Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice

[padlock]

I don't want to get dragged into a long debate about this (I don't have the energy) but you are mistaken. The effects are very different. Averaging the random rolls does indeed affect the relative strenghts as opposed to the distributions. This is because the averaging is occuring in between the smallest quantumn unit (in this case the unit hit point).

In fact, it can be clearly seen that averaging, is very similar to increasing the difference between A/D values which is also quite similar to instituting the concept of fire power.

So in summary

Averaging rolls == FirePower == modifying A and D values (all 3 of these change relative strength)

Averaging rolls != increasing hitpoints (keeps strength the same and reduces variance)

That is indisputable.

[Arrian]

Thanks for that repost Catt! Great stuff, particularly the part about their intent to make it a configurable option.



-Arrian

[Sarxis]

So when will the patch be out? Friday (the norm)?

[Catt]

Originally posted by Tiberius

I have the feeling that most of people don't want the change because it'd change their style of playing, their good old strategies and tactics that worked so far. It doesn't really matter whether this is good or not, it is just: "Oh My God, what will happen now with my horse rush?"

Originally posted by Tiberius

Why would the new rules detract from gameplay is beyond me. I have no means to prove it whatsoever, but I am confident that if the new, now withdrawn model, had been applied from the very beginning of civ3, the crowd now asking for its withdrawal would have asked to keep it.

Sorry to take this thread back a bit off-topic, and in what may be an unpleasant way, but this is a serious pet peeve of mine and a serious (though often unintended) challenge to vigorous discussions in the forums.

Argue for your view! Debate the reasons underpinning opposing views! Poke and prod and challenge the views of others! Engage in menaingful discussion!

But for goodness' sake don't leap to impugning the motives of those who disagree with you. Disagreeing, or finding the opposing view "beyond you," does not invite you to (1) cast aside the stated reasons underpinning the opposing opinions and instead rely on the nefarious "feeling" you have that the real reason must be something else, particularly something less noble; or (2) argue that the "crowd" that disagrees with you is lemming-like and wants no change simnply out of a dislike of change.

Putting aside that such arguments are not directed at the issue and therefore are tremendousaly weak substantively, they are extraordinarily rude and they discourage the free exchange of ideas.

[/rant] I will stop now.

Catt

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by padlock
I don't want to get dragged into a long debate about this (I don't have the energy) but you are mistaken. The effects are very different. Averaging the random rolls does indeed affect the relative strenghts as opposed to the distributions. This is because the averaging is occuring in between the smallest quantumn unit (in this case the unit hit point).

In fact, it can be clearly seen that averaging, is very similar to increasing the difference between A/D values which is also quite similar to instituting the concept of fire power.

So in summary

Averaging rolls == FirePower == modifying A and D values (all 3 of these change relative strength)

Averaging rolls != increasing hitpoints (keeps strength the same and reduces variance)

That is indisputable.

Settler: The whole point of what I initially said was that all 3 methods (hitpoints, firepower, the averaging technique discussed recently) change the relative odds of winning whilst KEEPING THE A/D VALUES THE SAME.

Of course the desired effect for any given 2 units could also be brought about by changing the A/D values themselves. This distinction of yours about whether the methods affect the relative strengths is just stupid. All the methods increase the odds for the better unit. What is more for any of the methods used a good statistician could pin down the way to get the equivalent result for any given pair of units using any of the other methods. This does not imply identical results over the entire range of values possible.......far from it in fact. But all the methods are pursuing the same aim. Period.

[padlock]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Settler: The whole point of what I initially said was that all 3 methods (hitpoints, firepower, the averaging technique discussed recently) change the relative odds of winning whilst KEEPING THE A/D VALUES THE SAME.

Of course the desired effect for any given 2 units could also be brought about by changing the A/D values themselves. This distinction of yours about whether the methods affect the relative strengths is just stupid. All the methods increase the odds for the better unit. What is more for any of the methods used a good statistician could pin down the way to get the equivalent result for any given pair of units using any of the other methods. This does not imply identical results over the entire range of values possible.......far from it in fact. But all the methods are pursuing the same aim. Period.

First to your "Settler" comment, am I supposed to deduce that the fact that you have more posts means you must be right?

Anyway, I'm going to try this one last time and then I quit.

Take the example I mentionted above (unit A is attacking unit B which is 6 times stronger)

Now if I multiply the hit points of both units by X, it will still take on average 6 units of A to defeat 1 unit of B (again if no healing occurs between attacks). As X approaches infinity, it will now take exactly 6 units of A to defeat 1 unit of B. The result will be completely deterministic, and what's more, the relative strenghts between A and B have been maintained (6 : 1)


Now lets say that instead of multiplying hit points, I average the roll X times for each round of combat. AS X approaches infinity, the roll will approach .5, and the attacker will always win. That means that I could attack with 1000000 units, and never even take off a single hit point from B. Sure the results are once again deterministic, but completely different from what they would have been before.


Do you see now just how far off from equivalent these methods are?

Please, before you hit reply spend some time and think about this. You seem like an intelligent person, and I'm sure you'll be able to see this.

As for me, I'm done with this discussion.

[Master Zen]

@Catt: Thank you for re-posting that

I for one would have liked to have this as an option, just to see how good/bad the change would be like, plus, if it ended up "bad" it could have been a good challange to try and beat the game with the odds even more against you.


@SpencerH:

That is an EXCELLENT idea. This is actually a more refined way of making A/D values even higher as the eras progress. Even so, Civ3 made units more powerful from a numerical point of view. Remember in Civ2 a Tank had only 10 HP and it could swarm against anything else. Now it has 16 (and MA 24) and they still sometimes lose (I've had MA's lose to Musketmen).

I think the "realism" would apply to units within the same era getting lucky against each other like what happens with the current system. But I still don't buy a spearman even having the KNOWLEDGE of how to creep in and disable a tank!


@padlock

Originally posted by padlock

First to your "Settler" comment, am I supposed to deduce that the fact that you have more posts means you must be right?

don't worry and keep on discussing, don't listen to spammers who seem to have their ego as high as their post counts

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by padlock


First to your "Settler" comment, am I supposed to deduce that the fact that you have more posts means you must be right?

No, the fact that I am right does. The fact that I teach statistics at university level frequently means I am right. The fundamental laws of the universe mean I am right.

[Edit: apologies to all for any immodesty......I see from MZ's post people who don't know me might get the wrong impression from these posts. Please try to understand, at times like these when the statistics behind Civ come into the limelight everyone has an opinion, often a very strong one, on things that they may not truly understand (even for those with some knowledge in the area, as it is evident Padlock has). As such it can be incredibly frustrating, so I never get involved. After dodging for several days I made one small post on stats...........that was a mistake. ]

Originally posted by padlock

Take the example I mentionted above

No one in this thread has claimed that the 3 methods are identical for all possible attack and defend values. In fact I went out of my way to say that several times. A fundamental equivalence can be derived for any one set of values.

For instance using your example above in your first post I could derive the exact extent of averaging necessary to give the exact same results in your example as increasing from 1 to 6 hitpoints.........it would only be slightly higher than 1 given the extent of the difference between the A/D values, but it could be done. This in no way proves that averaging that exact number of times would be exactly equivalent to a different change in the level of hitpoints, or indeed that for any averaging model there will be more than one change to the hitpoints that is equivalent

BUT THERE IS ONE! IT IS UNDENIABLE. IF YOU MAKE ME I'LL DO IT TO PROVE IT TO YOU.

You are not entirely wrong in your initial post (though some of your later analyses are spurious), but you were criticising something that no one said. When averaging 4 times the extent of hitpoint change necessary to be equivalent in your 2A and 10D would be enormous. Hence showing that changing the hitpoints from 1 to 6 is not equivalent to averaging 4 times is not at all difficult - even someone with no statistical skill can do it.

For the last time, all 3 methods can alter the probability of the stronger unit winning whilst retaining the same A/D values. What is more you can derive the change in one model that is equivalent to the change in another. That was all I said, and it is correct, I would stake my entire career on it.

[Myrddin]

padlock

Are you sure you understand the proposed averaging?

Surely the effect of the averaging in your example is a give a win percentage for the attacker for each round of 0.166

[padlock]

Originally posted by Myrddin
padlock

Are you sure you understand the proposed averaging?

Surely the effect of the averaging in your example is a give a win percentage for the attacker for each round of 0.166

As intuitive as that seems, that isn't the case.

Assuming combat results are calculated as follows:

Attack successfull if: R * (A + D) >= D

where R is a random number between 0 and 1.

Then averaging R a certain number of times will make it tend toweards .5 (Averaging it an infinite number of times will make it exactly .5)

This would lead to the stronger unit always winning.

Even averaging R over a relatively small number like 4 will have a drastic change on the odds, with even relatively small differences between A and D (say 25% or so). In the case above a successfull attack would go from your quoted value of .166 to something well over an order of magnitude lower.

[padlock]

Just to follow up on my last post.

Someone on the civ fanatics board had an excellent analogy.

Let say you are playing a dice game where you have to roll a six to win. If you're only using 1 die, then you've got a 1 in 6 chance to win. If instead you are rolling 4 dice and taking the average, then all 4 have to be a 6, so you would now have a 1 in (6 * 6 * 6 * 6) chance of winning (ie. a 1 in 1296 chance).

[DrSpike]

Yes, such games are the way to proceed.......I commend you on that. Let's say you have multiple sets of 4 dice, and roll each of the sets. Each of the sets has a 1 in 1296 chance, but you have multiple sets now, so could you still have an overall chance of 1/6 of winning?



Ooh look I offset the averaging by increasing the repititions. And I could do it for any finite amount of averaging too.

Hehe it's not a perfect analogy for the previous argument, but it should help nonetheless.

[vmxa1]

Thanks for the post Catt. It is very gratifying to see that Firaxis is paying attention and is flexible.

I also commend you pointing out that just because one does not agree with someone, that does not me they are evil and incapable of thought.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Thanks for the post Catt. It is very gratifying to see that Firaxis is paying attention and is flexible.

I also commend you pointing out that just because one does not agree with someone, that does not me they are evil and incapable of thought.

Ditto.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by SpencerH
ancient unit v ancient unit no averaging
ancient unit v middle age unit average of 2
ancient unit v industrial age unit average of 3
ancient unit v modern age unit average of 4

That is a good idea, SpencerH