Remedy for the Spearman-killed-my-tank syndrome

[Dr,ape]

We've all heard enough about this ever since Civ1: "the ancient spearman killed my tank; how is that possible??/?//" (add a few more line about the game creating a vacuum.) And then the debate would start: some with the calculations, others with Hollywood imaginations coming up with a possible scenario to explain it, then come the jokes and ridicules, finally the whole thing breaks down into philosophical debates in amateur game design theories and world history...

And it never stops.

And it seems to only be a problem when that's "MY" tank vs the AI's spearman... never the other way around.

O.K., so you don't like being denied the pleasure of crushing primitive units with your modern tank, and you don't accept any logical or dramatic explanations. It seems that the real problem lies in the fact that the units involved are LABELED as "Spearman" and "Tank". Imagine this: what if the units aren't labeled at all? What if, instead of being called a "Spearman", it's just simply "Unit A" and "Unit B"? Unit A has a strength 4, and Unit B has a strength 40. When Unit A and Unit B comes to the same coordinates, we determine which one stays by throwing a dice weighted in favor of Unit B 40:4. While Unit A has a 10% chance of winning, Unit B has 90% chance. How's that?

Now nobody would whine about losing their precious Unit B, because it's a well known fact that Unit A DOES have a 10% chance of winning. If something CAN happen, then it will eventually happen.

There would be no screaming of impossibility of a strength 4 unit beating a strength 40 unit IN A GAME OF CHANCE.

It only becomes a problem when we THINK it's a spearman.

[Rybeck]

Re: Remedy for the Spearman-killed-my-tank syndrome

Originally posted by Dr,ape

And it seems to only be a problem when that's "MY" tank vs the AI's spearman... never the other way around.

There would be no screaming of impossibility of a strength 4 unit beating a strength 40 unit IN A GAME OF CHANCE.

It only becomes a problem when we THINK it's a spearman.

Nah, if the AI tank got killed by MY spearman, I would still be disgusted.

IMHO, it's way too simplistic to just give a spearman strength 4 and a tank strength 40. Even so, the strength 4 unit wouldn't be able to destroy strength 40 units one out of four (or so) encounters.

The only scenario I see a tank unit losing to a spearman is if there's like a hundred spearmen platoons and a lone tank outta ammo and fuel. And that wouldn't occur very much.

In CIV 4, a handful of spearmen and longbowmen turn every city into bleeding Stalingrad.

[Nelis]

Rybeck: What do you want ? That tanks and other moderns units have 100% of chance to destroy all previous time units ??

The game will not be fun at all ... It will be far too easy. What make the game attractive is also that you know it is possible you lost your tank.

[Dr,ape]

I am not trying to create a scenario in which such phenomenon is explained. I am saying let's FORGET about scenarios altogether.

It's not a problem when you STOP THINKING that it's a "Spearman" vs a "Tank". Think a number 4 vs a number 40.

Also, VERY IMPORTANTLY, a unit with strength 40 has a 9 out of 10 chance of winning a unit with strength 4 -- but this does NOT imply anything about the outcomes of a number of encounters.

--> This is called The Gambler's Fallacy.

Probability is irrelevant across multiple events.
Toss a (fair) coin 10 times. If you get 9 straight tails, it doesn't mean that the probability of getting 'head' on the 10th try is any higher (or lower) than before. Gamblers think otherwise.

[Kekkonen]

Re: Re: Remedy for the Spearman-killed-my-tank syndrome

Originally posted by Rybeck
In CIV 4, a handful of spearmen and longbowmen turn every city into bleeding Stalingrad.

Maybe, unless you bring your siege weapons. I don't have a problem with that, though; when your nation consists of cities, taking a city should be tough (and urban warfare is notorious anyway).

[LzPrst]

catapults, city raider upgrade or just plain numerical superiority will give you the city.

[Amniotic]

Originally posted by Dr,ape
Also, VERY IMPORTANTLY, a unit with strength 40 has a 9 out of 10 chance of winning a unit with strength 4 -- but this does NOT imply anything about the outcomes of a number of encounters.

--> This is called The Gambler's Fallacy.

The Gambler's Fallacy can be a sneaky bastard. It is true that each individual trial has independent probability and is uninfluenced by the results of earlier trials, but you can still examine questions about a sequence of trials, e.g. "What are the odds that I can flip a coin times in a row and get heads every time?". Stated more contextually, the odds that your tank will beat a spearman ( 4 v 40) ten times in a row is (36/40)^10 which is about 35%. The fallacy is in believing that if you have won with your tank nine times in a row that you are subject to the 35% chance of winning ( achieving ten victories in a row) and not the 90% for the last trial (the odds of winning any individual trial).

[Zinegata]

One of the most important aspects of a computer game is what I call "supension of disbelief". A good computer game will make you forget that you are just playing a game.

Reducing units to mere numbers will be a significant step to destroying the "suspension of disbelief" in Civilization, and it will be a very bad step for the franchise if it moves in this direction. If units are reduced to mere numbers, then every time you fight a battle you are reminded of the deadly phrase this is just a game. How can you think of it as anything other than a game, when you are constantly reminded that a "40 strength unit" does not exist in real life?

When you are playing with tanks rather than "40 strength units" however, you are insulating the player from the mathematical mechanics of the game. The player's mind immediately makes the association with tanks in the real world, and forms an idea in his mind of what tanks can and cannot do. Thus, when the player watches tanks slaughter archers, he will probably conjure the vision of tanks slaughtering primitive tribesmen. This image "makes sense", so the mind accept it as plausible fact, and the gamer forgets that "this is just a game".

Why is it so important to keep the player from forgetting "it's just a game" you ask? Because in all games, you are asked to assume a role. A player of chess assumes the role of a general leading an army. A player of an RPG assumes the role of the hero. A player of Doom assumes the role of a guy who gets to blast ugly monsters to bits.

And when you are so engrossed that you forget it is just a game, you begin to actually feel as though you are the person you are roleplaying. Winning a challenging game of chess makes you feel like a wonderful strategist. Playing an RPG makes you feel like a hero. Playing Doom, well, makes you feel like a bad ass with a big gun =)

Civilization, to me, is about the celebration of human achievement. It reminds us of how far we've come and how much we've accomplished, in spite of the many challenges we had faced. It is the story of us, and I think no game has ever touched upon a topic that is so dear to all of our hearts, whether we realize it or not.

And that is why it is important to make a Civilization player forget that he is just playing a game. Your role in Civilization is to guide a nation as it evolves over the ages, facing the same trials and tribulations as our ancestors had faced, until it has reached the pinnacle of human achievement. Wouldn't you want to know how it feels as it happens?

[Rybeck]

Originally posted by Zinegata
Civilization, to me, is about the celebration of human achievement. It reminds us of how far we've come and how much we've accomplished, in spite of the many challenges we had faced.

This part of the game I couldn't agree more that Firaxis has done a whoppingly good job.

Ok, how's about we rename the tanks "level 40 cavalry" instead?

Suddenly remembered by first encounter with this issue about 15 years ago on the original CIV. My battleship (err... level 40 galley ) was sunk by a pikeman and a nuke was also stopped cold/failed to detonate by another piker. Lol.

[Dr,ape]

I'm not the one seeing a problem in spearman defeating a tank. I am merely offering a mental solution to this issue where some might see as a problem.

How about another approach?

Some of you played Alpha Centauri. None of you had any problem seeing a Singularity Rifle killed by a Plasma Gun, even though in the game one is far superior to the other in terms of power. Why? That's because nobody really understand what Singularity Rifles or Plasma Guns do. (Go ahead and argue that they are make-believe weapons). The fact is, we don't KNOW what is suppose to happen when these weapons of alien technologies do to each other; we believe what the game says. On the other hand, we KNOW (or we think we know) what a spearman and a tank would do to each other. We have vivid images in our heads of the supposed event. We have a pre-conception of what SHOULD happen. That's what people have been arguing about. SHOULD the Spearman have ANY chance to win? We don't have any "should"'s when we are dealing with the unknown (plasma guns), therefore we wouldn't argue over it.

What SHOULD happen when a Plasma Tank attacks a Singularity-Archer? No one would be whining when either side wins.

[Kekkonen]

Anybody know what percentage of modern warfare casualties is generally caused by factors other than the enemy (accidents, friendly fire, etc.)?

"And turret 40 degrees to the left, private, fire at will... OUR LEFT, you moron, OUR LEFT!"

[NanoDingo]

Originally posted by Dr,ape
Some of you played Alpha Centauri. None of you had any problem seeing a Singularity Rifle killed by a Plasma Gun, even though in the game one is far superior to the other in terms of power. Why?

Because attack strength and defence strength are treated separately in Alpha Centauri.
-

[Kc7mxo]

Civ 2 and SMAC both had great combat systems that were much more effective at avoiding this issue. The combination of firepower, hit points, and A/D values was far superior to the current system.

It always puzzles me how civ3 and civ4 were both steps back from those games.

[Strudo]

Originally posted by Zinegata
One of the most important aspects of a computer game is what I call "supension of disbelief". A good computer game will make you forget that you are just playing a game.

Hmmm lets see. It's turn 4 and I'm the leader of a great nation at the ripe old age of 120. I don't believe that!

Can't wait till my 4000th birthday.

Nar just teasing. I don't really have an opinion about it cos it hasn't happened to me yet, but I expect it will at some stage.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Dr,ape
I'm not the one seeing a problem in spearman defeating a tank. I am merely offering a mental solution to this issue where some might see as a problem.

The problem with your "approach" is that by thinking of a unit as a number, you remind the player that it is just a game. You're not really commanding a Tank. You're commanding a collection of data and pixels with an arbitrary strength of 40.

You thus no longer feel as though you're the ruler of an empire, leading humanity to its greatest achievements. You instead realize that you're simply playing a computer game. Playing a computer game, no matter how good, probably won't compare to the feeling (no matter how illusory) of conquering the world =).

Some of you played Alpha Centauri. None of you had any problem seeing a Singularity Rifle killed by a Plasma Gun, even though in the game one is far superior to the other in terms of power...

And this detachment from real-world concepts is precisely one of the reasons why many cite they could never stand Alpha Centauri. Alpha Centauri is a wonderful strategy game. Internally, the world of AC is surprisingly consistent too. Many, especially science fiction fans, would find the world of Alpha Centauri to be believable and convincing. Gamesdomain would even award it a Gold Award - the only "sequel" that would ever take this distinction, precisely because of the excellence of Alpha Centauri's "background world".

Unfortunately, because people are used to Horsemen rather than Impact Rovers, Spearmen rather than Synthmetal Garrisons, a lot of people simply were not able to connect with the game. It's not the only reason why it never achieved the same level of success as Civilization, but it's a major reason nonetheless.

Besides, the AC combat engine doesn't produce ****ey results very often, if at all. In fact, in the example you cited, I highly doubt that a Singularity Gun trooper (attack strength in the 20s, with 40 life) would lose against a Plasma garrison with 3 defense.

Finally, realize that in Civilization, the use of "real-world" units immediately place a measure of expectation with the said units. If you ask a man on the street (who has never played Civ) what would happen if a unit of tanks attacked a unit of archers, the man probably wouldn't even hesitate to give an answer: The tanks will massacre the archers!

Thus, having any other result (as is so common in Civ III, and still showing up from time to time in Civ IV) will remind the player that this is not reality. This is a game. Making a player realize it's just a game, as I noted previously, is not good game design!

Frankly, given the importance of maintaining the illusion of reality in a game to enhance the overall gaming experience, I have to say that your proposal is unworkable. And none of your arguments thus far has managed to prove otherwise.