Unrealistic Combat: What side are you on?

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by archermoo


Yes. I'd say it is much more likely that they consider it to be a non issue, and are busy playing and enjoying the game as written, rather than trying to argue with someone who doesn't like something about the game, has been given the tools to change it so that it works the way he would prefer, but instead wants to try and force his version of how things should work on everyone else by getting the makers of the game to change it so that it meets his approval.

*shrug* But hey, I could be wrong. But I must say it doesn't surprise me in the least that you work in marketing.

Oh, pithy! Much better than your Vietcong shooting arrows at helicopters argument! =)

Yeah, I do realize it's a non-issue for a lot of players. But is it bad to ask for an improvement in the game that will placate the 10% of the annoyed players without disrupting the 90% of the gaming market? I'm confident it can be done, after all previous Civs have done it.

If the changes will wreck the balance for the 90% of the players however, then I sure as hell will be against it! I work from the assumption that it won't, and for a simple reason: Nobody, including yourself, has yet to show that doing it will indeed break the game balance. It might be different from the current combat system, but it doesn't mean it will be worse. it could be better, in fact!

Oh, and just an FYI, in case it was not clear I am directing these criticisms to the NEXT version of Civ. I'm fairly content with Civ IV, but just because I'm content doesn't mean I think it can't be improved! =)

I like your jab at marketing folks though. Too many of us are content to sell shoddy products. I like to think of myself as one of those who'd rather drive the engineers crazy (although I am a software engineer by degree ^_^;;; ) so that the consumer won't just buy the product, but also be satisfied with it. It's better for the company in the long run, especially for a product like a computer game =).

[archermoo]

Originally posted by Zinegata


Oh, pithy! Much better than your Vietcong shooting arrows at helicopters argument! =)

Yeah, I do realize it's a non-issue for a lot of players. But is it bad to ask for an improvement in the game that will placate the 10% of the annoyed players without disrupting the 90% of the gaming market? I'm confident it can be done, after all previous Civs have done it.

If the changes will wreck the balance for the 90% of the players however, then I sure as hell will be against it! I work from the assumption that it won't, and for a simple reason: Nobody, including yourself, has yet to show that doing it will indeed break the game balance. It might be different from the current combat system, but it doesn't mean it will be worse. it could be better, in fact!

Oh, and just an FYI, in case it was not clear I am directing these criticisms to the NEXT version of Civ. I'm fairly content with Civ IV, but just because I'm content doesn't mean I think it can't be improved! =)

I like your jab at marketing folks though. Too many of us are content to sell shoddy products. I like to think of myself as one of those who'd rather drive the engineers crazy (although I am a software engineer by degree ^_^;;; ) so that the consumer won't just buy the product, but also be satisfied with it. It's better for the company in the long run, especially for a product like a computer game =).

Well since as near as I can tell most people aren't just satisfied with Civ IV, they're downright estatic about it.

However, since you have decided in another thread to take our disagreements to the level of personal attack, I invite you to [self censored].

[kimmygibler]

I think the idea to change the picture of the units in the modern age would resolve all problems. Change "spearman" to "angry mob" or "rebel" or simply "warrior" and make the picture look more modern and your problem is solved. In SMAC for example, nobody complained about this sort of thing because there were no preconcieved ideal about shock rifles and probability sheaths and whatnot. By changing the picture and the unit name at a certain point in the game I think everyone would be happy. Nobody could complain about unrealistic combat anymore because the picture has changed.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zinegata
1) Modern units are exponentially more expensive than ancient units, due to their technology cost, so they should be exponentially more powerful and wipe ancient units with ease from a game balance perspective.

Do you have the faintest idea what "exponentially" means?

A spearman costs 35 hammers and has 4 strength. A tank costs 180 hammers (roughly 5 times the spearman) and has 28 strength (7 times the spearman).

The odds of a tank to win a combat round are even higher than its cost reflects. And since a tank makes much more damage per won round (look in the Combat system thread in the Strategy forum for proof), his odds to win the whole combat are even much higher than that.

Your statement is therefor false. And "should" is not a good term if you want to prove anything.

As for the "technology cost", sorry, it has nothing to do with how powerful a unit has to be. It is a thing of game balance to weight research speed. Or else the Ancient age would last about 90% of the game time. How annoying would that be?

2) If you ask a guy on the street who has never played Civ who should win in a fight between tanks and spearmen, chances are they'll say tanks. Why? Because it makes sense. Great games make sense and are balanced as well.

Because you ask a loaded question. If you ask the guy in the street, if an inferor unit can on rare occasions and under circumstances beat a superior unit, chances are, that he says yes. Because it is fact.

And as I said, many, perhaps a majority, in Apolyton are simply hard-core strategy gamers. The results are thus likely to be skewed.

Moreover, the poll itself is highly biased. Option A represents the extremist view that visuals should dictate combat results while ignoring game balance. Option B represents a more moderate view where yes, units are just numbers, but let's come up with a romantic explanation anyway on how it happened. The moderate view will always have greater appeal, no matter how much people like extreme Democrats and extreme Republicans tell us otherwise =).

Yet, in spite of the odds stacked against it, Option A still got over 10% of the vote.

Now, 10% is a minority, I don't deny that (and I don't deny that my view is the minority view). But the question is, just how significant a minority is it?

Well, assuming Civilization IV sells a million copies and the 10% minority holds, then we'd have 100,000 players annoyed with tanks being killed by spearmen. The number 100,000 is nearly double the population of the Civfanatics forum. I don't know how many posters are in Apolyton, but I think it's definitely going to be a LOT smaller than the "minority" of 100,000!

So what? Does all this rambling about percentages support your position in any way? A minority is annoyed? Big deal. The majority is pleased.

My point is, that the standard game should try to appeal to the majority. The minority can mod it. That simple.

And remember, 10% is a low-end estimate based on your poll. The actual percentage in the poll right now (13 for A and 82 for B) is actually closer to 14%, translating to 140,000 annoyed players and probably more than the population of Civfanatics and Apolyton combined. And that's assuming that Civ IV only sells one million copies - it'll probably sell several times more!

1) its not my poll

2) I said "overwhelming", not 10%. I don't care whether it's 10% or 14% or even 20%. Overwhelming is overwhelming.

3) That the minority is even "annoyed" is an unproven assumption

You're damn right we're a minority, but we don't look so small now, do we? ^_^

Sorry, you still look as small as ever.

(And Ralph, I do work in marketing, so I know that annoying even just 10% of your customers is a very big deal! Translate that 100,000 players into sales figures, for example, and you'd have the staggering figure of 5 million dollars - probably more money than either of us makes in a decade =) )

First off, the word "annoying" is still unproven. Even more, it is false. Given the odds of the cited battle, in far over 99% of battles the casual gamer will be pleased and in far under 1% he may be annoyed. That surely makes him "annoyed about the game" as you imply.

Second, since you can't please everyone, to please a majority makes still much more sense than to please a minority. Because, in your example, the majority represents 45 million dollars.

And third, "I am the expert because I work for marketing" does not strengthen your argument either.

The Fallacy of How "Option A" and "Option B" are mutually exclusive

What I'm so surprised with is that none of those condoning the tank-spearmen issue have addressed a fundamental point that I have been making since the start:

You can have both good game balance and a game that makes sense from a visual standpoint.

No you can not. You can either give the inferior unit a chance to win and be it astronomically small.

Or you can deny it this chance.

There is no third way.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zinegata
Civ II had this. Why shouldn't future Civs have it also?

I almost forgot that gem. Yea, it was hell of a pleasure to get to howitzers first and conquer the world practically without resistance. 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!

[RadeonZero]

What I think...

In modern times it's common to see how inferior forces resist attacks of great armies:
- Afganistan vs Russia: Nobody believed the cavalry charge against russian tanks in "Rambo III" film, but the fact is the Russians lost the war (with Ben Laden and CIA help)
- Vietcong vs USA: Americans used all kind of weapons (helichopters, jet fighters, orange agent) but they lost the war (with Russian help)
- Iraq vs USA and Guerrilla in Colombia: Regular armies can't beat non-regular armies due to their tactics

But the example Phalanx vs Tank... Tank should win 99.9% of times or you start thinking the AI cheats (As it did in previous versions of CIV) and nobody likes to be beaten by a cheater

Cheers
RadeonZero

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by archermoo


Well since as near as I can tell most people aren't just satisfied with Civ IV, they're downright estatic about it.

However, since you have decided in another thread to take our disagreements to the level of personal attack, I invite you to [self censored].

Never denied that people are happy with are Civ IV. Why not make people happier about it? How about making the next version even better? =)

See, just because you I say they ought to improve the combat system, people automatically jump on me thinking I'm here bashing the game. I'm pushing for improvements with the game, and mostly for the next version, not this one.

And really, personal attacks? It's not my fault that someone made the claim of the Vietcong commonly using arrows against helicopters =).

[Harovan]

If we go with the formulas in the Combat system thread in the Strategy forum:

The tank has 7/8 odds to win a combat round, the spearman has 1/8.

Assuming full health of both, the tank will do about 40% damage of the spearman's health if it wins a round. That means, after 3 rounds lost to the tank, the spearman is dead.

The spearman does only a bit more than 1% damage to the tank's health if it wins. In fact, to kill a tank, it would have to win 88 rounds. And that before the tank wins 3. Because after that, the spearman ceases to exist. And yes, the odds for the tank to win a combat round are still about 88%, and the spearman's still 12%.

I would imagine, the odds for the tank winning are a lot higher than 99.9%.

The only way to lose with a tank against a spearman is, that the 1) spearman is fortified in a place with a high defense bonus and 2) the tank is at very low health. Which means, the unit graphics do not represent the unit's strength. This tank unit should look very damaged, perhaps it should already emit black smoke. Who attacks with a damaged unit, deserves to lose. And even in this state the tank has a good chance to win.

Overall I am tired to beat a horse, which is dead for years now. Who wants to play a "perfect combat system": Mod it in. Or play Civ2 if you like it so. The cIV combat system is what it is. And it is good so.

[Bhruic]

Actually your numbers are off. The tank would do 44% damage to the spearman, and the spearman would do 9% damage to the tank. Meaning 12 hits for the spearman, 3 for the tank. Still solidly in favour of the tank, of course, but not nearly as lopsided as you'd suggested.

Bh

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Bhruic
Actually your numbers are off. The tank would do 44% damage to the spearman, and the spearman would do 9% damage to the tank. Meaning 12 hits for the spearman, 3 for the tank. Still solidly in favour of the tank, of course, but not nearly as lopsided as you'd suggested.

Bh

Yes, I applied the wrong formula. You are right, mea culpa.

But as you mentioned, it does not change anything in the general situation.

[RadeonZero]

It's not my fault that someone made the claim of the Vietcong commonly using arrows against helicopters

They were not so primitive

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Do you have the faintest idea what "exponentially" means?

A spearman costs 35 hammers and has 4 strength. A tank costs 180 hammers (roughly 5 times the spearman) and has 28 strength (7 times the spearman).

Sure. Exponentially generally means "a heck of a lot higher". =)

See, the problem with your analysis is that it focuses only on the hammer cost. Sure, a tank gains seven times the strength by spending just five times more in cost. But hammers show only a tiny fraction of the story.

Before you can build your tank or spearman, you need to spend beakers on technology first. Getting the technology to build a spearman costs a few hundred beakers. Getting the technology to build a tank however, costs a several thousand beakers. That means you effectively spent ten times as many beakers for each tank than you did for every spearman!

More importantly, however, you spend far more of the single, most important resource in Civilization: time. You need only spend a few dozen turns to get spearmen. You need hundreds to get tanks. This is truly an exponential increase in cost!

Now, it is true that gaining technology gains you a ton of other benefits, so spending all those turns and beakers won't just net you tanks alone. However, I think this demonstrates quite well that there is an immense gulf in the amount of resources one needs to spend to get a tank compared to a spearman, easily enough to qualify as "exponential".

The golden rule of unit costs in Civ is that it is not determined by hammers alone. Take a step back and count how many beakers and (more importantly) how many turns you spent before you can even start building the said unit. Hammers do not tell the full story =).

Because you ask a loaded question. If you ask the guy in the street, if an inferor unit can on rare occasions and under circumstances beat a superior unit, chances are, that he says yes. Because it is fact.

That's hardly a loaded question. I asked him, quite simply, what would happen when tanks fight spearmen. It is very doubtful he would answer spearmen. Try it yourself.

However, if you don't believe me, try asking this then: Do you think spearmen, in rare occassions or circumstances, can beat tanks? It's basically the same format and structure as your own question, and I think the guy on the street will still answer with a "no". The matchup we have, as presented in the game, is not between an inferior unit and a superior unit. It's a matchup between tanks and spearmen =).

So what? Does all this rambling about percentages support your position in any way? A minority is annoyed? Big deal. The majority is pleased.

My point is, that the standard game should try to appeal to the majority. The minority can mod it. That simple.

And my point is that if the change won't affect the majority anyway, why are they so against it? Satisfying the minority does not mean disenfranchising the majority.

And no, as I've already explained why, mods just aren't going to cut it =).

1) its not my poll

It's your poll when it seems to support you, but you disown it when it doesn't?

2) I said "overwhelming", not 10%. I don't care whether it's 10% or 14% or even 20%. Overwhelming is overwhelming.

*shrug*. It's still a hundred thousand people, and more than people in this forum =).

3) That the minority is even "annoyed" is an unproven assumption

True, but you also cited how even those who are not part of the minority (including yourself) sometimes get annoyed by crazy combat results. I chose the word annoyed because it's a mild term that fits this situation well - it's a problem that doesn't break the system, but people will be glad to rid of it nonetheless.

Given that some, maybe many, of the majority might actually agree that it is annoying, then the "minority" I speak of (ones who'd prefer to see no more spearmen killing tanks) might actually end up being far higher than 10%. If it hits as high as 30%, then you can kiss your "overwhelming" adjective goodbye, won't you? =)

Sorry, you still look as small as ever.

Sure, but are we really that small, or is the perception just small? Is the minority just vocal, or is there just a lot of voices to begin with?

Interesting and evil stuff to ponder, no? ^_^

First off, the word "annoying" is still unproven. Even more, it is false. Given the odds of the cited battle, in far over 99% of battles the casual gamer will be pleased and in far under 1% he may be annoyed. That surely makes him "annoyed about the game" as you imply.

An important lesson was taught to me in marketing products:

It takes a hundred good moves to gain a customer, but it takes only one bad one to lose him.

And given the reports coming in, it's beginning to look more than 1% anyway (sure, the calculations look like it's less than 1%, but if the dice are as ****ery as Civ III's...)

Second, since you can't please everyone, to please a majority makes still much more sense than to please a minority. Because, in your example, the majority represents 45 million dollars.

Again, the fallacy - you think that by pleasing the minority of 5 million, you will turn off the 45 million.

This need not be the case. A game can be made that satisfies both the minority and the majority, netting you the whole 50 million. =)

And third, "I am the expert because I work for marketing" does not strengthen your argument either.

*shrug* Okay. Doesn't bother me one bit =).

No you can not. You can either give the inferior unit a chance to win and be it astronomically small.

Or you can deny it this chance.

There is no third way.

Sure there is. Make the astronomically small chance even smaller =).

Problem: There are people reporting ****ey results even though the chances of it happening are astronomically small.

Solution: Make the astronomically small chance even smaller, or recheck your formula. Maybe you missed something and the chance isn't that small after all =).

Denying the unit a chance isn't the way to go, and I've never endorsed this approach.

I'll post more later Ralph, stay tuned =).

And thanks for giving me such fun while I wait for Civ IV to finally arrive in my country =)

[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

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zinegata
Sure. Exponentially generally means "a heck of a lot higher". =)

See, the problem with your analysis is that it focuses only on the hammer cost. Sure, a tank gains seven times the strength by spending just five times more in cost. But hammers show only a tiny fraction of the story.

Before you can build your tank or spearman, you need to spend beakers on technology first. Getting the technology to build a spearman costs a few hundred beakers. Getting the technology to build a tank however, costs a several thousand beakers. That means you effectively spent ten times as many beakers for each tank than you did for every spearman!

More importantly, however, you spend far more of the single, most important resource in Civilization: time. You need only spend a few dozen turns to get spearmen. You need hundreds to get tanks. This is truly an exponential increase in cost!

Now, it is true that gaining technology gains you a ton of other benefits, so spending all those turns and beakers won't just net you tanks alone. However, I think this demonstrates quite well that there is an immense gulf in the amount of resources one needs to spend to get a tank compared to a spearman, easily enough to qualify as "exponential".

The golden rule of unit costs in Civ is that it is not determined by hammers alone. Take a step back and count how many beakers and (more importantly) how many turns you spent before you can even start building the said unit. Hammers do not tell the full story =).

I gave you an argument why beaker cost does not matter. Because it does not reflect anything but the balance of the timeflow in the game. It took the mankind thousands of years to discover basic thinks like wheel, or bronze working. It took only like ten years to develop armored vehicles. Does that mean, that bronze working should cost a hundred times more beakers? Or ten times, if you factor in the length of turns in years?

Take a step back and realize, that tanks are so much better.

That's hardly a loaded question. I asked him, quite simply, what would happen when tanks fight spearmen. It is very doubtful he would answer spearmen. Try it yourself.

However, if you don't believe me, try asking this then: Do you think spearmen, in rare occassions or circumstances, can beat tanks? It's basically the same format and structure as your own question, and I think the guy on the street will still answer with a "no". The matchup we have, as presented in the game, is not between an inferior unit and a superior unit. It's a matchup between tanks and spearmen =).

The thread title and the poll does tell nothing about tanks and spearmen. So why would I be that specific?

It's your poll when it seems to support you, but you disown it when it doesn't?

It is not my poll in either case.

*shrug*. It's still a hundred thousand people, and more than people in this forum =).

And the other side is yet much more than that.

You point being?

True, but you also cited how even those who are not part of the minority (including yourself) sometimes get annoyed by crazy combat results. I chose the word annoyed because it's a mild term that fits this situation well - it's a problem that doesn't break the system, but people will be glad to rid of it nonetheless.

I get annoyed with my wife sometimes. Should I divorce her?

Given that some, maybe many, of the majority might actually agree that it is annoying, then the "minority" I speak of (ones who'd prefer to see no more spearmen killing tanks) might actually end up being far higher than 10%. If it hits as high as 30%, then you can kiss your "overwhelming" adjective goodbye, won't you? =)

Yes, in this case I would, probably. Up to 50% I would have a majority. Up to 70% a large minority. Between 80% and 90% I would realize, that my cause is losing overwhelmingly.

It is irrelevant if it is "annoying", as long as it is a minor issue. If you make it a biggie and it destroys Civ4 for you, well, that's your opinion, there are other games to play. I hear AOE3 is perfect.

Sure, but are we really that small, or is the perception just small? Is the minority just vocal, or is there just a lot of voices to begin with?

Interesting and evil stuff to ponder, no? ^_^

Is it true that Kain slew Abel? Or is it only a myth?

I can bring up more unrelated stuff if you want.

An important lesson was taught to me in marketing products:

It takes a hundred good moves to gain a customer, but it takes only one bad one to lose him.

To lose one tank to a spearman in a thousand battles annoys me that much, that the company will lose me as customer. Right. The game has nothing else to offer to keep me anyway.

And given the reports coming in, it's beginning to look more than 1% anyway (sure, the calculations look like it's less than 1%, but if the dice are as ****ery as Civ III's...)

Can you prove that the Civ3 dice are loaded? Go ahead, I am listening. The RNG is streaky (it has been tweaked in C3C though). Which means you can have bad streaks, granted. However you can have good streaks too. This changes nothing about overall probabilities.

As for the "beginning to look more than 1%", unproven, subjective, irrelevant.

Again, the fallacy - you think that by pleasing the minority of 5 million, you will turn off the 45 million.

This need not be the case. A game can be made that satisfies both the minority and the majority, netting you the whole 50 million. =)

Firaxis/Take2 has the whole 50 million in either case. And if you think they won't buy Civ5 (should it ever exist) because of this, you are mistaken.

Your point... oh, I am repeating myself.

Sure there is. Make the astronomically small chance even smaller =).

Problem: There are people reporting ****ey results even though the chances of it happening are astronomically small.

Solution: Make the astronomically small chance even smaller, or recheck your formula. Maybe you missed something and the chance isn't that small after all =).

This changes what? A tank can still be beaten by a spearman. As you mentioned, these fora have tens of thousand members (even if you count out the inactive folk), who surely will play a million or more games in the next years, with hundred million or more turns in question. It will happen again, no matter how unlikely you make it.

Or tell the reporters not to attack with deadly damaged units perhaps? Or make damaged tanks emit black smoke to show the nitwit who is playing, that this unit is out of order and will eventually lose?

Denying the unit a chance isn't the way to go, and I've never endorsed this approach.

I must have misread all your posts so far.

I'll post more later Ralph, stay tuned =).

And thanks for giving me such fun while I wait for Civ IV to finally arrive in my country =)

No, I won't. I am tired to beat dead horses and to discuss made up, irrelevant stuff. Unlike you I have the game and therefor a much better use for my time.

Look for somebody else to beat rotten carcasses.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

I gave you an argument why beaker cost does not matter. Because it does not reflect anything but the balance of the timeflow in the game. It took the mankind thousands of years to discover basic thinks like wheel, or bronze working. It took only like ten years to develop armored vehicles. Does that mean, that bronze working should cost a hundred times more beakers? Or ten times, if you factor in the length of turns in years?

Take a step back and realize, that tanks are so much better.

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. =)

The thread title and the poll does tell nothing about tanks and spearmen. So why would I be that specific?

Oh, because it's the matchup most people object to?

Infantry losing to spearmen? Fine. Muskets losing to spearmen? Fairly common. But tanks, two ages ahead of spearmen, losing to spearmen? Wow!

It is not my poll in either case.

Sure, sure.

And the other side is yet much more than that.

You point being?

Both sides can be satisfied without antogonizing the other. Honestly, I'm surprised at how antagonized people are whenever someone dares criticize their precious game, especially the combat system.

Can't people just say "Sure, next Civ let's keep spearmen from killing tanks. Just make sure the game balance ain't wrecked because of it".

I get annoyed with my wife sometimes. Should I divorce her?

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

Divocring your wife is definitely saying something is broken =).

Yes, in this case I would, probably. Up to 50% I would have a majority. Up to 70% a large minority. Between 80% and 90% I would realize, that my cause is losing overwhelmingly.

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".

It is irrelevant if it is "annoying", as long as it is a minor issue. If you make it a biggie and it destroys Civ4 for you, well, that's your opinion, there are other games to play. I hear AOE3 is perfect.

Never said it. I'm lobbying to have that particular portion of the game improved, and the particular annoyance to be abolished.

I never said people shouldn't buy the game because of it. Nor did I say the game was broken because of it. However, it would be to Fiaxis' benefit if they got rid of this annoyance in the next game.

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!"

Fortunately, I never said such a thing. Better yet, Firaxis got to work on the problem and fixed it. Does anyone complain about the above situation now?

Pot. Kettle. Black. =)

Is it true that Kain slew Abel? Or is it only a myth?

I can bring up more unrelated stuff if you want.

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

To lose one tank to a spearman in a thousand battles annoys me that much, that the company will lose me as customer. Right. The game has nothing else to offer to keep me anyway.

The said quote has a simple meaning. One wrong move can destroy a product. Why risk one in the first place when one can fix it?

Can you prove that the Civ3 dice are loaded? Go ahead, I am listening. The RNG is streaky (it has been tweaked in C3C though). Which means you can have bad streaks, granted. However you can have good streaks too. This changes nothing about overall probabilities.

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.

^_^

As for the "beginning to look more than 1%", unproven, subjective, irrelevant.

Hence the qualifier "beginning". I'm not sure so I won't state it as fact.

Firaxis/Take2 has the whole 50 million in either case. And if you think they won't buy Civ5 (should it ever exist) because of this, you are mistaken.

Even so, improving the game will lead to better product satisfaction. Improving product satisfaction (by removing annoyances) improves the reputation of the game. Better reputation leads to more sales. More sales leads to more money. That 50 million might have been more if the game had less annoyances in the first place =).

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 =).

Your point... oh, I am repeating myself.

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

This changes what? A tank can still be beaten by a spearman. As you mentioned, these fora have tens of thousand members (even if you count out the inactive folk), who surely will play a million or more games in the next years, with hundred million or more turns in question. It will happen again, no matter how unlikely you make it.

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?

Or tell the reporters not to attack with deadly damaged units perhaps? Or make damaged tanks emit black smoke to show the nitwit who is playing, that this unit is out of order and will eventually lose?

Alright! A little silliness is good for the soul, that's the spirit! =)

I must have misread all your posts so far.

Sadly, seems you have.

No, I won't. I am tired to beat dead horses and to discuss made up, irrelevant stuff. Unlike you I have the game and therefor a much better use for my time.

Look for somebody else to beat rotten carcasses.

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! =)