New Combat System

[Gogf]

I am perfectly willing to give it a try (see my first post in this thread), but it seems that Firaxis is ignoring it. You are right though, we should not critisize it until we test it, and then if we don't like it we can complaine.

I like Warpstorms idea. I'd either pick 1 (most of the time), or 2.

 

[Tavis]

There's a difference between ignoring and hard at work Gogf =)

We are looking into all possibilities.

 

[SirPleb]

I have no more desire to test this change than I have to test a change which entirely removes uncertainty from combat results, making every fight 100% predictable. That it is a bad idea (unless other substantial changes are made at the same time) can be seen without needing to try it. It has consequences which will significantly reduce the fun factor. And there's no sign of anything positive coming from this change which compensates for those negative consequences.

If someone wants to change the combat results drastically and rebalance everything else in the game to match the new combat results, then I'd have some interest in testing the result. (Though I'd still be wondering what the point of it all was.)

 

[Thunderfall]

I think Firaxis should just leave the combat system the way it is. Very few people complain about spearman defeats tank. I certainly don't consider the combat system broken, and if it's not broken, don't fix it.

 

[Padmewan]

Very few people complain about spearman defeats tank.

Yes, but IIRC, those people were published game reviewers.

Anyway, Civ is a strategy game. This change will shift some of the emphasis from "game" to "strategy." I like it, but I can see why it would make the play less exciting.

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by Padmewan
Anyway, Civ is a strategy game. This change will shift some of the emphasis from "game" to "strategy." I like it, but I can see why it would make the play less exciting.

Everyone might have a different opinion on the likely effect of the change, but how do you conclude that the change, as proposed and understood, shifts emphasis to "strategy?"

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Thunderfall
I think Firaxis should just leave the combat system the way it is. Very few people complain about spearman defeats tank. I certainly don't consider the combat system broken, and if it's not broken, don't fix it.

If there's one thing that is broken, it's the lack of MGLs I get when I need them most. Of course, maybe it's just my computer. (finally DID get a GL in a MP game - 5 minutes before the timer expxired!). I actually get more SGLs than MGLs.

Anyway, how about a compremise - have a checkbox for the "New Combat System" (default to off).

 

[impactblue]

Just to throw out ideas for anybody that has learned about random variables:

From the descriptions I've read, this isn't a change to the combat system.
It's really a change to the random variable used.
(Just to be clear I am NOT talking about the random number generator)

The current combat system uses a uniform random variable.
So say, bounded between 0 and 1.
(mean 1/2, variance 1/12th)

Now the new random variable used is the average of 4 uniform random variables. Or in other words, the sum of 4 uniform random variables, divided by 4.
(mean 1/2, variance 1/48th, according to my calculations)

The shape of the distribution is somewhat gaussian looking, rather than the flat shape of the uniform distribution.

As other people have already noted, the outcome is much more closely centered near the mean, and the outcome is much less 'random' than before.

Fin.

 

[Sandman2003]

Originally posted by Padmewan

Anyway, Civ is a strategy game. This change will shift some of the emphasis from "game" to "strategy." I like it, but I can see why it would make the play less exciting.

I disagree. Part of the strategy of the game is planning on dealing with the consequences of unexpected battle outcomes. As discussed at length in the C3C patch thread, this change will reduce the strategic options of the game, not enhance them.

I voted no. Don't "fix" something that isn't broken!

 

[slothman]

Probably not. But it seems like it is just a weird version of more hitpoints. But you have to lose 4 at a time. Is that an accurate model?

 

[Roland Johansen]

Originally posted by slothman
Probably not. But it seems like it is just a weird version of more hitpoints. But you have to lose 4 at a time. Is that an accurate model?

No, this isn't the same, because the weaker unit has a far bigger chance to lose the 4 hps at a time. If the attacker is the weaker unit and A and D represent the attack and defence value(adjusted for terrain), then the chance for the attacker to win a combat round is far smaller than A/(A+D).

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Tavis
There's a difference between ignoring and hard at work Gogf =)
We are looking into all possibilities.

Good, now you only have to work hard with the correct possibility

Again, I you still feel a need for changing the combat model, do as Warpstorm and I suggest. Have a setting where you choose a number from 1 to whatever, where this number is the number of rolls to compute the average from. 1 means the good(?) old combat system we're used to.

I assume that your current new combat model is implemented by looping the RNG four times, adding up the results, and then dividing by four whenever you calculate combat results.

You can innstead change the code to loop x times, adding up the results and then divide by x, where x is the number from 1 upwards, selected by the user. The combat calculation code is just as simple, you only need to add the code for setting this variable. This change should make everybody happy.

I believe I will have it at 1, but I may try it at 2, but there is no way I will play it at 4 as you seem to intend to hard-code.

 

[Grey Fox]

I hope you don't mind me qouting you from the Thread about the patch, theNiceOne:

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
Well, taking the average number from four rolls is about as horribly bad as the first misinterpretion of the change. For those of you who fall asleep when reading the more mathematical posts, here is a simple example:

Assume you play a board game where you need to roll six on a normal six-sided dice. Everyone knows that your chance is 1/6 = 16.67%. Now assume that this board game is changed so that your average of four rolls have to be six. That means that you need to roll 6 all four times to get an average of six!

Changing this board game from rolling once to rolling four times, decreases your probability from 16.7% to 1/6^4 = 0.077%!

Now, this is an extreme example. But as others have shown, this suggested change makes horses close to unusable against anything stronger than a warrior, and UUs like the Greece hoplite and the Persian immortal becomes god-like.

I will again propose the sensible solution I made on page one that Warpstorm also has voiced:
Add a setting, which is the number of rolls to take the average from. The default should be 1, since that's how CIV3 has been all the time, but anyone who wishes may increase this to 2, 3, 4 or even higher.

<---- I don't want it like that, if I had to roll a 6, 4 times in a row for it to be a valid 6 when playing a dice game, what would be the point? Your average when rolling a dice 4 times will almost always be 3 or 4.

 

[clabauterman]

I woted "I don't understand the question", because I hadn't read about the new combat system. Now I have. Can I vote again???

First of all thanks to Firaxis for putting out a patch so quickly. My two cents on the new combat system:

It seemes likeley (although I hate to judge before all the facts are not in yet, as Gen. Turgidson says in Dr. Strangelove) that the new combat system will make combat more predictable, and will emphasize the importance of tech advantage. There's some historical arguments for this, as tanks shouldn't lose to spearmen.

On the other hand, uncertainty and chance has historically been an important part of warfare (read Eric Durchsmieds "The Hinge Factor" for background) - and making combat too predicatable would both make the game more boring (though perhaps not as frustrating
and actually less historically accurate. Archers did actually beat Knights at the battle of Azincourt, and so on.

So I would vote a cautious 'no' to the new rules, but I'm of course willing to see it tested. Maybe it works, and make it easier to plan and make strategy in the game, and not always rely on the Colin Powell-doctrine of overwhelming force in combat.

But maybe, to satisfy all, the new system should be implemented as an option (perhaps with variable input ranging from 1 to 10)?

 

[TerraHero]

can´t say i tryed it..i think

duno, plays nicely the way i´m playing now

 

[statusperfect]

I think people don't keep in mind that the defender value still is totally random.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by statusperfect
I think people don't keep in mind that the defender value still is totally random.

If you mean that the defender makes a roll, which is totally random, then you're mistaken. For each combat round, there is one and only one RNG "roll".

Assume the attacker has twice as high A as the defender's effective D (ex: 4 - 2). This means that the attacker has a chance of 4/(4+2) = 67% chance of winning one combat roll.

Today, this means that one RNG is drawn, and if the number between 0 and 1 is higher than 0.33 the attacker wins, and the defender looses one HP. If the number is lower than 0.33 the attacker looses one HP. Simple as that.

Now it seems Firaxis wants to take the average of 4 numbers. Obviously, this average will tend to end up much closer to 0.5 than any single number, and thus the attacker's chance becomes much bigger than 67%.

 

[Brewster]

I happen to enjoy the fact that a spearman can beat a tank and don't want the combat changed. I like the unpredictable element of the current combat system. It adds an element of surprise and suspense to the game and forces you to plan for the unexpected.

 

[pjmcb]

Let's just hope they don't fix combat in the same way they fixed RNG / Corruption.

I agree that a preference is in order. That way, we can kep the other good changes from the patch (corruption, gpt) and turn this off if it unbalances the game.

 

[BomberEscort]

For all the people who vote yes... What are you thinking. The math says it all... Why would you want an unbalanced game?