Unrealistic Combat: What side are you on?

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by RadeonZero
Solution:

Why don't include as game option a different "more real" combat system ?

If you like it... use it. If you hate it... don't (continue using the classic combat system)

I think the solution is as simply as this. Games are better when they have more choices to choose (that's the philosophy of the civ4 dev team, isn't it?)

Cheers

Most wonderful insight! =)

I personally feel that one can achieve both (realism and game balance) with one game, and no one has yet to prove otherwise. However, if it does prove to be impossible, this is a nice compromise.

Of course, there are pitfalls - there might not be enough development time for two different game versions. Also, it'll probably spawn even debates in the forums between those preferring the "realistic" game and the "classical" game, with the majority (who enjoy both) rolling their eyes in the middle ^_^.

And God help the poor moderate (who likes both systems) who tries to join in on the debate - chances are both sides are gonna pummel him/her! =)

[RadeonZero]

there might not be enough development time for two different game versions

The "new" system could be a single function evaluating probabilities in a different way. As simply as it appears

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zinegata
I see you don't see the importance of "turn advantage" then. Nor do you acknowledge that beakers could have been gold used for maintenance for another city instead.

*shrug* Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but your assessment is thus shown to be incomplete. Not taking in all the factors isn't good game design. =)

Oh dear. You said the tank should be much better than the spearman. I answered that it is much better. Want to argue about how many "much" means?

I defined "annoying" as something that doesn't break the game, but something you'd rather not have nonetheless.

No. You told about the danger to lose annoyed customers.

Thus, you believe in the principle of the tyranny of the majority. If you've got more, you should just bully the minority and they should just "shut up".

I didn't say shut up. I said mod it. That is a huge difference. Stop making up ****.

You yourself cited that you hated how stacked units could be wiped out if the top defender was defeated in Civ II. Well, how would you feel if I told you to "Shut up, that's the way the game is so just accept it! We need it for game balance because defenders in cities and forts need an advantage! Stop beating on a dead horse!"

I said that I hated it? Where? Stop to make up ****.

It was part of the game. I could adapt to it. Just don't lump big stacks together. But that's me. It surely annoyed the casual player, though. I had often to explain it in discussions and not many were fond of it.

Lighten up man. This is a forum. Take this too seriously and you'll have a heart attack =).

Are you done discussing my person now?

How can one "tweak" dice that were never loaded in the first place? By saying they had to be tweaked, you in effect admitted the dice were loaded to begin with.

I said streaky, not loaded. There is a big difference. And the streakiness has been tweaked. With questionable success, though.

On the other hand, with people like you discouraging other people from buying and playing the game just because they have some issues with the game, it's somewhat a wonder that Firaxis is doing so well =).

Yea, it would be better if they were gone. These people like me. Despicable.

Cool down. Chill out. This is a debate. Take it easy.

Are you done discussing my person again?

Well, let's see... the game has been out for a few weeks, millions of games have yet to be played, and total turn counts relatively low.

... And we're already getting freakish results?

As long as the chance of defeat is not 0, you will always find somebody dumb enough to attack with a tank at 0.3/28 strength, no matter how unlikely you make it. Even 5 minutes after release.

It ain't a dead horse until it's been removed, quite sadly. Besides, if Firaxis fixed it, then you wouldn't have had to debate with me in the first place! =)

I don't have to debate with you even now. I really don't know why I engage in something, what has been discussed to death.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by RadeonZero


The "new" system could be a single function evaluating probabilities in a different way. As simply as it appears

Ideally, it should be that simple. Realistically though, it will still take time to develop. The phase of game development that consumes the most time is testing and debugging. With two different systems, your testing time will double. You can, of course, concurrently test two systems at the same time, but it will cost more money to hire more testers.

Well, unless of course they get their testers for free by recruiting them off Apolyton and Civfanatics. That way, there will be twice the number of slots available for the beta test... and that might be a very good thing ^___^.

I think that the current combat system might only need a bit of tweaking for more "realistic" results though (where modern units beat ancient ones consistently). I think in the current system, the "actual" combat strength (one with all the bonuses added) also affects a unit's firepower. I think a modern unit's firepower advantage should remain in spite of all combat bonuses however. In effect, if a more advanced unit fights a less advanced one and they have the same effective combat strength (due to terrain and other bonuses), the more advanced unit will still have to win fewer times before demolishing the enemy unit.

But this is getting a bit out of topic now, so I'll stop =).

[Zinegata]

Man, you're pissed off, aren't you? Cool down man =)

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Oh dear. You said the tank should be much better than the spearman. I answered that it is much better. Want to argue about how many "much" means?

Sure. You argued it was 7 times stronger yet costed only five times more hammers. But a hammers-only approach is incomplete. And honestly, I didn't understand a word on what you were trying to say on how tech was irrelevant to unit costs.

Sorry, but beakers and turn advantage are in-game resources that should also count towards unit cost. If you want to deny this, fine. Your opinion, but it'll still be an incomplete asssessment.

No. You told about the danger to lose annoyed customers.

Yes. An annoyed customer is in danger of being lost =).

If you annoy someone so much, you may eventually "lose it" with that person.

Since I seem to be annoying you a lot right now, it seems you know exactly how the experience is =).

I didn't say shut up. I said mod it. That is a huge difference. Stop making up ****.

And I said, it's not the modder's responsibility, it is Firaxis'. And then you told me to shut up =).

I said that I hated it? Where? Stop to make up ****.

It was part of the game. I could adapt to it. Just don't lump big stacks together. But that's me. It surely annoyed the casual player, though. I had often to explain it in discussions and not many were fond of it.

Ah, so when you said...

And it was highly enjoying for the casual gamer to have the whole stack vaporized, when you beat the top unit. And not the slightest bit annoying!

You were not referring to yourself, just other players. Got it, my mistake.

Aren't you glad you don't have to explain it in discussions any more now that it is gone however? ^_^

Are you done discussing my person now?

*shrug* Just lighten up man. No need to be so upset.

I said streaky, not loaded. There is a big difference. And the streakiness has been tweaked. With questionable success, though.

... Streaky is not the same as "loaded"? -_-;;;

Yea, it would be better if they were gone. These people like me. Despicable.

I certainly don't. I want having more players, no matter how annoying =).

Are you done discussing my person again?

Not until you relax ^_^;;;

As long as the chance of defeat is not 0, you will always find somebody dumb enough to attack with a tank at 0.3/28 strength, no matter how unlikely you make it. Even 5 minutes after release.

Man, you always miss the part when I say ancient units should do some damage on modern units (just not demolish them), don't you? -_-

I don't have to debate with you even now. I really don't know why I engage in something, what has been discussed to death.

Because you're annoyed at me. If that's the case, my apologies. Really, I don't get where all of this hostility is coming from -_-;;;

[RadeonZero]

Realistically though, it will still take time to develop

Do you want a solution or you enjoy discusssing?

It is as simple as
1.- do the actual calc of probabilities
2.- Add a modifier based on the different age of the techs

I bet it would be less than 50 code lines

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zinegata
Ah, so when you said...

You were not referring to yourself, just other players. Got it, my mistake.

Yes. I clearly said "for the casual gamer". I define myself as more hardcore.

Aren't you glad you don't have to explain it in discussions any more now that it is gone however?

It was gone in Civ3, which was bad, as you can see at the 200 unit stacks the AI moved around. Now it is back in a weakened form as "collateral damage". Which is a pretty good solution and better to explain.

... Streaky is not the same as "loaded"? -_-;;;

No.

A 2 sided dice (or call it a coin), what produces 1110011111111011111010111111 is likely loaded, as it favors the outcome 1 over 0.

A coin producing 00001111110001111000000111 is streaky. 0 and 1 are equally likely, but tend to come in streaks.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zinegata
Man, you always miss the part when I say ancient units should do some damage on modern units (just not demolish them), don't you? -_-

No, because it does not make sense. If ancient units can do damage, at some point the modern unit will be badly beaten up. If it is safe from being demolished, it can continue on and on, without even healing.

Most examples of the tank vs spearman "problem" come from an attack with badly damaged tanks. So if you concede, that the modern unit can be damaged, there has to be a point, where it is destroyed, otherwise the damage is meaningless.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Yes. I clearly said "for the casual gamer". I define myself as more hardcore.

Yeah, sorry, my mistake =).

It was gone in Civ3, which was bad, as you can see at the 200 unit stacks the AI moved around. Now it is back in a weakened form as "collateral damage". Which is a pretty good solution and better to explain.

Ah, right, forgot about the game balance trauma that caused in Civ III ^_^;;;. I can see now why you are so hostile to making the game more realistic ^_^

No.

A 2 sided dice (or call it a coin), what produces 1110011111111011111010111111 is likely loaded, as it favors the outcome 1 over 0.

A coin producing 00001111110001111000000111 is streaky. 0 and 1 are equally likely, but tend to come in streaks.

Streaky dice would still alter the combat calculations quite a bit though... (which, I think would qualify as "loaded", but let's not discuss semantics anymore. I did understand what you mean by streaky dice the first time round, however)

One the of the main reasons that Civ introduced the HP system is to give a more powerful unit a better shot of winning against a less powerful one. The more powerful unit will often suffer some damage from the few times it "rolled low", but on the whole chances are good that it'll beat the less powerful unit.

Streaky dice, however, have the potential to return the game to the same level as Civ I.

If "low rolls" and "high rolls" come in streaks, then chances are much higher that one unit will completely demolish the other without suffering damage. A battleship that rolls low in the first round, for example, will be much more like to roll low again and again while fighting a caravel, resulting in the battleship getting sunk. This is precisely the kind of "battleship being killed by a spearman" the HP system was designed to avoid >_<.

Thus, the more streakish the Civ III dice are, the bigger the chance of Civ I style combat results happening. I don't think they should have let this happen -_-.

No, because it does not make sense. If ancient units can do damage, at some point the modern unit will be badly beaten up. If it is safe from being demolished, it can continue on and on, without even healing.

Most examples of the tank vs spearman "problem" come from an attack with badly damaged tanks. So if you concede, that the modern unit can be damaged, there has to be a point, where it is destroyed, otherwise the damage is meaningless.

Then we don't need to argue. When I say spearmen demolishing tanks, I mainly refer to full-strength tanks.

However, even full strength tanks seem to be killed by spearmen from time to time based on some player's posts -_-;;; Not that it's a common occurance, mind you. But it's becoming disturbing -_-

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by RadeonZero


Do you want a solution or you enjoy discusssing?

It is as simple as
1.- do the actual calc of probabilities
2.- Add a modifier based on the different age of the techs

I bet it would be less than 50 code lines

Alright, alright, I won't argue. It's a good idea =). It will also be, in general, easy to code.

Hopefully, my prediction that it will increase the need for beta-testes pans out as well though, if they do indeed implement this ^_^.

[Cort Haus]

Sir Ralph -

Zinegata, there's a thread on CFC for people with out-of-date video drivers who wanted to get a class action suit going against Firaxis. You may find some soulmates there. Now that they've updated their drivers and have the game working, they must need something else to whinge about and complain about being an oppressed minority.

Originally posted by Tiberius
It is just not logical that something that annoys some people is kept in, while removing it would go unnoticed.

Tibi - it would look better if you didn't try and claim that logic was on your side after your embarrasingly irrational chess analogy.

You think it would go 'unnoticed' to have to have a game where a single tank can remove an entire backward civ, even if at 0.01% health?

Maybe you guys should go back to your Civ II Howitzers.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zinegata
Streaky dice would still alter the combat calculations quite a bit though... (which, I think would qualify as "loaded", but let's not discuss semantics anymore. I did understand what you mean by streaky dice the first time round, however)

One the of the main reasons that Civ introduced the HP system is to give a more powerful unit a better shot of winning against a less powerful one. The more powerful unit will often suffer some damage from the few times it "rolled low", but on the whole chances are good that it'll beat the less powerful unit.

Streaky dice, however, have the potential to return the game to the same level as Civ I.

If "low rolls" and "high rolls" come in streaks, then chances are much higher that one unit will completely demolish the other without suffering damage. A battleship that rolls low in the first round, for example, will be much more like to roll low again and again while fighting a caravel, resulting in the battleship getting sunk. This is precisely the kind of "battleship being killed by a spearman" the HP system was designed to avoid >_<.

Thus, the more streakish the Civ III dice are, the bigger the chance of Civ I style combat results happening. I don't think they should have let this happen -_-.

Yes, it is as you describe.

In tank vs spearman, the dice are clearly loaded in favor of the tank. It is a 8-sided dice and 7 of them mean "tank wins the round" and only 1 "spearman wins the round". A combat between both can have between 3 and 14 rounds. If the tank wins 3 of them, he won the battle. The spearman needs to win 12 (he does much less damage).

If the dice were ok, i.e. not streaky, the chance of the spearman to win 12 rolls of maximal 14 with a probability of 12.5% per roll are close to the chance of a snowball in hell. However if you have a bad - i.e. streaky - generator, it is possible.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Zinegata, there's a thread on CFC for people with out-of-date video drivers who wanted to get a class action suit going against Firaxis. You may find some soulmates there. Now that they've updated their drivers and have the game working, they must need something else to whinge about and complain about being an oppressed minority.

*yawn* I ignore your blatant trolls =).

You know, just because I point out something went wrong doesn't mean I want to sue Firaxis. Criticism is a part of life. I've always wondered why in the blue blazes did the Civ III combat engine act so ****ey. I'm finding out now.

You also know this sort of behaviour IS playing into the hands of guys like StarLightDeath, right? And honestly, I'd think playing into the hands of someone like StarLightDeath would suck a heck of a lot more than being called a whiner =P

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Yes, it is as you describe.

In tank vs spearman, the dice are clearly loaded in favor of the tank. It is a 8-sided dice and 7 of them mean "tank wins the round" and only 1 "spearman wins the round". A combat between both can have between 3 and 14 rounds. If the tank wins 3 of them, he won the battle. The spearman needs to win 12 (he does much less damage).

If the dice were ok, i.e. not streaky, the chance of the spearman to win 12 rolls of maximal 14 with a probability of 12.5% per roll are close to the chance of a snowball in hell. However if you have a bad - i.e. streaky - generator, it is possible.

Yep. With a streaky dice, if the spearmen wins the first roll there's a good chance it'll keep getting that result and win the whole battle. A spearman can thus have as high as a 12.5% in winning a tank in actuality.

Ouch. Now I know why my battleships kept sinking to caravels. Oh well, too late for me to rescind my Civ III boycott - guess I'll have to stick with Civ IV and hope the freakish results popping up are just that and not another incarnation of the streaky dice =).

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zinegata
Yep. With a streaky dice, if the spearmen wins the first roll there's a good chance it'll keep getting that result and win the whole battle. A spearman can thus have as high as a 12.5% in winning a tank in actuality.

Only theoretically of course, and even with the streaky Civ3 RNG highly unlikely.