Does Sid Meier Believe In Predestination?

[Lancer]

For instance it seems that it is advantagious to attack w/ a lesser unit first to see if it will lose. If it loses then hit w/ a unit you want to keep because it is, more often than not, going to win. In other words, losing then sets the odds in your favor according to my theory. Conversly, winning will set you up for a probable loss. If it exists then this trend toward predestination bodes well for Sid's salvation I'm happy to say, in that he has faith. However in regards to the game I'm up in the air as to whether I like the fix being in or not.

Have any of you noticed such a trend?

Also, the spell checker is demanding money.

[Grumbold]

hmm? If you attack with a weak unit it is very likely to lose. If you then attack with a strong unit of course it is likely to win, but o more so than had it attacked first unless the weakling actually removed a hitpoint from a defender without promoting it in status. In the long run I think you risk more in promoting good defenders to elite status.

Always attack with your strongest attackers. If you think the enemy has too many hit points then bomb them first. Sending in a warrior to dispel randoms that do not go in your favour is pointless unless you already know in advance from save/loading that those numbers are bad enough to cause your better unit to fail. Sending them in blind you stand just as much chance of wasting numbers that could have been advantageous.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lancer
For instance it seems that it is advantagious to attack w/ a lesser unit first to see if it will lose. If it loses then hit w/ a unit you want to keep because it is, more often than not, going to win. In other words, losing then sets the odds in your favor according to my theory. Conversly, winning will set you up for a probable loss. If it exists then this trend toward predestination bodes well for Sid's salvation I'm happy to say, in that he has faith. However in regards to the game I'm up in the air as to whether I like the fix being in or not.

Gamblers Fallacy.
http://skepdic.com/gamblers.html

[Lancer]

Grumbold, I shall thrash your arguement! I started attacking w/ lesser units such as veteran swordsmen to save my elite the loss if the fix were not in. I'm not saying it is then inevitable that the elite will win following the loss of the veteran, just that it is more likely. If you are attacking a size 12 city manned by Greek hoplites the odds will still be against you following a loss, but not as much as they should be. I'd call it a sliding scale fix. You still have to beat the odds, but the odds have been shifted a bit towards a favorable result. This may be to keep you from suffering too great a losing streak or winning streak, and thereby to keep the game balanced. I believe the same was done in Colonization, but much more obviously.

Zac, it's a trend I've noticed, nothing more. Btw, if you play the lottery every day for $2 I have a gauranteed way in which you can be over $700 a year ahead!

Quit...

[ZoboZeWarrior]

I've a little expirimented. And I've seen nothing like that.
Of course attacking an unit is weakening it. A second attack could be lethal. But the first attack might elevate the defending unit to the rank of veteran or elite.

Bombs your target unit with at least 2 bombing units. Then attack with your powerfullest units (send veteran at the end if you know that the target is enough weaken to be destroyed, throught).

[Lancer]

Zobo, sure a losing attack might weaken a defending unit, but the next attack will bring up the next defending unit, totally unhurt and often of the same type and strength as the first.

[Grumbold]

So you're trying to tell me that if you attack with waves of warriors, eventually one will win because Firaxis feels bad that you're losing so often, not because there is already a small statistical possibility of that occurring?? I find it hard to believe and I also find it pointless since a direct attack with bombardment then good units rarely sees any losses anyway.

[Lancer]

Anyhoo, 33% of those responding have noticed the trend to varying degrees, a most impressive result!

[Archaetus]

I don't know about all this "odds" stuff because its too early (or late) to think.

However, I always attack with a few horsemen, or some other retreating unit, to weaken the enemy first without losing your units. Then hit them with whatever else to finish off the defenders.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Lancer
Zobo, sure a losing attack might weaken a defending unit, but the next attack will bring up the next defending unit, totally unhurt and often of the same type and strength as the first.

You're right Lancer. A good defense implie several units.
But I was writing about the attack of a single defensing unit.

[Lancer]

Yes I understand Zobo, where only a single defending unit is involved it could be rightly said that if the first attack weakened it, then the second must have better odds of success simply because the defending unit is less capable of winning due to it being already partialy beaten.

The whole single defender line of reasoning is a tangent taking us away from the assertion that the fix is in, if only a sliding scale fix. However, that said it should be understood that even in the case of a single weakened defender the fix is still in according to my theory and observation, but the loss of the defending unit can be easily explained away by disbelievers as the loss due to the fix is concealed by the evident weakness. Also, since it's a sliding scale fix (unnatuarally increasing or decreasing the odds as the case may be, but still rolling the dice so to speak) the weakness of the defender would certainly contribute to its demise. Also it might just survive by beating the unnatural odds.

[Pingu:]

The only trend I've noticed is to do with the Random seeds.

If you attack with your most powerful unit, and it should win, (say a tank against a spearmen), but you are unlucky and they turn out to be the 1/2% or so anti-tank spearman.... then it would be worth reloading the game and attacking first with a weaker unit (e.g. a left over regular swordsman) who will get the unlucky random seed.

Your powerful unit can then come in and kill the spearmen when they've used up their Rocket Launchers on the swordsman, so to speak.
Sounds like cheating to me.

Is this what you mean by "Predetermination" ?

This is completely different to what I think you're talking about, Lancer. If you want ot know what the odds of an attakc are, work it out! The chances are:

attack strength / (attack strength+ (defense strength * terrain modifieres etc)).

This is repeated each round, with a set of predetermined random seeds, until there are no hit-points left. This is all well documented, it's just that sometimes the random seeds appear to get stuck at one extreme or the other (making the Anti-tank Spearmen). There's a nice odds calculator kicking around somewhere, can't remebember where.

If you want to increse your chances bombard, then use retreating units, then attack with as many of your best units as you need to.

I don't see how you get your predetermination from this system, either you think combat works differently to how Firaxius say it does or explain what you mean.



Pingu:

[Murtin]

The Gambler's Fallacy can be amazingly robust. Nevertheless I'm still puzzled by the fact that so many people can be so firmly convinced that a Civ combat system, or any other phenomenon involving random sequences for that matter, has a built-in memory of past results and uses it to eliminate or reduce the occurrences of too extreme winning or losing "streaks".

This is particularly amusing since the existence of long losing streaks (that WILL come along every once in a while in a random sequence) is sometimes used as "proof" that the combat system is rigged.

edit: Come to think of it, that would be quite an interesting piece of statistical-psychological research: Construction of a random number generator that is actually perceived as random.

[Dry]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
Then attack with your powerfullest units (send veteran at the end if you know that the target is enough weaken to be destroyed, throught).

I disagree.
When I have a mixt of vets and elite, I always send my vets first for 2 reasons:
- ennemy artillery. Does the word 'skirmish' rings a bell?
- When it is about ennemy promotion, I have seen more defenders promoted after my elite attacks than vet attacks. My vets weaken the defenders (2hp left), very rarely promoting them, my elites kill the the wounded. When there is a wounded unit you NEED to kill it in one go, not to wound it more... and if the only units you have left are vets... there's a great chance that you die, the defender survive and get promotion.

[Grumbold]

From the midgame onward I'd always try and get the enemy dow to 1-2 hp from bombardment, then send in the vets to try and get them a promotion. If you've no bombardment left, I'd send in an elite unit provided I thought it stood a good chance of winning the battle or could retreat. If it cant retreat because of bad terrain then I'd use the vets if I absolutely could not wait for more artillery support.

[Lancer]

Pingu, I've likely got elements of this all wrong but predestination is the theory that God knows all and therefore nothing is unknown to him including the future. Therefore all we do and are going to do is already set and we can not change it. Some people believe that, others don't, but whatever it seemed a good analogy to the idea that the fix is in regarding civilization and Civilization 3.

Guys, the advise of bombarding first and on how to attack so as to achieve my objectives is much appreciated but not needed. I'm talking about something else entirely. Whether or not you bombard and thereby weaken a defender the fix will be in according to my theory. The notion that the odds are being played with is uneffected by the mode of attack.

I believe the aim of the designers is to reduce the streaks of good or bad luck and perhaps to reduce the advantage of humans to execute strategy and thereby upset play balance. Another more remote possibility is to aid human strategy when it is not even up to that of the AI.

Murtin... ...you might be right but I doubt it. However your point is well made. Ever played Colonization? That was predestination defined. The fix was in so strongly in that game that it robbed the enjoyment. It is banished to an exterior storage shed and its next move will be to oblivion.

[Grumbold]

If you mean me, I was directly responding to Dry on the merits of using vets over elites of the same type of unit.

I reject your streak-balance theory as fantasy and won't be talking about it ever again unless a serious statistical proof is posted that seems to support it

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lancer
I believe the aim of the designers is to . . . upset play balance.

Hmmm. Anyway, your argument is a variation of the gamblers fallacy. A shuffled deck of cards are "predetermined" but poker is still a game of chance, and any reasonable strategy must account for the "odds."

[Dry]

Originally posted by Grumbold
From the midgame onward I'd always try and get the enemy dow to 1-2 hp from bombardment, then send in the vets to try and get them a promotion.

I build no catapult nor canon, because their attack range is too short, and without RR, it take ages before they reach the front.
I have almost no artillery (captured ones only) because they are too slow for my cavalry. If I wait for them, the ennemy city has time to reinforce.
I build a few bombers to help on real hot spots and against ennemy ships bombing my shores.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Dry

I build no catapult nor canon, because their attack range is too short, and without RR, it take ages before they reach the front.
I have almost no artillery (captured ones only) because they are too slow for my cavalry. If I wait for them, the ennemy city has time to reinforce. I build a few bombers to help on real hot spots and against ennemy ships bombing my shores.

That is certainly a legitimate strategy, especially if you are ahead and can produce sufficient forces. But if you are behind, or in a challenging position, and need a hedge, bombard is the solution.

I took out a metropolis on a hill full of infantry using riflemen as I didn't have horse. As you probably know, that position would be nearly impossible even with cavalry. Admittedly, I wouldn't have even tried, but I had my troops in position just when they upgraded to infantry. Boy, was I surprised!

[Murtin]

Originally posted by Lancer

Murtin... ...you might be right but I doubt it. However your point is well made. Ever played Colonization? That was predestination defined. The fix was in so strongly in that game that it robbed the enjoyment. It is banished to an exterior storage shed and its next move will be to oblivion.

Yes, I did play Colonization a lot. But if anyone had brought it to my attention back in 1995 when I played it the most, I think I would have been more susceptible to the idea of a streak enhancing fix being present in the game than a streak reducing one.

In retrospect my susceptibility to the idea of there being a fix, whether streak enhancing or reducing, was of course more due to the fact that back then I was less educated regarding both probability theory and psychology. Now I completely dismiss the idea of any fix, both in Civ3 and Colonization. Pending any statistical evidence, of course.

[Blaupanzer]

Utter poppycock. Even a predetermined seed does not "guarentee" any outcome in a randomly selected battle. The same battle coming out the same way reload after reload, as noted by several players, would indicate the presence of such a seed. However, the seed effect is for that battle. If you know your cavalry will lose because you reloaded, then you can indeed reset the seed by attacking with another unit. But if you don't reload due to battle outcomes (a definite "cheat"), then the odds are affected mostly by the controlled nature of that seed-setting process. In other words, go with your best attackers if the odds are in their favor; don't attack at all if you can't get a positive edge in the odds. Sheesh, what a superstitious lot we all are.

[Lancer]

Utter poppycock blueplanter! I'm not talking about THAT! Now take your seeds and plant em in your (deleted)

To the 'prove it' crowd, Grumbold, Murtin... etc, I just have this notion and no head for math... I can't shake you in your rather unobservant convictions by producing the figures you need, nor will you join me in my unsubstanciated faith. You guys can't shake me in that faith since you seem unwilling to back up your vague ideas that the fix is not in with solid statistical facts printed nice.

Anyhoo, we had a nice chat and nobody was too harshly shaken in the foundations of their unsubstanciated convictions so let us end this here for that reason and because Firaxis has wired me a substancial amount of dough to shut the heck up. (Just kidding)

[Murtin]

Originally posted by Lancer

You guys can't shake me in that faith since you seem unwilling to back up your vague ideas that the fix is not in with solid statistical facts printed nice.

Nice try. Unfortunately, there's no way (save access to the full Civ3 source code) to prove the nonexistence of such a fix. What you can do with statistics is show that the probability that a particular set of events is completely due to randomness is very low. But as the proponent of the "streak reducing fix theory" that is your job.