Thread Tools
Old March 8, 1999, 14:06   #1
Sieve Too
Prince
 
Local Time: 23:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 917
The Great Rounding Debate - Resolved!
I'm sure many of you have wondered about how CivII calculates 50% bonuses on odd numbered attack and defense strengths. You've probably also wondered if the bonuses are added together, multiplied, or some combination of addition and multiplication. And when, if ever, are numbers rounded down? Well, amigos, I believe that I have the answers.

I performed a series of tests recently to try and figure out exactly what is happening. The results: all bonuses are multiplied together and no rounding ever occurs.

On to the details: First off, I have Civ II with FW. I changed all units to have 10, i.e. 100, hit points to reduce random fluctuations. I used cheat mode to create all units and reveal the map. After participating in a battle, all survivors were destroyed. In other words, battles were always between full strength units.

I started off by attacking 10 non-vet Warriors with 10 vet Warriors. If there was rounding, the matches should be fairly equal. No contest. The vet Warriors won all 10 times, all still in the yellow.

Then I attacked 10 vet Warriors with non vet Horsemen. If strengths were rounded up, again the matches should be fairly equal. But all 10 Horsemen won handily. Conclusion: vet Warriors have a strength somewhere between 1 and 2. Since the manual explicitly states a 50% bonus, vet Warriors are almost certainly 1.5.

O.K., those tests were all done on Grassland. How about Forests? I attacked 10 non vet Warriors in Forests with 10 non vet Warriors. Sure enough, all the Forest Warriors prevailed. How about fortifying? Same result: fortified Warriors won all 10 times. I repeated the above tests but attacked with Horsemen instead. As you might expect, Horsemen won every time. Conclusion: non vet Warriors in Forests have a defense between 1 and 2. Fortified non vet Warriors also have a defense between 1 and 2. Again, the most likely strength value is 1.5.

What about combinations of bonuses? I attacked 10 vet Warriors in Forests with Horsemen. If the two 50% bonuses were additive, I would expect the matches to be fairly equal. But the Warriors walked away winners every time, although all were in the red. When attacked by Archers however, the Archers easily won. Conclusion: vet Warriors in Forests have a strength between 2 and 3. Multiplying the two 50% bonuses together (1.5 * 1.5) yields 2.25 which seems to be the most likely answer. For completeness, I repeated the above tests using fortified vet Warriors on grass and fortified non vets in Forests. The results were identical except that 1 Horseman won against a fortified vet Warrior. I blame that on random variation.

Finally, I stuck fortified, vet Warriors in Forests and attacked with Archers. 9 out of 10 of the Warriors prevailed. 1 Archer won. When I attacked 10 new, identical Warriors with Knights, all the Knights won. Conclusion: fortified, vet Warriors in Forests have a strength between 3 and 4. Most likely answer is 3.375, 1.5 * 1.5 * 1.5. The one abberation from the expected result I am blaming on random variation.

That's it! That's as far as I got. Still to do: City Walls vs. Fortress vs. fortifying - how many bonuses count. Pikemen and AEGIS special bonuses. Coastal Fortress, SAM and SDI bonuses. Marines vs. walled cities. What bonuses do ships caught in port receive?
Sieve Too is offline  
Old March 8, 1999, 17:54   #2
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
Yeeesh! And I thought I went over the top testing all them damn pikemen. You go, Sieve!

How about a new "you know you've played too much civ when..."

you test the results of percentages in combat.
Theben is offline  
Old March 9, 1999, 00:45   #3
Fraser
Prince
 
Local Time: 23:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 526
Woo-hoo! Now I can quote effective combat strength ratings to my friends at school! I could make them up anyway, because nobody else I know memorizes unit stat tables, but it's still fun. :,\
Fraser is offline  
Old March 9, 1999, 04:45   #4
Carolus Rex
Civilization II MultiplayerCivilization II PBEM
Emperor
 
Local Time: 01:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,054
Ah, maybe my hair colour will go back from grey to brown again?

There never seem to be consensus about this. I gave up all efforts to figure these things out a long time ago and mostly rely on my gaming experience (often not successfully, I'm a crappy warmonger).

Sieve Too, what about scrambling fighters? Is it their attack or defense factor that counts?

Carolus
Carolus Rex is offline  
Old March 9, 1999, 12:34   #5
geofelt
Prince
 
Local Time: 18:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Neptune Beach,Florida,USA
Posts: 806
Sieve-too;
Could you run those tests with unmodified units? I am always suspicious of modified units. I also note that for warriors, the factors could be additive. A fortified vet warrior could be 1.5x1.5=2.25 as you say. But a vet warrior at 1.5 with a 50% bonus for fortification(.75) added is also 2.25.
I had always assumed that rounding happened at each calculation, but perhaps it only happens at the end. Your tests clearly indicate that a vet warrior is 1.5 not 1.0.
geofelt is offline  
Old March 9, 1999, 15:15   #6
don Don
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I doff my hat, and as chairman confer upon you the OKM, Order of the Knights of Meticulosity.
 
Old March 10, 1999, 01:33   #7
Sieve Too
Prince
 
Local Time: 23:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 917
geofelt: Vet status never granted the Warrior any better standing than non vet fortifying or non vet sitting in a Forest. In each case, the Warrior's strength was 1.5. Therefore, it's my conclusion that there is nothing special about the vet status bonus.

Also note that a combination of any 2 bonuses (vet-fortifed, vet-Forest, forest-Fortified) yielded the same results: a strength between 2 and 3, almost certainly 2.25.

When all three bonues applied, the strength appeared to be between 3 and 4. Additive bonuses could not have achieved this (1.5 + 0.75 + 0.75 = 3).

My claim is that there is no rounding at any point in the calculation. All tests indicate non-rounded strengths are used in the calculations.

Re: altered units. My goal was to reduce the localized effects of bias in the pseudo random number generator. Battles between 1(10) hp units require only 10 to 19 random numbers. Battles between 10(100) hp units require 100 to 199 random numbers. The chance of bias is far greater in a smaller sequence of pseudo random numbers. We've all seen the occasional unlucky Archer lose when attacking a Phalanx. I was trying to reduce this occurance.
Sieve Too is offline  
Old December 28, 1999, 15:58   #8
Sten Sture
Emperor
 
Sten Sture's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: SF, CA don't call it frisco... Striker!!
Posts: 3,617
*bump* per current question...
Sten Sture is offline  
Old April 15, 2001, 08:58   #9
SlowThinker
GameLeagueApolytoners Hall of Fame
King
 
SlowThinker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Posts: 2,603
{combat formula}
{}{SlowThinker}{end2}

------------------------------
This is a post with keywords. See a thread The Great Library: a hierarchical structure" thread.
SlowThinker is offline  
Old April 15, 2001, 17:00   #10
Roman
King
 
Roman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
Posts: 1,292
Actually there seems to be consensus that rounding does indeed occur to 1/8th of a point. Although, you have done a good job, Sieve Too, you have got past the point of 1/8th in your tests, so you couldn't see the rounding yet.
Roman is offline  
Old April 15, 2001, 20:39   #11
Marquis de Sodaq
King
 
Marquis de Sodaq's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: ... no, a Marquis.
Posts: 2,179
Guess what? This debate has been RESOLVED AND DOCUMENTED in the thread info: Combat Modifiers and Calculation (GL)!

Thanks Marko Polo (in next post), I'll leave just the link for any new readers... I hadn't noticed the start date.
------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon
[This message has been edited by Marquis de Sodaq (edited April 16, 2001).]
Marquis de Sodaq is offline  
Old April 16, 2001, 03:35   #12
Marko Polo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Marquis et al.

This is two years old thread, started at March 1999. The reason why this is now on top is that Slowthinker has written the keywords post. IMHO this old thread could have let forgotten in the dark past of the Civ2 knowlage (spelling?). It's only confusing people.
 
Old April 16, 2001, 08:18   #13
SlowThinker
GameLeagueApolytoners Hall of Fame
King
 
SlowThinker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Posts: 2,603
I am sorry. I hope my new signature will solve the problem:
------------------------------
This is a post with keywords. See The Great Library: a hierarchical structure" thread.
This may be an old thread. It has got to the top of the forum because of this post.
SlowThinker is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:55.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team