Surprise attack bonus

[War4ever]

i wonder how the ai gets to be so good, its all thecheats it has me thinks....

silly game.....

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by War4ever
not likely, i am known to have a high sense of wit and to understand the understandable

In that case you can explain Heisenbergs's uncertainty principle (and hence my joke) to BM.

[SCG]

Originally posted by SCG
I tried a quick test and after making peace in the first contact, tried breaking the treaty at the start of the next turn - i lost 35 of 40 attacks warrior on warrior, attacking with green warrior onto another green warrior in the process of fortifying in the desert.

might find this interesting, although sample size of 40 isn't all that big.
I just loaded the same game in my "fresh from the mailbox" version of MGE and my warrior only lost 24 of 40

thats a 2/5 victory rate vs a 1/8 victory rate
I'm too lazy to try and do those 1000 repeats some of the real testers use to stamp out statistical annomolies

[War4ever]

you said you made peace first, you dont need peace to have the surprise sneak attack bonus...usually what happens is someone meets with 1mp left and just attacks, or the next turn he is attacked, we don't do peace in our games

[Ming]

Yeah.. instead of making peace and trying it... experiment with attacking the FIRST time you run across somebody else's unit. That could be why your "tests" have shown nothing

[War4ever]

now he has to get through the bureaucratic red tape first

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
I remember your test results, but I don't remember how you set up the tests. Were each of the tests done as a one-off in actual game conditions?? Or did you do reloads, or use cheat mode??

I didn't find a post with my results. Anyway I changed stats in rules.txt to high values so that fortuity is low and so I suppose I didn't need the cheat mode or reloads...

This is a result of Marquis:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22856&perpage=20&pagenumber=6

[SlowThinker]

Ming,you could test it in MP too. Just change hitpoint values to 10 (100) in rules.txt, firepower to 1 and attack and defense to 20. Fortuity will be very low.

[Scouse Gits]

I think we need some definitions of terms here - to we SP players 'sneak attack' is something the AI does to us in violation of a peace treaty and we get the pop-up "Sneak attack by French forces".

It seems to me that what is being discussed by our enlightened MPing brethren is something different - in particular an attack launched on the very first (pre-diplomacy) opportunity to attack someone. As I cannot recall a single instance when the AI has refused to take advantage of such an opportunity to insist upon diplomacy (even if it is my turn!) a doubt any of us have eever seen the phenomena you guys describe - and it would be hard if not impossible to duplicate in a SP laboratory.

SG[1]

[rah]

As alluded to by my comrades herem it's probably like the barb bonus at raging level. The barbs get the 50% attacking bonus against human players, but not against the ai. I'm sure the sneak attack bonus is the same. Only good against human players. This would explain the testing results.

[Elephant]

That should be testable, though, even by one person hot-seating. Could this be related to the bonus human-civ units get against Barb Archers?

[SlowThinker]

As alluded to by my comrades herem it's probably like the barb bonus at raging level. The barbs get the 50% attacking bonus against human players, but not against the ai. I'm sure the sneak attack bonus is the same. Only good against human players. This would explain the testing results.

rah, do you want to say the bonus doesn't apply in King and lower levels?

[DrSpike]

No, what we said was that the bonus maybe wouldn't show up in a game at any SP level.......it could be particular to MP (or at least, only seen *against* humans). As Rah says, there is precedent for bonuses being calculated differently for humans and AI.

[Ming]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
rah, do you want to say the bonus doesn't apply in King and lower levels?

While that might indeed be true... and we wouldn't know because the majority of our games are played on Deity... Rah was raising an important but different point.

Like the Barb attacking bonus that only is applied to barb attacks on human players and not AI civs... Maybe that is indeed the case here. Maybe only human surprise attacks on human civs have the added advantage. And none of the previous tests would show that, because they were all done against an AI civ.

*and what a pain that would be to test... having to quit the game and restart it MANY MANY times to get a reasonable data set to work with*


added later... a classic example of cross posting... right on Dr Spike

[rah]

Even if we tested it in MP and discovered it was true...

Then there would still be the question of whether the AI gets a surprise bonus against Human players, or is it just humans on humans. If you think testing humans on humans is tedious..................well, maybe in wouldn't be that hard because you could test it in sp mode.

RAH
And YES, you never know, just like the barb bonus is only at the upper level of barbs, maybe the attack bonus against humans is only active in Deity games. But as ming says, I don't care since we only play deity.