Combat Odds

[Sarisin]

I know much has been written about Combat Odds in Civ4/FFH. Many of us can remember that version in which the combat odds were really whacky.

Well, it seemed like in the latest version I was losing quite a few battles in which I was favored by what I would call overwhelming combat odds - 90% or greater. My definition.

Of course, you always tend to remember those losses and sometimes lose track of the many combat victories you are piling up.

Anyway, as a retiree, I have plenty of time on my hands, so I decided to run a small sample test during my current game. I charted 100 battles where I had combat odds of 90% or greater.

Care to guess how many of those battles I won?

How about 84?

Included in the 100 were 37 battles where the odds were 99.9%. A sure thing, right? I lost three of those.

It was a small sample size and I'm not sure you can conclude anything from the test. Honestly, I thought I would have more than 16 losses in the 100 battles. It just seemed like I was losing more battles when I was heavily favored to win in my games.

One thing I have noted is that if you win quite a few battles when the odds are high, you can bet your string will end, even with the high odds. I guess that makes sense. But, it is really annoying to win a few battles and then lose that veteran unit when the odds are 98.6% to win.

Of course, the flip side of this is how many battles you win when the odds are heavily against you. I find you win very few of those, perhaps less than even the low odds would indicate. But, really, I think most of us would avoid battles, especially with good units, when the combat odds are low. It does seem, though, that you often, and I mean often, lose the 60-70% battles a lot more than you win as the odds would indicate.

Anyway, maybe my next test will be to run a sample of battles where the odds are 10% or less and see how many I would win.

For the statistician purists out there, I apologize if my simple test and analysis offends you - just wanted to see if there was any kind of pattern with all those 90+% battles I was losing.

 

[Kael]

Cool analysis, Im very interested.

Keep in mind that combat odds are an estimation. The game approximates your chance of winning, but it isnt like it just roles those odds to determine the combat. The real combat is a whole series of attacks and defenses, with modifiers and bonuses adjusting the odds in different ways. So it may not be exact, but it should be pretty close in large samples.

For your tests I would recommend samples of identical units on each side and the same odds rather than just bunches of different units. You're probably tracking results in a game but it would be cool to see:

1. 100 swordsmen attacking 100 warriors with both in grasslands.
2. 100 swordsmen attacking 100 warriors on a hill (do terrain bonuses mess with the odds?).
3. 100 swordmen attacking 100 warriors with dance of blades (do first strikes mess with the odds?).

That kind of testing may help us if there a significant descrepancy is shown.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Only a few things currently seem wrong with the odds:

1) Resistences to damage types are being computed by the odds, but not actually effecting the game.

2) Effects which DECREASE the strength of a unit, seem to stack very very weirdly. Shock 2 should give -40% cumulative with shock ones -40%, but you don't end up with -80%. I haven't run the numbers, but I know that weird math is being done, so it seems much more likely the auto calculator could be mis-calibrated.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

A 6% discrepancy isn't much of a discrepancy. I don't know how margin of errors work in statistics, but that seems reasonable.

 

[Fafnir13]

My specters win more battles than they should, I'm thinking their heavy death damage isn't being calculated quite right. I've also learned the hard way that attack with anything below 99.9 with a hero unit is just asking for it. I'm leaey of even a 96 when it comes to my stronger units. I'm telling you, the odds are out to get me....
This extra caution has bred especially strong in me as I've sworn off loading saves just because I didn't like something. Makes it waaaay too easy otherwise, and annoying cause I'd always be loading at every goody hut just to get a tech....yeah, I'm compulsive that way.

 

[DrStalker]

Something that I know is calculated wrong: if you use go-to from more than one square away, and the attack path crosses a river, the river crossing modifier is ignored in the odds.

Something I think is calculated wrong, but don't really have any evidence: first strikes. I read somewhere that first strikes are assumed to hit 50% of the time, instead of actually using the proper hit chance. I'm not sure if that is the case, but combat odds do seem screwy when first strikes are involved.

 

[DrStalker]

My specters win more battles than they should, I'm thinking their heavy death damage isn't being calculated quite right.

That's the other thing I was trying to remember when I posted: +damage from affinities seems to be ignored.

 

[Ecofarm]

With a physically offensive hero/top unit, you will attack 100 times in a game easy; thus, 99% is not good enough by fair calculation.

People understimate how many times they attack and lack basic stat knowledge/understanding. Aside from first strikes being an estimation prior to displayed odds (creating an unseen range - even to the code that decides who defends kithra + blitz + defending vs many = dead fast), I think that is where most of the confusion comes from - not some 'bogus RNG'.

 

[Sarisin]

Cool analysis, Im very interested.

Keep in mind that combat odds are an estimation. The game approximates your chance of winning, but it isnt like it just roles those odds to determine the combat. The real combat is a whole series of attacks and defenses, with modifiers and bonuses adjusting the odds in different ways. So it may not be exact, but it should be pretty close in large samples.

For your tests I would recommend samples of identical units on each side and the same odds rather than just bunches of different units. You're probably tracking results in a game but it would be cool to see:

1. 100 swordsmen attacking 100 warriors with both in grasslands.
2. 100 swordsmen attacking 100 warriors on a hill (do terrain bonuses mess with the odds?).
3. 100 swordmen attacking 100 warriors with dance of blades (do first strikes mess with the odds?).

That kind of testing may help us if there a significant descrepancy is shown.

Yes, they are an estimate, but you would hope that the odds take into consideration ALL of the factors that can possibly be figured into the estimate. One really good change was to eliminate the 100% combat odds which proved to be wrong as battles with those odds were lost in the past. There are no sure things in the game now.

I realize my test was very simple, and, as I said, it didn't prove much. I was surprised that there were less losses as those odds than I expected.

I do play FFH quite a bit and have literally thousands of battles, but I don't think I would ever consider sitting down and charting very specific conditions and variables such as you mention. There are just too many possibilities and my chart would be overwhelming to say the least.

You really have to just accept the combat odds as estimates, and as long as they are not really wrong like in that previous version, live with those losses that can be unexpected and so upsetting.

As I said, though, I would be interested to hear the thoughts of forum members on the battles with huge combat odds against you and how many you win. Somewhere in there, there might be an interesting correlation - just not statistical, mind you.

 

[Vladesch]

Withdrawal chances for catapaults seems way out as well.
Maybe I was unlucky last night but I was losing on average 50% of my catapaults with 80+% withdrawal odds.

 

[PacoDeth]

Me and my friend that plays FFH with me were just discussing putting up a thread about this today. We find that just about any unit vs any other unit, if you are attacking and have a success percentage in the 70's (73.3%, 79.8%, etc.) then we more often then not lose those battles. It seems like the 70's percentile range is really more like a 25%-35% chance. Anything in the mid to low 80's is also a pretty risky gamble, and something you NEVER do with a unit you don't want to lose. Even the high 80's to low 90's aren't worth the risk in FFH. I would say a 90% win chance feels alot more like a 75% chance, and it just isn't worth the risk for any good units.

As another poster mentioned, if your hero doesn't have at least a 97% or higher chance, then be prepared to bury your hero. Obviously in those really high percentages, there is supposed a very slim chance you will lose, but it just seems like it's a "fair" chance you will lose.

Just a game the other day, I had a level 10 Hunter with all strength promotions, and commando, and the shock-type promotions. I was sending him back to a city, and saw a normal unlevelled Wolf Rider nearby, my odds to beat the Wolf Rider in combat if I attacked was 99.9%. But I needed him back in a city, so I went on with my business and by the end of the turn he was holed up on a hills tile with a Castle on it. Needless to say, next turn that same Level 1 Wolf Rider attacked my Level 10 Hunter which was barricaded on a Hill Castle tile, and whooped him. Wolf Rider barely took any damage. Of course, these <0.1% deals happen, it still sucked big time.

Still tho, seems like we shouldn't be "expecting" to lose when its in the 70's. Vanilla Civ definately wasn't this bad with the win-losses compared to percentages. But for the time, I'm totally fine with the assumptions we can make now that 70's to mid 80's perctile range is only if your desperate, High 80's to mid 90's is fairly risky, and High 90's is generally safe.

 

[Kael]

Me and my friend that plays FFH with me were just discussing putting up a thread about this today. We find that just about any unit vs any other unit, if you are attacking and have a success percentage in the 70's (73.3%, 79.8%, etc.) then we more often then not lose those battles. It seems like the 70's percentile range is really more like a 25%-35% chance. Anything in the mid to low 80's is also a pretty risky gamble, and something you NEVER do with a unit you don't want to lose. Even the high 80's to low 90's aren't worth the risk in FFH. I would say a 90% win chance feels alot more like a 75% chance, and it just isn't worth the risk for any good units.

As another poster mentioned, if your hero doesn't have at least a 97% or higher chance, then be prepared to bury your hero. Obviously in those really high percentages, there is supposed a very slim chance you will lose, but it just seems like it's a "fair" chance you will lose.

Just a game the other day, I had a level 10 Hunter with all strength promotions, and commando, and the shock-type promotions. I was sending him back to a city, and saw a normal unlevelled Wolf Rider nearby, my odds to beat the Wolf Rider in combat if I attacked was 99.9%. But I needed him back in a city, so I went on with my business and by the end of the turn he was holed up on a hills tile with a Castle on it. Needless to say, next turn that same Level 1 Wolf Rider attacked my Level 10 Hunter which was barricaded on a Hill Castle tile, and whooped him. Wolf Rider barely took any damage. Of course, these <0.1% deals happen, it still sucked big time.

Still tho, seems like we shouldn't be "expecting" to lose when its in the 70's. Vanilla Civ definately wasn't this bad with the win-losses compared to percentages. But for the time, I'm totally fine with the assumptions we can make now that 70's to mid 80's perctile range is only if your desperate, High 80's to mid 90's is fairly risky, and High 90's is generally safe.

To test the theory that 70% odds lose way more than they should I setup 100 attacks between swordsmen and swordmen in desert (75% win probability). Statistically I should lose about 25 of the battles, I in fact lost 16. So in this sampling the odds can out a little in the attackers favor, but definitly still in a reasonable range.

I suspect, as Sarasin alluded, combat odds always seem to be lower than they are reported because we forget about all the battles we win but remember the one battle 2 weeks ago that we lost to 99% odds.

 

[DemonMaster]

You right Kael and how often do we attack at 0,1% chance of winning. I did some time ago in the original forum some testing about this (this is an old debate) and the figures that I came up with was all within a reasonble range. I tested all sorts of odds, even 1% chance of winning battles and I came pretty close (3 wins out of 100). The only types of battles that fell way out of a reasonble range was when I tested naval battles. But I was so bored with the testing (I did the naval tests last) so I didn't redo those tests to see if the test result came out the same.

And lastly. It is boring to loose a hero when he has 99% of winning but have laughed more than once when it is the other way around (and yes I have experienced that more than once as well).

PS
Do you remember the funny days of Civ I when those mighty spearmen could take out tank and even a battleship. I would have loved to see a debate about this back then (if internet had been fully developed that is)

 

[Darksaber1]

Umm, I had a spearmen take out a tank once in Civ4 original.

 

[smjjames]

Umm, I had a spearmen take out a tank once in Civ4 original.

That is a famous bug, it dates back to Civ2 I believe.

 

[Darksaber1]

See, it is Famous.

 

[DemonMaster]

That is a famous bug, it dates back to Civ2 I believe.

Then you havent played Civ I, I guess, when your Battleship attacked the city defended with a spearman and the horns of triumph sounds for the spearman , while the Battleship sunk I have always wondered what the spearman did to achieve that. Perhaps battleships (and tanks) have some critical points somewhere and if you can it with your spear at that point ... bang!

 

[Skitters]

I've always had the impression that if the odds are 70%, I will more often than not win the battle.

Conversely, I sometimes think I win more than my fair share of combat where the odds are against me - including just the other night where I defeated the Gilden Silveric at 30% odds, taking a city in the process. The plan had been to actually weaken him with a rank and filer so that Guybrush Threepwood would have better odds.

I quite often find myself considering odds of 20-30% worth a try if I have a decent sized stack.

There have certainly been times in the 90%+ odds where I've lost, but there are plenty of times where my troops have hung on longer than I expected too

 

[Darksaber1]

I railry suffer the 99%-yet still loss situation, but twice thaat I can remember I had a victory at <0.1.

 

[Sensemann]

i tested it with 600 combats, swordmen versus warriors on grassland.
the combatodds were 75,9%, so there should be 455,4 successful attackings.
i got 451, thats only a different of 4 and as percentage -0,73%. that sounds good enough.