Simple Simon
Simpleton
There's one thing that keeps bugging me about CIV BtS: whatever I do, the AIs get a better share of combat results than they should.
Take, for example, my latest game: Out of fights with combat odds better than 80% for me, I win roughly 60%. Out of those with odds >90%, I win roughly 75%. And out of those greater 99% I lost, so far, 5! I am still in the early ADs, so I had 15 fights of that kind, making it a whopping third! If you add up the shields lost above probability, I lost around 15% more than I should - no wonder the AIs do well on Prince level!
OK, you can simply call me unlucky. But now get this:
I ALWAYS lose with important units - e.g. a combat 3, cover, CR1 axe will lose a fight with 80% odds about twice as often as a regular archer with the same odds. Weird, hu?
Or this: if the unit in question is the sole defender of an important spot (city, resource), it is roughly 1.5 times as likely to lose at the same odds then if it is just another unit in a stack.
Now you can tell me how nicely programmed CIV is, and how the result odds are just probabilities, but I can't help remembering the other AI cheats that the CIV series was plagued with - e.g. them knowing troop and resource locations, etc. Even now, they always know where barb cities are, even if they are in the fog to them, and how many defenders of what kind they have. So is this another case where the programmers helped the poor AI programming?????????
Take, for example, my latest game: Out of fights with combat odds better than 80% for me, I win roughly 60%. Out of those with odds >90%, I win roughly 75%. And out of those greater 99% I lost, so far, 5! I am still in the early ADs, so I had 15 fights of that kind, making it a whopping third! If you add up the shields lost above probability, I lost around 15% more than I should - no wonder the AIs do well on Prince level!
OK, you can simply call me unlucky. But now get this:
I ALWAYS lose with important units - e.g. a combat 3, cover, CR1 axe will lose a fight with 80% odds about twice as often as a regular archer with the same odds. Weird, hu?
Or this: if the unit in question is the sole defender of an important spot (city, resource), it is roughly 1.5 times as likely to lose at the same odds then if it is just another unit in a stack.
Now you can tell me how nicely programmed CIV is, and how the result odds are just probabilities, but I can't help remembering the other AI cheats that the CIV series was plagued with - e.g. them knowing troop and resource locations, etc. Even now, they always know where barb cities are, even if they are in the fog to them, and how many defenders of what kind they have. So is this another case where the programmers helped the poor AI programming?????????