Why I quit Civ3 again... (Combat) (Rant)

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Action
It's not a matter of difficulty. I love difficult games. I complain all the time about games being too easy.

It's just that when I develop a strategy I'd like to have some reasonable expectation about how my troops will perform. The combat system should be consistent enough that you can develop a strategy other than just build 3x as many guys and swarm them. You should be able to form expectations of how your troops will perform, occasional flukes are fine of course, but they should be occasional.

When the game is this streaky and random the best strategy is to just build an overpowering force and swarm them, since a force that should be able to take a certain objective simply can't be relied upon to do so. This is more of a production strategy than a military strategy. While I realize this is not a war game, no war game would make combat this random, in fact I'd argue that in the short term randomness far outweighs any strategy besides swarming them with huge numbers.

Short version: Too random, not too hard.

I agree with you 100%. Better unit should win the fights. The current combat system does not add strategy, but takes some away.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Action
It's just that when I develop a strategy I'd like to have some reasonable expectation about how my troops will perform. The combat system should be consistent enough that you can develop a strategy other than just build 3x as many guys and swarm them. . . .

Short version: Too random, not too hard.

The combat system is not random, but probabilistic. (The RNG is random.) The laws of probability are well understood and not a mystery. Apply those laws.

If you desire 98% certainty, and to get that you need 3x, then deploy at least 3x. However, if you adapt your strategy, you may find you need less or more depending on the situation. For instance, you could use bombardment (requires patience); or high-technology units (but there is no magic bullet); or pillaging (weaken the enemy); or alliances (let them do the fighting). Then there is always the classic standby -- take a few chances. Courage is the price of Glory.

Real military planners do not have an odds table. (American Cavalry v. Native American Mounted Warrior = 98.64%.) They have to deal with real luck and real uncertainties. (And as Custer proved, Cavalry can too lose to Mounted Warriors.)

[Stuie]

Well, I attacked the Egyptians last night with my crappy archers going against spearmen fortified in towns (some on hills). I was expecting massive losses and attacked one town out of desperation, figuring I'd at least weaken the defenses before some counter attack killed my archers. Low and behold, I took three towns in one turn, killing two spearmen in each, and lost only ONE archer. WTF!?

Then the counter attack came, and my archers defeated three Egyptian archers before one finally succumbed to the onslaught. Then the Egyptians sued for peace, turning over one of their three remaining towns in the process.

So it does indeed swing both ways, but that was the single best run of luck I've had in 14 months of Civ3/PTW.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Better unit should win the fights.

All the time? Wouldn't that be unfair?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


All the time? Wouldn't that be unfair?

Well, I don't know, maybe you can tell me why it's unfair.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

Well, I don't know, maybe you can tell me why it's unfair.

Maybe not unfair, as much as really, really, boring.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by punkbass2000


Maybe not unfair, as much as really, really, boring.

so true, so true. I like it the way it is now much more. makes me think harder while planning an invasion. howitzer rush was so boring after a while, no need to go back to that.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Well, I don't know, maybe you can tell me why it's unfair.

Well, for starters, where is the strategy? There would be absolutely no point to most city defense, because if the offensive units were more powerful they would always win... and worse, if the defensive units were more powerful, you would never be able to take a city.

That's just about the worst idea I've ever heard. If units always won when they were more powerful, you would either have completely useless defenders or cities that were impossible to take.

to that idea.

[Jaybe]

tinyp3nis,
Sigh ...
Better units should not always win the fights because they are trying to simulate real combat units. Real combat units are made up of people. The people are the predominate factor, not the tools (weapons).

People make mistakes, don't get right intelligence, get too full of themselves and disregard an opponent's threat (ESPECIALLY when they are culturally or technologically inferior), communications break down so someone doesn't get their orders on time (if at all).

When one side makes the greater mistakes (and no plan survives enemy contact), they lose. The human element is represented by chance (the RNG).

[Action]

Why is it that you guys simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a combat system somewhere in between the current level of randomness* and a system where the higher tech unit always wins?

Its possible to have a system which weights unit stats more highly than they are currently but still allows for the inferior units to win sometimes.

It's also possible to eliminate the gauranteed howitzer rush at the same time as eliminated the spearman killing a tank.

Setting up the basics of such a system wouldn't be very challenging for Firaxis although of course the fine balancing would be as hard as ever. The basics were laid in Civ 2, for whatever reason they chose to disregard them and go back to a system as simple as in Civ 1. It's perfectly possible to have a firepower system which doesn't make combat a forgone conclusion, and allows civilizations which are one generation behind in military units a chance.

* Yes, it's not truely random, but thats the commonly used word.

[Brizey]

Action:

Civ3 is in between Civ1 and Civ2. Civ1 was really simple.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Action

Its possible to have a system which weights unit stats more highly than they are currently but still allows for the inferior units to win sometimes.

So devise one. All I've seen you do is complain about the current system. How does that help anything?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Action
Why is it that you guys simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a combat system somewhere in between the current level of randomness* and a system where the higher tech unit always wins?

Civ3 is precisely this system. It is not totally random, the random results are stongly influenced by the stronger units.

Civ3 already uses that. Sorry.

Its possible to have a system which weights unit stats more highly than they are currently but still allows for the inferior units to win sometimes.

Yes, that would be the Civ3 system.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Civ3 is precisely this system. It is not totally random, the random results are stongly influenced by the stronger units.

Civ3 already uses that. Sorry.

It hasn't been using that around me.....

[Action]

Sheesh this is getting silly.

I'll spell it out for you.

Imagine that you have a sliding scale, at one end the superior unit always wins, at the other end it's truely random, theres a 50/50 chance either one will win.

Now, at various intervals along the scale you can easily set it up so (putting aside terrain for now) the inferior unit almost never wins or the inferior unit is able to win a good percentage of the time. It's all based around how you design your combat system.

There essentially an unlimited number of potential systems for resolving combat. Each system places a varying weight on luck and a varying weight on unit stats.

For a very simple example, lets say you just rolled a 4 sided die then added your total attack bonus, meanwhile the defender rolled a 4 sided die and added his total defensive bonus. The one with the higher total of roll plus bonus subtracts a hit from his unit. Luck factors in, but the attack/defensive bonuses are more heavily weighted. If you have a +10 attack bonus and your opponent has a +2 defensive bonus, no matter what you roll he won't be able to win. But in circumstances where the units are more evenly matched there is an element of luck.

Now, if you took the same system but used a 20 sided die luck or probability well be more heavily weighted than the bonuses. Even if you had a 10+ total attack bonus and your opponent had a +1 total defense bonus he could win through lucky rolling.

These are extremely simple and extreme examples put in form of dice to make it more understandable, but I hope they show you how luck and stats can be weighted to different extents by the combat resolution formula.

It is my belief that the combat resolution formula for Civ 4 should assign a little more weight to the stats and a little less weight to luck/randomness/probability. So, inferior units winning would be more rare.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Action
Imagine that you have a sliding scale, at one end the superior unit always wins, at the other end it's truely random, theres a 50/50 chance either one will win.

Ok, done. Civ3 is neither of those systems.

Now, at various intervals along the scale you can easily set it up so (putting aside terrain for now) the inferior unit almost never wins or the inferior unit is able to win a good percentage of the time. It's all based around how you design your combat system.

No, it is not. It is based around unit values. You can change the unit values in Civ to either make inferior units win quite often or lose 99.9% of the time.

There essentially an unlimited number of potential systems for resolving combat. Each system places a varying weight on luck and a varying weight on unit stats.

Again, you are confusing a combat system with combat values. Civ3's system can function as anything along that slider of yours, if you change the unit values.

These are extremely simple and extreme examples put in form of dice to make it more understandable, but I hope they show you how luck and stats can be weighted to different extents by the combat resolution formula.

And Civ3 can do this. What's your point?

It is my belief that the combat resolution formula for Civ 4 should assign a little more weight to the stats and a little less weight to luck/randomness/probability. So, inferior units winning would be more rare.

You don't need to wait for Civ4. Just mod the ADM and hit point values and you're done.

[Tattila the Hun]

Get artillery! Artillery rules!

[notyoueither]

That is purely a brutal string of bad results.

I have had a few bad runs. I had to buy a new mouse once.

However, randomness aside, the game does reward the better prepared and the better planner. I think the strategy forum is full of that.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


so true, so true. I like it the way it is now much more. makes me think harder while planning an invasion. howitzer rush was so boring after a while, no need to go back to that.

The howitzer rush is not in civ3, since the MI in a city _is_ a better unit than the MA. I already explained this. Civ 2 was not easier because it lacked random combat.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

I agree with you 100%. Better unit should win the fights. The current combat system does not add strategy, but takes some away.

Strategy is not knowing for certain what will happen before the event. Strategy is being better prepared and taking better advantage of your opponent's weakness than he takes of yours. Whatever the fortunes of war serve up.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Well, for starters, where is the strategy? There would be absolutely no point to most city defense, because if the offensive units were more powerful they would always win... and worse, if the defensive units were more powerful, you would never be able to take a city.

That's just about the worst idea I've ever heard. If units always won when they were more powerful, you would either have completely useless defenders or cities that were impossible to take.

to that idea.

.... So you think better unit wins means, it won't lose any hp? Is that it??? Of course it should lose some strenght, so it cannot go on forever, that would be just so stupid, please, give some benefit of a doubt, I'm not a complete idiot. Let's say city has a MI, one MA could not take it, but 2 could, and should. The current combat system allows things such as:
One tank, or even one cavalry unit could take it (if you have the same luck that the starter of this thread had ) or
Three MA's, or even a _lot_ more could not take it.
Solution is very simple, but I was not asking for anyone to explain it to me, because it's old news, just increase the hp. Then you can plan more accordingly. Can I do the hp increase with the editor? Yes. Do I want to? Not in single. Will the hp increase help the multiplayer? No because the people will play at the Firaxis settings. Will Firaxis do anything about this i.e increase hp, or make it optional? Probably not.

[TacticalGrace]

I think the harder to predict nature of civ3 makes it more fun than civ2. It's the surprises that makes it interesting.

The good strategist is always thinking "what if this doesn't work" and tries to have reserve troops and contingency plans

[notyoueither]

I'll bet Bastogne was a bit of a surprise to the Germans. So too was Stalingrad.

Then again, the French were truely shocked in 1940. Not to mention the Russians in the same year.

Bigger numbers and values do not always win. Sometimes luck, conditions, or sheer cussedness carry the day.

Stuff that down your Civ2 combat system.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Strategy is not knowing for certain what will happen before the event. Strategy is being better prepared and taking better advantage of your opponent's weakness than he takes of yours. Whatever the fortunes of war serve up.

Strategy is interracting with the opponent, versus human, this is the best and the most rewarding part. RNG does not add strategy at all, it removes it, now you cannot plan with small number of units, since you never know what will happen with your units. You can hope for the best, which is not strategy. Certain fun is in that fact yes, I admit that. The guy who said about big armies said it right, of course you fight with smaller armies, but then the winner might not be the better player, but is the random player . The units have values, attack, defence, I just wish the values would have more meaning than the RNG.

Of course, for the real life battle lovers, the RNG is a dream. But if you peeps really liked real life battle system, you would wan't a system that offers no numbers, just words.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'll bet Bastogne was a bit of a surprise to the Germans. So too was Stalingrad.

Then again, the French were truely shocked in 1940. Not to mention the Russians in the same year.

Bigger numbers and values do not always win. Sometimes luck, conditions, or sheer cussedness carry the day.

Stuff that down your Civ2 combat system.

No, I won't since I really don't care about that when I play. I should know about the randomness, afterall, only reason why I don't speak russian is because of winterwar.
When I play, I want to be in the control, if I don't, I can watch a movie instead. When I build units I want to get their worth, and the opponent should too. If for some reason my MA or whatever good unit I build, does not provide, I hope the reason of this will be either :
The silliness of _my_ actions
OR
The wisdom of my opponent, NOT the RNG!!

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
I just wish the values would have more meaning than the RNG.

Make them that way.

Of course, for the real life battle lovers, the RNG is a dream. But if you peeps really liked real life battle system, you would wan't a system that offers no numbers, just words.

The RNG simply makes combat less than 100% predictable. Probaly the most boring thing I can imagine would be a combat system where I knew the exact result every time. Risk is part of strategy. There is no risk in such a system. There is no exhilaration of victory, because you knew it was going to happen. No amazing victories. No agonizing defeats. No stalwart defenders.

Your combat system is a sterile world, devoid of emotion, lacking imagination and suspense. It has all the fun of an algebra class, where everything works by formula and everything is predetermined. It is a bleak realm of bland results and no surprises. It sounds like a midlife crisis, not a computer game.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
It sounds like a midlife crisis, not a computer game.

Actually, I'm not weighing in (again?) on this topic, but I think this quote is great.

[Dis]

all we really want is the civ2 system . If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But since we are stuck with this system I am OK with it. I'm not going to quit playing because of it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dissident
all we really want is the civ2 system . If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The Civ II system was broke, it was way to easy at the end to win. It became boring and predictable.

[Cyclotron]

Agreed entirely with Willem.

Hmm... Warpstorm, that is a good quote. Modifying signature...