I never lost 2 vs 1 - pre 2000 BC (vs barbs, legions, warriors, archers etc., except once: militia in forest attacked by barbs).Originally Posted by elthrasher
I never lost 2 vs 1 - pre 2000 BC (vs barbs, legions, warriors, archers etc., except once: militia in forest attacked by barbs).
I guess you do not play much MP. It has happened to me a lot.
This came up today. I had a non vet WA in my cap with a Zulu vet WA on a hill—if I attacked, it was 6 v 12.
Two questions:
• Is the reverse true? If 2:1 attacking odds are not guaranteed in non-barb battles, is a 1:2 upset possible?
• Does the hill give the Zulu a defensive bonus? (it is mentioned in the attack screen)
Given the discussion in this thread, I fortified (hoping for a 1:2 defensive upset), but the Zulu took me out the next turn.
I don't understand - do you mean 3 v 6 for your odds on attacking him?
And did he win 6 v 4.5 next turn?
Maybe the 2:1 odds thing is ai related only?
The defense battle odds would have been 6 VS 6. 50% cap + 50% fortify. This is way better then the 3 vs 6.
Right, must have been 3 v 6—definitely was a WA. I thought he had a 2:1 on attack, but now I'm a little fuzzy. And yeah, he won.
Impossible man...
I've seen more like 18 to 7.5 and that seems to happen with my vet infil HA to a Greek pikeman.
That should be a overrun actually.
I've seen it happen only after 2000 bc. That was actually just recently... warrior attacked my capital that had a vet single warrior defending 1 vs 3 and won. I have rarely got that mad because of nonsense like that.
Cats are really bad individually, but they're pretty good in an army. You also don't want to attack an army with an individual unit unless you have overrun odds.In my experience, cats are kinda flaky. I'm more of a dog guy anyway.
as far as i know overrun, unless Zulu, is 7 to 1. So the 110-16 and 4.5-.67 would be just shy of overrun
Still in the end there should be no way of a loss... Even that late in the game when crazy odds be happening. 4.5 to .67... still impossible to lose that, no matter when in the game.
Even though I agree with you that you shouldn't lose with odds that far in your favor, it can happen. as someone stated earlier, over run is the only guaranteed battle odds.
Last edited by sdu754; 04-15-2012 at 03:57 PM.
Odds are odds. Always winning when having an advantage would make the game boring. Having the overrun at 7:1 seems fine enough for me, it could be lower, but it's really rare that you will lose huge odds advantage.
I agree that you should have a chance of losing at 3:1, I was saying that maybe 6:1 should be guaranteed without overrun. You would get the win, but not the move afterward. Not that it would make a big difference.
I also find that you lose against odds more frequently whe attacking armies with individual units, especially Cats and bombers
Lost 9-5 with aztec HA to archer to cost me the game. UGH!!Lost like 100 points in last day in FFA AAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Just lost a game at 3500. My warrior in my cap lost to his warrior 1-1.5. This game is ☺☺☺☺ing stupid man...
I'm not sure why you're complaining about that. You had only a minimal advantage. Not even 2 to 1 odds.
Thats why I go for it in 3400 bc, 3300 bc, 3200 bc, 3100 bc, 3000 bc and 2900 bc vs AI... if the unit was just put in the cap and my unit has the attack.... I will go for it and for some reason that early... it is possible to win 50/50.
Because I had zero chance of winning that game no matter what I did thats why...
Stuff like this can happen, and I agree it sucks, but it's part of the bgame. 1.5-1.0 isn't a real big advantage. I've lost to walkins in the first 5 turns. I'm sure you've won critical battles where your opponent had a 3-2 advantage, these things tend to even out.
In my opinion, 1 beats 1.5 in a cap quite often. It is worth a shot.
The risk/reward is too big to pass up - 10 hammers gambled on a city, you bet. Funnily enough, I seem to have more success with the 1v1.5 than I do with the 3v2.5, could all be in the mind though!
If you want a game that is 100% based on skill, then Civ Rev probably isnt for you... Try Chess
LOL. Well said.If you want a game that is 100% based on skill, then Civ Rev probably isnt for you... Try Chess
Your saying you don't get annoyed when you can't do one thing differently to win a game?If you want a game that is 100% based on skill, then Civ Rev probably isnt for you... Try Chess
I do get annoyed, obviously. I'm just saying that you should accept that luck is part of the game! And while it is sometimes frustrating, its not necessarily a terrible thing. It wouldn't be fun if I beat you EVERY game!
LOL I was about to say the same thingI do get annoyed, obviously. I'm just saying that you should accept that luck is part of the game! And while it is sometimes frustrating, its not necessarily a terrible thing. It wouldn't be fun if I beat you EVERY game!
Last edited by ITZ DENI3D; 04-16-2012 at 05:20 PM.
Sorry to nitpick but i think u mean "accepts" not "excepts".LOL I was about to say the same thing
I'm pretty sure that single units have a lower chance of winning if they are the favorite. I'd even say that you're more likely to beat an archer army with a modern infantry army 18 vs. 9 than you are with a single artillery 24 vs. 9. A single unit bomber attacking a 9-unit defender 27 vs 24 wins less than 50% of the time, I think.
There is the hypothesis of hit points running around, so the odds are the chance of hurting the other. If he has only one hit point cats, art, bomber, it has to win all three fight againts 3-hit-points unit like warrior or archer.
Single unit archers save the day against anything 70% of the time no matter the odds.
We have proven the hit point theory, just not to what extent. Catapults have 2 hit points. Archers have 3.
That is correct. I think a bomber would have 2 hitpoints. I assume 24 defense would be a pikeman army which has 3 hit points.
So its really 27,27 vs 24,24,24. I'm not good at statistics but I know that it is less than 50% for the bomber.
I had an injured Horsemen Army with GG (7.5) lose to one poxy Indian archer (1.5).
I regularly lose naval battles against the odds. Cruiser fleet (18) getting sunk by one cruiser (6) up to three times one game.
Sorry, just pissed again...
1800BC 22.5LA Bltz/Inf + GG vs 10AA wounded (no GG).
Would prior to 2000 BC have made a difference... With the 2 to 1 odds rule...?
And what are the best upset ratio have you won recently or ever...?
Last edited by johnfeddersen; 10-11-2012 at 07:58 AM.
The only guaranteed battle odds are the overrun. Think 2-1 is guaranteed before 2000. I lost 18-6 starting from an island as the Arabs after 2000 b.c.
Thanks for the reminder ITZ...
And your loss make feel a little better...
To make it better it was like 1800 b.c. to the English. Ouch!Thanks for the reminder ITZ...
And your loss make feel a little better...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote