The random generator HAS to be broken

[DrFell]

Anyone here played Colonization? I seem to remember it had similar problems with it's combat system - you attacked a city, won once then unit after unit would win against the defenders, or unit after unit would lose if you lost the first combat. Although I don't yet have civ3 I'd like to know how much of a problem it is - because it got to the point that in Colonization I would go and move some other units if my attacker lost the first battle in an attack- because this would 'reset' the random number generator. Never had any problem like this in civ2...

[RedWhiteArcher]

2DrFell
Yes I remember it. Sometimes it was ridiculus. I managed to loose a veteran dragon to a colonist.
Yes the random combat is a bit suspicious but not ridiculus, you just notice it too many times.
And fine work on having the result beign done before the combat, denies you save reload cheat.

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by DrFell
Anyone here played Colonization? I seem to remember it had similar problems with it's combat system - you attacked a city, won once then unit after unit would win against the defenders, or unit after unit would lose if you lost the first combat. Although I don't yet have civ3 I'd like to know how much of a problem it is - because it got to the point that in Colonization I would go and move some other units if my attacker lost the first battle in an attack- because this would 'reset' the random number generator. Never had any problem like this in civ2...

I played colonization, but I don't remember that particular problem. Then again, I was only 8 or 9 when I played it...

[Mister Hand]

Anyway, my last two games I've noticed something funny: in the same turn that a resource would run out, another one would appear.

This by design.

As for the random number generator, I agree that it's a little suspect. Of course, there is no such thing as "random" in computer gaming. It's just a long list of numbers that the computer grabs from. I think the seeds (basically, a pointer on the list where the computer will start grabbing from) might be poorly conceived. Another problem is that the numbers in Civ3 are so small that the exact same results many times in a row is more common.

[Venger]

Originally posted by LaRusso
can we award venger a 'whiner of the year' award, please? he produces 2,37 whining threads a day

You know, you never bring ANYTHING to a thread, besides your sissy remarks. You're just a pu$$y. Try posting a constructive topical argument sometime, I don't recall ever seeing one from you. Actually, just ignore posts from me anymore, I'd rather save everyone the hassle of reading your senseless drivel.

Venger

[Venger]

Good replies guys.

Do you guys think that maybe there is some sort of built in "tide of battle" modifier or somesuch that basically modifies the number based on subsequent victories, so that one Civ doesn't win 10 battles in a row? Or some other wierd modifier that doesn't make itself apparent? That's the only way I can make sense of what happens during battle...

Venger

[Evil_Eric_4]

Anybody here ever play Europa Universalis?

talk about a broken random roll modifier

I havent noticed as big a problem in civ3 but Ill take your word for it since I know it can happen..

[Kenjura]

Originally posted by Excelsior

I am not convinced that the random number generator is broken, but I admit it does seem suspicious. More often than not, it seems, units get on streaks. One unit will get 6 hits, then the other will get 4, alternating back and forth. The streaks, though, seem to last longer the greater the unit's combat advantage. Thus, greater hitpoints reduce the effects of the streaks, making combat more balanced.

You're definately on to something there. That does have a real-world parallel...when a unit is losing, they tend to keep losing. A single unit can't lose much before it is destroyed.

The existence of streaks makes a "fast" unit that much better. The unit will withdraw when getting whomped, and then can retreat to a city (or safe place with battlefield medicine) and heal fairly quickly. I actually used this strategy in a tough war....a constant stream of attackers going back and forth, gradually weakening the enemy without ever actually losing a unit.

Streaks are probably calculated beforehand based on some combined probability. As annoying as they may be, they represent reality, and frankly, depending on the difficulty (I suspect), they benefit you as much as the AI.


Instead of simply increasing hit points across the board, which flattens the curve, perhaps in-game strategies would help. Always take advantage of terrain. Use fast units. Perhaps (as much as you may not want to) use armies to actually form armies. Though that may not work anyway...with some of the ridiculous streaks. But wouldn't you like it if *your* warrior fended off an enemy army of cavalry? ^_^

[Xerxes314]

You guys just whine and whine and whine with your anecdotal evidence until your typing fingers fall off.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Statistics will resolve this issue once and for all. Why don't any of you have the balls to get some statistics to back up your stupid ideas?

Xerxes

[Zanzin]

Originally posted by Xerxes314
You guys just whine and whine and whine with your anecdotal evidence until your typing fingers fall off.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Statistics will resolve this issue once and for all. Why don't any of you have the balls to get some statistics to back up your stupid ideas?

Xerxes

Maybe you're blind, maybe you didn't read the thread, but a fair bit of evidence from field testing has been posted above. Common results are starting to become conclusive as to explaining exactly how the combat in civ3 works.

Thankyou to everyone who has posted in this thread to shed some light on the "different" combat system we're seeing in civ3. I won't say "weird" or "stupid" combat system, because I'm begining to think it was thought out a lot better than the combat system in civ2!

[GodSpawn]

The sample size of the tests that have been presented so far is much too small to attach any statistical significance to the results.

We need a LOT more tests before we can draw any definite conclusions. And we'd need to do a proper mathematical analysis before it means anything.

(Sorry, I haven't got the time to do that myself...)

[SuiteSisterMary]

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Check my thread about an army with two vet longbowmen and a elite one dying in an attack to a single conscript riflemen. It's even got a savegame.

[GodSpawn]

A bigger sample size needed, one that includes all the times that nothing unusual happened. It is meaningless to extract a bunch of unusual results, and then apply a statistical analysis to just those results!

An analogy may help. Imagine if, out of a group of 1,000 people, you listed the heights of only those people who were taller than six feet. And then imagine that you said "Hey look at this - people are a lot taller than they should be!". That would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it?

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Zanzin


Maybe you're blind, maybe you didn't read the thread, but a fair bit of evidence from field testing has been posted above. Common results are starting to become conclusive as to explaining exactly how the combat in civ3 works.

These results are FAR rarer than people make them out to be. People just notice them more because they piss them off more, or because if it benefits them its just odd looking. I have only had ONE instance where an very unlikely streak occured. And it IS only anecdotal evidence. Record the results of a several thousand battles(actually probably several million) under the same conditions and with the same types of units and maybe then you will have some credibility with people that approaching this issue with more than 'common sense' probability.

The "fair bit of evidence" posted is only anecdotal, and just a drop in the bucket of battles and games people are having. To be "fair" these accounts cannot be considered a good cross section of people's experience having streaks, as it is biased by having people who have been lucky/unlucky enough to have these freakish results occur. And, like Godspawn said, you need to have a much larger sample size as well.

[SuiteSisterMary]

An analogy may help. Imagine if, out of a group of 1,000 people, you listed the heights of only those people who were taller than six feet. And then imagine that you said "Hey look at this - people are a lot taller than they should be!". That would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it?

Not if the definition of 'human height' was 'will be six feet tall 0.00014 percent of the time.' At that point, having even two to point out in a thousand would be, as they say, statistically significant.

99.7 (iirc) within three standard deviations and all that.

[GodSpawn]

I shouldn't have said "out of a group of 1000", I should have said "out of a group of unknown size" - sorry about that.

What I mean to say is that, if you don't know the sample size, you can't draw any real conclusions.

But can we have a guess at the sample size? I'm going to have a go, and I'm purposely going to err on the side of yielding a lower sample size:

Suppose that, out of all the people who read this forum, only 100 are going to post about something unlikely happening. Further suppose that they have each played for 10 hours, i.e. 1,000 game hours altogether.

Now we have to guess how many combats have occured in those 1,000 hours. Let's say that it works out at 20 combats an hour. (That may be really far too low - sometimes I have 50 different units involved in combat PER TURN.)

Anyway, that gives a sample size of 20,000. If you had 2 occurances of a 1 in 10,000 result, you wouldn't be surprised.

In fact, the sample size would almost certainly be much larger - at least 100,000 individual combats. You WILL see some very unusual results with sample sets that large.

[TCO]

Originally posted by LaRusso
can we award venger a 'whiner of the year' award, please? he produces 2,37 whining threads a day

It sure looks like lost battles is his concern more than realism. I think all kids in school hit him in the face in dodgeball too much. He's got a permanent cry instinct.

[SuiteSisterMary]

But can we have a guess at the sample size? I'm going to have a go, and I'm purposely going to err on the side of yielding a lower sample size:

Easily. How many turns are in a Civ3 game that goes to 2050? Assume, for the sake of argument, 5 battles per turn. That gives you your sample size. Then, note the number of (seemingly) improbably actions.

Hells, if they ever put out a map editor that lets you do it, make a map with 1000 legions standing beside 1000 warriors, and make sure it's your turn first.

The other problem, of course, is that we don't know the real combat equasions and all of the variables. For example, it's alluded to that spear/pike units have bonuses against horse units, which they should. But, for example, should they against calvary? Or, legions SHOULD have a bonus against bow units. Do they?

[Venger]

Originally posted by GP
It sure looks like lost battles is his concern more than realism. I think all kids in school hit him in the face in dodgeball too much. He's got a permanent cry instinct.

Another fawning Civ3 coçkgobbler. I lose battles all the time. But I should lose them to poorly designed units.

You're another one who usually doesn't have anything to add to a thread but ignorance, stupid squat-to-pee simpleton.

Venger

[korn469]

Venger

i do think that you are onto something, however:

Another fawning Civ3 coçkgobbler. I lose battles all the time. But I should lose them to poorly designed units.
You're another one who usually doesn't have anything to add to a thread but ignorance, stupid squat-to-pee simpleton.

that is uncalled for, and mark's patience will run out long before you actually change anyone's mind

i have lost far too many battleships when attacking ironclads to know that everything is completely kosher with the combat system in civ3

SuiteSisterMary

i think you are over estimating the number of battles that the average player engages in...i have played over ten games of civ3 and my longest lasting game went to 1936

but what is there something like 500 turns in civ3? most players don't fight every turn

so i would say the average player engages in between 750-2,000 battles per full game

[TCO]

Venge, all the points to be made...have been made. Don't you even get sick of listening to yourself whine. Anyway, there's a couple of threads that aren't devoted to your whines. Maybe you could start some more complaint about setback threads and take over the whole front page.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by GP
Venge, all the points to be made...have been made. Don't you even get sick of listening to yourself whine.

Unfortunately, I don't think he does.

[Setsuna]

It would be poetic justice if all of the people who call posters like Venger "whiners" were to find themselves unable to download the upcoming patch (And it's accompanying improvements.)

[nato]

I have one thing to say about the "streaks". I'm a heavy artillery type, like 30 of them or so. I have noticed that sometimes my artillery is just dead on, like 15 or so hits in a row. Other times, they couldn't hit a barn, like 15 or so misses in a row.

Usually results are more mixed, and this is just anecdotal. But I did notice it more than once.

Now my tale of woe! Someone has to hear about it - it may as well be you!

My cool Legionary Army, consisting of 2 veterans and 1 elite, with 12 out of 13 hit points. In an attempt to persuade the Greeks of the advantages of a Greco-Roman union, they attack a fortified regular Hoplite, defending a size 2 city on grassland. The Hoplite had 3 of 3 hit points.

My Legion Army lost! I expected to be damaged, even damaged a lot, but my Army got killed! Oohhh talk about an unlucky streak - I had to lose at best 12 out of 14 battles for that to happen. I think I was at a 3 to 4.125 disadvantage. The Hoplite should have won 58% of the battles, not 86%.

I know its just one incident ... it just seemed signifigant to me since, being an army, it took a longer series of bad luck to happen.

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by nato
My cool Legionary Army, consisting of 2 veterans and 1 elite, with 12 out of 13 hit points. In an attempt to persuade the Greeks of the advantages of a Greco-Roman union, they attack a fortified regular Hoplite, defending a size 2 city on grassland. The Hoplite had 3 of 3 hit points.

My Legion Army lost! I expected to be damaged, even damaged a lot, but my Army got killed! Oohhh talk about an unlucky streak - I had to lose at best 12 out of 14 battles for that to happen. I think I was at a 3 to 4.125 disadvantage. The Hoplite should have won 58% of the battles, not 86%.

I know its just one incident ... it just seemed signifigant to me since, being an army, it took a longer series of bad luck to happen.

Well, that's another 2.4% probability event.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Setsuna
It would be poetic justice if all of the people who call posters like Venger "whiners" were to find themselves unable to download the upcoming patch (And it's accompanying improvements.)

You need to learn the difference between those who can give constructive criticism & "whiners"... then you will be able to use the term "poetic justice" correctly.

But here is a simple riddle for you... what would you call someone who endlessly calls a game "broken" & yet continues to play it?

[Setsuna]

Please do not patronize me, the usage of that phrase was not in error.

Your perception that Venger is whining merely comes from his lack of civility. Do you really believe that his hostile temperament somehow invalidates his issues with the game? You should also probably get over the fact that some people will be angry when they unknowingly make a transaction that results in paying for an unfinished product. You might argue that poor tact and angry posts will result in lessened chances of garnering support and attention. However, Firaxis would likely be shooting themselves in the foot for ignoring such concerns just because of unfavorable presentation.

Neither should the quantity of his complaints somehow lessen their importance. Whether or not the game is finished does not matter now that the game is released. This means development has entered a phase where the amount of time available has been greatly reduced. Since Firaxis is still working on the game right now it is all the more crucial that any problems with the game come to light, and fast. Firaxis will not be working on the game forever, and as such it is important to bring to light as many issues early on as possible. If quirks, even little ones, are only found later on it runs too great a risk of being shrugged off and never addressed.

[Venger]

Originally posted by korn469
Venger

i do think that you are onto something, however:



that is uncalled for, and mark's patience will run out long before you actually change anyone's mind

What's uncalled for are the ad hominem attacks - I am tired of the schoolgirl rockthrowers who don't bring anything into the thread but their pantywaist comments about those of us playing and discussing the game. Note they don't actually talk about the post, simply piss and moan because their sacred ox is getting gored.

If Mark has a problem, I suggest he carefully follow the thread to see who starts this nonsense. GP wrote the check, and I cashed it.

i have lost far too many battleships when attacking ironclads to know that everything is completely kosher with the combat system in civ3

I doubled hit points so now I'm seeing less of it. I still think the number generator may have issues and the combat values are not properly done. The hit points aren't perfect but simply doubling them has made combat a much more realistic event.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by GP
Venge, all the points to be made...have been made.

Have all the points been made? Could you compile and post a list so we can check it before hand? I have commented about many, many different aspects of the combat, and this is the first time I've posted a topic regarding the apparent streakiness of the random number generator. Of course, rather than read the post and contribute anything insightful, you apparently like to break out into an itchy rash any time anyone who still has their lobes connected dares question how something works in the game...

Don't you even get sick of listening to yourself whine.

I sure get sick of listening to you whine, do your panties have a little cotton liner? Cause you sure act like a simpering girl.

Anyway, there's a couple of threads that aren't devoted to your whines. Maybe you could start some more complaint about setback threads and take over the whole front page.

What's truly pathetic about you is that the forum page shows who posted the thread and who responded last, but rather than avoid these threads, you go in looking to throw a rock and run. What's tiring is not people complaining or commenting on the game, it's people who's only contribution to these boards is complaing or commenting on the people...

Jerk.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew

Unfortunately, I don't think he does.

Oh good here's another off topic unsolicited comment. Hey dork, do you have any insight into the combat generator, or are you here to hang out with the other wallflowers? You unwrapped that present of overpowering ignorance early I see...

Another fanboy who can't ignore threads or topics without a snide feckless comment not about the topic, but about the posters...

Venger