"Decisive" Victory

[hyungry]

I've had this happen a few times so I thought I'd post here:

I've got one unit sitting on top of a hill attacking another unit on low ground. I usually see "Decisive Victory" as the predicted outcome with a plethora of strength modifiers, but that's not the outcome sometimes. I've seen my unit limping away with 6 dmg while the opponent takes 3 or 4 at most. I've seen my unit destroy the opponent but taking an excessive amount of damage in the process. It doesn't happen often but it happens enough times for me to feel uneasy when I send my higher level units into combat.

What is going on here? Are there any hidden strength modifiers that I'm not aware of?

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

You may have the advantage making the prediction a "decisive victory", but the outcome is still random.

Just because it's likely you won't roll a four when you toss a die doesn't mean it can't happen.

 

[drachasor]

There's a random element.

 

[Thander]

It's just random chance. The battle outcome summary isn't a guaranteed result. It is only the most likely result, something like a 90% chance that is the outcome. There is still another 5-10% chance of better or worse outcomes.

 

[hyungry]

You may have the advantage making the prediction a "decisive victory", but the outcome is still random.

That's........ Incredibly stupid.

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

That's........ Incredibly stupid.

It's actually incredibly accurate.

Do you know what random means?

 

[hyungry]

It's actually incredibly accurate.

Do you know what random means?

I agree that the mechanic is an accurate representation, but it has no place in a game that focuses this much on having a small number of units.

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

Oh, my bad, I thought you were calling my explanation "incredibly stupid".

In any case, it makes sense to me and I like a little element of chance in video games as it keeps things exciting and forces the player to have a backup plan.

I don't really see why it has no place in a game that focuses on a small number of units, what's that got to do with it?

 

[hyungry]

Oh, my bad, I thought you were calling my explanation "incredibly stupid".

In any case, it makes sense to me and I like a little element of chance in video games as it keeps things exciting and forces the player to have a backup plan.

I don't really see why it has no place in a game that focuses on a small number of units, what's that got to do with it?

It's frustrating to lose a big chunk of your front line just because of a single bad roll, which almost always leads to losing ranged units or having to evacuate them and wasting valuable turns. There's so much damage being dealt back and forth between units in a single turn that every turn spent not firing just hurts too much. There are times where I deployed my army correctly and made no risky moves but still had my entire line broken. All because of a couple of bad rolls in melee.

 

[SimonSays]

Random element and the game might lag meaning you are seeing the predictions for another battle.

 

[Peristarkawan]

I can't recall that I've ever seen the actual combat damage differ from the estimated damage by more than 1 point in either direction. Not really seeing the problem here.

 

[Zechnophobe]

It does sometimes. And a point for both sides in the unlikely direction can be pretty big.

Also, 'decisive' combat message will play if you are likely to kill the target. But ignores how much health you have left afterwards.

For example, in a situation where you have 4 hit points vs the targets 3, and each are likely to do 3 damage to each other, it will say 'decisive victory'. But if things go even a little bit away from the prediction, you lose your unit completely. I don't like the verbiage used there. Maybe 'costly attack' instead? Or just call it the stalemate it is?

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I agree that the mechanic is an accurate representation, but it has no place in a game that focuses this much on having a small number of units.

Small number of units? I don't think Catherine or Napoleon got that memo.

 

[Peristarkawan]

Also, 'decisive' combat message will play if you are likely to kill the target. But ignores how much health you have left afterwards.

That may well be part of the problem. I pretty much ignore those messages and only look at the actual numbers.

 

[dannythefool]

Without the element of randomness, there would be less choice. You would never be able to decide to send a unit to battle against all odds because it may still win (the odds being the game telling you something like it's predicting a decisive victory for which your unit will lose all of its remaining health, or similar).

Also, as has been pointed out, "decisive" means there's a good chance the other unit will die. It's not necessarily an "overwhelming" victory; your own unit can still take significant damage. Whether you should attack or not depends on many factors; if you have a wounded unit in a strong defensive position, there needs to be a very pressing reason to attack with it. The game only tells you what amount of success that attack might see, but keep in mind that it can't take any of the other factors into account.

 

[Alki]

War is not predictable. Plans go out the window as soon as you make contact with the enemy. Random luck is to simulate low moral, surprise, being caught unprepared, being caught moving between defensive positions, getting an officer killed by a lucky shot, green troops etc. etc.

Not likely but certainly possible.

 

[Sock Bramson]

While there is certainly SOME level of randomness in CiV's combat, it does seem like this iteration is the least random of the series (especially if you look at civ III ). In my experience, the actual damage inflicted/received only fluctuates by +/- 1/2 points; more often than not, it's spot on. (or so it seems) *Finally articulating an argument*: I like it.

 

[Jediron]

Afcourse you like it, like most people do. They don't like unpleasant surprises.
Only, after a while; it gets pretty boring. Atleast, that is what i think. Just look at the numbers, and you'll never loose. Sofar, in my latest game (emperor/huge map/marathon) i have yet to LOOSE a single unit! And conquered a dozan cities, made war with 4 a 5 CIV's. Tell me, is that your idea of having Fun ?

Personally, i would be happy to see that we are beaten more often; against the odds. Just like CIV 3

 

[PieceOfMind]

Jediron, not losing a unit in so many battles is more a consequence of poor tactical AI. It doesn't understand to attack injured units (so to kill them) or to focus fire, or at least in just about every war that is what I have observed.

IMO it's not a problem with the combat mechanics. I do however agree there seems to be less randomness overall in civ5.

 

[Jediron]

That also. And also because they put the emphasis on NOT loosing units; why else there are numerous upgrades possible ?

What makes it even worse. You constantly upgrading your units; which make them even more powerfull. Speaking of balance....
and you can call it whatever ever you like. Is it not the "combat mechanics" where you like to speak of, then i say; oke, but anything around it. Whatever.
Result stay the same; combat sucks.