Warrior, Archer, Spearman Screens using 4roll combat

[Theseus]

I am not as prolific a writer as some ( ), but let me say this:

Jeem, you are smart, you write well, you know the game, but HOTDAMN can you be irksome!! (meant in, actually, a good way) You're not a university don, by any chance?

I think this whole, long argument has gotten a bit out of hand, especially in that the positions are not too dissimilar, but rather, as someone said earlier, people are talking past each other and enjoying the fight for its own sake.

Let's summarize, collapsing the positions down into a few players:

* Jeem: I'd like to see combat be more deterministic.

* Catt: Hmm, interesting, but not without sincere thought and effort put into overall gameplay balance.

* Jeem: YOU WARMONGER FREAK!! It won't break the camel's back!

* Catt: I'm not really a warmonger, I just want to make sure balance is maintained.

* Jeem: Whose balance, WARMONGER balance? (And, btw, I don;t want to change all that much).

* Catt: %#@%##%(#%^*+_@ (in a very lawyerly dissection)

* Jeem: Interesting... let me address '%' first.

* Catt: You are driving me crazy! And it;s not gonna happen anyway, as the developers are moving on to Civ4.

* Jeem: I'm going to ignore that; we are now playing the "Argue about hypothetical changes to Civ3" game, and Firaxis / Breakaway are more or less irrelevant, except in how we can attribute 'intent' to them.

* Catt: Grrr. Now I'm getting mad... taking the lawyer hat off.

* Jeem: Interesting... let me address 'G' first.

* Catt: What about these specific issues - X, Y, and Z?

* Jeem: Warmonger bastard!

* Catt: Grr. What about X, Y, and Z?

* Jeem: Hmm, I already addressed 'G', so, I will ignore that part of your post (as well as X, Y, and Z)... let's talk about 'r'.

* Catt: You did NOT address 'G', here is proof.

* Jeem: Yes, I did address 'G', but in a way that your warmonger POV cannot comprehend.

* Catt: GRR! You don;t know anything about me!!

* Jeem: So, Catt, I take it that you finally agree with me?



On the one hand, if you sit back, it's pretty funny. On the other, though, I have to say that as skilled and intelligent as you are, Jeem, there's something wrong with the picture.

Catt is one of the most intelligent, experienced, rational, and helpful posters in this community... I can;t quite put my finger on it, but if your interactions with him (and with others, too, btw), have ended up where they have, it is not simply intellectual discourse and disagreement. It sorta feels like you enjoy playing the radical, and damn the honesty of it all. Not cricket at all, to me at least.

Can't you just say: "I think combat should be a wee bit more deterministic. Yes, I understand that has an impact on game balance, but darnit, can't that be done?"

It ain't a warmonger vs. builder thing, it ain't a 'poly vets vs. a newcomer thing, it don;t have to be an argument... it ain't nothing but forward progress for the betterment of the game.

So rather than the silly back and forth, how about a meaningful discussion: If Firaxis / Breakaway do, in fact, choose to move the combat methodology to, say, 2-roll, what other tweaks would be required to maintain game balance, across warmongers, builders, warbuilders, buildmongers, and MPers?

Hmm, more prolific than expected.

ps: Jeem, really, stick around, come get involved in AU (you REALLY need to, btw, to get some context re the history and depth of game design discussion around here), show us your moves... but, hmm, there's something... we try to maintain a very collegial and collaborative atmosphere around here, so maybe, err (I can't point to specifics), try to get along? Damn, that's not quite right, but I hope you know what I mean.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Jeem


Ummm. What?

There is a save game showing you that the AI does not attack units with 2.5X the defensive value. Or at least, it doesn't in my game.

To dismiss this as being 'too small a data sample for conclusion' is indicitive of what I've come to expect from the posters here.

Better to bury your head in the sand, right?

I'm not even saying that this is how the AI will react every time. I dunno for sure - it came as a suprise to me, frankly. All I'm saying is that the AI seems not to be so crap that it'll attack odds that it thinks aren't worth attacking. In this example, it seems the AI determines around 2.5X as being 'not worth attacking'. As the AI generally attacks everything on sight (a bit like a crocodile), to dismiss this as being 'too small a data sample' is frankly unbelievable.

At least do me the courtesy and try it out first.

I am doing my level best to be courteous and a peacemaker around here. I have a history of such.

You have a sample size of ONE, and I posted that I had a sample size of more than one. Fine, all I'm saying is we need more evidence. And yet, that is:

To dismiss this as being 'too small a data sample for conclusion' is indicitive of what I've come to expect from the posters here.

Better to bury your head in the sand, right?

I will not give that the dignity of a response.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Jeem
To dismiss this as being 'too small a data sample for conclusion' is indicitive of what I've come to expect from the posters here.

Better to bury your head in the sand, right?

Or, they're getting tired of the author stating opinions as facts when they know that your conclusion is false to begin with?

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
I am not as prolific a writer as some ( ), but let me say this:

Jeem, you are smart, you write well, you know the game, but HOTDAMN can you be irksome!! (meant in, actually, a good way) You're not a university don, by any chance?

Nah. I once dropped out of college though!

{snip, very funny Theseus - I enjoyed that for the most part.}

On the one hand, if you sit back, it's pretty funny. On the other, though, I have to say that as skilled and intelligent as you are, Jeem, there's something wrong with the picture.

Catt is one of the most intelligent, experienced, rational, and helpful posters in this community... I can;t quite put my finger on it, but if your interactions with him (and with others, too, btw), have ended up where they have, it is not simply intellectual discourse and disagreement. It sorta feels like you enjoy playing the radical, and damn the honesty of it all. Not cricket at all, to me at least.

I feel like I'm the champion of what is good and true! Actually, it's all to do with fairness. I feel that the PoV of the changes being good will not be addressed by others, and I feel it's unfair.

I'm a long time forum poster, on many various subjects. I see this all the time. I have no doubt that Catt knows very well what he says and means. No doubt. I am absolutely sure that he'd muller be 99/100 in an MP game at Civ3. I'm equally sure he deserves his place as head-honcho of Civ3 on this forum.

However, unless somebody actually questions his PoV, there can be no democratic means to ensure that he isn't simply doing it through a superiority complex. Having dominated a few forums in the past myself (can you believe it? Neither can I), I know how dangerous it can be for the sake of 'balance'.

ps: Jeem, really, stick around, come get involved in AU (you REALLY need to, btw, to get some context re the history and depth of game design discussion around here), show us your moves... but, hmm, there's something... we try to maintain a very collegial and collaborative atmosphere around here, so maybe, err (I can't point to specifics), try to get along? Damn, that's not quite right, but I hope you know what I mean.

I choose to argue my point with Catt specifically because he's very good. I didn't know that until I read his first few posts where it became apparent that he knew what he was talking about.

Catt may think I'm doing him a disservice by not knowing of his history, but if he knew me and my reputation on other forums, he'd be pretty flattered that I've deemed him worthy of many 500+ word replies.

There is no problem here, at least for me. I am not interested in Catt's position as great cheiftan. On the flip side, I am not going to sycophantically fall in line when I disagree about something either.

For similar reasons, I am not going to accept what has gone before if I disagree with it. I wasn't here to give an alternative viewpoint, so why should I? When I join a forum, everyone is treated as they appear to me now - not on past glories or whatever.

I am well aware that new posters generally need to prove themselves to the established ones - and in fact I recommend it. If it's any consolation to you lot, this is an unusual beginning for me. The difference here is that I feel that I'm actually being heard by many (and yes, that includes Catt), regardless of what the overall stance is.

Really, it's no problem to me. I'm only insufferable when I know I'm the best at what I'm talking about, and in this case, I know I'm not and I'm not kidding myself on otherwise.

Right now, I'm tired and going to bed. I've spent a lot of effort here the past few days and it's getting harder with each post.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus


I am doing my level best to be courteous and a peacemaker around here. I have a history of such.

I dunno about the history, but I did notice that currently.

Yourself, DrSpike and vxma seem to be a bit more open to suggestion than others. This doesn't mean that we need to agree or disagree with each other automatically. Sometimes we'll agree, other times we won't. It's the points that are important, not the personalities.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Theseus
* Jeem: I'd like to see combat be more deterministic.

* Catt: Hmm, interesting, but not without sincere thought and effort put into overall gameplay balance.

* Jeem: YOU WARMONGER FREAK!! It won't break the camel's back!

* Catt: I'm not really a warmonger, I just want to make sure balance is maintained.

* Jeem: Whose balance, WARMONGER balance? (And, btw, I don;t want to change all that much).

* Catt: %#@%##%(#%^*+_@ (in a very lawyerly dissection)

* Jeem: Interesting... let me address '%' first.

* Catt: You are driving me crazy! And it;s not gonna happen anyway, as the developers are moving on to Civ4.

* Jeem: I'm going to ignore that; we are now playing the "Argue about hypothetical changes to Civ3" game, and Firaxis / Breakaway are more or less irrelevant, except in how we can attribute 'intent' to them.

* Catt: Grrr. Now I'm getting mad... taking the lawyer hat off.

* Jeem: Interesting... let me address 'G' first.

* Catt: What about these specific issues - X, Y, and Z?

* Jeem: Warmonger bastard!

* Catt: Grr. What about X, Y, and Z?

* Jeem: Hmm, I already addressed 'G', so, I will ignore that part of your post (as well as X, Y, and Z)... let's talk about 'r'.

* Catt: You did NOT address 'G', here is proof.

* Jeem: Yes, I did address 'G', but in a way that your warmonger POV cannot comprehend.

* Catt: GRR! You don;t know anything about me!!

* Jeem: So, Catt, I take it that you finally agree with me?

best laugh I've had in a long time

[Theseus]

Maaaaaaaaan....

Jeem, some day, we will prolly become best of friends. But right now, I just wanna SMACK you one!!

/me is not at all sure of which smiley to use.

/me also thinks this feels like an OT thread, even though it's on-subject.

/me lastly, wants to discuss REAL, CONCRETE CIV3 STUFF: Assume a change to 2-roll (as that is the most I can imagine prior to whatever complete restucturing comes with Civ4... what do WE need to tell Firaxis / Breakaway needs tweaking!

[notyoueither]

I think we're all showing the signs of Patcheitus Awaitus. When afflicted, a gamer will spend excessive amount of time arguing details.

Curiously, this affliction only breaks out once its vaccine is in development. Once vaccinated, the gamer goes happily about looking for details and storing them up.

It is proposed that the disease is symbiotic with the cerebral functions of the subject. When under the influence of vaccine, the subject releases a little known substance, Onemoreusturnusaphol. When levels of this substance are sufficient the subject will be preoccupied and of a more social nature at brief gatherings near watering holes. Either that, or he will simply grunt, and then scurry back to his den where he will partake of activities increasing the level of Onemoreusturnusaphol.

However, once news spreads around the watering holes of the possibility of a new vaccine, levels of Onemoreusturnusaphol drop, and the disease reasserts itself. Thousands of stored details will bubble to the surface of conciousness. The force of these ideas can be quite distressing to the subject.

Thankfully, there is always a vaccine near at hand when there is an new outbreak of Patcheitus Awaitus, this long misunderstood affliction.

[Jaybe]

NYE, that one is almost as good as Cryptor's response to Feephi's
"You spend $30 on it, all your time on a Friday night with it, and it doesn't give you sex." (in a thread entitled "Any Complaints about Conquest?," IIRC).

[vondrack]

One beautiful post, nye, helped me to a good laugh this morning!

[vmxa1]

Jeem thanks, I stay out of these things as I tend to not sleep well if I am in the middle of them. Just so you know, people are not in awe of Catt, but he has earned our respect.
I also suspect that most are willing to conceed your some respect as well.
We are just not sure of if there is any need to stray from the dialog into personal comments. The point at which one person gets upset is not necessarily the same for others.

It is not so much that what is being posted is nasty, but some of the pointed comments are sans any saving grace, such as smiles or deference.

I do agree that it is acceptable to debate and not to give up your stance, I would just do it with more grace and try to soften the tone. IOW not make it personal.

Plus it is so hard to follow those 500+ post with copious quotes for us old folks (well maybe that is just me ).

BTW that was what happen on my last post, you are correct and I misread your post in a greeat haste and got it all wrong on the suicide stuff, sorry.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Jeem

Yourself, DrSpike and vxma seem to be a bit more open to suggestion than others.

I am always open to suggestions.........as is Catt.

Several posters, including myself, don't think major changes to the combat model can occur without upsetting overall game balance. You yourself when presented with some numbers agreed that 4-roll is too extreme.

The best way to salvage this debate IMO is in thinking how a change might be implemented in such a way that it wouldn't affect game balance.

For me, as I have posted many times, the key is to leave intra-era balance alone, since time and experience has shown it to work. Although not all here agree ( ) I consider that changes in this regard will inevitably take a long long time to balance properly. I'm sure everyone can agree that a state where we need another 2 patches is not what we want, with probable changes in many spheres of the game being necessary. They can always save some ideas for Civ4.

So in that regard, I have to agree with Catt, and not Jeem. However I, and probably Catt, though I would not presume to put words in his mouth, would not be adverse to strengthening a technological advantage by adjusting inter-era combat, either through hitpoints or some limited form of averaging for inter-era battles. Making the AI upgrade it's units will remain key.

Perhaps some centre ground?

[Aeson]

/me, lastly, wants to discuss REAL, CONCRETE CIV3 STUFF: Assume a change to 2-roll (as that is the most I can imagine prior to whatever complete restucturing comes with Civ4... what do WE need to tell Firaxis / Breakaway needs tweaking!

Their noses if it's the default setting. (should stay the same by default!)

C3C is still basically comparable to previous versions. Adding 2x averaging to combat isn't going to wreck that, but it will further differentiate the gameplay from PtW and vanilla, and IMO, for no good reason.

2x averaging won't get rid of 'spearman vs tank', it will just make it less likely. The likelyhood of that happening isn't the problem even now, it's people's misconception of what the likelyhood should be (considering A/D/M) that is the problem. Averaging combat won't help people understand odds better. It will make it slightly more difficult to understand the odds even.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by DrSpike
The best way to salvage this debate IMO is in thinking how a change might be implemented in such a way that it wouldn't affect game balance.

That's what I've been attempting to do (and obviously failing).

This thread is actually supposed about the proposed changes to the combat system, and how it can be balanced, right? Or maybe Jesse just posted the examples so a few others could reiterate how much they don't want to see any change?

I sorta feel it's been hijacked by players who are hell-bent on keeping the status quo. Actually, it has been hijacked because instead of discussing how the changes could be balanced, we're discussing how it will or won't effect the game too much instead.

4-rolls will break the game without a doubt (if we can all agree on that it must be true). I'm assuming Firaxis will not consider 4 rolls as an option now.

What about 2 or 3? How do they perform in the simulator tests?

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by Aeson

C3C is still basically comparable to previous versions. Adding 2x averaging to combat isn't going to wreck that, but it will further differentiate the gameplay from PtW and vanilla, and IMO, for no good reason.

2x averaging won't get rid of 'spearman vs tank', it will just make it less likely. The likelyhood of that happening isn't the problem even now, it's people's misconception of what the likelyhood should be (considering A/D/M) that is the problem. Averaging combat won't help people understand odds better. It will make it slightly more difficult to understand the odds even.

Absolutely. Vulture's posting on the results of the combat calculator are very helpful here. According to the calculator, in the case of 12 archers vs. 3 pikemen fortified in a city, the odds of them taking the city are 61.6%, and doing so while only losing one archer is 1 in 200.

To me, both of these sets of odds are reasonable. There should always be some possibility of highly favorable/ unfavorable results. These odds tell me a couple of things:

1. If I'm really worried about such a stack, I need to take action to either improve my defenses or make better use of diplomacy to prevent the AI from attacking me (or both, in most cases).

2. Even if I take these actions, I also need to accept that sometimes, these efforts will not be enough, and I will, sometimes, lose a city. It's part of the game.

3. Finally, the fact that some people in this forum are surprised that 12 archers can take this city most of the time proves Aeson's point: these players either do not understand the odds they face or are choosing to ignore them.

I have a couple questions for those who are advocating changing the combat system:

First, do you think that the 1 in 200 chance of "only one archer dying" is reasonable, in theory? If so, then is it fair to say that you approve of the basic A/D values of the units in question?

Second, if you accept the A/D values, is it fair to say that your complaint must be that the RNG is not working properly? If so, please provide statistical proof that the RNG is broken. Please note, I am not a statistician (though I took a statistical analysis class in grad school) but this proof would, it seems to me, need to show either that the outcome of repeated runs off the battle above varied significantly from the expected or (and this is the part I don't know is possible) that the RNG produces non-random streaks.

Third, if the A/D values are appropriate AND the RNG is not determined to be faulty, then why won't you make basic gameplay changes (an additional pike in isolated, threatened cities; a mobile core of 3-4 pikes who can move to potential AI targets; etc.) or mod your game to increase the defensive values of units work? Why do you want to force a change to the game on everyone?