I lost as a 2 vs 0.5 attack on barbs in 1800BC. So I'm pretty sure that by that point barbs get normal battle odds.
Does anyone know the exact year the guaranteed win for greater than 1 - 0.5 goes away?
I lost as a 2 vs 0.5 attack on barbs in 1800BC. So I'm pretty sure that by that point barbs get normal battle odds.
Does anyone know the exact year the guaranteed win for greater than 1 - 0.5 goes away?
It should be every 20 turns. It changes from 1 vs 0.5 to 1.5 vs 0.5Originally Posted by FF-GTR
Strange that you lost 2 vs 0.5 but maybe could happen.
It was a wounded fundy vet warrior. So his hit points were down from 3 to 2. That might have something to do with it - perhaps it's not a guaranteed win if you have the advantage, but instead it's guarantee to lose no more than 2HP (after 2000BC). That would also explain why attacking .67 to .5 is a bad idea even very early.
Or perhaps the barb fudge factor logic ignores certain bonuses like fundy? But I don't recall ever losing 1.37 v.05 with a wounded fundy warrior pre 2000BC. Hmm...
Last edited by FF-GTR; 06-26-2010 at 12:35 AM.
Having from 1 to more than 1 vs 0.5 in the first 2000 years means winning every time
Maybe after the first 20 turns, you should also count the hit points. It's a weird thing, but I think going deeper wouldn't help so much, because in 20 turns, let's say 80% of the barbs are not there anymore, maybe even 90%.
not everytime..
i lost a full health warrior on a hill, atacking across a river.. under 20 turns. it was my first barb, but it only happen once in hundreds of games..
so maybe 99.9.. time..
it was 1 v .5 since hill and river cancel out
Are you sure you weren't attacking accross a river? Plus the guarentee might go away when wounded, I'm not sure, but I almost always lose when wounded.
Are you sure the river & hill canceled each other out.
Could it be that the game calculated you as follows:
Warrior=1.0 attack
Hill adds 50% bonus= 1.5 attack
River deducts 50%= .75 attack
That's not how it works. The 50% bonuses or penalties are always applied to the base number, so it's +.5 or -.5. Otherwise, imagine a vet infiltration gg horse army on a hill:
Horse army: 6
vet: 9
infiltration: 13.5
hill: 19.75
Wrong. It works like this:
Horse army: 6
vet: 9
infiltration: 12
hill: 15
I know that on an amphibious landing you lose 50% of everything. I had a fundy vet knight army with samuri castle land at 13.5 yesterday, its normal attack is 27. I don't attack accross rivers unless I have catapults, that's why I was wondering if rivers deducted the same way amphibious landing do?
If you were attacking from a boat, then it's 1/2 (not just 50% like one bonus).
No, there's a difference. If you bring up the RT (for Xbox anyway) during the battle, you'll see "River: -50%". If you were attacking from a boat, it would say "Landing: -1/2". The difference is that anything with percentages applies to the base stat, while anything with fractions/whole numbers affects the whole thing (I'm not sure if this applies to fundamentalism/samauri castle though).
edit: Morte beat me to it
I'm sure it was 2.0 to 0.5. I agree about wounded, I'm thinking it has more to do with number of hit points rather than guarantee (at least after 2000).
Just in case anyone still is curious about the barb thing. It definitely has to do with hit points after 2000. I've heard that you are not supposed to be able to lose 1.5versus a barb in 2000 BC until about 1000BC or so. I just lost 1.67 versus 0.5 barb in 1800BC (galleon supported vet warrior who had 1 wound).
So at least after 2000 it's not quite so simple, and the 1.5 rule of thumb doesn't hold up.
Here's an odd one happened to me last gotw in 2200bc: barb attacking from a hill (0.75) vs a wounded elite legion(1.0) = loss. perhaps barbs attacking players aren't subject to the 2000bc rule?
Correct. The 2000BC rule is just that if you have at least 1 attack, you will always win when attacking the barb city (you can still lose when attacking in the wild!).
I've seen this before many times.
I've also seen a 5 flag barb kill one of TyShine's horses in a teams game. Absolutely hilarious.
to be honest, everytime.. my warrior accidently steps into a 4-5 flag barb,..
it always goes through a series of battles.. first its 1 v .5 and i win.. but i am at 2/3 wounded
then its .67 v .5 and i always win...
then if its a 5 barb, im probably vet, and i win yet again.. always! i would say the defender wins more than the attacker..
though everytime its past 20 turns.. and i have a 1.3 attk... im afraid to lose.. i still go for it.. but as soon as that first warrior goes down in seconds, im terrified.. specially since that barb is miles away from anything!
i also hate 2 v 1 my warrior v enemy warrior when my empires life depends on it... its very innacurrate... im lucky but not that lucky i guess.. i win most i guess..
ever since i saw that video that grayson posted about sid talking about probabilities.. where he talks about 2 losing to 1.. ive been very nevous about my assaults.. he says it could happen very often.. when he says 80 is big.. and 40 little..... that jus sounds mean..
then he says losing 3 v 1 is also very possible!
im always nervous when my cats have 30 attk, and the enemy archers have 15...
i feel safe though when my cats have 31 due to galleon support.. and archers have 15its more than twice
Now this I didn't know, I knew you could lose on defense, but thought you always won on attacking a barb, even a wanderer, pre 2000 with at least 1 attack. Thanks.
I lost a wounded arab horseman attacking from a hill, 2.25-0.5 in 1800bc yesterday.
NOOOOOOO it happened just now lost a 1.3 v .5 around 1900bc ̉_Ó
Had a 3-flag barb attack me twice in one turn today—those barbs are getting aggressive!
I'm not sure why this works...
I'll attack barbs pre-2000 with .5 vs .5 and gererally win and get the vet upgrade... W .67 I'll lose much more frequently.
I have lost a full vet W while attacking barbs, that's insane
I had an elite LA be attacked by barbs and got a GG!
Last edited by johnfeddersen; 04-14-2012 at 01:04 PM.
Yikes. I rarely take the chance on a .5 vs .5.—too risky.
Losing your vet warrior must have been pretty late in the game.
I attack .67-.5 before 3000 bc and have not lost. After 3000 i have. I almost always lose a .5-.5
Them barbs are something else... barb attacking from hill .75 to 1.5 (Warrior on hill, in trees, veteran or whatever) can kill you pre-2000bc. Food for thought ladies.
Have u played the sp scenario 'Attack of the Huns" ? I've been playing it alot recently when i can't find any mp games. The barbs in that particular scenario are uber-aggressive. I've lost several units including horses to them. They just never stop coming, lol.
In a teams game I've seen a barb attack a horseman unit 5 times until it died. I'm pretty sure it would have attacked in 6 if it could have.
Tested... and I lost.
GOTW, but I'm sure it must happen in MP... I will walk, get 20g and settle at 3700BC, produce W, attack barb lose one.
Attack 3600BC .67 vs .5 and lose often...
So News, I concur...
Also check out "guranteed battle odds" on the main threads...
I also tested that in MP and lost too. Won some in a row initially and thought "Cool - that is helpful", but then I lost a bunch of those in a row.
This info is more vital in MP. In GOTW, you just keep seeding til you get the right one. In most cases, I'm not going to risk losing a warrior in MP that early. If this matchup was guaranteed (like pre-2000BC), that would be huge.
I have lost one time since posting that and it was on 3000 bc
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote