I'm Broken, Totally

[DemonMaster]

Just want to share my latest Civ moment. I placed a city on a narrow land-tongue (i.e. a canal). Since that city also was by border city to the Zulus, I had alot of units there. Then comes the war, I moved alot of my knights and pikemen to the city (which had a castle by the way). I didn't look how many units he had, I assumed he had around 10 or so (what a mistake).

When he finally attacked my he started to battle down my defense, but after just 4 trebuchets he stopped that and attacked me with alot of units, I mean alot of units. I had 24 units in that city, mostly knights, pikemen and horse archers (which I hadn't upgraded thanks to my poor economy) and all was lost in 1 (yes one) turn. A funny (?) fact here is that I won only 2 battles of all the battles.

My tactics was that it will take a while for him to battle down my defenses so I can wait for my trebuchet (I forgott to move them from my other front).

In Civ everything can happen. I'm going to play one game on the Settler level, just to build up some self-confidence again.

PS
I'm not complaining, I have won some miraculous battles myself, just wanted to share a wonderful Civ moment (I wonder what my neighbours think, I mean I hmm curse sometimes quite loud. - "d... you Shaka, your f...ing ba...rd".)

 

[sabo]

The only thing I would have done different is just put defensive units in the city, spears, pikes, cats, trebs (alot of those), swords. Then I would have left my mobile units outside the city where he couldn't reach and counter attacked with full strength units that can withdraw. If there is only one hex he can attack from put a fort in there and load that up with defenses too, just be careful he doesn't capture your fort or you'll have the same problems getting rid of him.

 

[DemonMaster]

Yeah, my arrogance toward the Zules was my Achilles' heel.

 

[Game-God]

Any horse unit including archers, cavs,or any inbetweens, specials and such are the rulers of the open plainsand attack fine from forests and hills but if they are in a city as defenders...

So I agree with Sabo keep the attacking units out fo reach then hit him hard before he reaches the city to soften him up a bit.

Edit: Try going back to an earlier savegame and try this tactic on him just for giggles.

 

[Lightwave]

I seem to have this kind of problem a lot. I don't know if it is just my perception, but it seems that I lose battles a much larger percentage of the time than the computer even when I "should" win.

Am I just whinning because I don't win enough? Is this a common "event" or a common "perception?"

 

[Diamondeye]

I seem to have this kind of problem a lot. I don't know if it is just my perception, but it seems that I lose battles a much larger percentage of the time than the computer even when I "should" win.

Am I just whinning because I don't win enough? Is this a common "event" or a common "perception?"

Someone put it this way:

Why did I lose at 95%? What IS that?

the reply was:
An event that has 5% chance of occuring.

Think of it like that, and you might not have a nearly as hard time wondering how that Swordsman managed to killof your Shock+CRII Axeman while defending a bombed out hill city.

I once lost at 99,9%. I had to. I played Monty of the Aztecs.
I'll never do that again.

 

[Andy06r]

Why would you use defensive trebs in this situation? Shouldn't you be using catapults for the higher base strength for the field battles?

Two people in this thread mentioned "treb" as their siege weapon of choice, but you have both ...

 

[Andy06r]

The only thing I would have done different is just put defensive units in the city, spears, pikes, cats, trebs (alot of those), swords. Then I would have left my mobile units outside the city where he couldn't reach and counter attacked with full strength units that can withdraw. If there is only one hex he can attack from put a fort in there and load that up with defenses too, just be careful he doesn't capture your fort or you'll have the same problems getting rid of him.

Forts don't work for the enemy if they are in your borders ... one of the changes in BTS. I believe in fact that if the fort you built ever managed to switch sides (he captured the city for example) that it would destroy the fort since you "owned" it.

 

[Lightwave]

Someone put it this way:[...]
Think of it like that, and you might not have a nearly as hard time wondering how that Swordsman managed to killof your Shock+CRII Axeman while defending a bombed out hill city.

I once lost at 99,9%. I had to. I played Monty of the Aztecs.
I'll never do that again.

Sure, I understand that a 90% chance of rain means a 10% chance for no rain. ;-), but I'll key in on your next statement "I once lost at 99,9%." Once, I can handle, but when I repeatedly lose at a 5% or 0.1% chance, "something is up." It just seems little too common. Like I said though, I might just be whinning because I think I lose too much.

 

[DemonMaster]

I actually had both kind of siege weapons, but a temporary blackout made me forgett to move them from one end of my country to a more central part where they could reinforce more quickly. I for some strange reason only move most of my pikemen and knights back from that front.

I see myself as a "fairly" good civ player, but I fell here on many of the golden rules of war (in which I have studied so I should know them).

1. Know your enemy (my arrogance made me overlock to look on his stack). Failed.
2. Know your strength (i forgott my siege weapons, strangely since I love those). Failed.
3. Know the battlefield (as someone mentioned, such a narrow border could easily been guarded by a fort a couple of tiles ahead of the city, giving me more time to reinforce). Failed.
4. Timing (he attacked me only 2 turns after my war ended on my "other front", perfect timing. Perfect timing since logically, most of my army haven't been re-allocated yet). Failed.

Damn it. It seams that I failed on all four main points. This only proves that civ isn't a game that you could yawn through, you have to think.

PS
I have once or twice won "< 1%" battles (I sometimes think that if the % calculator is broken at the 99% odds, then it is probably broken at 1% odds, and yes it is.)

 

[Diamondeye]

Sure, I understand that a 90% chance of rain means a 10% chance for no rain. ;-), but I'll key in on your next statement "I once lost at 99,9%." Once, I can handle, but when I repeatedly lose at a 5% or 0.1% chance, "something is up." It just seems little too common. Like I said though, I might just be whinning because I think I lose too much.

I know. But since the 99,9% odds was last attacker (healthy Jaguar) vs last defender (wounded Archer), I was pretty pissed that the Germans kept the city

Also, just for hairsplitting. Whining, not whinning. Only one n

 

[Neo Guderian]

Your only real failure was allowing shaka to live. He WILL ALWAYS ATTACK. (I have never seen a game where he doesnt if you give him a chance to grow).

If shaka is your neighbor, you must kill him first. Else he is going to wail on you with a wall of units. Same goes for Monty

 

[Underdawg]

Your only real failure was allowing shaka to live. He WILL ALWAYS ATTACK. (I have never seen a game where he doesnt if you give him a chance to grow).

If shaka is your neighbor, you must kill him first. Else he is going to wail on you with a wall of units. Same goes for Monty

If you get shaka friendly and have good garrisons, he will be easy to bribe against other civs not friendly to him.

On that same note, anyone else know which of the other AI are easy to bribe?

I can only think of Shaka, Augustus, and Julius.

 

[Carnage04]

At times I feel that the rolls in BtS are wilder. I always feel like I'm winning that 9.9% soften up the enemy battle more often than I should, and end up losing that 92% more than I should. Of course, I've been playing more Civ lately so maybe I just notice it more now.

 

[DemonMaster]

Your only real failure was allowing shaka to live.

I guess that would be part of the first rule, "Know your enemy".

There is a couple of civs that are like that (according to me).

1. Khmer (Surayavarman is even more backstabbing that Gandhi).
2. India (Up to BtW, Gandhi was a real backstabber, not to be trusted).
3. Mongols (You will end up in a war with, at leat once every era, until you or they die).
4. Zulu (Same reason as the Mongols).
5. Aztec (Same reason as the Zulus).

 

[uat2d]

I guess that would be part of the first rule, "Know your enemy".

There is a couple of civs that are like that (according to me).

3. Mongols (You will end up in a war with, at least once every era, until you or they die).

The Mongols are more easily controllable; in my last game, even being vassal of my worst enemy (Qin Shin Wang, furious), Genghis Khan is Friendly with me

 

[DutchJob]

we are with you DemonMaster. with BtS war is not the same anymore, nor diplomacy. i really like the new AI. new fresh gameplay.

but when you loose your SoD, carefully build up for hours, in ONE (1) go you go mental.

for succesful wars you REALLY need to get into the details and get your stackdefense 100% right plus a Home Guard for tricks the OP just told us about. again: sometimes painful but usually just cool gameplay.

 

[Spearthrower]

Sure, I understand that a 90% chance of rain means a 10% chance for no rain. ;-), but I'll key in on your next statement "I once lost at 99,9%." Once, I can handle, but when I repeatedly lose at a 5% or 0.1% chance, "something is up." It just seems little too common. Like I said though, I might just be whinning because I think I lose too much.

It's called synchronicity....

Your brain doesn't bother tallying things when they go as expected..... but your brain is very apt and capable of remembering when things do not work as expected.

Therefore, you remember disproportionately - the very few times carry substantially more weight in your memory.

If you want to test this, get a pad and paper and make a running note of every single battle.... you'll see that it all works out.

Obviously you can have a "bad patch", but over the next 2 squillion battles, it will all balance out again!

 

[sabo]

Forts don't work for the enemy if they are in your borders ... one of the changes in BTS. I believe in fact that if the fort you built ever managed to switch sides (he captured the city for example) that it would destroy the fort since you "owned" it.

Cool, I didn't know that, thanks Andy!