Is it just me or foes the universe conspire against you?

[Graadiapolistan]

I think what he means is that it seems like the enemy archers have such a high attack and defense strength because of the combat results - not that they actually have those values. Correct me if I'm wrong, Graad.

As for the whole issue of "highly improbable" combat results, I'm tempted to say that you can interpret them as a way of simulating the twists of fate that occasionally happen in real combat. For example, an incompetent general who gravely underestimates his opponents and leads his army into an ambush, or highly skilled and desperate soldiers using unorthodox tactics to win an otherwise hopeless battle.

(To put it in the language of a universe with which I'm reasonably familiar, an X-wing blowing up a Death Star is functionally equivalent to a spearman taking out a tank. But it can happen. And it did. Twice, actually.)

Now, it would be nice if the player had more control over such things, and apparently in Civ IV there is supposed to be some new combat system to get around this. But I'll believe that when I see it.

you're right- it seems, they don't actually have an attack of 6. I was playing normak rules- no mods or anything.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

you're right- it seems, they don't actually have an attack of 6. I was playing normak rules- no mods or anything.

I meant it seems they have an attack of six, and defense of 2, I didn't mod the game they were 2, 1

 

[vmxa]

Ah, sorry missed the sarcasm. Understand the feeling though.

 

[budweiser]

Here is a save I was talking about if you want to try the musketeers. It's the only save I had that was close. It is sometime during the GA and there are two opponents to beat on, but you will need to make a few more musketeers first.

Edit: It's conquests 1.22

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/TestMusketeers750AD.SAV

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Yea. It's hard to be sarcastic on a forum because your tone of voice doesn't change. Perhaps I should use itallics? Anyway, I started the game from a previous save just because it was so unjust. I ended up with an army, then made peace. But I will get my revenge. And now i've decided if the ai gets a tough break I'll reload too because I feel bad for them, dirty scumbags, and they should have a fair game too.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Umm, I don't. The AI don't get to reload when they lose four attacking vet cavalry to my single vet musket in a town I had given up for lost, after all.

Neither would I. But in the example I was replying to, I would've reloaded and not attacked the warrior on the hill. I'd wait a turn. I don't feel bad about it. The AI certainly has no regrets on knowing the map or having complete information about the human player's units at all times. Playing on monarch, though, I'm not semicheating like I used to.

 

[sealman]

moonslinger - can't wait for that article!

 

[tR1cKy]

As for the whole issue of "highly improbable" combat results, I'm tempted to say that you can interpret them as a way of simulating the twists of fate that occasionally happen in real combat. For example, an incompetent general who gravely underestimates his opponents and leads his army into an ambush, or highly skilled and desperate soldiers using unorthodox tactics to win an otherwise hopeless battle.

I've read such an argument almost every time there was a debate somewhere of the goodness of the RNG thing or not. While i can agree on such an interpretation, i consider it worthless.

Before the flame war starts, let me explain better. Let's start from saying that realism and historical accuracy are in general good things, but when they impact negatively the game playability or enjoinment they have to be put aside. I'm supposing everyone is ok with that, right?

Now, let's ask ourselves this question: what type of game are we talking about? Civ3 is not poker, nor blackjack. It's not a roulette or a slot machine. It's not chess or checkers as well. It's a strategy game with some level of uncertainity justified by the fact that every strategy, no matter how accurate, can always be in some way hampered by some random or unconsidered events. I'm ok with that and i presume that almost all the players are ok as well.

But, as i said before, it's supposed to be a strategy game and not a gamble. In a few words, it's a game which require some serious mental work in order to be won. And this ability should prevail over uncertainity. At the end, it should be the player's ability the decisive factor in winning or losing a game, not a lucky or unlucky event.

Now, how much is the probability to have 4 swordsmen in a row losing against a warrior? Presuming veteran units, no particular bonuses etc... well i should really look for my probability calculus book to give a correct answer, but it's difficult that the result would be more that 1/1000.

And who's the player that, facing a fight with a 99,9% probability to be won, would refrain from attacking because, in his/her opinion, such a fight has too much uncertainity?

The good player would certainly pick up the fight, only to be badly screwed by unreasonable unlucky RNG results.

Those events impact negatively the game enjoinment and should not be allowed to happen. And the Italian tanks (sort of...) may go to hell, joined by the Ethiopian spearmen who defeated them.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Presuming veteran units, no particular bonuses etc... well i should really look for my probability calculus book to give a correct answer, but it's difficult that the result would be more that 1/1000.

thas my luck.

The warrior was on a hill, there were three normal and one veterin

 

[IXIRandyIXI]

You know, I always read about this kind of "luck" happening for the human player, yet I've NEVER seen it. I've always gotten screwed by the "random" number generator; from my experience, it clearly favors the AI. Has anyone ever run into a case where the RNG actually favored them?

 

[vmxa]

Yes, but it is human nature to only note the bad ones. This is why pros uses drills, instead of practice.

Example is pocket pool. When I was a young man of 45 or so I still played a lot. Local tourneys and such. I would go at lunch and beat the balls around and go back to work thinking I had done very well.

Then I would make mistakes in matches and wonder why. A pro I knew gave me a drill and I saw I was not playing as good as I though during practice.

The drill was simple, that 6 balls and rack them, break and take ball in hand. Run out and repeat and go for 10 racks, no misses. Sounds easy, but if you make any mistake you have to start all over.

Now I knew what I was getting done and what I was not getting done. In my mind I was seeing me mostly running racks and of course forggetting all about this little miss or that ball that jumped out of the pocket. I could remember those crazy events, not the mundain.

Same with the RNG. You have those bad rolls pressed into your mind, but the time that calv beat the infantry forted, forgot it. Forgot the time 4 archers lost to my 2 hp reg sword.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Has anyone ever run into a case where the RNG actually favored them?

I have, at least twice. First time was my first Warlord game. Two German knights attacked one of my colonies. Two regular knights versus a veteran spear and a veteran warrior. I won. If I had been Germany, I would've quit right there. A knight losing to a warrior? Second time was when I watched three knights and one AC all die to a single musketman. But that was on a hill across a river, so not that spectacular.