Possible Buggy combat resoloution. (Needs its own thread instaead of 5 or six others)

[Dillo]

Lets see if we can keep it "Civilized" and keep techincal opions out of it, As to what the programers were thinking or whathave you. Lets see if we can figure this out.

Its seems that a majority of Us have no combat troubles as far as Anceint units always defeating Modern ones, While others of us Do. For us its more than an occasionsal occurance.It happens roughly 50% of the time.It is very frustrateing to us because of the time and money involved in getting the modern units. After working and working to get ahead, it doesnt matter, because your modern troops can be destroyed in droves, by defending anceint troops sometimes with you not even inflicting damage. And of course in ocean battles between ancient vessels and modern Battleships. I am getting the feeling that this is some kinda random bug thats in the combat resoloution system. It literally happens to me in every Game.

My most outrageous example of this is,truth here, I am not makeing it up.This really happened and it really sucked. I sent assorted troops to take the Final aztec town witha population of 1-2. It had 4-6 vet spearman defenders. I send assorted troops consisting of,Spearmen,Pikemen,Infantry,Mech Infantry,and some catapults and artillary.

When banging with artillary I couldnt damage the defenders only improvements and civilians.My vet spearmen could inflict 1-2 damage on the defenders. My Pikeman,Infantry and Mech Infantry couldnt even do a single point of damage. Now, some of my troops were conscript. I didnt expect them to win, Some were regular.Maybe win maybe not, Most were vet,The vet troops other than spearmen couldnt even inflict one damage on the defenders.Thats right even My Mech Infantry.Wats even worse is that every unit I attacked with was defeated.Sure they could run away if they had that attribute. I would send them to a town to heal and then right back to combat. During this battle my fast attacking units never gained a level either. All my other units would just die even Eleite units,while inflicting no damage. After spending somewhere between 30-50 Units,I brought 2 rifleman, that I got from Greek cities I had captured. They walked up to the city, The aztec jumped out and attacked them,The aztecs died.With out inflicting any damage on the rifleman. One rifleman was reg the other was Vet. Then on my next turn I killed the remaining 2 aztec warriors left and took the city. Now that just doesnt seem right does it. I have been accused of lieing about this situation, but I can garantee you that it did happen to me.And yes I was absolutly Livid. But to addd insult to injury. Instead of getting the You have erradicated message, I see on the next turn, there is a new aztec city on the other side of my territory, where they had no choice but to pass right by my troops and across my territory right to the border where their new town was.Only problem is. I never saw any other their units cross. They Just teleported.

Thats the situation.extreme it may be. I will grant you the extremety of this case is probably very rare.But To a lesser degree it happens to me in each game with 1-2 unit battleing in the field or in the ocean. There is something thats influenceing the combat system that people are missing or dont know about, Its a bug, Or the computer Just cheats.I have seen you guys ratios and hp scenarios, and in these cases for some reason they dont apply. Thats where I think its a random bug, Due to system config or some other factor. Thats what I wanna find out here in this thread. If you dont beleive me then please jsut go away without adding worthless flames in this topic. This is a serious issue to some of us and we would like to enjoy the game as you do with this being a less than normal occurance. Dillo

 

[mark1030]

Was the Aztec town built on a hill and/or across a river from where you were attacking? You might have been getting killed by the defense bonus.

 

[Dillo]

I think it was on a desert section with nothing, but dont hold me to that because They could have built the town on some small river.But would the bonus actually give them "THAT" much of anvantage? and if so, then why did it not affect my 2 Riflemen who attacked from the same area as the rest of my troops?Do riflemen have some bonus in such situations?

 

[Mike C]

Just my 2 cents.

1) If we are going to complain about the combat model, then lets just do it on the basis of design decisions like how subs are handled and aircraft not sinking ships.

because

2) For combat resolution gripes on how often a pikeman defeats a tank or whatnought, you can modify and add in the firepower concept back on your own. The civedit program is easy to use and you can assign multipliers to the units in different ages to keep each A/D for the unit within the same age withing the same ratio with each other (not affecting combat results in tanks vs infantry or tanks vs rifleman but will affect reults in tanks vs musketman or tanks vs ancient unit).

Having said that, I really would like subs to be somehow made unattackable by anything but destroyers and AGEIS. Also a way for the Sub to sink battleships and such.

Here is the problem with subs right now. With a simple A/D system determining combat results, you can't fit in subs accuratly.

If you give subs a below par attack rating (as done in game right now) then it can't attack anything it should easily dispatch like Battleships who have high defense on the account that it has to go toe to toe and emerge clear winner against destroyers and such. The sub therefore has no place in the game. It is useless to be stealthy when it can't attack anything.

If you go and give the subs a high attack rating to sink battleships and such, then it could go around sinking destroyers which it should struggle against.

I opted to keep the subs at below strenght and simple not build them. But right now, it just doens't have the "feel" of a sub.

Anyways, thats my rant of the day.

 

[cephyn]

Gosh i use subs a lot -- i like 'em. I use them to chase enemies out of their ports, watch port cities, sentry water lanes i want to control, use them to station tac nukes before i get ICBMs...theyre really useful, i think.

As for combat goofiness resolution, im not really sure what to do. My knee-jerk reaction is to give all medieval units a +1 to A/D, industrial units +2 to A/D, and modern +3 to A/D

For naval, id also add +1 Mv to industrial units and +2 to modern units.

whether it would do anything <shrug> The concept is to keep parity within tech levels, but to increase the tech advantage.

As for bombers sinking ships, Id give them a %age chance to do it if the ship already has 1hp. like, 80% for ancient tech, 50% for medieval, 20% for industrial and 5% for modern. <random numbers i made up right now>

 

[Dillo]

yeah I partially agree on that sub issue, but Maybe I have missed it here, but arent subs just treated as ships? You cant submerge can you?Which is really 99% of the purpose of a sub. I find it a small, but slightly annoying design flaw. But hey with all the other bugs I have going on, maybe its just that.

 

[Hurkyl]

I wonder if there's a rollover bug in the combat system, so that when a unit has too much of an advantage it rolls over and actually becomes worthless?

Hurkyl

 

[cephyn]

Originally posted by Dillo
yeah I partially agree on that sub issue, but Maybe I have missed it here, but arent subs just treated as ships? You cant submerge can you?Which is really 99% of the purpose of a sub. I find it a small, but slightly annoying design flaw. But hey with all the other bugs I have going on, maybe its just that.

Subs are always submerged. You can't see them unless you have the proper technology or youre attacked by one. The AI used to be able to cheat to see them but the patch fixed it (YAY).

 

[treadwin]

I keep hearing about this buggy combat, but I lose perhaps one or maybe two battles a game vs inferior troops. In half these cases it doesn't matter because my unit retreats into the cosy arms of my stack of units anf the next one finishes off the offending unit. The other half of the time I mark it down to natural attrition. After all you don't expect to fight a war against even inferior forces without some losses - do you ????????

I am now assuming that all those complaining are upset that the buggy combat in civ2 where you could build one tank unit and subdue a population of 2 million has not been recreated.

I quite like it with the ground combat - I hate it with sea - a galleon cannot destroy a modern destroyer, period.

I am also a bit disappointed with the combat in general though, I was hoping we would see a more complex system that handled terrain/morale/attrition/supply. Also pikemen beng better vs cavalry, infantry better assaulting forts etc. Its a shame really.

 

[cephyn]

Originally posted by treadwin
I keep hearing about this buggy combat, but I lose perhaps one or maybe two battles a game vs inferior troops. In half these cases it doesn't matter because my unit retreats into the cosy arms of my stack of units anf the next one finishes off the offending unit. The other half of the time I mark it down to natural attrition. After all you don't expect to fight a war against even inferior forces without some losses - do you ????????

I am now assuming that all those complaining are upset that the buggy combat in civ2 where you could build one tank unit and subdue a population of 2 million has not been recreated.

I quite like it with the ground combat - I hate it with sea - a galleon cannot destroy a modern destroyer, period.

I am also a bit disappointed with the combat in general though, I was hoping we would see a more complex system that handled terrain/morale/attrition/supply. Also pikemen beng better vs cavalry, infantry better assaulting forts etc. Its a shame really.

No there's something far more goofy going on here -- strange things happen. 34 cavalry being fought off by 1 riflemen is really beating the odds. whats even more disturbing to me is that i took 7 cavalry against 1 rifleman, they all got turned away, i took 1 samurai, he beat the rifleman while losing only 1 hp. Even though it was in my favor, THAT hacked me off.

 

[Gruntboy]

*No one is accusing you of lieing*

But next time, save the game and post it (you must save before you attack cities, right? ) or give us the stats - what terrain is the unit on, city walls, rivers, veteran status, what you're attacking with etc.

It would be great if we could get some stats to see just how many times your tanks are losing and against what odds.

Are you reloading? Maybe the reloading and the seeded attack roles make it look like you're losing more often than not?

It seems tough luck that a spearman of maximum defensive value of something like 5 (forified, city walls, hills, river) should knock out several tanks of attack 16. Cause 1 point of damage maybe. This through numbers alone (I don't care if its a spearman or the local girl guides defensive militia using explosive cookies and bomb dogs - its a game and its defense 5 Vs attack 16).

 

[cephyn]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
*No one is accusing you of lieing*

But next time, save the game and post it (you must save before you attack cities, right? ) or give us the stats - what terrain is the unit on, city walls, rivers, veteran status, what you're attacking with etc.

It would be great if we could get some stats to see just how many times your tanks are losing and against what odds.

Are you reloading? Maybe the reloading and the seeded attack roles make it look like you're losing more often than not?

It seems tough luck that a spearman of maximum defensive value of something like 5 (forified, city walls, hills, river) should knock out several tanks of attack 16. Cause 1 point of damage maybe. This through numbers alone (I don't care if its a spearman or the local girl guides defensive militia using explosive cookies and bomb dogs - its a game and its defense 5 Vs attack 16).

I don't save before battles. Unless im starting a war with them. autosave is on, i fear crashes, hehe.

I only save/reload if the computer does something weird and annoying, like suddenly cancel all trades and declare for a silly unkown reason. Normally I'd know whats going on, except my diplo screen is blank these days 8(

Ive never whined about spearmen beating tanks. But i still think something is wrong with combat. i have noticed very strange 'beating the odds' results. I have also noticed that for some reason, units from different ages do better against each other (the wrong way) -- ie, my samurai sometimes make better attackers of riflemen than 10 cavalry. very odd.

but for the most part, i deal. its a good game and i really enjoy playing. 8)

 

[No.Dice]

I don't see this horribly bugged combat system everyone is complaining about. Sure theres the (very) occasional spearman that defeats 5 straight cavalry but it always seems to balance out. Within the next couple of turns i have that phenomenal turn where my left over war chariots down samurai, fortified riflemen, cossacks, etc. I wonder if the computer gets annoyed when things sway back to my favour. "Pfft impossible, player one must cheat!"

Every so often theres the infantry that trips and guns himself down while on his way into the Renaissance fair but its hardly a cause for complaint.

(due to the whining)
If they change the combat system like they did corruption, i'm shelving the game.

 

[Sgt Zimm]

Bottom line, Firaxis completely screwed up combat, they effectively took a step backwards from Civ II and reverted to Civ I combat.

They tinkered with something that didn't need fixing. Civ II's combat system was excellent, very rarely had tanks being defeated by spearmen.

 

[gfeier]

Is it the whole combat system or just the random number generator it uses? If the generator has an obscure bug it might perform differently on different systems. That would explain the divergent results people are reporting.

 

[Gruntboy]

"Random" numbers *are* a notoriously difficult concept with computers.

 

[Dillo]

Well ok, Now I know why they packed the editor in.Since they knew combat was screwed they gave us the ed to fix it to our own likes.I have done some experimenting.The ed is actually very simple to understand and use. I am currently trying to find the optimal settings for what I feel is fair combat.My editing really only involves modern units as I feel they lose way to often to anceint troops.In a test I put the spearman down to 1 attack and 1 defense. and messed with some other attributes. I also (for testing sake ) put my mech infantry up in the 20's for both. Now it unfairly balanced in the Mech Infantry side.Beleive it or not. The spaerman can still usualy do 2 points of damage to my "Uber Mech Infantry".and still unbeleiveably The spearmen will beat the Mech infantry about 5% of the time. Only when defending of course. If in the open they lose without inflicting any damage.Which I feel is closer to reality.So from this and other experiments I have found that there is still some random factor that is in there with the battle scores.even though the Mech Infantry is like 20 times more powerfull. It still loses about 5% to spearmen.Weird.I still have more tweaking to do, And I am estimateing by the end of this weekend I will have it a little more balanced. If any of you guys are interested I will post my .BIC where you can download it once I get the System a little more balanced. I wont make any weird changes except maybe in the corruption area.Its just gonna take a little while. It will be the same as default with a few combat tweaks basically.

I also watched a Team of 3-4 Caravel attack my battleships. One Caravel attacked a single battleship. Of course the battle ship sank it.The next square over 2 caravel pulled along side a single battleship.The first caravel attacked.Inflicting one damage to the battle ship.The Caravel was sunk.Then the second caravel jumped in and attacked the destroyer.Sinking it. Only receiving one damage. This is where I think the bug lies. Its something to do with units attacking,then haveing a reinforced attack.The resolution problem is right there.The "Unseen" factor. There is something the computer is giveing anceint units when they attack a modern unit in multiple numbers.My Battleship was fortified on a sea square, not in a base. But the 2 Caravel were moving and on the offensive. ideas?

 

[Dillo]

Originally posted by gfeier
Is it the whole combat system or just the random number generator it uses? If the generator has an obscure bug it might perform differently on different systems. That would explain the divergent results people are reporting.

This is exactly what I beleive is going on. SInce its seems there are a lot of people experienceing the same thing I have.And also a lot who arent.Thats why I think its a System specific bug, that has to do with ,Hardware, Like Ram or CPU, or Mother board, or even Driver sets. In my testing Most units are relatively close in stats.Which really doesnt explain the weird combat resoloution.The outcomes should be regular and not so unpredictable, especially with like era Units.The units from say Modern times are matched well,The units from anceint times are too. The Bug seems to lie in the resoloution in the combat resolution between troops designed in each era.

 

[Dillo]

Originally posted by cephyn


Subs are always submerged. You can't see them unless you have the proper technology or youre attacked by one. The AI used to be able to cheat to see them but the patch fixed it (YAY).

Well, thats another problem. Hehehe The patch doesnt operate on my XP machine...

 

[Dillo]

Originally posted by treadwin
I keep hearing about this buggy combat, but I lose perhaps one or maybe two battles a game vs inferior troops. In half these cases it doesn't matter because my unit retreats into the cosy arms of my stack of units anf the next one finishes off the offending unit. The other half of the time I mark it down to natural attrition. After all you don't expect to fight a war against even inferior forces without some losses - do you ????????

I am now assuming that all those complaining are upset that the buggy combat in civ2 where you could build one tank unit and subdue a population of 2 million has not been recreated.

I quite like it with the ground combat - I hate it with sea - a galleon cannot destroy a modern destroyer, period.

I am also a bit disappointed with the combat in general though, I was hoping we would see a more complex system that handled terrain/morale/attrition/supply. Also pikemen beng better vs cavalry, infantry better assaulting forts etc. Its a shame really.

Read my Description above, the frst in the string. That is an near average battle in my games.I keep trying to stress to you people that the ones of us who are experienceing this have it bad.Not just once or twice pergame.It happens in most of the battles.Just for your info... I never played Civ2, so I have nothing to compare.