****in' game

[Daz]

I have, as most of the others too, gotten used to this. Now I pay much more attention from what tile to attack, how much backup I have, artillery....

You have to plan your conquests much better, not just sent a couple of infatry to conquer 5 cities in a row.....

[ratster]

Dain, I don't know about the hidden fatigue factor, I've never seen any indication of this.

I have seen and empiricaly documented the movment thing though. This was by design in Civ II If I'm remembering right. So I try to do the same as you(not attack on the march.

Your right about the AI, it's as dumb as post regardless of level. The only differrence in levels is how much cheating advantage is given to the braindead AI.

[vmxa1]

There is only one AI, so the level you play does not effect it, unless you use the editor to alter it.

The AI does not cheat, other than knowing the tiles. It gets or gives handicaps bases on the level. Getting a handicap of extra units or production bonus is not cheating. Doing something that the other participants cannot is cheating. Such as building a unit without the required resources, that would be cheating.
When you select the level you are implicitedly giving the AI a bonus, so the rules are not broken during the game as cheating implies.

[Tall Stranger]

Well put, vmxa1.

I swear, someone ought to save this response in their notepad and dust it off every time the "AI cheats" claim comes up. It would save lots of time.

[ratster]

When you select the level you are implicitedly giving the AI a bonus, so the rules are not broken during the game as cheating implies.

So if I sit down to play someone a game of chess, lets say, and I flick a few of my opponents pieces onto the floor thats not cheating, I'm just giving myself a advantage?

That's a fine distinction, and possibly a lesson in semantics.

As far as the AI not being able to break the rules, that is do things the player cannot. I wouldn't be too sure about that without personally viewing the code.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by ratster


So if I sit down to play someone a game of chess, lets say, and I flick a few of my opponents pieces onto the floor thats not cheating, I'm just giving myself a advantage?

That's a fine distinction, and possibly a lesson in semantics.

As far as the AI not being able to break the rules, that is do things the player cannot. I wouldn't be too sure about that without personally viewing the code.

Your analogy is inappropriate. Would not knocking over piece violate the rules. If however you and I play and I agree to let you do that I cannot cry later that you cheated. I agree to it.

Look at a better analogy. I play a game of 9 ball and I agree to let you have the break and the 7 ball. If you break and make the game ball, you did not cheat.

Or at 8 ball, I offer to let you choose any three balls after the break to remove. You select them, you did not cheat, I gave you a spot a handicap. If however you just take three balls of on your own volition, that would be cheating.

[Dain]

Originally posted by ratster
Dain, I don't know about the hidden fatigue factor, I've never seen any indication of this.

I have seen and empiricaly documented the movment thing though. This was by design in Civ II If I'm remembering right. So I try to do the same as you(not attack on the march.

Your right about the AI, it's as dumb as post regardless of level. The only differrence in levels is how much cheating advantage is given to the braindead AI.

The beauty of it is that is that we wont really know for sure unless they admit to it, which is not very likely.

The only evidence I really need is statistical evidence to support. If it was just sheer luck that inferior conscripts would roll over fortified elites then it is not something I would consistantly do in every combat.

I guess most people are not willing to sacrifice units on a regular basis.

I did say in my post that I could be wrong, but it would take a hell of a lot of coincidental luck over hundreds of games to generate those kinds of results.

[ratster]

Actually I'll stick with my analogy and clarify a bit. My opponent has a bad memory and doesn't realize I've removed the pieces. Only I know that I've cheated (or given myself and advantage).

In CIVIII it is not implicitly stated anywhere in the docs(AFAIK) that the difficulty level only affects advantage( I'm not sure what that fully includes either). Therefore, if the player is unaware of the specifics of the advantage it is cheating.

[ratster]

Dain- I've seen what you mean and have done my own empirical analysis(thru many hours of play with notepad at hand). It indicates that at every level above chieftan the computer gains some combat advantage. Something on the order of a 10-15% odds modifier(per level).

[Dain]

Originally posted by vmxa1
There is only one AI, so the level you play does not effect it, unless you use the editor to alter it.

The AI does not cheat, other than knowing the tiles. It gets or gives handicaps bases on the level. Getting a handicap of extra units or production bonus is not cheating. Doing something that the other participants cannot is cheating. Such as building a unit without the required resources, that would be cheating.
When you select the level you are implicitedly giving the AI a bonus, so the rules are not broken during the game as cheating implies.

One thing I find ammusing is that the AI who hasn't explored my territory because I have a wall of troops blocking their access to my territory will actively attempt to send settlers to where I know there are resources and where he does not know there are resources because I can still offer him the technology.

I think the AI knows were all the resources are even before they get the technology or have explored the terrain. How often do I fight an AI that does not have iron, saltpetere, coal, oil, etc. Very rarely.

Cheat by definition means an unfair player and CIv's difficulty settings are not 'more challenging' or 'smarter' it is just 'unfair advantages'.

Starting with a ton of military units, an extra settler, workers, being able to create a ton of military units without maintenance, these are all 'cheat' types of modifications because they break the normal rules.

When you raise the difficulty of chess games they do not give themselves more queens or more pieces, they just become smarter in the type of moves they make.

This is what is sadly lacking in Civ, still.

There is always a point in a civ game where you know you have beaten all the computer players way before you have even done so. Luck has very little to do with it.

Once I get to the modern age in any difficulty setting I have won the game. Because the AI is stupid and no amount of starting advantage is enough to cope with hi-tech warfare.

Yes, I will unleash 50+ ICBMs on the remaining civs because it doesn't matter if I turn the world into a dustball, I will still win.

So the only real challenge is the survival of Civ's cheat mode early on.

It is cheating because the computer is playing with a different set of rules as to corruption, maintenance, etc. I'm trying to play chess and he is playing checkers. It does not make for a fair game.

Nontheless, once you get over that it is still a fun game, I often do not finish games. My 'game' is seeing if the AIs can stop me from getting to the modern age, I dont need to finish most games after that point.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
You are wrong on most points. It is a simple combat system but it is not intuitive. Information in the game is not sufficient to explain or else why would people complain? Why would they start threads about combat?

If in Civ the Infantry's odds of victory are 71% but people perceptions are that in real life their odds would be more like 97% then the game is deceptive to the player and that is an indisputable fact. To fix that the developer only needed to nuture the players by providing information. They did not do that. That is all I am saying.

If the player doesn't even know the A/D values of his units, then he's in trouble anyways. The system is intuitive - A/(A+D) is about as simple as it gets.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dain
For example, I believe there is a hidden morale/fatigue factor which is a basic mechanic throughout the whole game and not modifiable in the editor. Again, I may be wrong but have had too much success with it.

I believe the more a unit is in combat in a given turn the more it fatigues and eventually anything will roll over it. We have all seen it with military civilisations. You are fighting a horde and you from regular, to veteran to elite and then some conscript rolls over you without you scratching it. Mathematically the odds of that happening with any type of consistancy is non-existant.

Also, units that move and fight in the same turn have suffered heavier casualties than units which are attacking from fresh. I will never attack a city on the march, because I have seen my tanks being defeated by spearmen when on the move.

I will also use alot of chaff units (if I have any, like conscripts) on a fresh unit. If it doesn't die its a bonus, if it does then it softens up the target for one of my better units even if it has not scratched it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Firaxis has CLEARLY explained the combat engine, and it has been TESTED by numerous players (especially alexman) who have confirmed Firaxis' claims.

Bombardment is another issue. I used to never take catapults early in the game because even in large numbers they rarely damaged anything. Units that are being combarded seem to defend less effectively. I've tested it thousands of times and its now pary of my early strategy to utilise catapults because I suffer far fewer casualties when taking enemy cities.

That's partly psychology and partly the fact that - get this - Catapults damage units. Duh.

The size of a unit stack seems to also have a morale/fatigue factor. You can run your own tests. I have had a massive stack of warriors take over a city defended by a couple of fortified musketmen behind walls. Mathematically they should all crash and burn. Units in large stacks in general seem to perform better than normal, it is why it can be extemely difficult to take over with a large number of crappy defenders.

Again, psychology. The statistics prove you wrong.

Again, I might be wrong but there is too much consistancy and evidence to suggest that there are other contributing factors which have an influence. If there are not then there is something very seriously wrong with the mathematical odds of winning battles, because the 'miracle' victory occurs far too frequently.

See, your entire argument is based on a fallacy! You are using anecdotes as evidence.

I think it is also a safety mechanism because you can have a civilisation that is unlucky enough to be severely limited in the type of military units you can build. If all the fights were too clinical in terms of attack vs defense then in most cases you would struggle to ever recover from a poor starting position.

You do... duh.

I can still defeat civilisations who are in the second age with archers and spearmen. That should not be 'mathematically' possible. [/q]

Yes it should - just unlikely. Calculate the odds yourself, do tests, and see if the odds don't meet your calculations.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by ratster
Dain- I've seen what you mean and have done my own empirical analysis(thru many hours of play with notepad at hand). It indicates that at every level above chieftan the computer gains some combat advantage. Something on the order of a 10-15% odds modifier(per level).

Firaxis has plainly denied this, and many players have conducted tests that prove them right.

[ratster]

Firaxis has plainly denied this, and many players have conducted tests that prove them right.

Where? specifically, link please.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by ratster
Actually I'll stick with my analogy and clarify a bit. My opponent has a bad memory and doesn't realize I've removed the pieces. Only I know that I've cheated (or given myself and advantage).

In CIVIII it is not implicitly stated anywhere in the docs(AFAIK) that the difficulty level only affects advantage( I'm not sure what that fully includes either). Therefore, if the player is unaware of the specifics of the advantage it is cheating.

If you do not know what the bonus is for a given level look at teh editor. I have posted it many time for al the levels for C3C, it is no mystery.

Amusing attempt, but still not valid. Nothing is being done by the AI, during the game that is not following the rules, other than knowning the tile and what is on them and that is the game rules.