Archers, what are with these things? - Page 2

Neekirul · January 21, 2003, 23:39

Maybe I just got some buggy version of the random number generator.

Now I have muskets slaughtering infantry and cities with a 5 unit garrison rebelling on me.

Jamski · January 22, 2003, 03:27

Well if the (fortified) muskets are attacked by infantry, then it's about 50/50 IIRC. And as to the question about a garrison of 5 units, try using 50 and still getting a culture flip.

Raze and rebuild my friend, raze and rebuild. Or build lots of culture buildings. The garrision is a _VERY_ small factor in this equation.

-Jam

Dis · January 22, 2003, 04:59

I "practice" ethnic cleansing to prevent culture flips. I hate using such tactics...but oh well.

Jamski · January 22, 2003, 05:04

Quote:

Originally posted by The Pioneer
@WoA I usually play in Regent. I havn't really tried any higher levels.

Yeah, I play Regent as my "Standard" game, when I don't want to go too mad. If I don't want to win everytime (which is fun) then I play at Emperor. Deity is just no fun, and Monarch is a kind of compromise. Try playing at Emperor to see how those pesky archers can make or break the game...

-Jam

Dis · January 22, 2003, 07:11

Yes archers can be devastating. That defense of 1 is misleading. I swear the offensive value of a unit comes to play when defending. I think it is some kind of hidden code. Taking out warriors is easier than taking out archers.

Jamski · January 22, 2003, 08:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I think it is some kind of hidden code. Taking out warriors is easier than taking out archers.

Now I thought I was paranoid. But, and its a big but, it seems that archers always hit me one time first when I attack them. Same with longbows. Now this _MUST_ be a hidden code.

-Jam

alva · January 22, 2003, 08:37

If so, I'm sure someone would have found out.
Many test have been done, and the numbers(defense-offense) are correct.

Jamski · January 22, 2003, 08:41

Yeah, but we're just being paranoid. And we all know that the random number generator is _NOT_ random. It is only semi-random. This means that it _COULD_ be biased.

My computer hates me...

-Jam

Zachriel · January 22, 2003, 09:22

Quote:

Originally posted by War of Art
Yeah, but we're just being paranoid. And we all know that the random number generator is _NOT_ random. It is only semi-random. This means that it _COULD_ be biased.

My computer hates me...

-Jam

I don't think your computer hates you. It's probably rather indifferent actually.

And by the way, that's pseudo-random, and for all intents and purposes it is random.

A Veteran Archer attacking a Regular Spearman fortified in a town has a 50% chance of victory. Assuming the Archer destroyed your Spearman losing just a single hitpoint and is thereby caught on flat terain, your Regular Horseman will destroy the Archer 75% of the time.

Jamski · January 22, 2003, 10:01

Sure, but not 50% or 75% of _MY_ time !

No, I believe the random number generator is fine, it's just my bad luck that means the AI makes its 50% chances and I don't make mine. I was the same as a kid in D&D. If I needed to roll under 18 on a d20 I'd _ALWAYS_ get a 19 or 20. Sure it's just random numbers, but I never get the good ones.

Example. I attack 5 spearmen with 5 archers (in open not vet) and the next turn the computer attacks 5 of my spearmen with 5 archers. Of these 10 fights between archers and spearmen 5 should be won by the archers, and 5 by the spears. Right. But in my case I lose 4 archers and kill one spear, and the computer then kills 4 of my spearmen for only one lost archer. This is why I get paranoid and say my computer hates me.

But I still win in the end

-Jam

[edit sp and grammar]

Kingof the Apes · January 22, 2003, 21:22

Oftentimes seeming RNG bias toward the player is overlooked. For example, I once held a small town from about 40 Immortals with about 15 samurai.

Jamski · January 23, 2003, 03:44

Ah so YOU have all MY good luck. My flying assassin-hamsters are on their way now.

Maybe every copy of Civ3 has a twin. In one copy you get "good" random numbers, and in the other copy "bad" random numbers. The two together produce an even statistical distribution...

Hmm.

-Jam

Dis · January 23, 2003, 04:04

I do think the random numbers are affected by other things (see my early post about army size and # of enemies). I cannot prove this.

but your numbers should average out to what they should be over the course of the game. But I admit there can be times where you have 20 turns of bad luck in the war. Or if you are fighting too many enemies the entire war can be bad luck. But bad luck may reverse itself later in the game like say in the modern age when you have a better prepared army.

Jamski · January 23, 2003, 05:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
But bad luck may reverse itself later in the game like say in the modern age when you have a better prepared army.

I think the preparedness of my army affects my luck. I believe in "Civ-Karma", where there is no randomness. When I attack an isolated spearman in a town, with a warrior, he wins, is promoted to elite, counterattacked by an archer and produces a GL. When my stack of cavalry attacks one pikeman, he kills them all, getting promoted to elite in the process. See I abused my good luck with the fluke in the first example, and the computer punishes me later when it really hurts. I'm _sure_ that machine is trying to get it's revenge on me. But I can always unplug it !

-Jam

DGFan · January 23, 2003, 13:16

Quote:

Originally posted by War of Art
I'm _sure_ that machine is trying to get it's revenge on me. But I can always unplug it !

-Jam

So you think that the RNG in CivIII operates in a similar fashion to NHL ref's? We should investigate this theory

Neekirul · January 23, 2003, 14:50

Well, one thing is for sure, I hate how random combat is.

theNiceOne · January 24, 2003, 05:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Neekirul
Well, one thing is for sure, I hate how random combat is.

Then why don't you do the simple fix that many other players have done? Start the editor and change the number of HP from 2/3/4/5 (con/reg/vet/elite) to a higher number. This will greatly reduce the randomness.

Jamski · January 24, 2003, 05:38

Yeah, but then with PTW you won't be able to save your high scores

Isn't the whole point of an editor.... blah, blah, blah, [edit :removed 10 page troll]

-Jam

redhat · January 25, 2003, 09:04

did u try reloading after u lost a battle? did u have preserve random seeds on?

the chance of you winning is 1/2 in one evenly matched battle.
chance of u winning two battle is 1/4
and so on.....

still.... i don't understand why 5 knights can get rid of my panzer....i thought my panzer was sword proof.

Kingof the Apes · January 25, 2003, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by War of Art
Ah so YOU have all MY good luck. My flying assassin-hamsters are on their way now.

Maybe every copy of Civ3 has a twin. In one copy you get "good" random numbers, and in the other copy "bad" random numbers. The two together produce an even statistical distribution...

Hmm.

-Jam

I've had some bad luck too (I just lost a city defended by an elite pikeman, so please call back your hamsters!

)
Some games of mine have had very bad luck, and some have good luck. Usually your luck, however good or bad, holds out for the game. The best way to thwart this is to attack with overwhelming numbers.

Mad Bomber · January 26, 2003, 02:32

Neekirul:

Are you playing a mod? There are mods out there that have archers and longbowmen with a bombard value to be used in defense.

Nice One:

Changing the HP of the training levels will not reduce the randomness, only changing the HP of the units themselves will do this

AJ Corp. The FAIR · January 26, 2003, 02:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I once had a problem playing the romans with the ai horseman taking out my vet spearman fortified in a city behind city walls. I was mighty pissed let me tell you.

One thing I notice is that when it rains it pours. If you have multiple civs against you or the enemy ai has a larger army than you they seem to do better. Don't ask me why, but it seems to be true. I tend to lose battles I shouldn't lose.

How to correct this problem? Well always maintain a larger army than the ai and don't take on more than 2 at a time. I have found when I do this I nearly always when battles I should win.

Certainly when you're not the biggest/strongest civ in game (so on emperor usually not during early ages), fighting multiple wars should be avoided at all costs, that's for sure.

However, you don't have to maintain a larger army than the AI to win wars, due to superior human intelligence versus AI. Besides, on emperor games it usually takes much time to have a bigger army.

But at the end there will be only one REAL army left, if you know what I mean ...

Regarding the horseman taking out your vet spearman, I always have at least two units in each border city (and possible reinforcements if necessary on 1/2 turns to get there) just to avoid examples like that.

AJ

Yanghead · January 26, 2003, 03:00

True archers can be very nasty esp on regent +, one simple fix is to play the Greeks or with PTW use the Carthiginians. 2/3/1 is a pretty beefy unit for bronzeworking. As for playing on Emperor+ when you have more than one AIciv declaring war

in the immortal words of cpl Hicks Game over man ... Game over!

King_Henry · January 28, 2003, 19:21

A large army of swords will often do the trick....

BTW, what Civ are you playing as? You might be able to get your revenge really soon... hehehe.......

Dis · January 28, 2003, 19:46

I still like to keep the largest army. It deters the ai from attacking me.

BRC · January 28, 2003, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Yanghead
True archers can be very nasty esp on regent +, one simple fix is to play the Greeks or with PTW use the Carthiginians. 2/3/1 is a pretty beefy unit for bronzeworking. As for playing on Emperor+ when you have more than one AIciv declaring war

in the immortal words of cpl Hicks Game over man ... Game over!

Come over to the Strat Forum and you'll never have to surrender.