Surprise attack bonus

[War4ever]

Slowthinker i find it hard to believe that your results would lie not that i think YOU are lying....

there is no doubt in my mind that the sneak attack bonus is pretty much 50% attack bonus to the player using it....

ANY sneak attack i use almost guarrantees i will win the first combat....and this i have seen time and time again, and i saw it last night used on me.....

now, it wont let you take out totally powerfull units with a warrior, but you would be amazed what when you see a warrior take out legions.....

and i know this works, b/c we are never too loaded to understand the results that early in the game

with so many of us seeing it......i doubt we are all wrong....

on a sneak attack, a warrior simply never loses to any unit with the same defence on flat terrain....heck, you can take out chariots and horsies on forest too....

[DrSpike]

It is strange.......it is not hard to test and Slowthinker is experienced at testing if not at playing.

Perhaps ST tested at SP......and the bonus only works in MP? Long shot.....but maybe.

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I have tested it and there was no such a bonus...

ST,

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??

The "bonus" may only reveal itself the first time, or in "clean"play conditions.

If your tests were 'rigorous' then this perception that the bonus actually does exist still needs to be explained. Maybe it is a quantum mechanics kind of thing. The act of looking changes the result. Or, put another way, the sneak attack bonus only happens when you DO NOT look for it.

Monk

[DrSpike]

I can't remember an instance where reloading has biased results.....usually it provides the same info as straight play.

BM's uncertainty theorem, that you can't know both the bonus and the direction of the bonus simultaneously also seems a little spurious.

[War4ever]

Well BM's theory could make sense, perhaps its a MP only bonus?

i have noticed the ai never loses when it continually sneak attacks me in games, since we never have peace in our games, i am not sure if there is more than one sneak attack bonus per civ?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by War4ever
Well BM's theory could make sense, perhaps its a MP only bonus?

Oi that was my theory.

[War4ever]

but i find that hard to believe, what is true for sp is generally true for mp

[SCG]

well, i'm not sure how you can "sneak attack" a civ you have no contact with - don't you have to have some sort of peace with them to sneak attack, if you don't talk with them at first contact, you don't have peace.

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.

one side note, always been amused by what the AI civs do when they improve

[War4ever]

yeah the ai is really dumb....test it as an mp thing, or perhaps its only a human vs human thing?

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I can't remember an instance where reloading has biased results.....usually it provides the same info as straight play.

BM's uncertainty theorem, that you can't know both the bonus and the direction of the bonus simultaneously also seems a little spurious.

Not sure we are talking about the same thing DrSpike. To my way of thinking, one cannot jump to the amount of some thing before first determining the existence of the thing. Also, I seem to remember that while reloading can result in a loss becoming a win, usually the first win is the best win. Subsequent wins seem to have more damage than the first. That's why I think reloading does have a bias. But, I agree in advance that this is only my humble opinion.

The idea that looking at something causes it to change is not without precedent in CivII. Samson and Solo found that looking at a city, in certain years where a change was due in the commodities that are supplied, would cause a different list to be presented.

I don't know the answer. It's just that ST is a very well regarded tester and his results can be relied on because he is careful about the way he does his testing. But still, many if not most players have the impression--based on actual play--that a sneak attack bonus applies. So, I was attempting to redirect the thinking to the question: "What else could be causing this divergence??"

Monk

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk


Not sure we are talking about the same thing DrSpike.

Hehe I was just making a quantum theory joke. I guess it bombed.

[War4ever]

it bombed....your a doctor not a comedian

[DrSpike]

Nah it's just my audience was you, and the joke went over your head.

[War4ever]

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

[Ming]

Originally posted by SCG
one side note, always been amused by what the AI civs do when they improve

That's a great image...

In our games (which is where my observations are coming from) we don't allow peace treaties. And we have all noticed that if you are the person to "declare war" by attacking somebody for the first time (and you actually get the "do you want to declare war" window when you attack) there is indeed a bonus. I've seen warriors take out fortified units on good defensive terrain. I've even killed 2 point defensive units that are fortified with a warrior. Maybe it is a MP bonus only, and it has to be two humans... something that wouldn't show up in typical testing. All the players in our group have played thousands of games, and we have all noticed it.