Highest combat percentage that you have lost?
- Thread starter Gimasag3
- Start date
99.5% or 99.6%. Remember, odds of 99.5% means you will lose one out of 200 combats. A lot of our fights are at high odds of winning (we hope) after siege has weakened the defenders. So a lot of our battles are fought in the 99% range. Eventually the RNG catches up with us. If you play long enough you'll lose a battle at 99.9% odds. That's one loss out of a thousand but how many battles do we fight per game.
It's frustrating when it happens because it feels like a gimme, but . . .
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
100%. It was rounding up a high 99.99%.
I've also won battles at <.01% (seriously) while screwing around with warrior rushes on high levels.
In other words, I've earned both sides of the haxmaster coin. Civ V's model of combat is one of the few things about it that's actually an improvement (actually there is a decent chunk of design improvements, so if the game ever gets out of "for sale beta" stages and runs mechanically playable it might be a decent game).
Then again, civ IV has control issues that are more consistent with beta releases, so don't hold your breath.
Anyway, when playing with odds in civ IV, it's best to bring nukes, siege, or a TON of units, because if there is ONE thing the RNG obeys, it's murphy's law.
I've also won battles at <.01% (seriously) while screwing around with warrior rushes on high levels.
In other words, I've earned both sides of the haxmaster coin. Civ V's model of combat is one of the few things about it that's actually an improvement (actually there is a decent chunk of design improvements, so if the game ever gets out of "for sale beta" stages and runs mechanically playable it might be a decent game).
Then again, civ IV has control issues that are more consistent with beta releases, so don't hold your breath.
Anyway, when playing with odds in civ IV, it's best to bring nukes, siege, or a TON of units, because if there is ONE thing the RNG obeys, it's murphy's law.
This.
I have never counted the number of combats I fight in a game but judging from the number of GGs I get/GG points I accumulate I estimate that it's probably around 300 - 500 per game (depending on map size/game duration). This means that the odds are that I will lose a 99.9% combat every couple of games.
And it should mean that if I choose to fight at very low odds I should win one every couple of games.
The thing to remember is that people are generally very good at recalling "unusual" results that go against them, but less good at recalling those that go in their favour.
Skallagrimson
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,043
Word up.
Skallagrimson
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,043
This is how spearmen still beat tanks.
r_rolo1
King of myself
I can beat that
I've lost a battle @ 100.1% odds ( good ol'vanilla had a small issue with the odds calculator that sometimes made the displayed odds to be wrongly rounded up )Anyway, I'm not so hot on the Civ V battle mechanics. Ok, it makes the spear vs tank to go away in a 1 battle basis, but it has the minimal damage issue, that in the end gives the same result than a bad roll in Civ IV ( that is
) ... in fact you can argue that it even makes scenarios more likely 
JaGarLo
Settler
99.9%
I was speechless when I saw how my Tank gets destroyed by those damn Longbows (I hate them so much).
I was speechless when I saw how my Tank gets destroyed by those damn Longbows (I hate them so much).
whatsgoingon
Does anybody really know?
I feel lucky that i've only lost at 99.5% now that you guys are all talking about 99.9% and rounded up to 100%
LegionSteve
Motörhead
I lost my capital to a barbarian at 99.9%. It was the fastest game I ever played.
You should be happy! Most people can't even finish a game given how long it takes sometimes
Skallagrimson
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,043
Sometimes it seems to me like the calculator doesn't include certain bonuses in the odds equation. Like if a pikeman has Formation and goes against a cavalry, the odds show very very low like 10% and yet it seems to me almost half the time the pikey wins, as if the pike's inherent bonus vs. cav wasn't shown in the odds? That could explain some unexpected disconnects between the odds advertised and how combat really plays out?
Ouch hahaI lost my capital to a barbarian at 99.9%. It was the fastest game I ever played.
Lost a 99.5% with a gunship attacking a very weakened cavalry...
Lost my 99.6% with a Matilda in the Desert War mod against some machine gun with like 2 health
but that's small potatos compared to you guys
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Heck, lost three 99.2, 99.8, 99.4 in Desert War: I bombed the Italians to dust, then got my assault tanks killed. (Matilda: CR I-III, Drill I, II)
CuddlesKill
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 32
So far I've yet to lose a tank to a worker. The day I do I'll finally concede there is a problem with the RNG. But I'm reasonably sure that in the many thousands of combats I've fought in five years that a few had to be 99.5%+ fails 
I have definitely lost many over 99 % and some even at 100 % 
Well I guess things like Joan of Arc, Napoleon or Alex t G shouldnt happen either...
Another thing is when you are being attacted and have 99% odds wining and the attacker does 90 % damage.
... perhapes some sort of special geurilla assasin terrorist camikadze attac?
Well I guess things like Joan of Arc, Napoleon or Alex t G shouldnt happen either...Another thing is when you are being attacted and have 99% odds wining and the attacker does 90 % damage.
... perhapes some sort of special geurilla assasin terrorist camikadze attac?
Tortfeasor
Chieftain
Been there done that. It was a good thing no one was home that day because I don't curse much but I made up for it then.
RD-BH
Human
100%
<< this space intentionally left blank>>
<< this space intentionally left blank>>
Similar threads
