Combat - Am I Missing Something?

Zapaan · October 3, 2003, 01:01

At first I thought maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention to things like terrain, or perhaps I misunderstood how terrain came into play, or maybe even that random chance could produce a rather ridiculous result. But I'm now convinced that the AI is flat out cheating.

Someone explain to me how an Elite Battleship at full health can EVER lose to an Veteran Ironclad? It's 18 to 4 for chrissakes! More than 4 to 1 odds! Even forgetting the fact that the Battleship is Elite and the Ironclad is Veteran, forgetting that there's no terrain modifiers involved being both ocean squares, how is this even conceivably possible?

But even better than this, is a Veteran Pikeman defeating an Elite Tank. HOW?! I don't care if the Pikeman is on Mountainous terrain, in a fortress and the tank is attacking from plains. It simply should not be possible under any circumstances!

The only possible conclusion that I can come to (especially considering I'm only playing on Chieftan difficulty!) is that the AI is bold-faced cheating like a crack whore on speedballs.

So am I missing something here? And for those of us with only a cursory knowledge of what can affect the outcome of combat, would someone outline the key factors in determining odds for combat?

I'm ][ this close to losing it and unleashing my nuclear arsenal on the world, but considering how shamelessly the computer is cheating, it wouldn't surprise me if they all fell out of the sky in transit and landed on all my cities

- Z

Gramphos · October 3, 2003, 01:07

It's the randomness that makes it possible for some strange attack results. The AI ain't cheating in combat. The designers wanted to bring back the randomness of Civ1 when making Civ3...

Zapaan · October 3, 2003, 01:20

I can see random results as being a factor to consider, but how does one explain results like out of 8 combats with the above Battleship vs Ironclad scenario, 5 times I lost?

That's ridiculous! What is the point in even having stats like attack/defend numerics then? At the very least the random factor is WAY too large an effect. I can see having 1 occurance in the above 8 combats, but even then, that's far more than should ever be possible, even forgetting the logic behind something like an Ironclad vs a Battleship confrontation.

Is there ANY way to adjust this idiotic behaviour? I'm a warmonger by trade, and this is completely killing my enjoyment of the game.

An ideal randomness factor would allow the randomness to affect combat on a bell curve of technology. Essentially, the closer in line the two units are tech-wise, the higher the random factor. The further disparate the tech levels are of the two units, the lower the randomness factor approaching zero for 2 or higher tech levels of seperation. It's ludicrous to think that a lowly warrior could ever hope to defeat a Mobile Infantry unit, under any circumstances, but it's happened to me, and not only in a single isolated incident either.

- Z (One cheesed off warmonger)

Gramphos · October 3, 2003, 01:44

Yuo may increase the hitpoints for the levels, and even increase it for some units on era basies. The more hitpoints the lesser the random effect will be. I'm not an expert on the exact calculation, but you migt look at combat calculators.

Zapaan · October 3, 2003, 01:59

Hmmm...that sounds promising. How would I go about editing unit health? In the editor? I only see a place to affect bonusl HP by +/- 20. Is there a way to adjust it in general? As in for all games? And I assume that only affects scenarios, rather than the core game mechanics.

Perhaps there are some mods out there that adjust this in some way?

And thanks for the help!

- Z

Solomwi · October 3, 2003, 02:24

I believe the calculation is fairly simple, at least the way I understand it:

A/(A+DM)=L, where A is attack value, DM is defense value after modifiers and L is the RNG "line". A random number is generated and a hitpoint subtracted based on which side of the line it falls on. It would also work as DM/(A+DM), just backwards.

For instance, if your swordsman is attacking an unfortified spearman on flat ground (10%), it would be: 3/(3+2.2)=.577 (although I don't know the level of precision the game uses). Then random numbers between 0 and 1 are generated. In this case, if it falls below .577, the spearman loses a hitpoint, and vice versa if it falls above .577.

In your tank example, there's a 175% cumulative bonus for the pikeman, making his defense 8.25, so your "line" is 16/24.25, or .660, giving your tank a roughly 2 out of 3 chance of winning each individual hitpoint battle. It should, holding true to the statistics, lose 1 or 2 hp, but win the battle. However, it's not that far-fetched to imagine the pikeman getting three or four lucky rolls, especially if you've ever played roulette and bet the columns.

Also, concerning the number of "lucky rolls", don't forget that when dealing with random events, past outcomes have no bearing on future odds. IOW, most people are tempted to scream "what are the odds of that 1 in 3 chance coming up AGAIN?!?" if, say, your tank has lost a couple of hp in a row. The answer is 1/3, just like it was last time and just like it will be next time, regardless of whether or not it comes up this time.

Sounds like you've just hit a run of really bad luck.

As for the mods, what you mentioned is the right place to look. You may want to add one or two starting hp per age past ancient, based on when the unit becomes available. The "Bonus" part is a bit misleading, bump that up one for say Cavalry and regular Cavs are produced with 4 hp, vets with 5, etc.

Zapaan · October 3, 2003, 02:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Solomwi
I believe the calculation is fairly simple, at least the way I understand it:

A/(A+DM)=L, where A is attack value, DM is defense value after modifiers and L is the RNG "line". A random number is generated and a hitpoint subtracted based on which side of the line it falls on. It would also work as DM/(A+DM), just backwards.

For instance, if your swordsman is attacking an unfortified spearman on flat ground (10%), it would be: 3/(3+2.2)=.577 (although I don't know the level of precision the game uses). Then random numbers between 0 and 1 are generated. In this case, if it falls below .577, the spearman loses a hitpoint, and vice versa if it falls above .577.

That has got to be the stupidest combat odds calculation I've ever seen in any game, especially considering how low the health element is. It's no wonder the game can produce results of the kind I've been seeing. Thanks for explaining that to me, combat makes MUCH more sense now.

Quote:

In your tank example, there's a 175% cumulative bonus for the pikeman, making his defense 8.25, so your "line" is 16/24.25, or .660, giving your tank a roughly 2 out of 3 chance of winning each individual hitpoint battle. It should, holding true to the statistics, lose 1 or 2 hp, but win the battle. However, it's not that far-fetched to imagine the pikeman getting three or four lucky rolls, especially if you've ever played roulette and bet the columns.

You see, there's the problem. The odds calculation here is WAY off. Granted, the Pikeman gets several bonuses here that jack up his defense dramatically, but it's still 2:1 odds (roughly). If the game is going to use such low health to determine outcomes, the results must bear out significantly more linearly. Now that I understand how combat is actually resolved, I can see why the random element comes about far more often than it should. Adjusting health to max for all units should reduce this significantly.

Quote:

Also, concerning the number of "lucky rolls", don't forget that when dealing with random events, past outcomes have no bearing on future odds. IOW, most people are tempted to scream "what are the odds of that 1 in 3 chance coming up AGAIN?!?" if, say, your tank has lost a couple of hp in a row. The answer is 1/3, just like it was last time and just like it will be next time, regardless of whether or not it comes up this time.

I'm unfortunately far too familiar with statistical odds

What I was referring to in my posts was more of a logic perspective of a Pikeman somehow whipping out a Spear from God to take on a tank kind of thing

There are certain confrontations that IMO, should always bear out the same, no matter what. Damage should be applied, to be certain, but a Pikeman facing a tank, should ALWAYS lose, with a very very small chance of winning. The same holds true for something like a Battleship vs an Ironclad. It's ludicrous that an Ironclad should ever be able to go toe to toe against a Battleship and win.

Quote:

Sounds like you've just hit a run of really bad luck.

Yes and no I suppose. Now that I can see how combat is resolved, it's clear that even a slight dip towards the 'bad' rolls can have significant results. Though, none of this compares to going 12 down hands straight of Blackjack

Quote:

As for the mods, what you mentioned is the right place to look. You may want to add one or two starting hp per age past ancient, based on when the unit becomes available. The "Bonus" part is a bit misleading, bump that up one for say Cavalry and regular Cavs are produced with 4 hp, vets with 5, etc.

I'm fiddling around with the bix file now. Hopefully that will give more expected results. Hopefully

- Z

Vlado · October 3, 2003, 03:02

Do you have preserve random seed on? Because if you do you'll get the same result everytime you check the combat after a reload unless you do something inbetween. And all this other stuff about random chance etc...

Solomwi · October 3, 2003, 04:48

Quote:

That has got to be the stupidest combat odds calculation I've ever seen in any game, especially considering how low the health element is.

I've grown to kind of like it, due to one piece of advice I found here on 'Poly. Instead of sitting there thinking "wait a minute, no way can a Pikeman beat a Tank!", I view it as "How in the @$!^ am I supposed to win a war with such asinine tank commanders? Do they not know to maintain those things?!?" Actually, due to that and considering that tanks and other machines at times beat themselves (malfunctions, operator stupidity, etc.). The second doesn't always hold up considering the scale each unit represents, but it helps while playing.

Quote:

Though, none of this compares to going 12 down hands straight of Blackjack

Twelve?!? That's ALL?!? Rookie.

Craps is my game, and I've seen just as strange or stranger there, but I have had those unbelievable blackjack runs, too (6 straight 16's not too long ago, on the way to a horrible horrible run).

Dr. A. Cula · October 3, 2003, 05:36

This is a very old thing: I remember one game of Civ 1 where I attacked an enemy city with a knight. Turned out it was defended by a mech. inf., but I still took the city.

Zapaan · October 3, 2003, 06:03

Obviously I'm doing something wrong here. I've edited the civ3x.bix file to adjust all unit health as well as the level health, but I'm not seeing any difference ingame. I assume I'm missing a critical step somewhere? Or am I mistaken in thinking that the change will have any kind of effect in an existing game?

- Z

Gramphos · October 3, 2003, 06:32

No edits will effect an ongoing game (since civ3 1.17f IIRC)

Zapaan · October 3, 2003, 06:43

Doh! Ah well, guess I'll have to fire up a new one

Btw, I'm having trouble with your C3MT utility. For some reason I can't save at all anymore, as whenever I try, it crashes. I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling, but that did jack squat. Any ideas what might be causing this?

- Z

Gramphos · October 3, 2003, 06:54

I would need to see the files that causes this probelm, and a list of things doen to it to make the problem.

Stuie · October 3, 2003, 08:01

Zapaan - I would like to make one additional suggestion beyond modifying the game: soften your targets before an outright attack.

The way combat is calculated in this game, the use of combined arms is greatly rewarded. You should make sure you use some artillery (catapult, cannon, etc.) to knock a couple hit points off your intended victim, then attack them. This will greatly increase your odds of victory.

Likewise, if you can keep some arty stacked with your defending units, they get a free shot at any attackers before the main combat is resolved, again increasing your odds of success.

Cookie Monster · October 3, 2003, 08:35

Yes using artillery to soften the enemy before attack is a great idea. One other thing to consider that for catapults and cannons to be effective you must use them in number. By that I mean at least 3 or 4. This is because of their low bombard value being vulnerable to the random factor. This problem is not too bad when using artillery or radar artillery. You can use them in groups of 2 to 3 with great affect.

Good luck!

Zapaan · October 3, 2003, 09:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos
I would need to see the files that causes this probelm, and a list of things doen to it to make the problem.

Never mind, I got it going again

Strange thing though, it only started working once I opened up the settings option (never noticed it there before

) in the main CMT menu and closed it. Seems to be working fine now. I'm guessing it was looking for some kind of config file and wasn't finding it? I still don't see why that would make a difference in saving though. FWIW, I even tried simply opening a save and saving without making any changes (using 1.03). *shrug*

And thanks for the suggestions with the artillery fire guys, but I've been doing that as well. I'm finding the game rewards sheer numbers over tactical advantage, which to me is...well, I don't like that

Having to cart around 20 artillery batteries, dragging along another 12-15 bombers on multiple carriers, and a minimum of 30 tank divisions to take down cities is annoying as hell. I could get away with fewer, but there's just too much chance I'd end up losing more often than winning. It's the logic of taking an armada of tanks to oust villages armed with spearmen that seems rather idiotic. A single tank should be able to lay waste to at least 20 cities of that type. But instead, I have to bring 10 of them, otherwise there's a very high probability that I'll lose all of those units before I got halfway through.

Hopefully the editing will make the game less random.

- Z

Gramphos · October 3, 2003, 10:04

It is possible that there is a bug with the auto backup system. And unlessoyu have set your settings for it it could make the tool crash. (Just a thery. Will investigate it.)

Killazer · October 3, 2003, 12:19

Well you have to consider that in modern era cities can haven civil defense (+50%), radar tower (+25% i think), fortified (+25% i think), metropolis bonus like +50% I think.... 3+1.5+1+1+1.5 = 8 defense for a freakin pikeman. Im not sure if those numbers are 100% accurate but you get the idea. 16 ATK vs 8 DEF tank would win most of the time but it would still be very possible for the pikeman to kill the tank on defense. An infantry in that position would be like 10+5+2.5+2.5+5 = 25 def. So clearly u would need softening up or there is good chance infantry would kill yer tank on defense. Thats where bombardment comes in and why its so usefull especially later in the game.

Zapaan · October 3, 2003, 12:52

Considering that we're talking Pikemen here, in hamlets of under 6 population, against civs that aren't even in the Industrial era, the only possibility is that they're fortified and possibly with walls (which they don't have if the graphic is any indication), which gives 3+0.75 = 3.75 against 18. More often than not, I lose. Total bullshit.

Regardless of what the stats give out, there is no situation in the known universe where a guy with a pointy stick can defeat a tank. I don't care how pointy the stick is. It's utterly moronic that this can even conceivably happen. There should be an upward cap where certain confrontations will always bear out the same way, just based on simple logic. Caravels cannot beat Battleships, warriors cannot defeat mobile infantry, etc. It's infuriating that an otherwise wonderfully detailed game would have such a stupid combat system that resembles 52 pickup.

- Z

Killazer · October 3, 2003, 12:59

Well the pikeman may have had bazookas or panzerfaust/schrek they got from other civs that were in more advanced era? The game isnt entirely realistic

There has to be a lot of generalization to simulate dumb luck, foreign aid, incredible victory (Agincourt (sp?) ), Stalingrad, stuff like that

I mean Stalingrad to the world during that time looked like a bunck of rifleman conscripts trying to defense vs panzers with only fortification and city bonus. Most thought they were gonna lose, but they conscripts got some very nice rolls (lol...) . Anyway..

asleepathewheel · October 3, 2003, 13:27

This stuff happens.

If you're attacking spears with tanks, then perhaps you need to increase the difficulty level. I play on Emperor and rarely see spears or pikes, only when its some desert island civ or one that failed to upgrade when I maraude with tanks.

That said, the system allows for some interesting results. It just adds more flavor to the game for me, some risk of losing. And I really don't see such bad losses in my games very much. I usually see some bad losses but also some heroic victories on defense and attack by my undermanned units. It cuts both ways. Personally, I like the semi-randomness, it takes away the spreadsheet game feel.

Jaybe · October 3, 2003, 14:06

Quote:

... I don't care how pointy the stick is. ...

Z, if you are being held captive by the defending unit's graphic and name, then you need to use some more imagination!

Unit artwork/animations take a lot of time to implement by the creators of the game. They haven't the time to come up with "upgrades" just to show they are poorly trained and equipped, but have weaponry obsolete by only a generation or two. Besides, what should a Pike look like if you threw an old Pike of YOURS at it? (I have some muskets, even warriors, at home in the game I am currently playing, and I have modern armor on the front lines).

Civ is a Strategy game. If you are upset about 3.75 winning against your 18, understand the US Army prefers a 10-to-1 advantage in close-in (e.g., urban) combat.

In Rise of Nations (a very "pretty" game), I have seen multiple Industrial era (WW I) tanks defeat German King Tigers (WW II Pz VIb)! On a tactical level, it could "never" happen, but it also is a strategy game.

Jaybe · October 3, 2003, 14:16

... And besides if you were on the RECEIVING end of such an attack, wouldn't you like to win the battle once in a while???

Shogun Gunner · October 3, 2003, 16:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Solomwi

Also, concerning the number of "lucky rolls", don't forget that when dealing with random events, past outcomes have no bearing on future odds. IOW, most people are tempted to scream "what are the odds of that 1 in 3 chance coming up AGAIN?!?" if, say, your tank has lost a couple of hp in a row. The answer is 1/3, just like it was last time and just like it will be next time, regardless of whether or not it comes up this time.

Solomwi,

A very, very clear description of combat. I particularly appreciate your description of probability. It cannot be emphasized enough that past outcomes have no bearing on future odds.

Regarding the Spearman sticking his spear in the tailpipe of the tank causing a massive explosion and victory for the barefooted spearman....

There are a lot of ways to think about that situation and this has been an oft-discussed issue. It pays to remember that training, tactics and quality of equipment plays a huge role in combat success or failure.

Check out a website of World War II tanks. Even if you only consider the German models from 1938-1945 you will find a wide range of capabilities. Not every German tank was a King Tiger or Panther. In fact, most German tanks produced in this period were not of those design or level of capability.

History reminder -- The Ethopians did bloody the Italian nose when invaded by Italy 1935. Poor Italian tactics, not the world's best tanks, poor training and morale led to difficulties despite the fact that Italy was an industrialized nation and Ethopia actually deployed spearman in this fight. yes, some italian tanks were lost.

Solomwi · October 3, 2003, 19:07

Quote:

History reminder -- The Ethopians did bloody the Italian nose when invaded by Italy 1935

And German POW's told their British captors several years later "Next time, it's your turn to have the Italians".

Thanks for the thumbs up, Shogun, I was afraid I made it hard to follow.

Zapaan, I hope it didn't come across as talking down to you, and apologize if it did, but always work on two premises: a) I have no idea what you know and so must assume that you know nothing (that sounds worse than I mean it, but I hope you know what I'm saying) and b) even if the person I'm responding to is an expert in the field, somebody else reading the thread may have never been exposed to it. So, in a general explanation post like that one, I tend to err on the side of over-information.

Zapaan · October 3, 2003, 22:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
... And besides if you were on the RECEIVING end of such an attack, wouldn't you like to win the battle once in a while???

Absolutely not. It would make me think, "WTF?! IT'S A GUY WITH A POINTY STICK FOR CHRISSAKES!"

Seriously though, I'd be glad I won the fight of course, but I'd be disappointed that the game would allow such a stupid thing to occur.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
A very, very clear description of combat. I particularly appreciate your description of probability. It cannot be emphasized enough that past outcomes have no bearing on future odds.

From a purely abstract perspective when not talking about computers, I'd agree with you in general that previous outcomes of random results have no bearing on future outcomes. However, this is a computer we're talking about. Random numbers are currently not possible on a computer (or rather a home PC). The initial seed and sample set can be enormous, to be sure, but they are NOT random numbers being generated. Regardless, the point still stands and I agree here

Quote:

History reminder -- The Ethopians did bloody the Italian nose when invaded by Italy 1935. Poor Italian tactics, not the world's best tanks, poor training and morale led to difficulties despite the fact that Italy was an industrialized nation and Ethopia actually deployed spearman in this fight. yes, some italian tanks were lost.

Just as any ludicrous statement (ie. guys with pointy sticks fighting tanks) can be proven by some event throughout history, I'd be curious to know how many spearmen it took to destroy a tank. Clearly Civ3 units are considered units or regiments of the same type of unit, and while the number may vary on the specifics, a single unit of spearmen versus a single unit of tanks would virtually every time, result in tanks being the victor. Sheer numbers could certainly affect the outcome, so in your historical example, how many units of spearmen (though I doubt it was simply spearmen, more likely mobs and saboteurs armed with specialized equipment) took on a single tank unit?

Your point is valid though in regards to the possibility of almost anything occuring. At the same time, how many confrontations involving infantry weilding sharp sticks against armoured tanks throughout history indicate the stickweilders coming out on top? Aside from your single example, I'd find it hard to believe that it could occur much more than a handful of times. The point here is that the result is such a one-off or sheer fluke of random convergence that it amounts to never having happened from a statistical view, thus my point that it should never happen in the game still stands. At the very least, elements need to exist in the game to make it a one in a million chance, thus making it pointless to even do so (except perhaps from a small easter egg type of feature). However, in the game it's highly probable.

Tank attack strength = 16 (sorry, my bad, I was thinking about Battleships earlier when I said 18)
Spearmen defensive strength = 2

Assuming the tank is the agressor and not taking into account any kind of terrain or fortification modifiers, there is approx. an 11% chance the spearman will be the victor (per round of combat). That doesn't seem WAY off to you? That's better than a 1 in 10 chance they'll damage the tank! The odds should be closer to 1 in 100,000 in my mind (if not higher).

Quote:

Originally posted by Solomwi
Zapaan, I hope it didn't come across as talking down to you

Not at all. I didn't even make notice of it. No worries dude

- Z

Tuberski · October 3, 2003, 22:57

This is the first time I've seen this complaint in a long time.

ACK!

Zapaan · October 4, 2003, 00:02

I'm sure it's an old one, but one that needs reiterating from time to time

- Z

Killazer · October 4, 2003, 08:25

This really isnt a problem. Ya I might lose a tank fighting an inferior civ with pikemen, but I also will have destroyed their entire military and taken all of their cites.