What's with the loaded dice?

GnuZ · January 11, 2002, 12:18

Greetings. Good looking boards. Not sure if this suits here or the help forum, but it's a bit "help, the ai is killing me" so I decided on here. I've spent a couple of hours searching archives but haven't found anything directly addressing this topic, please forgive me if this has been done to death; if so perhaps someone could provide a link.

I got civ3 for Christmas. Since, I've played over a hundred hours (so I'm a civ3 newb, but I've been gaming a long time.) I'm generally not a whiner, but I'm finding this game most unsatisfying and I'm at the point of wondering if there's something in my setup that's not working as it should. So far, I've managed to win twice, both early on at chieftain, both times by meekly grovelling and scrupulously avoiding war until I became technologically advanced and could field motorised armour against swordsmen, archers and similarly anachronistic units. Now, moving the goal posts up a notch or two, to warlord (and quickly back to regent) I find that if war breaks out early, or on any "equal" tech footing, I may as well throw that game away as what appears to be a unit value imbalance between the players and the ais units once combat is entered ensures I can't win anything approximating a "fair" fight, I just lose city after city at the ai's whim until either I give up in disgust or it offers "peace".

To my way of thinking, this just isn't right, if two "identical" units have at one other, there should be a reasonable chance that either can win, no? In my experience so far, it seems that one ai unit is as effective as around three to seven similar player units, the hit point exchange ratio can be as high as seven to twelve to one, or more. Is this the same for everybody? (I'm becoming so lip curlingly annoyed about this bias that this game is in danger of being the first civ erased from my hardware before it's "played out".)

Am I missing something? Is there a logical reason why it's reasonable for one regular ai swordsman to attack and kill a stack of three (or more) veteran player swordsmen, or successfully defend against a stack of six or seven? I wouldn't mind if it was "uncertainty of battle" or the like, but "fortune never favours the human", it seems and to attempt to emulate the ais game results in laughable defeats every time. (Same type of unit or different, mixed stacks don't seem to help.) I've lost front line walled towns, fortified with (recent example) three spearmen, a swordsman, two archers and a horseman, all vets, to a single regular ai archer (which may have lost a hit point or two) and attacking that same town with the "exact same" unit(s) the ai did is never successful. I've attacked towns defended by only a few regular and/or conscript units with a force of twenty to thirty mixed veterans and elites (swords/spears/horse) and suffered kill ratios of fifteen or more to one (another game exited in disgust). I have never seen this work to the ais disadvantage. Open ground (so no terrain bias) the ais units outperform mine by a ridiculous amount in both attack and defense, without exception. I have never had less than an overwhelmingly superior force either attack or defend successfully against an ai player and "one on one" is just a joke.

Hence: what's with the loaded dice? Is this the way it's "supposed" to play? I've recently been playing the Japanese and the Americans, are theirs just lousy military or something?

Shortform details, in case it's relevent: civ3 1.16f (legal) playing warlord & regent levels, 800x600 on an Athlon t'bird 900@1000, 256MB, 64MB KyroII, sblive platinum. Win98se, all updates. Thanks for your time.

Velociryx · January 11, 2002, 15:29

If you think THAT'S frustrating, just wait till you lose a tank or two to the AI's Pikemen!

Seriously.....in all the games I've played, all the battles fought, I've only had that sort of thing happen about a dozen times....some close calls (some would say "closer than they should have been" but that's neither here nor there).

It's been my experience that, in order to beat the AI consistently (cos they DO seem uncannily good at doing damage to your units), you need to do one, or several of the following:

1) Combined Arms: Station Catapults with your troops and whack incoming badguys with some "softening up" shots.

2) Make use of mounted troops who can attack, and if they don't win, retreat when wounded--'cept for against other fast troops.

3) Tweak the units in the editor, assigning a bombard ability, range 0 to any unit using a ranged weapon (bowmen, etc). This lets them get a free shot at incoming troops (and is one of the features of the mod-proposal I'm workin' on!)

Good luck, and happy hunting!

-=Vel=-

GnuZ · January 17, 2002, 13:40

Thanks for the reply Vel.

Losing a tank to a pikeman isn't uncommon, alas, I lost a lot of armour to anachronistic units at the ais usual odds.

Regarding your suggestions -

- I found combined arms (once I could make ranged weps available) made little difference, 100% of the gunners are unable to hit a target 75% of the time.

- Mounted troops are apparently intended to work that way, from what I read, in my experience more often they take all but the ais last hit point, then stay, fight and die to the ais miracle "I hit, you missed" ability with the dice, (as they're never "losing").

- Editor? No thanks, if it doesn't play out of the box, I'm not about to spend my time doing the developers job for them.

My opinion has firmed with a few more days play and I'm afraid it's rant o'clock.

Having had THREE developing games reach a point where no matter what action I took next the game kernel faulted sometime within the next turn..

Having played many hours of a fourth, to a point where EVERY city in my Egyptian empire, including my capitol, decended into civil disorder by the 4th turn after an unwarrented and unprovoked Pearl Harbour style attack on our industrial heartland by the Germans - who were "polite" towards us and good trading partners at the time... (complete with whining peaceniks destroying infrastructure and stopping military production, sure, that's believable.. As if!)

Having earlier been nearly at the "tearing hair and rending clothing" stage of frustration attempting to elegantly handle another "polite" trading partner ignoring requests to respect zone of control in order to "force land" a three unit "raiding party" through about 20 blockading cavalry and attempt to march into our heartland with the "friendly" objective of doing a walk in capture of an undefended city... (One must assume that someone's aunt sent a letter back to Russia saying "there are no soldiers here, quick tell the Czar to send a Cossack!" as I didn't trade my maps.) THAT'S reasonable, OH yeah.

In all cases of agression having had the entire REST OF THE WORLD take the side of the ATTACKERS (b.s. they had mutual defense agreements, unless they were "secret", and what would be the POINT of having them, if so?) and declare war on us for DEFENDING OURSELVES..

Having just watched (it seems like for the hundredth time) the ai successfully defend a city against an attacking stack of TWENTY FIVE UNITS with 3 regular and 2 conscript infantry, DESTROYING SIX ELITE CAV IN THE PROCESS.. (two defenders died)

Having then watched it magically capture my forbidden palace city, killing six entrenched inf and 3 cav defenders with ONLY THREE REGULAR CAV.

Having observed an intending to land invaders transport sink 2 attacking SUBMARINES with it's MACHINE GUN.. (makes you wonder why you'd build subs, doesn't it?)

After losing a stack of 3 destroyers to a single sailing ship (presumably armed with muzzle loading smooth bore black powder cannon..)

And seeing 3 or 4 ironsides decimate a modern navy three times their numbers and go on to commence coastal infrastructure bombardment...

Having had Berlin overthrow it's governor three times, every three or four turns (once at the same time as the other "large" occupied town, effectively cutting off 3/4 of my forces from the rail network in the exact same turn one of it's "allies" lands a force intended to take my capitol) DESPITE BEING OCCUPIED BY INCREASING NUMBERS OF TROOPS, which mysterously disappear, presumably having had their throats cut while sleeping by the populace; accounting for the "loss" of fully one quarter of my total defensives. I mean, really! A size 16 town, occupied with twelve entrenched infantry and a few horse cav just "rebels"? right after it was captured? it was STILL OCCUPIED FER GAWDS SAKE!!

Having lost, YET AGAIN, because the ai YET AGAIN simply decided to obliterate my army with a series of attacks against my srong points by stupidly small forces armed with the magic "you missed, I hit" dice rolls (except when it's facing "retreatable" units with something slower I note, when that happens it gives away all its hit points but the last, then proceeds to kill two or three attackers in a row, as they're never "losing" 'till they're dead, are they?)...

Having watched the ai move a stack of 3 cav and 6 infantry out of a town WHICH HAD ONLY THAT TURN DEFECTED BACK TO IT AND WHICH HAD NO ZONE OF CONTROL CONNECTION TO ANY OTHER ai controlled area...

I am faced with the unavoidable conclusion that the combat resolution code in this game CHEATS OUTRAGOUSLY.. (really slack design, resorting to that).

Also considering I have actually been offended, more than once, by the language and racist, derogatory prejudicial attitudes built into the ai, which I must assume reflect a totally UNglobal mindset in the dev team (I can't believe anyone would build that crap in deliberately, maybe the box should have a label: "Warning, offensive to non-americans")..

And having suffered so many other "oh that's just BS!" moments I don't recall in detail..

Further noting that I was only playing at reg and warlord levels, and that even there the ENJOYMENT factor on a scale of one to ten is about MINUS FIFTY..

I have DELETED this FRUSTRATING and ANNOYING INSULT TO THE INTELLIGENCE from my hardware.

The ONLY thing I'm thankful for is that it was a gift - had I wasted my MONEY as well as my TIME I'd be REALLY annoyed.

"Firaxis". Oh yeah, I'll be remembering THAT name. If "business" was a fair game, based on their demonstrated ability to satisfy this customer they'd never publish again.

I've been a wargamer for longer than I care to remember. I've not often been prompted to run a game down in public but for this I'm making an exception. Civ3 is a p. o. s. I'm going back to games where the designers and coders don't make up for inability to construct a fair competition engine by loading the dice and allowing the ai to perform miracles.

Bye all. Have fun if you can manage it, I recommend chewing broken glass as more enjoyable than playing civ3. Condolances re this current incarnation, I hope better one is in the making. Sorry to have been negative noise on your boards, I'm really only venting in the hope a developer stumbles on it, better yet a marketing person, on second thought.

*another seriously dissatisfied customer mounts soapbox and rides off, likely to a resounding chorus of "good riddance"*

barefootbadass · January 17, 2002, 14:13

I would think this belongs in the general forum where all the bogus whining about unusual results occuring to often is posted. The fact is, it occasionally happens, the system is designed so it does, but all you ever hear is anecdotal evidence about it. No controlled trials doing hundreds of thousands of battles(hard to do since the seed doesn't reset except when the game is reloaded, but the anecdotal stories mean nothing statistically). If we had a more robust editor a scenario could be set up to do these kind of trials more efficiently.

Until I see such proof(using several different matchups of units from the same and different ages) I see no reason to believe that the 'dice' are fair and consistent with what the attack and defense values tell us.

edit: last sentence should have been 'no reason to believe that the 'dice' are NOT fair and consistentent . . . Just in case there was any confusion about what i meant.

Arrian · January 17, 2002, 14:38

Well, if that's the way you feel... that's the way you feel. I've played a lot more Civ III than you (I've played it nearly nonstop since release), and I haven't encountered the nightmare scenario you describe. Yes, I have had bizarre combat results, sometimes even totally ridiculous ones that made me mad. But, most of the time, the battles go my way. The combat system is a bit screwy (some would say totally mangled) and allows for strange results, including the "amazing comeback" when a unit gets knocked to 1hp and then wins. Yet, to be fair, I have seen the combat system give a screwy result in my favor, too. This is rare, because usually I'm attacking, and I have superior numbers, tech or both, so the odds are in my favor (thus, a screwy result must be against me). The times I've been beaten have been early game rushes by the AI, and thus tech is even.

Example:

I'm attacking the Romans. I hit a town (size 5 or 6, I think), which has a couple of riflemen in it, with 3 or 4 Cavalry. I kill one conscript riflemen, knock the regular down to 1hp, and there is 1 undamaged conscript in there too. Well, I had brought along 2 old swordsmen that I hadn't disbanded for whatever reason (regulars), and I had a vet rifleman too. I figured, what the heck, they're beat up, why not try it? My rifleman hit first, and lost w/o doing any damage. Then my 2 swordsmen both won, taking 1 hp of damage between them. City mine. So I don't think the dice are loaded in favor of the AI. They may be wierd dice, but I don't think it's unfair.

I've had a lot of success using mounted troops (and later, Tanks), because of the retreat ability. You still lose some of them to those 1hp stands, but usually they survive and prosper. In fact, that's pretty much all I build, besides 1 footslogger defender per city.

-Arrian

Surgeon · January 17, 2002, 23:23

Would having a guaranteed result for every combat make people happy?

All swordsmen will kill a spearman every time and take 2 points damage. All tanks will kill riflemen and take 1 point damage. Never ever will a spearman damage a tank...

I couldnt think of a more boring system and if they implemented it I could safely say I'd never play again. I LIKE the utter dismay of watching a unit defend againt the odds killing all attackers, only to fall on the last battle.

I have played many a gave of civ and I've never gotten a really strange result in civ3. coz they are RARE! I lost a battleship to a spearman in civ1 many moons ago but I didnt cry about it.

Ironikinit · January 18, 2002, 00:31

Well, some of what he said is true, supposedly. Like the AI will go after an undefended city that it shouldn't know about. I haven't seen it in any of my games and I leave cities undefended way too often. Anyway, a lot of people say it happens, and it does shaft the player when it can.

I don't believe the combat dice are loaded, though. I hate it when the AI gets lucky, but usually if I hadn't messed up it wouldn't've attacked in the first place.

Anyway, I think some people are just offended by the idea of the AI cheating or the very idea that older units can luck out over more modern ones. Still, it's amusing that every time someone makes these claims of a kight taking out a full strength armor unit that they can't be backed up with a save file.

muppet · January 18, 2002, 02:21

I have experienced having more than 10 ironclads lose to 10 AI ironclads. About 1/2-1/2 attack vs. defence. The odds of losing those 10 consecutive battles are, I believe, even less than the odds of 1 AI knight defeating 1 human tank. So I do believe that extreme results happen. It was my 2nd game this happened, I initially thought about emailing firaxis to report a bug.

But I believe these extreme results are the result of a nearly RANDOM number generator rather than an AVERAGE number generator -- which is a good thing! It would be boring to know the result just by comparing statistics.

I think what we forget are the number of times that our units are overachieving:

1 regular pikeman defeats 6 knights, becomes elite, and produces a leader.
1 rifleman fends off 3 tanks, kills 2 in the process.
1 rifleman kills 2 AI tanks.
4 cannon all hit in a row.
2 spearmen defeat 6 legions, 2 archers, and fends off 1 horsman.

Those "bad" random" numbers have come in quite handy when I've been desparate. Unfortunately, I tend to not have truly obsolete units around, so I haven't given myself the opportunity to enjoy a super coup against the AI -- such as warrior kills tank!

But like Vel says, make use of everything the game lets you and you'll have an easier time in combat.

vmxa1 · January 18, 2002, 03:23

I thought that Gnus rant was very funny, if not completely logical, it was not with out some truth. I think it is not unreasonable to say the truth is somewhere between GNUS and Surgeon post. I do not see people complaining about spearmen beating swordmen. Spearmen beatig tanks is not analogous. I do agree strenously with the complaint about wandering settlers escorted by arms going into your lands and agreeing to leave and then keep going further into my land. This needs to be an act of war with no penalties to the defender (land owner) for retaliation. If you ask them to leave and they do not turn around then you should be able to atack. In fact I would prefer you be allowed to attack anyone in your lands with out asking if they are armed or a settler. I am doing a regent game now and had USA send settler/spearmen in and not go back. I will not tolerate settlers. I am more inclined to let a lone armed unit pass, if it is early so they are not trying to map me out, but no settlers may pass.

barefootbadass · January 18, 2002, 14:02

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
do agree strenously with the complaint about wandering settlers escorted by arms going into your lands and agreeing to leave and then keep going further into my land. This needs to be an act of war with no penalties to the defender (land owner) for retaliation. If you ask them to leave and they do not turn around then you should be able to atack. In fact I would prefer you be allowed to attack anyone in your lands with out asking if they are armed or a settler. I am doing a regent game now and had USA send settler/spearmen in and not go back. I will not tolerate settlers. I am more inclined to let a lone armed unit pass, if it is early so they are not trying to map me out, but no settlers may pass.

If you tell them to leave and they don't(going back the way they came, not on through your territory) you should be able to attack the offending units without causing a war, but that the opposing civ might declare war in response but at penalty to themselves.

Ironikinit · January 18, 2002, 16:49

If you aren't watchful, you can tell the AI to remove its units from your area and he'll be closer to a hole in your territory than to your outer border. The AI of course will agree to your demand and move it's unit to the nearest space not in your border... which is where it was going anyway, you just gave him a lift. The main thing is don't leave land you want to settle open or the AI will get to it.

Thrawn05 · January 18, 2002, 20:36

I know there are a lot of people who whine about losing their tank to a pikeman, but I bet you wouldn't complain if that was YOUR pikeman!

vmxa1 · January 18, 2002, 22:48

We do not send spearmen or pikes against tanks.
What you mentioned about going to a hole is valid, but should not be allowed, only reverse direction. In most cases in this game they were heading to either an open territory or a city of theirs that I had surround by my lands. It is all trespase and the only purpose is to get a new city founded. In this game I had managed to pin USA in a small area with the sea at their backs and I did not want them to get out. In the end they did get a few cities as I let them join me in a war. They are now my vassal and way down at the bottom. I thought I was in trouble at one time, but it is a lock now. I have to keep them from getting snuffed.

Willem · January 19, 2002, 17:41

Quote:

Originally posted by barefootbadass

If you tell them to leave and they don't(going back the way they came, not on through your territory) you should be able to attack the offending units without causing a war, but that the opposing civ might declare war in response but at penalty to themselves.

Vel has come up with an interesting solution to this problem. Create a unit that has it's nationality hidden, like a Privateer. That way you can attack the offending unit(s) without any repercussions.

Chemical Ollie · January 19, 2002, 17:52

I see nothing strange in the fact that a warrior or spearman can occasionally beat a tank. Have you ever heard of the "Molotov Cocktail"?

Alcatraz · January 19, 2002, 18:54

I'm a poker player when I'm not playing Civ III. This thread reminds me of an article I once read by Mike Caro talking about "bad beats" (hands lost because your opponent gets the one and only card in the deck that will allow him to beat you, despite the odds against doing so). Mike says that he thinks, on average, he has more bad beats against him than most players and goes on to explain that it's because he is more often holding the better hand -- thus there are more situations where he can be made a victim of a bad beat.

The situation here is analogous. The AI doesn't upgrade units, so you're going to be attacking spearmen with armor. Occasionaly, the spearmen will win. On the other hand, you probably will never be defending against armor with spearmen, so you don't have the chance to give the AI a similar "bad beat".

vmxa1 · January 19, 2002, 21:14

First the only thing of value about Mike Caro is his wife, and his tells is for children. The analogy to a holdem bad beat is just fine, they are rare, if we talk about real long shots. I do not get a bad beat in every game I play at the Bike or anywhere else, I do at Civ3.
As to the cocktail, meet you anytime with my tank and your cocktail. What do think will happen! A molotov will not stop a tank, it will just burn off. Please stop trying to justify insanity.

Thrawn05 · January 19, 2002, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
As to the cocktail, meet you anytime with my tank and your cocktail. What do think will happen! A molotov will not stop a tank, it will just burn off. Please stop trying to justify insanity.

Have you ever thought that perhaps you built a tank with a dumb commander who left the hatch open and mr. molotov dove right in?

That's the way I can justify how the underdog can still win. You just built a tank with the marx brothers behind the wheels.

vmxa1 · January 20, 2002, 05:28

I do not believe anyone would put up such nonsense, get a grip.

Zachriel · January 20, 2002, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
As to the cocktail, meet you anytime with my tank and your cocktail. What do think will happen! A molotov will not stop a tank, it will just burn off. Please stop trying to justify insanity.

Bet on the tank, but occasionally you will still lose. Tanks have indeed been destroyed by "irregular" attacks.

Zachriel · January 20, 2002, 10:29

For information about the effectiveness about the Molotov cocktail (the hatch does not have to be left open.
http://history.vif2.ru/library/books.../weapons2.html

Where do people get the idea that tanks are invulnerable? Indeed, tanks are most effective when taking chances, meaning taking risks that may result in their destruction, such as racing behind the enemy forces in order to cut their lines of supply and communications. (Tactics are not always shown in Civ3, which is a strategy game.)

I have played continuously since the game came out. The randomizer appears "true."

You need to prepare for the unexpected in combat. Sometimes things will break bad, so you need to have a little more force to account for it. A bad break can stop your advance, or leave you vulnerable to a counterattack. The military considers 3-1 on open ground, 5-1 on beachheads, and 10-1 against fortified positions as the minimum for any confidence. Even then, you can lose sometimes.

See http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Attack.htm. Civ3 is a very tough game, but is worth the effort.

Zachriel · January 20, 2002, 10:32

http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Attack.htm

vmxa1 · January 20, 2002, 14:11

Everything you said, I am well aware of. If you noticed, I never intended that tanks be impervious to attack, only that they never lose to spearmen, or at least only once in lifetime. Spearmen have no knowledge of tanks or how to defeat them. If you are claimnig they are now modern fighter, they call them something else. Spearmen carry spears, not RPG's. I am not crying about even Calv beating tanks, only that no rolls should work for 212, 121 or even 321 type units against 26 16 3. As to the cocktails, how many times has it occurred. A lot less than you will see in one week of Civ3. I have been playing non stop, except for the first week of this month and I have all day to do it often 12-15 hrs and I have seen many breaking of the norm. Again, I am not concerned with a rare bad break, they are not rare, it is rare to get in a game with out one. Playing Regent now, but have played all but emperor.

Zachriel · January 20, 2002, 15:05

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Again, I am not concerned with a rare bad break, they are not rare, it is rare to get in a game with out one.

That's correct. Each game represents the entire history of the world. As history is full of unusual events, I would expect many unusual events in each game. If only expected events occurred in history, I doubt it would be worth writing down.

Willem · January 20, 2002, 15:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel
If only expected events occurred in history, I doubt it would be worth writing down.

Excellent point!

vmxa1 · January 20, 2002, 20:35

The point is nice, but irrelevant. This is not a complete history and even if it was, no spearmen met with any tanks, so why throw that fatuous stuff in? Either we see outrageous results or we do not. If we (and I do not see how anyone can say we do not) do, it should be corrected. To be very rare, that means once in 5-10 games, not as many as 7 times in a single war. I will say it seems less common at the higher levels, which is just the opposite of the way it makes sense. I say that as the players at the higher level are more hardcore. Players that are new and play lowest levels are the very people that are dumping the game because of this phenomenon.

Zachriel · January 20, 2002, 21:38

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Either we see outrageous results or we do not.

I just don't see "outrageous results" in my games. Level shouldn't matter.

Zachriel · January 20, 2002, 21:52

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Either we see outrageous results or we do not.

I just don't see "outrageous results" in my games.

Even if we fight a spearmen with a tank, we must be prepared for the possiblity of danger. Do you expect the enemy spearmen to just line up and let our tanks blast them? No, they will attempt to trap us in a ravine and throw boulders on us, or build a pit, or sabotage our supply lines. That's why you have artillery.

Do not underestimate the Lowly Spearman:
http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/counterattack.htm

Jumping Choya · January 21, 2002, 04:28

You're overlooking several key points here:

1. If my tanks are facing spearmen in some grasslands, there is no ravine.
2. If there was a ravine, I doubt the tanks would just drive on into it, throwing all caution to the winds. They would take the high ground.
3. I expect the unit I see on screen to reflect what it is. If I see a spearman, it is a spearman. It fights with a spear. It is not a molatov cocktail thrower, or a boulder pusher, or a guerilla fighter. If it was any of those, I would expect it to be named so and be upgraded accordingly.
4. I don't see how I group of guys with spears (since in this case, we're dealing with spearmen) would do anything like sabotaging supply lines. And even if they did, the tank crews would still have sufficient ammo in the form of pistols and machine guns to massacre any guys running with spears.
5. Well, you just can't have a list end with four points, can you?

And, before anybody says "well duh u just had a dum tank comander!", here's my response: don't be silly, and don't make up random excuses for a pathetic situation. The game makes no mention about random factors like dumb commanders and other adverse conditions. Thus, I don't consider it a feature of the game. And even if I somehow ended up with a dumb commander, at worst he would order his men to run the damn spearmen over.

And just in case somebody wanted to say "You need to use your imagination, it could be plenty possible!"...no. I didn't buy this game to make inane explanations for crazy situations. I enjoy using my imagination to form stories about my empire, but I don't see any reason why I should have to make an excuse for a lame combat result. If I felt like doing that, I might as well have not bought the game and instead created "Mental Civ" in my head, where I could make all the little excuse-stories I wanted ("and then the pikeman, with a wind of 100 MPH at his back, heaved his pike, and given the added power of the wind, it sliced through a tank, and meanwhile, everybody else was having the same, stellar results!...")

notyoueither · January 21, 2002, 05:33

I have to agree with Zac here.

1. I have NEVER lost a Tank or ModArm to any unit older than a Rifleman (and then rarely). I suspect that most people are going rabid at the mention that other people have had it happen to them. Or they throw their Tanks about in penny-packets, begging to get picked off in random swings of fate. I have NEVER seen a saved game posted where it happened (although the random seed might not be identical).

2. There have been many stupendously ridiculous results throughout history. No, I'm not suggesting that Spearmen have ever beat Tanks, but there have been many instances of units holding out agianst the odds through skill, luck, or just plain old cussedness. Airbourne at Bastogne, US Fleet at Midway, Union Army on Little Round Top, Canadians at 2nd Ypres, etc, etc.

Zac's point of it happening many times in history is valid. We are playing a game spanning the entire period of human history. Therefore we should see it more than once, or in fact many times per game.

Salve