RNG combat. Can anything be done about it?

[black213]

I had already forgotten the horror that is Civ 4 combat when I was primarily playing Civ 5 with Vox Populi for a few months prior to now. (Note that I don't wish for limited stack sizes or 1 UPT!)
It feels so damn infuriating when you lose a veteran unit with slim chances of defeat. And combat being always fatal in particular is perhaps the worst offender here. Withdraws excluded, so I guess all combat should utilize the withdraw mechanic? Just a quick thought.

 

[cmakk1012]

Hot take: the withdraw/limited damage battling in CiV was one of the few good changes to battle because most battles throughout history did not annihilate one side completely.

 

[1SDANi]

Outside of replaying the same turn to ensure no deaths, I'll put a couple of general tips:

• You should always have cannon fodder in your armies. Most wars have casualties, so ensure you only lose expendables.
• As you alluded to, units with Withdrawal Chance are insanely useful. Your armies should include both the catapult line and the cheaper skirmisher line.
• Attack with your full force. It often pays off to wait a turn after reducing a city's defense to zero so that you can attack with all of your catapults at once.

 

[Enyavar]

Those are great tips, but which units should you employ when as cannonfodder? As a true micromanager, this is the point where I see my only chance in saveloading.

I can only determine which unit to employ where and when, once a 80%-odd turns into a defeat.
Then I reload and
- sacrifice an outdated or low-XP unit instead.
- or I use a unit that will withdraw (you should also mention light cavalry, they are extremely useful as withdraw-ers, especially combined with a General).
- or I switch to a different front where I have very high odds, and first win a 99% naval combat; then return to the problem stack and try the 80% odds again

During the reloading time I read history magazines.

 

[Leoreth]

Combat not being lethal / not being resolved in one turn is very heavily tied into 1UPT.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

There is a minor mod, I think it's called Phyrric Victory or something like that, which makes it so that units which lose a fight at >90% odds always withdraw instead of dying.

 

[Leoreth]

Why give additional advantages to the side that is already stronger.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Because randomness is no fun.

 

[1SDANi]

Honestly, I wish we would remove combat RNG altogether, though that's way too big of an undertaking for me to develop and balance alone.

 

[Leoreth]

It's also a bad idea so that would be a huge waste of time.

 

[Enyavar]

Combat not being lethal / not being resolved in one turn is very heavily tied into 1UPT.

It's complicated to explain the balance/fairness issues that are involved in this combination, but this is a concise and true statement.

(Let's define "Non-lethal combat" as "no insta-kills with similarly tiered units"). While almost all the time one side gets to die, it just needs more turns in 1UPT, or a numerical advantage within the carpet of doom.
If you allow "non-lethal" combat in the CivIV system of SoDs (stacks of doom), you just urge all parties to build even larger SoDs, which will still try to wipe the enemy out within one single turn. That means all players have to invest more production in combat and combat becomes even more tiring.

There is a minor mod, I think it's called Phyrric Victory or something like that, which makes it so that units which lose a fight at >90% odds always withdraw instead of dying.
Why give additional advantages to the side that is already stronger.
Because randomness is no fun.

Randomness can be fun (well, tedious fun), if you accept the numbers and then use them in your favor.
Me (Enyavar!) I'm an unrepentant, saveloading micromanager. I accept the random numbers, but I don't lose fights at 90% odds - I rather fight elsewhere or don't fight if the RNG decides I loose. So, at least for people like me, this Phyrric mod would help to reduce the saveloading. And for other people who try to play through in one single session, it would make things a lot more convenient, too.
You can then attack at 90% odds without problems, but your unit will be at near-zero health after its attack, and thus pretty vulnerable. Yes, the advantage would go to the stronger side, but it goes both ways. And the bonus would also apply in defense: With the current system, if you attack Yerushalim with 10% success rate, in 1 out of 10 attacks, you get to kill the archer. With Pyrrhic favoring Yerushalim, you need to mop up with a fresh unit.

But I said it before: a combat system without strong random factors means that two leaders will parade their armies in front of each other, and the owner of the weaker army has to accept defeat.
Also, I don't see a benefit in switching away from RNG. It dictates a few more things besides the combat outcomes, and you can't get rid of all these systems:
- spread of religion and corporation
- whether or not missionaries fail
- occurence of random events and quests
- Independence movements
- spawns of Great Persons
- exact spawn location and number of scripted enemy barbarians
- reveals from goodie huts
- ... (I certainly overlooked things)

 

[1SDANi]

It's complicated to explain the balance/fairness issues that are involved in this combination, but this is a concise and true statement.

(Let's define "Non-lethal combat" as "no insta-kills with similarly tiered units"). While almost all the time one side gets to die, it just needs more turns in 1UPT, or a numerical advantage within the carpet of doom.
If you allow "non-lethal" combat in the CivIV system of SoDs (stacks of doom), you just urge all parties to build even larger SoDs, which will still try to wipe the enemy out within one single turn. That means all players have to invest more production in combat and combat becomes even more tiring.


Why give additional advantages to the side that is already stronger.
Because randomness is no fun.

Randomness can be fun (well, tedious fun), if you accept the numbers and then use them in your favor.
I'm an unrepentant, saveloading micromanager. I accept the random numbers, but I don't lose fights at 90% odds - I rather fight elsewhere or don't fight if the RNG decides I loose. So, at least for people like me, this Phyrric mod would help to reduce the saveloading. And for other people who try to play through in one single session, it would make things a lot more convenient, too.
You can then attack at 90% odds without problems, but your unit will be at near-zero health after its attack, and thus pretty vulnerable. Yes, the advantage would go to the stronger side, but it goes both ways. And the bonus would also apply in defense: With the current system, if you attack Yerushalim with 10% success rate, in 1 out of 10 attacks, you get to kill the archer. With Pyrrhic favoring Yerushalim, you need to mop up with a fresh unit.

But I said it before: a combat system without strong random factors means that two leaders will parade their armies in front of each other, and the owner of the weaker army has to accept defeat.
Also, I don't see a benefit in switching away from RNG. It dictates a few more things besides the combat outcomes, and you can't get rid of all these systems:
- spread of religion and corporation
- whether or not missionaries fail
- occurence of random events and quests
- Independence movements
- spawns of Great Persons
- exact spawn location and number of scripted enemy barbarians
- reveals from goodie huts
- ... (I certainly overlooked things)

Those are fine (except for Goody Hut techs and random events that destroy improvements without any way to pay for rebuilding), what I have an issue with is solely RNG in combat. Everything else is fine, especially in the AI. It's just always been annoying that the optimum combat strategy is to incur the reload time penalty over and over. An undo button would be fine too, though I'm not sure if that's possible.

As for the argument that weaker armies should sometimes beat larger armies, that's really not that true at the moment either, unless the difference is 1-3 units, the larger army will almost always win if their unit composition isn't trash or combat modifiers makes the attacking army stronger. Combat just feels horrible. When you lose a 99% win you feel cheated, and when you win a 99% loss you feel like you're cheating.

 

[Lokki242]

Honestly, if the rng is coming out that broken, just use worldbuilder. That's what I do

 

[Leoreth]

Me (Enyavar!) I'm an unrepentant, saveloading micromanager. I accept the random numbers, but I don't lose fights at 90% odds - I rather fight elsewhere or don't fight if the RNG decides I loose.

Sounds like you are ruining your own fun, not the game.

 

[1SDANi]

Insert a silly mischaracterization of Leoreth's argument, because apparently it wasn't obvious that my last one was silly

Can we please not do this? Can we please not mischaracterize each other because we don't agree with the other's gameplay preferences?

Yes I savescum, but that's because I like to strategize, not gamble. There's a reason I hate Final Fantasy but love Kingdom Hearts.

 

[Leoreth]

Please remove that misquote. It's disingenuous.

If you don't like how I framed your position actually argue your point instead of literally putting words in my mouth. I don't think I even need to explain how it's ridiculous to pretend it's even close to the same thing.

Regardless though, nothing you said actually changes my point. Changing a game to address the grievances of people who have already decided to operate outside of the constraints of the game is a pointless rabbit hole to go down. Especially if said grievances are the result of leaving the constraints of the game.

For your point specifically, maybe part of strategising is accounting for losing 90% battles sometimes? Maybe part of strategising is to actually learn what a standard deviation of a random distribution is? Also maybe part of playing a strategy game is dealing with unexpected consequences instead of accounting for everything in advance?

 

[Logoncal]

Honestly, if the rng is coming out that broken, just use worldbuilder. That's what I do

Me too. I spawn like one or two more units of the one i lost.

"You wanna cheat, game? Guess what, i can cheat too"

 

[1SDANi]

Please remove that misquote. It's disingenuous.

If you don't like how I framed your position actually argue your point instead of literally putting words in my mouth. I don't think I even need to explain how it's ridiculous to pretend it's even close to the same thing.

How ironic.

(I'm not even going to bother to change your mind, it's like debating items vs no items in Smash. Both sides have completely different opinions on what makes something fair)

 

[1SDANi]

Leoreth, it has come to my attention that you did not notice that my misquote was made in jest to emphasize the pointlessness of your misquote and how it would not contribute to a healthy discussion. My post was made to ask that we end the conversation, or at the very least not mischaracterize each other in the way that you had. I am sorry we could not come to a satisfactory agreement, but hope that this misunderstanding will not negatively impact our future interactions.

 

[calad]

Please remove that misquote. It's disingenuous.

If you don't like how I framed your position actually argue your point instead of literally putting words in my mouth. I don't think I even need to explain how it's ridiculous to pretend it's even close to the same thing.

Regardless though, nothing you said actually changes my point. Changing a game to address the grievances of people who have already decided to operate outside of the constraints of the game is a pointless rabbit hole to go down. Especially if said grievances are the result of leaving the constraints of the game.

For your point specifically, maybe part of strategising is accounting for losing 90% battles sometimes? Maybe part of strategising is to actually learn what a standard deviation of a random distribution is? Also maybe part of playing a strategy game is dealing with unexpected consequences instead of accounting for everything in advance?

Well most of your replies have been just one line baiting and opinions without any explanation, so why do you get upset?

Problem with RNG and instadeath is you will never attach GG on unit (expect one supermedic) because losing level 7 unit on 90% probability is just infuriating. It is total victory or total defeat, nothing between these two. This is why no other game is like civ4 because it is a bad design, winner takes all always is an awful concept.

This is especially problem when you have very tight UHV deadline, you simply dont have production make more units or to move them. Instead of you have to attack, if you fail you reload and try to manipulate RNG to favouring you. This is my least favourite part of this modmod: constant reloading and I know everybody does that all the time.

And you know standard deviation of a random distribution is an awful argument if you have only 50 turns out of 500. First 25 turns you are unlucky and lose all of your units, now too bad they were starting units and you dont have production and time to make more troops and you lose automagically not because your play style sucks but because of standard deviation of a random distribution. This is how flawed your argument is.

Now, it is not that there are no options. You just refuse to even look at them. Vanilla game has withdrawal % on horses, why this cant be expanded? There are mods that gives flanking bonus, this could be expanded as well. I also assume there are mods that give penalties having too many units on same tile, this could be expanded against stacks of doom.