I can't beleive I didn't know.... - Page 3

rah · June 20, 2003, 13:16

20% seems to match experience.

atawa · June 20, 2003, 13:34

do multiple dips increase chances?

rah · June 20, 2003, 14:47

No

Berzerker · June 20, 2003, 17:23

I wonder if the guy who attacked the buffalo built ships to kill them whales and fish.

Not that it matters since I never posted about it, but I knew about the Oedo pattern for a long time. I just figured people knew about it even though I should have known otherwise since I can remember playing people who complained about spending several turns in anarchy.

I am using hutfinder now

, but there were a number of things I learned from our get together if only I could remember them all.

Oh yeah, getting 5 beakers of science from the first 2 cities (2x prod) to get the first tech in 2 turns, etc. And actually counting the compiled beakers so I'd know when the tech I was researching would be found.

I didn't know your chances of getting a nomad increased if you already got one nomad and built a city.

DrSpike · June 20, 2003, 17:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Well... the book claims 20% for diplos and 40% for spies... but frankly... the odds don't seem to be that high, or at least it rarely works for me.

You can't be suggesting the manual contains errors.

Ming · June 20, 2003, 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
You can't be suggesting the manual contains errors.

winzity · June 20, 2003, 18:50

at least if they are veterans. I a recent game I had diplos in near all cities and they repelled around 80% of the attacks)not 20%). All was veterans I had Sun Tzu.

Ming · June 20, 2003, 19:30

The manual does not state that veteran diplos are any better than non vets. And as far as Vet Spies go, it states that they have a 60% chance of catching fellow envoys...

winzity · June 21, 2003, 03:08

Good game exercises give more than only reading does

rah · June 22, 2003, 00:48

Quote:

Originally posted by winzity
at least if they are veterans. I a recent game I had fiplos in near all cities and they repelled around 80% of the attacks)not 20%). All was veterans I had Sun Tzu.

Sun Tzu doesn't give vet diplos. or fiplos as you call them

Communism makes vet spies.

SlowThinker · June 22, 2003, 13:41

A couple month ago I started a thread where I asked why an AI don't want to swap maps although Worshipful. Do you know the answer?

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
Btw, did someone calculate the corruption/waste in relation to the distance to your cap?

Did you ever hear about Apolyton's GL?

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Let's see, there was also a person that didn't know that if your food bin was full, that the city would still grow if you had a negative food production (as long as the the new worker would cover the the negative)

That's not true, the new worker needn't cover the negative. You can totally ignore food when you grow.

SlowThinker · June 22, 2003, 13:47

Another one:

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
do multiple dips increase chances?

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
No

But yes.

winzity · June 22, 2003, 20:16

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowThinker

That's not true, the new worker needn't cover the negative. You can totally ignore food when you grow.

Right! The reason is that the current city size is decided before the resources (food, shields, trade and so on) are updated. Please see my post above!

rah · June 23, 2003, 08:23

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Another one:

But yes.

Maybe for spies, but everytime I've tested it with dips, there has been no significant difference.

Tested human vs human in an MP game. Others are welcome to try an replicate it. Any test done with an AI involved or in SP mode will not be considered valid.

DrSpike · June 23, 2003, 08:54

You are probably both right.

rah · June 23, 2003, 09:08

It would be nice toget a solid answer though. I didn't test with a lot of rigor. I'm lazy.

DrSpike · June 23, 2003, 09:30

How lazy were you? I expect ST is right for SP, but you may also be right for MP...........quite a lot more annoying to test though.

rah · June 23, 2003, 10:43

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
..........quite a lot more annoying to test though.

Yep,

DrSpike · June 23, 2003, 10:59

You didn't indicate how lazy you meant by lazy.

Did you test it properly, or do you mean your prior from playing is that there is no effect?

rah · June 23, 2003, 11:33

No, I actually did a test. Tried to steal against one dip, then against three dips. My laziness was that we tried only about 10 for each. If I remember correctly, the number for thwarting was exactly the same in both circumstances. 10 was no where near enough, but the other players showed up, and playing is always more important than testing.

RAH

SlowThinker · June 23, 2003, 12:55

Theoretically the probablility of success for 3 dips should be 0.8*0.8*0.8

DrSpike · June 23, 2003, 13:25

Of course multiple offensive dips provide a higher overall chance of success.......but we were discussing whether additional defensive dips raise the chances of foiling the offensive diplo.

DrSpike · June 23, 2003, 13:28

And slightly more pickily using your methodology would mean multiple dips always have less chance than a sole dip.........since multiplying makes the probability smaller.

rah · June 23, 2003, 13:34

HAHAHAHAH.
Yep, I believe addition is more appropriate in that equation.

And I'm glad that he was talking about offensive use, since nobody has claimed a defensive improvement for a long time.

RAH

DrSpike · June 23, 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
HAHAHAHAH.
Yep, I believe addition is more appropriate in that equation.

Almost,.......the actual probability of success with 3 offensive dips is 0.8 + 0.8*0.2 + 0.2^2*0.8 = 99%

So if you fail with 3 you know it is not your night.

rah · June 23, 2003, 14:47

Opps, yes.. Senior moment.

I thought I tried multiples once on someone and they both failed. I was thinking that the seed number didn't change on an attempt so no matter how many times you tried without changing the seed, you failed. You would have to do something inbetween that did change the seed.

DrSpike · June 23, 2003, 14:57

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
I thought I tried multiples once on someone and they both failed. I was thinking that the seed number didn't change on an attempt so no matter how many times you tried without changing the seed, you failed. You would have to do something inbetween that did change the seed.

Hmm that is possible, but you could just have been unlucky (4% chance if the 2 tries are independent).

Is there a precedent with seed saving in a similar situation in Civ2?

rah · June 23, 2003, 15:01

Don't know of any off the top of my head, but I too figured the Odds were way against it if they were independent, so I started to think of ways it could be dependent and could only come up with the seed not changing. The only thing that makes sense is that if you had movement points left you might try again, and it would be silly if you succeeded with the same diplo a second time. So maybe the programmers thought of that and didn't change the seed on an attempt.

Sounds like we need some testing *sigh*.

SlowThinker · June 23, 2003, 17:15

0.8*0.8*0.8 is probability of successsss with 3 defending dips. It is like the attacking dip has to walk around each defending dip.

DrSpike · June 23, 2003, 17:42

You've lost me mate.