1.29 and PTW: Closer but still not great - Page 3

vondrack · July 19, 2002, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by IthacaMike
No, he is close to right. The swordsman could win the first two rounds and then lose three in a row (3/4*3/4*1/4*1/4*1/4) or the swordsman could lose win one and then lose the next three, or...

I just ran a sim and it looks like the defending archer should win about 1 time in 10 (swordsman won 90.8% of the time in my sim).

Mike, the exact formula is several posts above (actually, two versions of it - one by me, another one by Excelsior). It is a little bit more complicated, as there are various combinations of which rounds can be won by the swordsman...

Excelsior84 · July 19, 2002, 13:17

I think you came a little late to the discussion.

If you look, you'll see we've already determined how to assess the probability mathematically. It came out to 106/1024, or approx. 10.35%.

EDIT: Ah, vondrack beat me to it.

Jawn Henry · July 19, 2002, 15:36

Like i said elsewhere, part of the disappointment is likely because you expected Civ3 to be an improved Civ2, which it isn't. It's a whole new game (as has been said). It looks like Civ2, even has a very similar name, but under the hood, it's quite different. To be honest, i, like you, don't much like this "wierdness" in combat, but i just learned that one just has to adjust the hit points. (How many units are there...)

I guess the next step, for Civ4, is to add some subroutine to make sure that, for example, Triremes can't defeat BBs, ever. Face it: even a very damaged battleship, with no main guns or secondaries working can fend off the Trireme with just the MGs in the ship's lockers, and the 20 and 40 mm AA guns (assuming a WW2 configuration). Some stupid results shouldn't be allowed.

Or maybe i'm just too crazy

JH

N. Machiavelli · July 19, 2002, 17:16

Not crazy. But according to the local "Unit-temporal-portal-not-really-what-it-looks-like" Theory (TM), that Trireme isn't really a trireme. No, it's really a fishing boat loaded with explosives smuggled in that's going to kamikaze against your battleship. How the Trireme could survive that scenario is anyone's guess.

Carver · July 19, 2002, 17:56

Simple... the trireme has been fitted with a 155mm artillery gun. This gun fires high yeild fuel-air explosives. A fuel air munition could very conceivable sink a damaged battleship and allow the trireme to scoot away.

Coracle · July 19, 2002, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Jawn Henry
. . . part of the disappointment is likely because you expected Civ3 to be an improved Civ2, which it isn't. It's a whole new game (as has been said). It looks like Civ2, even has a very similar name, but under the hood, it's quite different.. . .

Exactly.

Which is why marketing it as "Sid Meier's Civilization III" was fraudulent and deceitful.

It should have been marketed as "Soren Johnson's Culture". But then the bosses at Infogrames wouldn't have made as much money as they did from sales.

vondrack · July 20, 2002, 04:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Exactly.

Which is why marketing it as "Sid Meier's Civilization III" was fraudulent and deceitful.

It should have been marketed as "Soren Johnson's Culture". But then the bosses at Infogrames wouldn't have made as much money as they did from sales.

Eh... if we accept this reasoning, Microsoft would have had to market Windows 95 under a completely different brand, as it was something very different from Win3.1. The same goes for WinNT... they looked like their predecessors, but were fundamentally different.

I bow to Firaxis for how boldly they changed so many concepts in Civ3 (even if some of them need a bit of more work, it is a great basis for Civ4). They actually gave us an almost whole new ("revolutionary") game instead of just a larger ("evolutionary") patch... you can always turn back to Civ2, if it suits your taste better. Just get rid of your Civ3 through eBay or give it to someone you hate and be happy playing the old-fashion Civ you love. Why repeat the same complaints over and over in the forums? Especially if you can see that only few people actually agree with what you say, and the rest considers you just a clown... (changing lots of us from content to amused/happy...

)

What I usually see (in gaming magazines) are complaints about that a sequel is nothing very new... you seem to be dissatisfied with just the opposite...

But then, we all know you are a bit special anyway...

notyoueither · July 20, 2002, 04:18

Show me a save with a BB going down to a gally. Till then STFU.

vondrack · July 20, 2002, 04:27

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Show me a save with a BB going down to a gally. Till then STFU.

nye, that was me telling the story. And it really did happen to me in my last game (sorry, no savegame kept, I keep just the one from 4000 BC and the one 1 turn before the game ends). However, the battleship was battered down to 1hp from previous encounters, while the galley was a veteran one at full health. I did not mean it as an example of stupid combat results, it was just an example of how amusing Civ3 may be (and also an illustration of that one should play it safe, as opposed to what I did - I just thought... man, it is a battleship, even if half dead, it must take that little galley like a piece of cake... it didn't...

just bad luck, no complaints at all).