Warrior, Archer, Spearman Screens using 4roll combat

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Catt


Nice post. One of the first from the "the change makes sense" view that strikes me as really taking the "balance" issue head-on. Also highlights, I think, that the 4-roll-combat proposal could very well deserve a different analysis depending on MP or SP play. I don't play MP and can't comment on whether I think 4-roll-combat would be an improvement or degradation of play, though I feel pretty confident that for SP it would be a degradation.

Yep, I also meant to congratulate Andy on his post - It really was a good one but I got caught up in combat examples. I did earlier allude to the 'combined arms' approach that Andy has elaborated on here, and I think that it would be brilliant for the game.

@Jeem - your examples of archers versus pikes are interesting. And they make an interesting case that current combat is too random. I don't believe that it is, but clearly the optimal spot on the scale between absolutely random and absolutely determinative is subject to widespread debate and opinion.

Of course it is. However, I think we can all agree that the difference between capturing the city for the loss of 1 archer, then having all 12 archers wiped out next combat is just a bit beyond reasonable expectation.

Vmxa alluded to what would be better in his last post - the middle run of 8,7,8,6 dead archers is what *should* probably happen in the vast majority of cases. It's the 'abberrations' that detract from the system currently. Example's 1 and 2 of my test are both 'aberrations' at opposite ends of the spectrum. I don't want to see the chance of them happening dissapear completely, but I would like to see them happen a bit less than they do now. Both those results should only happen 1 in 50 combats, not 1 in 5 as it seems to be now.

But even assuming that one could conclude that the current implementation is too random, how does decreasing the degree of randomness via 4-roll-combat add to game balance? Does it strengthen balance or just reduce the frequency of variable outcomes?
Catt

It's all about finding a happy medium. Right now, I reckon it's skewed too far in favour of random results. I can't do anymore than show the results of the tests I've run - if anyone thinks that's ok then it's a fundamentally different way from what I think and there's no point arguing about it. Firaxis seem to think that the randomness is too much also. However, Jesse's 4 rolls showed that it'll go too far towards predictability. I don't particulary want that either.

My first post in this thread still has what I believe to be the best way to go ahead with this. 2 rolls with 3-victory experience gains, or 3 rolls with 4-victory experience gains. At the time that was just an educated guess but with every thread and example I'm beginning to think I might just have been spot on with that.

It's not a massive swing in favour of the better (mathematically) unit that is required, but a small swing in favour of winning each round, countered by a smaller swing in gaining experience. I actually think that the experience gains should be lesser on the side of the 'better' troop anyway. A tank beating two spearmen would not gain any experience worth squat.

Another idea I had was that the weaker unit would gain a special bonus (call it 'impetus') if it won a round of combat. Basically, if the weaker unit won a round of combat, then they'd get +10% bonus for the next round (not cumulative, so no 10% + 10% + 10% etc.). This would help keep a random factor in what would normally be a predictable outcome - nothing like what we have now, but still enough to swing the combats that are close enough that they *could* sometimes fall in favour of the 'weaker' unit.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Jeem

However, I think we can all agree that the difference between capturing the city for the loss of 1 archer, then having all 12 archers wiped out next combat is just a bit beyond reasonable expectation.

[. . .]

It's all about finding a happy medium. Right now, I reckon it's skewed too far in favour of random results. I can't do anymore than show the results of the tests I've run - if anyone thinks that's ok then it's a fundamentally different way from what I think and there's no point arguing about it.

I hear you - but I'm not sure I made my own question clear. Let's assume for the sake of argument that, looking at combat results only, the present version is too random, and produces wildly different outcomes in comparable battles too frequently. Let's further assume that your two examples that followed (2-roll, slower promotion or 3-roll, slower-still promotion) could be implemented.

How then would the acknowledged change in combat (greater losses for the lower-powered unit) add to or detract from game balance? Put another way, if the primary result of the change is to require more archers to take down pikes (or pick any example of disparate A + D values), how does that enhance game balance? It could certainly enhance predictability of battle outcomes, but what would be the other likely affects (looking at the game as a whole, beyond just combat), and overall how would game balance be affected?

Catt

[Jaybe]

... However, I think we can all agree that the difference between capturing the city for the loss of 1 archer, then having all 12 archers wiped out next combat is just a bit beyond reasonable expectation.

I take exception to this! As any decent military historian (which I am not) could give multiple examples of, it is NOT an unreasonable expectation. A military commander's flash of genius/stupidity, or incorrect intelligence could easily provide for such disparity.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Jaybe

Quote:

... However, I think we can all agree that the difference between capturing the city for the loss of 1 archer, then having all 12 archers wiped out next combat is just a bit beyond reasonable expectation.

I take exception to this! As any decent military historian (which I am not) could give multiple examples of, it is NOT an unreasonable expectation. A military commander's flash of genius/stupidity, or incorrect intelligence could easily provide for such disparity.

Well, we don't have any control over that in the game so it's a pretty moot point.

And any military historian could not give multiple examples of it at any rate. Possibly the only battle in history which all military historians agree *did not* go to the odds was Waterloo. A combination of entirely unlikely events led us to Napoleons defeat. Good job, because we'd all be speaking French! Napolean was the greatest general in history, barring possibly Alexander the Great. He didn't make mistakes like that.

I also don't make mistakes like what you are suggesting, and I take exception to what you are suggesting. Any good general first weighs up the odds before deciding on his next course of action. I am not a 'military historian' but I do know enough about it that I can make statements. I am also a fairly decent Warhammer player and I didn't get that way through basing my tactics on luck. Every great general in history was a control freak, like myself. There was too much at stake (for example - one's life), to leave it up to the Gods of chance. Just about every ancient battle ever fought had an aggressor vs a defender who didn't particularly want to be fighting, but had no choice.

If Napolean played Civ3 in 'real life' he would not 12-archer rush a city defended by 3 pikemen, fortified and behind walls because the 1 in 5 chance of losing would be too high for him. Do me a favour and don't bring up military history because I'd hate to bore everyone to tears on my views on it.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Catt


I hear you - but I'm not sure I made my own question clear. Let's assume for the sake of argument that, looking at combat results only, the present version is too random, and produces wildly different outcomes in comparable battles too frequently. Let's further assume that your two examples that followed (2-roll, slower promotion or 3-roll, slower-still promotion) could be implemented.

How then would the acknowledged change in combat (greater losses for the lower-powered unit) add to or detract from game balance? Put another way, if the primary result of the change is to require more archers to take down pikes (or pick any example of disparate A + D values), how does that enhance game balance? It could certainly enhance predictability of battle outcomes, but what would be the other likely affects (looking at the game as a whole, beyond just combat), and overall how would game balance be affected?

Catt

Catt - I think what bugs most people is that their 'expectations' of what *should* happen frequently don't. This thread is a good example - a lot of players assumed that attacking 3 pike behind walls with 12 archers would be a foolish thing to do. That's partly because the whole idea of it is absurd to anyone who knows anything about ancient warfare, and also due to the A/D/M numbers which to be honest, often don't add up.

As to the overall game balancing effects, I honestly don't know. Looking at Conquests, it seems obvious to me that the AI has been changed in order to favour early horseman rushes - I'm certainly seeing a lot more than I used to. Unfortunately, I believe that the AI has been changed based on what is already known to be effective - for example early archer and horse rushes. With a new combat system based on old values of what was a viable tactic, this could obviously lead the AI to be pretty rubbish.

I do see your point, completely. However, we have one thing at our disposal that hasn't been mentioned, and that is difficulty levels. If the AI somehow isn't quite so hot with these changes, you get the chance to impress us by playing Sid and then taking on the flawed AI with mega-cheats.

If it's proven to be a bad idea, it can always be changed back next patch. Firaxis will listen to us, because they know that *we* know the game better than they do and aren't deluding themselves that just because they designed the game, they know better than players who spend every waking minute of their lives playing it.

I think we should give it a go. At worst the new patch will fix the trade and FP bugs and introduce a combat system that the AI can't cope with currently. Or maybe the AI will cope just fine, and everything will seem better. The important thing is that if it doesn't work, it will be fixed back - of that we can be sure of. Having spent the last 9 months bemoaning the lack of support and patches for Moo3 (don't get me started on that, please ), I think some here might be not realise just how good Firaxis are at this sort of thing.

The actual combat code isn't being changed remember - just the number of times that it's run through. That's a simple loop that can be removed if it proves to be broken.

[notyoueither]

You are entirely incorrect in your conclusions about military history.

By the odds, there have been many examples of unlikely results. The 'streak' of the German Panzers through the Low Countries and France in 1940 is a good case of that. On paper and in the field the French were capable of much better than they put up. However, they were terribly let down by severe incompetence at the top in military command. The CinC was holed up in a castle with no radios, and the nearest phone being a distance away, if that gives you an idea.

So, yes, let's not go there. Suffice to say that miltary history is replete with examples of unlikely results.

btw, I don't think he was taking a shot at you the player. I think he was mentioning that you the player cannot be everywhere, and sometimes you must trust your Grouchy to prevail or fail. Unfortunately, for Napoleon, Grouchy was a dismal failure at a critical point, yes?

[Kuciwalker]

Another idea I had was that the weaker unit would gain a special bonus (call it 'impetus') if it won a round of combat. Basically, if the weaker unit won a round of combat, then they'd get +10% bonus for the next round (not cumulative, so no 10% + 10% + 10% etc.). This would help keep a random factor in what would normally be a predictable outcome - nothing like what we have now, but still enough to swing the combats that are close enough that they *could* sometimes fall in favour of the 'weaker' unit.

Now you're just begging for streakiness. Streakiness is the only possible result of this.

[Jaguar]

I agree with skywalker.

[vulture]

Originally posted by Jeem


Vmxa alluded to what would be better in his last post - the middle run of 8,7,8,6 dead archers is what *should* probably happen in the vast majority of cases. It's the 'abberrations' that detract from the system currently. Example's 1 and 2 of my test are both 'aberrations' at opposite ends of the spectrum. I don't want to see the chance of them happening dissapear completely, but I would like to see them happen a bit less than they do now. Both those results should only happen 1 in 50 combats, not 1 in 5 as it seems to be now.

fx: vulture gets out the stack combat calculator.

12 veteran archers vs 12 fortified veteran pikes in a city (5.55 defence).
Probability of taking the city and losing just 1 archer: 0.5% - that's 1 in 200, not 1 in 50, or even 1 in 5.
Probability of capturing city: 61.6%
Probability of all 3 pikes surviving 8.5%
The taking the city with 1 dead archer certainly was an aberration - a 1 in 200 shot, so you were quite lucky/unlucky to have it turn up like that. That's life.

Average losses: 8.1 archers, 2.3 pikes, 10.9% chance of defender getting a great leader (assuming non-militaristic).

With 4 pikes defending, you'd expect to capture the city 23.5% of the time (with 9.6 average archers losses, 2.0 average pike losses).

That's all broadly consistent with your numbers.

With 4 roll combat the chance of taking the city vs 3 pikes is somewhere less than 0.001% BTW - 99.76% chance that all 3 pikes survive.

[Antrine]

A predictable game is a boring game.

Predictable combat is a math exercise not a simulation of history. I want to lose when I do not expect to and only win when I can attribute it to my genius. I will keep the luck carefully disquised. Many thanks, the combat system is just fine, let us concentrate on 'fixing' something else.

Like AI's use of Armies, siege units and all use of combined arms for that matter. Attack my Armies with those heaps of stacks! Have the AI build and man fortresses on high and in rows! Let's see some thoughtful defense here so I can have more fun taking it out!
Again Many thanks.

[DrSpike]

Catt and Jeem:

I mostly agree with Catt on this.........but I think there is a neat way to reconcile some of your differences. Jeem doesn't like early military rushes, which he feels dominate the game. But averaging doesn't necessarily help the defender (though this is true at several points in the game), just the better unit in terms of A for the attacking unit versus D for the defender.

So Jeem, if we impose the 'predictability' you want what happens to early swordsman rushes? It's a loooooong way till pikes. By advocating greater predictability so that defence can be about quality you actually encourage mass swordsman rushes. The only real defence would be counterattack!

What is more just in this era we can see that the game has actually been put further into a straitjacket, something you have complained about currently. Essentially iron in the first age would be crucial. No real chance any more that horsemen are balanced with swords, yet if nothing else changes they are both 30 shields.

And that's just one example. The whole game is balanced around the existing combat model in a way you might not appreciate until that balance has gone.

[Tall Stranger]

Jeem, you are rapidly losing credibility in my book.

First, you claim that "there must be some combat bonus for the AI" at the Emp and higher levels, despite the fact that no such bonus exists in the editor and statements from Firaxis denying such a bonus. (You have since retracted that claim.)

Next, you made (and continue to make) the claim that because "Firaxis knows that early era combat is too random" they are considering a four-roll combat system. Catt has disproven this, pointing out that the reason Firaxis is considering this is to calm down those who are complaining about the so-called "spearman kills tank" problem. Despite being told this, you continue to insist that Firaxis "agrees" with the problem you believe (wrongly, in my view) to exist.

You also resorted to attacking people's motives for opposing the 4-roll idea, claiming that they must have "ulterior motives" for disagreeing with it, despite the well-reasoned concerns expressed by people with a long history of trying to improve the game. Instead, you tell them that they need to adjust THEIR strategies, rather than you adjusting yours. Catt (and others) rightly called you on it, but I have yet to see an apology.

You throw out scenarios that no one even considers plausible. When was the last time ANY sane player threw a bunch of archers against musketmen? Yet you insist that "we all know that archers can rush through spears, pikes and muskets with similar level of ease." Simply not true.

You did all of 10 runs of your scenario of 3 vet pikes in a city vs. 12 vet archers. I would point out that that's nowhere near enough to be considered statistically significant. Vulture's use of the combat calculator is much more valuable and indicates how likely your outcomes were. Based on the numbers, then, what's the basis of your complaint, other than having been exposed to a bad string of luck?

I'm not even going to go into your views on military history, other than to say that anyone who thinks chance doesn't play a major role in the outcome of a battle is woefully ill-informed.

[Slax]

Under the 4 roll system, might a single attacker with a slightly larger attack than city defender defence remain unscathed turn after turn, plucking off unit after unit in the city?

I am not sure of this scenario myself, but I am concerned with the good health (hp) of the stronger unit remaining after the battle. Is this a factor as well?

[vulture]

I don't know about a "slightly larger attack than city defender defence" - close fights aren't affected that much, but the further you get away from a 50-50 fight, the more the attackers advantage is multiplied. A knight attacking a fortified spearman in a town (2.7 defense) wins 66% of the time normally, or 87% under 4-roll combat. It's chance of winning without losing a hp have gone up, but not vastly so. If you make it a cavalry (or beserk) on the attack, the normal winning chance is 82%, but this jumps to 99% under the 4-roll method, and you're probably now very likely not to lose a hitpoint.

It's not a massive effect in that close fights don't become automatic massacres, but it is large enough to put a big dent in the effectiveness of some units.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger
Jeem, you are rapidly losing credibility in my book.

Thanks! You started with none in my book!

First, you claim that "there must be some combat bonus for the AI" at the Emp and higher levels, despite the fact that no such bonus exists in the editor and statements from Firaxis denying such a bonus. (You have since retracted that claim.)

There is a very, very simple reason for why many players think the AI cheats in combat at higher levels. If you've read through this thread, it should be obvious.

Next, you made (and continue to make) the claim that because "Firaxis knows that early era combat is too random" they are considering a four-roll combat system. Catt has disproven this, pointing out that the reason Firaxis is considering this is to calm down those who are complaining about the so-called "spearman kills tank" problem. Despite being told this, you continue to insist that Firaxis "agrees" with the problem you believe (wrongly, in my view) to exist.

If this was about spearmen killing tanks, why didn't Jesse use that as an example? Hmmm?

You also resorted to attacking people's motives for opposing the 4-roll idea, claiming that they must have "ulterior motives" for disagreeing with it, despite the well-reasoned concerns expressed by people with a long history of trying to improve the game. Instead, you tell them that they need to adjust THEIR strategies, rather than you adjusting yours. Catt (and others) rightly called you on it, but I have yet to see an apology.

I see no need for an apology because I stand by my statement. I didn't name names. Some people ARE so set against the 4-roll change because they've got used to the randomness factor, and they know they'll have to change their style of play. Let's be quite clear here - Firaxis are looking to change this - not me. It will suit me because I prefer a defensive style game. It will not suit others who prefer attacking style games.

If players continue to shoot down the arguments for changing the combat, I'll just continue to shoot down theirs. There is a clash of interests here, and mine are no less important than anyone else's.

You throw out scenarios that no one even considers plausible. When was the last time ANY sane player threw a bunch of archers against musketmen? Yet you insist that "we all know that archers can rush through spears, pikes and muskets with similar level of ease." Simply not true.

It all depends on how many archers you use. If you use enough, you'll eventually win against 3 fortified Mech Inf on a mountain. It seems to me like a lot of 'sane' players thought archers would have no chance against fortified pikes. I don't see any of them retracting their statements or apologising, do you? As I don't need apologies, I'm not looking for any.

You did all of 10 runs of your scenario of 3 vet pikes in a city vs. 12 vet archers. I would point out that that's nowhere near enough to be considered statistically significant.

How many times did I mention it was only a 'small example'? The only claims I made on that was that the randomness was there for all to see.

Based on the numbers, then, what's the basis of your complaint, other than having been exposed to a bad string of luck?

Try reading the thread and you'll figure it out.

I'm not even going to go into your views on military history, other than to say that anyone who thinks chance doesn't play a major role in the outcome of a battle is woefully ill-informed.

You are so wrong. WW1 was fought entirely on mathematical principles. This is where we got the phrase and concept of 'battle of attrition' from.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by vulture


fx: vulture gets out the stack combat calculator.

12 veteran archers vs 12 fortified veteran pikes in a city (5.55 defence).
Probability of taking the city and losing just 1 archer: 0.5% - that's 1 in 200, not 1 in 50, or even 1 in 5.
Probability of capturing city: 61.6%
Probability of all 3 pikes surviving 8.5%
The taking the city with 1 dead archer certainly was an aberration - a 1 in 200 shot, so you were quite lucky/unlucky to have it turn up like that. That's life.

Vulture - I didn't fortify the pikes so the defence was only 4.8. I did fortify them with the 4 pike example though.

Remember that your defensive units aren't always going to be fortified - for example when you've upgraded them the turn before they are about to be attacked.

Average losses: 8.1 archers, 2.3 pikes, 10.9% chance of defender getting a great leader (assuming non-militaristic).

With 4 pikes defending, you'd expect to capture the city 23.5% of the time (with 9.6 average archers losses, 2.0 average pike losses).

That's all broadly consistent with your numbers.

With 4 roll combat the chance of taking the city vs 3 pikes is somewhere less than 0.001% BTW - 99.76% chance that all 3 pikes survive.

Is this 4-roll, taking the highest or 4-roll taking the average? Whatever, I fully agree that 4-rolls is way too much.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Another idea I had was that the weaker unit would gain a special bonus (call it 'impetus') if it won a round of combat. Basically, if the weaker unit won a round of combat, then they'd get +10% bonus for the next round (not cumulative, so no 10% + 10% + 10% etc.). This would help keep a random factor in what would normally be a predictable outcome - nothing like what we have now, but still enough to swing the combats that are close enough that they *could* sometimes fall in favour of the 'weaker' unit.

Now you're just begging for streakiness. Streakiness is the only possible result of this.

If the number is low enough, the chances of it having a major impact are small. The weaker unit first has to win a round, and only then does it get 10% for the next round. If the 10% bonus made it stronger overall, then the other unit becomes the 'weaker' unit and would get the 10% bonus if it won the next round. It's just adding a small random factor in order to help retain some interest, and was only a passing idea I had.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Jeem, if we impose the 'predictability' you want what happens to early swordsman rushes? It's a loooooong way till pikes. By advocating greater predictability so that defence can be about quality you actually encourage mass swordsman rushes. The only real defence would be counterattack!

Not really - if the combat system favours the stronger unit, then Walls and terrain still make Spearmen a good bet against Swords. 3A vs minimum 3.2D!

So, it would force the defending player to build more walls in order to retain the advantage. This is fine to a builder player, as walls are buildings too. (and more importantly, require no upkeep)

What is more just in this era we can see that the game has actually been put further into a straitjacket, something you have complained about currently. Essentially iron in the first age would be crucial. No real chance any more that horsemen are balanced with swords, yet if nothing else changes they are both 30 shields.

Horsemen still get the advantage of withdrawing from losing fights though - this could be HUGE with the new system in place. As I and others have alluded to, more likely a 'combined arms' approach would be required in order to take cities. Horsemen could take down a few hitpoints and run away, catapults could take one down, and then the Swordsmen finish the defenders off. That sounds like a game I'd like to play, wouldn't you?

And that's just one example. The whole game is balanced around the existing combat model in a way you might not appreciate until that balance has gone.

For sure the AI could struggle with it at first, but at least MP games would have got far more interesting. Firaxis have rarely got it badly wrong in the past, so I think we should give them the benefit of doubt this time.

Obviously, the change will not be in this patch, but if they spend a bit of time on it there is no reason why it couldn't be workable in the next one.

[Kuciwalker]

Jeem, now you're just being stupid. You are denying plain facts. Please shut up or go to the OTF.

[DrSpike]

Now now, he is promoting discussion, so even if he is wrong he should stay here.

[Tiberius]

So now those who think that the current system is too random and would like to see some kind of change are stupid?

[korn469]

I agree that the current system is too random, but you don't have to change everything to fix that, simply increasing hitpoints works well enough

i think that vulture points out a common flaw many of us have, and that is we don't know the real odds before we rush to judgement on what should happen in a combat, and when our perceptions don't agree with reality we blame it on the game instead of on our perceptions

[Jeem]

Originally posted by skywalker
Jeem, now you're just being stupid. You are denying plain facts. Please shut up or go to the OTF.

Let me here YOUR suggestions then, or YOU shut up. Your entire contribution to this thread is what exactly?

Exactly.

There is no point in burying your head in the sand. It is pretty clear that Firaxis are looking to change the combat system. Instead of worrying about how it might affect balance, I suggest some players come up with their own ideas about how to make it better. I've been trying only to be harrassed at every opportunity by people who aren't even contributing to the actual discussion.

The status quo is not an option. This is not going to go away. Units and traits have already been changed in Conquests and so far they don't seem to have broken the game. How are the Carths coping now that they have lost commercial for seafaring? Has the Carthaginian AI broken down beyond all control? No.

The combat is no longer satisfactory. It's randomness leads to strange results too often. That is what I glean from the comments and examples by Firaxians. You can pretend all you like that this is about Tanks vs Spearmen but it's really about finding a random generator that isn't quite so random, thereby making the A/D stats more important.

[korn469]

The combat is no longer satisfactory. It's randomness leads to strange results too often. That is what I glean from the comments and examples by Firaxians. You can pretend all you like that this is about Tanks vs Spearmen but it's really about finding a random generator that isn't quite so random, thereby making the A/D stats more important.

then increase hitpoints, MANY of the modders including myself have done this with satisfactory results

[Jeem]

Originally posted by korn469


then increase hitpoints, MANY of the modders including myself have done this with satisfactory results

I'm sure it is a lot better, but Firaxis don't seem to want to go that way for whatever reason. Have you asked them why?

I'd happily go for a change in hp's. Anything that will balance the game a bit better gets my vote.

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by Jeem

There is no point in burying your head in the sand. It is pretty clear that Firaxis are looking to change the combat system. Instead of worrying about how it might affect balance, I suggest some players come up with their own ideas about how to make it better. I've been trying only to be harrassed at every opportunity by people who aren't even contributing to the actual discussion.

Nonsense. You present your opinions as fact, and then get upset when people a) point out your mistakes or b) suggest that the changes you favor are foolish and unnecessary. You are mistaking criticism for harrassment.

The fundamental point is that BALANCE MATTERS. It is entirely appropriate to "worry about how it might affect balance." The reality is that the changes you want to see will make your style of play (defensive, builder) more effective/ easier. It will demonstrably hurt other styles of play, particularly warmongering. The best part of Civ is that it allows people to win, at any level, the way they want. That balance needs to remain.

The status quo is not an option. This is not going to go away. Units and traits have already been changed in Conquests and so far they don't seem to have broken the game. How are the Carths coping now that they have lost commercial for seafaring? Has the Carthaginian AI broken down beyond all control? No.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Changing the traits of a civ is nothing compared to fundamentally changing a major element of the game, combat.

The combat is no longer satisfactory. It's randomness leads to strange results too often. That is what I glean from the comments and examples by Firaxians. You can pretend all you like that this is about Tanks vs Spearmen but it's really about finding a random generator that isn't quite so random, thereby making the A/D stats more important.

Once again, you need to prove that statement. If there is a problem with the RNG generator, prove it. Run several hundred of the scenarios you developed and see if the results are what should be expected based on the A/D ratio. IF you can prove that RNG generator is screwy, I'll wholely support a fix from Firaxis. Until then, you're just whining.

[Aeson]

I think most of the player's aversion for taking a stack of 12 Archers up to a city is that in most cases, it is foolhardy. Not because the 3 Pikes, but because anyone with Pikes should also have Swords, Horses, and likely Knights, that will completely destroy such an attacking force before it has any chance to threaten the city. Even with 0 range bombardment. 3 Vet Warriors (or some other less valuable unit) can take the whole brunt in MP, leaving a stack of 1 defense units for killing. In SP it's not enough to help a 1 defense unit survive under those conditions. The first thing that entered my mind when reading this analogy was 12 free shots at leaders! And that's how it should play out.

If Swords and Horses become rather obsolete, the player is going to be forced more and more to a broken bombardment system, and the AI is going to become even more incompetent because the only units it uses with any efficiency are attacking units like Swords and Horses. Combined arms are the most effective (or I should say, efficient) path already, but Legions of Swords, or Hordes of Horses, can still be effective, and offer variation on viable playstyle.

The 0 range bombardment on Archers really helped the AI. Finally it got some use out of their large numbers of Archers and Longbows rather than just building them as Leader fodder for the player. Most everyone welcomed it even though it changed combat to be slightly more difficult for the player. This is because it opened up new roles for a unit which became obsolete a long time before it could be upgraded (to a rather inneffective unit itself). No longer is an Archer only good for an early rush, it also serves a purpose as a defender.

The only problem I see with the current system is for those players who do not play variable styles of play, but rather pigeonhole themselves into a single less effective (in various circumstances) playstyle. If you want to park 3 Pikes in your city and feel safe every game, support those 3 Pikes with some offense capable units. It is possible to play a peaceful, defensive game and beat the AI on Deity. In most cases it's the surefire way of winning (Spaceship or Diplomatic). You just can't ignore the rest of the world (or the 12 Archers coming up to your city ).

Currently there are many ways to play effectively, averaged results will only diminish the options for the player.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Aeson
I think most of the player's aversion for taking a stack of 12 Archers up to a city is that in most cases, it is foolhardy. Not because the 3 Pikes, but because anyone with Pikes should also have Swords, Horses, and likely Knights, that will completely destroy such an attacking force before it has any chance to threaten the city. Even with 0 range bombardment. 3 Vet Warriors (or some other less valuable unit) can take the whole brunt in MP, leaving a stack of 1 defense units for killing. In SP it's not enough to help a 1 defense unit survive under those conditions. The first thing that entered my mind when reading this analogy was 12 free shots at leaders! And that's how it should play out.

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Very difficult to even get that army in range of a city. And even if you managed to capture the city, what are you going to do? Unless you have a hundred archers lying around, you've probably lost most of your army over one city, which is rarely worth it. And where there are pikes, there are medieval infantry close by which will easily retake the city.

If you're the one doing the archer assault, you've either lost the game already, extremely ballsy and reckless, or both.

[Catt]

Look, maybe all the disagreement really does come because we’re all talking past each for the most part.

A strategy game is engaging because it presents the player with a whole series of interesting choices. The level of player engagement and enjoyment depends on both the number and the quality of interesting choices which might be termed the degree of “balance” the game offers – if you take away interesting choices by, among other things, making much more clear which is the better choice among competing options, you are degrading the pre-existing balance, just as if you add more interesting choices by, among other things, making less clear which is the better choice among competing options, you are increasing pre-existing balance.

My own view, and to my eyes the view of most who came out strongly against 4-roll-combat, arises from the opinion that the proposed system would unbalance the game as a whole, putting aside any discrete changes to the combat system viewed in isolation. It is not at all incongruous to argue that more determinative combat outcomes would greatly enhance the Civ 3 combat experience but that such changes would greatly degrade the overall game experience. Opposition to the 4-roll-combat does not equate to opposition to more determinative combat results.

Put another way – in a game as complex as Civ 3, focusing all discussion solely on the effect of proposed changes to combat is missing the larger picture. Combat is but one aspect of the game. We could offer up all sorts of changes to combat that might represent an improvement on the present system depending on personal preferences, but if looked at in isolation, they could fundamentally change the game in ways both good and bad.

And so I am left with when I see comments such as:

Originally posted by Jeem
Right now, I reckon it's skewed too far in favour of random results. I can't do anymore than show the results of the tests I've run - if anyone thinks that's ok then it's a fundamentally different way from what I think and there's no point arguing about it. Firaxis seem to think that the randomness is too much also. However, Jesse's 4 rolls showed that it'll go too far towards predictability. I don't particularly want that either.

I think what bugs most people is that their 'expectations' of what *should* happen frequently don't.

The above may be absolutely accurate and true. It may be divine truth straight from the mouth of God. There may now, as we speak, be a cult forming to worship the principles expressed above. But it does not address the fundamental issue of the effect of such principles: how will the overall game experience be affected?

Originally posted by Catt (emphasis added)
[H]ow does [more determinative combat outcomes] enhance game balance? It could certainly enhance predictability of battle outcomes, but what would be the other likely affects (looking at the game as a whole, beyond just combat), and overall how would game balance be affected?

Originally posted by DrSpike
And that's just one example. The whole game is balanced around the existing combat model in a way you might not appreciate until that balance has gone.

Orginally posted by Aeson
The only problem I see with the current system is for those players who do not play variable styles of play, but rather pigeonhole themselves into a single less effective (in various circumstances) playstyle.

[. . .]

Currently there are many ways to play effectively, averaged results will only diminish the options for the player.

Such expressed concerns or opinions are almost never answered with a counter-argument or a different argument relating to game balance. At best, they produce somehting akin to Andydog's post, or at slightly less best a:

As to the overall game balancing effects, I honestly don't know.

At worst, they are answered with responses focused on combat outcomes only, as if combat outcome is a discrete event within the game without interconnected effects in other aspects of the game.

So long as you focus only on combat outcomes, and I and others focus on overall game balance effects, we’re discussing two entirely different things (and really talking to ourselves).

Catt

[Catt]

As to some of the ancillary points made in the discussion . . .

Originally posted by Jeem
However, we have one thing at our disposal that hasn't been mentioned, and that is difficulty levels. If the AI somehow isn't quite so hot with these changes, you get the chance to impress us by playing Sid and then taking on the flawed AI with mega-cheats.

Not sure how many times this needs to be said, but I and others on the “no 4-roll-combat” side of the ledger are not interested in making the game easier or harder, nor in impressing others with our wins. I and most others are interested in seeing an engaging and balanced game, and our opinions are almost uniformly based on arguments relating to game balance. Why does “making the game easier” or “making it harder” seem to keep popping up every so often?

It will suit me because I prefer a defensive style game. It will not suit others who prefer attacking style games.

If it is true that the change would suit a defensive-style game more than an attacking-style game, that would seem to quite clearly indicate that balance has not been reached between choosing a defensive-style or an offensive-style. Why is that a good thing?

If this was about spearmen killing tanks, why didn't Jesse use that as an example? Hmmm?

Because the developers thought that they were elegantly addressing the spearman-tank issue (an dindeed described this in the Read Me). Then they saw the math and examples given on the forums. Then they saw the in-game hypotheticals derived from the math. Then it dawned on them that the supposedly elegant solution to spearman-tank might have some unintended consequences in other spheres of the game. Then they decided to test some of the posted hypotheticals (mainly focusing on the ancient age) to see if the forum posters might be on to something that they had overlooked (i.e., those unintended consequences). Then they posted the examples, and noted there conclusion that the Ancient Ange would need significant rebalancing, to explain why the hard-coded 4-roll-combat was being pulled from the patch in favor of a later-introduced optional and configurable combat system change.

If players continue to shoot down the arguments for changing the combat, I'll just continue to shoot down theirs. There is a clash of interests here, and mine are no less important than anyone else's.

You may not agree with my post directly above, but I think you’re arguing for something entirely different and not shooting down any arguments. You’re arguing for less random combat outcomes. Others are arguing for no changes that unbalance the game as a whole. If there were proposed a whole series of game changes that incorporated less random combat outcomes and maintained or enhanced overall game balance, there might not be an argument at all.

It seems to me like a lot of 'sane' players thought archers would have no chance against fortified pikes.

Who?

I only saw people expressing the view that attacking fortified pikes in towns behind walls with a stack of archers will not usually be the wisest tactical move. Did anyone argue that there was no chance? Your example might be valuable in demonstrating the variability of overall combat outcomes, but it certainly wasn’t (I hope ) an argument that the move was a good gameplay tactic in most cases.

Catt