What I was trying to imply was that the information he learned would be learned legally in almost any other situation in game, but because of a specific bug that we are now aware of a small move was required to gain access to this normally freely available information, I think this move can be considered an exception because of this game bug that it compensates for.
Good, since we know this from Joe, we can simply decide to move the two keshiks to Northeast of Berlin.
The odds of a generic Keshik with combat I attacking a generic longbowman crossing a river.
30,1%
Now, can we get back to business?
In the end, it really doesn't matter. We have enough forces to take Berlin any time we want, whether we kill this LB or not. It is just always easier to kill a CG Longbowman out in the open, rather than wait until he gets to the city and gets another 45% bonus.Unfortunately I don't have that much faith in the RNG. I fear that a middle of the road approach on attacking this longbowman will be much worse than putting the necessary force to finish him off into this battle, or, possibly even worse than leaving him alone entirely.
Edit: Holy Mackeral! 50 posts showed up while I was typing
Guess I should have updated this thread too... the whole thing was a misconception that we should do the attack in two moves. You get the better odds if it's done as a single move.
This is incorrect. The Keshik has the exact same combat odds whether it is done in one move or two. What is different is the display of those odds. Anyone can easily verify this with a WB test and checking the combat log after the battle.... the whole thing was a misconception that we should do the attack in two moves. You get the better odds if it's done as a single move.
If this were my own personal game, that LB would have been long since dead. I have no problem whatsoever suiciding Keshiks. But my thoughts for this DG game can be found a few posts back ...I am certain we will not see similar suicide polls for the longer haul, and if so, I would be very outspoken and sarcastic about it.
My sincerest apologies to you. I have never felt that you have lied. I was attempting to show that your statement was incorrect. In no way did I mean to imply that you have misled anyone. And I am sorry that you interpreted my statements that way.Point 1: My issue was, and still is, that you're treating me like a liar even after I provided evidence that the game says 67%.
Agreed!Point 2: I don't really care if there is a bug or not. A normal player would want to attack, hover the unit, see the attack has a good chance, and do it. A normal player wouldn't be keeping track of what the actual results are over hundreds of cycles.
No. Just go into WB and setup a test. After you attack the unit you can see the actual combat parameters (and the odds) in the combat log.Point 3: I'd be interest in hearing what methodology was used to determine "actual" odds. Was it 100's of trials with updated RNG each time?