Promotion trees

[aguliondew]

I think corps will probably be like the siege/trade linking ability I have seen in the previews. With 2 units joining together but increase attack/defense/unit hp by a percentage of the units linked. I expect cultural focused civs will be more organized with low tech unit compared to the science focused civs with higher tech units.

 

[m15a]

That seems... very strange and counter intuitive. I'm not sure why, but that is just incredibly odd to me. Having a non-linear, non-scaling combat system... why?

Even if difference is used instead of ratio, the same underlying system can be represented. It's just a log scale instead of a linear scale, right? A log scale is used a lot just because it's simpler or better represents the underlying system. Like sound level measured in decibels.

 

[Olleus]

Even if difference is used instead of ratio, the same underlying system can be represented. It's just a log scale instead of a linear scale, right? A log scale is used a lot just because it's simpler or better represents the underlying system. Like sound level measured in decibels.

You're right, you can map from a ratio to a difference system faithfully. I think this is because the multiplication and addition semigroups are isomorphic over the positives.

Maybe it's because I'm a physicist, but I find ratios more natural.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You're right, you can map from a ratio to a difference system faithfully. I think this is because the multiplication and addition semigroups are isomorphic over the positives.

Maybe it's because I'm a physicist, but I find ratios more natural.

Everyone seem to find ratios more natural, but differences are easier to calculate. maybe developers are trying to increase customer base with some boardgame players, I'm not sure.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Everyone seem to find ratios more natural, but differences are easier to calculate. maybe developers are trying to increase customer base with some boardgame players, I'm not sure.

Differences are easier to calculate, yes. But a +7 (I Battlecry: +7 when attacking melee and ranged units) bonus will be very different for a warrior with melee strength of 20 in comparison to infantry with melee strength of 70. For warrior it is like 35% addition to its strength, while for the infantry it is like 10% addition. For the mechanized infantry it will be even way less.
Maybe the reason for this is to counter the players promoted units. Players can keep their units with a lots of promotions alive, while the AI isn't able to do this properly. So devs could have thought to counter this lack of AI by making promotions less effective for later units by making the bonuses absolute values instead of relative.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Differences are easier to calculate, yes. But a +7 (I Battlecry: +7 when attacking melee and ranged units) bonus will be very different for a warrior with melee strength of 20 in comparison to infantry with melee strength of 70. For warrior it is like 35% addition to its strength, while for the infantry it is like 10% addition. For the mechanized infantry it will be even way less.

It will not, as combat is also calculating with differences. 27 strength Warrior against 20 strength Warrior will be exactly as effective as 77 strength Infantry against 70 strength Infantry.

 

[gfeier]

It will not, as combat is also calculating with differences. 27 strength Warrior against 20 strength Warrior will be exactly as effective as 77 strength Infantry against 70 strength Infantry.

Source?

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

It will not, as combat is also calculating with differences. 27 strength Warrior against 20 strength Warrior will be exactly as effective as 77 strength Infantry against 70 strength Infantry.

I wasn't aware of that. To verify it did take a look to the first look videos of France and Aztecs in both the difference in melee strength being 20. In the France video a combat between Garde Imperiale of 75 strength vs a musketman of 55 strength. The aztec video had a Eagle warrior of 45 strength vs a spearman of 25 strength. The expected outcome for both battles were same (I didn't see a difference anyway). So you are right.
I think that most people who aren't aware of this fact had the same thought as me, hence why they didn't like the new approach.

 

[gfeier]

So a unit with a strength of 1 against one with a strength of 8 has the same odds as a unit with a strength of 100 against one with a strength of 107? I sure hope not.

 

[stealth_nsk]

So a unit with a strength of 1 against one with a strength of 8 has the same odds as a unit with a strength of 100 against one with a strength of 107? I sure hope not.

So, you're one of everyone who feel more comfortable with fraction, although there's no actual difference

Speaking about proves - see above.

 

[gfeier]

So, you're one of everyone who feel more comfortable with fraction, although there's no actual difference

Speaking about proves - see above.

Apparently I am one of those. Just to clarify, though, are you actually saying that a strength 1 vs. strength 8 unit battle has the same odds as a strength 100 vs. 107?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Apparently I am one of those. Just to clarify, though, are you actually saying that a strength 1 vs. strength 8 unit battle has the same odds as a strength 100 vs. 107?

Yes. And if you think for a bit, there are no real problems with it. Actually it's much easier for fresh people to understand:
- What is the difference in strength between 68 and 57 units in the new system?
- 11.
- And in old system?
- Um.. well.. probably a bit more than 20%, right?

 

[oddtail]

I don't think everything will be ruined forever if this is how it ends up working, but a combat system based on differences rather than ratios seems very unintuitive to me. In most cases in everyday life, when something's strength or power or scope is measured, it's done using a linear scale, not a logarithmic one. That just seems more basic to me. A logarithmic scale would need some getting used to.

And I don't really understand the "board games" argument, either. I play a lot of board games and other tabletop games, but I still think "twice as strong has a number that's twice as high" to be much more intuitive.

 

[gfeier]

I wasn't aware of that. To verify it did take a look to the first look videos of France and Aztecs in both the difference in melee strength being 20. In the France video a combat between Garde Imperiale of 75 strength vs a musketman of 55 strength. The aztec video had a Eagle warrior of 45 strength vs a spearman of 25 strength. The expected outcome for both battles were same (I didn't see a difference anyway). So you are right.
I think that most people who aren't aware of this fact had the same thought as me, hence why they didn't like the new approach.

I can think of a couple of other reasons why the odds would be about the same, so I guess I'll wait for more info before agreeing. We'll find out soon enough.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I can think of a couple of other reasons why the odds would be about the same, so I guess I'll wait for more info before agreeing. We'll find out soon enough.

I don't think I understand your reasoning. We've seen ALL military bonuses being flat numbers. We've seen odds being equal for the same difference. It looks like prrof enough. Of course developers may want to change it back in the last minute, but chances aren't that high.

 

[gfeier]

My mind may be stuck in Civ V where the promotions gave a percentage bonus, typically 15%. A damaged unit with strength 1 didn't gain that much from a 15% bonus, unless they were Japanese.

 

[stealth_nsk]

My mind may be stuck in Civ V where the promotions gave a percentage bonus, typically 15%. A damaged unit with strength 1 didn't gain that much from a 15% bonus, unless they were Japanese.

It doesn't differ too much. We could see many modifiers in place. Marbozir is shooting a Jaguar with Archer. Archer is 25 + 5 ranged attack vs. land units = 30, Jaguar is 28 - 7 for being damaged + 3 from fortification + 4 from Oligarchy = 28. Considering the damaged state of the Jaguar, it's Major Victory.