Warrior, Archer, Spearman Screens using 4roll combat

[JesseSmith]

EDIT: Sorry about the coloring, I really could have picked some easier colors to read. Just read it by the direction they are facing.




Here are some shots showing a couple basic gameplay tests with the ancient era units.

All of the tests were done on a custom map with all terrain bonuses removed. No units were fortified. Release EXEs.



10 Warriors vs 10 Warriors (Regular Combat)



10 Warriors vs 10 Warriors with the (4X Roll Combat):



-------------------------------------------------------------

10 Warriors vs 10 Archers (Regular Combat)




Now 10 Warriors vs 10 Archers w/ (4X Roll Combat)



-------------------------------------------------------------

10 Warriors vs 10 Spearman (Regular Combat)



10 Warriors vs 10 Spearman (4X Roll Combat)



Helped with warriors, about even with archers, insane with spearman...

[WarpStorm]

Wow, you barely scratched the spearmen.

[vmxa1]

If it is representative, I like it. It seems to make even up matches a toss up and attackers going against better defenders, consistent. I like the idea that better units are more reliable and even matches a toss up.

[Dis]

what is 4 roll combat?

and I always have a lot of trouble figuring out which unit is which- this is why I have the option to show team color discs on.

[Fatwreck]

poor warriors... they only got 3 hp of those spearmen...

[statusperfect]

Go with four rolls and rebalance every unit in the game

[Jaybe]

Go with four rolls and rebalance every unit in the game ... by either (1) allowing decimal A/D strengths, or (2) doubling or tripling strengths;
and adjust from there.

Then, when all the strengths are adjusted, have the 4roll combat an option, but players end up not using it but still have the adjusted units???

[ChaotikVisions]

Er? Unless I missed, noone has said what 4roll combat is still?

[Nor Me]

Wouldn't it be simpler just to square all the attack and defence strenghs?

It's more honest, has a strictly smaller effect and solves spearmen vs tank nicely.

You might need to rebalance the entire game with this. I've just been playing the Fall of Rome conquest and I know it would have been much harder with the 4roll system as I'd have had to wait for more tech to attack.

I know 3 digit A/D strenghs look worse but that would make things easier to adjust early on.

[Theseus]

CV, read the Conquests Patch thread... it's all explained there.

[JesseSmith]

It's explained in great detail =) we were trying out some fixes for the very random random # generator and one of them was increasing the # of die rolls in combat to 4. That's where 4 roll comes from.

The major things that I see that are unbalancing are

1) Promotions. There would need to be more consistently defined. ie, defensive units would have less of a chance. Otherwise your stack is going to do nothing but lvl up your opponent.

2) Iron. You may be able to do some damage with Archers (its similar to the Warrior vs Archers) but that's not going to help you if you are on a continent without Iron. Swordsman slaughter with 4 die roll. Legions, Gallics, etc are worse.

[ChaotikVisions]

Ohhh, that sounds great. Can't wait till thats in the game, sounds like it would improve alot of things.

For the promotion stuff, what about making Regular the rank Barracks units are produced at? Dropping the non-Barracks rank to Conscript or whatever it is. That way its two ranks they need to climb to get to elite, and "Veteran" actually means Veteran for a change.

As for lack of Iron, i've got no idea. Guess it might be time to start building walls.

[Jaguar]

2 roll combat.

[asleepathewheel]

fascinating

basically rewrites the military, early game strategies of civ3. Not sure if that's good or bad, but I like the randomness in the game now.

[notyoueither]

I would like to see the number of rolls as a user definable setting in the set up. I would like single roll to remain the default. Everyone can win this way.

[Rommel2D]

What does "release EXEs" mean? I seem to be missing the difference between the warrior v warrior and the warrior v archer examples. It looks like the warriors are doing all the attacking, so isn't it a '1' attacking and a '1' defending in the first four examples?

[Kuciwalker]

Right, that confused me too.

I think Immortals own now, and Sipahi are insane.

[notyoueither]

I think you are missing the math of the defence, skywalker.

Put a spear on a hill, behind walls and what do you get? Now fortify it. Now tell me how much immortals rule.

Put a rifleman in a size 8 city and what do you get? Now fortify it and tell me how insane Sipahi are. Insane to attack, maybe.

[korn469]

basically it looks like with 4 roll combat it makes it so that when units have a good chance of winning, they win more often and take less damage, for either offense or defense, i think that 4 roll combat is far more drastic than simply increasing hp's

EDIT:

another unbalancing thing is that it would make beeling for cav even more important and would basically end game as soon as one player had a decent attack advantage

[Xorbon]

I don't like this experimental 4-roll idea much at all. It changes the odds too much, even when there is a relatively small difference in att/def strengths. It makes a unit, like the chariot, even more useless. Maybe this system would be OK if they also redid the combat values of all the units. They could introduce fractional combat strengths (so you could have 1.4 strength instead of just 1 or 2, for instance).

I'd prefer it if more advanced units would just have more hitpoints. I'm planning on adding +1 hp for early gunpowder units, and +2 for later units in my personal mod.

I don't know why we even need this "fix". Spearmen beating tanks are quite rare under the current system. Some people just don't seem to like randomness in civ combat. I do.

[WhiteBandit]

I'm mixed. I'd have to actually try it out. I think part of the reason is that we are used to playing one way and don't want to give it up. Given enough time, we'll probably grow to love the 4x roll way.

Granted, it does favor the defender, but that is for the better in my opinion. NYE does raise some insane points though and it looks like Jesse and the gang are already looking into the balancing issue. Providing things can be somewhat balanced in regards to resources, I'm looking forward to trying this out.

[vondrack]

Hmmm... I would love to see this as an option - if BA guys say they've been playing with it for months and it's fine, I would love to at least give it a try. If it works as illustrated above, then Civ3 would change dramatically as far as strategy is concerned, I admit. The wars would be much more about technological advantage and less about numerical superiority (but wait, is this not what so many people were asking for? )

Make it an option I will be eager to get my hands on the beta patch.

[Harovan]

By default it should be left as it is, i.e. only one RNG round. I think the majority would be just fine with it. I don't care about "strange" combat results, since I know that such things can happen. The loss of a tank to a spearman, when I have 100 of them and am producing 10 new per turn, is less problematic than the loss of a swordsman, when I have 10 of them and am producing one new per three turns. However, since some people deem the occasional loss of a tank vs a spearman a problem, it should be made an option in the editor. It shouldn't be an edit box, but a listbox which allows to enter 1, 2, 3 or 4.

Another option would be to increase it moderately by default. Not to four because that's too harsh, but to two as Jaguar Warrior suggested.

[DrSpike]

4 rolls is just too extreme. It's still not in the beta patch right?

[Andydog]

Using alexman’s excellent combat calculator, I ran a few scenarios for the proposed 4 roll combat system:

Vet Swordsman attacks:
1. unfortified vet spearman on grassland:Swordsman wins 84% of the time.
2. fortified vet spearman on grassland: Swordsman wins 64% of the time.
3. fortified vet spearman on hill: Swordsman wins 31% of the time.
5. fortified regular spearman on hill: Swordsman wins 47% of the time.
6. fortified elite spearman on hill: Swordsman wins 19% of the time.
7. fortified regular spearman in walled town on grassland: Swordsman wins 47% of the time.
8. fortified vet spearman in walled town on grassland: Swordsman wins 25% of the time.
9. fortified vet spearman in walled town on hill: Swordsman wins 10% of the time.

Vet Knight attacks:
1. unfortified vet spearman on grassland: Knight wins 97% of the time.
2. fortified vet spearman on grassland: Knight wins 90% of the time.
3. unfortified vet spearman on hill: Knight wins 83% of the time.
4. fortified vet spearman on hill: Knight wins 67% of the time.
5. fortified regular spearman on hill: Knight wins 79% of the time.
6. fortified elite spearman on hill: Knight wins 55% of the time.
7. fortified regular spearman in walled town on grassland: Knight wins 74% of the time.
8. fortified vet spearman in walled town on grassland: Knight wins 60% of the time.
9. fortified vet spearman in walled town on hill: Knight wins 35% of the time.

Vet Cavalry attacks:
1. unfortified vet spearman on grassland: Cavalry wins 100% of the time.
2. unfortified vet pikeman on grassland: Cavalry wins 97% of the time.
3. fortified vet pikeman on hill: Cavalry wins 67% of the time.
4. fortified vet musketman on hill: Cavalry wins 31% of the time.
4. fortified vet musketman on city on grassland: Cavalry wins 25% of the time.
5. fortified vet rifleman on hill: Cavalry wins 4% of the time.
6. fortified vet rifleman in city on grassland: Cavalry wins 3% of the time.

Vet Tank attacks:
1. fortified vet rifleman on grassland: Tank wins 98% of the time.
2. fortified vet rifleman in city on grassland: Tank wins 88% of the time.
3. fortified vet rifleman in city on hill: Tank wins 71% of the time.
4. fortified vet rifleman in fortress on mountain: Tank wins 46% of the time.
5. fortified vet infantry in city on grassland: Tank wins 32% of the time.

So yes, the more likely event becomes more probable, but we can see how to swing the odds in your favour.

Defensive terrain, hit points, fortification considerations etc now need to be fully integrated into your defence/attack strategy. Gone would be the days of hurling a load of units at your enemy's cities and waiting for the randomness to let you win.

I think this battle system would be a good introduction.

[Jeem]

I'd rather have the 4-roll that what we have now, but something inbetween (2 or 3) would be better.

Experience gains are going to be a real problem - instead of the usual 2-victory experience gain, it could be upped to 3 or 4 on the defender side.

By my reckoning, if you go with 2-roll combat and 3-victory experience gain for defenders, you'll get something close to what you want. Either that or 3-roll, 4-victory experience gain.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Looks like clogging enemy roads with defensive units won't work anymore. Seems like having units out in the open will not be an option, or not a good one with 4x.
I'd prefer something in the start-up screen. I've gotten used to the randomness.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Looks like clogging enemy roads with defensive units won't work anymore.

Why? I think it'll work even better, so long as your defensive units are better than what's attacking them.

Seems like having units out in the open will not be an option, or not a good one with 4x.
I'd prefer something in the start-up screen. I've gotten used to the randomness.

Do you mean you've gotten used to the weight of numbers vs quality approach? The new system will go a long way to reducing the effectiveness of archer and horseman rushes, and will make having a smaller, elite army a viable option. It will probably lead to combined armies as having a few good defensive units of your own alongside those archers will keep them much safer from stuff like enemy warriors and chariots.

[Rommel2D]

Who's to say there won't be an outcry about the lack of streakiness and random fun in the game that exceeds current complaints about unpredictability? Maybe the beta will display this, but I think playtesters are likely to be biased toward predictability. 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?

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'.

[Tiberius]

Hmm, I can see now that the 4-roll combat produces some extreme results. As much as would like to see less randomness in battle, that seems a bit extreme.

I like that units that units that have high chances to win will win, but it's not good that otherwise close battles would change so drastically.

I'd like to see some 2-rolls tests, especially horse vs. spear, sword vs. fortified spear with terrain bonuses; or MI vs. fortified pike. Basically those battles that take places most often in civ games.

Basicaly it's absurd to lose a battle that you had 90% chances to win and a 2 roll system would correct that most of the time, while not influencing too much a close battle's result. Or so I think.