Warrior, Archer, Spearman Screens using 4roll combat

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Jeem
It all depends on how many archers you use. If you use enough, you'll eventually win against 3 fortified Mech Inf on a mountain. It seems to me like a lot of 'sane' players thought archers would have no chance against fortified pikes. I don't see any of them retracting their statements or apologising, do you? As I don't need apologies, I'm not looking for any.

Actually, that's not how it went. You said...

Originally posted by Jeem
Catt - there is an issue here which I'm sure you are well aware of.

That issue is higher quality defensive troops constantly losing out to massed numbers. We both know that archers can rush through spearmen, pikemen and muskets with a similar level of ease.

Although I'm sure you understand the full reasons for the change, let me suggest one that hasn't been brought up yet.

You rush a city with 12 archers. It's defended by 3 Pikemen behind walls. You *know* you're going to take it.

The real random factor comes into play only on which of your 12 units will get lucky. If your first 3 get lucky, you can take the city and still be left with all 12 units. More often than not, you'll lose 5-6 and take it with the 5th, 6th and 7th. Or maybe the 10th, 11th and 12th?

The changes which Firaxis are going to bring in will still allow 12 archers to rush 3 pikemen behind walls - it's just that you'll be forced into taking high casualties in order to do it. The way the system is now, you could quite easily take no casualties (esp with horsemen who can retreat), because it's just too random.

It makes so much sense I'm not surprised that there is opposition to it.

I 'knew' your main argument to be quite false. I took the time to prove it.

40% of the time the pikes held out, even in a grossly misbalanced fight (240 to 90 shields).

Be that as it may, you seem to have a bit on the ball, Jeem. It would be good if you stick around and bring more of the builder POV to forums that have a lot of war-mongers. However, keep in mind that we discuss just about everything to death, and the surest way to cause controversy is make statements of fact without having your facts lined up first.

[Theseus]

And, if I may make another observation:

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against the 'poly regulars when Civ3 is on the line."

At least not without a heck of a well laid out and documented argument as well as some flexibility.

[Antrine]

I think this issue needs another perspective or the view of additional considerations. Like that of ‘color’ or ‘fire of the experience’ when playing the game now CIVIII et al.

Consider the wonderfulness of the addition of ‘volcano’ tiles. This is brilliant and beautiful! It gives a feeling akin to the early ‘sim’ titles where ‘natural disaster’ blew through your preciously built city. I like it and mod many in places on my maps where it is most enticing to build a city, however, there also lay a sleeping, lurking volcano.

Next, for the ‘color’ of experience in battles I would present this idea: When something unusual in ‘combat’ occur an advisor-screen pops up (randomly cycled on topic of course). Here are some choice examples:

“Bad news Emperor, our elite units were wiped out by some one lowly nondescript unit that happened across our carefully scripted battlefield!! It seems by best accounts that a ‘gaggle’ of nymphs met our trustworthy elite troops and nefariously enticed them. Then this uncivilized lowly nondescript unit had the gal to attack when our formally faithful troops had their pants down.” (End of message)

another,

“Your holiness, bad news!! You missed last month’s public tribute to the great God Neptune and He has taken it out your entire siege fleet with all troops aboard lost! This will no doubt set us back fifty years! Shall we make quick amends and publicly schedule your repentance?” (End of message)

You see, I stayed up playing the game all night again…

Sincerely,

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jeem
If the number is low enough, the chances of it having a major impact are small. The weaker unit first has to win a round, and only then does it get 10% for the next round. If the 10% bonus made it stronger overall, then the other unit becomes the 'weaker' unit and would get the 10% bonus if it won the next round. It's just adding a small random factor in order to help retain some interest, and was only a passing idea I had.

However strong it is, the only possible effect is to increase streakiness.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tiberius
So now those who think that the current system is too random and would like to see some kind of change are stupid?

The current system cannot be "too random" - the system behaves with EXACTLY the "correct" probability, that is, attack/(attack+defense). His arguments are stupid.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger Nonsense. You present your opinions as fact, and then get upset when people a) point out your mistakes or b) suggest that the changes you favor are foolish and unnecessary. You are mistaking criticism for harrassment.

LOL. Why not go tell Firaxis that their proposed changes are foolish and unnecessary? It's them who'll be changing it after it.

The fundamental point is that BALANCE MATTERS. It is entirely appropriate to "worry about how it might affect balance." The reality is that the changes you want to see will make your style of play (defensive, builder) more effective/ easier. It will demonstrably hurt other styles of play, particularly warmongering. The best part of Civ is that it allows people to win, at any level, the way they want. That balance needs to remain.

Do you have any facts to back up your claims that a new combat system will automatically imbalance the game? Why will warmongering be hurt? So long as you warmonger with better units, it'll be even better for the warmonger.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Changing the traits of a civ is nothing compared to fundamentally changing a major element of the game, combat.

And you know this how? Are you stating this as a fact? (something you've just accused me of doing). I think changing the traits for some civs could have huge repercussions for the game. But it doesn't seem to be.

Once again, you need to prove that statement. If there is a problem with the RNG generator, prove it. Run several hundred of the scenarios you developed and see if the results are what should be expected based on the A/D ratio. IF you can prove that RNG generator is screwy, I'll wholely support a fix from Firaxis. Until then, you're just whining.

What, like this you mean?

Jesse Smith said...

* Modified combat calculations to make combat
appear less "streaky." Combat results are now
calculated multiple times before determining a
result. This should reduce spearman defeating
Tanks and other extremely frustrating combat
results.

And also...

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

Mike Breitkreutz said...

This makes the combat results be more in line with what you'd expect them to be. It will reduce the luck factor because it eliminates most wild, "unnatural" runs. However, the luck is still present and it even makes lucky wins more meaningful since they are more rare.

Firaxis thinks the combat is streaky. They are correct, because it is. This is why they want to change it. Sorry to tell you but anything you've accomplished while warmongering has probably been all down to the streaky combat system, that Firaxis don't want anymore and are going to change.

As for whining? Well, I'll let others decide who's doing it most. Quite why I'd be whining about a change I want to see is beyond me, but if you say so Stranger.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Catt
My own view, and to my eyes the view of most who came out strongly against 4-roll-combat, arises from the opinion that the proposed system would unbalance the game as a whole, putting aside any discrete changes to the combat system viewed in isolation. It is not at all incongruous to argue that more determinative combat outcomes would greatly enhance the Civ 3 combat experience but that such changes would greatly degrade the overall game experience. Opposition to the 4-roll-combat does not equate to opposition to more determinative combat results.

Gimme some examples of how changing the combat is going to 'greatly degrade the overall game experience'. Then, consider that it might not degrade everyone's 'overall game experience' just because it might do it with yours.

Do you even understand that many players 'overall game experience' is lessened simply due to the randomness of combat? Now, your methods for coping with it might be honed to perfection and you are happy with the choices the combat system allows, but others are not.

Put another way – in a game as complex as Civ 3, focusing all discussion solely on the effect of proposed changes to combat is missing the larger picture. Combat is but one aspect of the game. We could offer up all sorts of changes to combat that might represent an improvement on the present system depending on personal preferences, but if looked at in isolation, they could fundamentally change the game in ways both good and bad.

Landing on Mars *could* be a bad idea. Should we not try it anyway? You aren't giving any examples of how this *could* break the game Catt. I hear a lot of noise, but no firm statements - C'mon Catt - tell us how other non-combat aspects of the game could be broken through a change in combat.

But it does not address the fundamental issue of the effect of such principles: how will the overall game experience be affected?

Maybe, instead of assuming it'll be bad, you could assume it will be good. Do you think the new traits and unit costs are bad for the game? I know that they fundamentally changed one of my favourite races - the Aztecs (surprised? There is nothing quite like a Jaggy rush straight from the off in my experience - or WAS, until Firaxis saw fit to up them to 15 shields. )

Combat is being built up as the be and end all of the game. It isn't. I've played games where I've never shed a drop of blood. It's just another part of the game - no greater or lesser than building or researching. It's players who feel that combat is the be and end all of the game that are most set against the changes.

At worst, they are answered with responses focused on combat outcomes only, as if combat outcome is a discrete event within the game without interconnected effects in other aspects of the game.

I personally think that every single thing you do has an outcome in the game, and combat is no better or worse than anything else.

So long as you focus only on combat outcomes, and I and others focus on overall game balance effects, we’re discussing two entirely different things (and really talking to ourselves).

Catt

Maybe you should start giving us some examples then Catt. So far, I'm still waiting to here how the game experience is automatically going to be 'greatly degraded' just by changing the combat system to be 'less streaky'.

There is too much emphasis still on the 4-rolls also. I'm pretty sure this is not going to happen so we can all probably relax on that front.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Jeem
Do you have any facts to back up your claims that a new combat system will automatically imbalance the game? Why will warmongering be hurt? So long as you warmonger with better units, it'll be even better for the warmonger.

Here is, I think, the heart of the matter.

We have a game that has been playtested for over two years now, but tens of thousands of people here at 'poly and at CFC and other sites. That "testing" has been discussed *extensively* and in full view / including Firaxis / Breakaway.

Both 'poly and CFC FLIPPED OUT when this proposed change was posted by Jesse Smith.

Mike B's reaction was telling... they had NOT fully thought through this change in terms of overall game balance, and they pulled it.

My point is, as others have so much more eloquently put it: This is a huge change, whether you want to admit such or not. Therefore, the onus is on YOU, not those defending the status quo, to successfully make the argument... and you are most emphatically NOT.

[Aeson]

Do you have any facts to back up your claims that a new combat system will automatically imbalance the game? Why will warmongering be hurt? So long as you warmonger with better units, it'll be even better for the warmonger.

It's not the balance between warmongering and not warmongering. It's the balance between how you can warmonger effectively, specifically, which units you can use. This change won't make warmongering any less effective, it will just narrow the list of acceptable units. Increasing the gap between effective units and garbage units.

I like playing variable styles. It's nice you can fight with fast moving armies comprised of Horses, or slow moving but powerful armies of Swords. You can even play combined arms, bring along some Cats, and really beat up on the AI.

The more the results are averaged though, the more imbalanced those options will become. The Horseman Hordes will be unplayable except as the Iroquois. Swords armies will have problems with higher difficulties except for the Persians. Everyone else, get used to catapults, and lots of them. Enjoy being forced to play with an uncounterable unit where there is no more variation in gameplay. Every battle is the same: bombard each unit down to 1 HP, kill the unit with a Sword, rinse, repeat. Oh, and pray you don't start next to Carthage and/or Greece!

If you want to warmonger, that's the formula averaging will sponser. The more results are averaged, the wider the gap will be. I find playing that way enjoyable from time to time, like everything else, but I don't want to have to play that way every time I want to expand my borders.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Catt
Not sure how many times this needs to be said, but I and others on the “no 4-roll-combat” side of the ledger are not interested in making the game easier or harder, nor in impressing others with our wins. I and most others are interested in seeing an engaging and balanced game, and our opinions are almost uniformly based on arguments relating to game balance. Why does “making the game easier” or “making it harder” seem to keep popping up every so often?

I keep hearing all this noise about game balance Catt, yet you haven't offered a single example as to how the game *might* be adversely affected by the combat changes. All that banging of your head against the wall seems to be preventing you from offering some viable examples as to why by simply making the combat 'less streaky', the whole game might fall apart at the seams.

Because the developers thought that they were elegantly addressing the spearman-tank issue (an dindeed described this in the Read Me). Then they saw the math and examples given on the forums. Then they saw the in-game hypotheticals derived from the math. Then it dawned on them that the supposedly elegant solution to spearman-tank might have some unintended consequences in other spheres of the game. Then they decided to test some of the posted hypotheticals (mainly focusing on the ancient age) to see if the forum posters might be on to something that they had overlooked (i.e., those unintended consequences). Then they posted the examples, and noted there conclusion that the Ancient Ange would need significant rebalancing, to explain why the hard-coded 4-roll-combat was being pulled from the patch in favor of a later-introduced optional and configurable combat system change.

My take on it is that some instant whining from well-known posters made them rethink their stance. 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?"

You may not agree with my post directly above, but I think you’re arguing for something entirely different and not shooting down any arguments. You’re arguing for less random combat outcomes. Others are arguing for no changes that unbalance the game as a whole.

Unbalance the game as a whole? Do you have ANY facts or examples to back that up Catt. You say it over and over again yet I haven't seen ANY examples.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Jeem

Gimme some examples of how changing the combat is going to 'greatly degrade the overall game experience'. Then, consider that it might not degrade

[. . .]

You aren't giving any examples of how this *could* break the game Catt. I hear a lot of noise, but no firm statements - C'mon Catt - tell us how other non-combat aspects of the game could be broken through a change in combat.

[. . .]

Maybe you should start giving us some examples then Catt. So far, I'm still waiting to here how the game experience is automatically going to be 'greatly degraded' just by changing the combat system to be 'less streaky'.

Well there was this comment I made in the Patch thread on Dec 12:

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.

And then there was this "novella" I posted in this very thread, back on December 15:

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. 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.

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.

If the goal was only to win, the path would become pretty clear, IMHO -- techs that provide military upgrades become a lot more useful than they are now. Multiple decent defenders on the border cities means AI attacks are nothing to be feared. Even less need than currently for interior defenders -- focus all attention on bombard units, defenders for the frontiers, and attackers for killing wounded AI units (after they've been bombarded, of course). 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. 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. 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.

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.

And, as part of that same post, I asked you why you felt it wouldn't be unbalancing:

While I acknowledge your example of the archers versus pike above, I am sceptical that it shows any increase in balance. I want to understand how the game would be better balanced overall. A tech lead now is a powerful position; a tech lead with 4-roll-combat would be even more powerful. In my opinion, 4-roll-combat would dramatcially strengthen human play versus the AI -- the game would become both easier and less variable.

Why do you think it would be better balanced? Is it based on the view that a human must regularly take on superior AI defenders with inferior attackers and the present system strengthens this tactic? Is it based on something else?

I concluded with another thought on balance:

I'm not sure why the focus on rushes? Rushes are such a small part of the single player game that I can't imagine the demand for a "solution" to rushing. Or are you using "rush" to mean simple concentration of force?

In any event, the proposed change would seem to weaken the effectiveness of an archer or horseman rush, but it would almost certainly greatly strengthen a sword rush -- indeed, a sword rush would be exceedingly powerful. And only a human can conduct a sword rush. Even if rushes were weaker, do you really think that this proposed change is focused on rushes, or that many of those who have voiced concerns about the proposed change are focused on rushes?

In other words, I am frankly a lot more concerned that 4-roll-combat would dramtically weaken the AI; I am not at all worried about losing some human-only advantage. I am worried that the game would become even more linear and straightforward in terms of "best strategy." I am concerned that the game would more quickly become stale, and lose a lot of the replay value it now has.

Can you explain why you think the change would provide better balance? Is your view limited to the presumption that humans routinely attack AI civs with inferior units and the proposed change would make this more costly? Are there other reasons for the view?

You ignored this post and its questions and instead went on and on about how three archers could defeat pikemen behind walls -- 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."

Catt

[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

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
My point is, as others have so much more eloquently put it: This is a huge change, whether you want to admit such or not. Therefore, the onus is on YOU, not those defending the status quo, to successfully make the argument... and you are most emphatically NOT.

Au contraire - I most emphatically AM, and that's exactly why so many in favour of the status quo have got their backs up.

LOL! The onus is not on me one bit - This change is happening whether you like it or not! I suggest you start considering that, and start considering how it can be made balanced instead of scaremongering with claims that 'the whole game will be broken if this happens'.

So, until I see some decent examples of how exactly the whole game is going to go to sh*t just because of the combat change, I'll continue to treat those comments with the contempt they deserve. 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.

[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.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

LOL! The onus is not on me one bit - This change is happening whether you like it or not! I suggest you start considering that, and start considering how it can be made balanced instead of scaremongering with claims that 'the whole game will be broken if this happens'.

Actually, the change ISN'T happening. So the onus IS on you to prove that it SHOULD.