Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
That can be part of the game too, like when I popped HBR from a hut when playing as Kublai...WAAAAAY too much good luck here.
ALC Game #26: Willem van Oranje/Dutch
- Thread starter Lord Parkin
- Start date
that game I enjoyed shadowingThat can be part of the game too, like when I popped HBR from a hut when playing as Kublai...
Excellent writeup, many thanks m'lord for continuing the ALC series; I'm just a humble noble player but I have gleaned many nuggets from reading this series and have just finished a marathon medieval war and vasseled my two much bigger neighbours following SoD advice from this series; it's always interesting and informative to read how peoples rationales for proposing various strategies and what works with what and why.
Good rush and the GLh as well!!
Good rush and the GLh as well!!
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Just for the record, it wasn't actually that much good luck. And I did have a "Plan B" in every situation. It's just that often people forget that (for instance) 25% does mean you should win 1 out of 4 battles, and if the 1 that you happen to win is the first or second one, then you've often got it made. (I often use this type of "risk analysis" to war more successfully in multiplayer games, like this one.) For the sake of argument though, I'll tell you exactly what I would have done if things had turned out not so well.WAAAAAY too much good luck here.
With the Archer near the Settler: If he'd won against the Warrior, obviously I would have had to retreat the Settler. It wouldn't have been too much of a big deal though, because Chariots would have been in the area fairly soon, and founding Utrecht on schedule wasn't actually necessary to succeed in the rush against Liz. So at worst it would have meant perhaps a dozen turns of delay (probably less) in founding our second city. Not a biggie.
With the attack on London: My odds weren't actually all that bad, if you consider the point in my first paragraph. The optimum number of Chariots to attack London with a decent safety region would have been 8, but 7 would be fairly safe as well. It wasn't that big a jump to having only 6 Chariots, especially if I happened to get lucky in one of the first two battles (which had a ~50% chance of happening).
But let's say for argument's sakes that my first four Chariots died. (This had fairly low odds of occuring, by the way.) What then? Obviously Liz's Archers should have been damaged a bit by all the attacks, so they'd now be below full strength. I'd have checked the odds of the remaining two Chariots, and if they were above ~50% or so, I would have thrown them at the city too. (After four failed battles, it's unlikely that they'd both lose.) This would have meant that the four previous Chariots wouldn't have died in vain. After this point, I'd have to end the turn, and Liz's units would heal (and maybe promote). If I still had ~50% or better odds, I'd attack again with the remaining Chariots while the Archers were still damaged. Otherwise, I'd sue for peace, take 10 turns to rebuild Chariots in York and Utrecht, then declare war again and finish London off for good.
So you see, the "risky" attack was never really that risky. Worst case scenario (and we'd have to have exceptionally bad luck), we'd lose most of the Chariot army and delay taking London by perhaps a dozen turns. No real biggie.
I hope this helps you to see some of my reasoning, and how the "WAAAAAY too much good luck" wasn't actually that much good luck. (And that even if it had been bad luck, it wouldn't have been a big deal.)
EmperorFool
Deity
I think perhaps Matthew5117 was referring also to getting the event. Without the event, I doubt your six Chariots would have made much of a dent in London's defenses.
We've past the point I will discuss next, but I'll put it in a spoiler in case this is also a no-no.
Spoiler :
DampRain
Prince
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 369
Gj on the double pull off LP, however was it that important to deny liz horses? I'm going on the assumption she doesn't have HBR yet, in which case, wouldn't it be better if she had chariots than archers? Since chariots aren't the "best" of defensive units 
. Of course the question is moot if a) that was your only supply of horses b) she did have HBR
. Of course the question is moot if a) that was your only supply of horses b) she did have HBR
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
True, the event did help a bit. Although without it, I just would have needed to build a few more Chariots. Again, not too big a deal. It possibly wouldn't even have cost us the Great Lighthouse, because we still would have been able to capture York, and could then chop out the extra Chariots in York/Utrecht while Amsterdam finished the Great Lighthouse.
Yeah, it's arguable that maybe I didn't need to deny her the Horses. However, I've had bad experiences in the past with "assuming" an AI wouldn't get a tech (like HBR), and then having to postpone or abort an attack because a unit I can't deal with yet comes onto the scene (like a Horse Archer). So I was just playing it safe, in this case.Gj on the double pull off LP, however was it that important to deny liz horses? I'm going on the assumption she doesn't have HBR yet, in which case, wouldn't it be better if she had chariots than archers? Since chariots aren't the "best" of defensive units
JammerUno
King
That's what's called sunk costs in economics, and you really should not try to recooperate your losses by throwing good money after bad. Or in this case, good chariots after dead chariots. The fact that you lost some shouldn't influence future decision making.
Matthew5117
Emperor
Your a great analyzer Lord Parkin, just wanted to say that first.
Although, I will admit I underestimated the amount of luck you had, I will say this, you got the the Great Lighthouse while rushing Elizabeth on Immortal? That right there is sheer crazy luck.
Although, I will admit I underestimated the amount of luck you had, I will say this, you got the the Great Lighthouse while rushing Elizabeth on Immortal? That right there is sheer crazy luck.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Fact is though, with ~50% odds after four failed battles, you're unlikely to lose both. And in Civ terms, it's better to try to kill two wounded Archers with ~50% odds than to come back later and almost certainly lose four more Chariots trying to get the health of the (probably promoted) Archers down again. The worst thing you can do is to give up halfway through an attack, because then you lose units for absolutely nothing. Continuing to push forward towards wounded units will usually result in a net positive outcome. 1 dead Archer for 5 dead Chariots is better than 0 dead Archers for 4 dead Chariots.
And yes, I have had this strategy backfire on me a couple of times. When it goes wrong, it does result in having to rebuild an entire attack force, which is a pain. But the fact is, from experience, that happens extremely rarely. The odds simply aren't as bad as you might think. In the vast majority of cases, by pushing on even after several defeats in a row, I'll kill a few wounded units and make life a lot easier for myself. Trust me, it does work most of the time. (And to those who say you shouldn't have to rely on any risk - well then, you're sacrificing the opportunity to improve the outcome of your military campaigns in the vast majority of cases.
)
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Heh, if you say so. Although even without the certain elements of good luck (events and the like), I'm fairly sure you could still quite easily get the Great Lighthouse if you went for a conservative slow-paced rush on Liz. York would certainly be easy enough to take with only 4-6 Chariots, so you could have just built a small number of Chariots, taken York, sued for peace, and build more Chariots in Utrecht and York while completing the Great Lighthouse in Amsterdam. Granted, your rush would be slightly delayed, but you'd still get enough Chariots out of York and Utrecht that you could take London 15-20 turns later (less if you managed to steal a few Workers during the initial war) - and still get the Great Lighthouse.Your a great analyzer Lord Parkin, just wanted to say that first.
Although, I will admit I underestimated the amount of luck you had, I will say this, you got the the Great Lighthouse while rushing Elizabeth on Immortal? That right there is sheer crazy luck.
At least on this particular map, I think it should definitely be possible to accomplish both a rush and building the Great Lighthouse before 1000 BC, regardless of luck (or lack thereof). Of course, on a different map - without a coastal start, or without a close neighbour, or with a close neighbour that had Copper - I really doubt that doing both would be possible on Immortal level.
Matthew5117
Emperor
Heh, if you say so. Although even without the certain elements of good luck (events and the like), I'm fairly sure you could still quite easily get the Great Lighthouse if you went for a conservative slow-paced rush on Liz. York would certainly be easy enough to take with only 4-6 Chariots, so you could have just built a small number of Chariots, taken York, sued for peace, and build more Chariots in Utrecht and York while completing the Great Lighthouse in Amsterdam. Granted, your rush would be slightly delayed, but you'd still get enough Chariots out of York and Utrecht that you could take London 15-20 turns later (less if you managed to steal a few Workers during the initial war) - and still get the Great Lighthouse.
At least on this particular map, I think it should definitely be possible to accomplish both a rush and building the Great Lighthouse before 1000 BC, regardless of luck (or lack thereof). Of course, on a different map - without a coastal start, or without a close neighbour, or with a close neighbour that had Copper - I really doubt that doing both would be possible on Immortal level.
Damn, your insightful mind continues to debate my stupid one! I guess I over exaggerate Immortal. I still, though, mean, GL and Rush????
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Hehe. Well, I encourage you (and anyone else) to try out this game from the initial save yourself, if you're interested. I'm sure if you follow the AH->Mining->BW->Sailing->Masonry tech path, spam Chariots then build a Lighthouse and start the Great Lighthouse, you should manage both too. This isn't actually too tricky a map for Immortal, all things considered.
Well, I encourage you (and anyone else) to try out this game from the initial save yourself, if you're interested. I'm sure if you follow the AH->Mining->BW->Sailing->Masonry tech path, spam Chariots then build a Lighthouse and start the Great Lighthouse, you should manage both too. This isn't actually too tricky a map for Immortal, all things considered.
DampRain
Prince
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 369
I'd argue that the sunk cost arguement isn't being applied correctly. You've used 4 chariots. Thats fine, except you take into account that now the archers can be killed. It'd only be "useless" if the attack % success was the same after the 4th as before the 1st.
This is just not true, as it is a random generator the results are random, and therefore not dependent on previous results, so losing both still has 25% odds which is not unlikely to happen.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
But winning one of two ~50% battles has 75% odds. (And by the way, winning one of four ~25% battles has 70% odds.) Why back out when the odds are on your side?
True, although that doesn't happen too often with ~25% combat odds.
Actually I wouldn't get away with this particular rush in multiplayer, because humans are smart enough to counterattack and whip out masses of troops. But yes, the general "risk management" strategy I employ is learnt from many multiplayer games. It might be a different strategy than some of you are used to seeing.
i still wonder how you got 25% on four battles... I used quick combat calculation...
C3 chariot [not that C1M1 i saw in picture capturing London...] vs fortified archer in city with 40% cultrural... slightly bellow 20 for me... with 8% of non scratch...
4 attacks at similra percentage would leave at arround 25% odds of one of archers being unscratched... That is 25% chance of something like trading 3 chariots to one archer and calling peace.... not so hot for me...
As multiplayer thing goes... yes you risk calculation is okay except one thing in single mode guys usually tend to create situation where it is 80%+ odds in their favor... simply cause Ai is incredibly stupid and we abuse that for good...
If you called peace, Lizz would not built more units and switched to libraries and such...
while in multiplayer your opponent would produce defense.... Well, i guess since times i played multiplayer is counted one hands fingers...
By the way will anyone ever finish Boudica game [ALC 25 according to schedule]? such a charming girl... [i guess someone needs to do alternative to the two abandoned games...]
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Maybe it wasn't exactly 25%... I was just giving a ballpark figure off the top of my head.
You're right that Liz wouldn't build (many) military units if I went to peace, whereas a human opponent would. Although, a human opponent probably wouldn't take peace in the first place. Human opponents tend to be bitter creatures (myself included), and will not accept peace until they've eradicated your stack. So you have to come prepared.
You're right that Liz wouldn't build (many) military units if I went to peace, whereas a human opponent would. Although, a human opponent probably wouldn't take peace in the first place. Human opponents tend to be bitter creatures (myself included), and will not accept peace until they've eradicated your stack. So you have to come prepared.
JammerUno
King
That's only if you're happy with a result of killing one archer by losing one chariot, getting up the average number of kills per unit lost isn't a good reason to lose units. You need to reevaluate your decision after every change of circumstances.
Say you attack 4 archers with 6 chariots, your chances of taking the city are 60%, if that is acceptable, go for it. You lose the first two, the options then boil down to;
1. Continue with the assault. You can end up with 0 chariots, no taken city and kill some defenders. Alternatively you can end up with at least one chariot and a city.
2. Retreat, you end up with 4 chariots and no city, and no killed defenders.
Only if option 1 is better than option 2, you should attack. If option 2 is better, you should retreat, regardless of the losses you incurred before this point.
There's plenty of instances where giving up halfway through an attack gives better results that continuing.
Similar threads
