Civ3's random number generator

[anarres]

Originally posted by sumthinelse
Are you sure about this? 95% of the posters on this forum have posted confidently that expansionist is the weakest civ trait (I don't think it's that simple -- I think they are very good on a huge panageia). What are you talking about? Do you in fact know the odds for settler and tech on each difficulty level? If you do I would like to see those numbers.

Personally, like you, I think that expansionist is a nice trait on larger maps. I also think it is useless in many map/game configurations (no goody huts/islands/small landmass).

What I was refering to is that you are more likely to get a settler from goody huts as expansionist. I don't know the odds, but you can significantly increase your odds of getting a settler by not having any settler units when you pop a hut. I think there are other things you can do to increase the chances, and I believe (but am not sure about it) that you can increase the odds of getting techs as well. Specifically, I don't think Firaxis intended for people to know that not having any settler units massively increases you chances of getting one from a hut. Now, if I ever play expansionist, I seem to get settlers about half the time.

Just to emphasise: I am not stating this as fact, but it is what I have come to believe from reading the strategy forum. I will try to find the threads later on and check it out for sure.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by willebra
Armies: isn't it so that fighting in armies doesn't actually increase the chances of victory? I tought the armies only change the order in which the lost hitpoints are substracted from the units within the army. So you have better chances of not losing units, if you win the battle as a whole. However the total chance of winning or losing with three units stays the same (if you win by 3-0 or more, you won't lose any units, which is nice...and wouldn't happen without the army).

Take an example of 3 vet swords in an army. It just acts as 1 swords with 12 hitpoints. i.e. only 1 attack (not 3 - a big minus), and much more likely for the army to kill 1 defender with no losses than 3 swords (a very big plus).

Some combat calc work needed to work out exact odds for each win/loss combination, but you really can't compare very easily due to the reduced number of attacks it can make.

 

[Physicist]

Originally posted by anarres
[B
What I was refering to is that you are more likely to get a settler from goody huts as expansionist. I don't know the odds, but you can significantly increase your odds of getting a settler by not having any settler units when you pop a hut. I think there are other things you can do to increase the chances, and I believe (but am not sure about it) that you can increase the odds of getting techs as well. Specifically, I don't think Firaxis intended for people to know that not having any settler units massively increases you chances of getting one from a hut. Now, if I ever play expansionist, I seem to get settlers about half the time.

Just to emphasise: I am not stating this as fact, but it is what I have come to believe from reading the strategy forum. I will try to find the threads later on and check it out for sure. [/B]

I do not remember the thread, but:

You can not get a settler if you currently have one or are building one. Furthermore, in order to get a settler you need to have less cities than the average of all civs. As long as these prerequisites are fulfilled, chances do not change.

With the expansionist trait, you do not get barbs from huts, thus the chance for the other possibilities is higher (asuming that all other influencing factors are unchanged).

Also, you can not directly increase the chance for techs. (You can only get ancient techs.)

Just what I remember from the other forums ...

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Physicist
Furthermore, in order to get a settler you need to have less cities than the average of all civs.

Can't comment on anythig else until I find the thread, but maybe this requirement should be:

'less than or the same number of cities than the everage of all civs.'

Only because I have had settlers within the first 3 turns of a game, and as such no civ could have have build another settler by then. I think this was a tournament emperor game, and I'm pretty sure on emperor they start with 1 settler as well. (Hmm, may be wrong about this).

 

[Physicist]

Originally posted by anarres
Can't comment on anythig else until I find the thread, but maybe this requirement should be:

'less than or the same number of cities than the everage of all civs.'

Only because I have had settlers within the first 3 turns of a game, and as such no civ could have have build another settler by then. I think this was a tournament emperor game, and I'm pretty sure on emperor they start with 1 settler as well. (Hmm, may be wrong about this).

No, you are right with that one, my statement was wrong . Having the same number is sufficient.

IIRC I also have had a game where I popped a settler from a hut in one of the first turns, but I am not completely sure about this one.

And you are right about one settler per AI civ on Emperor; Additional settlers only on Deity

 

[Physicist]

I have found a thread where the post by Mike B. about huts is quoted.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38772

As I am too stupid to link to posts, you have to scroll down to Bamspeedy's post. Unfortunately, I could not find Mike B.'s original post.

Quote:
"Settler:
*Player must not have a settler (active or in production) or any unit with the Settle AI strategy.
*Number of player's cities must be <= (TotalCities / NumActivePlayers)."

 

[anarres]

Thnx. Good to clear up

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by anarres
What I was refering to is that you are more likely to get a settler from goody huts as expansionist. I don't know the odds, but you can significantly increase your odds of getting a settler by not having any settler units when you pop a hut.

OK, a little off-topic so I'll be brief.

Expansionists get more "good" results, including settlers, from huts because they never get barbs, so it is logical that the chances of everything else would increase if getting barbs is impossible.

But expansionists and non-expansionists both have this in common: you never get a settler if you already have one or are building one.

Back on topic: I, like you, think that tinkering with the combat RNG could lead to exploits.