Warrior, Archer, Spearman Screens using 4roll combat

[Tiberius]

To balance the lost power of weak, but mobile units (charriots, horses), the chances for a retreat could be increased. Also mobile units should be able to gain promotions even when retreating from a battle.

[Sarxis]

Maybe we don't need the RNG to be changed or modified, but maybe some basic rules as to minimum damage certain units can do. Yeah sure, let ancient units continue to take out the odd tank, but make it so the tank does a minimum of damage in defending (3 hp vs warrior, spear; 2 hp vs Musket, etc.).

Another option might be that if the roll is marginal enough (so that the winner just barely makes it), both units are damaged.

But all the same, I don't want the special-resource-absent unit balancing of the game be ruined.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
This is just a matter of market compliance, but I'm personally more concerned with rebalancing the A/D/M numbers. The game we have now is based on 2+ years of playtesting. How long will it take to get back to that level?

I think what Firaxis are trying to tell us is that the combat isn't working they way they envisaged it. I agree with this - when I see a unit with 3 defence I logically assume that it'll be 50% better than one with a 2 defence. That isn't the case currently.

The obvious solution is to make it optional, as proposed above, so long as it doesn't complicate the code and/or introduce new errors to the point of taking away time to work on the problems almost everyone can agree are 'broken'.

The whole reason the combat rolls are not being changed, but are being done 4-times and averaged, is because they don't want to change the code. However, they are obviously not satisfied by the current way combat works. They shouldn't be because the current combat system breaks many aspects of the game. For starters, the Militaristic trait is practically useless because any nation can be militaristic through the players choice. That choice usually revolves around throwing out masses of low quality troops and using the 'randomness' of the combat system to ensure victory. It's the same reason why Barracks are underused.

I find it funny when people actually say they like the randomness factor, when in actual fact it is no longer random. You know that at least two of your 10+ archers will get lucky and kill the defending unit, even when it's supposed to be far superior. Where's the randomness in that? You negate the randomness through sheer numbers. This is unfortunately the only viable way to wage war, and that badly hurts builder/tech players who would rather try to create infrastructure and win by using lesser numbers of quality troops.

There is no question that many players will have their game style changed drastically when the combat change happens, but it's just something they'll have to adapt to. Instead of being fearful of it, they should be happy that they are being challenged to find other means of victory.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Jeem
It's the same reason why Barracks are underused.

I personally can't imagine not having barracks in all of my unit producing cities. I play on emperor exclusively and need that extra hitpoint per unit. can't imagine life without vets (and thus fewer elites)

Originally posted by Jeem
There is no question that many players will have their game style changed drastically when the combat change happens, but it's just something they'll have to adapt to. Instead of being fearful of it, they should be happy that they are being challenged to find other means of victory.

Thanks for the laughs.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Jeem

For starters, the Militaristic trait is practically useless because any nation can be militaristic through the players choice. That choice usually revolves around throwing out masses of low quality troops and using the 'randomness' of the combat system to ensure victory. It's the same reason why Barracks are underused.

Seems like dodgy analysis to me...........sure all civs can be militaristic but only the ones with the militaristic trait get the cheap barracks and a better chance of promotions.

Also I doubt you'll find many good players that don't use barracks in the vast majority of cities when being aggressive. The way the combat works doesn't discourage their use.........on the contrary 1 more hitpoint on each unit produced is essential to be efficient enough in your losses to war effectively on the highest levels.

[Antrine]

Randomness!! For goodness sakes let’s keep it! The combat system now does not account for three viable factors of combat, namely ‘terrain attrition’, especially to early tech units of say WWII and those like unto. Now, one can blissfully send a ‘tank’ unit out across the Sahara desert and show up on the other side intact? Notwithstanding heat, sand, wind, supply lines (second factor) and inclement or hostile weather (read sand-storms etc as third factor). Now aside from forbidding terrain to certain units or as I have, modding the terrain tile with a combat handicap for any unit attacked on say a desert tile, what do we currently have but randomness to account for these three factors?

Consider, that if your ‘tank unit’ was ‘out of supply’ (read no fuel or ammunition), caught in heat, sand or freezing blizzard and some ‘spearman’ (read belligerent locals or foreign terrorists) happened upon them, there’re toast period; better a knife, spear or arrow under such circumstances especially if your proficient with such weapons.

Sincerely, someone enjoying the ‘randomness’ without caring to take advantage of it with stacks of units, however even machine guns can be beat with rocks, once the barrels melt! Of course, that is if your religious beliefs say you are better off a martyr.

[Theseus]

Jeem, your arguments will only further straitjacket how to play the game... just in the style that you like.

[Jeem]

On the contrary, I'll think you'll find that many, many players are just a little bit tired of the same old archer/horseman rush tactic.

Firaxis aren't looking to change the combat system just because it randomly crossed their minds to do it. This is purely a guess - but I reckon that when playtesting the new Conquests units, they found that most of the time they didn't work to expectations. That would come as no surprise to me, because none of the units currently perform to expectations.

Anyone lining up to shoot down the proposed changes seems to have an ulterior motive. Usually this will be based around archer rushes. If you really consider yourself good at the game, then you should be happy to prove it regardless of what Firaxis changes.

Look at it this way - you will be rediscovering the game. I'm sure you'll find new strategies that are just as good as the old ones - so why the dissent?

[Kloreep]

I agree with others in this thread, why don't we try out 2-roll before upping it all the way to 4?

[Catt]

Originally posted by Jeem
Firaxis aren't looking to change the combat system just because it randomly crossed their minds to do it. This is purely a guess - but I reckon that when playtesting the new Conquests units, they found that most of the time they didn't work to expectations. That would come as no surprise to me, because none of the units currently perform to expectations.

If you read what they actually said, you'll see that the main intent of the changes appeared to be to reduce the incidence of what might appear to be flakey results. To quote the draft Read Me describing the proposed change: "This should reduce spearman defeating Tanks and other extremely frustrating combat results." I for one read that as a desire to reduce the frothy-mouthed ranting that a BC-era unit should never, ever, ever, in a million years, defeat a more modern unit, as opposed to some overall concern with combat.

Instead of offering "purely a guess" why not listen to what they actually said?

Anyone lining up to shoot down the proposed changes seems to have an ulterior motive. Usually this will be based around archer rushes. If you really consider yourself good at the game, then you should be happy to prove it regardless of what Firaxis changes.

Look at it this way - you will be rediscovering the game. I'm sure you'll find new strategies that are just as good as the old ones - so why the dissent?

Sigh. I kicked up a fuss in another thread about this sort of approach to debate or discussion. Disagreeing with an opposing viewpoint or failing to see an opposing viewpoint does not give free license to smear the motives of those with whom you disagree. I'm sure that most people in a discussion or debate would be grateful if you would listen to and respond to what they actually argue, instead of hunting for some ulterior motive. The vast majority of those who posted against the proposed combat change focused their concern on what it would do to game balance -- having an unbalanced game means having a game that isn't replayable. Only a few posters expressed a view regarding "no more archer rushes" or "horseman are now useless" and a more equitable interpretation of those statements might lead one to conclude that they were concerned with balance as opposed to any "super strategy being taken away from me" whine. Ignoring what one person or one group actually argues and instead offering up that it "seems" that anyone who holds such a view does so for some unflattering motive is intellectually immature, not to mention thoroughly rude.

The substance and timing of your comments is also a bit surprising, since, after reading arguments about the balance implications of the proposed changes, the developers went back to experiment in play with the changes again. And what were their conclusions?

. . . most of the tests I ran initially were with higher A/D level units or with 31 AI and things were really smooth.

[Discusses doing some additional testing and concludes]

. . . it became apparent that the Ancient Era would require significant rebalancing . . .

I am sure, however, that the developers' conclusions were likely the results of anger at losing their precious archer rushes, instead of out of genuine concern for game balance

Catt

[Theseus]

Jeem, I have but one word:

Stirling.

Battles are not deterministic in RL, nor should they be here.

[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.

Look at Jesse's first post with the 4-rolls. We told him in the earlier thread that 4 seemed to much and 2-3 would be better and he tried it out anyway - good for him - I'm sure he probably agrees now! I'm pretty sure that after seeing the warrior vs spearmen results, he'll try it out with 2 and 3 rolls.

It will be better balanced overall. Firaxis are not going to change the game in such a way that antagonises much of their fanbase are they? What is likely to happen is that rushes will still be viable, but always at a cost. The defending player will often feel that losing a city is not such a waste when he's killed 6-7 archers in the process. It was those times where cities fell for no casualties that so irritated some people. The new system will prevent that and everybody will be happy with it. I'm sorry if you disagree and don't want it to happen, but I do agree and do want it to happen.

Balance is the issue, and I feel that a few players are getting confused with this because they like the unrandom 'randomness' of rushes.

Yes, it will hurt rushes, but overall the game will be better. It will affect your enemies too, remember.

[Kuciwalker]

I should be able to substitute quantity over quality of units. Massed attacking is and should be a viable strategy, both IRL and in civ.

[Antrine]

I have never used a 'rush', however I have been 'rushed' and figured I rightly got nailed for having failed to build and man adequate defenses round about long before someone’s 'army' appeared at the gate. Generally, one needs to defeat opposing forces 'before they arrive at a city'. For indeed one should rightly inflict much damage in land interior to borders.

In other words, who cares how many ‘archers’ were lost if you were ‘outnumbered’ 4 to 1? You screwed up letting them arrive in first place. Yet, I agree, give us choices and let us try two rolls as a contrast and just continue pretending perfect weather, terrain and supply lines are each and all omnipresent.

[Kuciwalker]

If you want to defend against the Archers, build your OWN STACK of Archers, not necessarily as large, and use it to kill off a lot of the enemy's Archers.