I Hate Existence

[Bkeela]

Picture this for fun:

Paris, last city of the French - besieged by my forces. Eight longbow make a desperate last stand against about 20 of my heavily promoted Greek swordsmen. Meanwhile the Aztecs are attacking me from the north. I expect to lose half of my forces, and hope the rest will break through.

Not one victory did my army achieve. NOT ONE ****ING VICTORY FOR JESUS CHRIST'S SAKE!!!!

Every game I witness the AI win with 1% or 2% chance. Bull**** the odds aren't rigged.

[Senethro]

The odds aren't rigged.

[TimeTraveler]

Okay. If attacking with 20 swordsmen, each having a 98.5% chance of getting through, but all losing anyway... The calculations place the odds of that happening to one in 3*10^36. That is definitely far-fetched enough to start asking questions on how the random chances of victory are put in place.

I'm currently not sure whehter I greatly misinterpreted the first post. >.>;

[Asmodean]

Odds are just that.....odds

Given enough tries, even the lowest of odds will produce an "unwanted" result.

Asmodean

[Tattila the Hun]

Bad luck, is all.

[Nugog]

Re: I Hate Existence

Originally posted by Bkeela
Picture this for fun:

Paris, last city of the French - besieged by my forces. Eight longbow make a desperate last stand against about 20 of my heavily promoted Greek swordsmen. Meanwhile the Aztecs are attacking me from the north. I expect to lose half of my forces, and hope the rest will break through.

Not one victory did my army achieve. NOT ONE ****ING VICTORY FOR JESUS CHRIST'S SAKE!!!!

Every game I witness the AI win with 1% or 2% chance. Bull**** the odds aren't rigged.

That really blows!

Did you have arecent save you could reload? Surely it could not happen twice in a row?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Bkeela
Eight longbow make a desperate last stand against about 20 of my heavily promoted Greek swordsmen.

Not surprising that you took heavy losses. The Longbowman has a base defence of 6, plus a 25% city defence bonus, plus a 25% fortification bonus. Not to mention cultural defence bonuses since it sounds like you didn't bother with any sort of bombardment beforehand. Compare that to your Swordsman who only have a base attack of 6, plus a 10% city attack bonus. You would have been extremely lucky to take that city with those odds.

[Bkeela]

No, I didn't keep a save.

Not surprising that you took heavy losses. The Longbowman has a base defence of 6, plus a 25% city defence bonus, plus a 25% fortification bonus. Not to mention cultural defence bonuses since it sounds like you didn't bother with any sort of bombardment beforehand. Compare that to your Swordsman who only have a base attack of 6, plus a 10% city attack bonus. You would have been extremely lucky to take that city with those odds.

When I saw my swordsmen had something like a 3% chance of victory attacking those longbowmen, I knew I didn't stand a chance in hell of capturing the city. If I was smart I would have made peace and got some techs in tribute, but with Monty coming down from the north, I wanted this war over and done with. After sacrificing a first wave of swordsmen, I figured my odds would be better, but my odds were only improved 7%. So with ten swordsmen to go, they only stood a 9% chance of victory. I knew I had lost, but continued on. It was the fact I didn't have one victory that made me so angry.

It seems so unfair when the AI pulls 1% victories out of its arse every game, yet with 10 swordsmen with a 10% chance of victory, I can't even win once.

Okay, the odds aren't rigged, but I need to vent due to being the unluckiest bastard in the universe.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Bkeela
No, I didn't keep a save.

Okay, the odds aren't rigged, but I need to vent due to being the unluckiest bastard in the universe.

Bugger

And possibly - yes.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Bkeela
No, I didn't keep a save.

When I saw my swordsmen had something like a 3% chance of victory attacking those longbowmen, I knew I didn't stand a chance in hell of capturing the city. If I was smart I would have made peace and got some techs in tribute, but with Monty coming down from the north, I wanted this war over and done with. After sacrificing a first wave of swordsmen, I figured my odds would be better, but my odds were only improved 7%. So with ten swordsmen to go, they only stood a 9% chance of victory. I knew I had lost, but continued on. It was the fact I didn't have one victory that made me so angry.

It seems so unfair when the AI pulls 1% victories out of its arse every game, yet with 10 swordsmen with a 10% chance of victory, I can't even win once.

Okay, the odds aren't rigged, but I need to vent due to being the unluckiest bastard in the universe.

With decisions like this you really need luck. Maybe improve your play and stop whinging about the combat resolution? As I've said every other time you've posted long tirades against the combat resolution many tests have been done, and not one has found evidence of bias towards the AI.

What happened to you wasn't bad luck it was bad play - pure and simple.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Bkeela
but I need to vent due to being the unluckiest bastard in the universe.

Losing 20 units with those odds is not bad luck (call it good luck if you actually did manage to win a battle)... Try this for bad luck:

I once decided to attack the enemy city with ~10 units, they all had the odds on their side (between 65% and 85% chance of winning), I lost them all

[Jaybe]

Yah, Bkeela was complaining about not having good luck. His luck wasn't that bad.
I suppose I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

[Addled Platypus]

screenie, and the save if you got it

never give up hope....sell it

[sjm]

I've lost 99.9% battles too. That's probability for you.

Note that with 10 swordsmen at 10%, on AVERAGE you'd expect to win 1 battle. That's on average.
The probability of not winning a single battle at those odds is also pretty high (about 35% if I'm not mistaken). So a third of a time you'll lose all the battles, 2/3 of the times you'll win at least one. There's nothing freaky about that.

All it means is that it is not the odds that are screwed, just our perspective

[wodan11]

Also, depending on what version you're playing with, the odds calculator might not be taking first strike into account. I -think- it was with v.2.08 they fixed that.

So, in other words, the odds might even be worse than you're stating. If the calculator says you have 3% but isn't taking first strike into account, then it will be even lower... more like 0.3%.

Wodan