biggest civ problems

[thecivdude]

well, this is a somewhat complaining post, so you may not want to read on.

this has probably been an extensive topic of discussion already, so if anyone can point me in the right direction, it's appreciated.

first off, i love this game. i play lots of games and either finish them or set them aside after a while. i enjoy them, but civ is usually the game i go back to when i tire of other games.

my biggest problem is combat............ someone please enlighten me. now, there are times when i attack (either as a defensive measure or offensive) where i understand the unit is doomed and is really just a means to soften up the defender. there is a purpose to softening up your enemy... to weaken them of course... to improve your odds, right?

ok, so different factors effect a unit's ability to defend... are they on a hill? in a forest? are they fortified? etc... i'm pretty sure i understand all that goes into one unit having the advantage over another, etc, etc...

so, i'll give you a scenario...
i have shaka to the east, just finished a war against augustus, and i actually have designs to build up a little and vanquish shaka, when, of course, he attacks... ok, no problem, my defenses are pretty good.

after knocking down almost his entire army, there's one lone crossbowman bent on pillaging the area around my capitol. after sending most of my units to the nearby city for defense, i have 2 longbowmen and 1 swordsman/general stationed in the city. the shaka cbman is in a forest, so i wait, and sure enough he steps into the open to destroy a farm...

ok, so just moving there, he can't possibly be fortified on that tile right? i launch both longbowmen at him (they are both slightly injured), fully aware that i'll most likely lose them both. cbmen are tough against melee units, so there's no sense in attacking with my fully healthy swman general yet... he'll just die. the odds are like 7.1% or something. ok, cool, no problem...

the longbowmen both die, but soften the cbman down to 3.2/6, and the odds of victory for my general with +30% strength, +30 withdrawl is 80.6%..... that is a 4 out of 5 chance to win....

i attack... i lose

i reload... i attack... i lose

i reload... i attack... i lose

i'm about to have a cow... reload...

finally, he goes down, leaving the general at 1.1/6 health.

was this cbman simply programmed to live and pillage? is there something i'm missing?

i've seen cases where a knight (who cannot fortify, gets no defensive bonus) is standing in grassland, no forest, no hill, hasn't got a chance in hell against a healthy tank... who has 99% chance of victory... and yet... the tank loses... reload (maybe it was a fluke, huh?), attack again... lose...

what is going on? again, this has probably been discussed a lot... so i apologize to those tired of seeing this, but i just have to ask... can someone tell me what is going onnnn??????

there are times when i've been so disgusted with this aspect of the game that i've just turned it off and walked away. in the end, i would not mind so much if the odds were accurate. if you lose 3 time and win once after reloading, your odds should be 25%. then, you won't be so surprised if you lose right?

now, i am not typically the type of player who believes in reloading to gain your advantage, there's plenty of times in civ where this disgusting type of loss happens and i let it be the will of the civ gods (actually the programmers...) fine, i'll beat you anyway, but this general - A GENERAL was the last unit in my capitol... with something like 5 world wonders in it. there's just no room for a loss or i might as well start a new game. so, that's why i felt it necessary to reload... when actually, it should not be necessary to reload at all in this case. ..... right?

second thing is generals... in general, generals suck (ha). there's 2 good things about them. if you don't have a hi-level unit yet (because they all died fighting against warriors or something), the general makes it possible to level one unit up and therefore build the heroic epic. the next good thing is that they can be advanced as a unit for zero gold.

in a world where a general is the heart of an army, can turn the tide of a war, who brings brilliant tactics to an otherwise ordinary army... whom you might think would would be a real son-of-a-beach to kill, they're really just another pawn. it's disgusting. big let-down in warlords.

anyone else want to gripe??? anyone have any thoughts??? is there any help for this madness??? thanks in advance, i hope firaxis is listening.

 

[philoampersand]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere either, but this might help. I noticed an option on the custom game start screen for generating a new random seed on reload. If you don't have this new random seed, you should expect the same result from combat, goody huts, and so on after a reload. Try changing that setting and see if you still get these weird results. That said, it surprises me that you get a different result on the fourth reload. Maybe the game eventually changes the seed on its own anyway. Anyone else know more about this?

 

[thecivdude]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere either, but this might help. I noticed an option on the custom game start screen for generating a new random seed on reload. If you don't have this new random seed, you should expect the same result from combat, goody huts, and so on after a reload. Try changing that setting and see if you still get these weird results. That said, it surprises me that you get a different result on the fourth reload. Maybe the game eventually changes the seed on its own anyway. Anyone else know more about this?

no, no, no! see... this IS with the random reload turned on in the options menu at start... i know what you're saying and even WITH random seed, i lost 3 times in a row with 80.6% odds... and, this has happened before... on several different occasions...

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

no, no, no! see... this IS with the random reload turned on in the options menu at start... i know what you're saying and even WITH random seed, i lost 3 times in a row with 80.6% odds... and, this has happened before... on several different occasions...

Seems to me your problem is not so much with Civ, but with the laws of the universe that enforce odds. Complain to your choice of deity. Or do you really think the game is simply cheating?

I'm no mathematician, but I believe that what a lot of people think 80% odds means is that they ought to win 4 out of 5 battles. In fact, 80% odds means that in each battle, you have a 4 in 5 chance of winning. Not the same thing.

 

[thecivdude]

I'm no mathematician, but I believe that what a lot of people think 80% odds means is that they ought to win 4 out of 5 battles. In fact, 80% odds means that in each battle, you have a 4 in 5 chance of winning. Not the same thing.

ok, so now we're on to semantics.... really, i'm not dumb. i know what it means...

on RANDOM SEED REALOAD... i assume that means-- you're starting over with a clean slate.... so, each time there is a 4 in 5 chance of WINNING. ok? ok? what's the diff? so you lose once, yeah, that can happen. ok you reload with a clean slate, new opportunity, same odds heavily stacked in your favor... lose again. reload, same thing, lose again.

i'm not saying the game is cheating, i'm saying "it seems like it", duuude. there's a difference, as long as we're getting into semantics...

i'm merely hoping there's an explanation for this rediculous trend. if it happened once or twice, you have an interesting story for your friends who play civ... "hey dude, you'll never believe what happened"... but as it turns out, everybody knows about this bull-crap and they hate it too.

it sucks, and if you can't offer an explanation or help, forget it. please. thanks.

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

Touchy, touchy.

 

[LucyDuke]

it sucks, and if you can't offer an explanation or help, forget it. please. thanks.

You said, in your first post, "anyone have any thoughts???". And what Ankh-f-n-Khonsu offered was an explanation. You were misinterpreting what the odds meant, he was clarifying. That's not semantics. And nobody was calling you dumb.

You'll get a lot more helpful responses around here if you're less prickly about what people offer, even if you choose to interpret things as attacks.

 

[Collier20]

I was not aware of this until I asked a few months ago, but first strike is not calculated into victory odds. If the AI Longbowman had several first strikes, it seems possible he survive without much trouble.

 

[malekithe]

Losing three fights in a row at 80% odds? That's going to happen almost 1 in every hundred tries. That's frequent enough to happen almost once per game. I mean, everybody's lost a 99% fight; same thing here.

 

[Good Sauce]

I'm guessing CIV IV is your first time playing a civ game. In CIV 3 this problem was ramapant. spearmen could routinely beat tanks, it was very frustruating, but for those of us who had to live through those times find CIV 4 to be much better on accurately picking who wins the battle.
And as for your complaint about semantics, It really isn't just that. If I flip a coin 100 times in a row, and every time it comes up heads what are the odds that the next flip is a head? Still exactly 50%. Most people claim to know this, but when presented with such a situation in reality refuse to believe it.

 

[thecivdude]

ok, i apologize. i was too harsh... but i'm at my wits end with the combat system... that's all....

but, after all, i do not feel i am misinterpreting the odds... i am saying that the system is either out of whack because it is typically off base with obsurd combat results... or the odds needs to be displayed more accurately. like 50% instead of 80%

i guess my expectation is for someone to say "i feel your pain, i know how you feel, here's the reason why this happens"... not "here's YOUR problem"

i appreciate the reply as an offer to help, i was touchy... apologies to all...

thanks.

 

[thecivdude]

I'm guessing CIV IV is your first time playing a civ game. In CIV 3 this problem was ramapant. spearmen could routinely beat tanks, it was very frustruating, but for those of us who had to live through those times find CIV 4 to be much better on accurately picking who wins the battle.
And as for your complaint about semantics, It really isn't just that. If I flip a coin 100 times in a row, and every time it comes up heads what are the odds that the next flip is a head? Still exactly 50%. Most people claim to know this, but when presented with such a situation in reality refuse to believe it.

ok, i see your point. but really, are you going to flip a coin to heads 100 times in a row? in civ, i wouldn't be surprised.

but if that's how it is, ok, ok. i accept it. thank you.

but, yeah, i did play civ 3 a lot. that's when i got hooked on it. i do recall the lowly unit beating the greater, but a reload usually took care of that the very next try. not a consistent loss 3 in a row...

all i'm saying is: it seems to happen too often... if it really is just bum luck at 80%, .... ok. thanks... i need to get a rabits foot or get an irish leprechaun or something....

 

[Galileo44]

I think that Collier got it with the first strikes. If you attack a unit with first strikes at low odds, you may not even damage it with the suicide unit. This is why your longbowmen were unable to get rid of it at low odds.

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

I think that Collier got it with the first strikes. If you attack a unit with first strikes at low odds, you may not even damage it with the suicide unit. This is why your longbowmen were unable to get rid of it at low odds.

I'm surprised the software can't or won't take first strikes into account when generating odds. A shame, that.

 

[thecivdude]

I was not aware of this until I asked a few months ago, but first strike is not calculated into victory odds. If the AI Longbowman had several first strikes, it seems possible he survive without much trouble.

ok, i didn't know that!! do crossbowmen have 1st strike???
thank you!!!

 

[thecivdude]

I'm surprised the software can't or won't take first strikes into account when generating odds. A shame, that.

yes, i agree with you

 

[Galileo44]

It does take it into account, but it does not tell you that when attacking at low odds, the first strikes are more likely to work, and therefore are better when the first striker has the advantage.

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

ok, i didn't know that!! do crossbowmen have 1st strike???
thank you!!!

Yes, crossbowmen begin life with a first strike. Archers generally can add first strikes as promotions as well, so you could face a crossbowmen with 3-5 first strikes and be dead before you ever swung the mace. See this unit encyclopedia.

 

[LucyDuke]

I'm surprised the software can't or won't take first strikes into account when generating odds. A shame, that.

An oversight, really. It's part of the combat, it should be taken into consideration. Have any mods addressed this?

BTW, thecivdude, don't forget when you win with 30% odds. These things go both ways.

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

It does take it into account, but it does not tell you that when attacking at low odds, the first strikes are more likely to work, and therefore are better when the first striker has the advantage.

Okay, then I'm surprised it doesn't take that into account. Good to know, thanks.