How Does Bias Work?

[docbud]

How does it work?

I know it supposedly as to do with your starting location, but what about resources (i.e., horses, iron, etc.)?

I just attempted seven games as Arabia and I didn't have a single horse anywhere that I could see. Or if they were available, they were 20 tiles away and I'd have to forward settle right in the face of another AI. Tried three games as the Mongols and the same thing.

So I figured I'd try England and do SOL's. Four games and not one shred of iron. And to be honest--I've tried playing as Denmark over the last year and I have never ever ever gotten a single iron resource.

But--when I play as the the Inca or Zulus I have a ton of horses.

But the civs that need them for the unique unit never seem to have them.

And I have checked and checked repeatedly--disable bias is NOT checked.

I'm sure I can't be the only one frustrated by this.

And don't get me going on attempting to play as Arabia and getting jungle starts.

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

Start bias does not have much of an effect on what strategic resources end up being near to you: it primarily affects which "region" the game selects for your starting location. Short version: after a map is generated, the game splits up the map into "regions" of similar "fertility" (which is calculated in a very arbitrary and fairly flawed way and is completely different from the fertility ratings the rest of the game calculates, eg. for recommending city settle spots), and each player is allocated one of those regions both to start in and to do initial expansion into. Besides a few resource flavor biases, eg. iron is more likely to be on hills, so a Hills region is more likely to have iron, therefore a Hills start bias is more likely to end up getting you iron, start bias has no effect on the strategic resources that end up being near you.

That said, if you're worried about imbalanced starts due to unfair resource distribution, you can go into Advanced Start and select either Strategic Balance or Legendary Start for your resource options: strategic balance guarantees at least 3 horses, 3 iron, and 3 oil within city working radius of every player's capitol, while legendary starts showers your starting location with so many resources that it's highly unlikely that you'll be missing either horses or iron.

 

[claudiupb]

There is no start bias towards/against strategic resources, only terrain (coast, grassland, plains, tundra desert, forest, jungle, hills).

Since strategic resources tend to spawn on specific terrain, and since you do get strategic resources around you, you may get better odds for specific resources with some civs (for examples since mongols have a plains start bias, there is a greater chance that they will get horses).

The start bias does not guarantee you that the starting position will respect the bias, but in the majority of the games it will give you the expected terrain.

Usually you get a decent amount of strategic resources, however one does tend to remember the bad starts. You may play games without iron and won't be bothered by it, but if you play someone like japan, you will remember it.

In this particular case, Arabia has desert start bias, but horses are found on grassland an plains, so depending on the terrain you may not have horses close-by.

 

[ThorHammerz]

I know it supposedly as to do with your starting location, but what about resources (i.e., horses, iron, etc.)?

Strategic resources are placed based on terrain/feature validity, as well as an 'extra' copy (somewhat) near your start location if strategic balance is set. The map will attempt to place a copy of the strategic resource if the number is too low (note the word 'attempt').

 

[docbud]

Thanks gang.
@Delnar_Ersike: I have tried strategic balance but don’t care for it. I always use legendary start. I dislike strategic balance because everyone gets those resources.

Now can someone explain how the AI can cross a river, go two more tiles (including up a hill), and then attack my unit?

I swear to God the AI cheats.

But I suppose that’s another rant for another day

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

@Delnar_Ersike: I have tried strategic balance but don’t care for it. I always use legendary start. I dislike strategic balance because everyone gets those resources.

So, wait: you want a resource option where you always get both horses and iron, but the other (AI) players don't? That doesn't seem very fair to the other players... though I suppose if you insist, you can always get yourself IGE and add iron and/or horses resources to tiles in your territory if you're missing them. There are other ways to edit maps, but the IGE mod is the most user-friendly way to make minor edits like the ones you'd be looking for.

 

[docbud]

^^Maybe I worded it wrong. I don't care if others have iron or horses, but I certainly don't want to guarantee it.

And actually I don't usually care if I get iron or horses, depending upon whom I am playing as.

I just think that if my unique unit requires a certain resource (whether it be iron or horses) that I should at least get a couple of those resources.

As I alluded to earlier, it just isn't any fun if I play as England and I have no iron for SOLs, or as Denmark and no iron for beserkers. Or playing as Mongolia and not having keshiks, or as Arabia and not having camel archers. Even if I had two horses I would be happy.

And, actually last night I was playing as the huns. Started near a ton of salt, and I just knew there would be no horses. And there weren't. But I played anyway.

So far as editing the game files or IGE, I'm on the Mac and have the Apple Store version, so I don't think I get IGE. Besides, altering those things would be cheating to me, so I wouldn't do it.

 

[HeliosDisciple]

The Huns don't need horses, do they?

 

[LeeS]

The Horse Archer does not. The code for neither G&K or BNW specifies Horses as being required for the Hun Horse Archer.

 

[docbud]

I stand corrected so far as the Huns, then. I guess if I play as the Huns and get no horses, then I can just throw away the horse archers or give them to a city state when I'm done.

 

[claudiupb]

Well by the time you are done, you will most likely have a lot of horses.

 

[docbud]

^^That's true. I didn't think of that. Thanks

 

[Chum]

^^Maybe I worded it wrong. I don't care if others have iron or horses, but I certainly don't want to guarantee it.

And actually I don't usually care if I get iron or horses, depending upon whom I am playing as.

I just think that if my unique unit requires a certain resource (whether it be iron or horses) that I should at least get a couple of those resources.

As I alluded to earlier, it just isn't any fun if I play as England and I have no iron for SOLs, or as Denmark and no iron for beserkers. Or playing as Mongolia and not having keshiks, or as Arabia and not having camel archers. Even if I had two horses I would be happy.

And, actually last night I was playing as the huns. Started near a ton of salt, and I just knew there would be no horses. And there weren't. But I played anyway.

So far as editing the game files or IGE, I'm on the Mac and have the Apple Store version, so I don't think I get IGE. Besides, altering those things would be cheating to me, so I wouldn't do it.

So lemme get this straight.

You want to guarantee that YOU have the resources you need, but you don't want to guarantee that any other civ does?

Furthermore, you don't want to have to be bothered to expand on said resources, trade for said resources, or ally CS for said resources? Because seriously, acquiring strategic resources in this game isn't exactly difficult.

And forgive me for not shedding a tear for you muscling thru that "ton of salt" start. That must have been horribly painful.

 

[reddishrecue]

If you can't get the necessary strategic resources for necessary uus then you need to change a way in your expansion land grabbing habits.

 

[beetle]

I agree with OP in that it is so very disappointing not to be able to build a UU. Really, the UU are one of the core joys and they facilitate replay. Also, there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to which UU require the usual strategic resources and which UU do not. Does anyone discern a pattern to this aspect of the game? I think the most feasible explanation is that, at some middle point in development, the decision was made that UU should not require strategic resources -- but then there was no follow-through to apply this consistently. All this time later and it has never been patched. I think it is similar to how cities founded on plains cannot build stoneworks. Certain aspects of the game are frustratingly arbitrary.

 

[Tyrvos]

I agree with OP in that it is so very disappointing not to be able to build a UU. Really, the UU are one of the core joys and they facilitate replay. Also, there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to which UU require the usual strategic resources and which UU do not. Does anyone discern a pattern to this aspect of the game? I think the most feasible explanation is that, at some middle point in development, the decision was made that UU should not require strategic resources -- but then there was no follow-through to apply this consistently. All this time later and it has never been patched. I think it is similar to how cities founded on plains cannot build stoneworks. Certain aspects of the game are frustratingly arbitrary.

It isn't arbitrary, in my opinion. The lack of strategic resource requirements only applies to earlier uu's because of the lower chance to have them in the early game. All uu chariot archers don't require horses because your chance of getting to use them if you didn't start with horses would be slim. For horsemen, only the Carthage uu doesn't require a horse because it's an elephant, same with the Siam uu for knights. In the case of swordsmen, only the Iroquois uu doesn't require iron because that civilization didn't have iron so it makes sense. But they are also balanced around that because that is really their only benefit as a uu. By the time of swordsmen, horsemen, and knights, you definitely have the ability to settle a few more cities so it's more reasonable to expect you would have some access to horses. Those are the only uu's that don't require resources if I remember right, but let me know if I missed any.

 

[beetle]

It isn't arbitrary, in my opinion.

Your examples actually highlight the arbitrariness.

The lack of strategic resource requirements only applies to earlier uu's because of the lower chance to have them in the early game.

Counter example: Japanese zero does not require oil, but fighter do. That is not an earlier UU!

For horsemen, only the Carthage uu doesn't require a horse because it's an elephant, same with the Siam uu for knights.

Again, not applied consistently because the Arabian camel archer requires horses.

So some horsemen UU and some knight UU require horses -- and some do not.

In the case of swordsmen, only the Iroquois uu doesn't require iron...

Right, some swordsmen UU require iron, some don’t. There are only a handful of UU for each base unit. Asserting a pattern for such small samples is not valid -- especially since you do not have a rule that works 100% of the time. I think you are giving the developers too much credit.

...because that civilization didn't have iron so it makes sense.

Sorry, but that seems like an after-the-fact rationalization. If there were more consistency, this assertion would be credible. Or Mohawk warrior could be a warrior replacement.

So here is my best attempt at the rules:

1. Chariot Archer based UU do not require horses.
2. UU that are an Elephant do not require horses (one UU overlaps with above).
3. Iroquois Mohawk Warrior (swordsman) does not require iron.
4. Japanese Zero (fighter) does not require oil.

I don't think there can be a consistent meta explanation for the above set, but at least it is a short list!

 

[Tyrvos]

Your examples actually highlight the arbitrariness.



Counter example: Japanese zero does not require oil, but fighter do. That is not an earlier UU!



Again, not applied consistently because the Arabian camel archer requires horses.



Right, some swordsmen UU require iron, some don’t. There are only a handful of UU for each base unit. Asserting a pattern for such small samples is not valid -- especially since you do not have a rule that works 100% of the time. I think you are giving the developers too much credit.



Sorry, but that seems like an after-the-fact rationalization. If there were more consistency, this assertion would be credible. Or Mohawk warrior could be a warrior replacement.

I wouldn't say they highlight arbitrariness, rather I'm just providing my opinion on their possible rationalization. I don't think it's fair to assume they didn't plan out balance, considering civ 5 is pretty balanced compared to other games.

Anyways, this goes to show how little I play Japan, but in the case of the zero, it's considered in their bonuses, considering that if you ignore the lack of resource requirement, they aren't too special compared to their normal counterpart. It's similar to the Iroquois uu, both seem to be intended for a swarm tactic and therefore aren't too strong individually. I wouldn't call the Iroquois lack of iron a coincidence, if they didn't have that aspect they'd be barely different than a swordsmen so it was definitely accounted for.

In the case of Arabia, I never thought of it as a big deal because it plays exactly as a horse archer, the fact it is a camel is more for visual purposes really, considerimg Arabs made plenty use of horse archers as well. And in fairness, could you imagine how imbalanced unrestricted camel archers would be? It'd be impossible to lose as Arabia.

In the case of elephants, they are focused more on defense or support and are more expensive so the lack of resource isn't too game changing. And historically, an elephant isn't a substitute for a camel, while parthians, Arabians, and berbers would use camels and horses interchangeably.

Edit:
What more consistancy would be needed for the Iroquois uu to make sense? Both Roman legionnaires and Kris swords required iron while the Iroquois didn't have access to it. And I don't need to find a pattern to come to that conclusion, I'm just comparing it to the civilization historically.

 

[docbud]

So lemme get this straight.

You want to guarantee that YOU have the resources you need, but you don't want to guarantee that any other civ does?

Furthermore, you don't want to have to be bothered to expand on said resources, trade for said resources, or ally CS for said resources? Because seriously, acquiring strategic resources in this game isn't exactly difficult.

And forgive me for not shedding a tear for you muscling thru that "ton of salt" start. That must have been horribly painful.

First of all, I didn't ask you to shed any tears.

And since I apparently cannot word it properly without you or someone else nit-picking. I have NO problem whatsoever with the AI getting resources that it's unique unit needs. And I don't mind trading for resources if I need to. But there were NO resources anywhere that I could find--not even CS's or AI's. The map was devoid of them. Maybe they were somewhere and I would have discovered them eventually, but by then the UU would have been obsolete.

And where did I say I didn't want to expand to get those resources? I don't have a problem with that. I'm talking about ZERO such resources--I can't even expand to them.

 

[docbud]

If you can't get the necessary strategic resources for necessary uus then you need to change a way in your expansion land grabbing habits.

There were none on the map. Of if there was--it was an area that I could not explore because of the AI. CS's didn't have them either.

This is not about changing how I expand.