Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice

[Thoth]

AWESOME!

Thankyouthankyouthankyou!

[Donegeal]

{BOLD}
{SIZE=15}



{/SIZE}
{/BOLD}

I know that it didn't work, it just to emphasize the thought.

[yaroslav]

I did some maths...

If I'm not wrong, in a combat where with the old system was a 70% possibilities of lossing the combat, now will be a 86% or 88% of possibilities of lossing the combat (86% if ties are resolved with 1 combat, 88% if ties are resolved with 4 combats again).

This systems increments the advantage of the most powerful unit - in every single combat. For defense and offense. True, it will be more difficult that a tank lost against a Spearmen, but many other results (in units from the same age, for instance) will also change.

In Civ2 we had the Firepower/Hit Points system that gives advantage to units from a moder age compared to ancient units. In Civ3, with the new system, this advantage is not given to units of modern age, but to any unit that is more powerful, even if only a little more, than its enemy unit.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Um... okay, forgive the English teacher here, but someone tell me what the math just became on, say:

a warrior beating a spear in a town without walls?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the warrior may have just become a completely useless unit (spare the "it already was" talk - in MP, jagrushes and chasquirushes are not uncommon) in any form.

In fact, this mechanic change makes defense (typically easier due to all the defensive bonuses) much easier, and vastly increases the need for lots of artillery beforehand.

I'm not certain this is a good change *at all.*

That's if I understand this right, which I'm not sure I do.

(Everything else is great, just this one has me rather worried.)

[yaroslav]

Umm... okay, forgive my bad english, teacher

Any combat that was "easy" in the old system (easy means that you won more time that you lost; or, in other word, it was more likely to win that to lost) is now "easier".

I don't know Civ3 (I'm a Civ2 guy) enough to tell you if defense is easier that offense in Civ3, but it is was, now it is even more "easier".

What was "unlikely" in the past, is now more unlikely. What was likely, is now likely.

IMHO that is great for some unlikely results (like ancients units beating mordern units) but not for some other results

[alexman]

I updated the combat calculator for the patch.
See the effect of the change for yourselves.

[sabrewolf]

please correct me if i'm wrong...
but aren't the odds the same as before, just the standard deviation changed?
it's still a bell-curve, just a lot "tighter".

another effect of this combat system: speed is even more important because you could need to retreat a lot more than before.

[DrSpike]

Well that's true for identical attack and defend values. But as soon as they differ altering the standard deviation for both distributions changes the odds of winning.

To see the point think of 2 normal distributions with mean 2, and any standard deviation. Changing the sd wont affect the probability of a random draw from one distribution being greater than a random draw from the other.

But make the second distribution have a mean of 3 (ie swords versus unfortified spear with no bonus) then the effect of decreasing the sd of both distibutions most definitely does alter the probability of a random draw from the second distribution being greater than a draw from the first.

That's not exactly how the Civ3 combat model works, and there are hitpoint distinctions of course. But it should show you how decreased sd does change the odds of winning a battle.

[eliliang]

Originally posted by JesseSmith
Combat System "Less Streaky"

The Change was having the random number generator (rng) calculate the Results 4 times instead of 1.

Possible Outcomes: AttackerLoses, AttackerWins

If there is a tie, it retries.


This forces the combat system to be more accurate and less "streaky"

reposted from my message to civfanatics-

[Summary of the mathematical results below: This change does not eliminate 'streakiness' except as a side-effect...]

If the probability of a 'w' is q where q lies on the interval [0,1], and the probability of an 'l' is 1-q, then:
(a) the probability of 4 w's is ,
(a) the probability of 3 w's and an l is ,
(a) the probability of 2 w's and 2 l's is ,
(a) the probability of 1 w and 3 l's is and
(a) the probability of 4 l's is .

Therefore, if the probability of a win in this new system of odds is p (where a win requires at least 3 w's out of 4), then obviously

and solving for p, .

Clearly this transformation from q to p changes the distribution. Plotted below (courtesy of Mathematica ) is q vs. p:



What this does not do is eliminate the streakiness of the results, except as a side-effect.

Mathematically, the only real way to eliminate streakiness is to use a better pseudo-random number generator. In particular, a good choice of a very fast random number generator with extremely low periodicity is the Mersenne Twister: Mersenne Twister web page (with code).

Even with the best pseudo-random number generator, streaks will occur with proper statistical frequency. This statistical frequency may seem higher than "common sense" might suggest, merely because the human mind notices streaks more than non-streaks and tends to note them, distorting the "observational frequency"...

[Dominae]

Originally posted by eliliang
Even with the best pseudo-random number generator, streaks will occur with proper statistical frequency. This statistical frequency may seem higher than "common sense" might suggest, merely because the human mind notices streaks more than non-streaks and tends to note them, distorting the "observational frequency"...

/me bookmarks this quote for use in arguments against those who think streaks are not part of randomness, and that the human mind is intuitively a great judge of the probabilty of random events.

[alexman]

Here's a chart showing what new a/d ratio you need to get the same odds for victory as you used to get with a given a/d ratio.

You need about 2.1 times the defender to get the same odds as you used to get with a tank against a fortified spearman. So Cavalry now is more effective against Spearmen than Tanks used to be!

[Dominae]

Thanks for the plot alexman. It takes a minute to figure out, but makes a lot of sense after that.

What I'm getting from it is that:

1. If the attacker and defender are more or less evenly matched, there is little difference between the new combat and the old combat (same odds for Archers versus Spearmen, Knights versus Pikemen, etc.).

2. As eliliang points out, this does nothing to address "streaky" results, except indirectly (perhaps this is why Jesse put this in quotations in his post). The real question is therefore: how long are the "streaks" that are generated by the Civ3 RNG? Whatever the number is, it's now divided by four. Does this solve the streakiness problem many players complain about?

I suppose my real question is: does that alter combat that drastically? Personally I'm not seeing this as the big revolution that everyone is making it out to be. It's a welcome tweak, but not game-altering IMO.


Dominae

[alexman]

Some speculations:

Technology is now even more important. You better not run into fortified Riflemen in cities with your Cavalry.

Swordsmen are now better than Horsemen.

A single Immortal Army (attack=6) will conquer the world.

Harder difficulty levels will become even harder, and easier ones even easier.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
Swordsmen are now better than Horsemen.

Maybe I'm reading your graph wrong.

From what I can tell, the difference in combat odds between the Swordsmen:Spearmen and Horsemen:Spearmen before and after the change are minimal (like, less than 5%). So while Swordsmen may in fact be better now, it's nothing to write home about.

Of course, this assumes the Swordsmen/Horsemen are up against fortified Spearmen; if it's against Warriors, you're right that Swordsmen are noticeably more kick-butt than Horsemen now.


Dominae

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Dominae
Thanks for the plot alexman. It takes a minute to figure out, but makes a lot of sense after that.

What I'm getting from it is that:

1. If the attacker and defender are more or less evenly matched, there is little difference between the new combat and the old combat (same odds for Archers versus Spearmen, Knights versus Pikemen, etc.).

2. As eliliang points out, this does nothing to address "streaky" results, except indirectly (perhaps this is why Jesse put this in quotations in his post). The real question is therefore: how long are the "streaks" that are generated by the Civ3 RNG? Whatever the number is, it's now divided by four. Does this solve the streakiness problem many players complain about?

I suppose my real question is: does that alter combat that drastically? Personally I'm not seeing this as the big revolution that everyone is making it out to be. It's a welcome tweak, but not game-altering IMO.


Dominae

As I said in my post above with identical attack and defend values there is no difference between the two models.

However with any difference between the 2 numbers the new model amplifies the chance of the highest number winning. Now, I'm sure no one will bemoan spears having a much lower chance of beating tanks. However, even 'normal' examples like swords versus spears give markedly differently results.

I am not saying it is bad, but it will certainly be different.