Remedy for the Spearman-killed-my-tank syndrome

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Strudo


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.

Precisely. There are certain elements of Civilization that already remind you it's a game and not reality. Adding another one is a bad idea =)

I must note though, that Alpha Centauri had a neat in-game explanation on how you live to the age of 500 to see the end of the game =). As CEO Morgan once mentioned, he plans to live forever, but barring that he'll settle for a few thousand. Even five hundred would be pretty nice =).

[NanoDingo]

Originally posted by Zinegata
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.

But a Singularity Squad with a Fission Plant (24-1-1^1) might lose against Neutronium Sentinels with a Singularity Engine (1-8-1^4 ), because although the Squad has a Weapon ratio of 3:1 against the Sentinels' Armour, the Sentinels have quadruple the Hit-Points. Of course, it all depends what Dr,ape means by "Singularity Rifle" and "Plasma Gun".

I agree that the AC combat engine doesn't produce ****ey results very often, though.
-

[Bhruic]

I think dropping down to the numbers does illustrate the problem - I just think you used the wrong numbers.

Instead of thinking "tank 40, archer 4", think tech levels. A tank being (roughly) tech level 15, an archer being (roughly) tech level 2. Should a tech level 15 unit be beaten by a tech level 2 unit? Nope. Never. Under no circumstance. Tech levels should be vaguely viable within a +/- 5 level range (obviously scaled based on the level). Outside that range, there should be no real chance. And outside of +/- 10, there should just be no chance.

That, to me, is how it should work in game terms. Being behind in tech a little shouldn't be a problem. Being behind a lot should make you a pushover. There's no excuse I can think of (in game terms) for a vastly technologically superior foe to be beaten by a vastly technologically inferior opponent.

Bh

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by NanoDingo


But a Singularity Squad with a Fission Plant (24-1-1^1) might lose against Neutronium Sentinels with a Singularity Engine (1-8-1^4 ), because although the Squad has a Weapon ratio of 3:1 against the Sentinels' Armour, the Sentinels have quadruple the Hit-Points. Of course, it all depends what Dr,ape means by "Singularity Rifle" and "Plasma Gun".

Singularity Squads generally have Singularity Engines to begin with though. It's cheaper to build one with a Singularity engine than a Fission engine actually, given the way the costing formula works.

I think AC design simulates technological advancements quite well though. A unit built with the tools of the Singulairty age will, in general, be far more lethal than ones built in the Fission age. The exception is when one creates a truly unbalanced design (i.e. all guns and no armor), but I think the player will be pretty much aware of the weakness. It's the player who dictates the design of the unit, after all =).

And yeah, assuming one doesn't have unbalanced designs, one will generally never see a crazy result in AC =).

This is why I was just plain angry at Civ III. I've made the same point as Bhruic in a previous thread - the immense time and effort spent in making technologically advanced units should make them far superior to armies that have been using ancient technology. They shouldn't roll over armies that are one or two generations behind. A technological gap on the level of tanks vs spearmen however... that's just too much.

[NanoDingo]

Originally posted by Zinegata
Singularity Squads generally have Singularity Engines to begin with though. It's cheaper to build one with a Singularity engine than a Fission engine actually, given the way the costing formula works.

Well, yeah...but that's not the point!
-

Originally posted by Zinegata I think AC design simulates technological advancements quite well though. A unit built with the tools of the Singulairty age will, in general, be far more lethal than ones built in the Fission age.

Assuming the game actually makes it to the Singularity Age, considering Air-Power comes so early in the game compared to Civ.

Originally posted by Zinegata And yeah, assuming one doesn't have unbalanced designs, one will generally never see a crazy result in AC =).

This is why I was just plain angry at Civ III. I've made the same point as Bhruic in a previous thread - the immense time and effort spent in making technologically advanced units should make them far superior to armies that have been using ancient technology. They shouldn't roll over armies that are one or two generations behind. A technological gap on the level of tanks vs spearmen however... that's just too much.

...Man, I love AC.
-

[nixen]

Assuming that the combat calculation engine is the same that was used in the original Civilization game, the chance of a str 4 unit defeating a str 40 unit is not 1 in 10, rather it is 1 in 11 (4/(4+40)).

Minor issue, I know, but worthy of clarification nonetheless

[kseecs16]

The games I play in the difficulty level is set to a point where my Modern Armor do not encounter spearmen, but i find it hard to believe that this is a real problem people are having, because I find that my units win maybe too often against slightly lesser units - i.e. Infantry vs. Rifleman my infantry almost always win it seems like. Of course I use siege weapons and planes, and maneuver to get the best position if possible. I think this is such a silly little thing that hardly ever occurs and people who get worked up about it really need to chill the F out.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by nixen
Assuming that the combat calculation engine is the same that was used in the original Civilization game, the chance of a str 4 unit defeating a str 40 unit is not 1 in 10, rather it is 1 in 11 (4/(4+40)).

Actually, that's not the way it works in Civ 4. The chance of the str 4 unit hitting the str 40 unit is 1/11. However, each hit would only do 8.4% damage (compared to the reverse, which would do 47.7% damage).

That means the str 4 unit has to hit the str 40 unit 12 times, but the str 40 unit only has to hit the str 4 unit 3 times. And what's worse, the str 4 unit has to hit the str 40 unit 12 times without getting hit more than twice itself. With a 1/11 chance of hitting at all.

You can do that math if you want, but you'll quickly find that the str 4 unit has almost no chance at all of defeating the str 40 unit (the chance is significantly less than 1%).

Bh

[Dr,ape]

AC combats have multiple "rounds" that's why it's not producing more "unexpected" results, but THAT'S COMPLETELY BESIDES THE POINT. Even if AC combat produce one unexpected result, it's much less OBVIOUS than say the unexpected combat result between 2 civ units.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Dr,ape
AC combats have multiple "rounds" that's why it's not producing more "unexpected" results, but THAT'S COMPLETELY BESIDES THE POINT. Even if AC combat produce one unexpected result, it's much less OBVIOUS than say the unexpected combat result between 2 civ units.

A veteran AC player would notice the difference. They would realize that a Singularity-armed infantry is at least three full generations ahead of a Plasma trooper from a technological standpoint. Hence, if the Plasma trooper won, it would clearly be a flukey result that destroys the game's suspension of disbelief.

The only reason it will be, as you say "much less OBVIOUS" is if you are not familiar with the Alpha Centauri game world. And those who aren't familiar with it are most likely to have never continued playing it in the first place since they preferred the more familiar world of Horsemen and Knights rather than a world of Laser and Impact Rovers.

What I've said isn't "completely beside the point". Rather, it showed that your point did not make your unworkable proposal any more workable.

[jamoecw]

Well, why worry about a spearman killing a tank? Personally I've always wanted to send my hordes of obsolete units to that critical pass in order to stall while my city in danger does a mass evacuation along my well built roads to that city next door with the wall and machine gun nest, that with the combination there of, will statisticly win. The problem is that even though civ sports nomadic peoples and options are well non existant. And if you want to know how lvl. 2 unit kill lvl. 40 units why not look at the russian occupation of afganastan, sure there was plenty of rocket vs. tank scenarios, however there was still knife vs. tank scenerios where the tank lost, sure it wasn't open battle, but the tactics for fighting primitive peoples is a lot of avoiding traps and ambushes, not to mention supply lines. My point is that why bash the names or the combat system, the idea of thinking that a tank will always beat a spearman, or that a lvl. 2 vs. lvl. 40 is always a simple lvl. 2 vs. lvl. 40. The reason it is the way it is, is because it is a square game, it follows the same square format that civ 1 followed, and smac was similar enough but simply more emphasis on military options, just colonization had more emphasis on domestic and less on military. Now I know some are going to say I am bashing civ, however the last thing I want is a radically new civ that doesn't fit the square profile of civ, after all I still remember lords of the realm, which was unique with the great micromanagement, then lords2 featured arguably more micromanagement and thus the square was set, and expectations of what the lords of the realm franchise was about was set. Then there was a game claiming to be a sequel, but it didn't fit the box and of course fans of the box generally rejected the game since it wasn't the direction they liked, now you can consider it dead. Therefore new things should be in new games, and if it doesn't fit the box don't imply that it does by naming it as such.

[Bobby Chicken]

i think it is worth noting that an attack strength 2 against an attack strength 20 is not a ten percent chance. Its an 8 percent chance it round and it takes three rounds to win making it below 3 percent (i'm to lazy to fully calculate it).