Civ IV combat odds are rigged.

That seems like some interesting stuff. Learning all about game code, C++, etc. I'm completely ignorant on all fronts, but nonetheless would be pretty cool to be knowledgable on those things. /: How do people who are knowledgable about such things come to be so anyways? Doesn't make sense..
 
Visit the mod creation forum.

I don't mod civ4 but I do work as a games programmer. I learnt C on a job training scheme and learnt C++ on the job.
 
The vanilla game has been out for what, five or six years now? I'm pretty sure the hundreds of modders and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of players would notice if combat results were rigged. A random number generator isn't trying to screw you over, it's random. It is fully possible to lose with anything short of a 100%.
 
The odds are not rigged. It is just that 99.8% odds means that you will still fail 2 out of 1000. And those are the two that you will remember. In a single game of Civ4 you will be attacking more than 1000 times.

Also, one thing to note is that the combat odds display is faulty for any attacks that is not from the square you are in. For example, if you have a chariot about to attack a bear on a hill two squares away, the displayed odds might be 99.8%. However, to attack the bear, you actually have to move to the square in between and from that square, you have to cross a river to attack it. The displayed odds does NOT take into account that river crossing which reduces your strength by 25%. This is true of any other feature that might affect your combat odds from the attacking square. The displayed odds are for the square you are in versus the bear. Move to the square next to the bear, and your odds will suddenly change for the worse (river crossingis finally taken into account). So, your 99.8% odds suddenly flubs to 60% and you get swatted.
 
but yeah ... the RNG it game uses is kinda streaky, prone to roll out odd strings of unlikely loses/wins every now and then, but macroviewing its tested and true
 
oldskald said:
I'd be more concerned if I was consistently loosing 80% of combats at 50% odds...
Click to expand...

Well this is exactly what I think is happening to me every single game I play....:lol:
 
AJ11 said:
The odds are not rigged. It is just that 99.8% odds means that you will still fail 2 out of 1000. And those are the two that you will remember. In a single game of Civ4 you will be attacking more than 1000 times.

Also, one thing to note is that the combat odds display is faulty for any attacks that is not from the square you are in. For example, if you have a chariot about to attack a bear on a hill two squares away, the displayed odds might be 99.8%. However, to attack the bear, you actually have to move to the square in between and from that square, you have to cross a river to attack it. The displayed odds does NOT take into account that river crossing which reduces your strength by 25%. This is true of any other feature that might affect your combat odds from the attacking square. The displayed odds are for the square you are in versus the bear. Move to the square next to the bear, and your odds will suddenly change for the worse (river crossingis finally taken into account). So, your 99.8% odds suddenly flubs to 60% and you get swatted.
Click to expand...

Another quirk in the odds that I've found through experience is that the displayed odds seem NOT to take bonuses into account, or not properly. I've been scared to death by bad odds (e.g. 49% for a CR attack against longbows) only to find the unit easily and repeatably winning. Similarly I can have the odds show a 75% or some such odds display for a cav attack on a rifle, but I happen to know that it's much more dangerous than that due to the rifleman's bonus against cavs. I keep all these "extra odds modifiers" in my head at all times when taking the odds display with a grain of salt.
 
Ghpstage said:
The displayed odds do take the various bonuses and promotions into account.
Click to expand...

All I know is that experience has taught me that a 70% with a bonus against an opponent is much safer than a 70% with an opponent's bonus against me. It acts "as if" it weren't taking those bonuses into account might be a better way to describe it. It's not a "just seems to be" since I see the behavior consistently, whether it's in my favor or against me.
 
Skallagrimson said:
All I know is that experience has taught me that a 70% with a bonus against an opponent is much safer than a 70% with an opponent's bonus against me. It acts "as if" it weren't taking those bonuses into account might be a better way to describe it. It's not a "just seems to be" since I see the behavior consistently, whether it's in my favor or against me.
Click to expand...

Pure coincidence and/or selective memory/bias.

A 70% battle is always 70% chance for victory (or very very close based on how good RNG is). There are no exceptions...not relative strengths, not what kind of bonuses led there, nothing...although if you get to 70% using drill vs combat you will have slightly different expected final HP outcomes, the 70% to win or lose is nevertheless accurate.
 
You really should try the "new seed after reload" get your stack of six and have them attack and reload and see how you get different results. I used to do the same thing when I didn't want ANYTHING to die. Now I don't care and sacrifice whatever.
 
You have to remember we humans are a cautious lot, especially with highly valuable units, 20% odds with your GG unit means you will send him in approximately 0% of the time, and if that's all your opponent needs for a tactical victory, then so be it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mastrude
Civ IV Excel Calculator Nerds
Replies
7
Views
689
Quintillus
Quintillus
Ita Bear
The sorry state of modern turn based 4X
Replies
7
Views
2K
PPQ_Purple
PPQ_Purple
T
Combat odds?
Replies
5
Views
1K
vincentz
vincentz
C
Dale's Combat Mod and artillery
Replies
0
Views
408
CaptainKoloth
C
B
Problem with the combat log in another language.
Replies
2
Views
845
BristonXII
B
Top Bottom