Gripe thread- I lost two 99.9% battles

[Dis]

And I also lost a 94% win battle. And I had a tank in a city destroyed by a war elephant. Though the tank was wounded.

But I did win several 33% battles, and did win the game. But I'm still angry.

And I'll never know how the AI can support such a large army and be ahead of me in tech. They must have had 20 artillery alone on a standar map epic game.

[Jaybe]

I recently had a treb attack a city with a 4% (or was it 0.4%?) chance. It didn't retreat -- it WON! I got 5 to 7 XP from that combat.

[Nubclear]

I've had wins in single-digit percentages.
Sometimes I lose 95% (never 99%, yet). But it seems random enough to me that I won't complain.

[Dis]

I've never won a real low percentage battle, but then again, I never attempt them. With the exception of artillery attacks etc.

[Saurus]

I won a 0,7% fight once.
A severly wounded swordman whitout promotions attacked a fullstrenght knight from behind a river and won. That fight earned the swordman a good ammount
of experience.

But I have many times lost units with 99% odds of winning.

Still I t hink that the most frustating moments are when a unit witch is supposed to be a counter to another unit, fails.
(for instance, a horsearcher that fails to destroy a catapult ... or a Chariot witch is unable to take out an axemen when attacking)

[Will9]

I've won a .3% battle in the WWI scenario. I can't remember the highest I've lost at.

[Solver]

I won a 0.3% battle in my last game. Then, much later in the same game, I lost 3 battles in a row with about 80% odds. Never lost a 99% battle, though.

[Arrian]

I hate those, Dis. They suck. But I've won enough low chance battles (I do believe my "best" ever was about a 7% chance) that it doesn't sting quite as badly anymore.

Yet another catapults are good for: not only are they soften up the enemy and give your finishers a better chance of winning, but since they very often have bad odds of an outright win, using them means that you will see upset wins by your forces eventually.

-Arrian

[Diadem]

What always really annoys me is when you have a city with 1 very strong defender (city garrison II or II longbowman for example) and several weaker ones.

You throw a cat at the city, it dies, the other units in the city get soms collateral damage, but the tough defender is sitting there untouched. You throw another one, still no damage. Another one, a 4th one... Not a scratch..

And then you're out of cats

[CerberusIV]

True, catapults apparently only inflict collateral damage on units other than the one they are fighting. The only answer seems to be to send in the strongest non-cat unit you have and hope it damages that defender enough for a cat to win the next battle.

Not so bad in Warlords as trebs usually seem to inflict damage even on fairly strong defenders.

[Diadem]

Well, against a protective civ it's not uncommon to face city garrisson III longbowmen. If they are in a city on a hill you're looking at 16-17 strength, even if you take out the cultural defence. Plus first strikes.

You can't touch that even with trebs. Knights will die to that as well, and I'm not even mentioning macemen. The only solution is sheer numbers. But you better bring enough to crush the defences, and then some more. Because if you do happen to loose, you're looking at level 5 or 6 longbowmen the next turn ....

[Gibsie]

Of course it's not untouchable. Defence 16 against Attack 8 means that the Trebuchet has a low chance of winning every round, of which there are quite a few, so the Trebuchet will most likely do one or two hits. In fact that kind of fighting has annoyed me on numerous occasions, when I may have had something like a city garrison three longbowman and pinned all my defensive hopes on that- one elephant later and it's down to less than 50% health. Weight of numbers is certainly a part of it- but that's certainly "realistic" at least, isn't it?

[Dis]

last night's game was much better.

I think the previous game was just a fluke. I never seen so many strange things.

Though last night's game was strange in that I had such a strong economy. I didn't realize Augsustus Ceasar was such a powerhouse leader. I did better with him, than I do with financial civs. I had money out the ass. And I never even used my praet against another civ. I was peaceful until the 1800's.

[Virdrago]

Yeah, Augustus is a very good leader overall. I just won a game with him without using praets either. Half my cities were in jungle most of the game, and I only defended in wars. No real attacking, except when I culturally overwhelmed a few cities.

Augustus for any type of victory

[Adagio]

The lowest percentage battle I've won AFAIK was something like in the mid 30s, I don't remember ever having fought and won a battle with a lower chance than that