Solution to the spearman - tank problem?

[Theseus]

I can't believe that this argument continues to survive, zombie-like.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Theseus
I can't believe that this argument continues to survive, zombie-like.

Think of it as representing a spearman fortified in a mountain fortress repeatedly attacked by tanks!

[Kuciwalker]

*points at avatar*

[Dain]

I think my IQ dropped just by reading the whole thread.

[ratster]

After much testing I've come to the conclusion that its really just anomaly strings produced by the RNG. With repeated play(I've played for a 1000+ hours myself) its (a string of anomolous results) bound to happen at the least opportune moment.

Suddenly you lose 10-20 combats(that you statisticaly you should have won) in a row. Out goes the fun, in comes the frustration. Losing that many in the late game when it may only be a fraction of your force is no big deal, but in the early game when it may be your entire force, well...

Then the paranoia sets in... Ok he's got 6 cities with probably 3 spearmen in each one, lets see...thats 18, so I'll need at least 5, no, no, better make it 6 to 1 odds in order to assure victory, ok... so thats 108 Knights, hmmmm better wait till I have a barracks in every city... jeez can I afford to support that many units with my 7 city empire... Ah who cares, Onward to victory!

Just remember, its not a spearman, its a 2, its not a Tank its a 16.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I'm saying if it were fixed, I might buy the game. In fact, if it were fixed I *would* buy the game.

So the determining factor in your decision whether or not to purchase C3 is that there is a POSSIBLILITY for Spearmen to kill Tanks?

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
*points at avatar*

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar I'm saying if it were fixed, I might buy the game. In fact, if it were fixed I *would* buy the game.

So the determining factor in your decision whether or not to purchase C3 is that there is a POSSIBLILITY for Spearmen to kill Tanks?

No. To be more specific, the determining factor in my decision is whether theres going to be a ton of frustration in combat.
Because yeah, even if I do lose x many tanks or whatever I still end up winning anyway. But its just frustrating, and it's not a good game-type frustration.
So if either a player or Firaxis adjusted this, then yes I would play.

But thus far, my pleas for either the community or company to do anything have gone unheard.

[Zero]

Originally posted by vmxa1
The Comrade likes to troll from time to time.

I know. Otherwise I wouldnt be feeding him

Dont fee the troll folks. (Unless its Tass or Zylka...)

[Theseus]

Jesu, Tass, gimme a break. I'm not an editor guy, but I swear, if 5 minutes to add hps is all it would take, I'll do it.

Otherwise, go away.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
No. To be more specific, the determining factor in my decision is whether theres going to be a ton of frustration in combat.
Because yeah, even if I do lose x many tanks or whatever I still end up winning anyway. But its just frustrating, and it's not a good game-type frustration.
So if either a player or Firaxis adjusted this, then yes I would play.

But thus far, my pleas for either the community or company to do anything have gone unheard.

You would find losing one Tank, over a course of maybe ten or twenty games, to a spearman "frustrating"?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by skywalker


You would find losing one Tank, over a course of maybe ten or twenty games, to a spearman "frustrating"?

Not just one Too many.

Dont feed the troll folks.

I'm not trolling......

[Kuciwalker]

CT, since I first bought C3 I've NEVER lost a Tank to a Spearman, so I'm quite doubtful it happens often enough to be much of a problem.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by skywalker
CT, since I first bought C3 I've NEVER lost a Tank to a Spearman, so I'm quite doubtful it happens often enough to be much of a problem.

I've bolded operative words

[CerberusIV]

There is another way of looking at this. My current game has developed to the point where I invaded Viking territory. I have tanks. They have no rubber and no oil. They do have lots of TOW Infantry. It is tough going. They still have a couple of spearmen in some out of the way town somewhere that I haven't got to.

The point is that if the AI is using spearmen when you have tanks you should try a more difficult level rather than complain about losing an occasional unit. I just lost two tanks to kill a vet rifleman in a metropolis. It happens.

[vmxa1]

I would tend to agree, but sometimes a spear or two is not indicitive of anything other than they did not upgrade those units.

IOW they could have tanks and spears.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I would tend to agree, but sometimes a spear or two is not indicitive of anything other than they did not upgrade those units.

IOW they could have tanks and spears.

Indeed they could. However they should not have many spears so the chances of losing a tank to one are even more remote.

Maybe it's just me but I feel that occasionally losing a battle that you should not have lost just adds a bit of realism. If war was an exact science that always went acording to plan the world would be a very different place.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by WackenOpenAir
Dunno what people are even trying to say or achieve with the statement that siv is not a wargame, but it is the biggest bullshit i have yet found on these forums.

Well, for a non-gamer, it's perfectly reasonable to look at all the fighting going on in Civ and say, "Oh, it's a war game." Though that would overlook the critical importance of the non-military facets of the game, one could understand a casual observer not noticing these things, as screen motion tends to be dominated by military units (and workers, but that's probably a little abstract).

To a gamer, however, Civ is no more a wargame for all the war than it is a shooter for all the shooting (that goes on after musketman).

"Wargame" is a very specific genre. A wargame's purpose is to accurately model war, and to do so realistically, specifically and with attention to detail. If you put the same troops in the same locations and make the same decisions (as some historical figure), you should get approximately the same results. (Though, again for the sake of accuracy, most wargames don't even model entire wars, just certain battles.)

Wargames do not model social, economic or technological changes of any scope. It's isn't possible. A game engine for the Civil War era won't work for the medieval era or for WWII era. When developers use a successful engine for one era on another era just slightly out of the original range, it's readily apparent. (Not always bad but never with the dead on accuracy grognards savor.)

Civ has never, ever, ever been about accurately modelling war at this level.* It's always more been on the level of "this civ had this tech at this time and that gave it this edge".

I mean, really, consider the legionary: "How do we represent the awesome strategic and logistical power of the Romans?" "Give the legionary an extra attack point."

When people say "it's not a wargame", what they're saying is, "don't add unnecessary detail to the game's combat model because that's not what Civ is about."

So that's what people are trying to get across.

[ok]

*It's not ever really been about modelling history, either, as evinced by the fact that you can go a whole game without a single conflict.**

**Which, by the way, is why a spearman can defeat a tank, occasionally. Yes, each era's military tech could completely obsolete the previous era's, but that would turn every game into a rush for the next big military tech. Civ 3 understands this better than any of the previous games, and C3C even better.

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker CT, since I first bought C3 I've NEVER lost a Tank to a Spearman, so I'm quite doubtful it happens often enough to be much of a problem.

I've bolded operative words

So what you are claiming is that, on a regular basis, it happens MORE often with you? This can only mean one of two things:

1) Somehow, by some unknown, mystical force, the known laws of probability do not apply to you. If this is the case, I urge you to immediately cease playing the game and fly to Vegas. You could make a killing there.

2) You only remember the rare occasions that the RNG turns against you, not the countless times it generates the expected result. This is a common misperception, as we humans tend to look for patterns that aren't there and focus on the unusual, unexpected results.

Either way, you are dead wrong when you state that it happens more often than one would expect based on the ratio of attack to defense strength. I notice you still have not posted any replicable statistics proving your case. The reason, of course, is that you CAN'T prove your case. This makes you dangerously close to a troll.

[Nubclear]

Somehow, by some unknown, mystical force, the known laws of probability do not apply to you.

There is a probability that this could happen, correct?
Correct.

You only remember the rare occasions that the RNG turns against you, not the countless times it generates the expected result. This is a common misperception, as we humans tend to look for patterns that aren't there and focus on the unusual, unexpected results.

No, seriously, it happens enough times to become frustrating. Perhaps not all, and I do win anyway, but...It still is frustrating.
How many times have I said this by now?

I notice you still have not posted any replicable statistics proving your case.

You notice...Perhaps you might also noticed it's been months since I've even doubled clicked on an executable related to Civ3.
That might make it a tad difficult.
Though you being an American, one cannot expect you to understand the first time.

This makes you dangerously close to a troll.

"Dangerously close"

[Elias]

I have a solution to present to get rid of the pesky problem.

Multiply all ancient units attack defence by 1 then do that to all mideviel units execpt with 2 then in industrial go to 4 then in modern times go to 8 so by the time you do this MA has an Attack of 192 compared to the 2 of the spearmen. However calvalry is a problem because it is used heavly in both industrial and medivel times. This also allows a little more opening for moding unit strengths.

2. When civ 4 comes out in two very long years from now it may be equiped with unit multipliers. By unit multipliers I mean this pikement will recive a bonus when defending aginst knights tanks will recive a bonus for fighting other tanks and gunpowder units will have a huge bonus over non ranged units. + obslite units will get a -10000 to defence when fighting non obslite units.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Elias
I have a solution to present to get rid of the pesky problem.

There have been solutions. Civ 2 had "firepower", which allowed modern units to do more damage, for example.

It's a little, I dunno, naive, to think that Sid Meier, after 15+ years with Civ, isn't aware of this "problem" and its proposed "solutions".

The fact is, an accurate reflection of military and historic realities through history makes for a boring game.

[ok]

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger

2) You only remember the rare occasions that the RNG turns against you, not the countless times it generates the expected result. This is a common misperception, as we humans tend to look for patterns that aren't there and focus on the unusual, unexpected results.

Either way, you are dead wrong when you state that it happens more often than one would expect based on the ratio of attack to defense strength. I notice you still have not posted any replicable statistics proving your case. The reason, of course, is that you CAN'T prove your case. This makes you dangerously close to a troll.

Maybe you should check out the threads that deal with firaxis attempts to fix the RNG streakiness for the C3C patch. They know there's a problem.

[Plotinus]

I agree with Tall Stranger's last post. I might add that there's a couple of possibilities that he's missed:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

No, seriously, it happens enough times to become frustrating. Perhaps not all, and I do win anyway, but...It still is frustrating.

3) Comrade Tassadar suffers from some kind of chemical imbalance in his brain stem that means that incidents that cause other people mild and temporary surprise or irritation cause him untold frustration. Perhaps he just needs to get the gym more often. It can do wonders for your emotional state, you know.

There is a probability that this could happen, correct?
Correct.

4) He is certifiably insane, as evinced by his apparent belief that it is possible that the laws of probability are suspended for him alone. That's assuming, of course, that by "probability" he actually means "possibility". For there is indeed a probability that this could happen. It is 0.

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by SpencerH

Quote:

Originally posted by Tall Stranger 2) You only remember the rare occasions that the RNG turns against you, not the countless times it generates the expected result. This is a common misperception, as we humans tend to look for patterns that aren't there and focus on the unusual, unexpected results. Either way, you are dead wrong when you state that it happens more often than one would expect based on the ratio of attack to defense strength. I notice you still have not posted any replicable statistics proving your case. The reason, of course, is that you CAN'T prove your case. This makes you dangerously close to a troll.

Maybe you should check out the threads that deal with firaxis attempts to fix the RNG streakiness for the C3C patch. They know there's a problem.

Are you referring to the "Civ3: Conquests Patch Notice" thread discussion? If so, you are misrepresenting what was said in it. Let me quote Mike Breitkreutz from Firaxis:

The combat calculations have not been made less streaky; they've been made to appear less streaky. The RNG itself has not been changed (the generator is working exactly as it should).

The problem is NOT streakiness. It is the APPEARANCE of streakiness, mainly because of the very reason I cite above: people only remembering the bad luck they have or their misunderstanding the real odds they face in combat.

This quote clearly states that the RNG is working fine. You may wish to check earlier threads (I believe vulture started one) which tested the combat system and showed it to working properly.

If you have a quote from Firaxis which states definitively that there is an ACTUAL streakiness problem, rather than a PERCEIVED streakiness problem, please post it. I have yet to find one.

[SpencerH]

You figure they're trying to fix a perception?

edit: spelling

[Nubclear]

I agree with Tall Stranger's last post. I might add that there's a couple of possibilities that he's missed:

I was wondering as to why you would suddenly come out and try to weaken his already weak arguments with your ad hominem attacks, but then I looked at your posting history

Anyway, if Firaxis is trying to fix a perception, that means that the perception has become a problem.

[Arrian]

Those of us familiar with Tass from the Off-Topic forum know better.

Folks, you continue to feed a troll. Walk away - nothing to see here.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

@ Tass

Back in your cave, big bad troll, or else I come after you with my Mace of Disruption +1. Oh I forgot, you're trolling against NWN as well without even having played it.

[spy14]

I reiterate (again): Spear vs Tank dosnt often happen, but on numerous occasions ive seen Tanks lose out to Pikemen, which is frustrating, unrealistic and makes the tech-tree seem kind of pointless.