The fix for the warrior defeating the tank

[Ethelred]

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a random number using a modern day computer.

I said that. Well I thought I did anyway. Its a psuedo random number. Close enough to the real thing for most uses. I would like to know what kind of ignoramous in the government tried useing it for random numbers in cryptogrophy.

We are not talking about the average person there. Cryptogrophy helped create the computer. The people that do it understand random numbers and they are one of the main groups that came up with methods of testing just how random a set of numbers was.

Psuedo random numbers have slightly different properties than the real thing and even if I knew what those were I am pretty sure I couldn't explain it. Number theory was an exceedingly arcane area of mathamatics untill people noticed it had use in cryptography and communications. The Russians didn't even stop it from being published for a long time. One of the guys I used to play D&D(not to be confused with AD&D) with was specializing in number theory because it went with all the programming he was learning.

Frankly I don't see the option for warriors when I have F-15s. Perhaps if you installed the 1.17f patch this apparition would go away. Some others will remain though. I don't notice them anymore.

Perhaps its because I use a modern mouse with a scroll wheel. Handy dandy things scroll wheels. I am going to wear out my middle finger with them.

I disagree with your second point. They barely scratch anything as it is most of the time. Even in Civ II they could harm modern units occasionally.

Besides obsedion axes are really sharp. Eye surgery is done with glass blades. Really. Glass is sharper than steel. It doesn't exactly hold an edge well though. Frankly I don't think a hand axe is going to do much to a tank unless you get the driver to meet your sister and then slit his throat.

Have you ever noticed that the combat system is intentionaly abstract. Haveing helped write D&D rules I know just how much useless detail can be added. I once ran an major battle that took hours to adjudicate. One of the players noticed but carefully neglected to mention that the odds of the Kobalds hitting them was actually one percent and that I could save a lot of die rolls by just using two ten sided dice and ignoring all the other stuff I was doing. I think he didn't want me to adjust the odds. Anyway I could have saved a lot of time if the system had been a bit more abstracted.

To make the D&D thing clear.

D&D is generic. AD&D is trademarked. In other words I did not work on any official rules. The original rule set was near useless and fans had to change things. My group changed things frequently and with a great deal of depth. Page after page.

I see by your third point you are unrepentent reloader. You must change your ways. Or hair will grow on your palms. Its growing in my ears allready.

[dubwai]

A tank can be destroyed by a single soldier. A soldier with a rocket, molotov cocktail, or a .50 caliber rifle can take out a tank. Of course, a stone ax and a .50 claiber rifle are very different things, but because there is no way for civs to buy or otherwise acquire weapons, this isn't easy to represent in the game.

[Grey Knight]

I don't know if it got posted here (it was posted to www.civfanatics.com a few weeks ago), but some enterprising fellow hooked a debugger up to the Civilization3.exe, and extracted some large sets of random numbers.

The numbers *are* random (more on this later).

It's our misperception of the combat model which is at fault. Try this -- which of these battles does the attacker seem more likely to win:

A2 vs D1
A8 vs D4

It's like an optical illusion. We 8 is much bigger than 4, and we think "8" should take the day. 2, only being 1 more than 1, doesn't really have a big advantage, right? Wrong of course - the odds for both battles are exactly the same, since it is the *ratio* between the two numbers which matters, not the distance between the numbers. As one poster pointed out, even a 100/100 unit will loose on occasion.

If you want to see this in action, set the unit HPs to 9, 10, 11, and 12, in the editor and start a game. You'll see the unit with the numerical advantage (after defense bonuses) almost always win, and the "winner" will almost never come out unscathed (loosing their ratio of HP based on the A/D values). For example, an archer attacking a fortified spearman:

A:2 D:2, +35% for 2.7

Overall odds (from the calculator):
25% 75%

Likely HP left for the spearman: 4

Cheers,
Shawn

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

from my experience, my fortified spearmen lose far more often than 25% of the time. I believe that there are factors coded that we havent figured out yet. I think there s a moral type influence, because as another thread once commented on, the AI fights much better earlier in a war than it does after suffering some defeats. I started a war with a stack of veteren knights against swordsmen. All the AI cities were about the same size and all defended with 2 or 3 swordsmen. There were no other noticeable factors such as fortified vs non fortified or terrain bonuses. The first few cities I sustained heavy casualties. But as I worked my way into the inner cities, those same swordsmen were causing far less damage. many of my knights didnt even take a single hit. I tried replaying those turns by altering attacks and diplomacy to get a new set of "random" numbers, but the result was the same, hard won early victories followed by pushover victories.

[Ethelred]

About the same size is not quite the same as if they actually were the same. There is a break point between town and city. One pop difference is enough to significantly change the defensive modifier. Population six is much easier to defeat than seven. Same for 12 vs 13.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Originally posted by Ethelred
About the same size is not quite the same as if they actually were the same. There is a break point between town and city. One pop difference is enough to significantly change the defensive modifier. Population six is much easier to defeat than seven. Same for 12 vs 13.

I know this, and was trying to avoid mentioning that the cities were all in the 6-8 range because I'd increased town size to 8 and city to 16. All the towns were classified as towns for defensive purposes .

[Venger]

Re: The fix for the warrior defeating the tank

Re: The fix for the warrior defeating the tank

The best fix is to go to File -> Run -> civ2.exe

Venger

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by dubwai
A tank can be destroyed by a single soldier. A soldier with a rocket, molotov cocktail, or a .50 caliber rifle can take out a tank. Of course, a stone ax and a .50 claiber rifle are very different things, but because there is no way for civs to buy or otherwise acquire weapons, this isn't easy to represent in the game.

So you're saying a warrior that killed a riflemen, never bothered to put up some rifles? You would think that they would pick up. Or is firaxis saying that warriors are inferior people and therefore stupid?

[The Rook]

Originally posted by dubwai
A tank can be destroyed by a single soldier. A soldier with a rocket, molotov cocktail, or a .50 caliber rifle can take out a tank. Of course, a stone ax and a .50 claiber rifle are very different things, but because there is no way for civs to buy or otherwise acquire weapons, this isn't easy to represent in the game.

The way I would have did it would be to change the graphic. Kinda like the workers do. Flint axe warriors should look like rag-tag soldiers or partisans. At least when the 1.1.1 partisan kills your modern armor, you can picture the guy building a homemade booby-trap or something, and destroying the tank. The guy with the fint axe, just doesn't cut it.

[Grey Knight]

I think I have the answer. I'll make a mod. I'm not sure what to call it though. "No spearmen killing tanks here!" is a bit long.

I'll rename all the ground combat units to "Tank [fill in the blank]". A/D/M etc. will all be the same.

This way, since every unit is a tank, you can't have a spearman killing a tank any more.



Shawn

[lorddread]

Re: Re: random numbers and other crap

Originally posted by Thrawn05


/* RAND.C: This program seeds the random-number generator
* with the time, then displays 10 random integers.
*/

#include "stdlib.h"
#include "stdio.h"
#include "time.h"

void main( void )
{
int i;

/* Seed the random-number generator with current time so that
* the numbers will be different every time we run.
*/
srand( (unsigned)time( NULL ) );

/* Display 10 numbers. */
for( i = 0; i < 10;i++ )
printf( " %6d\n", rand() );
}

Alas even this is not truly random. If you did this enough times (as the Feds did) you would find that a pattern would emerge. But I digress.

The point I was trying to make was that instead of a random seed generator, why not use straight attack-defense ratings for combat and throw in initative as a multiplier. This was a tank (which can move 30 miles an hour and has 75mm if armor plating can vaporize an elite hoplite.

[simwiz2]

Originally posted by The Rook


The way I would have did it would be to change the graphic. Kinda like the workers do. Flint axe warriors should look like rag-tag soldiers or partisans.

Partisans: We already have them. They are the conscript units.

"At least when the 1.1.1 partisan kills your modern armor, you can picture the guy building a homemade booby-trap or something, and destroying the tank."

A tank unit is alot of tanks. So unless they manage to build a LOT of sucessful booby traps...

[Ethelred]

Re: Re: Re: random numbers and other crap

Originally posted by lorddread


The point I was trying to make was that instead of a random seed generator, why not use straight attack-defense ratings for combat and throw in initative as a multiplier. This was a tank (which can move 30 miles an hour and has 75mm if armor plating can vaporize an elite hoplite.

And the hoplite steps to the side evading the tank. Or the tank is attacking a tank. Everything is fixed yet it mustn't be so or you too achieve unreality. Or the hoplite steps aside of the iron spike filled trap it was standing in front of for that matter. Even the warrior can manage that one.

Wanna hear about incendiary pigs? Or Samurai that committed suicide en masse. 200 of them. For real.

You can't have a combat system with fixed results for all possible opponents and be realistic. Probability is inherent in combat. Things ALWAYS go wrong or even better than expected. They nearly never go exactly as planned.

I am not saying a better combat system can't be devised. Just that one without probabalistic results won't be a better one.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by dubwai
A tank can be destroyed by a single soldier. A soldier with a rocket, molotov cocktail, or a .50 caliber rifle can take out a tank. Of course, a stone ax and a .50 claiber rifle are very different things, but because there is no way for civs to buy or otherwise acquire weapons, this isn't easy to represent in the game.

Only by a very very brave soldier!

A .50 cal machine gun would do nothing to any tank built around the time of WWII or after. Armoured car or APC yes but not anything recognizable as a tank.

You can't have a combat system with fixed results for all possible opponents and be realistic. Probability is inherent in combat. Things ALWAYS go wrong or even better than expected. They nearly never go exactly as planned.

Theres a truism for y'all. Its the level of the "imponderable" (as they used to say in the Avalon Hill days that I've (we've) had to fix with the editor.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Only by a very very brave soldier!

A .50 cal machine gun would do nothing to any tank built around the time of WWII or after. Armoured car or APC yes but not anything recognizable as a tank.

Theres a truism for y'all. Its the level of the "imponderable" (as they used to say in the Avalon Hill days that I've (we've) had to fix with the editor.

Brave soldiers, willing to die, do exist. The tanks in Civ3 are certainly not as advanced as panzers, so they are vintage 1920's or 1930's technology.

Traps and explosives are most effective against tanks, unless you have "proper" anti-tank weapons.

And yes, there is always the imponderable, unpredictable element in warfare.