Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by EricTheRead, Apr 15, 2006.
Are you saying you had a 5% chance of winning there
Yeah the 'battlesystem' really sucks in CIV...
I haven't played CIII, II,...I, was it any better and if so could somebody explain it ?
Actually the battle system isn't to complex... you just have to bear inmind that while you may have 1 helo, that helo is going against 100's of spearmen, not jsut 3
You people are either exaggerating, or are very (read: VERY) unlucky.
I can't remember a single time that I've lost 2 battles in a row, where the odds were 80% or more.
Not only that, but just yesterday I had not 1, but 2 of my suicide catapaults win battles at around .5% chance.
You just need to start bringing more than a handful of units to attack a city.
man they would have clocked up the experience with that win.
No, it always just goes up by one.
I've had it go up several levels after one battle before
I've seen it go up by max 5, usually if you win a battle that you started at 50% or less chance of winning. It seems to vary the number of experience points by the difference between the units.
On the "unlikely losses" topic, I once had three 95+% battles which I lost on the attack in a row - one of which gave me a 99.7% chance of winning, and I still lost. At that point I decided the civ gods didn't want me playing that night, and saved to try again later.
I don't know for the new patch, but as of 1.52, the combat calculator prediction had trouble taking into account (I mean, seamed to ignore...) first strikes. I had many times battles with... 101% chances of winning And i remember seeing a screenshot in the funny screenshots thread, where it showed a 140% probability of winning... IIRC it happened with a ChoKoNu (sp?) wich happens to have many first strikes...
Also for the cav vs. longbows thing, longbows have first strikes but cavs don't, so that maybe (partially) the source of your trouble...
But again, I don't know if the bug has been fixed in v.1.61, although apparently the issue is not adressed in the patch notes (was actually specifically looking for it when reading them)
PS : sorry for my english
You shouldn't attack in waves when possible. If you just injure a unit, but fail to take it out, the ai will promote the crap out of it and it will be much more difficult to take it down later. It will heal quickly inside its city. If you attack in waves then you are basically attacking as the ai does. which is weak and easy to defend against. i have mowed down many ai onslaughts because it failed to stack units and i got free promotions for it as well. Like everyone else has stated, look at the combat odds--if they are in your favor, especially 70 percent or higher, and if you have enough units to take the city, then proceed. if you don't have enough units, i would wait for reinforcements. use vassalage or theocracy with your barracks for an extra promotion, if the ai has muskets (gunpowder melee unit) then use your promotions for gunpowder and melee bonuses. and use as many city raider promotions as possible.
And always remember that a unit cannot be promoted until the AI's turn comes around. You can therefore injure an enemy unit only if you later kill it in the same turn. Also, enemy units that attack you will not promote until the AI's next turn, so you should kill them quickly.
Eric, are you still out there? Game save file, please? It would be interesting to see what's causing your trouble.
You said you were attacking in waves and that each square had a different unit on it.
Try not to do this. Whatever you attack with, the AI will counter with the appropriate unit. If you seperate your units onto different squares you are making it easey for the AI. They will send pikemen to battle horses. Axemen to battle swordsmen, etc. Make a stack of mixed units. Whatever attacks, it will have to face its counter.
You will suffer some damage but the stack will remain alive.
These stacks are good also as they will draw some of the enemy out of his cities before you attack.
The experience gained varies depending on the relative strength of the unit defeated. It is never less than one, and has a maximum of 10XP in a single combat.
Umm, if this is the % you saw after mousing over the enemy with ALT, then you had 5% chance of winning with that unit.
The % it shows isn't the advantage you have over the enemy, it's your overall chance of winning. You had 5% chance of winning, the AI had 95% chance.
Don't feel bad. For a while there I never even knew about holding ALT over an enemy to see the combat odds. I just attacked blindly and and wondered why a cavalry was getting beat by a maceman (which I still hate btw. It's the one major gripe I have with Civ games; that totally outdated units still win and can pretty good odds at times)
You supposedly get more for attacking than you do for defending, but I don't know how that works. I get 1 experience attacking a unit with >90% odds.
Are you sure they Won and didn't just retreat (25% chance of retreating if they lost)
lol. Actually similar thing happened to me a couple days before patch. See my Friend and I played a lan game right. Well, I was a couple difficulties higher than he was(he switched it last second before launch. noticed after he destroyed me) which explained why It was harder for me to get things produced or advance. Anyway, the situation you had is similar to two that I had.
See first I went to war against some Ethopian Country(SuperCiv Mod..they had ethopian archer) I wanted to take the Holy City(they had the Jewish holy city.. and I love Fighting for the Holy Cities) anyway, I was going poor, and still hadnt been able to get optics to get to my friend for free tech and ect(plan was help eachother then take over the world, fight at the end) But I doubled my troops to his. Took 4 Cities EASY. There were two Cities right in my terroritory one had a Longbowman and an Axeman protecting it, the Other had a swordsman. Well. I built up a massive army and along the way to the Holy Land had them stop there. I hadnt discovered fuedalism so no longbowmen for me, and lucky for me they had just discovered it so most of their cities hadnt had them.
First City I captured was in the North but these two I was going after were in the South. Basically there was an ocean between our continents and our continents were obth connected north and south by small land bridges. Anyway, I tried invading both thru the North and South, Split their troops up, and to throw them off even more I sent 4 Swordsmen to their capital which was far away from my invasion plans at first(They sent most the troops to the capital to defend, so I scooped up their cities easily) Anyways, back to the two cities. I captured one of these two, the first one I didn't lose any troops. The second City, I'm just going to throw out an estimate, When I went to war I was FOR SURE taking the city, after the point that I was not so sure I was going to take the city I sent 3 waves of 10 swordsmen, before hand I sent 3 to 6 of mixed troops from swordsmen to catapults to axemen, ect. By the end of the war, they kept the City. It wasa crappy city and I presume it was just put there to get a foothold onto my territory. I had captured 2 larger cities and and 2 smaller cities, with ease and I used half as many men to take all 4 of those cities as I had trying to take the one. And they had more troops for each city.
If I would of taken that city with my first strike, I have no doubt that I would of captured the Holy City, and possibly destroyed their entire civilization, which inturn would stablize my rollercoaster economy and guarentee that I would catch up with the other civs in the tech tree to the point of atleast defending myself. But that ones stuborn Longbowman that had no promotions at all until he slaughtered my men, thru me off. I ended the War by paying him gold, because MY economy could not function off of military production and despite my try for gold the +1 gold at a 10% science rate wasnt helping. After the war ended his economy seemed to of fixed itself with a +19 gold possibly because he nolonger had to support several cities or troops. Anyway, I traded him back the resources I took from him for the gold and it helped push me towards Optics.
When I finally got optics I built Caravels like crazy I had made atleast 10 and had every coastal city building them. I sent the 10 one explore and set the others up to watch my borders, because well I didn't trust my friend. Well I found my friend, and told him to give me some tech, and hes like wait a minute. He gained a world map from the ethopians. Just as I predicted He was invading. He set up 30 ships filled with musketmen(I just got longbowmen at this time) and sent them to my land. Unloaded on my coast. he took one city as a coastal foothold to hide his ships from me, as he knew I would of built some kind of navy no matter how small to try to fight the invasion. Well. it worked. He took the coastal city with ease, and sent all his musketmen to my capital. I was too pissed off to continue, I knew I had lost when My caravals I sent to explore were coming home and spotted 10 galleons coming from the west and 15 from the east. I launched all my caravels at him. NO HOPE, my caravels DIDNT HURT, literally he still had full health, NO upgrades or anything, and my caravels had atleast a strength upgrade.
Well, When he was finally a tile outside my capital, and i had only 1 Caraval left, I gave up. I retired and let the AI go at him. I went over to his computer to watch the battle. I had about 15 troops on my capital gaurding it, about 5 were long bowmen. HE attacked with all his musketmen, that arrived in his first wave(-5 he left on the coastal city) By the time he took the city, He had lost just about 20 musketmen. Idk if its a bug, but maybe its not. Maybe itsa hidden concept in the game, When people are fighting in a fight they are about to lose, they fight like their about to lose, like there is no tommorrow, perhaps a bug in the game, perhaps a small concept planted in the game to randomly occur. I mean Remember the Alamo?
Separate names with a comma.