Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice

[eliliang]

Originally posted by swat-spas2
Right, it would appear the principal problem is that in order to kill 'streaks', the probability of an nearly equal combat is skewed heavily toward the 'better' unit.

Why is it so necessary to kill streaks? If the job at hand was to flip a coin multiple times, would one want to fix it so that the coin couldn't 'streak'? In this case, the coin would no longer be 'fair' either.

I think that the only reasonable interpretation of a streak is that we don't want 'misbegotten' ones. And those only come from poor PRNGs. Let streaks happen. The universe has ordained that they should exist.

[nbarclay]

What's really "screwed" is the AI's ability to mount an offensive in the time between infantry and tanks. If Alexman's calculator is on target, the most likely outcome of twelve veteran infantry attacking a single conscript infantry fortified in a city (or walled town) is probably twelve dead attackers and an elite defender withabout two hit points left. (And that's if the city is not on a hill.) Cavalry would have a little bit better chance because if they retreat, they don't provide an automatic promotion every other battle until the conscript is elite. But even so, if Alexman's calculator is anywhere near on target, attacks against cities with fortified infantry will be difficult with artillery bombardment and essentially hopless without.

On the other hand, what I'm hoping is that the description Alexman's modified combat calculator is based on was significantly off target.

[Garth Vader]

Something that would have helped combat a lot for me would have been to have a "display odds" option like in SMAC.

I never complained about the combat from SMAC, but yet I frequently complain about Civ. Part of that is the lower hitpoints too.

[ayronis]

Let us not forget that this is only a beta-patch. If it turns out to be a grand failure, I'm sure they would change it back. I don't perceive this 'test' as a bad idea, since we can still undo the changes if we don't like it.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by ayronis
Let us not forget that this is only a beta-patch. If it turns out to be a grand failure, I'm sure they would change it back. I don't perceive this 'test' as a bad idea, since we can still undo the changes if we don't like it.

Agreed. And if there is a problem, I'd much rather we catch it sooner rather than later.

By the way, in case I forgot to say it: Thanks, Firaxis, for releasing the beta version for us to use while we're waiting for the final one!

[Alex]

Originally posted by ayronis
Let us not forget that this is only a beta-patch. If it turns out to be a grand failure, I'm sure they would change it back. I don't perceive this 'test' as a bad idea, since we can still undo the changes if we don't like it.

wise words. and let us not forget that all we can do now is speculate. we have yet to play with the beta patch in order to draw conclusions about combat results.

[eliliang]

Originally posted by Alex


wise words. and let us not forget that all we can do now is speculate. we have yet to play with the beta patch in order to draw conclusions about combat results.

This is hardly speculation if we have understood Mike correctly. These are more logical conclusions based on our understanding, since the analysis is so simply done. What we can speculate on is how this might affect grand strategy in the game, as those types of effects are not really computable.

[TheArsenal]

The Great Wall's strategic value has just gone up.

[Theseus]

Walls' strategic value has gone up.

[SirOsis]

The Greeks defensive capabilities in the Ancient Age are certainly impressive now. Catapaults will be required even more.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by JesseSmith
Combat System "Less Streaky"

The Change was having the random number generator (rng) calculate the Results 4 times instead of 1.

Possible Outcomes: AttackerLoses, AttackerWins

If there is a tie, it retries.


This forces the combat system to be more accurate and less "streaky"

If I'm reading this right (EDIT - I wasn't, ignore this and see below), it seems like overfixing Jesse. Although I frequently get frustrated by unlikely combat results, this will make them incredibly rare.

Furthermore, those 'close' calls (say 6 attack vs 9 defence) are now much more likely to fall in favour of the highest strength. MUCH more likely - the 6 attack would only have a 33% chance before, but with this change it'll now be down to around 4%! (33% chance needing to win 3 combats?)

Checking twice will be more than sufficient, and will put spearmen beating tanks into the realm of 'incredible luck'.

On the SEED:

The SEED allows you to type 'CIVILIZATION' and it generates a map. Anytime you use the SEED: CIVILIZATION you will get the same map (only type in the SEED, ignore the other settings).

This is a welcome addition. Are civ starting positions still randomised with this? For example, if the exact same races were chosen, would they start in the exact same spot?

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS
Think of each round of combat as the attacker rolling dice to see if they hit the defender. If the number rolled is greater than or equal to the defense value, the attacker hits; otherwise, the defender hits. The change we made was to the way the attacker rolls the dice. The attacker now rolls multiple times and the result is the average of all the rolls. This makes the combat results be more in line with what you'd expect them to be. It will reduce the luck factor because it eliminates most wild, "unnatural" runs. However, the luck is still present and it even makes lucky wins more meaningful since they are more rare. A single spearman can still beat a single tank but it's highly unlikely that a single spearman will be able to stand up to a stack of tanks (which is as it should be).

OK, bad me for not reading this before responding to Jesse's post.

Take the 6 attack vs 9 defence. That's a 33% chance of 'hitting' each round under the old system right? With 4 attempts each round, is this not simply adding to the chance of a single unlikely roll making the result a bit skewed?

For example, the rolls could be 10 (fail under old system), 10 (fail), 100 (hit) and 20 (fail). This assumes 33 needed to hit. The average roll of those four rolls is 35 so a hit is scored overall. Seems like the chances of hitting haven't really been changed much, but are still dependend on a lucky roll - the main difference being one extremely high roll (which is much more likely given 4 attempts) will usually mean a hit regardless.

[Nor Me]

Edit: Forget it.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Nor Me
The trouble is that the number of rolls, 4 is even. The effect is then going to be more than squaring the attack and defence.

If the number was odd and high enough, we wouldn't even notice. We have to hope that 4 is wrong.

Problem is, the more attempts you have, the more likely the 'true' result is had. You might have a 1-10,000,000 chance of winning the lottery, but if you put on 10,000,000 tickets it's a sure thing. In order to keep 'randomness' to be a factor, you need to strike a balance. I reckon 4 attempts is way too high, and twice would be enough - at least to prevent those really unlikely results.

We've all seen it ourselves - the time when the tank loses to that spearman. How many of us see it happening twice in a row? By simply calculating the value twice then we get to the 'highly unlikely' stage. Four times makes it almost an impossibility.

[WarpStorm]

Personally, doubling up rather than quadrupling would have given a better feel. It would give results closer to the mean, but with a fair amount of variance.

[WarpStorm]

How about a dial-a-variance setting? One that lets the player choose a number at the start of the game from 1 (the current scheme) to 4 (the beta described here) or maybe even higher. Let us choose according to our tastes. I'd probably choose 2 under that scheme.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Personally, doubling up rather than quadrupling would have given a better feel. It would give results closer to the mean, but with a fair amount of variance.

I agree.

I'm starting to think of this as being akin to a mod issue... in the developing C3C AU Mod, I have been very much an advocate of GOING SLOW.

Going from 1 iteration to 4 seems a huge leap (as evidenced by the outpouring posts both here and at CFC)... yes, this is a beta patch, but wouldn;t it be better to go slow, from 1 to 2, than jump all the way to 4 and perhaps have to dial it back?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Is that maniac in your avatar you, MZ? Oh, and before you ask, the buxom blonde in mine is not me, and neither my wife.

sorry for the late reply (missed your post among the plethora of debate over the new combat), it's actually Jason Lee in "Mallrats". . My pic is in the picture thread in the SPDG forum or at MZO so it's not really a state secret either.

(although I guess if I made a similar goofy face I might resemble him... )


now, back on topic,


I used to be a big advocate of making the game less luck-based, but I see the problems of doing so. Once looking at the odds, it's practically impossible not to notice that a big part of your victories (especially horseman victories at first) are just plain luck. Take away that luck and you cease to roll the die, and just end up matching up the resepective A/D points.

This reminds me of the last game I played, with the Arabs. I ended up doing an massive (60+) Ansar rush on two civs simultaneously, eventually, one of them got Muskets. Their capital (size more than 7) was defended by over 5 muskets but about 10 Ansars were enough to take it. Later, I had to take a hill city with muskets, and though it was tougher, imagine if the game weren't as lucky? I would have probably lost my entire Ansar army taking those two cities under those conditions.

Finally, I agree with Nathan that the "streakyness" was just an illusion, frankly I never noticed a particular streak that couldn't be attributed to mere probability. I know there has been talk about the RNG being purposely streaky I doubt that has been the case.

[Nor Me]

Edit: That doesn't make sense either

[Promethus]

Why does everone assume the seed is only generated once? What if it generated for each round combat?

[eliliang]

Originally posted by Promethus
Why does everone assume the seed is only generated once? What if it generated for each round combat?

[WarpStorm]

Prometheus, do you know what the seed does? It is used to start a PRNG with a predictable sequence of numbers (if you know the algorithm it uses).

[Cryptor]

EDIT: I didn't notice Mike clarified the combat system. But my gut feeling is that the actually probabilities will be similar to mentioned below, with the initial system. I still see no need for any change.

Originally posted by JesseSmith
Combat System "Less Streaky"

The Change was having the random number generator (rng) calculate the Results 4 times instead of 1.

Possible Outcomes: AttackerLoses, AttackerWins

If there is a tie, it retries.

This forces the combat system to be more accurate and less "streaky"

GPT in PTW - Worked.
GPT in Conquests - Broken.

Corruption in PTW - Worked reasonably well.
Corruption in Conquests - Broken.

Combat in PTW - Worked.
Combat in Conquests - Worked.
Combat in Conquests beta patch - ?.

I did some calculations based on the new combat system as described by JesseSmith, and came up with these results, based on combat between two veterans. Ratio is the ratio between the stronger unit after bonus against the weaker unit after bonuses (for example, spearman 2, fortified (+50%) defending on grassland (+10) = 3.2 v archer 2 is ratio 1.6). Probabilities following is the probability of stronger unit winning combat.

Ratio, Traditional, Conquests Beta Patch.

1.2, 0.598, 0.725
1.4, 0.677, 0.863
1.6, 0.739, 0.934
1.8, 0.788, 0.969
2, 0.826, 0.985
2.5, 0.8917, 0.997
3, 0.929, 0.9995
4, 0.967, 0.99997
5, 0.982, 0.999996
6, 0.990, 0.9999994
8, 0.996, 0.99999997
10, 0.998, 1.00000000

Consider a Vet Tank (16) attacking a vet spearman fortified in forest (2 + 50% + 50% = 4). Pre patch, the tank won this battle 96.7% of the time. Which I think is a reasonable figure. Theres an off chance that a group of spearmen could sneak behind enemy lines, and use their spears to poke holes in the refueling trucks, or use their spears to break the refueling trucks windows and take over the trucks. When the tanks run out of fuel, they could park the refueling trucks near the tanks, sabotage them and set fire to them by sparking a fire by rubbing two spears together, burning the occupants of the tank alive.

The above sequence of events is unlikely, but it is possible given the uncertainies of war and 3% chance is a reasonable figure. There's only so much ammo to go around, and if the spearmen have the cover of terrain, they could effectively infiltrate the logistics supporting the tanks with mass numbers. One only has to look at the Russian defence against Germany in WW2 to see how effective massive amounts of "spearmen" (more like hoe men actually) against tanks.

Post patch, the chance of spearman winning the above battle is 3 in 100,000. I'm baffled how this is less "streaky". If tanks are winning this battle 99,997 times out of 100,000, the average streak I can expect is around 33 thousand battles. How that can be construed to be less streaky is beyond my intellect, but then again, the world has gone mad.

I will address the realism front, as some people feel it is important. There's more to the outcome of a battle then technology. Sure, technology plays a significant role, but not an entirely deciesive one. The classic model acknoledges and models this fact, giving higher technology a significant or even decisive advantage in one on one battles, whilst allowing mass numbers to defeat technologically superior units particularly if they are deep in enemy territory and damaged.

So please, if possible, don't break one of the best parts of Civ 3 with this patch, by making combat a boring, almost deterministic affair. At least have an option "Do you want combat to be boring and almost deterministic?".

[ducki]

I agree with many that this seems a very radical change, but we must bear in mind the following:
Our satisfaction and enjoyment of the game is Firaxis' livelihood. They are not going to randomly(heh) throw in a goofy fix and ignore our concerns.
Second, and more importantly, I doubt 4 was randomly picked. I'm sure they've done at least some degree of internal testing before even considering releasing the patch in BETA form.
Finally, I'd bet dollars to donuts that at least one of the coders working on this understands PRNGs and probability. That's just an educated guess, but still an important point.

So, while I agree that it seems radical, I think we should try it out before getting too riled up about it. We all greatly appreciate the release of the patch in BETA form I am sure, but some of the discussion is starting to sound like complaints against a finalized, released patch.

Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but just as Theseus mentioned being conservative in making change, perhaps a little conservatism with regards to critique is in order, at least until we've actually had a chance to see the change in action.

Then again, I could be wrong.

[Cryptor]

Originally posted by ayronis
Let us not forget that this is only a beta-patch. If it turns out to be a grand failure, I'm sure they would change it back. I don't perceive this 'test' as a bad idea, since we can still undo the changes if we don't like it.

The thing is, I've brought Conquests, and have yet to played a game. It has two game breaking bugs, namely.

- GPT bug.
- Forbidden palace and secret police increasing corruption bug.

After they fix these bugs, I agree, they can experiment as much as they like, as we can just avoid the experimental patches. However the current situation is akin to someone saying to you "you can choose whether I shoot you in the head, or shoot you in the leg". Unless you've got a death wish, that person is effectively forcing you to accept the shot in the leg.

Same thing here. With this "beta-patch", they are effectively forcing us to use this expermental combat feature, which I think is flawed and almost as game breaking as the above two problems. The new combat system is a shot in the leg, and GPT bug and corruption bugs are a shot in the head. As much as people say "its only a beta you don't have to use it" they are effectively forcing us to take a shot in the leg.

Its quite easy to avoid placing this pain and suffering on its customers,
(1) release two patches, one with the bug fixes and one with experiments.
(2) make experiments like this new combat system, optional.

Whether they do this depends on whether they care or not about their customers enough to make a trivial change, which is yet to be seen.

[kring]

Originally posted by ducki
I agree with many that this seems a very radical change, but we must bear in mind the following:
Our satisfaction and enjoyment of the game is Firaxis' livelihood. They are not going to randomly(heh) throw in a goofy fix and ignore our concerns.
Second, and more importantly, I doubt 4 was randomly picked. I'm sure they've done at least some degree of internal testing before even considering releasing the patch in BETA form.
Finally, I'd bet dollars to donuts that at least one of the coders working on this understands PRNGs and probability. That's just an educated guess, but still an important point.

So, while I agree that it seems radical, I think we should try it out before getting too riled up about it. We all greatly appreciate the release of the patch in BETA form I am sure, but some of the discussion is starting to sound like complaints against a finalized, released patch.

Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but just as Theseus mentioned being conservative in making change, perhaps a little conservatism with regards to critique is in order, at least until we've actually had a chance to see the change in action.

Then again, I could be wrong.

Well said.

I plan on checking out the change before I decide if it is a good, bad, or indifferent change.

[Sarxis]

Do any of you even know exactly how the combat system works?

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
Do any of you even know exactly how the combat system works?

Just from what Mike said on page 3 of the thread. IOW, it is all speculation based on insufficient data, taking what Mike said to be the LITERAL, FULL explanation.

Which I doubt it was, based on their past posts. I didn't see any programming code or time-consuming pseudo-code of the current version.

Really! Some people should pull out their Hitchiker's Guide and read those comforting words on the cover.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Cryptor
The thing is, I've brought Conquests, and have yet to played a game. It has two game breaking bugs, namely.

- GPT bug.
- Forbidden palace and secret police increasing corruption bug.

After they fix these bugs, I agree, they can experiment as much as they like, as we can just avoid the experimental patches. However the current situation is akin to someone saying to you "you can choose whether I shoot you in the head, or shoot you in the leg". Unless you've got a death wish, that person is effectively forcing you to accept the shot in the leg.

Same thing here. With this "beta-patch", they are effectively forcing us to use this expermental combat feature, which I think is flawed and almost as game breaking as the above two problems. The new combat system is a shot in the leg, and GPT bug and corruption bugs are a shot in the head. As much as people say "its only a beta you don't have to use it" they are effectively forcing us to take a shot in the leg.

Its quite easy to avoid placing this pain and suffering on its customers,
(1) release two patches, one with the bug fixes and one with experiments.
(2) make experiments like this new combat system, optional.

Whether they do this depends on whether they care or not about their customers enough to make a trivial change, which is yet to be seen.

i don't think you're being quite fair here.

the patch was sceduled somewhere around mid-end january. but the community asked for a beta patch... and we got it.

so the choice isn't headshot or legshot, but legshot or patience.

yes, there may be some changes that could turn out too radical. yes, maybe it's a big mistake. but that's what beta-versions are for: to test features _before_ they get released officially.


these changes do seem a bit too drastic for me. but: firaxians have tested it for several months. and except if they tested it only on too weak levels (where they permanently had a tech advantage), they will have seen if the changes makes sence.

i just hope that that bit of luck you may need for that annoying musket-city-on-the-hill isn't too unlikely.

on verra...

[MrWhereItsAt]

/me would love it if, when we all get the patch, people focus on the good for a change

Won't it be enough that we are getting a wide-ranging patch that fixes the only two large common complaints only just over a month after the US release, and exactly a month after the ROW release?