The RNG Was *Good* To Me!

[John-SJ]

Playing as Persia, not even a militaristic civ, on the very first attack of my very first war against another civ (the Zulu) I get a golden age, the next attack (still on the same turn) was by an elite immortal and he produced a great leader!

WOW! Talk about luck!!!

So, what's the luckiest thing that ever happened to you?

John-SJ

[dexters]

Human biases.

No one every complains when RNG is good to them. But they whine like a ***** it if doesn't do well.

I like the RNG for several reasons

1) IT adds significant uncertainty. --Where's the fun if you know your advance units will always win? And this is important if we are talking about incremental advancements in units. A Pikemam > Spearman, but that doesn't mean it will own all the ancient era units.

2) Evens the playing field. If you are behind technologically, there is a chance of surviving a high-tech onslaught by outproducing your enemy or at least slowing them down enough to save your own skin.

[Jon Shafer]

I actually like it when the RNG is against me (but not too much so).

It's just too easy to whip the AI, and it needs some help sometimes.

[vmxa1]

I hardly notice it any more. You get those runs where 3-5 turns in a row all arties fail, but nothing can be done about it.

[bobbo008]

how about when my fortified guerilla in a mountain gets killed by an attacking AI guerilla TWELVE straight times? :|

[CerberusIV]

It evens out in the end. I am currently playing as the Arabs and invading the Zulus. To start with I was losing units on offence and defence, like a regular pikeman killing one elite ansar and forcing a second one to retreat whilst zulu knights trample my pikemen. Then it turned around and suddenly I can do no wrong. My ansars attack and the zulu units simply die.

You just have to hang in there sometimes.

[John-SJ]

Hmmm, In my original post I was trying to keep it succinct, perhaps I did not explain myself well. I was not whining over poor treatment by the RNG, I was reporting to unlikely events (especially for a non-militaristic civ) that happened on the same turn, in two consecutive attacks, in fact.

First, on the very first attackof my war against the Zulu I entered a golden age. On the very next attack, I obtained a great leader when my elite immortal attacked another zulu.

Maybe this kind of thing happens to some of you all of the time, but I was under the impression it was fairly rare, especially for a non-militaristic civ, and especially for both events to occur in two consecutive attacks. If my impression was incorrect I'm sure some around here will be happy to correct it.

John

[CerberusIV]

A golden age starts immediately that your civ's UU wins a combat. No luck involved, apart from winning!

As for getting a leader, it is down to luck. I had one recent game where an early war I didn't want consisted of my units destroying two warriors and an archer before peace broke out. Yet I got a leader from just three fights. Currently my elite ansars must have destroyed twenty or more zulu units and no sign of a leader.

[mrmitchell]

You know, you really should be spending your luck on a lottery rather than on Civ3
---
I seem to have entire games that lack GLs. Oh well, that's my luck

[bobbo008]

i only once got a GL in the dark ages. an army of warriors isnt very intimidating unless the game is that early.

anyone know if GL are less common on deity, cuz i just cant get one after probably 30-40 victories from elite units...

[mrmitchell]

You're just getting bad luck. Multiple threads have been done about this, and IIRC, the end result was:

If you want GLs, be militaristic, build the Heroic Epic, build Barracks everywhere (one less promotion to worry bout), and be a warmongering bastard.

EDIT: Usually b*stard is edited out? Heh, maybe the censor's having some trouble due to the server load...