view is that the change, assuming a static Civ 3 unit list (i.e., no balancing changes to units or unit abilities as alexman suggests), attacks a problem that was small in scope but potentially changes more routine combat outcomes in ways that do more harm than the original problem did.
But I also voted "no" now for a very simple reason -- I don't want to have to use a combat calculator to weigh whether to attack or not. With a simple A/(A+D) calculation, I can quickly compute my odds in any given attack and better inform my own decision-making process. With the newer system, I can't do that without the help of a calculator. I have 4 healthy vet cavalries; an AI city on a hill is guarded by a fortified musketman and, I think, one wounded spearman. What are my odds that my cavs will beat the musket and still have an attack left for the wounded spear? In the former system I could come up with the odds in my head, pretty easily. In the as-described changed system, I can't determine, without a calculator, what the effectively increased strength of the musket in combat means to my chances.
That said, I already voted "no." My view is that the change, assuming a static Civ 3 unit list (i.e., no balancing changes to units or unit abilities as alexman suggests), attacks a problem that was small in scope but potentially changes more routine combat outcomes in ways that do more harm than the original problem did.
But I also voted "no" now for a very simple reason -- I don't want to have to use a combat calculator to weigh whether to attack or not. With a simple A/(A+D) calculation, I can quickly compute my odds in any given attack and better inform my own decision-making process. With the newer system, I can't do that without the help of a calculator. I have 4 healthy vet cavalries; an AI city on a hill is guarded by a fortified musketman and, I think, one wounded spearman. What are my odds that my cavs will beat the musket and still have an attack left for the wounded spear? In the former system I could come up with the odds in my head, pretty easily. In the as-described changed system, I can't determine, without a calculator, what the effectively increased strength of the musket in combat means to my chances.
Catt
Emperor
Originally posted by alexman
You're good!!
I think you mean that you can calculate in your head the odds of winning a single round of combat. I still need a calculator to get the odds for the entire battle.
Yes, that's what I meant. I don't get a precise probabaility of the battle outcome as a whole, but I do get close enough to give me a great deal of comfort. Knowing the odds on a single HP, it is realtively easy to extrapolate to a rough estimate of the final outcome (especially when taking a conservative stance by assuming retreats (less chances for a "win") and also defender promotions (need to take 5 HPs with my availble 9 HPs worth of Cavs in order to still have a rested cav ready for the spear). Even without knowing the precise probability, I can get conformtable with the expected "range" of chances at accomplishing the intended goal. Don't think I can do that with the as-advertised system.
Then you can make an informed decision.
The main problem with the new combat system IS the going in blind without knowing the odds. A partial solution would be to display the opposing sides' effective (i.e., modified) strengths during the combat.
(During, so you have to commit in order to obtain the information.)
(During, so you have to commit in order to obtain the information.)
I voted no. Quite simply this was a 'glitch' that the AI never really took advantage of, but I liked the possibility that trailing far behind the AI, and in need of a strategic resource, I had a small chance that my army of Crusaders could actually take over a weakly fortified city of infantry. (It saved me a** in the last game)
Nad
Known Troublemaker
A most resounding "NO"
Gogf
Indescribable
Well, I don't think we really need a new system. I do agree, I liked how it was possible for your spearman to win against a swordsman. I say keep it as it is. Of course, I should try playing it before I judge it...
A major backward step in gamplayability.
I dont want a predictable game. I dont want always predictable outcomes. I want excitement and hope.
Bad move, Firaxis.
I dont want a predictable game. I dont want always predictable outcomes. I want excitement and hope.
Bad move, Firaxis.
Roland Johansen
Deity
If we understand the way combat is calculated in the new system correctly, then most certainly I vote no (voted no in poll).
If I understand the new combat system correctly then (for instance) an archer attacking a warrior will win almost always AND lose almost no hitpoints. This would have huge consequences for an archer rush with a militaristic civ.
Other bad results have already been mentioned before.
If I understand the new combat system correctly then (for instance) an archer attacking a warrior will win almost always AND lose almost no hitpoints. This would have huge consequences for an archer rush with a militaristic civ.
Other bad results have already been mentioned before.
Gogf
Indescribable
I hope firaxis notices this outcry. Look at the poll, more than twice as many people want the system to stay the same, than those who want it different.
Imagine modern times: the only good city defense is about 10 mech infantries (hold off modern armors for a turn), and a couple of modern armors, to kill those waiting outside the city, or a mech infantry army, that will probably lose anyway.
BRING BACK THE OLD SYSTEM! Please firaxis, save the system.
Imagine modern times: the only good city defense is about 10 mech infantries (hold off modern armors for a turn), and a couple of modern armors, to kill those waiting outside the city, or a mech infantry army, that will probably lose anyway.
BRING BACK THE OLD SYSTEM! Please firaxis, save the system.
Fading Captain
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 5
I'll put in the standard caveat that it needs to be tested first. . .
but right now I look forward to the change. I think that Civ's combat system has always needed some improvement, because I'm of the school that spearmen shouldn't defeat tanks (unless maybe the hatch is open and they get off a lucky shot).
I've always thought that technologically superior weapons should have an edge in combat, and I think that this new feature will help to do this. I also think that the current model favors quantity of arms over quality of arms, and it's good to see quality getting some focus in this Beta patch.
Naturally, I like it because I always try to be ahead in science too.
but right now I look forward to the change. I think that Civ's combat system has always needed some improvement, because I'm of the school that spearmen shouldn't defeat tanks (unless maybe the hatch is open and they get off a lucky shot).
I've always thought that technologically superior weapons should have an edge in combat, and I think that this new feature will help to do this. I also think that the current model favors quantity of arms over quality of arms, and it's good to see quality getting some focus in this Beta patch.
Naturally, I like it because I always try to be ahead in science too.
Gogf
Indescribable
Well, I think there should be a gun-powder, or long range (guns, bows, javelins, etc.) advantage, but this new system would basically give offense a huge edge in the modern (all techs researched) age.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
How about a dial-a-variance setting? One that lets the player choose a number at the start of the game from 1 (the current scheme) to 4 (the beta described here) or maybe even higher. Let us choose according to our tastes. I'd probably choose 2 under that scheme.
kring
Asst Cook & Bottle Washer
It is sad that people aren't willing to give the new system a try before shooting it down. The various charts, stats, etc I have seen posted are based on limited information with too many unknown pieces to the puzzle. I am waiting to test it before I decide whether or not this change is good, bad, or indifferent.
I believe Firaxis has done a lot of testing on this issue before making a decision to add it to the game, with play balance being an important part of that.
Let's try out the new combat system, put it through playing and see if it is as bad as the doom and gloomers think it will be. As it is now, Firaxis and company have been subjected to a whole lot of harsh criticism over something that hasn't even been tried by the people doing the criticizing. This could lead them to being less likely to make other changes in the future. This could also lead them to be less likely to have another open beta patch!
Similar threads
