[BTS] Civ IV combat odds are rigged.

[apocalypse105]

Originally Posted by username804

That's because of games like Age of Empires and Empire Earth where they started that nonsense.

The older Civ games didnt have that.

You can always change it in the XML. There was a thread about axemen...

BUT Historically, Egyptian 3 man chariots were archer platforms that never actually physically engaged the enemy, Immortals were just a bunch of dumb guys in WICKER armor (but there were a lot of them!) that were EASY picking for the Bronze armed & armored Hoplites of Sparta. That's how 300 could hold off an army of 100,000. They wore metal!

For realism, make the Immortal a swordsman in wicker armor, and give Hoplites a +100% against...

Etc, Etc, Etc.

I'm talking about gameplay why give a unit a 50% bonus against something when it proparly will not engage it

[username804]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

I'm talking about gameplay why give a unit a 50% bonus against something when it proparly will not engage it

um... just to be like the other games

no other reason than that

If you dont like something, change the xml...

[apocalypse105]

Originally Posted by username804

um... just to be like the other games

no other reason than that

If you dont like something, change the xml...

Sure if you tell me how I never changed the XML's of civ 4 manual because i'm scared i screw up the game

[AJ11]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

Sure if you tell me how I never changed the XML's of civ 4 manual because i'm scared i screw up the game

Make a copy of the file first before you play around. That way, if you muck it up, you can delete the mucked up one and put the old one back.

If you open up the xml files, you will find that it is nothard to mod. Most stuff are clearly labelled. I figured it out on my own, so I am sure you can too.

[TheMeInTeam]

Make changes to xml in files copied to custom assets only. Do NOT change the original files or it will screw up MP. I will say it again just in case so that people looking to do it the first time don't wind up having to reinstall.

Anyway, one thing I always hated about civ IV is how a few unlucky outcomes can be game changing. If this game wasn't programmed so incompetently that moving units takes the AI an eternity, I would definitely have preferred units to be cheaper + cost less maintenance. That way, you could have gobs of troops and any one battle outcome would be much less relevant than it is presently (and losing at improbably odds wouldn't be so grating). It would have made highly-promoted units more likely in a single game too since more battles would be fought so there would be more chances for improbably lucky streaks too.

One of the reasons I really hate barbs is that the isolated low % odds outcome (like 2 archers and a warrior taking a city defended by 2 archers, which is EXTREMELY unlikely) can be utterly game-changing.

[Archon_Wing]

Civ V did one thing right by having brutes that are weaker than your default warriors. Also, it seems the combat has less variance. Having Barb units the same caliber of yours just seems silly, especially when they can spawn out of nowhere and you don't even get bonuses @ higher levels.

Actually, screw barbs. Stupid animals have the same strength as your military unit. Panthers are OP. The fact that a panther can just come out of nowhere and kill you at like 15% odds and thus cripple your scouting early game is a bit annoying. I mean suicide wolves and panthers? o.0 Sure they can kill unarmed workers but..

[username804]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Civ V did one thing right by having brutes that are weaker than your default warriors. Also, it seems the combat has less variance. Having Barb units the same caliber of yours just seems silly, especially when they can spawn out of nowhere and you don't even get bonuses @ higher levels.

Actually, screw barbs. Stupid animals have the same strength as your military unit. Panthers are OP. The fact that a panther can just come out of nowhere and kill you at like 15% odds and thus cripple your scouting early game is a bit annoying. I mean suicide wolves and panthers? o.0 Sure they can kill unarmed workers but..

Yeah the next time someone says "Praets are OP" or "I only play with nukes " you can remind them that Panthers and Bears are OP and ruin the game for noobs

[karadoc]

I've adapted my early-game strategy to deal with panthers and barbarians. I make a special effort to end turns on defensive tiles, and to get tougher defenders before barbarian axemen start coming at my cities. (I also spawn-bust, etc.) So panthers and barbarians don't usually cause me any trouble -- but bears on the other hand...

[Sinyail]

TheMeInTeam commented on my thread! Now my life is complete. lol I love your Vids TMIT. They are awesome.

[KoalaConquerer]

To be honest, I never lost a 96-99% battle, but sometimes, some battles when I have a 80%-even 90.6% chance, I lose. i think if you score too many victories, the AI tries to balance it out. When I once had an epic conquest of Europe and Africa, i got completely molested in Asia by the Chinese(I prefer Earth maps) and had to settle for a Science victory. It could just be me though. I occasionally rage quit when I lose a 90.6% chance battle, but feel like the combat system in the game could be edited, but i guess thats too late, isn't it?

[Archon_Wing]

Well, early game, bad luck can make an impact and it really does suck. It's why barbs are kinda stupid.

Usually I don't notice because I use stack attack and just send them all in to fight though. So individual battles don't bother me.

[TheWilltoAct]

Civ 4 Wombat Odds are rigged.

You heard it here first.

[Nick Carpathia]

I lose 95-99% odds all the bloody time. Even multiple times in a row.

But. I also win a sizable number of <10% odds as well.

I don't complain because I understand that this game is about building up the infrastructure to support the ability to take those >50% odds. By doing so, I can afford to take a ton of battles, and I always seek to form safety margins that can afford to take these kind of odds.

[rah]

If you've never lost a 96% then you don't do combat enough.

[Mec AntiKythera]

Well I'm glad to hear that, if nothing else, at least I do enough combat.

[Kallikrates]

I know about confirmation bias, but I still feel that I lose too many battles, not at >90%, but at 66-80% odds. It seems that I lose at least every other battle with odds of 2/3 to 3/4 in my favor, so I admit to reloading in some cases (I set new random seed) when extremely frustrated. (However, I do not re-load every battle until I win!) I do not consider it a bad cheat, because I hardly ever attack (except with suicide siege units) at the corresponding odds <35%, so I can't reap the benefits of an occasional win at very low odds.
And I have the distinct impression that some combinations of attacker/defender are more likely to succeed/fail at mathematically equal odds. Of course one has to factor in withdrawal, but still combat seems to work quite often against me with caravels attacking each other or obsolete ships.

Maybe someone can answer a related question: How is the damage of the survivor determined? Of course retreating units will always be quite badly damaged, but how exactly is the correlation between highly favorable odds and the damage the attacker takes? First strikes apparently are a factor here as well, aren't they?

The question about realism in the combat system seem mostly moot to me, it is just a game, some of the bonuses against specific units are plausible, some less. (Longbows should get a bonus against knights in the field, not in cities against macemen...)
It shouldn't be more complicated, because this is not a pure wargame. One of the few things that could be modified, are the 10% bonus for ships on a coast (why should one get this bonus in ENEMY waters?)
And maybe the hills/forest bonuses could be more unit specific. Mounted units and also archers could get a malus when attacking forested tiles.

[Lemon Merchant]

Originally Posted by Kallikrates

I know about confirmation bias, but I still feel that I lose too many battles, not at >90%, but at 66-80% odds. It seems that I lose at least every other battle with odds of 2/3 to 3/4 in my favor, so I admit to reloading in some cases (I set new random seed) when extremely frustrated. (However, I do not re-load every battle until I win!) I do not consider it a bad cheat, because I hardly ever attack (except with suicide siege units) at the corresponding odds <35%, so I can't reap the benefits of an occasional win at very low odds.
And I have the distinct impression that some combinations of attacker/defender are more likely to succeed/fail at mathematically equal odds. Of course one has to factor in withdrawal, but still combat seems to work quite often against me with caravels attacking each other or obsolete ships.

Maybe someone can answer a related question: How is the damage of the survivor determined? Of course retreating units will always be quite badly damaged, but how exactly is the correlation between highly favorable odds and the damage the attacker takes? First strikes apparently are a factor here as well, aren't they?

The question about realism in the combat system seem mostly moot to me, it is just a game, some of the bonuses against specific units are plausible, some less. (Longbows should get a bonus against knights in the field, not in cities against macemen...)
It shouldn't be more complicated, because this is not a pure wargame. One of the few things that could be modified, are the 10% bonus for ships on a coast (why should one get this bonus in ENEMY waters?)
And maybe the hills/forest bonuses could be more unit specific. Mounted units and also archers could get a malus when attacking forested tiles.

I can't answer the question, but those are some good ideas for a mod.

Thank you for posting something this constructive to the thread. I was about to complain that we resurrected this klunker again.

And welcome to CFC!

[Kallikrates]

Thanks! I reall wonder what the idea behind the 10% coastal bonus is... it would make some kind of sense for friendly territory or maybe the ancient ships only.

One cannot do much about the damage of victorious attackers anyway (except bring medics), but if there were some rules of thumb it could help speeding up a campaign, because one could try do use the units for cleanup that would be the least likely to suffer at highly favorable odds. I think there was some advice for tank warfare that used Drill promotions for that, but they are not available to typical raiders of ancient through medieval times.

I am somewhat overwhelmed with the information of this forum. After starting to play CivIV in Fall 2010 I read some of the guides (by Sisiutil etc.), because I really had to forget about my old CIV II strategies (I skipped III, I am not such a frequent player and loath to get used to new games) after really struggling on Noble or even lower.
I upgraded to Warlords some time ago and now I am somewhat struggling with the monarch level, although the last prince games were clearly too easy. (The problem for me is that the early game is often quite hard and frustrating, even on prince, depending on opponents and map with many possibilities to screw up royally, but from midgame it's just tedious, because you will certainly win, the only question is how and when.)
So I now registered to get more specific advice... I will post some more questions in other threads, probably.

[ruff_hi]

I can't search on the forum at the moment, but read 'combat explained' to learn about how damage is done.

[bhavv]

At 96% combat odds, you still have a 1/25 chance of losing. If its not 100%, you are not guaranteed to win.