1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Suggestion re combat system

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Caveman 2 Cosmos' started by kolokol, Mar 1, 2012.

  1. kolokol

    kolokol Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50
    Location:
    Aalborg, DK
    NB. I no nothing about modding - just a fan of the mod

    I know I'm not the only one who gets upset about random luck rolls in the combat system. I thought up an idea, but I don't know if it could be done, or if it should.

    The idea is: make all battles at fx 90%+ an automatic win and conversely for under 10% automatic loss. I think that's rather reasonable. I was thinking maybe one could reuse the code for free wins in the difficulty settings.

    Doesn't eliminate luck but eliminates the most aggregious luck-screw.

    Could this be done? Should it be done?
     
  2. DRJ

    DRJ Hedonist

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,514
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    No.

    Battles often are easy enough - and if you think that 90% chance is good but lose and thus brought one or two units less to take a city you have to deal with the consequences, over the games you will know that 90% is not 100% and that sometimes a bit more preperation makes it really 100%...

    Even Heroes can die! (although there is a new promotion in the chatter, that will allow them to be somehow reborn, I recall)
     
  3. Koshling

    Koshling Vorlon

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,874
    Also voting no. 90% is not that high anyway. If you have 10 fights in a turn you should expect to lose 1 if they are all 90% odds. Hand raised stealth units would be too easy to promote up and would be essentially imortal if you used them carefully with such a change.
     
  4. Hanny

    Hanny Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    IOW UK
    Master of Mana uses an equipment mechanism to allow armour/weapons/items for units that further increase units values, this stretches the odds to reduce the luck elemnt in game.

    However luck is a vital element in combat and i see no good reason at present to warrant easing its effect.
     
  5. platyping

    platyping Sleeping Dragon

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,619
    Location:
    Emerald Dreams
    If you are complaining that losing at 90+% is luck, so make it anything above 90 == autowin.
    Then when you lose at 89% you will complain it is luck again...
     
  6. BlueGenie

    BlueGenie Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,521
    I agree with keeping it as it is. 90% I have never consider a sure win anyway, nine out of ten wins at most, less if playing at Deity level.
    I do get a little peevish when losing battles at 99+% though, but I'm still not counting them as sure wins, I know I can lose them anyway.
    And like people have stated, it's not that hard to arrange a fight at 90+% to come a lot closer to 100%, if not actually getting it there. Surround and Destroy, Great General, get one or more promotions before tackling that enemy stronghold.

    Cheers
     
  7. strategyonly

    strategyonly C2C Supreme Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    19,723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MN
    Yeah this happens to me alot also, i look at 99. . .% and think i got this made in the shade and poof i lose the battle, i think i almost broke a vein one day:mad::lol::lol:


    Do NOT take these as insults, just responses to your suggestions, nothing wrong with that, and always and i mean always make suggestions, thx.
     
  8. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    11,977
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    Wow kolokol, that buckshot must have really stung! Blasted out of the sky like a you were the last duck of the Duck season. And not even one "well.....lets think about this" just Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, NO Boom! :p .

    Sorry man.

    JosEPh
     
  9. Sgtslick

    Sgtslick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    Melbourne
    isn't there a BUG option > force combat odds or something
     
  10. Hydromancerx

    Hydromancerx C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,203
    Location:
    California, USA
    Sounds like you guys need some anger management. :pat:

    Though its nice to hear you guys are so passionate about the game.
     
  11. BlueGenie

    BlueGenie Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,521
    Hey. *grin* I at least gave some hints as to what can be done. *smile*

    Cheers
     
  12. Nevets_

    Nevets_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    281
    Just think, for every time your 90% odds City Raider 4 swordsman dies to a longbowmen, there was (on average) a 90% odds neanderthal vs. scout attack that failed (and whose odds you didn't even know!). And while you might like that swordsman, but by that point you've got 20 more. Back when you were getting kicked around by cavemen twice your size that single scout was far more important.

    That leads me to another idea, would it be possible to include combat odds in the combat log? So when you lose a unit on defense you know what odds the attacker had? Might help to alert players to future AI problems if they see suiciding 0% attacks.
     
  13. DRJ

    DRJ Hedonist

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,514
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany

    iT IS IN COMBAT LOG oh sry aps lock. Just take a look and zoom the hitpoints down you see what chances the AI had before fight.
    I just looked at those AI odds for calculating early battles for comming games, for instance I learned that a (strength 3) bear has 28,1% attacking a guerrilla 1 / woodsman 1 promoted wanderer on a forest hill (% together =strength 3,50)...

    So yes, wanderers can take on strength 3 units if you pick the right place and maybe defend it a few turns to dig in...
     
  14. kolokol

    kolokol Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50
    Location:
    Aalborg, DK
    Alright fair enough. I'm not usually one to complain about luck, I just get so frustrated when in the early game you lose that absolutely vital woodIII shock II axe. Without that guy its impossible to prevent an AI choke. Atleast I haven't found a way.

    How do you guys prevent those 7-10 unit chokes the ai sends at you when you can't afford more than 10 units tops yourself without going broke?
    Is sourround and destroy the answer 'cus I haven't tried that feature

    (immortal, start as minor)
     
  15. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    11,977
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    I don't use the Start as Minor Option anymore. The AI is getting better all the time. So I feel it's unnecessary, unless you Like to get whomped 90% of the time! ;) :mischief: :lol:

    JosEPh :)
     
  16. Sgtslick

    Sgtslick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I usually just ignore them, get the -10% hp to adjacent units and if they go to attack your city and take damage they retreat to heal like ******s haha

    Also i find pillage is your friend, get in there and pillage the sh1t outta there improvements so they have trouble reinforcing.
     
  17. Hydromancerx

    Hydromancerx C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,203
    Location:
    California, USA
    Yeah if there was ever an incentive to pillage it would be during this time in the game.
     
  18. MMX5000

    MMX5000 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    82
    Location:
    NYC
    You know, I never liked pillaging, mostly because it meant I'd have to just rebuild it all after I took over. But now with rogues, I cant help myself. I've been destroying just about every improvement I can see since they apparently are too stupid to build rogues to fight back.
     
  19. TowerWizard

    TowerWizard Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Messages:
    257
    I do not pillage based on the exact opposite logic: since the AI is stupid, I am not going to take advantage of that, causing them to be even less of a threat to me. I would rather like to have a unit, called Foreign Contract Worker or something, able to "reverse pillage", that is, build improvements in enemy lands so that the AI can become more of a threat. Like, I am getting money from the AI in exchange for building improvements for them.

    Idea: Foreign Contract Worker
    • National Units (max 2)
    • Can be built only if you have Civic: Open Borders active.
    • Costs double the cost of a Worker
    • Cannot Attack or Defend
    • Can explore rival territory
    • Can build improvements only in rival territory and only within the fat cross of a rival city
    • Cannot pillage
    • Builds Improvements in 1 turn (since it takes just one turn to pillage, also to make them better than the enemy's own workers)
    • Can not build an Improvement to replace another Improvement already built (to stop potential abuse)
    • Gets triple normal pillage amount of gold for building Improvements (that is, if you would get 10 gold for pillaging a Mine, you get 30 gold for building it)
    • Teleports back to Capital after having built an improvement (to stop you from draining the enemy's coffers with a needless amount of Improvements).
     
  20. DRJ

    DRJ Hedonist

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,514
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    Yes the contract worker could also solve the problem that the AI tends to pay 3500 gold for a buffalo worker while I have to pay 911 gold for Elephant Riding tech to them. (eternity speed that is). Disabling worker trade and enabling contract workers would really help balancing the system a lot.

    EDIT: what about if the contract worker is, like a spy, unattackable by thiefs and bandits etc?

    EDIT2: ah you included that already by "cannot attack or defend" I think...
     

Share This Page