Battle Statistics of the Iroqi War

[Provolution]

Iroqi Casualties

Worker (captured by Xerxes)
Cruller (Xerxes caused Iroqi razing)
Warrior (first combat loss, incurred by Xerxes in defense)

Ironic Casualties

None

 

[donsig]

Iroqi casualties:

consript warrior

Ironic casualties:

Xerxes (warrior)
2 immortals

 

[Provolution]

Please add up the total losses, for the bigger picture.

 

[donsig]

Iroqi casualties:

Worker (captured by Xerxes)
Cruller (Xerxes caused Iroqi razing)
Warrior (first combat loss, incurred by Xerxes in defense)
consript warrior

Ironic casualties:

Xerxes (warrior)
2 un-named immortals
Pharnakes (vet immortal - lost attempting to clear the west of Libyans)
Shahanshah Provolution (vet immortal - lost in the southern reaches of the Sacred Forest)

 

[donsig]

Iroqi casualties:

Worker (captured by Xerxes)
Cruller (Xerxes caused Iroqi razing)
Warrior (first combat loss, incurred by Xerxes in defense)
consript warrior

Ironic casualties:

Xerxes (warrior)
2 un-named immortals
Pharnakes (vet immortal - lost attempting to clear the west of Libyans)
Shahanshah Provolution (vet immortal - lost in the southern reaches of the Sacred Forest)
Cyrus (vet immortal) near Lookout Mountain
Cambyses (regular immortal) near Lookout Mountain

 

[donsig]

Iroqi casualties:

Worker (captured by Xerxes)
Cruller (Xerxes caused Iroqi razing)
Warrior (first combat loss, incurred by Xerxes in defense)
conscript warrior
Mounted Warriors: GS squads 1 (reg), 2 (reg), 3 (vet) & 4 (vet) all killed in the Battle of Banana Plains

Ironic casualties:

Xerxes (warrior)
2 un-named immortals
Pharnakes (vet immortal - lost attempting to clear the west of Libyans)
Shahanshah Provolution (vet immortal - lost in the southern reaches of the Sacred Forest)
Cyrus (vet immortal) near Lookout Mountain
Cambyses (regular immortal) near Lookout Mountain
Majeed (vet horseman) killed in the Battle of Banana Plains
Faris (vet horseman) killed in the Battle of Banana Plains

Summary:

Iroqi
Cities: 1
Workers: 1
Military: 6 (4 mounted warriors, 2 warriors)

Iron
Military: 8 (5 immortals, 2 horseman, 1 warrior) (Note: Another immortal lost to Libyans)

EDIT: Updated through 1100 BC

 

[donsig]

Iroqi casualties:

Worker (captured by Xerxes)
Cruller (Xerxes caused Iroqi razing)
Warrior (first combat loss, incurred by Xerxes in defense)
conscript warrior
Mounted Warriors: GS squads 1 (reg), 2 (reg), 3 (vet) & 4 (vet) all killed in the Battle of Banana Plains

Ironic casualties:

Xerxes (warrior)
2 un-named immortals
Pharnakes (vet immortal - lost attempting to clear the west of Libyans)
Shahanshah Provolution (vet immortal - lost in the southern reaches of the Sacred Forest)
Cyrus (vet immortal) near Lookout Mountain
Cambyses (regular immortal) near Lookout Mountain
Majeed (vet horseman) killed in the Battle of Banana Plains
Faris (vet horseman) killed in the Battle of Banana Plains
Hooman (3/3 reg horseman) killed south of the Sacred Jungle in 975 BC
Kaven (4/4 vet horseman) killed south of the Sacred Jungle in 975 BC
Hamru (4/4 vet horsemen) killed south of the Sacred Jungle in 975 BC
Kasra (4/4 vet immortal) killed south of the Sacred Jungle in 975 BC

Summary:

Iroqi
Cities: 1
Workers: 1
Military: 6 (4 mounted warriors, 2 warriors)

Iron
Military: 12 (6 immortals, 5 horseman, 1 warrior) (Note: Another immortal lost to Libyans)

 

[donsig]

I went through the old battle logs and used the combat calculator Rik Meleet linked to in the Iroqi War Chronicles thread. Here are some of my findings:

We've had 36 battles. Our W/L/D *score* is 6/24/6.

We were the attacker 14 times and are 6/5/3 in our attacks.

We were the defender 22 times and are 0/19/3 in those cases.

There were 14 battles where our chance of winning was less than 50%. We were 6/5/3 in those.

There were 22 battles where our chance of winning was greater than 50%. We were 6/11/5 in those.

Every time we attacked we had a better than 50-50 chance of winning. Actually, our odds were always at leas (about) two to one since the lowest chance attack we made was the last one we made: Our horseman Nasim attacking DS squad 2 in the desert south of the Sacred Jungle. We had a 63.7 chance of winning. Counting draws (Iroqi retreats) as wins for us we had 9 *wins* against 5 losses.

If we call the battle participant with the highes percent chance of winning the battle *strong* and the other one *weak*:

We were *strong* 22 times and were 6/11/5 in those battles.

We were *weak* 14 times and were 0/13/1 in those encounters.

Our best *weak* battle was a draw when our chances of winning were 35.8%. (That was when Crown Prince Strider was attacked and forced a mounted warrior to retreat.) We lost every other battle where we were *weak*.

In all the other Iroqi retreats we were the stronger in the battle - but they got away

The Iroqi won 11 battles where they were *weak*, six times as the attacker and 5 times as the defender. The Iroqi attacked our units eight times with odds of winning ranging from 22.1% through 49.7% and they won six times and retreated the other two. (The retreats were at 43.2% and 49.7%.) The Iroqi successfully defended five times when their chances of winning ranged from 0.9% to 36.3%.

The Iroqi attacked 22 times with odds ranging from 22.1% to 89.5% and they never lost! They won 19 times and retreated the other three.

Yeah, it's frustrating.

 

[BCLG100]

wow there fairly appaling battle results, hope we shrug the bad luck off.

 

[Provolution]

I just sense the Do'nuts had reloaded their battles in order to win. If I were you,I would ask the moderators to check for reloads and so on. To cite the 11 september broadcast. "One time time could be an accident, now this is two times, and that is no accident. This is not an accident, I repeat, this is not an accident."

Well, 19 out of 19 battles lost when they kept the save is beyond a pattern,I would actually consider foul play to be involved here. Call me a paranoiac or whatever politically correct jitter some sleazy demogamers like to flaunt in order to get a leg up on their honest counterparts, but I rather stick with probability science, my gut feeling, and my nose for cheaters.

I am now playing the Combat mission metacampaign, where there is no room for rule manipulation ("Team KISS"), no room for save reloads ("Team Doughnut") and no room for complaining on the game intent on Spirit of the Game ("Team MIA"). This is just my honest opinion. We were lucky to get an early settler, and this is how the various sides compensated that lead.

 

[Theoden]

The Iroqi attacked 22 times with odds ranging from 22.1% to 89.5% and they never lost! They won 19 times and retreated the other three.

If we calculate with their average chance of winning as around 60% the chance of that happening is 0.0013%. That is indeed very frustrating.

 

[BCLG100]

I just sense the Do'nuts had reloaded their battles in order to win. If I were you,I would ask the moderators to check for reloads and so on. To cite the 11 september broadcast. "One time time could be an accident, now this is two times, and that is no accident. This is not an accident, I repeat, this is not an accident."

Well, 19 out of 19 battles lost when they kept the save is beyond a pattern,I would actually consider foul play to be involved here. Call me a paranoiac or whatever politically correct jitter some sleazy demogamers like to flaunt in order to get a leg up on their honest counterparts, but I rather stick with probability science, my gut feeling, and my nose for cheaters.

I am now playing the Combat mission metacampaign, where there is no room for rule manipulation ("Team KISS"), no room for save reloads ("Team Doughnut") and no room for complaining on the game intent on Spirit of the Game ("Team MIA"). This is just my honest opinion. We were lucky to get an early settler, and this is how the various sides compensated that lead.

It could hurt us though if we were to ask one of the mods and was wrong.

 

[greekguy]

It could hurt us though if we were to ask one of the mods and was wrong.

it will hurt us more if we don't press the issue and D'Nuts continue to kill us because of cheating. however, i'm still not sure which path we should take.

 

[BCLG100]

it will hurt us more if we don't press the issue and D'Nuts continue to kill us because of cheating. however, i'm still not sure which path we should take.

These are dreadful results yes but is there a chance we are being sore losers?

 

[donsig]

These are dreadful results yes but is there a chance we are being sore losers?

That's a good question. This whole thing has crossed my mind, too, but I don't see enough evidence to cry foul. It is quite possible that they've just been lucky once or twice at very opportune times. I also don't understand the retreat system enough to know if their withdrawls have been *lucky*. As for reloading, would that even give different results for these battles? I don't know the answer to that because I've never tried it.

I will post the excel spreadsheet I made to get these stats. (It's on my computer at work.) Perhaps some of you can look at it and see if you see anything I didn't. In the mean time let's not ask for a formal investigation. We will keep our eyes open though and continue to monitor these stats.

I don't think we have to worry about the Iroqi killing us off. If we've learned anything from this war it's how to defend against an invasion!

 

[BCLG100]

That's a good question. This whole thing has crossed my mind, too, but I don't see enough evidence to cry foul. It is quite possible that they've just been lucky once or twice at very opportune times. I also don't understand the retreat system enough to know if their withdrawls have been *lucky*. As for reloading, would that even give different results for these battles? I don't know the answer to that because I've never tried it.

I will post the excel spreadsheet I made to get these stats. (It's on my computer at work.) Perhaps some of you can look at it and see if you see anything I didn't. In the mean time let's not ask for a formal investigation. We will keep our eyes open though and continue to monitor these stats.

I don't think we have to worry about the Iroqi killing us off. If we've learned anything from this war it's how to defend against an invasion!

If an investigation was to occur just how would any proof be found anyways?

 

[donsig]

If an investigation was to occur just how would any proof be found anyways?

That's a good question. If anyone has an answer please post it.

In the mean time here is the excel file where I compiled the stats.

(Well, I think I attached it anyway?!?)

EDIT: Zipped it and attached it.

 

[lost_civantares]

I don't know how much this helps, but if they tried reloading with out the "random seed on reload" option checked when the game was started (which I doubt) it would not do anything, it would come out the same no matter how many times it was tried.

 

[Provolution]

Please have someone look into this, 19 out of 19 won and 3 withdrawals with absolutely no losses is way way beyond a normally occuring game.

 

[Rik Meleet]

I don't know how much this helps, but if they tried reloading with out the "random seed on reload" option checked when the game was started (which I doubt) it would not do anything, it would come out the same no matter how many times it was tried.

I am 99% sure the random seed option was checked when I made the game. I will check it when I get home (and find a way to verify it).

Provo: I personally have experienced that combat odds can have very weird results in a PBEM. In a PBEM I played recently, my opponents units were vitually indestructable while mine fell like flies. I lost back to back to back to back battles I had over 90% chance in. I lost 3 cities, 15 units against 0 of my opponent (and he got a MGL). And I am 100% he did not cheat.

My conclusion: RNG in PBEM is different then in single player games.