Patch now available

[woody]

Originally posted by number6
So you think a well trained spearmen can withstand just as much punishment as a well trained tank.

You see, that is the kind of ignorant statement that has led me to believe you will just never understand the combat system. A tank will be a spearman 99.5% of the time. That hardly sounds like the spearman can withstand just as much punishment as the tank.

In my world, a 99.5% chance of victory is pretty good odds. In your world, 99.5% apparently means equal odds. Intriguing. I suggest getting a math tutor, and dropping the whining lessons.

. A tank will be a spearman 99.5% of the time.

Where did you get that statistic? I don't remember seeing anything in the manual that says that.

This is about modern units getting spanked by primitives NOT because the primitives got lucky, but because the programmers stuck in some stupid feature that ARBITRARILY decided that the modern was gonna be spanked.

Originally posted by : Aeson

I don't think you understand how the game decides battles. There is a random number generator, the whole point of an RNG is to have varied results. Without one, there would be no chance in the game, the highest A/D value (with terrain/fortification modifications) would always win. The seed is saved in the save file. When the save game is loaded, it puts the RNG back in the same state as it would have been if you played straight through. It doesn't change the A/D values of your units or give the AI an advantage.

Woody,

I just read this in the "Remarkably predictable random combat.... " thread. The quote above says that combat is not truly based on the attack defense values like you seem to think. So is Aeson wrong? This analysis fits in with what I have been seeing in the game and it would explain why spearmen do manage to kill quite a few tanks for some players. Apparently the combat system is not all based on the A/D values as you have been professing. I can't wait to hear your wisdom on this one.

[woody]

Originally posted by number6
I just read this in the "Remarkably predictable random combat.... " thread. The quote above says that combat is not truly based on the attack defense values like you seem to think. So is Aeson wrong? This analysis fits in with what I have been seeing in the game and it would explain why spearmen do manage to kill quite a few tanks for some players. Apparently the combat system is not all based on the A/D values as you have been professing. I can't wait to hear your wisdom on this one.

I really wish you could think these simple things through for yourself. Saving the random number seed has NOTHING to do with how the combat system uses A/D values to determine outcome.

Yes, if you reload the game and play the same turn again and again, the combat results will always be the same. So what? In case you don't realize this, computers use a pseudo-random number algorithm based off a seed number. Firaxis chose simply not to replace the seed every time you load the game.

The combat system still uses A/D values to determine battle outcome.

Oh, and for the 99.5% value, use a binomial distribution to calculate the odds. Oh, you don't know what that is? Figures. Maybe you should just not comment on stuff you don't understand.

Oh, and for the 99.5% value, use a binomial distribution to calculate the odds. Oh, you don't know what that is? Figures. Maybe you should just not comment on stuff you don't understand.

I am glad to say I don't know what a binomial distribution is. Since you know so much would you care to explain how a binomial distribution works in terms us mere mortals can understand?

[player1]

Originally posted by number6



I am glad to say I don't know what a binomial distribution is. Since you know so much would you care to explain how a binomial distribution works in terms us mere mortals can understand?

Try some of those combat calcuklators (files forums).

P.S.
That 99.5 is tank vs spearmen on open.
Most porblems happen with Tank vs spermen is metropolis, and that's:
2 * (1+1+0.25) = 4.5
16 vs 4.5 is similar to Kinight vs foritified Warrior.

That's a real reson why spermen could (if lucky) beat Tank.

P.P.S.
Hey guys, why not transfer this to another thred. This quiestion is TOTALY off-topic.
It had nothing to do with patch.
Combat is same with 1.07f, 1.16f and 1.17f.


Log off...
player1

[woody]

Originally posted by player1
That 99.5 is tank vs spearmen on open.
Most porblems happen with Tank vs spermen is metropolis, and that's:
2 * (1+1+0.25) = 4.5
16 vs 4.5 is similar to Kinight vs foritified Warrior.

That's a real reson why spermen could (if lucky) beat Tank.

Actually, worst case would be a tank attacking a spearman that is fortified in a metropolis built on a hill across a river. Total defense is modified up to 5.5. That still gives over a 90% chance for the tank. Still pretty good odds, considering everything possible is working against the tank.

The more likely matchup would be tank vs. rifleman. Worst-case then is about a 44% chance for the tank. In that case, though, you really should be bombarding.

Personally, I think most of the A/D values are fairly realistic, and at least they are better balanced for game-play than in Civ2. I think marines and paratroppers may be a bit weak from a game-play perspective.

[bigvic]

I guess I'm in a foul mood. The second patch was installed on friday, caused a crash on saturday. I play a heavily modified game that works fine w/o any patches (both have caused probs). What is the deal about mods and patches again?
Foul mood that I'm in, I noticed that the next patch that will probably cause the program to crash will fix the "can't sink a ship w/ a plane" idiocy. Just thinking about that started irritating me. For generally such a great game it sure feels like I'm playing a beta test version, or something programed by the fine folks at Microsoft that bring us windows. Anyway, the more I play this game, the more lamebrained garbage keeps popping up. How is it possible that they tested this thing? I swear, sometimes it seems like not at all, or worse, testing was done, problems noted, and shoddy product knowingly released.
I read some comments about spearmen killing tanks. Never seen it yet, though can imagine it would be irritating. You gotta rationalize things like that, though. I mean what does a spearman unit in the modern age represent anyway, a bunch of spear toting primitives, or a small, poorly organized second line group of AK-47 toting thugs? At least thats how I see it. What I find more irritating is that the AI seems to cheat more at higher levels instead of play a better game. How many times have I run a thorough spy sweep, found nothing, attacked, then been faced with 30 - 40 primo attack units the next, issueing out of one of his frontline cities? How many games have I been forced to hard charge toward the Great Library because apparantly the AI loves tech trading fairly with itself, but not me?
Yeah, I know, whine whine, boo hoo. But am I the only one here noticing these things? What about the inability of the AI to form coalitions? This bugs me far more than the spearman vs. tank thing. You know, that part of the game where ally 1 declares war on ally 2, who is at war with enemy one, who allies with ally 1, and so on, ad nauseum. Sure its a game, but its supposed to be simulation something, and what, I don't know. I know my history pretty well, and despite some pretty cutthroat periods in early modern Europe, what precedent is there, for large, major powers behaving like this? None, above the level of petty feudal squabbles, and even most of those had more logic than the chaotic, irrational world dogfight cage matches that one witnesses in Civ III. It seems they could have taken a few clues from the nearly flawless and much quicker diplomatic situation of SMAC. At least there you could win a cooperative victory, ask someone to "call off your vendetta against my friend", and do so much quicker. And don't even get me started on that pathetic excuse for a "scenario editor".
I know, stop flaming, but jeez! A few more months of evaluation and playtesting might have made what is, I admit, a remarkable game, a true masterpiece instead of the cobbled together-promising-yet-dissapointing-product-of-lazy-genius that it is.