It's okay, admit it . . . who savescums and why?

[Breunor]

that's kinda the point, 100% chance helps both player and AI

I think it hurts the player and the AI. Why is it 'good' that combat is certain (besides taht players can reload but the AI can't)?

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Breunor]

I just lost Auric Ascended to a mage at >99% odds. What did you expect me to do?

Ok, in this case I may reload. I mentioned that Chalid is a game changer, so is Auric Ascended. Or you can view that you effectively 'lost' the game on a 1% chance and are restarting at that point.

Or maybe you shouldn't attack with Auric Ascended even at 99% ....


In general, I view the issue as follows:

I remember a similar issue in a wargame - my opponent went out with a carrier unescorted in a WWII game, and I had a 5% chance of finding it and sinking it with a sub. The carrier could have gotten some of my convoys. I found it and sunk the carrier, and he bewailed his bad luck. I calculated that it was a bad move, the carrier was worth more than 20 times the value of what it can sink; of course it was unlucky, but there is a strategy point. 95% is NOT 100%.

But I do admit Auric Ascended is a little different, since you basically play the whole game around summoning him and it should be fun watching him stomp everyone after spending 300 turns to get him there.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

95% doesn't get converted to 100% ... I'm not sure of the exact percentage but you can still lose some very close to 100% battles, just no spearmen vs tank.

 

[Tasunke]

I'd agree that losing something like Auric is a good time to reload regardless ... and another matter is that the only thing strong about Auric is his spell, but I'll leave it at that.

I used to reload each time a lost a fancy new toy I was trying out/ playing with ... but now I only reload when my chance of winning becomes close to zero.

For instance
--> Heavily outnumbered and lose my archmages or Chalid (lose all my 'super casters')

--> I have no casters (all melee etc), and the enemy's lowest unit is several levels above my highest unit.

--> I cannot move past tier 2. at all.

For these reasons I prefer to play at Emperor rather than Diety.

 

[Akbarthegreat]

Ok, in this case I may reload. I mentioned that Chalid is a game changer, so is Auric Ascended. Or you can view that you effectively 'lost' the game on a 1% chance and are restarting at that point.

Or maybe you shouldn't attack with Auric Ascended even at 99% ....


In general, I view the issue as follows:

I remember a similar issue in a wargame - my opponent went out with a carrier unescorted in a WWII game, and I had a 5% chance of finding it and sinking it with a sub. The carrier could have gotten some of my convoys. I found it and sunk the carrier, and he bewailed his bad luck. I calculated that it was a bad move, the carrier was worth more than 20 times the value of what it can sink; of course it was unlucky, but there is a strategy point. 95% is NOT 100%.

But I do admit Auric Ascended is a little different, since you basically play the whole game around summoning him and it should be fun watching him stomp everyone after spending 300 turns to get him there.

Best wishes,

Breunor

Ironically, it was a Doviello mage.

 

[Cromagnum P.I.]

I used to reload a lot. Like, 70% odds loss reloads. Now I try to only do it if I lose what I consider an unfair 99.9% loss (such as a high tier unit losing to a low tier unit eg: spearman vs tank, or spearman vs battleship for those that remember #1). I'll also reload when I'm trying to learn new mechanics or how certain units can operate. Losing a unit at 97% odds still bugs me but I try to live with it.

 

[Evalis]

I think it hurts the player and the AI. Why is it 'good' that combat is certain (besides taht players can reload but the AI can't)?

Best wishes,

Breunor

Because the crux of strategy is making informed decisions. Informed decisions lose potency with random chance. Removing random chance is almost always a good thing when looking to improve strategic elements. When you get to the point that your unit has a 1% chance of losing a battle, losing that unit basically flushed your informed decision down the toilet.

 

[Cromagnum P.I.]

Because the crux of strategy is making informed decisions. Informed decisions lose potency with random chance. Removing random chance is almost always a good thing when looking to improve strategic elements. When you get to the point that your unit has a 1% chance of losing a battle, losing that unit basically flushed your informed decision down the toilet.

Hardcore agree, especially when that chance gets to below 1%

 

[Calavente]

I save/load a lot.
I used to do it even more. I try to reduce the loadings.

there are 4 occurences I think:
-missing something and acting dumbly : you move your horseman 3 tiles away in the dark, he appears close to a bear... bad move. you wouldn't have moved there if you moved 1 tile by 1 tile as you would have seen him.
ex2: forgetting the dumb barb that is close to your city (that happens a lot to me); you forgot to attack with maelstrom then rust before lauching those champions at the city....etc

-when attacking those ****ing cities with my hughe stack. Did you remark that attacking in different order brought different results ? (not even on the individual fight but overall) That attacking first with a suicide unit or 2 then doing damage with fireball or with maelstrom might be better than the normal way of thinking (maelstrom, then fireball, then suicide units...)
Guessing the good attack order is always a challenge. So I save/load and try different attaking ways.
I further save/load when I try to repeat a pathway I identified and made a mistake while following it.

Further I would love to have an "expected damage to the ennemy"... attacking at 0.1 odds might be good if you know that you'll lose but reduce his strength by 3points. However, attacking at 10% and not moving his strenght is not worthwhile.
So I save and try different "softening approaches".

-exploring those dungeons... mmmh.... as soon as the units is around lvl5-6, I take care.

-somtimes I try the "dumb moves"... attacking at 35%, at 65% with a unit... and depending on the unit I might reload if it failed. or even: should I keep the scout on the forested hill behind the river or should I flee the 4str lion?
I can't see my defending odds... so generally I try defending, then load back if I lost and should have run. With defending odds, maybe I wouldn't have to play like that.

Anyway, I have an autosave every turn...
Indeed, I have too much CTD, power failure (of the PC), and I play for too short times. So at least 1 reload out of 2 just push me back to the start of my game session.

So when the opportunity to load 1 turn back is here, the temptation to use that savegame is also increased.

 

[Breunor]

Because the crux of strategy is making informed decisions. Informed decisions lose potency with random chance. Removing random chance is almost always a good thing when looking to improve strategic elements. When you get to the point that your unit has a 1% chance of losing a battle, losing that unit basically flushed your informed decision down the toilet.

Totally disagree. If you have a powerful unit attacking a weak unit and there is a 1% chance, it is a bad decision if the unit lost is worth 100 x the weaker unit.

The choice is based on the probability of the outcome.

I'm a chessplayer also, I was an expert at my best. That is a game where there is practically no chance, and I like it. But it doesn't make sense to me to say that certainty makes the game 'strategically' better or makes the choices more valid for FfH; or that the lack of chance in the game makes chess 'better'.

Is everyone here saying that chess is a better game than FfH?

Are we saying that we can't evaluate the great commanders in history because they didn't have certainty in their decisions? Military actions require uncertainty - but we still have commanders of different skills and evaluate them. A key is their abiltiy to handle the uncertainty. Alexander' skills can't be evaluated because some fo them require chance?

Losing the 1% battle does NOT flush the decision down the toilet. Having Chalid attack 40 time at 1% odds vs. a weak unit is a BAD decision and getting a little unlucky (about a 2/3 chance of surviving the 40 battles) is not a reason to say that the game flushes the decisions down the toilet. And when you have done it 70 times, you are now statistically mroe likely to lose him.

So everyone 's view here is that the decision as to whether to take the risk to having Chalid making 99% attacks dozens of times, and that he might lose, makes the game 'bad' and makes decisions 'bad'.

Well, I think the issue of whther I let Chalid attack at 99% 40 times, with a 2/3 chance of winning them, is an interesting strategic choice. If I attack, and win, I get some more promotions, I take some of the enemy down. But across the campaign, I recognize I might lose him. So I don't attack with him if I can win anyway - and I don't take the small chance of losing him and then the game with him.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Cromagnum P.I.]

I think the difference is that soem of us are looking for more of a roleplaying fantasy scenario than a true strategy simulator. If I want a strategy war simulator I play Empire: Total War (or Shogun 2). What I want here is playing something different where I can have my unique hero units slaughtering dozens upon dozens of weak units without fear of losing them (wounding is certainly in the cards though) until they face off against an enemy of similar strength. If I can do that by using the secrets of temporal magic to go back and try something different, often I will.

I think the truth is that there is no "wrong" way to play. If you consider reloading cheating, then you aren't going to do it. If you can justify it, you will and this thread is for those of us that like to reload and to share our reasons why.

 

[Calavente]

well, i'll add a comment here.

It is to be noted that the sens of enjoyment and fulfillement cannot arise when one loads back at all and any issue. Indeed, such enjoyment is mainly born through hardships, being able to survive against bad odds.
That means that one has to encounter bad odds first.

That is the main reason I try to reason my use loading back and i force myself to accept to reap what I sow.
However I concure with the notion of protecting my heros/best loved units through time magic even when I make less than optimal decisions... however, I try to allow for their death when I think it bought me something important.
(like waking up the guardian of pristine pass... I "might" reload to not wake it up.. but If I wake it up, I'll not reload if I died against the gargoyles...

 

[Breunor]

I think the difference is that soem of us are looking for more of a roleplaying fantasy scenario than a true strategy simulator. If I want a strategy war simulator I play Empire: Total War (or Shogun 2). What I want here is playing something different where I can have my unique hero units slaughtering dozens upon dozens of weak units without fear of losing them (wounding is certainly in the cards though) until they face off against an enemy of similar strength. If I can do that by using the secrets of temporal magic to go back and try something different, often I will.

I think the truth is that there is no "wrong" way to play. If you consider reloading cheating, then you aren't going to do it. If you can justify it, you will and this thread is for those of us that like to reload and to share our reasons why.

I agree with this - enjoy the game any way you can! I simply don't agree that the game is less 'strategic' if heroes can die.

The issue of heroes came up many times. Playing that they can die does impact the strategy of the game - whether it is more 'fun' or not will always be a personal matter.

I know we used to have debates on whether it made sense to pick a religion to get the heroes, a lot of people thought it wasn't worth it (in general, and Chalid is often viewed as a special case) and a lot did. I suspect that your view on whether your heroes can die may indeed impact this kind of strategic decision.


Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Tielby]

I guess we've gone off topic, but I'll try to bring it back a bit at the end.

My view on the roleplaying aspect of the game and heroes is, who says that heroes never die? If you are already using your imagination to conjure for yourself a scenario in which your hero is performing great feats, then you are eminently qualified to add a truly heroic death to that scenario, regardless of the ultimate agent of the hero's death. Watch (or re-watch) Saving Private Ryan if you don't know what I mean.

On the other hand, if you've already got a story in mind and you are simply trying to re-enact it within the game, then you are basically doing the same thing I'm doing. You've got a specific goal you are trying to achieve and will reload any time an event occurs which makes that goal impossible.

Now, when it comes to the strategy argument, you've probably heard the axiom, "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy." Conflict is all about dealing with uncertainty. You can never be completely sure what your opponent is going to do. Hollywood movies love to give us the impression that the hero is completely sure, but... well, that's Hollywood. It makes sense to make a battle plan, but if you can't adapt to changes in your plan, you are certainly going to lose.

I don't think the strategy players really consider their hero units any more significant than other highly-promoted units. Both are major investments and often have abilities which make their associated stack more powerful, therefore they are worth preserving. For this reason, you should probably think of them as commanding (or aiding their comrades) from a safe distance. Nevertheless, it is always possible for a stray shot or a well-planned sneak attack, nevermind an all-out rout, to cost them their lives.

This is opposed to the roleplayer, who sees his/her heroes as leading the charge or, in some cases, single-handedly battling the hordes... which is great IN FICTION.

So, to sum up, I guess what I'm saying is, if you are a roleplayer or are pursuing a very specific goal and don't want to play dozens, hundreds or thousands of games before the RNG gives you your path to destiny, who can say you've done wrong? On the other hand, in my humble opinion, strategy gamers do NOT have a valid argument for reloading, because a key element of strategy is the capacity to overcome unexpected obstacles. In the case of defeated units, this means taking the long road of building up a new unit to take the place of the one you lost.

No offence intended to anyone.

 

[Ronb65]

I reload if I'm one or two turns away from finishing a wonder or founding a religion that was a requirement of my game plan. And if I feel sufficiently aggrieved at the death of a hero.

 

[Evalis]

Totally disagree. If you have a powerful unit attacking a weak unit and there is a 1% chance, it is a bad decision if the unit lost is worth 100 x the weaker unit.

This reasoning is insane as it means that more powerful units would become increasingly worthless as the chance of losing them would become an increasingly poor decision.

In any case, you asked a question, I answered it. Your own arguments fail to explain why losing a unit at 1% chance brings any sort of strategy to the game. It's not like you can plan out how many combats it will take for that unit to die as it could be the first one or the 50th. All it does is prevent you from using a unit that you built specifically to use.

In addition, you seem to be forgetting that units take damage on victory. Just because your unit won that combat doesn't mean it is safe from an assassin attack or that it's next assault will have the same level of success. Keep in mind that fall from heaven with it's rediculous experience gains and unique heroic units has a special reason to coddle high tier units beyond what vanilla does, and even vanilla would have been better for this. Losing a tank to a spearman is STUPID.

Bottom line: If the game can be programmed to include 100% combat chance, it should.

 

[Breunor]

This reasoning is insane as it means that more powerful units would become increasingly worthless as the chance of losing them would become an increasingly poor decision.

In any case, you asked a question, I answered it. Your own arguments fail to explain why losing a unit at 1% chance brings any sort of strategy to the game. It's not like you can plan out how many combats it will take for that unit to die as it could be the first one or the 50th. All it does is prevent you from using a unit that you built specifically to use.

In addition, you seem to be forgetting that units take damage on victory. Just because your unit won that combat doesn't mean it is safe from an assassin attack or that it's next assault will have the same level of success. Keep in mind that fall from heaven with it's rediculous experience gains and unique heroic units has a special reason to coddle high tier units beyond what vanilla does, and even vanilla would have been better for this. Losing a tank to a spearman is STUPID.

Bottom line: If the game can be programmed to include 100% combat chance, it should.

We are just going to disagree on this. I don't think I'm insane, and I iirc Sid, Kael, and other people who are entitled to opinions also didn't want to make 99% is the same as 100% and didn't change the rule on this when pressed.

If losing a tank to a spearman is stupid, then we should change the odds to 100%; that isn't the same as saying if the odds really are and should be 99%, we should say 99% occurrences happen 100% of the time.

I don't coddle my super units, they fight and die, and I think I'm still a reasonably good player. I can win on fairly high levels and I do it without reloading.

I did explain why losing units at 99% brings strategy to the game (7 posts above, last paragraph), I can't explain it any better. I'm not going to argue the point any more. Obviously some people like 99% to be 100%, some people don't.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Evalis]

I did explain why losing units at 99% brings strategy to the game (7 posts above, last paragraph), I can't explain it any better. I'm not going to argue the point any more. Obviously some people like 99% to be 100%, some people don't.

Using the reasoning that is insane, yes you did. I read the whole post (and every one of them inbetween). And you what, plan for 40 battles? Really, how? You could lose that unit in the first attack. Indeed not 'coddling' the unit is the exact opposite of what you said you did, in that you won't attack unless you have a high chance of winning =and= the opposition would be a worthwhile loss. In addition, what is that experience even doing for you if you are not using that unit? Even more insane is the claim that the computer would not be better for making their heroes more difficult to lose. Even on the highest setting the computer is incapable of treating high level units/heroes the way you describe.

Civilization V does not have instant win combats for units of equal strength. Why did they do this? Because the limited number of units available would make attacking/defending an excersise in frustration as you crossed your fingers that your entire war effort won't fail base on poor die rolls. They are even making an expansion that increases the number of hits required to kill units for this very reason. Fall from heaven has a similar concept, perhaps exaccerbated by containing units that are buildable only one time and then forever lost if they die.

Also claiming that real world battles cannot have a 100% chance of success is completely ignoring history. America did not have a 1% chance to win the war in vietnam. General Lee did not have a 1% chance to win when he sent his troops into the union artillery. The difference is that real world war uses 'acceptable losses' as a means of measuring success not win/failure. In civilization units are supposed to be made up of a platoon of that type but given the simplicity of the game and stacks of doom of 50 clones or more, it made sense to have a win/failure mechanic. However, when a handful of those units can make or break the war, they need to impliment an 'acceptable loss' method of calculating the chances of victory. Somethine along the lines of win/tie/lose. However, a much easier way to skirt this issue is to lift the 99% win cap.

Bringing up chess is a very good way to illustrate the point that randomness does not a good game make. The more complications that exist in a game, and the more ways there are to win, the less random chance has an effect on the enjoyment of said game. Tic Tac Toe would be better with a random element, because there are only a handful of moves that are viable to make. Randomizing chess would destroy all competitive play. The same can be said for fall from heaven (and it's mods). You lost Auric the ascended or chalid to a level 1 swordsman? That's quitting time. There is no enjoyment is seeing that happen. Even being the winner of that combat would make me want to cry.

I'm going to assume that you are reasonable enough to understand that a tank could never lose a battle against an uneducated tribesman. The issue is reconizing that a hero with that same level of strength is just like a tank.

 

[Selrahc]

Or maybe you shouldn't attack with Auric Ascended even at 99% ....

Auric Ascended should never attack. He doesn't get XP. He has no first strikes, so can take a large amount of damage even from "sure thing" combats. Auric Ascended has one role. He is lethal artillery. Get archmages or high priests in position, snowfall them to a slither of health then wipe them out with Auric. If you lose Auric on the attack, you were playing wrong. If you lose Auric on the defence, you were probably playing wrong. He should be ending turns on hills or mountains, away from enemy combatants.

The same basically applies to Chalid, although Chalid does have to sully his hands with fighting from time to time rather than just relying on snow. The true value of Chalid is not for his fighting prowess, it is for his powerful collateral spell. Do not risk Chalid. By taking first strike promos and stacking Sun mana, Chalid can easily get 99.99% odds battles. Don't throw him into anything lesser unless you can afford to lose him.

In any case, you asked a question, I answered it. Your own arguments fail to explain why losing a unit at 1% chance brings any sort of strategy to the game. It's not like you can plan out how many combats it will take for that unit to die as it could be the first one or the 50th. All it does is prevent you from using a unit that you built specifically to use.

The minimum loss chance is not 1%. It less than is 0.001%. A high experience, high tech unit fighting against lesser units can easily get those odds, particularly if you're bringing collateral or are fighting on open terrain. I have never once lost a battle when the odds displayed read >99.999%.

 

[Horatius]

Breunor and Selrahc said it all.
Also the game would be more boring without random chance.

I always found it funny, the phalanx vs tank thing. But then again I always preferred backgammon to chess, so.... lol...

Many CRPGs do use dice rolls, your "heros" there are also not invulnerable for an easy game...