View Full Version : My solution to underdog wins.

10-10-2008, 02:10 PM
Build a script around all the units to guarantee victory on the first battle (if their # is superior to the defenders).

The most annoying thing to me, besides many other inconsistencies and unbalanced factors of battle, is when you lose your very first fight with your army when your number was superior.

Just script it to win its very first fight, and wah-la....the game just became a whole lot better, and starts to hold true to the actual statistics that it is suppsed to be doing.

'Cause think about it, a 3 v 2, you have a 66% chance of winning your fights...how does that hold true if they keep losing their very first battle?

-------Do not reply to anything beyond this line-----------

I mean I just started a game up not 5 minutes ago, to try out the new DLC, and much to my appointment, still no scenario pack for Multiplayer.

I made 2 warriors, sent them out exploring, somehow the AI got a warrior next to my city, it was undefended, I had no choice but to attack with my 2nd warrior, who made it only 2 paces out...it was a 1.5 to 1, in my favor....FIRST BATTLE OF THE GAME...AND I LOSE TO THE UNDERDOG.....(fuq), he then proceeds to walk into an undefended capital city. This kind of **** NEEDS TO CHANGE....IT RUINS THE GAME TO NO END.

Going back to DLC and to go a bit off topic, what's this greedy ass **** your pulling making us have to pay out extra cash for stuff that should have come with the game in the first place? Why can I not play a scenario in multiplayer RIGHT NOW. Instead, I look forward to having to dish out MS points to get something that should have been a basic feature of the game. This to me is nothing more than greed. What's worse is that your showing this disgusting greed in the face of the fact that you gave us an unfinished pile of ****.

All I ever wanted of the game after the first week of playing was to be able to play "It's money that matters" as a scenario in multiplayer. Why you ask? Because that scenario fixes just about 75% of my problems I have with the game in terms of the flow of how things happen.

Most of the multiplayer games I have played thus far, the guy who won was the one who got to the 100 gold milestone the quickest, meanwhile some of us found maybe 1 barbarian hut, and didn't hit 100 gold until way after 1000AD and unless your Rome, manually creating that 2nd settler to try to keep up hurts...ALOT. I've had plenty of games where I didn't get jack for barbarian huts, and that oh so important gold coming in to hit that 100g milestone...and it led me to believe that starting with 1000 gold and eliminating those first few milestones (settler, currency, banking) is the best thing that could happen to the multiplayer aspect of this game.......and I'm gonna have to pay to get this functionality sometime in the future.......if ever.......screw you and your game.

Just to give another messed up example of the underdog BS, I was playing england, stole a scientist from America, shortcutted up to Feudalism, went after Egypt, since she was closest, got that first army of Knights out....send it straight at her, when I get there my knights have a 2 to 1 advantage (don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like 18 to 9) and she demolished my knights, and I think I took out one of the archer toons. Meanwhile, I knew that pikemen were right around the corner for the AI, and by the time I could get another army of knights over to her it'd be too late to hope for a quick roleover that should of been in progress with the first army of knights. I hate it.

I never retreat, maybe if they got rid of the automatic upgrade I'd retreat more, but you just hurt yourself by retreating, I will never resort to giving them an easy engineer/leadership upgrade like that...it's just retarded to think about.

10-10-2008, 04:05 PM
No thanks. That would be lame, especially since real history has shown drastically overmatched forces walking away with victory. Sometimes, it is the way war goes.

10-10-2008, 05:11 PM
i would like it more too. luck already plays a huge part in this game, why add more?

10-10-2008, 05:13 PM
Lame, no.

..turning a game into a strategy game instead of a game of luck....IS NOT LAME.

This isn't TotalWar. The point you bring up about how history has shown......blah blah blah, comes about because of Generals who were able to take ideas that Sun Tzu wrote about and capitalize on those tactics that destroy moral, etc. Things like having the sun at your back, making the enemy come uphill to attack you..etc. Civilization has those ideas implemented just fine with the bonuses you get for being on a hill/forest...but if both units are on flat ground and the game is saying you have a better # than the defender, then why does the outcome show otherwise so often? Did they suddenly find a small little hill on that flat peice of ground?

You know why chess is such a good game? Because it's all about strategy, there is NO LUCK involved whatsoever. You don't suddenly try to take a bishop with your knight and end up giving up your knight because of some random chance of luck. So why would it be such a bad idea to get rid of luck in a game like this? Or at the very least develop a system that reduces the "luck" so that it doesn't factor in as much as it currently does.

I don't keep full track of how often it happens, but if I was to guess, I'd say I lose 50% or more of my battles on that first battle, when I should have won.
And it happens almost 100% of the time on a battle that is very critical to your survival or gameplan at the time.

I've played a total of 3 times in the past 1-2 months. Every game I ended up quiting because of this early loss to an underdog...at a very critical moment.

I play on the edge....tactics like keeping units out in the field offensively defending my land instead of keeping the unit sitting in the city doing nothing, so when the AI manages to sneak a single unit right next to my city, and through my superior tactics I managed to keep a unit within range to deal with such a problem, but said unit fails most the time because of this "LUCK", I feel like I'm forced to play to a very specific strategy just to overcome this "LUCK".

I could have avoided the situation altogether if I had just fortified that 2nd warrior, discouraging the AI from declaring war and just walking in, but I don't play that way, cause in my opinion it is a more sound strategy to stop the enemy before they even get that close, but if the game is going to rip you off for playing a smart/aggressive game instead of a cowardly/defensive game...then what the hell?

What I mean by smart aggresive, is if you don't deal with those units he's gonna camp em on your production spots, so I think the best thing to do is attack them out in the open before they have a chance to get to that forest next to your city. As it goes...good luck with that, cause your gonna lose 1.5 v 1 or those 3 v 2's.

If anyone has ever played triplea. (triplea.sourceforge.net)
They have a setting in there called "Low Luck".

What it basically does, is takes a game where dice and luck decide the outcome of battles, and makes calculations to determine what the statistics would be on such a battle and guarantees that the outcome does not exceed a certain +/- value from that avg. In a Real game, a person could roll 20 dice and get 1's on every one of em....and usually, something like that, spells the end of the game for the other player. With low luck......no such luck, games become a bitter battle to the end, where strategy and tactics win the day...not some retarded 1 in a million upset.

Giving a 3 v 2 a script to win that first battle would effectively accomplish a similar task, especially considering that the unit is most likely going to lose its 2nd fight, cause the game is hellbent on letting underdogs win, which would at least make the game hold true to the fact that it won at least 50% of its battles (when it should win 66%) instead of winning 0% of its battles. I mean hell when you send that 3 against his 2, both sides are expecting the proper outcome anyway, so its not like having it scripted to win the "first" battle is going to upset anything, that outcome was already expected.

Otherwise, maybe you should make CivRev 2 go down into a TotalWar engine to resolve all it's battles, that way my tactics will win the day, not some random dice roll.

Cause I'll tell you what, I've never lost a battle on TotalWar when I had the advantage, so when I lose over 50% of my battles on Civ...when I have the advantage....I just stop playing the stupid thing.

10-10-2008, 09:45 PM
What you describe is not an imbalance in the game mechanics. What you describe is a classic case of selective memory.

You're not remembering the times you win against superior forces. You're only remembering the losses. And frankly, if it comes down to "a battle that is very critical to your survival or gameplan at the time" you're not planning right.

It has always been the case that when you go on the offensive in any version of Civilization, it's best to bring overwhelming force. If you only bring one offensive army and one defensive army to a fight, you're setting yourself up to lose.

Civ Rev is just as strategic as every other war game, and if you ask me, more realistic than games that have no random element. There is always a random element in war. Always. The leader who wins is the one who makes their own luck.

10-11-2008, 03:16 AM
i think what we need is a "low luck" setting like that kid above described.

10-11-2008, 07:07 AM
I think the luck factor can be discouraging and I dont really know why they decided to make it this way. I guess they wanted to make it more spicy and random, because if there wasnt luck some strats would allways suceed and everything would be more calculated and less spontaneous.

I really belive you allways get the same amount of good luck and bad luck strickes (maybe with a diference of +1 or +2 max). The thing is, the game doesnt know how important some battles are, and this is what really imbalances the game. For example a horseman army defeating an archer army (9 vs 15) and conquering your city is decisive, but a militia defending sucessfully against a cat army (12 vs 4,5)in a lost point of the map where nothing is happening is much less important.

Something I do and works for me, is avoiding meaningless fights in games when Im having lots of bad luck. By doing this I "keep" my lucky strikes for the important battles that can change the game. Of course this is not scientific and can be my imagination but from my expierence I can tell you it works like that.

10-11-2008, 07:23 AM
Trust me...it is not selective memory.....not by a long shot.

I stopped playing because of how often this scenario popped up.

Thinking about it. If my first unit loses before it wins....the next unit has to win twice in a row to make it up.....unfortunately...at least in my case.. I'm lucky if my unit wins 2 fights in a row, when they can barely win on their first outing.

So, scenario plays out like this.

Unit A: 0 wins, 1 loss - Unit is dead
Unit B: 1 win, 1 loss - Unit is dead

This is how my games play out.... and as you can see that is a 1 out of 3 battles won.....yet all those battles were showing a 3 v 2 for the numbers.

I could go deeper to show you how drastically having units die right off the bat on 50% or more of the battles...where units then need to start winning 3 battles in a row to make it up and keep with the statistics, but....I just woke up...and am half brain-dead.

The point I'm getting at with all this is, besides combat, the things like barbarian huts, random terrain, goody huts, gold milestones....were amplified so much in this game that it created this theme of "Luck" that permeates every pore of this game....and sometimes, I wish I would have just tossed that 60 bucks into the 1-armed bandit down at the reservation casino.

P.S. I'm mainly focused on the beginning era of this game, because the butterfly effect is in full swing for this one...it's like that saying on gladiator "What we do in life, is echoed in eternity"
if 4000bc-1000ad is your life.....and **** like this is happening, early upsets. Screw playing into eternity.

10-11-2008, 12:22 PM
Trust me...it is not selective memory.....not by a long shot.

Unless you're just a ridiculously unlucky person, you're mistaken. I've played a LOT of Civ Rev--daily since it was released--and if this kind of bias existed, I would have stopped playing long ago.

If you'd rather win all the time, play on Warlord or Chieftain, where your units get a combat bonus. Otherwise, you have to take into account the fact that you'll only win an evenly matched battle half the time.

10-12-2008, 03:35 AM
Actually, after reading this post and playing last night, this happened twice in MY favor! My overmatched armies came away with victories multiple times. And I lost a few when I over matched them.

The way I look at it is the number ratio as if that is a unit to unit ratio. So, if I have a 5 and they have a 3, while the odds are in my favor, a 3 vs 5 fight isn't guaranteed. It seems that MrEos, you often state that this happens at single digit att v. def. Now (same ratio) 30 vs 18 is much different because of the overwhelming number of troops. I never saw the numbers as anything different except that because of hills, etc, it gives you bonus "troops" when facing off.

10-12-2008, 04:23 AM
If you really want to be sure to win a war, you have to bring enough troops. Not luck, but strategy. And for the game engines it goes both ways as thorstien said.

I too have punched my sofa, lol, but at the end of the day, this way of fighting makes the game both harder and more interresting. imo.

Some years to have a war, are better than others.

10-13-2008, 06:23 AM
I've noticed that the game "appears" to assign a luck value to units. Example: I'll make 2 warrior units at the start and send them in different directions. Warrior A will roll over every hut he encounters winning 3-0 in each encounter, while Warrior B will struggle with every hut, barely winning 1-0. I don't know if it actually works this way, but it feels like it does.

Also, I once had a warrior fortified in a choke point for most of the game until the American AI lost patience and finally attacked, having amassed army after army near the choke. He first off attacked with a legion army and to my amazement my warrior (note: single warrior NOT army) won lol. But he had more armies...

But then I've also lost a cruiser to a British galley ☺☺☺.

So it's swings and roundabouts - sometimes it feels harsh, and it can be annoying to lose a battle you felt you should win, but by the same token, it feels good to win a battle you feel you should have lost. Like when the other player's galleon finds my galley on its way back from the school of Confuscious and loses mwah ha ha ha.

I prefer the random element - despite the annoyance it sometimes brings. It's more preferable than knowing unit A WILL defeat unit B.

10-13-2008, 07:01 PM
Unless you're just a ridiculously unlucky person, you're mistaken. I've played a LOT of Civ Rev--daily since it was released--and if this kind of bias existed, I would have stopped playing long ago.

If you'd rather win all the time, play on Warlord or Chieftain, where your units get a combat bonus. Otherwise, you have to take into account the fact that you'll only win an evenly matched battle half the time.

Thing is....it was not an evenly matched battle...

Why have bonus combat multipliers if its not gonna make a damn bit of difference on the outcome?

Two back to back examples of games I've had. out of the last 4 games I've played, these would be the first 2 of those 4 games. (the other 2 games I'm barely mentioning, are just as bad. but had a week or two of time off in between)

1. Multiplayer 2v2: My teammate ended up losing to AI arab warrior vs his archer defending his capital city. 2v3; my teammates advantage
(Was the first human battle of the game about ....10 to 15 turns into the game). Suddenly my teammate quits game, he later explained to me what had happened.

2. We start a new game up right away. I find 1 barbarian hut, attack and damn near die on that first attack. Enemy teammate suddenly appears next to me,(started him REALLY close to me). I have to break off attack, and run to try and heal. He ends up getting the jump on me 2 turns later and attacks before I could move it..1 warrior lost. At some point I made a 2nd warrior. found another barb hut, and manage to secure some gold. Enemy is real close to my capital, so I quickly rush 3 more warriors (my 2nd warrior is far and away trying to get me some income) ..make an army, and go to attack his warrior, that killed off my first warrior. When I make my way to attack him, he is 2 paces out from my capital. 3v1.5 (he was on a hill), I'm confident in the 2 to 1 advantage. HE DEMOLISHES MY ARMY.... I'm at least 3 turns away from producing another unit to defend with no money left to rush..and he's only 2 turns away from walking into my undefended capital. So I quit, for about 2-3 weeks. (I had produced-moved the 5th warrior, formed the army and attacked his warrior all in the same turn...to clear up some confusion some of you might have had)

3. This game was the example I gave earlier in the thread perhaps, about the shortcut up to feudalism with england, and having my very first army of knights demolished in a 2 to 1 advantage.

4. This was after obtaining the DLC and trying out one of the scenarios...and it ended up the same way as #1 & #2 combined in this same post.

Is this selective memory?? That the last 3 out of 4 games I've had have been hellbent on making me lose my ass in the first 20 turns of the game to the UNDERDOG..... I'm god damn afraid to be offensive early on with this game...I feel like, I have to play like a coward and even if I play like a coward, if the arabs are in there...then I'm screwed.....to say the least, unless I kiss his ****ing ass (which I don't do.. I'm the bully).

10-13-2008, 08:42 PM
Most of the battles you're complaining about are a 2 to 1 advantage. A 2 to 1 advantage is not all that much. Maybe a one in three chance of losing? Your chances of winning aren't 100% until you have a SEVEN to one advantage. I know you know this, but think about it.

If you want a game without this random factor, you want something other than Civ.

10-14-2008, 11:01 AM
Go back and read my post at the bottom of the 1st page. I explain the ratios and why it does make sense.

If you were losing (constantly) battles that were overmatched 102 to 51, then you would have a case.

But you have to think of it like this: 2 v 1 in a fight, the one can win. I have seen 1 person fight 5 and win. So a fight with warriors 3 and archers 2 isn't the same as 9 v 6 (ratio is the same) and isn't the same 27 on 18. or 90 v 60. Eventually the numbers game is an advantage. The advantages (not multipliers) allow you an additional "troop" due to the sitch. So, you fight on a hill with vets and that is an extra 4v2.

You see, it makes perfect sense to lose that low. But if the numbers were higher, then I would understand your rancor more.