I believe combat is rigged in this game and it ruins it for me

[TheHateMale]

Maybe someone could mod in a 'force random seed change' button for people who don't like current trends?

Not that there'd be any way to tell it did anything though.

[MikeH]

3 freak losses in one war sounds about what I get.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by DougM
Now, you could claim that you are comparing the outcome to an ideal die for which the outcome is always perfectly evenly distributed among the six outcomes: in which case, the model is your control.

That's exactly the case in this experiment.

[MikeH]

Maybe someone should mod it to use the lego dice rolling machine.

http://www.gamesbyemail.com/dicegenerator

[Hauptman]

Originally posted by MikeH
3 freak losses in one war sounds about what I get.

it was 3 freak losses of 3 units 3 times. the ONLY fights i won where the first city battle and the fights where their units had less than 1.0 health left... even though my units had TWICE the strength (cho ku nu vs archer/spearmen)

If i wasnt completely hammering my population with slavery to get those cho ku nu's out i would have been toast. i might as well have been using archers.

[Arrian]

Well, several tests mentioned in this thread resulted in nearly 50/50 combat results.

As for anecdotal "evidence," I can honestly say that I've had my share of wins and losses that were against the odds, but most of the time I win when the odds favor me and I lose when they don't.

It hurts a lot when the loss of 1-2 battles you "should win" wrecks a war. I've had that happen to me - it forced me to make peace instead of capturing my enemy's capital city (he was left with one longbowman at 1.0 health). But then again, I didn't pick that fight. I was counterattacking after being invaded. If I'd planned to invade, I'd have brought more guys.

And that's what it comes down to, folks. If you're planning a war, don't let a couple of unlucky results ruin you.

By the way, siege weapons are a big help against this, at least w/regard to attacking AI cities. Not only do they soften the opposition such that the odds swing in your favor for your city raiders, but because cats are typically attacking at a disadvantage, you will start to pick up lucky WINS. Most of the time, humans avoid battles that are against the odds, because we know that most of the time we're gonna lose. But siege weapons are different - they can retreat, and also even if they die, they serve a purpose. Well I can tell you that many of my lucky results have been wins with catapults that were facing ugly odds (catapult kills undamanged longbowman forted in a city - 5 vs. 9).

-Arrian

[xxFlukexx]

Well here's my axeman test. I test on Emperor because it is what I play and if the AI does get combat bonuses they will get them on Emperor+ not on noble...

100 of my axeman place vs 100 Egypt axeman placed in 2 columns split into groups of 10 each so it's 10 different 10 vs 10 battles. I use stack combat and quick combat so I can alt-click to select a stack and use it vs the enemy stack across from it.

Results are 41 of my axemen left and 59 AI axemen left. 8 axemen (total, both sides) went unscratched. I dunno the odds of winning a 50/50 fight with all hp remaining, is it 1 out of 2^5 (1 out of 32)? I am not sure if I am correct on this.

My axemen had a total of 92 hp left while the enemy had 155 total hp left. Give or take like 5 hp due to me miscounting. Since I start with 500 total hp on both sides, I lost 408 rounds while the enemy lost 345 rounds, or the enemy won 408 rounds and I won 345 rounds, however you want to look at it. Am I right in saying that the total number of rounds fought was 408 + 345 = 753? If so, then I won 45.8% of the rounds and the AI won 54.2% of the rounds. This is much closer than my 41% win rate in # of units. So my point again (A little different than the OP's point) is that combat is too much dependant on luck and very streaky.

Start game:

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=68058_starttestaccountBC-3960.Civ4SavedGame

Results:

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=68058_resultstestaccountBC-3960.Civ4SavedGame

I believe 59% is barely within the error range for a test for a true 50% propability with 100 trials. Btw, I don't need a control wtf I am testing not doing an experiment, the control is that the combat calculator says it is 50%.

I am sure that I can get my winning percent near 60% and also the enemies higher than 60% if I did this enough (I guess I should've hit the make new seed on reload option) So this is my point, that the combat can be completely crazy and screw you completely. You say bring 3 to 1 odds and I say I've lost 3-4 units vs one before and the odds are very streaky. Take my last 3 iterations, I had 30 axemen vs 30 axemen, after the dust clears I have 8 axemen vs 22 axemen. And you say "well you fight alot in civ4 so it doesn't matter" I say a war might be 20-30 rounds of meaningful combat, then it's all cleanup, mop-up so losing 15 times in a row is very possible and very unfair and not very strategic.

I think this is more of my general complaint that Civ4 counter system is too soft and just allows this stuff to happen. Point is that if I place my Maceman on a hill and a horse archer kills him, that should just not happen. I use a superior tech unit correctly and the AI uses his unit incorrectly and still wins with full life. BS.

Oh and lastly if I am bored further I want to do like a Horse-archer vs axeman test, maybe 200 vs 200 this time. Because really I see a lot more losses than I believe I should have when I have 60-70% chance of winning.

[Hauptman]

Oh and lastly if I am bored further I want to do like a Horse-archer vs axeman test, maybe 200 vs 200 this time. Because really I see a lot more losses than I believe I should have when I have 60-70% chance of winning.

thats what Ive been screaming!!!

[xxFlukexx]

Actually what I think we are seeing is part of 1.52 combat change rearing its ugly head. Counter promotions and counter units have been reduced in effetiveness due to the base str now being the modifier for how hard the unit hits for. I am a big fan of the 2nd and 3rd level promotions and use them with ruthless efficiency so I think this is why I see this much more than others.

Before 1.52 I would use my Horse-archer + Shock (-25% to melee) to take out an enemy axeman. Now the shock promotion would lower the units str and thus how hard it hits me so I have a very good chance of winning.
Now post 1.52 the axeman hits based on its 5 str, not after it accounts for the shocks -25%. So the axeman needs only a few lucky hits and boom, horse-archer is dead. So before patch 1.52 I the axeman would need like 8 hits to kill the horse-archer but post 1.52 it would need about 5 lucky hits to kill the same horse-archer (numbers pulled out of a hat) so you will see more crazy results than you are used to.

Is the above correct? If so then I'm not sure if I like the change that 1.52 made. Or was the patch named 1.54, why do I think it was 1.54.

[Arrian]

It's 1.52. I don't know the answer to your specific question re: whether the unit hits based on unmodified base strength, or if something like shock is factored in.

I use those promos too. (I use a lot of pinch promos late, too). I've had my shock-promoted Camel Archer get killed by an enemy maceman, sure. I don't think it's terrible if that happens now and again.

...

This appears to be a new version of a very old debate: some players just don't like any randomness. The "my maceman on hill should always win!" comment is indicative of this. I'm *not* saying that's wrong, per se, although I disagree. Is that a flaw in the combat system, or just personal preference butting heads with game design?

-Arrian

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Not necessarily. Since the original poster did not mention his methodology in performing his experiment, and it is highly likely that he is not a trained scientist (neither are you ), there is no assurance that he actually recorded what happened.

Excuse me for being cynical, but I have seen too many reports of anomalies or "miracles" that later turned out to have perfectly natural causes or are even common occurances for me to take this seriously.

I am not saying he's lying. I am saying he doesn't have sufficient training to interpret what happened.



As I said, you are not a trained scientist. A control is always, always necessarily in any experiment, regardless of how trivial it is.

The claim is that the program rigs against human players (when they play against the computer). Thus, you must rule out the possibility that the same kind of events also happen when a human plays against another human.



See my sig

I did not see him performed a test, let alone a controlled test. He was upset because he lost some battles that he thought he should have won.

That's why I asked for it. To prove a point he must set up a controlled experiment, explain his methodology, and publish the results. However, the original poster appears to be uninterested in such an undertaking. Instead, he simply restates his results in different ways.

Well I have a Ph.D in econometrics and have taught statistics at university level. You?

And insisting on a control in this case just indicates your ignorance, I'm afraid.

[DrSpike]

Anyway, the new test results look fine. Either the original poster was playing a prank or he made a mistake.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well I have a Ph.D in econometrics and have taught statistics at university level. You?

Ouch!

[Krill]

This beats MtGs' put down of Sava any day of the week...

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by xxFlukexx
Actually what I think we are seeing is part of 1.52 combat change rearing its ugly head. Counter promotions and counter units have been reduced in effetiveness due to the base str now being the modifier for how hard the unit hits for. I am a big fan of the 2nd and 3rd level promotions and use them with ruthless efficiency so I think this is why I see this much more than others.

Before 1.52 I would use my Horse-archer + Shock (-25% to melee) to take out an enemy axeman. Now the shock promotion would lower the units str and thus how hard it hits me so I have a very good chance of winning.
Now post 1.52 the axeman hits based on its 5 str, not after it accounts for the shocks -25%. So the axeman needs only a few lucky hits and boom, horse-archer is dead. So before patch 1.52 I the axeman would need like 8 hits to kill the horse-archer but post 1.52 it would need about 5 lucky hits to kill the same horse-archer (numbers pulled out of a hat) so you will see more crazy results than you are used to.

Is the above correct? If so then I'm not sure if I like the change that 1.52 made. Or was the patch named 1.54, why do I think it was 1.54.

the changes to the combat system in v1.52 only affect combat with damaged units. Combat with healthy units is unchanged.