RB1 - Cuban Isolationists

Ozymandous said:
Hmm.. I'd have to disagree a bit with the last bit. Intelligent decision making would be to know to attack or fortify in woods, on a hill as opposed to grassland or plains, etc. That's using intelligence to pick the "right answer". Having to calculate if your 2/3 healthy unit can really beat a 3/4 healthy, but 'weaker' unit isn't using your game intelligence, it's number crunching.

*snip*

I disagree, and I'll explain why.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote this book "Blink". The main thesis is as follows: "experts" in a given area are able to 'thin-slice' (his term) a situation and come to a conclusion immediately (thus the 'blink' of the title), and more importantly, a 'blink' decision is more likely to be correct than a decision that is arrived at through calculation (of the mental or logical variety).

So let's say I've never played Civ before. I have a Warrior about to attack a city on a hill defended by another Warrior. Now, I don't know any better (let's pretend I can't see relative strengths), so I think I'll have a roughly 50% chance of winning (maybe a little less, because he's in a city--although I don't see any walls). I lose.

This happens several times. Eventually, I get the idea that Warrior attacking a Warrior in a city is probably not the best of ideas. I stop doing it. I've noticed, however, that attacking another Warrior outside a city sometimes I win. Also, I notice that on certain terrains I never win.

Even if I can't formulate into words what's happening, I'm learning. At some point in the future, I'll win more than half my battles every time because I'll be aware of what situations are favorable.

Now we go one step further. After some time (100 games? 200 games?) I acquire 'blink' skills with classical battles. I look at the screen, and I notice immediately:
Full strength
City
Hill
Promotions on either side

And I can make a judgement on whether or not I should attack INSTANTLY. I don't even realize I'm taking all this stuff into consideration--I just do it. In the blink of an eye.

And if I'm inclined too (and unfortunately I am--I scored high Innovator on the KAI scale), I'll trust those blink judgements over any calculator the game could devise.

Look through some random SGs. You can almost always tell a newbie from a veteran. Here are examples:

Newbie: Ok, I have an archer defending, that should be good enough to survive the inter-turn.
Veteran: I know my archer is good enough to hold this position, so I'll send my warrior out to try and pick off his worker.

(I know, my point would be more effective if I had real examples)

I highlighted the important part: the Vet knows. In fact, if you were to quiz him on it, he might not even be able to tell you why he's so sure of it (I'll explain why he might be able to in a moment). That's Blink.

Now, we have an advantage here. I don't have to play 100 or 200 games to gain blink skills. By following SGs and reading articles such as Arathorn's, I can gain expertise in advance, thus accelerating the development of my blink skills. I might use a calculator at first, but if I surrender to the unconscious and allow my blink skills to develop (i.e. trust my gut instinct), I won't need it very long.

Now, will I lose more battles then if I were to calculate them? Probably. But that's a blink factor as well. I may be experienced with a 30% casualty rate, so if I lose 30% of my troops, to me it's no big deal--it's how I've always done it...but if someone in your team is more experienced with keeping casualties below 20%, there's going to be some friction there (why are you wasting these soldiers?). We've each developed a different set of tools to make an evaluation, and my margin for error in more lenient. Does that mean I'm more careless with my troops? No. I've probably developed other tactics that compensates for the casualty rate. In an SG, though, with its 10-turn chunks, its harder for everybody to see that--they just see the 30% casualty.


SO

I personally end up trusting the gut instinct more than any calculator, because its what I'm used to and what has worked for me in the past--not just in Civ, but any problem solving task.

In short: Never tell me the odds. I've already figured them out*--just don't ask me what they are.


*Well, not yet with Civ IV ... :blush:
 
And do you remember all the times your gut instinct has led you astray? People very much tend to remember things that prove what they want to be true and forget the rest.

Logic is a better guide to decisions than "gut", Captain Kirk notwithstanding.
 
neriana said:
Logic is a better guide to decisions than "gut", Captain Kirk notwithstanding.

The definition of gut that ChrTh is applying is different than the one you're criticizing.

That happens a lots. Words are tricky things. :crazyeye:


ChrTh: interesting blurb. :) Different way of phrasing something I already understand -- actually, ironically, a less Blink-y way of phrasing it. :lol: But it is good to drag things out in to the light once in a while.

That kind of proves the point others are making about the combat calculator, though. Blink is about assimilating knowledge and having it on instant, subconscious call. Whole books-full of data accessible without having to reprocess it: pattern recognitions, understanding the range of possibilities and evaluating, sometimes on little information, which one is probable.

Blink is aided by going to school on any topic. Just that once you have, you don't have to redo and redo the same learning. You just apply it. So you're right about not needing the combat calculator, but it is also true that understanding how the inner workings of combat are assembled can be an important part of avoiding "the other type of gut" that the previous poster is criticizing.


- Sirian
 
Logic is a better guide to decisions than "gut", Captain Kirk notwithstanding.

Well, even Kirk blink his way up the chain of command. He took Kobayashi Maru test 3 times and learn from it that benefit him in the future.

So blinking exist :eek: !
 
neriana said:
And do you remember all the times your gut instinct has led you astray? People very much tend to remember things that prove what they want to be true and forget the rest.

Logic is a better guide to decisions than "gut", Captain Kirk notwithstanding.

As Sirian pointed out, I was referring to a different type of gut instinct.

Logic IS involved. In fact, I'm one of the most logical creatures I know. The idea with Blink though is that it's applied immediately.

Take driving, for example. When the car in front of you suddently applies his brake hard, what do you do? You slam on yours, right? Or quickly dart to the next lane (after checking, I hope). There's logic being applied there. You don't have a gut instinct saying "Brake!" ... your brain is saying "Red lights | Car Slowing Down | Car Slowing Down Fast | BRAKE DAMMIT!" and your foot reacts.

And it's logic built on experience. Once you see a situation enough times, what you need to do becomes second nature. There's a reason kids have to pay more on car insurance. It's not because they're more reckless drivers; it's because they don't yet have the experience to make those 'blink' style decisions. It's also why drinking and driving is bad--drinking slows down your reaction time. You 'blink' ability falters.

What blink doesn't have is applied calculation--or at least a discernable one. I'm not sure what the sensitivity is, but I can't imagine a blink reaction having one more precise than 10%. So if I'm 'blinking' a combat, I may think I have a 65-75% chance of winning--I can never say '71.47%' ... those that can blink a calculation are mathematical geniuses. And trust me, most geniuses use 'gut instinct' a lot--it saves them a lot of steps.

Now, before people get too concerned, I always play more conservative in SGs than I do at home in a typical game. Trust me. Some of my manuevers would give Lee a heart attack if they happened in one of his SGs. And it's also why a distinction needs to be made between Civ Newbie and SG Newbie. In fact, if you apply the experience/blink theory, a Civ Newbie is BETTER to have in an SG because they haven't formed any experience reactions yet that are unadvisable to an SG. That said, Civ veterans are usually able to quickly adjust to an SG -- and the more SGs they play, the more their normal games resemble their SG playing style. ("Normally I'd attack in this situation, but I think I'll hold off a round until I get those extra cats moved up") ... but that's social pressure theory, and that'll have to be another post for another day. :lol:
 
First of all I have to say that I´ve become an addict to this thread.
Thanks to Sirian and Sulla for sharing so much knowledge with beginners like me. You guys rock !!! :goodjob:

Hopefully I´ll be getting my copy of civ4 soon as I can´t wait to play a game myself.

@ChrTh: I really enjoy your Thoughts on the "blink" theory. Keep on going, it´s great. :D

My first post in here :D :band:
 
I'm feeling a bit ICE-olated here in Pennsylvania this morning. :lol:

('Tis snowing.)

Yes, I was playing some Chinese Checkers this morning. (What? Instead of playing more of my turn? :eek: Blasphemy!)

I managed an 11-hop move.

So be careful what you wish for! (I think somebody said "hop to it"? :lol: )


You might think that Chinese Checkers has nothing to do with Civ (and, well, technically you may have a point, but remember whose post you are reading! If you knew what I was going to write next, you wouldn't have to tune in to find out!)

You might think that Chinese Checkers has nothing to do with Civ but it makes for good "logistics calisthenics". ... That makes sense, right? ... Well, maybe not. :lol:


- Sirian
 
i totally agree with you!!! Free Chinese Checkers!! Hail Chinese Checkers!! Long live Chines Checkers!!


(sorry, but...What are chinese checkers?)
 
it takes alot of "marbles" to play CC. have you got 'em? the "marbles" I mean ...
 
After some time (100 games? 200 games?)
exactly. i haven't played 100 games in all civ variations put together, i just want to have fun the few games that i play.
of course, civ4 is much faster, so it isn't as strong an argument, but not every one wants to be a master, they just want to play and have fun once in a while.
 
perky_goth said:
exactly. i haven't played 100 games in all civ variations put together, i just want to have fun the few games that i play.
of course, civ4 is much faster, so it isn't as strong an argument, but not every one wants to be a master, they just want to play and have fun once in a while.

I just don't find using a combat calculator "fun".

There's also what I call "robot mode". How easy could your playing style be turned into a robot? You don't even to use a combat calculator to be a robot; both "I only attack when I have a 87% or higher chance of success" and "I only attack fortified city warriors with swords" are both robot statements. It also applies to non-combat things as well: "I always make a beeline for Monarchy" or "I always try to build the Pyramids" are both robot statements.

This became a problem in Civ 3 SGs. You'd see the same patterns over and over again. One of the nice things about Civ 4 that I've seen is that the game is more balanced so that certain patterns may exist, they aren't always beneficial in all situations. So the Hydra, which looks good in this game, is not a strategy that everyone should embrace.

Now, I'm not saying it's not possible to be a casual player and not play the same game every time; however, in my own experience (especially when I was a casual player), the games all kinda looked the same in the end. But when you play the game more often, you develop a more complex interaction with the game, so that you can generate diversity in your results, which means more fun, which will encourage you to play more Civ.

In other words, PLAY MORE CIV :rockon:
 
ChrTh said:
I disagree, and I'll explain why.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote this book "Blink". The main thesis is as follows: "experts" in a given area are able to 'thin-slice' (his term) a situation and come to a conclusion immediately (thus the 'blink' of the title), and more importantly, a 'blink' decision is more likely to be correct than a decision that is arrived at through calculation (of the mental or logical variety).

So let's say I've never played Civ before. I have a Warrior about to attack a city on a hill defended by another Warrior. Now, I don't know any better (let's pretend I can't see relative strengths), so I think I'll have a roughly 50% chance of winning (maybe a little less, because he's in a city--although I don't see any walls). I lose.

This happens several times. Eventually, I get the idea that Warrior attacking a Warrior in a city is probably not the best of ideas. I stop doing it. I've noticed, however, that attacking another Warrior outside a city sometimes I win. Also, I notice that on certain terrains I never win.

Even if I can't formulate into words what's happening, I'm learning. At some point in the future, I'll win more than half my battles every time because I'll be aware of what situations are favorable.

Now we go one step further. After some time (100 games? 200 games?) I acquire 'blink' skills with classical battles. I look at the screen, and I notice immediately:
Full strength
City
Hill
Promotions on either side

And I can make a judgement on whether or not I should attack INSTANTLY. I don't even realize I'm taking all this stuff into consideration--I just do it. In the blink of an eye.

And if I'm inclined too (and unfortunately I am--I scored high Innovator on the KAI scale), I'll trust those blink judgements over any calculator the game could devise.

Look through some random SGs. You can almost always tell a newbie from a veteran. Here are examples:

Newbie: Ok, I have an archer defending, that should be good enough to survive the inter-turn.
Veteran: I know my archer is good enough to hold this position, so I'll send my warrior out to try and pick off his worker.

(I know, my point would be more effective if I had real examples)

I highlighted the important part: the Vet knows. In fact, if you were to quiz him on it, he might not even be able to tell you why he's so sure of it (I'll explain why he might be able to in a moment). That's Blink.

Now, we have an advantage here. I don't have to play 100 or 200 games to gain blink skills. By following SGs and reading articles such as Arathorn's, I can gain expertise in advance, thus accelerating the development of my blink skills. I might use a calculator at first, but if I surrender to the unconscious and allow my blink skills to develop (i.e. trust my gut instinct), I won't need it very long.

Now, will I lose more battles then if I were to calculate them? Probably. But that's a blink factor as well. I may be experienced with a 30% casualty rate, so if I lose 30% of my troops, to me it's no big deal--it's how I've always done it...but if someone in your team is more experienced with keeping casualties below 20%, there's going to be some friction there (why are you wasting these soldiers?). We've each developed a different set of tools to make an evaluation, and my margin for error in more lenient. Does that mean I'm more careless with my troops? No. I've probably developed other tactics that compensates for the casualty rate. In an SG, though, with its 10-turn chunks, its harder for everybody to see that--they just see the 30% casualty.


SO

I personally end up trusting the gut instinct more than any calculator, because its what I'm used to and what has worked for me in the past--not just in Civ, but any problem solving task.

In short: Never tell me the odds. I've already figured them out*--just don't ask me what they are.


*Well, not yet with Civ IV ... :blush:

Ah, three things here...

1. You're assuming that people will keep playing long enough to be an 'expert' at the game. That very assumption is missing the entire point of the concept of "keep it simple and show the facts" which is what I am trying to explain. If people continue to receive poor results than they expect, aka "My 10/20 units keep losing to 10/10 units, why, why, why!?!?!" based on erroneous information given out on threads on forums/sites and/or erroneous info, or left out info in the game manual, tutorial, etc, they will not necessarily stick around to become that 'expert'. Casual players are just that, casual. They aren't mathematician's and they probably won't over-analyize the mechanic's of the game.

Never make the assumption that you're only dealing with "experts" since doing so will alienate any 'casual' people that you're trying to court, assuming the goal is to be inclusive, and not just make something for the grognard type player.

2. The 'strengths' of the units are already displayed. By not showing the effect of the hit points of the units, and their potential for influencing the real outcome of the battle, the display already has the potential to mislead players. Do reference back to #1, do you -really- think that the "casual player" will jump onto a forum, or wade through some formula intensive walk-through, etc to try to figure out all the game mechanics involved? I don't. Not the "casual player". Those are the folks who will consistently, or semi-consistently, lose the 10/20 vs. 10/10 battles and become frustrated and angry because instead of a 50/50 shot to win/lose they really have like a 25/75 (vice versa) shot to win/lose. All because of some hidden bit of information that is not upfront and easy to see or really explained much, but still used in calculations anwyay. That's my main point: If Civ4 wants to make the claim that it's user friendly and that all the information needed is available on the main screen then it should abide by this in all aspects. Since the odd's of winning/losing in combat does hinge on unit strength -and- hit points then I'd think some reference to hit points would be more noticable, or more mention given to them anyway, if only for informative reasons.

3. I don't want to drag this further off topic of Sirian and Sulla's great SG, so let's make a new thread if you want to debate this, all right? :)
 
Ozy, my answer to point 1 is: This is the Civ Fanatics forum! PLAY MORE CIV :rockon: :D

Seriously, though, if they enjoy the game and notice a discrepancy between what they see and what they experience, even casual players will start to ignore what they see*. That's what's great about Arathorn's article, this thread, etc. It gives an alternate understanding to what's going on that will keep the casual from getting disenchanted about the game.

Point 2: I'm not saying the interface can't be better, I'm just saying I'd rather the programmers work on gameplay fixes (abandon city, e.g.) then trying to come up with an accurate combat calculator, which may be an impossibility

Point 3: Eh, Sirian keeps Crashing and Sullla's off somewhere else. We may as well keep the thread moving :D


*Back to my driving example: this is why people drive above the speed limit.
 
ChrTh said:
I just don't find using a combat calculator "fun".

There's also what I call "robot mode". How easy could your playing style be turned into a robot? You don't even to use a combat calculator to be a robot; both "I only attack when I have a 87% or higher chance of success" and "I only attack fortified city warriors with swords" are both robot statements. It also applies to non-combat things as well: "I always make a beeline for Monarchy" or "I always try to build the Pyramids" are both robot statements.

This became a problem in Civ 3 SGs. You'd see the same patterns over and over again. One of the nice things about Civ 4 that I've seen is that the game is more balanced so that certain patterns may exist, they aren't always beneficial in all situations. So the Hydra, which looks good in this game, is not a strategy that everyone should embrace.

Now, I'm not saying it's not possible to be a casual player and not play the same game every time; however, in my own experience (especially when I was a casual player), the games all kinda looked the same in the end. But when you play the game more often, you develop a more complex interaction with the game, so that you can generate diversity in your results, which means more fun, which will encourage you to play more Civ.

In other words, PLAY MORE CIV :rockon:

Heh... Just to refute your 'robot' statement.. Having the facts available to use, if desired, does not mean that players will become 'robots'.:lol: Having the facts available simply means that the players will have more whole and complete data available. Some will use it as you suggest, others will not. You cannot logically assume that everyone will act one way or another only, that's a logical fallacy, similar to saying something like:

"An acorn fell, and it rained, ergo, when an acorn falls it will always rain"

It just doesn't work that way. Having more facts available simply means that people have more information available to use in their decision making. If they don't use all the available information that's their problem. However, conversely, if all the information used is only partially referenced and shown to be "all information needed" that's when problems occur because all the used info is not really displayed and in acting like it's not neeed, when it is, erroneous assumptions are formed.

That's what the "LCS" or Lying Character Screen was all about. Information shown there was either not incorporating the real formula's IG, in some cases it was displaying completely inaccurate information. When displaying anything to the end user it has to be complete and factual or else better not be shown at all. In Civ4 this is the only bit that is like this that I have seen, and while not necessarily game breaking, it could easily lead to sour feelings or multiple, never-ending debates about how things are "broken" because two "all things being equal" strength units, one being fully healed and one not, really aren't equal in their odd's of winning/losing a battle.
 
ChrTh said:
Ozy, my answer to point 1 is: This is the Civ Fanatics forum! PLAY MORE CIV :rockon: :D

Seriously, though, if they enjoy the game and notice a discrepancy between what they see and what they experience, even casual players will start to ignore what they see*. That's what's great about Arathorn's article, this thread, etc. It gives an alternate understanding to what's going on that will keep the casual from getting disenchanted about the game.

Point 2: I'm not saying the interface can't be better, I'm just saying I'd rather the programmers work on gameplay fixes (abandon city, e.g.) then trying to come up with an accurate combat calculator, which may be an impossibility

Point 3: Eh, Sirian keeps Crashing and Sullla's off somewhere else. We may as well keep the thread moving :D


*Back to my driving example: this is why people drive above the speed limit.

1. Erm, the game isn't only played by "fanatics", so unless they plan to build the game for only the people who use this forum/site they might want to think more of the casual gamer. You know the 'casual gamer' right? Hardly ever comes online, might not even DL a patch or anything like that. The folks who just play 'casually' and aren't hard-core. :D

2. The combat calculator is already in it just would have to be adjusted. We're not talking about adding more interface screens. I fully understand having the programmers work on "bigger issues" but those "bigger issues" doesn't mean this one doesn't exist. Odd's like Arathorn explained wouldn't be hard to calculate IG, IMHO. We're not talking Nobel prize winning math, but simply for the game to check the whole unit strength, then add in the chances of health as well. Arathorn already had the formula, it didn't look like it would be hard to stick in there as a display only, which is what we're talking about.

3. Heh, all right. :) i don't have much else to do until this afternoon, and then I have a nice 6-7 hour drive ahead of me..:cry:
 
Ozymandous said:
Heh... Just to refute your 'robot' statement.. Having the facts available to use, if desired, does not mean that players will become 'robots'.:lol: Having the facts available simply means that the players will have more whole and complete data available. Some will use it as you suggest, others will not. You cannot logically assume that everyone will act one way or another only *snip*

Back up a second ... I wasn't. If you look at my post closely, my issue is when the player makes decisions like "I'll only attack if I have a 87% or higher chance of winning" ... a combat calculator is not intrinsically robotic, however, it can be an enabler to robotic behavior. That is my concern.

My other concern is that all of this focus on combat modifiers and strengths and calculators, etc., will result in the following "rule" in an SG:

RobotLeader said:
4. No combat can be conducted unless odds of winning the battle are greater than 75%

I want games--including SGs--to allow for the decision to go against the odds. To take a risk when the situation requires. It makes for better games. And better reading. :groucho:

Yes, LCS' are bad blah blah blah. But I don't want us to overreact so far that all the fun is taken out of the game. If Firaxis adds a true odds calculator to the game, I'm going to turn it off the second it's there. Because if I wanted to play a math game, I wouldn't have purchased Civ.
 
ChrTh said:
Point 3: Eh, Sirian keeps Crashing and Sullla's off somewhere else. We may as well keep the thread moving :D

I haven't gone anywhere, I'm simply waiting for Sirian to post the next turnset. You guys are welcome to continue your discussion (ChrTh is approaching as many posts in this thread as I have!) but I see no reason to jump into the debate (which admittedly has relatively little to do with the Cuban Isolationists). :)
 
Sullla said:
I haven't gone anywhere, I'm simply waiting for Sirian to post the next turnset. You guys are welcome to continue your discussion (ChrTh is approaching as many posts in this thread as I have!) but I see no reason to jump into the debate (which admittedly has relatively little to do with the Cuban Isolationists). :)
Is it threadjacking when you have permission?

On a different OT subject, why is it every discount retail store in the country has multiple Chinese checkers boards, but it's almost impossible to find a Chinese chess board anywhere but on the internets? :mad:
 
Sullla said:
I haven't gone anywhere, I'm simply waiting for Sirian to post the next turnset. You guys are welcome to continue your discussion (ChrTh is approaching as many posts in this thread as I have!) but I see no reason to jump into the debate (which admittedly has relatively little to do with the Cuban Isolationists). :)
[offtopic] Maybe if you spent more time with your posts it wouldn't be that way!

:lol:

Well, I guess we have Arathorn to blame for derailing the game so effectively :gripe:

... but think of it this way: The peanut gallery is learning. Heck, I'm glad Arathorn dropped by, because in the ensuing discussion, I learned a ton I hadn't known before.
 
Top Bottom