All Actions are Predetermined

[KrashKrunal]

Try this:

Start a game any difficulty. Build your units up fairly high (Pikeman level suggested). Be sure you are at war with a nation, and you are attacking and being attacked by them. Now save your game. Play through 10 turns, noting down each decision you make, and the outcome of each battle. Now save the game again (if you want). Reload your first save (10 turns prior to your last save). Play the game again, making the EXACT same choices and decisions. You will notice the AI will be have in the EXACT same way, and the outcomes of the battles will be EXACTLY the same, in fact the battle animations will ALSO be EXACTLY the same.

Is it just me thats experianced this or has someone else also experiacned this? I've noticed that if I save before an attack, attack and get killed, reload, then try to attack again, I'll be attacked in the EXACT same manor, and I will lose my unit in the exactly same way. Try it and see for yourself.

It's no longer like Civ4 where you need to reload a save and then attack again and again till you win a battle, you'll always lose if you lost once against that same unit on that same turn...

[Yonezzz]

Yeah, I noticed the same thing. I happened to reach a new era and then saved right before a key battle. I was attacking with 3.0, the opposing unit had a defence of 1.5. I lost under the exact same circumstances every time I reloaded. It was a bit annoying, frankly, as I couldn't work out why I was losing, given the stats.

[KrashKrunal]

Just because you have higher attack than their defence doesn't necessarily mean your going to win, that would be stupid, because it'd mean that you just needed a unit with the strongest attack and you'd rule... (you get what I mean..).

Thing is, you can usually end your turn and try it the next turn and the outcome of that battle will be different to the outcome of the previous one. So I sometimes delay my conquests for the best results.

[Yonezzz]

I think I'd prefer a nice, predictable result rather than have it based on some random, behind the scene factor. Or at least have a fixed final result (win/lose), but the amount of health you lose is randomly chosen from between two points based on the numbers.

[CoB BIGGY]

You must be new to how "random" works.
If you play the game until you get your first great person, lets say he's a great thinker, and then you play the EXACT same way you will get the same great person. If you play the same thing again and you make a few minor adjustments you will more than likely get a different great person.
Random =\= random.
The choices you make defines what random is.

Basically: The choices you make determines the outcome of future things.

[phr0ze]

I can't stand people who reload because of some battle outcome.

[KrashKrunal]

I can't stand people who reload because of some battle outcome.So you can't stand me. Oh well. You have fun playing without reloading, I'll have fun reloading. If your not going to contribute anything good to the topic, then please refrain from posting comments such as this. I don't care what you think of me, and I don't think anyone else does either.

[Sigmakan]

In Civ4 there was an option to have random seed on or not. This allowed varied results when reloading the game. Too bad this isnt an option in CivRev :/

[Krikkitone]

Its simple enough to still reload... all you have to do is do something else first.. reload and then switch your tech research or your building, or talk to a rival, then attack (or enter hut, etc.), and then switch the research back.

[Yonezzz]

You must be new to how "random" works.
If you play the game until you get your first great person, lets say he's a great thinker, and then you play the EXACT same way you will get the same great person. If you play the same thing again and you make a few minor adjustments you will more than likely get a different great person.
Random =\= random.
The choices you make defines what random is.

Basically: The choices you make determines the outcome of future things.

Ah, ok. Do you know what specifically makes a unit of 3.0 lose to a unit of 1.5, or did my prior actions just unfortunately put me at a 'bad result' point? It'd be nice to know the specifics, I guess.

[kenjara]

I have to rain on this parade and say that everything is not pre determined. I have reloaded a game several times before where a great person was due each time. I got a culture, leader and an engineer from the same save. Also there have been some battles where I have won on one load and lost on another. I think I may have turned my console off between them though. So maybe it generates a seed on start up. I can say for certain great people are random though.

[2K Elizabeth]

all actions should be randomized. i think your reloads were an odd coincidence of random!

[FadingBeano]

I know at the start of one of the demo maps, the Aztec moves his first Warrior the exact same pattern everytime unless I do something to interrupt it.

I don't mind though, I'm not a reloader h4xx0r ch3atorz!!!!

I jokes I jokes.

[quirk]

It is actually quite annoying sometimes, as it happens in the demo as well. On the map where I was stuck just south of the Aztecs, I always would send up one warrior to them, and get on a hill and attack. Each force would have equal strength, and every time, my three men would take out two of them, only to have the last Aztec warrior kill each of them one at a time. Happened every time.

Though perhaps the Oracle of Delphi may have hinted to preordained battles...

[Schuesseled]

Try this:

Start a game any difficulty. Build your units up fairly high (Pikeman level suggested). Be sure you are at war with a nation, and you are attacking and being attacked by them. Now save your game. Play through 10 turns, noting down each decision you make, and the outcome of each battle. Now save the game again (if you want). Reload your first save (10 turns prior to your last save). Play the game again, making the EXACT same choices and decisions. You will notice the AI will be have in the EXACT same way, and the outcomes of the battles will be EXACTLY the same, in fact the battle animations will ALSO be EXACTLY the same.

Is it just me thats experianced this or has someone else also experiacned this? I've noticed that if I save before an attack, attack and get killed, reload, then try to attack again, I'll be attacked in the EXACT same manor, and I will lose my unit in the exactly same way. Try it and see for yourself.

It's no longer like Civ4 where you need to reload a save and then attack again and again till you win a battle, you'll always lose if you lost once against that same unit on that same turn...

yeh i noticed when i reloaded after a bad attack, best bet, is to not do the same thing, like in civ 4, if that happened i'd wait a turhn then attack, and everything would be junky dory

[KurtG85]

This is how it was in Civ 2. Krikkitone already explained the way to get around this if you feel the need to be cheap. Case closed.
ps- I think its a fantastic, albeit avoidable, measure to prevent the cheapness of reloading till you win and I wish there weren't any way around it.

[MorteEterna]

Only in civ 4 when i lost attack i reloaded it. But in civilization revolution is not so fun, it's more funny to rebuild an army, some armies, reconquer cities, when you lose, but when i'm going to kill one and i dont' kill him, i don't reload, i close the game. And i save only to continue the next day, not for battles

Whatever almost all said it, there was this thing from Civilization 1 or 2 maybe. You can change what will happen, but it is so easy maybe, for example to win a deity game (for me it's not so hard, but you need to have luck or to be fast)

[Remowilliams]

I've had the same experience in the demo. If you do exactly the same things, you get exactly the same results, but when I say exactly, I really mean exactly.

I'm not sure what, exactly, will trigger a random seed change, but I like the determinism, myself.

[micokeman]

I'm not sure about the demo, but I have found a way to control the random seed generator. At the main menu of Civilization IV click 'SINGLE PLAYER' and then click 'CUSTOM GAME'. Under options tick 'New Random Seed on Reload'. This allows one to customize a great deal more about the game (See this (http://guides.ign.com/guides/818084/page_3.html) link). There are a few more pages to click through (compared to "PLAY NOW!), but the available customizations make it worth it.

Michael Phelps

"Do, or do not. There is no try."
-- Jedi Master Yoda

"When we don't get what we deserve that's a real good thing;
When we get what we don't deserve that's a real good thing."
-- Newsboys

[eireksten]

Too bad this is Civilization Revolution and not Civ4 then...

[Matrix49G]

I know for the units it is always the same, if I lose I lose every time. But As for getting a great person, It does seem to be random. Even the friendly huts always give the same thing out. If it's a tech, it's mainly what you have being researched at the time. But as far as the battles are concerned, they always have the same outcome.

[Yoacim]

all actions should be randomized. i think your reloads were an odd coincidence of random!

I think Civ Rev follows the idea of random seed like every other application I'm aware of. In principle, a CPU cannot give a random number. A CPU is only able to compare and add (that's all computers do). To get a random number, the program "cheats" by e.g., taking the current time (e.g., the number of elapsed milliseconds since the system was booted). This number is used to determine random outcomes. For instance, a 50-50 chance can be chosen depending on if the number of milliseconds elapsed is a even number or an odd number. The random seed is stored with your save game (I guess), and therefore if everything is held equal you'll get the same outcome from a particular battle. This prevents reloading to get a better seed.

But Elizabeth is also right in the respect that the random seed is random, but not random in the sense that it independent randomness.

[damuffinman123q]

Ah, ok. Do you know what specifically makes a unit of 3.0 lose to a unit of 1.5, or did my prior actions just unfortunately put me at a 'bad result' point? It'd be nice to know the specifics, I guess.

Its just statistics, 3.0 to 1.5 would be 2:1, this ould be like rolling a die and 1-4 you win, 5 or 6 you lose. Obviously it isn't this simple because of injuries, and the game isn't rolling dice. It is probably an algorithm, so if you have 2:1 battles twice in a row and win both, you are due for a loss.

Nothing is random with computers, its just progamed in.

[Laelithar]

I think I may have turned my console off between them though. So maybe it generates a seed on start up.

I think this hit the nail on the head. I have also noticed that if I immeadiately reload I will get the exact same results everytime; however, if I power down the system and come back to the game later the random seed seems to change as do my results.

[mscene256]

This is the main thing that should be removed from this game and what I came to this forum looking for info on. I definitely will have to play a demo before buying another Civilization game and if this aspect is not removed I will not get another one. First off this is not the 1980s it is very simple to program a random outcome every single match.

Now I don't mind losing ever now and then when the odds are in my favor, what I find incredibly frustrating is losing a battle when my attack is 21 and their defense is 12... always. Maybe that can happen randomly once or twice, but EVERY time I reload? That means it is predetermined which completely throws strategy out the door, meaning no matter what plan you have, you can not win that match before you even fight it. That is unacceptable for a strategy game, especially on Deity where every turn matters and you can't always sit back and wait a turn, with multiple units bearing down on you.

I know there are some that say you shouldn't reload or they hate reloaders, what I say to them is how does my reloading affect you in anyway? It does not, the person it affects is me and not being able to takes away my fun factor which is what a game should be and should be 2Ks main objective, making sure the players are having fun so they continue to BUY their product. Those that don't want to, or hate can just not do it and everyone is happy. As I said a 12 to 9 match up is fine, hell I wouldn't mind the 10+ gaps if it were random, I don't reload every scenario but that one on Deity was my last stand and knowing that I can not win a fight before it starts means NO strategy I've planned can win the game at that point.

I will say I haven't done much testing on the couple of things I read about trying to talk or what not to see if the outcome is changed (I did a little and it seemed to have no affect but I won't denounce it yet) However that should not matter, every single fight should be random, even if the entire fight is calculated after you press attack but before the animation begins, that way the Oracle of Delphi could still work 100% like it does now giving you the option to exit before the fight begins, but the outcome of that fight itself would be RANDOM.

[badken]

I realize it can be frustrating, but it's really not that hard to work around. If you want to reload and get a different combat result, attack on the next turn, or move some units around, build something different, anything to change up the state of the game. Obviously not every action affects the random number generator, but if you happen to do something that does, you'll get another chance.

[Corvall]

Now I don't mind losing ever now and then when the odds are in my favor, what I find incredibly frustrating is losing a battle when my attack is 21 and their defense is 12... always. Maybe that can happen randomly once or twice, but EVERY time I reload? That means it is predetermined which completely throws strategy out the door, meaning no matter what plan you have, you can not win that match before you even fight it. That is unacceptable for a strategy game, especially on Deity where every turn matters and you can't always sit back and wait a turn, with multiple units bearing down on you.
It's NOT predetermined any more than any 'random' occurence in a video game is predetermined. When you make an attack, the game generates a random number based on a seed value. Using the same seed value, the sequence of 'random' numbers the game generates will always be the same. When you reload the game after failing an attack, the game keeps the same seed value. If you make the same attack again, you are at the same spot in the sequence. Therefore, you get the same 'random' number, and the same results. You can do it as long as you want, but the same 'random' number will always get you the same result.

Yes, Firaxis COULD have re-seeded the random number generator on a reload, and the fact that they did not do so suggests that this behavior is by design. They were probably trying to avoid the exact situation that you are trying to take advantage of. You're right that knowing the outcome of a battle removes strategy from the game. The problem is that YOU are the one removing strategy by reloading as soon as you get a battle result you don't like. Unlikely failures (just like unlikely victories) are a part of any strategy game, and by doing a save-reload when you lose you're taking those failures out of the equation. I'm guessing you don't reload after you win a lucky battle, right? Just guessing.

Anyway, according to the other posts in this thread, you can reseed the random number generator by rebooting your console. So when you decide that you can't handle a bad break, just restart your console and try again. You'll probably win eventually, although personally that's not the type of 'win' that I enjoy. To each their own, I suppose.

[mscene256]

Corvall you don't know what you are talking about. First you say it's not predetermined more than other games then you say it's predetermined by design, which not every game does. Plainly... It is predetermined because the end result could be random every single time you do battle, it is not, period. Please don't go into programming talk because talking about "they could have re-seeded the random number generator on a reload" just makes you sound ignorant. In EVERY major programing language today random functions are seeded internally, they don't need to be seeded manually, as I said it's not 1980 anymore, do you believe anyone on this board thinks in 2008 they can't make a game that the outcome is random every turn.

So yes I know it was by design, that's why I say they need to change that aspect, because they designed it that way. Also as I said, reloading a game that I am playing by myself has NO bearing on anyone but me, the thing Firaxis or 2K should care about is making the game enjoyable to those who already gave them money and are playing it so they want to buy another of their products in the future, it is a business not a daycare so I don't know why you are Rah-Rahing for them.

The bottom line is anyone that wants to reload their own personally copy of the game because of a ridiculous outcome should be able to, that action has no bearing on you, 2K or anyone except them so why shouldn't they be able to? For those who do not want to reload, then just don't do it and EVERYONE is happy that way but not the other way around. And what are you anyway, do you have delusions of being a dictator, because you have fun one way everyone should be like you? What's to be mad about and make comments like "you don't reload after you win a lucky battle, right", Okay mr. high and mighty doesn't reload a game that's made for fun, and if I do I guess I'm a bad bad man, what are you 5, it's a game. The reason I reloaded is because I didn't think I should have lost 21 to 12, but to see it happen every time, I released they have added STATIC factors, perhaps a "always lose this battle flag" that I can not put into my strategy, which I don't think they should, whether or not a reboot can change it.

Furthermore, what does Firaxis care about someone wanted to reload their game to have a little more fun, do you really think it keeps them up at night? If you need to cry and moan for them then go ahead, but.like I said, I'm sure their main concern is their bottom line. For me there are plenty of games out there to play, if the next one is random I'll get it, if it's not I won't, nothing to argue over. That's my prerogative.

[Corvall]

Corvall you don't know what you are talking about. First you say it's not predetermined more than other games then you say it's predetermined by design, which not every game does. Plainly... It is predetermined because the end result could be random every single time you do battle, it is not, period. Please don't go into programming talk because talking about "they could have re-seeded the random number generator on a reload" just makes you sound ignorant. In EVERY major programing language today random functions are seeded internally, they don't need to be seeded manually, as I said it's not 1980 anymore, do you believe anyone on this board thinks in 2008 they can't make a game that the outcome is random every turn.
So I state a fact, and that makes me sound ignorant? I'll say it again. They could have re-seeded the randomizer on reload. Hell, they could have reseeded on every call to the generator. But they didn't. Sure, programing languages today have routines that will reseed the randomizer on every call, but they also allow you to specify your seed. So, what was your point again?

NOTHING in this game is 'predetermined' before you reload. Having a static seed for the random number generator doesn't allow you to know what's coming next. The game doesn't anticipate a battle in the future and decide that you'll lose. You start a battle, a 'random' number is generated, and sometimes that 'random' number is one that causes you to lose, even when you've got better odds. That's a part of the game.
So yes I know it was by design, that's why I say they need to change that aspect, because they designed it that way. Also as I said, reloading a game that I am playing by myself has NO bearing on anyone but me, the thing Firaxis or 2K should care about is making the game enjoyable to those who already gave them money and are playing it so they want to buy another of their products in the future, it is a business not a daycare so I don't know why you are Rah-Rahing for them.
I think they did make the game enjoyable. I'm betting a lot of other people think the same. However, what you stated previously that you felt this design decision removed strategy from the game. That idea is pretty ludicrous. What removes strategy is when you can change game events that you don't like, rather than dealing with what actually happened.
The bottom line is anyone that wants to reload their own personally copy of the game because of a ridiculous outcome should be able to, that action has no bearing on you, 2K or anyone except them so why shouldn't they be able to? For those who do not want to reload, then just don't do it and EVERYONE is happy that way but not the other way around. And what are you anyway, do you have delusions of being a dictator, because you have fun one way everyone should be like you? What's to be mad about and make comments like "you don't reload after you win a lucky battle, right", Okay mr. high and mighty doesn't reload a game that's made for fun, and if I do I guess I'm a bad bad man, what are you 5, it's a game. The reason I reloaded is because I didn't think I should have lost 21 to 12, but to see it happen every time, I released they have added STATIC factors, perhaps a "always lose this battle flag" that I can not put into my strategy, which I don't think they should, whether or not a reboot can change it.
Heh, I'm a dictator now? Boy, you're awfully defensive about this.

You know, maybe you're right, losing battles ISN'T fun. But don't you think even having to save and reload the game is a lot of work? Talk about a waste of time. Firaxis should have programmed in a button that let you refight any battle that you lost so you could keep trying until you won. Or you know what would be even MORE fun? They should just allow the player to win every time to begin with, then you don't even have to press a button. I mean, how DARE Firaxis program in the possibility that I lose! Losing isn't FUN, and the game is supposed to be FUN! Firaxis obviously doesn't care about their customers at all.
Furthermore, what does Firaxis care about someone wanted to reload their game to have a little more fun, do you really think it keeps them up at night? If you need to cry and moan for them then go ahead, but.like I said, I'm sure their main concern is their bottom line. For me there are plenty of games out there to play, if the next one is random I'll get it, if it's not I won't, nothing to argue over. That's my prerogative.
You're free to make your purchasing decisions based on whatever criteria you like. I doubt they'll shed many tears if you won't buy their next game because it makes it inconvienient for you to cheat. Which, as has been mentioned, you can still do. It just takes a little extra effort.

Anyway, it's not too hard to figure out why they keep a static seed. The Game of the Week. It's got a static seed so that everyone who plays is on even ground.

[Razlath]

Strategy is about taking the rules of the game and forging a win condition from them. You keep complaining about 21 to 12, but by the rules of the game that is not that great of a lead.

This game does not base its wins / losses on the actual numbers, but on the ratio instead. Your ratio isn't even 2:1. In this game accepting those numbers is a bad idea, and something you only do as a desperate measure. If you are already into desperate measures your strategy has probably already failed and you are just praying for a lucky break to get your feet back underneath you again. That obviously doesn't mean you can't have a strategy wrecked by luck, but that is the way it goes. Now you can adapt your strategy to handle such setbacks.

You need to base your strategy on the rules of the game not on your notion of what the rules should be and you will be much better off and probably not nearly so annoyed by this.

Also to your point of how does it affect us? Here is how: This game currently does not support what you want. To support what you want they would have to change code (no matter how trivial it IS code change). This means that they might break something else in the process. It certainly means that some developer is not spending time doing something others would consider more useful (ie making new games, fixing existing bugs, making DLC, etc.). So yes your request does affect others because you are asking for the game to change to suit your liking, which will take time away from things others deem more important.

Whether it is cheating or not is not the issue, the point is the game doesn't work that way, and should not be changed to work that way at the cost of more useful (and less controversial) changes / updates.

-Razlath

[Matrix49G]

Strategy is about taking the rules of the game and forging a win condition from them. You keep complaining about 21 to 12, but by the rules of the game that is not that great of a lead.

This game does not base its wins / losses on the actual numbers, but on the ratio instead. Your ratio isn't even 2:1. In this game accepting those numbers is a bad idea, and something you only do as a desperate measure. If you are already into desperate measures your strategy has probably already failed and you are just praying for a lucky break to get your feet back underneath you again. That obviously doesn't mean you can't have a strategy wrecked by luck, but that is the way it goes. Now you can adapt your strategy to handle such setbacks.

You need to base your strategy on the rules of the game not on your notion of what the rules should be and you will be much better off and probably not nearly so annoyed by this.

Also to your point of how does it affect us? Here is how: This game currently does not support what you want. To support what you want they would have to change code (no matter how trivial it IS code change). This means that they might break something else in the process. It certainly means that some developer is not spending time doing something others would consider more useful (ie making new games, fixing existing bugs, making DLC, etc.). So yes your request does affect others because you are asking for the game to change to suit your liking, which will take time away from things others deem more important.

Whether it is cheating or not is not the issue, the point is the game doesn't work that way, and should not be changed to work that way at the cost of more useful (and less controversial) changes / updates.

-Razlath


Not disagring with you.

But maybe they need to change (game code) the number system to represent what you have said.

instead of 15 attack vs 7.5 defence

it should read 2:1. That way people see it as a low number meaning you don't have as much as an advantage as you think.

Then when they see 6:1 they see they have a better advatage of winning.

Of course better fight animations would help as well, never made any sence to me seeing my army (3 units) decimate to 3 (single unit) by a single unit.

[Razlath]

Not disagring with you.

But maybe they need to change (game code) the number system to represent what you have said.

instead of 15 attack vs 7.5 defence

it should read 2:1. That way people see it as a low number meaning you don't have as much as an advantage as you think.

Then when they see 6:1 they see they have a better advatage of winning.

Of course better fight animations would help as well, never made any sence to me seeing my army (3 units) decimate to 3 (single unit) by a single unit.

LOL you will get no argument from me. When I hit King difficulty (I played all vic conditions on Cheiftan and Warlord first) I thought something was very very wrong. ;} Suddenly I wasn't overrunning everything and I was losing battle after battle. After some quick reading here, and some time spent playing I realized that I needed 3:1 odds to be reasonably sure of the outcome.

Would have been nice if that had been a little more intuitive.

-Razlath

[MorteEterna]

Not disagring with you.

But maybe they need to change (game code) the number system to represent what you have said.

instead of 15 attack vs 7.5 defence

it should read 2:1. That way people see it as a low number meaning you don't have as much as an advantage as you think.

Then when they see 6:1 they see they have a better advatage of winning.

Of course better fight animations would help as well, never made any sence to me seeing my army (3 units) decimate to 3 (single unit) by a single unit.

No, they don't need. Now that's ok, maybe they could say 15 vs 7.5 (2:1). However that depends on luck, but most of the time you win with advantages, only bad luck can beat your units in advantage.

[Razlath]

No, they don't need. Now that's ok, maybe they could say 15 vs 7.5 (2:1). However that depends on luck, but most of the time you win with advantages, only bad luck can beat your units in advantage.

You must be the luckiest SOB out there. If I don't have a 2:1 ratio I pretty much am garaunteed to lose (to the point I get all excited and start cheering if I win). If it isn't at least 3:1 ratio then it is a nail biter (equal chance to lose or end up with 2 damage on the unit it seems). 3:1 I usually end up with at least one damage on my unit / army.

Have I had the few amazing "How did I win that?" moments? Sure, I am not a complete statistical anomoly. But for the most part "Advantage" is far from a good indicator of who will win.

-Razlath

[MorteEterna]

You must be the luckiest SOB out there. If I don't have a 2:1 ratio I pretty much am garaunteed to lose (to the point I get all excited and start cheering if I win). If it isn't at least 3:1 ratio then it is a nail biter (equal chance to lose or end up with 2 damage on the unit it seems). 3:1 I usually end up with at least one damage on my unit / army.

Have I had the few amazing "How did I win that?" moments? Sure, I am not a complete statistical anomoly. But for the most part "Advantage" is far from a good indicator of who will win.

-Razlath

I'm not the luckiest. I have lost also with great advantages that have ruined an entire day, 5-6 battles lost where I should win but I have lost those battles than the game. However, I think there is a random seed for the map, than, as the tournaments, when you move in a square or in another one, or you do another thing, the final code of the seed changes, that's an example, obvious.

[tutompop]

Moving from square to square does not change the seed. Attacking, being attacked or moving on to the next turn changes the seed. This was discussed in another thread last month.

[MorteEterna]

Moving from square to square does not change the seed. Attacking, being attacked or moving on to the next turn changes the seed. This was discussed in another thread last month.

But I think researching a tech instead of another one changes the seed, as for attacking or not.

[Emperor_Augystus]

Whenever I play Civ4, I play Custom Games with New Random Seed on Reload enabled because I don't like the game pre-scripting events at the start of each turn. It's annoying because with Randon Seeds disabled, all combat outcomes are pre-determined; the game decides at the start of each turn that if Unit A attacks Unit B it will lose; but if Unit C attacks Unit B it will win. It doesn't matter if Unit A & C are exactly the same (same unit type, same strength/attack/defence, same promotions/upgrades); the game just decides the outcome before the battle is ever fought.

It's apparent that Civ:R doesn't use Random Seeds, which I think is a shame, especially because the console game doesn't give you the option of enabling or disabling Random Seeds at all.

[Corvall]

Whenever I play Civ4, I play Custom Games with New Random Seed on Reload enabled because I don't like the game pre-scripting events at the start of each turn. It's annoying because with Randon Seeds disabled, all combat outcomes are pre-determined; the game decides at the start of each turn that if Unit A attacks Unit B it will lose; but if Unit C attacks Unit B it will win. It doesn't matter if Unit A & C are exactly the same (same unit type, same strength/attack/defence, same promotions/upgrades); the game just decides the outcome before the battle is ever fought.

It's apparent that Civ:R doesn't use Random Seeds, which I think is a shame, especially because the console game doesn't give you the option of enabling or disabling Random Seeds at all.
But it's still just a random number to the user. You don't know what number is coming next, so you don't know what the result of the combat is going to be. The result is just as 'predetermined' no matter how the random number is seeded. When you make an attack, a random number is generated that will decide whether you win or lose. Why does it matter whether that random number comes from a new seed or the same seed as the last number? It's not like the AI picks which battles it will win and lose based on the game situation. It's just picking numbers from a list. Both methods are functionally identical to the user.

Unless, of course, you reload and perform the same action using the same seed, and therefore get the same 'random' number and the same result. But so long as you don't reload the game to avoid an undesirable game result, the seeding of the random number generator is irrelevant.

[Emperor_Augystus]

But it's still just a random number to the user. You don't know what number is coming next, so you don't know what the result of the combat is going to be. The result is just as 'predetermined' no matter how the random number is seeded. When you make an attack, a random number is generated that will decide whether you win or lose. Why does it matter whether that random number comes from a new seed or the same seed as the last number? It's not like the AI picks which battles it will win and lose based on the game situation. It's just picking numbers from a list. Both methods are functionally identical to the user.

Unless, of course, you reload and perform the same action using the same seed, and therefore get the same 'random' number and the same result. But so long as you don't reload the game to avoid an undesirable game result, the seeding of the random number generator is irrelevant.
It might be a matter of semantics (or something), but I just don't like the game determining the outcome of any battle I might fight before I give the order to attack. So that really means that the New Random Seed on Reload is inadequate too, because when you reload it's just generating a new number to determine the outcome of battle, rather than waiting until I give the attack order to "roll the dice" and decide who will win and lose; I'd prefer the latter because it seems the most random and therefore fair.

[Corvall]

I think that would be a matter of perception. You percieve a random number drawn from a new seed to be 'more random' than a random number drawn from an existing seed. In reality, one is just as 'random' as the other. There really is no functional difference when it comes to playing the game. Of course, none of that necessarily matters when it comes to how you percieve the game. ;^)

[EatinSkinnyBlue]

Just after some testing a thought on how this whole thing works...

First of all the idea that its a army A vs army B calculation at the start of the turn is incorrect...In testing I found that even if I have as many as a dozen armies stationed next to the town I am assaulting and I attack first with the highest AP army at a 3:1 ratio and lose, reload and attack with another army next to the town with the same or lower AP then I still lose...this would suggest a system of "Next Battle Defense" meaning that the computer as opposed to calculating individual battle outcomes calculates that at a current location, Army X will defend on the next attack and will have a defensive value of Y which may be more then twice its actual apparent defense, so unless you attack that location and cause another calculation then no army under the calculated defense for the next battle will succeed...Obviuosly this calculation re occurs producing a different value every turn...

As for comments on reloading, its effectively cheating and robs the player of a lesson in survival...If you have to reload to win one battle in a strategy game like civ and you care that much about it then why even play since your technically not beating the game because you take away the possibility of losing...I mean last time i checked the option of a game was to win...but that option only exists because you can lose...if you take away the option of loss then you no longer have a game but instead something thats more like playing yourself in chess where you can't lose because you control not only the good decisions but the bad...and in most cases this rewards bad play and makes you a worse player in the end...

[mscene256]

I didn't read all the post after mine but I will reply to the 2 below mine...

Corvall
The reason you sound ignorant is because you are boiling the whole battle down to the seed of one random function, the programming is far more complex than that. You can't really think that regenerating a random seed is the whole process and problem do you? If you do, you are ignorant, if you do not then stop harping on one function, that what makes you sound ignorant.

I don't know if you are trying to convince me that the predetermined thing is a good idea or what? My question is why do you care? You talk about cheating, but in this game like anything has rules that are usually based on some type of fact that players learn and here they lean toward the fact that defense is directly converse to attack. Those are the numbers we as players must use to make our game play decisions. However, if the program decides you've lost before the fight even begins, are you saying you can't begin to see how that is in and of itself a cheat? How some people such as I, the topic poster and most likely many others might find this is somewhat unfair? Is it really that hard for you to comprehend? If so I can't help you.

Your post seem to be all over the place, and I don't think you really comprehend what you are replying to, you say "how DARE Firaxis program in the possibility that I lose! Losing isn't FUN", however I've said many times it has nothing to do with the possibility of losing but the certainty, I'm all for the possibility however it should not be a certainty, I would believe you know that's what predetermined means.

What you still don't get is, as I said, I believe going into a guaranteed losing battle with a clear advantage is a cheat, I also think a reason for that may have to do with the Oracle of Delphi but it could have been programmed another way. Just because I found out by reloading my game is irrelevant. And no company wants to lose money over unhappy customers not even one, because where there's one there are many more... they are in business to make money, so while they may not shed a tear i'm sure losing customers doesn't make them happy.

Anyway, when doing anything online against other real players there should be safeguards because there are other people's enjoyment the have to consider so that's fine, offline though that's another story.

Like I said only time will tell what I do.

Razlath
First reread my post, I ask for NO changes to be made in the current version, I accept that's how it is, the changes I would like to be made are for any upcoming version. Yeah, were in the patch-a-game age. However I'm smart enough to realize there is no way the can change the game mechanics of a released game. My suggestions are in regards to any new releases that may come, thus my statement about not buying the next version and all that. The bottom line is, it is a background game mechanic that will ONLY be realized by those who reload, there are only two groups at play here those who do and those who don't, as such it will not affect those who do not.

Also I never said 21 to 12 is that great of a lead, however you can see that it is a lead, right? Logic should dictate you will win more than lose, or at the very least win SOME of the time, in some battles the programming is set up so this is not the case, that is my one and only point.

If the outcome of a battle is predetermined NO amount of strategy can change that, and just because people may no know it is predetermined does not mean that's how it should be; that it the issue.

Also I'm not sure where you are trying to go with your ratio information, clearly the game doesn't need anywhere near 2 to 1 to win consistently. I can consistently win battles that are 85 or even 81 attack to 72, even with 21 to 18 I've won most of the time. The clear pattern is when you have a higher attack you usually win... And I can accept that sometimes you don't... As I said I don't care about ratios my only problem is the the outcome should always change to some degree, it is far easier to realize this is not the case when you have a 9+ margin, however testing it, I've lost consistently using a 4.5 attack against a 1.5 defense which is a 3:1 ratio if you like that better, you can use that as the example.

[Corvall]

First of all the idea that its a army A vs army B calculation at the start of the turn is incorrect...In testing I found that even if I have as many as a dozen armies stationed next to the town I am assaulting and I attack first with the highest AP army at a 3:1 ratio and lose, reload and attack with another army next to the town with the same or lower AP then I still lose...this would suggest a system of "Next Battle Defense" meaning that the computer as opposed to calculating individual battle outcomes calculates that at a current location, Army X will defend on the next attack and will have a defensive value of Y which may be more then twice its actual apparent defense, so unless you attack that location and cause another calculation then no army under the calculated defense for the next battle will succeed...Obviuosly this calculation re occurs producing a different value every turn...
If the next random number to be drawn based on the saved seed is a low 'losing' number, then this would explain why any attack at that point in the sequence would be a losing attack. For instance, let's say you're attacking at 2:1. If you rolled a 6-sided die(and this is hypothetical, I'm sure the range for the random numbers is much greater than 6), you would win on a 3-6, and lose on a 1-2. If the next random number drawn is a 1, then you'll lose on any attack made based on that random number. It's the same thing if you physically rolled an actual die and a 1 came up. It doesn't matter which unit you're attacking with, or which unit you attacked, a 1 will still lose.
The reason you sound ignorant is because you are boiling the whole battle down to the seed of one random function, the programming is far more complex than that. You can't really think that regenerating a random seed is the whole process and problem do you? If you do, you are ignorant, if you do not then stop harping on one function, that what makes you sound ignorant.
Seeing as how I don't have an intimate understanding of the code, I do have to generalize to a point. But I don't think it's that difficult to understand that at some point along the way, through all the odds calculations a random number is being generated, and that random number is being generated based on a static seed. It's that static seed that you seem to have a problem with, and that's why explained it. I still don't see how stating a fact makes me ignorant. I'd be more inclined to say that someone who ignores the facts is the ignorant one.
I don't know if you are trying to convince me that the predetermined thing is a good idea or what? My question is why do you care? You talk about cheating, but in this game like anything has rules that are usually based on some type of fact that players learn and here they lean toward the fact that defense is directly converse to attack. Those are the numbers we as players must use to make our game play decisions. However, if the program decides you've lost before the fight even begins, are you saying you can't begin to see how that is in and of itself a cheat? How some people such as I, the topic poster and most likely many others might find this is somewhat unfair? Is it really that hard for you to comprehend? If so I can't help you.
I'm trying to get you to see that it's NOT predetermined. WHEN you make an attack, a random number (perhaps more than one) is generated as a part of the combat calcuation. That number (or sequence of numbers) determines your fate in that battle. I'm not sure what exactly your idea of 'before the fight even beings' is, but the random numbers are generated the same either way. It's no more of a 'cheat' than a roll of a physical die is. Perhaps you're not comfortable with the idea that despite the odds of a battle a simple number (or sequence of numbers) will decide the final outcome. But that's how it works.
Your post seem to be all over the place, and I don't think you really comprehend what you are replying to, you say "how DARE Firaxis program in the possibility that I lose! Losing isn't FUN", however I've said many times it has nothing to do with the possibility of losing but the certainty, I'm all for the possibility however it should not be a certainty, I would believe you know that's what predetermined means.
I'm sorry you didn't appreciate my sarcastic slippery-slope argument. The point is, when should the developer stop making it easy for you to cheat the game system? It currently seems to exist at a system restart stage, but you seem to feel that it should be at a save-reload stage. Both points are fairly arbitrary. So why do you feel that save-reload is the right place? Why not just build it right into the game engine? It's the same effect, after all. You get to go back in time and retry a battle that you lost so that you can try to win this time.

As soon as the random number (or sequence of numbers) is generated for that battle, the outcome is certain. Until that point, no one is certain of any results. How is that different from any other event where chance takes part? If you're standing at a <casino dice game that rhymes with maps> table, before the dice are thrown the outcome is unknown. After the dice are thrown, the outcome is certain. The same principle applies here.
What you still don't get is, as I said, I believe going into a guaranteed losing battle with a clear advantage is a cheat, I also think a reason for that may have to do with the Oracle of Delphi but it could have been programmed another way. Just because I found out by reloading my game is irrelevant. And no company wants to lose money over unhappy customers not even one, because where there's one there are many more... they are in business to make money, so while they may not shed a tear i'm sure losing customers doesn't make them happy.
You are not 'guaranteed' to lose the battle until the random number (or sequence of numbers) that determine the outcome are drawn. Like I said above, it's exactly the same as any other game of chance.

You can't please everyone. It's just a fact of life.

Let's look at it this way. Let's pretend you had a time machine that let you go back in time 60 seconds (a lot like reloading a game you just saved after you lost a battle). Let's say you're watching someone at a <casino dice game that rhymes with maps> table throw the dice. He throws the dice and rolls a two. You trigger your time machine and go back to before he throws the dice. He's about to throw again. Nothing in the situation has change except your knowledge of the previous throw. A two comes up again in the exact same fashion as the first time you saw it. You go back in time again with the same results. In fact, no matter how many times you rewind, the guy always rolls a two.

So, would you consider that roll to be a non-random event? Does the fact that you saw the random result and then went back in time and saw the same result again make the result any less random the first time you saw it? I don't think so. In my opinion, just because you were able to repeat the event does not mean the event is any less random then it was before you repeated it.

[nike22]

guys.....there is an easy way around it. when you bring your army (s) to siege a city bring 4-5 individual units too. attack with the army. if you lose, reload and attack with a single unit. then attack with the army again. repeat.

note- i dont do this. i feel that it is cheating.

[Sudrin]

I have to chime in on this Predetermined thing. I think some kind of predetermination thing IS happening. Here are a few examples:

First example "Combat Reloading"
Normally I'm not a combat reloader just because it takes the fun out of it, but there was a specific situation where "Numbers wise" it seemed like I had all the advantages, yet I lost. So I reloaded and lost. Reload again, lost again. I did it a total of five times and lost every time. Admittedly, it was cheating so I just moved on but it still sort of bothered me that the game seemed to have already decided who the winner of that battle would be BEFORE I decided to attack

Second Example "Multiplayer Oracle"
A friend of mine and I were playing a friendly Multiplayer Game. He was new to the game so we were chatting freely about what was going on. He was engaged in a battle with the Computer. The AI was attacking his city. I received a message that he had lost his city to the Computer. At the same time as I received the message on my side the battle is still going on for him. In effect *I* knew before HE did in his battle if he was going to win or lose. This trend held thru the entire game

Third Example "Great People"
I have been trying to unlock my very last Great Person Plato. He never seems to appear, unlike Tippu Sultan who appears EVERY GAME. SOMETIMES FIRST. So I experimented a bit with the whole Great People thing. I was using the fairly well documented "Great People Farm" using the Beta Centauri scenario. I saved my game at the VERY beginning before doing anything at all. Settle my city, change government to Republic, and start building a temple. First Great Person appears: Tippu Sultan. Second: Henry Ford. Third: Marie Curie. Reload Save. Do exactly the same steps. SAME Great People. Different build order but still Republic. SAME. Change Governments: now its Alexander Graham Bell, Homer, and Albert Einstein. So the Government type seemed to be the big determining factor. Now if I start a NEW Beta Centauri Scenario and Go Republic, build Temple, etc. Different Great People will show up, but they will still be the SAME different great people unless I change my government type.

So my point is that there IS /some kind/of Pretermination going on, even several turns into the future.

[PiratesFan]

MP Oracle
The reason is the animation takes time to cycle through where as you don't have to watch the animation of the battle. When defending a city you do not have the option of retreat. At that point after they randomized the battle. The animations are for show. The dice were thrown.. where it gets tricky is when you are atttacking you have the option to retreat so you will no a couple seconds before the battle is over for taking out another town.

Combat reloading is ridiculous since there is no real stat tracking. I'd rather play the game through. I'm sure the Achievement's are the only reason someone would really reload a game for, which to me personallyis ridiculous. Might as well add GOD mode to the game and let you walk over all the territories with a caravan ... lol :P

[Raeyo7]

I keep on repeating an Indian game and playing it different everytime. I have only run into the Germans, Zulu, Greeks, and Arabians, but everytime the same Japanese battleship comes to the same place at the same year introducing me to them.

[MorteEterna]

I keep on repeating an Indian game and playing it different everytime. I have only run into the Germans, Zulu, Greeks, and Arabians, but everytime the same Japanese battleship comes to the same place at the same year introducing me to them.

Maybe that's because you can't change their action. If you go in war maybe you can change that. Not all moves change each other