Question on Attack Odd's

[grapedog]

If I attack one unit, with a single unit of my own. In the case I'm curious on, it says I have a 78% chance of victory. Why then, when I attack it, lose, reload, attack again, do I come to the same exact result? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if I lose every single time I reload, thats it's actually 0% chance of success?

 

[DaviddesJ]

If I attack one unit, with a single unit of my own. In the case I'm curious on, it says I have a 78% chance of victory. Why then, when I attack it, lose, reload, attack again, do I come to the same exact result? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if I lose every single time I reload, thats it's actually 0% chance of success?

There's a game option called "Save random seed". This is designed to ensure that when you reload the game, you get the same outcome every time. You can turn it off in the game configuration, if you want.

 

[Andrei_V]

Check option "new random seed on reload" before starting next game, you won't have this problem anymore.

 

[Pantastic]

Because the game saves the random seed on default settings, so if you save and repeat what you did then you'll see the same results every time. If you want to reload and get different results each time, then you need to play a custom game and turn off save random seed. It's probably quicker to just fire up worldbuilder and create a new unit for yourself or delete the enemy unit though.

 

[grapedog]

i was just testing stuff out with a new game, and i noticed this was the case, but I didn't know why it wasn't actually random, but that explains it. Thanks for the information...

 

[Danza]

oh ok im hearing....

"load back and try again"
"oh go into world builder and delete them"

I doubt that would happen in real life, if it did im sure GW Bush would be constantly loading back to try and kill al-queda or w/e its called

No seriously, how can you load a game becuase your units died, the defender usually has the advantage anyway even though you have a high success rate. Instead why not think and look at the strength numbers also ?? they help to show another factor such as... well STRENGTH !!

WTH.... u enjoy cheats?? oh may aswell add in a few morden armors just to compensate you for they horrible experience :S

Am i wrong ??

 

[Stolen Rutters]

If I attack one unit, with a single unit of my own. In the case I'm curious on, it says I have a 78% chance of victory. Why then, when I attack it, lose, reload, attack again, do I come to the same exact result? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if I lose every single time I reload, thats it's actually 0% chance of success?

Since the random number generator is seeded (computer-based random numbers aren't truly random, but follow an algorithm that is designed to emulate a random result... and the seed just tells the computer where in the algorithm to start), the only way around this problem would be changing the order of attackers so the unit you lose is a less vital unit to your empire.

A more fun concept for me, fun because it makes me feel like I am preparing for a multi-player game in the future when I finally get the time (I don't think you can reload in multiplayer), is to take the loss and send troops once more into the breach.

 

[SoxSexSax]

Random numbers have no place in MP, which is why Civ is a very average MP game at best.

Just lost a MP game where my opp won three low odd fights in a row while I lost 3 70%+ odds in a row. When its your first war, those kinda results can completely swing the game. Random numbers are the bane of a truly good player, as it lets poor players think they've done well, when actually all they did was get lucky 6 times in a row.

It's like losing at monopoly because you land on someone else's Mayfair three times in a row. If I wanted a dice game, I'd buy one.

 

[bassist2119]

No seriously, how can you load a game becuase your units died, the defender usually has the advantage anyway even though you have a high success rate. Instead why not think and look at the strength numbers also ?? they help to show another factor such as... well STRENGTH !!

WTH.... u enjoy cheats?? oh may aswell add in a few morden armors just to compensate you for they horrible experience :S

Am i wrong ??

Because sometimes you're greatly penalized for doing well as the random number generator produces QUITE scewed results (the "fixed dice" syndrome)

Example: Saw the border of a well-positioned barb city. Attacked w/ 1 cat and 3 maces (all full health). Moved in to see that it was only defended by two archers, no upgrades, not on a hill. SHOULD be overkill.
After the cat sac (which actually should have won, it's power was greater than the archer), the first mace attacks. He's lvl3 (C1 and CR2). His power would then be 12.4 vs. what would have been 3.7 if the archer hadn't taken coll damage. Despite more than tripling the power of the already damaged unit, he loses. The second mace attacks the other damaged archer. He's only lvl 2 (CRII) and, alas, only barely triples the power of the unit that the cat directly attacked. He loses as well. The third mace, lvl 1 w/ CRI, tries to clean up; both archers are on their last legs and their power is half of the maces (or would be if they weren't dying). The mace loses on his first attack.
I don't consider reloading to fix this gorilla math cheating. When a unit loses to a unit with 1/5 his power, reloading actually removes a cheat, not create one. As for the modern armor comment, reloading is used to remove the modern armor dressed as an archer, and I don't see the comparison of adding one in. The problem being addressed is that, even if we did add in the modern armor, it'd lose to the archer anyway.

 

[DaviddesJ]

He's lvl3 (C1 and CR2). His power would then be 12.4 vs. what would have been 3.7 if the archer hadn't taken coll damage.

Wrong. You don't actually understand how combat works, which is certainly a significant part of your problem.

 

[Naastriil]

I think it the AI is cheating or there is a bug. I have been losing battles with 99.99% it is unbelievable. I lost cities against crossbowman which were defended by infantry’s that had + %30 city defense.

Have you ever seen a Tank that has 3 strength upgrades being destroyed by a Pike man.

 

[Beamup]

Because sometimes you're greatly penalized for doing well as the random number generator produces QUITE scewed results (the "fixed dice" syndrome)

False. The PRNG has been demonstrated, repeatedly, to be fair. All claims to the contrary are due to selective memory and/or gross misunderstanding of the combat system.

 

[IglooDame]

Random numbers have no place in MP, which is why Civ is a very average MP game at best.

Just lost a MP game where my opp won three low odd fights in a row while I lost 3 70%+ odds in a row. When its your first war, those kinda results can completely swing the game. Random numbers are the bane of a truly good player, as it lets poor players think they've done well, when actually all they did was get lucky 6 times in a row.

It's like losing at monopoly because you land on someone else's Mayfair three times in a row. If I wanted a dice game, I'd buy one.

Amen, brother! In my first MP game I lost five of six battles, half of them at 70% or higher odds in my favor (the battle I won, I had 100% odds).

Of course, I'm no better than the player I am playing against, and if I'd had a run of good luck I'd be preening about how good I am, but... What was I talking about, again?

 

[pixiejmcc]

Random numbers have no place in MP, which is why Civ is a very average MP game at best.

Just lost a MP game where my opp won three low odd fights in a row while I lost 3 70%+ odds in a row. When its your first war, those kinda results can completely swing the game. Random numbers are the bane of a truly good player, as it lets poor players think they've done well, when actually all they did was get lucky 6 times in a row.

It's like losing at monopoly because you land on someone else's Mayfair three times in a row. If I wanted a dice game, I'd buy one.

OK yes I do agree. However far more often than not the best player will win. Only occasionally will someone lose because they had unlucky rng. Or may be I'm just so good i can afford bad rng.

Having said that, some people do leave a little too much to chance. A player should be aware of, not only situations where he is certain to lose (on attack or defence), but situations where he might (such is RNG).

 

[pixiejmcc]

Of course, I'm no better than the player I am playing against, and if I'd had a run of good luck I'd be preening about how good I am, but... What was I talking about, again?

lmao. Also very true.

 

[Mind_worm]

Because sometimes you're greatly penalized for doing well as the random number generator produces QUITE scewed results (the "fixed dice" syndrome)

Example: Saw the border of a well-positioned barb city. Attacked w/ 1 cat and 3 maces (all full health). Moved in to see that it was only defended by two archers, no upgrades, not on a hill. SHOULD be overkill.
After the cat sac (which actually should have won, it's power was greater than the archer), the first mace attacks. He's lvl3 (C1 and CR2). His power would then be 12.4 vs. what would have been 3.7 if the archer hadn't taken coll damage. Despite more than tripling the power of the already damaged unit, he loses. The second mace attacks the other damaged archer. He's only lvl 2 (CRII) and, alas, only barely triples the power of the unit that the cat directly attacked. He loses as well. The third mace, lvl 1 w/ CRI, tries to clean up; both archers are on their last legs and their power is half of the maces (or would be if they weren't dying). The mace loses on his first attack.
I don't consider reloading to fix this gorilla math cheating. When a unit loses to a unit with 1/5 his power, reloading actually removes a cheat, not create one. As for the modern armor comment, reloading is used to remove the modern armor dressed as an archer, and I don't see the comparison of adding one in. The problem being addressed is that, even if we did add in the modern armor, it'd lose to the archer anyway.

I think a lot of Civ players assume 96.3% means 100%. You are supposed to lose sometimes when you are heavily favored. If you dont like it play chess :O

 

[voek]

99,99% isn't 100%, although I am cursing like hell when this happens to me in a game. On the other hand, you will see me smiling when I see one of my kamikaze swordmen win with 11,34% chance of winning...