1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

(NOT A BUG) Even worse streaking under bts?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Bug Reports' started by psychoak, Aug 5, 2007.

  1. psychoak

    psychoak Warlord

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    99.4% combat odds, first six hits are on the horse archer, the horse archer loses the fight, reload, use another hurse archer. This time it's 99.6% combat odds, only the first hit is on the horse archer, the catapult loses bad.

    Five consecutive hits in .2%? I don't know the formula offhand, but I've seen an absurd amount of ******** results since getting bts. I must have lost 20+ 99.x% combats in the last couple hours, more combats than not have either no damage or massive damage to the winning party, one or the other will just hit repeatedly and rack up the damage.
     
  2. jprc

    jprc My dog is smarter than me

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    492
    Location:
    Mozambique and far-far East
    I saw also this in some games, but not as many times as you ... losing more than 20 units with odds at 99% should be frustrating...
    I never use the option for reseeding the random number (and getting different probabilities after a reload). When it happens, I reload, and just change the sequence of combats as I know the next combat will give me a very very bad probability: I suicide a minor unit who will be doomed with this bad % (can be anywhere in the map), and the game then refreshes the odds fo the next unit/combat.
     
  3. Rettere

    Rettere Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2
    I have also had a seemingly absurd number of 99+% losses, along with my wife who has experienced this as well. She's also had at least 20 in recent playing time. Anyone else experiencing this?
     
  4. ainwood

    ainwood Consultant. Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    30,078
    Sorry guys - I think this is 'normal'. I think your noted experiences are a perception issue.
     
  5. ViterboKnight

    ViterboKnight King

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    787
    Am I a victim?? Judge by yourself.

    I attack at 99.9%: 2 men die, but I win the battle. Units remains seriously injuried.
    I attack at <10%: no men die in the enemy unit; he wins the battle with no flaws!

    Results:
    I can do only a limited number of attacks, even in the most propitious conditions (even if a pikeman with Formation, against a chariot). One attack for each unit, and then I must rest to heal.
    The AI can do as many fights he wants: he (almost) always remains undamaged. I could keep attacking his city with a billion of units: he suffers no damage and can sustain the attack. If he attacks me with the same number of units, my defenders always get some damage, and the city capitulates in a while.

    It sounds quite unfair!!
    The "99.9%" attacks should be managed in a better way!!
     
  6. Random Oracle

    Random Oracle Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    Messages:
    133
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    You always get the same kinds of complaints with every game that uses odds, people just remember the bad rolls more than the good ones and/or don't understand how probabilities work.

    Anyway, if you want your units to remain unharmed, try giving them Drill promotions and having technological superiority or fighting softened units. Other than that, accept the fact that you have to stop for healing and use a great general on a Level 3 Medic to heal fast.
     
  7. OTAKUjbski

    OTAKUjbski TK421

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    not at my post
    Throughout playing Warlords (about 10 months for me), I can only recall a handful of 95%+ "bad beats" and even fewer 99% losses.

    In just the past few weeks playing BtS, I've already accumulated more bad beats than all of my time playing Warlords.

    If it is a perception issue, then I have a lot of fun games to look forward to ... because I've exhausted every bad beat for the next year and have nothing but good rolls to look forward to.
     
  8. Random Oracle

    Random Oracle Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    Messages:
    133
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    It could well be that you know this very well, but that's not how things work at all, "the dice" have no memory.

    For the record, I have been marvelling how lucky I've been in my current game: I've fought hundreds of battles at ~99% odds and don't recall losing a single one. That's just how things go sometimes, streaks are to be expected.
     
  9. Gibsie

    Gibsie Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    244
    I've noticed this kind of thing, but I'm wondering if I'm just fundamentally playing the game wrong! I was attacked by Saladin yesterday, he came around with a stack of about 5 catapults, 3 axemen, an elephant and a couple of horse archers, all with minor promotions. My city was defended by 4 Macemen and a Catapult, and seeing this stack I thought I'd rush a Longbowman as well. One turn of bombarding later, and he captured the city losing just one unit. I figured this must be a fluke - I didn't mind losing the city, but a rubbish stack doing so magnificently, I was disgusted. I reloaded, and again he captured the city, this time losing two units. I reloaded again and rushed a Knight instead this time but again he lost only one attacker- surely he should at least be losing the vast majority of his catapults?! I just don't get it, if 4 superior defenders can't beat a larger stack of weaker AI enemies, what's the point? The city might as well have been defended by Warriors.
     
  10. mrt144

    mrt144 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,121
    Location:
    Seattle
    perhaps the odds calculations arent being correctly calculated for first strikes etc?
     
  11. ainwood

    ainwood Consultant. Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    30,078
    A while back, I went through, and I actually wrote down combat results against odds, and it worked out OK. Why don't people do the same?
     
  12. mice

    mice Moose

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    2,180
    Location:
    tundra
    I've long suspected that Drill doesnt work properly, but... about the OP , does the RNG generate newly when you reload, or is the calculation already set before the combat? Just asking.
     
  13. ainwood

    ainwood Consultant. Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    30,078
    I actually suspect that its been changed under BTS - to work properly.
     
  14. psychoak

    psychoak Warlord

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    I don't do the new seed on reload. Feels too tempting to cheat, which is terribly time consuming as well as self defeating.

    I've had normal games, about half of them have felt normal. I was feeling absurdly lucky one game. The game I posted after, I lost over half of my 90% or better combats, I won quite a few very low chances as well. I made numerous siege withdrawals, one of them at .1%. The main thing that made me notice though was the combat log itself. Half the time they were mixed hitting, the other half they were solid blocks. Some of those blocks were in the millions for chances to happen. It's a .5% chance for a 99.5% combat to fail, but it's far more improbable for a 90% chance to fail without doing damage. Damage free combats for one side or the other are very very common. I expect them occasionally in fairly even matchups, but it's more along the lines of a third of them.
     
  15. JesusOnEez

    JesusOnEez Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    Braintree, UK
    If anything, my perception of BtS is that I'm getting less unfair fights than I did in Warlords. For example, in Warlords, I expect to lose a 75% (in my favour). In BtS I seem to win them about three quarters of the time which is about right.

    I've had very little losses as 90% +
     

Share This Page