getting sick of getting an 99.8% chance of winning a battle and still losing?

Sebiche

is better than you
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
382
Location
Mexico City (Im not Mexican though)
i dont know about the rest of you, but every time it says 90%! 97.3%! 87%! my forces get freaking crushed and im am forced to retreat because the enemy lucked out when i never do!!! why does it have to be like a dice game?? if i wanted dice, i would have gotten RISK (it probably would have been cheaper).
 
Do you have a solution other than using some randomizer?
 
I've won my share of battles that I was supposed to lose. Sometimes the AI gets lucky.
 
I don't see anything wrong with it. If you could always predict the outcome, what would be the point in playing?
 
yea...once i had 98.6% and 97.6% winning odd in a row, but both lost :crazyeye:
 
well, i think in general i was fairly lucky with my results, so i dont have a serious problem with the system, but just consider (which probably has been pointed out numerous times already)

95% chance of wining means that you will win 19 battles out of 20, but also that you will lose one out of twenty. that's just it. and 89& means that you lose a bit more than every tenth. so, of course it can happen that you lose these kinds of probabilities every now and then, even losing such in a row is possible albeith very unlikely. just accept that there is some random factor left that you need to take into account.

still, i think i too would be pretty pissed off if i lost two strategically important 97% battles. **** happens.
 
This is the number one reason why overkill is a good thing in a game like this.

if you only need 10 to capture that city bring about 5 more as backup the more the merryer, no such thing as too many troops intrestingly enough that is the same play style that dominates RTS games.
 
well, I dont know. Ive just gotten hooked on tactical games like Total War and Imperial Glory recently. I'd rather build my force, place them on the field and choose a battle plan and fight, not wining by the largest or more powerful force, but by the smartest leader.

get my drift?

in Civ, its impossible to never lose a battle. Its impossible to be a strategic genius in that game because there is almost no strategy. Just army building, moving and placing. weres the fun in that?
 
I concur, Sebiche. Really the ultimate game would be one that has direct combat battles like Total War, and then when NOT fighting a battle the campaign interface is more like Civ. I used to like the first Medieval Total War, but their new campaign map, initiated by RTW, really really bites. You can't tell which units are where, which towns are what, and if the meddling annoying Pope gives you a quest most of the time it's to take some town you've never heard up, and have to spend most of your quest time finding out there the hell it IS.

On how Civ resolves battles, it is indeed simplistic: the win-lose ratio is applied three times for a healthy unit, which gives the weaker unit three "die rolls" to try to pull out a miracle and win. As some have said, I've seen this go either way, sometimes with spear-beats-tank going the A/I's way, and sometimes going my way.

One thing I like to do militarily is when I upgrade city defense garrisons, rather than delete the old units, I send them all to the front for an "obsolete stack". Even in the modern era, if I throw a stack of 20 to 30 old units I would have deleted anyway (to avoid the costly maintenance), they can still take a city held by 3 Infantry and 2 19th century cavalry, and still have 5 or 6 with experience promotions which then make sense to spend the gold on for an upgrade. Sometimes I call it my "Darwin legion" LOL...
 
One thing I like to do militarily is when I upgrade city defense garrisons, rather than delete the old units, I send them all to the front for an "obsolete stack". Even in the modern era, if I throw a stack of 20 to 30 old units I would have deleted anyway (to avoid the costly maintenance), they can still take a city held by 3 Infantry and 2 19th century cavalry, and still have 5 or 6 with experience promotions which then make sense to spend the gold on for an upgrade. Sometimes I call it my "Darwin legion" LOL...


Be careful with that, though -- each unit lost fighting a war in foreign territory increases your war weariness....
 
Be careful with that, though -- each unit lost fighting a war in foreign territory increases your war weariness....

That would explain a few things, LOL. I learn something new about the version 4 every day, hehe...
 
Interesting that if the WW can even decrease over time while AT war if nothing's going on, which is typical if an AI declared on me but is overseas and taking forever to build an invasion fleet.

What I had noticed in my own direct experience was that WW was always harsher when I was the one who initiated the war, which led me to a strategy of tricking AIs into attacking me first, then unleashing the high-hammers war machine to absolutely stomp them into the dust. I don't see a "you declared the war" modifier there, so that may alter my strategy a bit.
 
One thing I like to do militarily is....if I throw a stack of 20 to 30 old units I would have deleted anyway (to avoid the costly maintenance), they can still take a city held by 3 Infantry and 2 19th century cavalry, and still have 5 or 6 with experience promotions which then make sense to spend the gold on for an upgrade....

I think this can go either way; I'm not sure, but it seems like the experience goes up one for every unit defeated; or did I read something to the contrary:confused: so if his 5 units kill your twenty, then they'll earn 4 experience points a piece, on the average. then he almost certainly gets some well-upgraded units.
 
I think this can go either way; I'm not sure, but it seems like the experience goes up one for every unit defeated; or did I read something to the contrary:confused: so if his 5 units kill your twenty, then they'll earn 4 experience points a piece, on the average. then he almost certainly gets some well-upgraded units.

I should have also explained that the older units would get escorted by more modern units, who are there to finish off (easily) the defenders weakened by the "obsolete unit artillery" barrage. However, the WW modifiers are a counter-argument to taking that approach, and my more recent games have gone better when I emphasize attacking only with top-of-the-line units in foreign lands, and using the obsolte stack to defend at home (backed up by a cadre of modern units to finish off survivors so they don't get the experience upgrades and come back to haunt me).
 
Interesting that if the WW can even decrease over time while AT war if nothing's going on, which is typical if an AI declared on me but is overseas and taking forever to build an invasion fleet.

What I had noticed in my own direct experience was that WW was always harsher when I was the one who initiated the war, which led me to a strategy of tricking AIs into attacking me first, then unleashing the high-hammers war machine to absolutely stomp them into the dust. I don't see a "you declared the war" modifier there, so that may alter my strategy a bit.


[Apologies for diverting this thread into WW discussion, but....]

I don't think there is. THe key is whether or not you're fighting on your home territory or on foreign culture territory. (Or neutral land). If you're fighting at home, the people will rally to defend their homes even if you initiated the war. ON the other hand, if you're spending most of the time fighting overseas, WW will kick in even if someone else started the war.

Also be aware that your own WW rises massively if you USE nuclear weapons. WW also increases if you're nuked, but not as much if you're the one firing them off.

I also found it interesting that *winning* a battle overseas also increases WW, just not by as much if you lose! So that has implications for fighting a war of attrition....
 
[Apologies for diverting this thread into WW discussion, but....]

I don't think there is. THe key is whether or not you're fighting on your home territory or on foreign culture territory. (Or neutral land). If you're fighting at home, the people will rally to defend their homes even if you initiated the war. ON the other hand, if you're spending most of the time fighting overseas, WW will kick in even if someone else started the war.

Also be aware that your own WW rises massively if you USE nuclear weapons. WW also increases if you're nuked, but not as much if you're the one firing them off.

I also found it interesting that *winning* a battle overseas also increases WW, just not by as much if you lose! So that has implications for fighting a war of attrition....

A new war strategy I've implemented recently has been murderously effective at taking a civ from the front-runner in points, down to zero and in the dust.

Step 1) I build up, not the ARMY to conquer, but the ability to quickly switch to wartime production, always having at least 2 or 3 units queue-swapped into a city's build queue (which upgrade over time as new techs are discovered, without spending gold on the upgrades).

Step 2) I tempt the target civ into hating me by refusing all trades or making outrageous trade requests/demands, different religion, overall policy of antagonization. I further supplement that approach with keeping a bare minimum cadre of actual units holding cities.

Step 3) Over steps 1 and 2, I build up a decent stockpile of gold, minimum 2000.

Step 4) The target civ declares war on me and 90% of the time this involves a flood of cavalry into the rich border lands to take plunder.

Step 5) I mobilize the war machine and focus an entire first phase of the war on DEFENDING. Every cav unit that hops on my side of the border gets piked out of existence, and the pikes run back into the cities to heal. Several pikes per border city. Sometimes I'm able to supplement these by advanced cavalry units from slingshotting the liberalism discovery to Nationalism then Military Tradition. (In the build queue they go from horse archers to knights to cavalry.) When they bring stacks they get demolished by waves of catapults and obsolete units (advanced cavs finish them off).

Step 6) While step 5 is in progress, I gear up an offensive stack: roughly equal amounts of each type of unit, a little heavy on cavalry in the beginning to fend off waves of enemy catapults or cannons, and usually in the later phase, grenadiers (no, I'm not one of those whiz kids who's able to conquer the world before anyone can build macemen!)

Step 7) When the enemy advanced slows to a trickle of just one new cav invading each turn, and no new stacks in the past 3 turns, by about that time my offensive stack is built and ready for the advance. Each unit is top of the line, either newly-built or gold-promoted.

Step 8) Rather than be in an extreme rush to take cities, OR to plunder every last square, I find a good defensive siege position adjacent to their cities and wipe out the defenses to absolute zero, emphasis being on avoiding casualties of the siege-layers (always with at least 2 each of forest defenders or hilltop defenders, and a level III medical unit!)

Step 9) When defenses are at zero, heal everyone up prior to attacking--usually it also takes an extra turn or two to re-zero the defenses after the healing period.

Step 10) Start the city attack: First wave is the cats or cannons with the lowest experience, usually with a combo of city rader I and collateral damage upgrade. The cannons are cannon fodder, hehe. I've found that of all the non-AI units in the game, cannons can be the most lucky too in terms of beating enormous odds in a city attack. I've had odds on the order of 30:12 against my attack and still, not just be able to withdraw, but win the fight, with cannons. For some reason. Second wave is the more experienced artillery, but ONLY if the odds favor the attacks. If not, send in grenadiers to weaken or wipe out the defending gunpowder units. Overall for any class of unit that makes sense to attack with at any given time based on the strongest defending unit, I start with the most junior units so that if they lose, a campaign-long investment in building up experience isn't out the window. I only send in senior units if the odds CLEARLY FAVOR victory. Even if that only adds one point at a time, it's a low-risk point and continues the drive to that magical 17 XP, and the first unit to reach it gets "retired" to a rear area for low-risk defense only so that later on when it's time to build West Point, I'm able to do so. After I have that first 17 XP unit, the strategy is not quite as conservative and I'll be less hesitant to risk more-experienced units in a city raid.

Step 11) The city one-back from the city I'm attacking is a staging area for reinforcement mini-stacks, usually one cav and one grenadier escorting a cannon.

Step 12) City build strategy begins in the early phase with every city building units, and as new cities are taken, the new cities focus on CULTURE (so as not to lose the cities to high-culture neighbors). At the middle phase, when it becomes pretty much routine to take enemy cities at a clip, I start to select key rear-area cities to shift back to desperately-needed buildings (jails, universities in the science cities, banks in the shrine cities). Toward the end of the war it's down to JUST the high-production city supplying a trickle of new replacement units for any lost in late-phase sieges. This city builds Heroic Epic in the mid-phase of the war, and at the end of the war switches from unit production to West Point. By the time West Point is built, new modern eras have arrived requiring a new influx of more modern units, and a lot of the war-era stack will have to be deleted to make way for the new (only spending gold on upgrading veterans with promotion levels higher than what they'd be from the West Point city, and deleting the rest to keep unit upkeep costs to <10 GP/turn).

Step 13) The main goal is to have no cities from that AI civ remaining on the same continent as me. If that advance totally wipes them out, so be it. If they have colonies elsewhere, after the continent is completely mine, I begin to negotiate for peace, making demands for any techs they have, and often when they only have one colony city elsewhere they'll give up just about anything to put an end to the war--and then the bonus of those techs makes it worthwhile to have the unhappy penalty of "we wish to rejoin our fatherland"). On some rare occasions they have nothing to offer in exchange for peace and I have a good enough navy to be able to transport my stacks to their off-continent colony, and then I do so for the final wipe-out to get rid of the "fatherland" penalty. If my navy sucks I just eat the penalty and focus on rebuilding.

This probably has flaws in it, but most of the time on "continents" map type it gets me a large enough land mass that I finally get enough resources (oil, aluminum, heatlh-related) to be a major contender for the space race, and win space race about 4/5 of the time.
 
I have had enough unfair outcomes in my favor to balance it out.
 
Huh, just played a game and the weirdest thing happened. First off, a warrior with city raider 1 that was mine had a 0&#37; chance of winning against a tank but I accidentally attacked and guess what, I won. :lol: Also, a longbow came out of nowhere and attacked Kyoto(I was Gandhi angains Toku)against a MECH INFANTRY with combat 3 and WON!
 
Step 1) I build up, not the ARMY to conquer, but the ability to quickly switch to wartime production, always having at least 2 or 3 units queue-swapped into a city's build queue (which upgrade over time as new techs are discovered, without spending gold on the upgrades).
[.....]
Step 3) Over steps 1 and 2, I build up a decent stockpile of gold, minimum
2000.
[......]
Step 5) I mobilize the war machine and focus an entire first phase of the war on DEFENDING. Every cav unit that hops on my side of the border gets piked out of existence, and the pikes run back into the cities to heal. Several pikes per border city. Sometimes I'm able to supplement these by advanced cavalry units from slingshotting the liberalism discovery to Nationalism then Military Tradition. (In the build queue they go from horse archers to knights to cavalry.) When they bring stacks they get demolished by waves of catapults and obsolete units (advanced cavs finish them off).
[.....]
This probably has flaws in it
While overall this might be a good idea... to hang back in your own culture wait for the first (stacks) of the AI to come to you and kill them in your culture zone, thus preventing a lot of WW points...
You are possibly overlooking one (major) flaw in this. DECAY.
If you are upgrading units in the que from HAs to Knights to Cavalry you have to atleast go thru researching Guilds and possibly/probably more like Gunpowder, nationalism and MT. This takes quite some turns...

Please take note that any UNIT that is not beeing build for more than 10 turns WILL start to lose (atleast) 1 hammer/turn of production.
Lets presume you put a chariot on the production line (25 hammers), put 24 hammers in and que it. After 20 turns of queing it and beeing upgraded to a HA there is 14 (24 - (20-10))hammers into the HA of the required 50. Now you add 35 hammers making the total of 49 and que it. Then again 20 turns later the HA gets upgraded to a Knight.
The 10 turn que "reserve" for this unit has allready passed when it was a Chariot, therefor it now has only (49-20) = 29 hammers out of the required 90. So you put 60 in to get to 89 and que it.... etc...
Notice that in order to get from the Chariot to Knight inside of 40 turns you are spending not 90 hammers on the Knight but rather 24 + 35 + 60 + 1 (to finish it) = 120 hammers.

That is a 33% surcharge just to do this from chariot to Knight in 40 turns.
If you do this over a lot of cities that is a heap of hammers you are missing out on...
 
Back
Top Bottom