Played it for a bit. I think it can be fun to watch on video, but it most likely won't be very hard for the reasons you've stated yourself: PHI leader and good land. Might be a good map to slightly relieve the pressure after that Pacal map nightmare thoNo takers on the Alexander map? Would probably be good if someone better than me gives it a thumbs up or down before lain spends the effort on a lets play.
Post a (tough) Deity map for me to play
- Thread starter Lain
- Start date
I feel for poor lain...
Evil Fredrich!!
Thanks for giving it a try!
It would certainly be educational for me to see how to handle it.
. One would assume the Continents map, since on a Pangaea you can meet/manipulate the other AIs...but the same is true in reverse, and the continents map has you eventually take control of so much land (you're not going to get anywhere trying to stay peaceful, let's just be honest here) that it'd take a nightmare scenario to stop you. The Pangaea, meanwhile, forces you into a very early war that's going to drag on for at least a bit, after which you'll need to recover your economy and bulb/trade your way back into the tech game. Certainly doable, especially with a PHI leader. But I wonder if the vulnerable time you spend recovering and the chance of someone throwing a surprise wrench in your plans (decide to DoW someone without metal? Someone trades them Copper for a Cow 
) is worse than a nightmare scenario on the Continents map, given the amount of land you'll have access to.
Just came across this map. Should be pretty fun to watch on video if you decide to play it. The early game is pretty sparky, if you know what I mean (I'm sure @Fippy would love this map btw
). The rest should be a piece of cake (I only played the first ~80 turns as always, a nightmare scenario can always happen)Anyways, here's the start:
(sorry for the Antivirus thingy, having trouble taking a screenshot on my workplace computer, leader is Churchill)
Oh and it's a continents map btw (medium seas, cold climate, unedited)
Oh, and to anyone else playing this, have fun
Edit: Combat 1 warrior on screenshot is because original leader was Toku (agg), changed him to a leader you hadn't played on video yet. Just corrected this and reuploaded the save.
Just came across this map. Should be pretty fun to watch on video if you decide to play it. The early game is pretty sparky, if you know what I mean (I'm sure @Fippy would love this map btw
Anyways, here's the start:
View attachment 505993
(sorry for the Antivirus thingy, having trouble taking a screenshot on my workplace computer, leader is Churchill)
Oh and it's a continents map btw (medium seas, cold climate, unedited)
Oh, and to anyone else playing this, have fun
Edit: Combat 1 warrior on screenshot is because original leader was Toku (agg), changed him to a leader you hadn't played on video yet. Just corrected this and reuploaded the save.
Thanks!
A very Spoilery T4 Screenshot, for those who want to feel the pain but don't have the time to start the game.
Spoiler T4 Screenshot :
Fippy
Mycro Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 14,036
Combat odds are sadly not accurate,
most of us have experience with that and need no further proof (even if there have been plenty doubters before
),
but you can actually proof that very easily.
When i set up combats with injured units fighting each other in a test game,
the stronger one might be shown as 90+% winning odds, gets beaten,
and combat log might tell you the weaker unit has won 3 rounds vs 1.
Ofc we all know that 1:3 does not reflect 10% or lower chances in real life,
more like ~25%.
So overall, those combat rounds are really messy.
If every round stands for a coin flip, you can actually lose 100% battles too (and have seen it happening).
While odds like 99.5% are nonsense imo, would need maaany more rounds to reach such fractals.
most of us have experience with that and need no further proof (even if there have been plenty doubters before
),but you can actually proof that very easily.
When i set up combats with injured units fighting each other in a test game,
the stronger one might be shown as 90+% winning odds, gets beaten,
and combat log might tell you the weaker unit has won 3 rounds vs 1.
Ofc we all know that 1:3 does not reflect 10% or lower chances in real life,
more like ~25%.
So overall, those combat rounds are really messy.
If every round stands for a coin flip, you can actually lose 100% battles too (and have seen it happening).
While odds like 99.5% are nonsense imo, would need maaany more rounds to reach such fractals.
I can easily believe that odds shown are incorrect, but also I know that probabilities are hard to understand. I find the constant complaining of bad luck a bit off-putting. 90% is not 100%. 99,5% is not 100%. It's easy to ignore the times you win a +90% fight and get upset when you don't win it.
Fippy
Mycro Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 14,036
Well i have nps with that system, just means i switched to always trying for enuf backup units in place.
(unless playing sgotm, where every turn counts and we had some crazy fights there with PR)
Was just explaining my theory of incorrect odds in some cases,
if much weaker units get coin flip chances to win combat rounds,
this explains why the famous (?) Spear won vs Tank example happened.
Not judging if somebody likes that or not, i can see both sides..
to be fair, this benefits AIs (or barbs) more than players,
as they will randomly do reckless attacks.
(unless playing sgotm, where every turn counts and we had some crazy fights there with PR
)Was just explaining my theory of incorrect odds in some cases,
if much weaker units get coin flip chances to win combat rounds,
this explains why the famous (?) Spear won vs Tank example happened.
Not judging if somebody likes that or not, i can see both sides..
to be fair, this benefits AIs (or barbs) more than players,
as they will randomly do reckless attacks.
IIRC the originalhappened because Civ I didn't have unit HP, so a Spear only needed to get lucky once to beat a tank. Civ II introduced it, though it had it's own quirks because of how it handled ties in a combat round.
Yeah hp was the diff. I remember losing like cruisers to 1 strength units in original civ
ArchGhost
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 569
People tend to remember negativity though. And in more critical situations like 1v1s with barb units charging your improvements, instead of not taking a city because 3 longbows stopped 10 units by one combat, it tends to leave a sorer spot.
I still rage at the combat system but have learned to normalize it so that 90% means like 50% in reality, anything that says 70 something means you're probably gonna lose the fight with equal upgrades (Cuir vs knight comes up lot) twice as often as you'd think, etc.
It could be worse. Civ Rev has a table based system of matchups: this unit at this power vs. that unit at that power = fixed combat prob because no RNG seed and no rounds, and it's not remotely what you'd expect. 45 power tanks have better winrates against 30 power rifles than 60 power tanks!
AcaMetis
Emperor
- Joined
- May 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,859
Another part of combat being seen as unfair, at least for me, is that the rare times you see the AI in a similar situation they never seem to have bad RNG happen to them. If I put a Warrior next to a Lion I don't assume his survival odds are going to be equal to a coin flip, but on the flipside I've seen AI Scouts fight off barb Archers at multiple points. Of course you'll win the occasional fight at low odds or even take a city after a string of low odd fights, but I've yet to see an AI get seriously bothered by a barbarian.
Similar threads
