Mysterious Things

[MorteEterna]

I named this thread as Mysterious Things because I think it's a opportune name.

First thing, about who are the best units for the statistic, I have taken that from an old thread (it was mine):

Maybe you haven't understand that numbers don't care so much.. It is about the 60%.. You have to understand that there are units3 in this game that could kill units having less of them. I could say it, but not all i know, whatever i hope you will grateful..

These units that can kill so much are:

Knights
Riflemen

For example today i used riflemen for about 30 battles; i have never lost and i had less attack then their defence about 15 times. An example is when i attacked one using a rifleman vs an army of archers (6 vs about 15).

Knights too, they are very strong and they don't see a lot those numbers, whatever they are better in attack then defence, but they are ok.

And you are thinking about, "tanks are bettern than these units, or artillary.."; yes, but you need to use these 2 units at their time very fast. Today i had conquered all the AIs very easy and fast. Only using riflemen (egypt for the objective, but they have +1 move).

They become not very good vs tanks, but look some battles, tanks vs riflemen, about 90 vs 50. Sometimes happens that riflemen kill them. There is a good probability that riflemen GO near the tanks to kill them, if it happens tanks won't shot them until one of the tanks die. In this game, you need to see not only the attack of your units, but look their style (Yes, i'm not kidding) to attack. Look if they are fast to move in a battle, and you will understand what is the best unit to use in their time. Maybe 90% of you will say that i'm a stupid, it's random, i can't play or i don't know what.. Whatever, i hope the 10% will understand what i said here.

Maybe i didn't say some units that are very good, but i think there are about 2-3 more, but i don't think a lot. Whatever archers are not, maybe i was thinking about horsemen.

Second Thing, Double Strike:

This is a very good thing, when an army of 9 units fights vs a single unit (from 1 to 3, example, catapult, horsemen, warriors), single units will have in all cases the double strike; it means that single units will kill 2 units instead of one, for example you will lose versus AI when you have also 6 attack vs 2,5. So it isn't still 2,5 but a "random" (not sure I can use that, because it is random but not so much) number more than 2,5. For example in a game one was taking my cap and he had an army of warriors (3 attack) and I had a single warrior unit. I won easy for the double strike, It increases the attack, I think it's a right thing.

Third Thing, similar than the first:

When your units are better than the enemies units, for example 1 era advanced, they will kill other units easier. I have killed a lot of legions, archers or other units only using a rifleman, for example in a game I had about 1 of attack and I have won vs about 6, or about that. It will happens a lot of times, maybe. However it is better for ground units, because it becomes random for air/naval units.

Other things are coming soon, now I don't remember, however I hope these things will help you, Thank's for heard me

[xbman22x]

I named this thread as Mysterious Things because I think it's a opportune name.

First thing, about who are the best units for the statistic, I have taken that from an old thread (it was mine):

Maybe you haven't understand that numbers don't care so much.. It is about the 60%.. You have to understand that there are units3 in this game that could kill units having less of them. I could say it, but not all i know, whatever i hope you will grateful..

These units that can kill so much are:

Knights
Riflemen

For example today i used riflemen for about 30 battles; i have never lost and i had less attack then their defence about 15 times. An example is when i attacked one using a rifleman vs an army of archers (6 vs about 15).

Knights too, they are very strong and they don't see a lot those numbers, whatever they are better in attack then defence, but they are ok.

And you are thinking about, "tanks are bettern than these units, or artillary.."; yes, but you need to use these 2 units at their time very fast. Today i had conquered all the AIs very easy and fast. Only using riflemen (egypt for the objective, but they have +1 move).

They become not very good vs tanks, but look some battles, tanks vs riflemen, about 90 vs 50. Sometimes happens that riflemen kill them. There is a good probability that riflemen GO near the tanks to kill them, if it happens tanks won't shot them until one of the tanks die. In this game, you need to see not only the attack of your units, but look their style (Yes, i'm not kidding) to attack. Look if they are fast to move in a battle, and you will understand what is the best unit to use in their time. Maybe 90% of you will say that i'm a stupid, it's random, i can't play or i don't know what.. Whatever, i hope the 10% will understand what i said here.

Maybe i didn't say some units that are very good, but i think there are about 2-3 more, but i don't think a lot. Whatever archers are not, maybe i was thinking about horsemen.

Second Thing, Double Strike:

This is a very good thing, when an army of 9 units fights vs a single unit (from 1 to 3, example, catapult, horsemen, warriors), single units will have in all cases the double strike; it means that single units will kill 2 units instead of one, for example you will lose versus AI when you have also 6 attack vs 2,5. So it isn't still 2,5 but a "random" (not sure I can use that, because it is random but not so much) number more than 2,5. For example in a game one was taking my cap and he had an army of warriors (3 attack) and I had a single warrior unit. I won easy for the double strike, It increases the attack, I think it's a right thing.

Third Thing, similar than the first:

When your units are better than the enemies units, for example 1 era advanced, they will kill other units easier. I have killed a lot of legions, archers or other units only using a rifleman, for example in a game I had about 1 of attack and I have won vs about 6, or about that. It will happens a lot of times, maybe. However it is better for ground units, because it becomes random for air/naval units.

Other things are coming soon, now I don't remember, however I hope these things will help you, Thank's for heard me

2. this is true... in the animations, some units do this so that you do not have to sit through many battle "turns" to watch a tank kill archers. the animations, does not at all affect the outcome of the battle. these are only put in as a physical representation of who came out with the higher number. i am not sure that you fully grasp the concept of the random multiplier involved in the battles. for instance..... my attack is 15. your defense is 7. now each number is multiplied by a random number 1-10. i get a 3. you get a 7.
3*15=45 7*7=49 49>45. just like that a weaker unit has beat a unit that has double its number. the "mysterious things" you speak of is called mathematics. note- it is probably not actually done like this. the programmers probably used relatively complicated algrythms for god knows why.

[Leo]

makes sense to me, i notice those things as well. if i attack some riflemen with some tanks, and during the battle animations the tanks start moving backwards and the riflemen start moving forwards, then i will lose at least 2 tanks, if not all 3 of them. it always works this way, the units move forwards or backwards according to when a unit is about to be killed.

the animations are just that, animations, but they do seem to reflect the hidden rolls going on behind the scenes, and the reason it is valuable to recognise this is because if i see the animations suggest that you will lose 2 of your 3 unit army, but im mathematically supposed to lose the battle, i could always retreat after two of your three have died, and then finish the last one with a second army, without losing my first army.

the movement of the animations will tell me before the actual result, what the rolls have decided for the outcome, and i can then press B ( retreat on the 360) to take advantage of that knowledge.

[ObiFett]

makes sense to me, i notice those things as well. if i attack some riflemen with some tanks, and during the battle animations the tanks start moving backwards and the riflemen start moving forwards, then i will lose at least 2 tanks, if not all 3 of them. it always works this way, the units move forwards or backwards according to when a unit is about to be killed.

the animations are just that, animations, but they do seem to reflect the hidden rolls going on behind the scenes, and the reason it is valuable to recognise this is because if i see the animations suggest that you will lose 2 of your 3 unit army, but im mathematically supposed to lose the battle, i could always retreat after two of your three have died, and then finish the last one with a second army, without losing my first army.

the movement of the animations will tell me before the actual result, what the rolls have decided for the outcome, and i can then press B ( retreat on the 360) to take advantage of that knowledge.

I think the key is to figure out how much the animations are really showing us about the "hidden rolls".

Are we watching a turn by turn roll and when the opposing unit loses part of its unit does that mean our unit won the roll and now it is re-rolling with the new attack/defense amounts? If so, then learning the animations could greatly effect your game.

However, if we are watching the result of a single roll and the animation is one of several predetermined animations possible, then the only thing we could determine is whether it looks like we are going to win or not.

[KrashKrunal]

If you've read my 'How to retreat effectively' tip you will remember that I mentioned this (or at least touched upon it, MorteEterna has gone into more detail, and is absolutely correct about it from my viewpoint).

With One Army Units (Tanks and Artilleries) if you lose one you can sort of see when the enemy starts moving in to get the second. When they do that, that's when you retreat and send in another unit or the same unit (if it has the Blitz upgrade). The enemy will always get closer to the enemy before destroying them, even if they're the ones going back. I've seen it in many Artillery vs Modern Infantry battles.

One thing else that should be said is the start of the battle, if you notice that your unit are NOT moving forward but are just standing their ground, RETREAT, you will NOT win that match. You can often wait a turn or two and attack again and the odds will be in your favour. Of course you wont want to retreat and give them a free upgrade (SP only), but at times it is the better option.

[eireksten]

I'm having a bit of a hard time grasping all this.

Are you saying that some units (i.e. knights, riflemen, horsemen) do better in some battles than the numbers would say? And that single units get some kind of hidden "bonus" in addition to their regular strength due to the double strike?

I guess the things about watching the animations might be an idea to learn, but I guess I feel I have more to gain at the moment learning a lot of other things. I do agree that it is a smart thing to do if you want to be very good though.

[NorrecV]

I don't believe the animations have much to do with it. I attacked a legion army with a catapult(single catapult) from a hill. It had only the number advantage and it wiped the legion out. Every rock was killing two guys and they'd get close to it but then be killed. Once the rock hit a guy in the front of the catapult and killed a guy that was behind it.

I've also had knight armies where 2 remaining knights cameback and wiped out the 80%-guy-remaining archer army.

The only thing the animation tells you is when a unit is pushing back another unit that unit is going to be hit. Sometimes hits don't do anything, anyone whose fought the barbarians will see the blow-dart guys shooting their little darts and not killing anyone.

[Michelasso]

That's actually funny. I never make knights because in my statistics they always lose. I usually go straight for catapults. And when knights attack me, I make a massacre out of them. Still, I wrote a thread saying that if I don't have at least a 3:1 attack rate, I usually end-up losing. I wonder how in the multyplayer does end up, since we can't play it!

[MorteEterna]

That's actually funny. I never make knights because in my statistics they always lose. I usually go straight for catapults. And when knights attack me, I make a massacre out of them. Still, I wrote a thread saying that if I don't have at least a 3:1 attack rate, I usually end-up losing. I wonder how in the multyplayer does end up, since we can't play it!

Maybe it's bad luck, however knights are strong.

[xbman22x]

Maybe it's bad luck, however knights are strong.

maybe you have good luck, however knights are weak.

[MorteEterna]

maybe you have good luck, however knights are weak.

However knights are good units, and they are fast, but they would be great if they are veteran, in other cases I think they aren't the best, however in 2 games I have won more than 30 battles (in each one) using knights.

[OpenAgony]

2. this is true... in the animations, some units do this so that you do not have to sit through many battle "turns" to watch a tank kill archers. the animations, does not at all affect the outcome of the battle. these are only put in as a physical representation of who came out with the higher number. i am not sure that you fully grasp the concept of the random multiplier involved in the battles. for instance..... my attack is 15. your defense is 7. now each number is multiplied by a random number 1-10. i get a 3. you get a 7.
3*15=45 7*7=49 49>45. just like that a weaker unit has beat a unit that has double its number. the "mysterious things" you speak of is called mathematics. note- it is probably not actually done like this. the programmers probably used relatively complicated algrythms for god knows why.

I agree with this statement but I also want to bring up my own opinion. I think that instead of it being a random number from 1-10 I think it is from 1-6 ( An ordinary dice roll ). I have thought this ever since I found out that you needed a 7-1 advantage to over run the opponent. This is because if someone rolled seven dice the lowest possible outcome would be 7 ( rolling all ones ), when the opponent rolls only one dice the highest possible outcome is 6. Therefor no roll is needed and the attacker can simply over run the defender.

[xbman22x]

I agree with this statement but I also want to bring up my own opinion. I think that instead of it being a random number from 1-10 I think it is from 1-6 ( An ordinary dice roll ). I have thought this ever since I found out that you needed a 7-1 advantage to over run the opponent. This is because if someone rolled seven dice the lowest possible outcome would be 7 ( rolling all ones ), when the opponent rolls only one dice the highest possible outcome is 6. Therefor no roll is needed and the attacker can simply over run the defender.

that seems to make sense.

[Michelasso]

I agree with this statement but I also want to bring up my own opinion. I think that instead of it being a random number from 1-10 I think it is from 1-6 ( An ordinary dice roll ). I have thought this ever since I found out that you needed a 7-1 advantage to over run the opponent. This is because if someone rolled seven dice the lowest possible outcome would be 7 ( rolling all ones ), when the opponent rolls only one dice the highest possible outcome is 6. Therefor no roll is needed and the attacker can simply over run the defender.

That may be an idea. But it doesn't explain how out of 3 units after winning a battle we may end up with 1 or 2 left. There must be a match between units as well, a little like Risk.

Also I noticed that with 3,5+ vs 0,5 (barbarians) the 7 to 1 overrun rule doesn't apply.

[xbman22x]

That may be an idea. But it doesn't explain how out of 3 units after winning a battle we may end up with 1 or 2 left. There must be a match between units as well, a little like Risk.

Also I noticed that with 3,5+ vs 0,5 (barbarians) the 7 to 1 overrun rule doesn't apply.

they could do this.

winning unit strength* dice roll 1 - losing unit strength *dice roll 2 =X

X divided by winning unit strength= Y take reciprical of Y=Z

Round Z to the nearest third to determine how many units are lost.

Ex. winning unit strenght=7 losing unit strength=4 DR1=4 DR2=3

7*4-4*3
28-12=16
Y=16/7
Z=7/16
7/16 rounds to 1/3 so you lose one unit

[Michelasso]

Ok, that would do. I must be getting old, I was following a totally different path.

It would also fit with the fact that, still having a "4 vs 0,5" I am pretty sure I lost one unit last night. The Barbarians couldn't win but according to your rule they could do a damage and they did it. Maybe the overrun rule applies only to higher armies.

Ain't there any official reference about how the battle system works? I don't think that should be such a big secret. They are the rule of the game after all.

[Priapulidae]

Its a human flaw to see these type of things. Even though we have the "evidence" we are prone to believe in "mysterious things" ususally because we witness an unlikely event and then keep looking for the same unlikeliness to repeat itself and at the same give events that don't fit our model less credit.

I have also "felt" that modern troops have an advantage over older troops, that isn't reflected in the numbers, but I have tried to convince myself that I am superstitious.

I just can't see what the game developers would get out of showing numerical odds that aren't correct, and have hidden modifiers?

But at the same time I can't see how you can sell a game that is supposed to have multiplayer functionality and then remove that functionality (ps3).

[eireksten]

Its a human flaw to see these type of things. Even though we have the "evidence" we are prone to believe in "mysterious things" ususally because we witness an unlikely event and then keep looking for the same unlikeliness to repeat itself and at the same give events that don't fit our model less credit.

I have also "felt" that modern troops have an advantage over older troops, that isn't reflected in the numbers, but I have tried to convince myself that I am superstitious.

I just can't see what the game developers would get out of showing numerical odds that aren't correct, and have hidden modifiers?

I agree with Priapulidae here. It doesn't make sense to do some magic with the numbers behind the scenes.

I don't think the numbers are direct odds though, and I do believe that it might be possible to get some information from the animations. At least it might seem fair to think that when it is 7 against 1 left in the battle, the side with 7 people are more likely to win than when the battle started... Not 100%, but rather likely.

But that is simply reflected in the retreat functionality. Anything else would make that useless.

[Michelasso]

Its a human flaw to see these type of things. Even though we have the "evidence" we are prone to believe in "mysterious things" ususally because we witness an unlikely event and then keep looking for the same unlikeliness to repeat itself and at the same give events that don't fit our model less credit.

I have also "felt" that modern troops have an advantage over older troops, that isn't reflected in the numbers, but I have tried to convince myself that I am superstitious.

I just can't see what the game developers would get out of showing numerical odds that aren't correct, and have hidden modifiers?

But at the same time I can't see how you can sell a game that is supposed to have multiplayer functionality and then remove that functionality (ps3).

I would also add that if we think about that, having many battles in a row where the advantage is 2 to 1, the AI odds are to win a battle every 3. We tend to remember more the losses than the winning, since losing means the lost of an army.

[jayeffaar]

Do you sometimes stop to think about the game developers reading these threads, while laughing out loud? We have all those crazy theories about how the combat system works, which probably have very little to do with the actual algorithms. I wish they would jump in sometimes and set us straight.

[xbman22x]

Do you sometimes stop to think about the game developers reading these threads, while laughing out loud? We have all those crazy theories about how the combat system works, which probably have very little to do with the actual algorithms. I wish they would jump in sometimes and set us straight.

of course these mathematical equations are not close to the actual equations used. i only put these in as an example of what they could do outside of the theory that the combat animations are part of some sort of turn based combat system when in reality there is only one dice roll. (in my opinion)

[eireksten]

of course these mathematical equations are not close to the actual equations used. i only put these in as an example of what they could do outside of the theory that the combat animations are part of some sort of turn based combat system when in reality there is only one dice roll. (in my opinion)

I really DON'T think there really is only one die roll. If that was the case, much of the point in the retreat function would practically be gone, and it would be a weird(er) way of determining how many units will die...

I'm pretty sure they've been following a turn-based combat system, just as in Civ4...

[xbman22x]

I really DON'T think there really is only one die roll. If that was the case, much of the point in the retreat function would practically be gone, and it would be a weird(er) way of determining how many units will die...

I'm pretty sure they've been following a turn-based combat system, just as in Civ4...

if this was true then the unit with the advantage would win almost every time. this is true becuase the more times you repeat and experiment (more dice rolls) the more accurate the results are. (the more times the unit with the advantage would win. the retreat function would be the same. you have to determine whether keeping your unit is more important than giving the opponent an upgrade. the animations are just that, animations. they are pre-determined and analyzing them will do nothing more than tell you how your unit is doing.

[eireksten]

if this was true then the unit with the advantage would win almost every time.

That depends on how you translate the unit strengths into odds.

[doktorstick]

How are unit strengths done? My expectation is that since they made the game simplier, there are no bonuses for fighting units in a earlier era. I also expect that the attacker has to win three rolls before the defender wins three rolls.