The battle rng can be infuriating some time

[f1rpo]

The game hanging on "Initializing" when loading a savegame is a known issue:

Spoiler links :

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/increase-memory-on-64bit-machines.544026/page-2#post-15744292
https://www.reddit.com/r/CivIV/comments/d2vveb/delays_while_reloading/
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/first-load-superfast-but-subsequent-loads-superslow.522798/
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-to-reduce-loading-times.286023/#post-7111906

I think it can only occur in full-screen mode, and Alt+Tab seems to finish the "Initializing" step immediately.

And you could say it was bad luck but no way as it happens WAY too often imo....

Unless the displayed odds are failing to calculate some variable, then I doubt this.

Speaking of known – but not all that widely known – issues: I've recently noticed that incorrect combat odds are displayed when the attacker's damage limit is a multiple of the per-round damage, e.g. when one healthy Cannon attacks another. The Advanced Combat Odds mod (if enabled in BULL) gets it right (through this bugfix): 50% odds of survival is correct, BtS shows 63.7%.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I have newer had that bug happen to me that I know off. The loading one that is. Guess I was just lucky.

 

[Kaiman]

So like basically he is assuming that the game just throws a 1d100. And that if he knew the next roll was say 66 he could than not send his 65% to win unit but instead "spend" that roll with another unit he either does not care about or which has a 67% to win.

That would work if the game just picked a single random number to determine the fight; but it doesn't.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Honestly if it was me I'd just have made the combat math far simpler. As in give each unit an attack and defense stat and than match those up. And just do simple subtraction from hit points.
So like say you have units A and B, A has 3 attack and 2 defense and B has 2 defense and 1 attack and both have 3 HP.

A attacking B means B takes 3 damage and A takes 2. B attacking A means A takes 1 damage and B takes 2. No RNG, no complexity, no nothing.

 

[Pangaea]

Would make for a very deterministic gameplay tho. As infuriating as the RNG can be at times, at least things aren't set in stone. You can still lose as the Romans if you mess up something, or are unlucky. But a Praet beats a longbows with that example you mentioned (promotions etc aside), so you just keep killing the map without taking losses.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I like deterministic. It rewards strategy and not luck.

 

[sampsa]

Even as a chess player (a rather deterministic game I suppose) I don't like the idea at all. Makes everything way too easy and straightforward, for the reasons Pangaea presents. Unless, the point is to change other mechanics as well. Maybe an idea for a new game.

The way battle actually works is creating strategic content, as you need to take account both, or actually all possible outcomes of a single battle.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Yea, no. We'll have to agree to disagree here. I just don't like relying on randomness as a game mechanic. It's one of the reasons why I can't stand games like D&D either. In CIV it's tolerable because the rest of the game is good enough for me to ignore it. But at the end of the day a victory won through luck is one that I can not be proud off and a defeat through bad luck is nothing I could have averted. And that's not what you want from any game, let alone a strategy game.

As far as I am concerned randomness is the one black mark on the entire Civilization series.

 

[6K Man]

The problem with being against randomness is that almost everything in the game has some randomness in it. Starting position, where opponents spawn, how the AI does in combat with the other AIs, inter-AI diplomacy... if you get rid of all of it, you have a chess game on a bigger board.

Randomness is a good thing in the game, to a point. And that point is different for everyone. Some people turn off random events because they can have too big of an impact on the game. Some people like advanced starts or other mechanics that give you a guaranteed set of qualities in your starting position. And most people's eyes light up when they see a double Corn double Gold starting position, and groan when they see brown land and a solitary Cow.

Randomly losing three 80% battles in a row in 1450AD is usually no big deal. Randomly losing three 80% battles in a row in 2000BC is game changing - for me, series of bad-luck BC losses is too much randomness. I'd say that should be modded or fixed... but the "New Random Seed on Reload" option is right there

 

[Kaiman]

I like deterministic. It rewards strategy and not luck.

Not necessarily. Low to moderate amounts of luck add a new type of strategy to the mix - the ability to set your risk-reward level based on the situation in the game and based on yourself and your opponent.

Also, although the game isn't really intended to be "realistic", most of it is intended to at least have some reasoning behind the comparison to reality. E.g. aqueducts and hospitals relate to health because that makes sense based on what those things do in real life. Having perfect knowledge of how battles will go doesn't make for even a remotely reasonable abstraction of actual military decisions.

 

[Infantry#14]

The random aspect of battles can be infuriating, but I think it's better game design than deterministic behavior. Quantity itself is a strategy. The side with more hammers given similar tech tend to win in the long run.

 

[Orion Pax]

Ah yes, randomness in the game - have seen some pretty animated debates on this, especially regarding random events.

I agree that even though it’s frustrating to lose high probability battles, it seems necessary for gameplay and for modeling. Like folks have pointed out, probability is no guarantee, and that tracks with how battles and life in general often can be. Much of what we call “random” is really more “unexpected” but we just can’t readily identify the cause. But for underdogs who defeat more powerful foes, there is a cause. Weather that destroys parts of communities is not random, it’s caused by preceding biological activity.

I think it’s a strength of the game not a weakness that players have to account for unexpected outcomes because that’s what real leaders have to do. And for gameplay it keeps things more fresh. I think the frustration comes when the unexpected is super impactful, like early military losses when your army is much smaller, or losing your whole navel fleet to the Bermuda Triangle event. And of course also on higher difficulties, when there is is so little room for error.

While I share those frustrations, it’s hard to see why it’s unfair. Maybe we shouldn’t expect 93% odds to work like 100%, or for anything we didn’t plan to come to pass. I dunno.

 

[AcaMetis]

While I share those frustrations, it’s hard to see why it’s unfair. Maybe we shouldn’t expect 93% odds to work like 100%, or for anything we didn’t plan to come to pass. I dunno.

The problem is that the 7% strategy doesn't always have a 100% (or even necessarily a 93%) chance to work, especially on higher difficulties, so you end up with situations where you either roll the dice to see if you lose or you lose. Playing correctly and loading the dice in your favor as much as possible is satisfying when it works out, less so if the game rolls snake eyes anyway.

 

[Fippy]

Losing battles with good odds isn't the problem imo.
Losing without doing damage creates them, or winning with overwhelming stronger units but losing 80% health.

As odds go past ~70% a fair combat simulation would guarantee that your unit gets at least one hit in, they are after all stronger and an underdog unit should never get out of battle unscratched.

 

[krikav]

Agree with @Fippy alot here.
It's that you can lose fights and leave the opposing unit completely unharmed that can really screw you over.
I had a really nice game going last week where I was pushing forward with HAs, then I lost 3 HAs at 79% odds and the unit in the hilled city was unharmed and that really sucks.

Have no problem adapting to stratgies where I pretty much have to think "Well, units in this city are so strong I need to pay 2 units for every unit I want to kill. Need to bring a 3v1 ratio"