Combat odds - AI cheating?

[Simple Simon]

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?????????

[jkp1187]

The AI does get some cheats here and there regardless of difficulty level, but combat is not one of them.

I have won battles at 6%. I have lost battles at 90%. If there wasn't a chance of losing, it wouldn't be a game.

Perhaps you "always lose" with important units because you're attacking with them first, before the enemy has been softened up?

[Bandobras Took]

Please, for the love of heaven, search the forum -- for example, http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=255816

[Simple Simon]

Originally Posted by jkp1187

The AI does get some cheats here and there regardless of difficulty level, but combat is not one of them.

I have won battles at 6%. I have lost battles at 90%. If there wasn't a chance of losing, it wouldn't be a game.

Perhaps you "always lose" with important units because you're attacking with them first, before the enemy has been softened up?

Please read my post!

I do NOT attack with the important units first - I am talking of cases where the displayed odds are '80%' or higher, and that summing up all these battles over a game I
a) do not win near 80% of them
b) tend to win if my unit is nothing special, but tend to lose if my unit is something special.
All only for fights at >80% odds.

[jkp1187]

Originally Posted by Simple Simon

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?????????

You did not mention your attack order in your original post.

An 80% chance to win does not mean you are always going to win 80% of those battles.

And as Mr. Took points out, this has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.

[Simple Simon]

Originally Posted by jkp1187

You did not mention your attack order in your original post.

if you had read my original post, you'd know that attack order (which I STIL have not mentioned) does not matter at all with regards to what I am talking about. If the first attack has an 80% probability, that makes it the same as a last attack @ 80%.

An 80% chance to win does not mean you are always going to win 80% of those battles.

in the long run it should mean that - but I do find that this is not true at a range of several dozens to several hundreds of fights.

And as Mr. Took points out, this has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.

If you are sick of it, read other threads and do not reply.

it seems you are incapable of grasping what I write, and at the same time also unable to understand that people sometimes need to vent their frustration. Pity!

[Tatran]

Hey Simon, you're up in LK139.
Better waste your energy overthere than in this whining thread.

[jkp1187]

Cheers!

(0123456789)

[Arkatsson]

Here is the post that will end this thread: ITS A PROBABILITY, UNLESS IT SAYS 100% THERE IS STILL A CHANCE IT DIES, YOU CAN CALL THEM DYING BAD LUCK, KARMA, OR ANYTHING ELSE, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO PROBABILITY THERE IS NO FORCE, COMPUTER OR GOD, OR ANY OTHER FORCE THAT DETERMINES THAT YOUR BEST TROOPS DIE.

*huff* *huff* *huff*

Woooo just had to expel that anger on how stupid the human race can be.

[Harald Hairfair]

Originally Posted by Simple Simon

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?????????

You have bad karma!!!

[Breunor]

Simple,

Please recognize that the programmers did NOT put in a cheat on combat. Many, many people inthe community have tested the combat odds with thousands of trials in the worldbuilder, and have confirmed that he combat is indeed random. These are true random, controlled experiments. You may have had bad luck or selective memory, but the combat is totally fair based on the odds.

Other AI 'cheats' are known and have been disclosed. So, yes, the computer starts with some hammers, faster research, etc. but they don't have an advantage in combat once the odds are set.

Best wishes,

Breunor

[Woody1]

Simple, you are quite "simply" wrong. You are failing to notice all the times you do win, and are focusing on the losses. The combats odds are fair, and there is no cheating involved. Just make sure to turn off the setting that saves the random number seed.

[Goodgimp]

Not...this....again... xD

The combat odds are "fair", the AI doesn't cheat. As has been stated, numerous tests have been run to determine this, not to mention having access to the code...

In any case, I know how frustrating it is to lose those high-probability fights. I remember losing a 98% and a 99.2% fight back to back!!! Not only that, but I didn't even end up inflicting damage in one of those fights...

[TheLastOne36]

Originally Posted by Harald Hairfair

You have bad karma!!!

exactly. Declare on an ai, kill it's inocent citizens, it comes back to you by the loss of units

[Airefuego]

Meanwhile Xerxes is STILL complaining about the "cheating" AI at Thermopylae

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Airefuego

Meanwhile Xerxes is STILL complaining about the "cheating" AI at Thermopylae

Immortals against phalanxes? Bah. He doesn't have a leg to stand on. He should save his breath for Salamis.

[MyOtherName]

Originally Posted by Simple Simon

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.

I know what you mean. In my current game, I've been winning just about every battle where my odds are 50%. Cyrus must be incredibly annoyed right about now! (But it serves him right for rushing to longbows when I wanted to crush the world beneath my praetorians. )

[Simple Simon]

Originally Posted by Woody1

Simple, you are quite "simply" wrong. You are failing to notice all the times you do win, and are focusing on the losses. The combats odds are fair, and there is no cheating involved. Just make sure to turn off the setting that saves the random number seed.

I kept a list. Maybe it is really bad karma? Maybe I never see improbable wins because I avoid such fights?

[Simple Simon]

Originally Posted by MyOtherName

I know what you mean. In my current game, I've been winning just about every battle where my odds are 50%. Cyrus must be incredibly annoyed right about now! (But it serves him right for rushing to longbows when I wanted to crush the world beneath my praetorians. )

Maybe my 'n' is still too small @ roughly 300! Personally I think that the probabilities should be roughly correct for +/- 40 fights on small maps, and maybe ~200 on large. Otherwise, luck plays such a big role in the game!

[Simple Simon]

Originally Posted by Breunor

Other AI 'cheats' are known and have been disclosed. So, yes, the computer starts with some hammers, faster research, etc. but they don't have an advantage in combat once the odds are set.

and you are quite correct putting 'cheats' into ''s! That's what's called a handicap. I was just reminded of the 'no, the AI does not know the map' claim by Firaxis in Civ3, which promptly had people on CFC show that it was false.