That Deity Willem Map
- Thread starter Kaitzilla
- Start date
AcaMetis' Grudge Map
Alright, let's see how bad it is.
Write up Part 1
T1-T54
*SPOILER ALERT for the Willem Map that AcaMetis provided*
Alright, let's see how bad it is.
Write up Part 1
T1-T54
*SPOILER ALERT for the Willem Map that AcaMetis provided*
Spoiler :
per turn.
Panthers. There is a lot of jungle.
Last edited:
per turn I'll be fighting, but I might have a chance to get Pyramids later in a war.
since I have Alphabet.
There is debate about this of course, but amateur and exhaustive AI vs. AI testing indicates that Justinian of Byzantium and Zara Yacob of Ethiopia are the two AI most likely to win the game if left to their own devices.
Sulla's delightful AI tournament.
http://www.sullla.com/Civ4/survivor14.html
A truly exhaustive and amazing effort was conducted Keler by in the past.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...eaders-tournement.551932/page-6#post-14354991
The AI vs. AI idea was also explored here.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-tournament-season-3.518303/
A mod here.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/modcomp-aiautoplay.174812/
Thanks for that. Always nice to learn some more complex mechanics of Civ4 from expierenced players. Now i am looking forward to the outcome of your war. If you should be succesful, i think your position will be pretty decent.
Here you go, Land Target guide
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/land-target-and-manipulating-the-ai.561148/
Don't take the begging guide farther down too seriously.
It was never completed.
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.
The odds do seem a bit off sometimes.
I've only really noticed it playing Quechuas.
Not sure a 1 in 5000 event proves anything though.I had a 6.36% chance to do no-damage to an Archer.
I did no damage to that Archer 3 times in a row!
That is like 0.02% chance of happening.
Spoiler :
Each combat round is not a 50%/50% coin flip.
The stronger unit gets a weighted advantage to more often win each combat round. (65%/35%) or (80%/20%), etc.
They also tend to do more hp damage when they win each round unless they are fighting a unit more than twice their base
The combat mechanics are explained here by Arathorn:
A really nice way to finally understand what First Strike promotions do too.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/combat-explained.137615/
So a 4
Spearman vs. a 40 Modern Armor only has 9.1% chance each round to inflict damage.When it does inflict damage, it hurts the Modern Armor for 8 out of 100 hp.
The Modern Armor has a 90.9% chance each round to inflict damage.
When it does inflict damage, it hurts the Spearman for 47 out of 100hp.
I think that's right.
**Edit**
Ok, here is a quick test.
Spoiler :
I lost 10 Spearman in a row without inflicting any damage at all.
That is 30 straight rounds of combat lost.
I should have a 9.1% chance of inflicting damage each round!
Then Spearman #11 inflicted 2 rounds of damage against the Modern Armor before dying.
2 successes out of 35 rounds of combat is 5.7% odds of inflicting damage each round.
I need a lot more testing to even get close to being accurate on this (10,000 rounds of combat?), but I'm too lazy to do it.
Anyway, if the Modern Armor had 3 First Strikes, it would not have taken any damage at all being immune to damage the first 3 combat rounds.
====================================
All that good Arathorn info was for Civ Vanilla I think back in 2005.
Changes were made in Beyond the Sword here:
Extremely injured 0.1/?? units now inflict half the hp damage that they would at full health instead of microscopic damage.
Not sure how much difference that made since the minimum damage a unit can inflict was capped at 6hp on the low end and 60hp on the high end?
Probably to give 50% hp units more punching power than they were getting.
A thread popped up a while back talking about the Combat Odds being off.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civ-iv-combat-odds-are-rigged.431554/
The game's Random Number Generator was tested here:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/testing-civ4s-random-number-generator.339303/
If anyone wants to write a new Strategy Article for Beyond the Sword 3.19, that would be greatly appreciated!
I always suspect those combat odds myself deep down.
There are real limits to how far Catapults and Trebuchets can perform against Castle cities with +125% defenses.
Collateral Damage only goes up to 50% max of the defenders hp for Catapults and Trebuchets.
The player can get enemy units down to half hp if their Cata/Treb has the same base or more than the defender's base strength
To illustrate this, here are some nice looking Collateral Damage Tables:
The most collateral damage Catapults can do to Longbows is get them down to 3.3/6 hp.
The most collateral damage Trebuchets can do to Longbows is get them down to 3.6/6hp.
Neither can hit Longbows with max 50% collateral damage, because Longbows have a higher base strength(6) than Catapults(5) or Trebuchets(4)
Cannons with a base strength of 12 and a max collateral damage of 60% hp can get Longbows down to 2.4/6 hp, far superior to the Trebuchet which hits its limit at 3.6/6hp.
That is why people so often spend 60
to upgrade their Trebuchets to Cannons.
Units with identical base such as Longbows, Swordsmen, and Crossbows (6) receive the same amount of collateral damage.
There is no need to include every unit in Civ 4 to construct good tables.
The Chinese unique unit Cho-ku-nu (6) has a strength of 3 when calculating Collateral Damage which makes for really pathetic collateral damage, but they can do it from the sea amphibiously off a transport which regular siege can't do.
They can also get Guerilla III for 50% withdrawal, so they can retreat and still inflict collateral damage.
All the Barrage promotion does is cause the Siege to do more collateral damage racing to the limit faster.
Compare the Catapult with Catapult having Barrage I and Barrage II promotions.
City Raider is almost always better than Barrage due to survivability unless attacking an enemy stack outside a city.
Barrage Catapults are for when the enemy has a huge stack outside your city and you need to soften them up so your Horse Units have much better odds to successfully perform flanking attacks and destroy enemy Siege units.
A few Barrage II and Barrage III Catapults also shine when suicide attacking a city with lots of promoted units and +100% defenses.
The trebuchet attack will also be suicide just like the Catapults, but the Barrage Catapults will do more overall damage once you factor in their costs of 50
vs. 80
In case anyone was wondering, injured 0.1hp Catapults inflict FULL collateral damage.
It also does so against up to 6 other units in the stack with the defender.
Defense modifiers like +150% to defense do not affect Collateral Damage in any way.
Only the Base Strength of the attacking Siege Unit and the Base Strength of the defending unit matters when calculating Collateral Damage.
======================================
Now some people complain that they only hit 2 or 3 other units with collateral damage and not the full 6 with the Catapult or the full 7 with the Cannon.
That is because of 2 reasons.
First, if the defender has Siege Units like Catapults, Trebs, or Machine Guns, they are immune to collateral damage and will absolutely soak up Collateral Damage hits.
Put 8 defenders in a stack of 60 Catapults, and you will see only 1 Collateral Damage inflicted occasionally.
2nd, injured units below the Collateral Damage threshold will also soak up Collateral Damage hits and make them vanish.
But not as often as you'd imagine.
This seems right.
This seems weird.
24 injured units and 8 healthy units.
A cannon doing Collateral Damage to a stack of 32 with 24 critically injured units would be expected to hit the 7 healthy units with Collateral Damage 22.5% of the time.
Instead it occurs 78.6% of the time!
I thought this might be a mistake, so I made a new stack of 8 healthy Rifleman and 64 critically injured Rifleman.
Surely I might get collateral damage to 1 healthy Rifleman each Cannon attack.
Guess how many I got?
4 or 5!
So a few very injured units will also soak up Collateral Damage hits, but only 1.
If there are a huge amount of injured units, they will soak up 2 Collateral Damage hits or maybe even 3, but not more.
Hopefully this clears up siege warfare confusion a bit for some people.
Collateral Damage only goes up to 50% max of the defenders hp for Catapults and Trebuchets.
The player can get enemy units down to half hp if their Cata/Treb has the same base
or more than the defender's base strengthTo illustrate this, here are some nice looking Collateral Damage Tables:
Spoiler :
The most collateral damage Catapults can do to Longbows is get them down to 3.3/6 hp.
The most collateral damage Trebuchets can do to Longbows is get them down to 3.6/6hp.
Neither can hit Longbows with max 50% collateral damage, because Longbows have a higher base strength(6
) than Catapults(5) or Trebuchets(4)Cannons with a base strength of 12
and a max collateral damage of 60% hp can get Longbows down to 2.4/6 hp, far superior to the Trebuchet which hits its limit at 3.6/6hp.That is why people so often spend 60
to upgrade their Trebuchets to Cannons.Units with identical base
such as Longbows, Swordsmen, and Crossbows (6) receive the same amount of collateral damage.There is no need to include every unit in Civ 4 to construct good tables.
The Chinese unique unit Cho-ku-nu (6
) has a strength of 3 when calculating Collateral Damage which makes for really pathetic collateral damage, but they can do it from the sea amphibiously off a transport which regular siege can't do.They can also get Guerilla III for 50% withdrawal, so they can retreat and still inflict collateral damage.
All the Barrage promotion does is cause the Siege to do more collateral damage racing to the limit faster.
Compare the Catapult with Catapult having Barrage I and Barrage II promotions.
Spoiler :
City Raider is almost always better than Barrage due to survivability unless attacking an enemy stack outside a city.
Barrage Catapults are for when the enemy has a huge stack outside your city and you need to soften them up so your Horse Units have much better odds to successfully perform flanking attacks and destroy enemy Siege units.
A few Barrage II and Barrage III Catapults also shine when suicide attacking a city with lots of promoted units and +100% defenses.
The trebuchet attack will also be suicide just like the Catapults, but the Barrage Catapults will do more overall damage once you factor in their costs of 50
vs. 80In case anyone was wondering, injured 0.1hp Catapults inflict FULL collateral damage.
It also does so against up to 6 other units in the stack with the defender.
Defense modifiers like +150% to defense do not affect Collateral Damage in any way.
Only the Base Strength of the attacking Siege Unit and the Base Strength of the defending unit matters when calculating Collateral Damage.
======================================
Now some people complain that they only hit 2 or 3 other units with collateral damage and not the full 6 with the Catapult or the full 7 with the Cannon.
That is because of 2 reasons.
First, if the defender has Siege Units like Catapults, Trebs, or Machine Guns, they are immune to collateral damage and will absolutely soak up Collateral Damage hits.
Put 8 defenders in a stack of 60 Catapults, and you will see only 1 Collateral Damage inflicted occasionally.
Spoiler :
2nd, injured units below the Collateral Damage threshold will also soak up Collateral Damage hits and make them vanish.
But not as often as you'd imagine.
This seems right.
Spoiler :
This seems weird.
24 injured units and 8 healthy units.
Spoiler :
A cannon doing Collateral Damage to a stack of 32 with 24 critically injured units would be expected to hit the 7 healthy units with Collateral Damage 22.5% of the time.
Instead it occurs 78.6% of the time!
I thought this might be a mistake, so I made a new stack of 8 healthy Rifleman and 64 critically injured Rifleman.
Surely I might get collateral damage to 1 healthy Rifleman each Cannon attack.
Guess how many I got?
4 or 5!
Spoiler :
So a few very injured units will also soak up Collateral Damage hits, but only 1.
If there are a huge amount of injured units, they will soak up 2 Collateral Damage hits or maybe even 3, but not more.
Hopefully this clears up siege warfare confusion a bit for some people.
Ok, all the information posts and game posts are now brought over from the other thread. (comment posts were left in the Lain thread)
I've written a lot about
in the guide section, so check it if you want to know more about intelligence gathering and spies and espionage economy in Civ 4.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-complete-guide-to-espionage.638613/
Also, it looks like Lain has now played the Willem map.
Wonder how he did?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2ak1kHTkXU6XwJnBm-jftPBlJHBTT39P
I've written a lot about
in the guide section, so check it if you want to know more about intelligence gathering and spies and espionage economy in Civ 4.https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-complete-guide-to-espionage.638613/
Also, it looks like Lain has now played the Willem map.
Wonder how he did?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2ak1kHTkXU6XwJnBm-jftPBlJHBTT39P
Last edited:
2% chance?
Fish Man
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,545
Regarding galleon chaining, yes it's impressive to move units instantly, the price you pay for this speed is capacity. And if you only benefit from and count the unit movements in one direciton, you can sustinable only move 2 units per turn per chain.
The capacity of any individual galleon is still only to move 4 units 4 tiles per turn.
I do think the mechanic is interesting, but I have yet to see any powerful use of it in my own games. What units are you usually moving with this method? Spies/corpex/missionaries?
If this method is used to ship an invasion force, I must miss some detail, because I see no clear benefit of chaining compared to shipping in bulk.
For siphoning in reinforcements after the initial landing I do see the point though.
The capacity of any individual galleon is still only to move 4 units 4 tiles per turn.
I do think the mechanic is interesting, but I have yet to see any powerful use of it in my own games. What units are you usually moving with this method? Spies/corpex/missionaries?
If this method is used to ship an invasion force, I must miss some detail, because I see no clear benefit of chaining compared to shipping in bulk.
For siphoning in reinforcements after the initial landing I do see the point though.
I agree that for the initial attack chaining is not that useful, so mostly the use for me is reinforcements. Say you have a galleon chain ready to move across 15 tile ocean. Assuming circumnavigation bonus they move 5 tiles per turn, so you need 6 galleons. 6 galleons could ship 18 units (galleon cargo space is 3) directly in 3 turns, while for a chain it takes 6 turns. But for reinforcements a steady stream of 3 units per turn is preferable to having units wait in the mainland while galleons sail back and forth.
Similar threads
