Warrior, Archer, Spearman Screens using 4roll combat

[Theseus]

Yup.

[DrSpike]

I think Catt's tome above sums everything up pretty nicely. Jeem, we can't say for sure the change would break the game, but we are not being hysterical for the sake of it.........our views come from deep thought and much civving.

Thinking back to the early posts on the beta patch the first thing I posted after was hang on that combat change looks a little hasty. And many many others reacted exactly the same. You can impugn our motives if you want, but honestly I believe most people that posted concerns have the game's interests at heart.

I am so glad Firaxis pulled the change, and maybe after seeing the opinions of gamers and statisticians they will reconsider how they implement any changes they want to make. Because leaving aside my subjective opinions on the change completely, I can tell you flat out that their stated method is not the best way of attaining their stated goal.

[Aeson]

The onus is on YOU to prove that the game will break down. So far, I've seen the grand total of 0 examples that show this.

That's because the game won't break down. It will become a more narrow, and less variable experience. Tactics will become more narrow and less variable. If the combat system is changed, it should be to allow more variation on tactics and give every unit a viable use.

It's like putting too small a frame on a nice piece of artwork... why cover up the edges if they have value? People who just want to stare at the middle of the painting can do so already. There are ways you can virtually eliminate any variation on the game... and it's the same way that we would all be forced to play (to the extent that averaging is applied) if these changes are made. Bombard.

You can already do this, why force everyone to in every situation?

[Jeem]

By Catt:

Would seem to make for some pretty drastic changes to the game, rippling well beyond combat itself. Does beelining for Navigiation, with the chance to sew up overseas trades for C3C's scarcer resources before others have a chance to trade for them, still make sense when you could beeline for Cavs and take on AI pikes?

Without actually having played with the thing, leads me to speculate that techs that offer combat unit upgrades just became a lot more powerful seducers of one's research budget.

Seafaring and the Portuguese already made Navigation much less attractive. Why aren't you complaining about that?

Isn't it true that Musketmen are considered poor units right now?

What you are saying here is - Other avenues of tech now become important, when before they were just a requirement to escape the age. Whats the difference between beelining for Navigation and Beelining for Cavalry? It's the choice that has changed - ie, both choices have their merits, depending on how the game is going as a whole.

Just like mathematics would be more important in order to get catapults in the early era. It's about enhancing the game as a whole, by making some techs and units less redundant than they are now.

It is my opinion that a 4-roll-combat regime would mess up the ancient age -- only swords would make decent attackers, and even then only within certain constraints. This would radically alter the balance of power based on the location of the strategic resource iron. It would make researching Bronze Working and Iron Working before any other tech the normal start in too many games, reducing variability.

No, you just don't see it do you? If you rush down that line in order to create a military, you've no chance of getting to Philosophy first, and therefore will be suffering badly in tech. Ditto getting to Mapmaking, and maybe building the Great Lighthouse (which incidentally, lets you get out and meet other races much faster, thereby giving you a technological edge). You cannot see this game outside of the military Catt. By all means rush for Iron Working - others will go for tech and wonders that will help them. Less option? It seems to me that the options are GREATLY being increased here.

It would mean securing BW and spearman so powerful as to demand it. It would encourage the AI, based on its starting bonus units and the comparative strength it enjoys versus an early human army, attack in circumstances in which it had very little chance of doing any real damage. How welcome would an early AI-started war be for any reasonably competant human player? Tremendously, I'd say.

On the flip side, it would allow builder players to continue building to their strength, and not to be overrun by a technologically inferior race that happens to have more crap than the human player does.

Can you see it from the non-militaristic PoV? One of the main problems with building is that the AI is so aggressive to non-militaristic players that it's made very, very difficult. Until you play that style of game exclusively, you'll never know just what it's like. Have you ever played a game where the AI demanded gold and tech of you 15 times? My recent one has just that!

However, the main point here is that you are supposed to be getting away from just the combat side of the changes. This is a combat related point.

Outside of the ancient era, it is my opinion that the combat change would significantly strengthen defense at the expense of offense. Fortified pikemen in Cities (7+pop) would be decent defenders until tanks. Muskets would be reasonably powerful until tanks. Rifleman would be very strong. And infantry would be almost tough as nails. All of which means (i) that defensive strategies become strengthened, and (ii) use of bombard on offense becomes necessary. Effective use of defensive strategies and "peaceful dominance" by the human already puts the AI at a serious disadvantage (more so than effective human military offense, IMHO). The disparate uses of bombard units between human and AI puts the AI in a no-win situation.

All of that seems completely reasonable to me. The only problem is the AI doesn't bombard enough (unless you find yourself at war with the Byzantines early - you want to see just how the AI CAN bombard when it needs to). The AI's bombarding capabilities can be fixed. What are you saying Catt? That the game should negate bombarding just because the AI is hopeless at it? Better to fix the AI so that it can bombard effectively, no?

Anyway, isn't this a combat related point?

Even less need than currently for interior defenders -- focus all attention on bombard units, defenders for the frontiers, and attackers

I'm quite happy if the human player or AI strips his defenses when going on a full assault. The penalty for doing so is in 'military police' in your cities, which means less production overall, and much less chance of getting wonders. It'll slow down the reinforcements also, whereas the defender will still be operating at maximum effeciency.

Again, you are only seeing this from the military PoV Catt. There are other ways to play this game.

Beeline to cavalry and pick a nearby AI civ without either (1) knowledge of Gunpowder, (2) saltpeter, or (3) the money to upgrade pikes to muskets. With cats upgraded to cannons and Cavs on the offense, march through any such neighbor taking very few casualties.

Catt - this is what happens anyway. However, while you are 'beelining to Cav', the AI might have been 'beelining to Nav'. They might have met a strong AI on another continent, who traded them Saltpeter and Gunpowder. What a surprise that might be when you start attacking their cities. Does all this seem reasonable and sound like a game that is enjoyable? It does to me.

If the above circumstances don't present themselves, focus military builds on strong defenders and artillery units. An artillery unit stack of doom can dominate offensive operations, from catapults right on up through artillery.

I don't see how this is breaking the game. Changing the game? Yes. Breaking it? No. It might be *different* tactics that are required, but I don't see how it's breaking.

If content with one's REX, forget investing a whole lot in military -- you can bet that your thoughtful defense will absolutely shred any AI offensive.

If you have access to iron and gunpowder at least. If not, you find yourself in a poorly defended position and are wishing you'd built a whole load of archers earlier. That's the breaks.

None of which the AI could do! Without radically altering AI decision-making, it would launch its hopeless horsemen / archer attacks. It would attack far superior defensive positions. It would continue to research a wide smattering of techs, many of which have effectively been devalued by the inherent strengthening of the military-related techs. It would not understand that absent compelling circumstances (i.e., Cav versus spears or pikes) that it would rarely make sense to go on the offensive. It would blow innumerable shields and gold on wars and battles that it cannot win.

The AI has many avenues open to it to ensure it is usually in the favourable position when attacking. This usually is a tech lead and trading every resource it needs if it can. You continue to assume that military techs are the be and end all of the game. That's because what you know *now* about the game is that military techs are the be and end all of it. There is absolutely no difference in what you are suggesting might happen and what actually happens now.

I still have never once seen you address game balance with anything more than "As to the overall game balancing effects, I honestly don't know."

And I still honestly don't. You *think* you know Catt, but you don't. I didn't realise up till now just how steeped in the militaristic game you were, but now I do. You have very little concept of what is happening outside of the military game, and more importantly what other non-militaristic civs are doing while you are pursuing your military game.

[notyoueither]

Scenario #1. Inter-AI warfare and it's effect on player civs.

Unless Soren spent what I would imagine to be a looong time adjusting the AI, they would most likely happily bash on each other for lengthy periods of time since the power of the defence is radically increased by 4 roll combat.

So, the human builder would be doubly blessed. First his own cities would be very safe with their walls and fortified defenders whose D strengths would exceed all normal units' A values.

Then, the human builder would benefit from AI around him or her burning themselves out against each other in blood baths of futilility that would go on for lengthier periods of time due, again, to the increased power of the defence.

Crucially, Republic and Democracy would be greatly reduced as viable forms of government for the AI unless absolutely no war ocurred (which can happen but is uncommon). Even as things stand the AI is often forced out of Republic and Democracy by WW when AI agression overflows the bounds of peace. The need for the AI to switch would increase due to lengthier conflicts, more casulaties, and with fewer clear victors, once again due to the increased power of the defence.

Now, I don't know about you, but I notice that as soon as the major AIs start to switch out of Republic or Democracy into Monarchy and Communism, I have the game in the bag from a builder POV. They increase corruption, and decrease their ability to research right at the time that I am normally putting on my speed skates of higher learning. The tech war is won simply because the AI elect to attend the gun fight with... well they don't even really have knives at that point, do they? More like they show up as clay pidgeons for the player to take blasts at with Tanks and MA as his space ship is completed some time around the point they discover that corporations are a good thing.

That is an example of how overall game balance can be altered by such a fundamental change in combat. All that is required is the premise that the defence is greatly increased in power. If you grant that, then the rest is likely.

[Antrine]

[QUOTE]As to making it optional, I believe that is a mistake for the simple reason that it will further factionalise MP games. The change is big enough that players would start to ask - "Are you playing streaky or non-streaky combat?"[/QUOTE by Jeem]

Jeem, this is flat out inconsiderate. I bet 80% play only alone somewhere in a corner on their own computer, never minding the rest of the planet. This game 'made it big' without MP not the other way around.

OPTIONS are courtesy.

Many Thanks,
Someone who cares.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
Re-iterating one of my posts in the patch thread, there is another issue that would ruin game balance:

Resource distribution (or the lack thereof)

Specifically, there *has* to be a meaningful ability for lesser units to overcome the stronger, otherwise the resource-challenged, whether human or AI, are screwed.

And that, my friend, is a Royal Flush, end-of game arument about how combat can overly affect balance.

Resource distribution can be fixed. We've already seen new resources added in Conquests - there is no reason why other strategic resources can't be too.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the Swordsman vs Spearmen point came up earlier, and I stated that a Spearman is still better overall so long as it's behind walls. That is not something that will break the game - it's something that will change the builder game in order to value walls more than they are now.

Iron might be great, and is obviously better than having none, but Swordmen are still going to be up against it when fighting fortified spearmen. Dare I say Catapults? You don't need ANY resources for those - maybe if you don't have Iron you might consider them more valuable than you do now? Again, no game-breaking here - just adding to the options available, and making less-used units more viable.

Again, after a lot of time (and heartache) this game is just about there in terms of polish and game balance... you want to change it to better fit you game style? Not until you can prove that the change will not ruin what has been so hard-achieved.

Ummm, yet again I should reiterate that it's not actually *me* who's changing the combat!

Firaxis think the combat is too streaky. They probably see the game becoming more bottlenecked towards 'effective strategies' as well. I don't need to prove anything to any of you. However, I'm not about to let Firaxis abandon this plan simply because a small vocal minority (which you are btw) of players like their combats in the 'streaky' manner they are right now. Continue to slap it down by all means - I'm going nowhere, and I'm making sure the other side of the coin is seen and the other PoV is heard.

Others might be fazed by a concerted attack from Apolyton's 'big-gun posters', but I am not. No offence, but I've seen of far worse than this on the Moo3 forum. I have every confidence that Firaxis will see through the scaremongering and make the game a whole new experience for us all. Considering how old the game now is, we should all be grateful if a new combat system forces a new outlook on how to play.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Catt
@ Jeem: D'oh! You crossposted with me and you might want to edit both the inaccuracy and repetitiveness out of your last post. Or shall I add the additional "SHOW SOME EXAMPLES!" blather to my first response?

Catt

Nah, I think I'll leave it Catt. After all, I did ask you to show me some examples where the game might break down into a cataclysmic state (or something. ), and I don't think you did with the examples you posted.

[Aeson]

Can you see it from the non-militaristic PoV? One of the main problems with building is that the AI is so aggressive to non-militaristic players that it's made very, very difficult. Until you play that style of game exclusively, you'll never know just what it's like. Have you ever played a game where the AI demanded gold and tech of you 15 times? My recent one has just that!

You assume no one but yourself plays peacenik games. The reality is that most of the arguments here are to allow for a wider range of gamestyles to be effective, your's is the argument to limit playstyle.

Currently, peacenik games aren't hard to win unless you don't know what you are doing. Defense already has a very large advantage in the game, only the AI tends to go about it poorly (2 defenders per city, maybe an artillery, and no mobile counter-attacking force held in reserve) and so offensives are possible against it.

You don't have to fight any wars to win at any difficulty level other than Sid (and probably there it's possible too, somehow). In most cases, it's the least time consuming method of winning. Turtle and build the spaceship or call a UN vote.

The warfare aspect of it is simplistic. Keep your defenses upgraded, keep a tech lead, keep a mobile counterattacking force, lots of bombardment units, and the AI just can't touch you. If they demand something from you, laugh at them and eat up the peicemeal invasion forces they send sporadically into your territory. Even OCC games usually are possible with a decent setup (though then you should usually give in to demands of course), and with several cities to support economic and defensive power, there isn't a problem.

The key to defense is to not allow the opposition to even get a shot at your cities. If you play it right, the 'spearman vs tank' syndrome will have no effect on the outcome of your game outside a lost tank that can easily be replaced.

[Jeem]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Antrine

As to making it optional, I believe that is a mistake for the simple reason that it will further factionalise MP games. The change is big enough that players would start to ask - "Are you playing streaky or non-streaky combat?"[/QUOTE by Jeem]

Jeem, this is flat out inconsiderate. I bet 80% play only alone somewhere in a corner on their own computer, never minding the rest of the planet. This game 'made it big' without MP not the other way around.

OPTIONS are courtesy.

Many Thanks,
Someone who cares.

I know that! 1/2 my games are single-player and 1/2 are MP.

But actually, I see your point on this. If you don't want it in the game then that should be up to you. Optional is probably the only way ahead because of this, but I'd be worried that it could split the MP community.

[Theseus]

Good for you, Jeem. Seriously, I like a healthy argument.

Um, three things:

I think you're overplaying the "militaristic POV" think... a) a lot of people around here are just faaaantastic builders, and b) many of us played this among other peacenik games:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57468

... and thus know a bit about playing peacefully.

Also, you might want to read this:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=67506

... I know, I know, I'm shameless.

Lastly, I gotta question for you:

If 4-roll were implemented, how quickly would you jump to play the Aztecs, Zulu, or Sumerians, as their UUs are currently designed?

ps: When referring to resource distribution earlier, I was mostly concerned about AI civs getting the shaft. Yes, you are right, it can be balanced... but the whole point is that the balance is currently oriented toward 1-roll, and making the change to more deterministic combat doesn't fit without ALSO tweaking a whole bunch of other stuff (like Impis and Jags and Enkidus ).

[Jeem]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I think Catt's tome above sums everything up pretty nicely. Jeem, we can't say for sure the change would break the game, but we are not being hysterical for the sake of it.........our views come from deep thought and much civving.

OK, I'm being hysterical and I don't think too deeply.]

Thinking back to the early posts on the beta patch the first thing I posted after was hang on that combat change looks a little hasty. And many many others reacted exactly the same. You can impugn our motives if you want, but honestly I believe most people that posted concerns have the game's interests at heart.

And my first post on this whole forum was....? (Hint:- Go check and see)

I am so glad Firaxis pulled the change, and maybe after seeing the opinions of gamers and statisticians they will reconsider how they implement any changes they want to make. Because leaving aside my subjective opinions on the change completely, I can tell you flat out that their stated method is not the best way of attaining their stated goal.

At no time have I ever supported the 4-roll system. Many of you seem to be confused over this. Read my first ever post on this forum - you'll see that I am in complete agreement with many here on that.

4-rolls is way too much. At least I tried to give other views on the way ahead (like 2 rolls, 3 victories XP gain). Few others have, and instead are digging their heels in and demanding that it isn't changed - not actually giving any input as to how it can be changed for the best. Guilty? Not I, M'lud.

Well, it looks pretty obvious to me that Firaxis want to change it. It might have been pulled from this patch, but Jesse still came back with examples after it had been pulled. Firaxis want to change this. They want feedback on how it can be done in order to better balance the game. By digging in heels and stating that you don't want it to change, you are helping NOBODY but your own selfish self.

If I'm the only one who will back up Firaxis on this, so be it. I want a change - I don't want the 4-roll change, but I want a change. I suspect there are MANY others who feel the same way, yet don't want to incur the wrath of Apolytons finest so keep quiet. I guess we're in for a long haul.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
Good for you, Jeem. Seriously, I like a healthy argument.

Well, I'm doing my best to ensure it remains healthy. Others might want to take suit.

Um, three things:

I think you're overplaying the "militaristic POV" think... a) a lot of people around here are just faaaantastic builders

Don't doubt it for a minute. I'm not too shabby on the attack myself, surprising though that might be to some.

However, Catt's arguments were definitely on the militaristic PoV. There was no sense of the 'bigger picture' - in effect Catt's arguments about pursuing Military techs just plain ignored the fact that builders can have an equally successful game by aggressively pursuing other avenues.

Lastly, I gotta question for you:

If 4-roll were implemented, how quickly would you jump to play the Aztecs, Zulu, or Sumerians, as their UUs are currently designed?

I never play the Zulu because they're expansionist. I hate the production change to the Aztecs, and I'd rather they were still Religious (even though Agricultural is a boon in itself). The Sumerians suit me to a T. I hardly ever bother to build spearmen early because they cost too many shields. Spearmen for Warrior production is something I greatly admire!

On the Aztecs - I can't help but feel the change in production for the Jaggy is because of the change in Trait. Agricultural can mean that they grow so much faster than they did, and therefore have more production, faster. However, this is countered on Emperor level because you need an early temple in order to make full use of your workforce. By losing Religious, that early temple is no longer as easy as it used to be.

It's the one change I want to see changed back. Jaggies are absolutely RUBBISH now (IMO).

Once again, I need to assure you that the 4-roll combat is not what I want. How many times do I need to say it? I don't want the 4-roll combat. I offered my opinion on what would be better for the game overall (2 roll, 3 XP gain or 3-roll, 4 XP gain).

Maybe I need to make this really clear :-

I do not want to see 4-roll combat in Civ3.

Quote me on that if you want to.

ps: When referring to resource distribution earlier, I was mostly concerned about AI civs getting the shaft. Yes, you are right, it can be balanced... but the whole point is that the balance is currently oriented toward 1-roll, and making the change to more deterministic combat doesn't fit without ALSO tweaking a whole bunch of other stuff (like Impis and Jags and Enkidus ).

All of which can be done. The only race that will really lose out is the Aztecs because 1) The Jaggy is already overpriced and 2) It would be even more worthless than it is now if the 'streaky' results were dealt with.

However - do you see what is happening here? We are bottlenecking the game to the extent of strangulation because of what has gone before. It might be 2 years of playtesting, but that 2 years has led us down a narrow path.

Instead of continuing down a rapidly narrowing path, perhaps it's time to readdress the root cause - that is the flawed AI and combat system in the first place.

[CiverDan]

I was in a MP game today where I attacked 1 regular archer in the open (no terrian bonus) with a vet 5/5 ancient cavalry and lost. I almost lost another with a similar attack but the cav won with 1 HP. Clearly the current key to the game is still massing units. That is why Jag Warrior rushes are so successful in MP. The should be balanced somewhat, this may be "overbalancing though". I think enkidus should be 15 shields too....but thats another matter..

[Jeem]

Originally posted by CiverDan
I was in a MP game today where I attacked 1 regular archer in the open (no terrian bonus) with a vet 5/5 ancient cavalry and lost. I almost lost another with a similar attack but the cav won with 1 HP. Clearly the current key to the game is still massing units. That is why Jag Warrior rushes are so successful in MP. The should be balanced somewhat, this may be "overbalancing though". I think enkidus should be 15 shields too....but thats another matter..

I actually agree with that 100%. Jaggies were too good in Civ3 and PTW, but I think adding 50% to their build cost is a bad case of overfixing.

The game allows for units and buildings to cost anything. I'd have priced Jaggies at 12 production.

Enkidu's I'm still not sure about. They look cheap (certainly when compared to a Jaggy). I think the real flaw is the Jaggy increase - just about every other special stayed the same or got cheaper. Whether the change from Relig to Agric is what made Firaxis change the value I dunno - I do know that being next to the Aztecs isn't quite as horrible as it used to be.