Warlords: computer combat bug/cheat???

In Warlords v2.08, the computer attacked my capital of Athens with 1 Cav, 7 Riflemen, and 1 Trebuchet. I initially had 80% as a city defense factor. Well, I think the computer is either cheating, or something weird is going on, because with 9 vs. 5 defenders (4 riflemen and 1 grenadier), it always takes out all my guys. (actually the last time it had 1 cav, 4 rifile attackers dead, and 3 of my 5 guys dead, with the 2 remaining only have < 3 hit points).

This is my first Warlords game (I've been playing Civ4 since it came out), and I'm not used to an attacker sweeping away people in a defended city so easily.

I looked at the combat log after it was over, and for all the initial battles, it was a 4% chance or so of victory in the first 5 battles, but my defenders would lose 80% of their hit points before the attacker went down, and then the other attackers would take out my defenders. It seemed to me as if they were hitting my guys 2x or 3x as much as I was damaging them.

One entry in the combat log said something like (attacker: 18.xxx vs defender 21.xxx) but gave him a 57% chance of victory.

I've got the save files I can post, but I'm not sure how. I'll try the attachments button. Forget that, it's 569 KB, and zipped it's 511 KB.

What gives ?

Thanks,
Jeff

I think I'll upgrade to v2.13 and see what happens...

It's neither a bug nor a cheat. It's the thing called the random number generator, that decides the outcome of battles. As with all randomness there will be periods of bad luck and periods of good luck. It sounds like you've a had a streak of bad luck but it'll even out in the end when you get some good luck (not in this game neccesarily, but a later game).

And then there's of course the common perception that the AI is lucky even when the results were in fact "fair" compared to the odds, but this is due to selective memory - it's easier to remember when the AI wins at <5&#37; chance than when you do.

Also be sure to understand which outcomes are actually bad luck and which ones are even or in your favour. E.g. even when you have a high chance of winning, you still usually have a very low chance of emerging from the battle unscratched. The probabilities of getting wounded in the fight are higher than most people believe after just looking at the odds of winning.

windmilltilter said:

One entry in the combat log said something like (attacker: 18.xxx vs defender 21.xxx) but gave him a 57% chance of victory.

Click to expand...

In this case the defender has less than full health, thus reducing his chance of winning.

Hope that helped explaining that the combat results and combat odds aren't bugged.

(In warlords anyway - in an early version of vanilla the odds were in fact bugged, but since you said it was warlords I assume that to be out of question).

No, it wasn't just a run of bad luck. It was a different degree of damage altogether. In plain-Civ4, I could have held that city with the 5 defenders 99% of the time (yeah, some of them would have been hurt, but not to this degree). There's a problem here with it not adding on the 80% city defense factor or something.

There's also a problem with the combat log saying that in a "attacker: 18.xxx vs defender 21.xxx" situation (I think that was adjust for the attacker's batterness and also my unit's), it gave him an 57% chance of victory. I would post the save file (does that have the combat log in it) or the one for the turn before (the combat would undoubtedly go different, but probably still badly), but it's too big. I could e-mail it if someone would be kind enough to analyze it and post something.

I know I should build enough defenders to hold my cities, but it seems as if double the number needed for plain-Civ4 isn't remotely enough in Warlords now, and I don't understand why.

Thanks,

Jeff (moved up to Warlords v2.13 and haven't had any more battles yet)

If your save file is bigger than 500kb use the "upload file" button which is located at the bottom of every page. It allows for up to 10mb IIRC.

Once you've done that, just link to it from a post using the tags and I (or any other poster fr...mbat log and determine if something is wrong.

These are Warlords v2.08 files. (I've since gone to v2.13)

Okay, here's the end of the turn where Mehmed II is about to pummel Athens:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/87342/Jeffbo_AD-1915altalt_.CivWarlordsSave

Here's the start of the next turn:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/87342/Jeffbo_AD-1916altalt.CivWarlordsSave

Check the combat log, especially the entry that says (backwards order):

Mehmed II's Rifleman has defeated Jeffbo's Rifleman.
Jeffbo's Rifleman is hit for 17 (0/100 HP).
Jeffbo's Rifleman is hit for 17 (17/100 HP).
Jeffbo's Rifleman is hit for 17 (34/100 HP).
Jeffbo's Rifleman is hit for 17 (51/100 HP).
Combat Odds: 57.9%
Mehmed II's Rifleman (15.40) vs. Jeffbo's Rifleman (17.13).

So I think the 57.9% is wrong (yeah, that's his odds, not mine).

I've got the random seed thing turned on, so if you start with the "1915" turn, YMMV.

Thanks for the investigation. As I said, this is my first Warlords game, and my first actual attack in there, so maybe it's just more brutal than vanilla Civ4.

There was something else weird with this attack, where his trebuchet fired first without reporting anything about the outcome (or reducing the city defenses) and then the other units took turns attacking (as normal), and then it reported the city defenses going to 77%. For that, just load the 1915 turn and watch it.

Thanks a lot!

Jeff

Ok, after looking at the save I think I can address all the issues:

Check the combat log, especially the entry that says (backwards order):

Mehmed II's Rifleman has defeated Jeffbo's Rifleman.
Jeffbo's Rifleman is hit for 17 (0/100 HP).
Jeffbo's Rifleman is hit for 17 (17/100 HP).
Jeffbo's Rifleman is hit for 17 (34/100 HP).
Jeffbo's Rifleman is hit for 17 (51/100 HP).
Combat Odds: 57.9%
Mehmed II's Rifleman (15.40) vs. Jeffbo's Rifleman (17.13).

So I think the 57.9% is wrong (yeah, that's his odds, not mine).

Click to expand...

Looking at the combat log here and in the game the odds seem correct. Mehmed's rifleman (15.40) has 100HP vs. your rifleman (17.13) with only 68HP at the start of the battle. The fact that your rifleman is wounded before the fight tips the balance in favour of Mehmed. Though I haven't done the calculations in detail, it seems like reasonable odds.

There's a problem here with it not adding on the 80% city defense factor or something.

Click to expand...

Looking at the combat log and the odds, I'm absolutely positive that all bonuses have been taken into account including the city tile defense.

There was something else weird with this attack, where his trebuchet fired first without reporting anything about the outcome (or reducing the city defenses) and then the other units took turns attacking (as normal), and then it reported the city defenses going to 77%. For that, just load the 1915 turn and watch it.

Click to expand...

I didn't catch the message, but I noted that the city defense shown at the city during the attacks was indeed the correct one as was the one shown in the combat log. If there's a bug, it's in the log reports.

No, it wasn't just a run of bad luck. It was a different degree of damage altogether. In plain-Civ4, I could have held that city with the 5 defenders 99% of the time (yeah, some of them would have been hurt, but not to this degree). There's a problem here with it not adding on the 80% city defense factor or something.

Click to expand...

When I played the turn, five guys survived and the last AI attacker even gave up attacking and went pillaging instead. All I can say is that you've had some exceptionally bad luck. In your 1916AD's combat log I found, for instance, two cases where there was only about 1% of your unit losing as many HP as it did. They did not do this in my attempt.
So it has got nothing to do with Warlords. The fact that your units fought exceptionally bad is just due to the RNG making the result of your first combat in Warlords in the favour of the AI. It could just as well have been heavily in your favour. Bottom line is that the combat odds seem to work as intended.

Hope that helped addressing all the issues. If not, feel free to ask additional questions.

Hey Theoden,

Thanks for taking the time to examine the situation and comment. At first I thought it was just bad luck, but then I replayed it twice, and both times got pummeled (lost the city once, and the other time didn't have enough left there to hold it the next turn), so there was a string of bad outcomes going on. That being my first Warlords combat experience, I just wanted to check.

I can see how the 57.9% thing works now; sorry!

Thanks,

Jeff