Does human player get treated unfairly in battles?

[sorchin]

Hello. My first post. I hope I'm in the right forum.
I first bought Civ 4 when it first came out and the one thing I noticed was the battles were unfairly stacked against the human player (just like in the previous civ games). What I mean is I would have for example several tanks going up against several calvary unit and the calvary unit would win more often than not. This really turned me off of the game. Everything else I really enjoyed.
Has this problem been addresed? The reason why I'm asking is because I would like to get back into the game but I won't if this unfair bias towards the human player is still the same.
Thanks in advance and Happy New Year..

 

[Breunor]

From my understanding, there is no anti-human bias in combat. However, tanks don't always beat cavalry, especailly if there is damage, the cavalry has a lot of experience, etc.

You can 'right-click' and check the battle odds. Its recommended before every fight.

Try to get units experience, and upgrade to fight opponents. Get good odds.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[sorchin]

Thanks Breunor for your help

 

[gettingfat]

I don't think so, at least in the battles involving land units. I am not quite sure about naval battles. I usually try to play the defenders in sea battles (to get that silly defender bonus) and should win over 60% of time, but my impression accumulated over hundreds of games tells me I've been the loser in those battles at least 70% of time. I personally feel the odds are a bit scrxwed up, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[thetank]

I'm an internet poker player by trade.

Very often, situations will occur where two opponents stack off all their chips when there's not much between then. One has 88, the other has AJ for example.

Everyone I've met in the buisness feels as if they lose more than their fair share of these. The same thing i would expect in a computer game such as civilisation. I guess that's just human nature.

While reeling from a loss, it's natural to self indulgently curse your bad luck, or to suspect the whole thing is rigged. Not wanting to offend anyone, every human does it, even little ol' me.

 

[ollj]

Why dont you just use the worldbuilder to test it?

 

[anonymous-c]

You have to remember that fotified units recieve a defense bonus. Plus it is likely that the city gives it extra bonuses too.

When you are attacking are you using catapults or other siege units to bombard the city defenses? Getting the city defenses down below 20% will make a much larger difference than you may think.

 

[occam]

You have to remember that fotified units recieve a defense bonus. Plus it is likely that the city gives it extra bonuses too.

In general, this is useful info to keep in mind. However, in this particular case, Cavs do not receive defensive bonii.

- O

 

[thetank]

Bonii, lol

Will have to remember that one.

 

[BadHorsie]

I'm an internet poker player by trade.

Get back to work

 

[Psyringe]

I've run extensive tests on Civ4 combat when it came out, and never found any combat bias.

Many people think that they are losing "too many" battles with odds in their favor, but I think they just misunderstand how probabilities work. For example, while a 95% chance to win sounds very high, it actually means that you are expected to lose every 20th battle. Now take into account that a Civ game can have hundreds of such battles. If you have 200 battles with 95% odds in the course of the game, you are expected to lose 10 times. We tend to remember these losses very well ("WTH?! I had 95% odds and I LOST?!"), while we mostly ignore the wins because we take those for granted when we have high odds. Hence we easily fall for the illusion that we lose more often than we should, when we actually don't.

 

[thetank]

I've run extensive tests on Civ4 combat when it came out, and never found any combat bias.

Many people think that they are losing "too many" battles with odds in their favor, but I think they just misunderstand how probabilities work. For example, while a 95% chance to win sounds very high, it actually means that you are expected to lose every 20th battle. Now take into account that a Civ game can have hundreds of such battles. If you have 200 battles with 95% odds in the course of the game, you are expected to lose 10 times. We tend to remember these losses very well ("WTH?! I had 95% odds and I LOST?!"), while we mostly ignore the wins because we take those for granted when we have high odds. Hence we easily fall for the illusion that we lose more often than we should, when we actually don't.

Excellent post

 

[Titus]

I always get the feeling AI catapults successfully retreat FAR more often than one in four times.

 

[Veritass]

It is clear to me that the game contains a sophisticated test-detection algorithm. Under normal game circumstances, the game favors the AI over the player. However, when it detects a World Builder scenario that tries to test this with 100 repetitions of the same battle, it shifts to "fair" mode so the user cannot detect this.

 

[Panda]

Does human player get treated unfairly in battles?

In a nut shell, no.

 

[Birdmanthepuny]

It is clear to me that the game contains a sophisticated test-detection algorithm. Under normal game circumstances, the game favors the AI over the player. However, when it detects a World Builder scenario that tries to test this with 100 repetitions of the same battle, it shifts to "fair" mode so the user cannot detect this.

Now that is scary!

 

[Titus]

Another question: Are first strikes, or even first strike chances, included in the odds calculation?

 

[Smellycowsquid]

Yes, they are.

 

[Invader3K]

I think people may tend to forget about combat modifiers as well (defending from a hill, attacking across a river, etc). Those things can make a pretty huge difference in Civ4, I've found.

 

[Bushface]

I had a recent game (Monarch level) in which I had tanks and my opponents cavalry (mostly). I lost just one such battle as the attacker, but lots more because the AI had far more cavalry units than I had tanks; so the fights when they attacked went like this: cav attacks, loses but damages tank, then second cav kills tank. One unit lost on each side, but theirs cost much less. I've no complaint about the odds, though - except on occasions when it's very important to me to win as theoretically I should, but don't.