 |
| |
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
But anyway, with the singularity reactors...since they give you 40 hit points, even mindworms would be at loss...not completely, but their success would be minimal...
|
Nope-- worms in effect ignore reactor value so that a worm is equally effective against all reactors ( I think the damage is multiplied by reactor value)-- Thats why I ADVOCATE worms as the methodology against people with better reactors. The worm would attack and defebd equally well against the base scout and the 4-3-2*4 units if they are equal in morale
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
I am realizing it now...Eudaimonia would kill...so maybe your military sucks...yeah, sure, some people have singularity reactors, some have copters, and some have drop pods...but +2 economy without pacifism, pop-booming, and telepathic matrix would literally kill...my next game, I'm playing as Morgan...
. |
Morgan has the pacifism free +2 ECON and yet is not viewed as overpowered. Note that the guy with MMI has copters AND drop pods (and an advanced specialist) and the CBA and Cyborg factory -- Eudomania still might beat you but I confess I wouldn't concede it that easily-- Builders,acustomed to huge maps, tend to underestimate what well applied military power can do to them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
 |
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:20
|
|
After trying the Cyborgs with planned, I switched to SMAC and played the Morgans...since I can upgrade all of my scout patrols into 4-3t-1 units in one single turn (around 2180), it doesn't really matter how powerful someones army is...if I can't beat them in industry, I kill them with my probe teams...
As for MMI...drop pods wouldn't be too advantagous in early game...first off, they have penalties for attacking right after they drop. If they wait a turn, they have no more advantage of surprise as an impact rover.
While a combination of having copters clear garrisons and drop pods taking the empty bases could prove beneficial, going against someone like the Hive with perimeter defense? The copters would go down very quickly, and as mentioned early, a few impact rovers could clear out any dropped units...
The cyborg factory, while nice to have early on, is too expensive, and would not benefit most builders doing wealth early on...
The best benifit would probably be the CB...your copters would now be good for clearing worms out, and you'd be prepared for satellites...the only problem is, I don't play SMAX anymore...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
As for MMI...drop pods wouldn't be too advantagous in early game...first off, they have penalties for attacking right after they drop. If they wait a turn, they have no more advantage of surprise as an impact rover.
|
hmm I can explore faster and meet the AI in the early game for beneficial trades . . . I can pop a pod or find beautiful base sites and just jump a pod there, including lands that cross a waterway. I'm actually anticipating that the faster pod popping would finance a lot of the added cost of drop units. I could scout with copters as my recollection is that a probe team cannot subvert a chopper on the ground. My droppers could then have the benefit of dropping directly on some pods and then knowing a direct route to others
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
While a combination of having copters clear garrisons and drop pods taking the empty bases could prove beneficial, going against someone like the Hive with perimeter defense? The copters would go down very quickly, and as mentioned early, a few impact rovers could clear out any dropped units...
... |
Hmm how is this -- Your perimeters are irrelevant to my choppers ( only an aerospace would help) but my dropped unit would benefit from your Hiverian Perimeters ( it seems they are often retained after a capture)
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
The cyborg factory, while nice to have early on, is too expensive, and would not benefit most builders doing wealth early on...
|
.
Agreed-- This would probably be a later build although my pod popping would likely help build it quickly
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
The best benifit would probably be the CB...your copters would now be good for clearing worms out, and you'd be prepared for satellites...the only problem is, I don't play SMAX anymore... |
The CB would be built first for sure just because its cheaper and for its benefits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by livid imp
Not a bug though, this is by design. Native life is designed to be the trump card for high end units. |
The incorrect battle odds is the bug. The fact that reactors are essentially irrelevant to native combat is not.
quote:
Originally posted by livid imp
. Native life itself is trumped by low end units |
And that is the other downfall of native life-- Relatively expensive ( to build) worms get killed by the basic scout on a regular basis
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
but then why would the game say the combat odds are different |
The battle odds are broken for native combat against higher reactors. Its actually an easy adjustment to make. If my fusion unit would attack a worm at odds of say 9 to 7, I know the true odds are something like 9 to 14. Bottom line is that if a unit doesn't attack with odds in its factor by a factor as big as its reactor, the actual chance of winning is less than 50%
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
I stand corrected... |
Glad I could help -- We all learn from others on here--
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:20
|
|
It is interesting...I have noticed this before...I don't have the actual data at hand, but if odds are against you, say 2-3, you almost always lose, every time pretty much...
In civ, these odds would mean you would win 2 out of 5 battles, but in SMAC, its more like 1 out of 10 or 15...I don't think it is a battle odds error, rather the random generator is different...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
It is interesting...I have noticed this before...I don't have the actual data at hand, but if odds are against you, say 2-3, you almost always lose, every time pretty much...
In civ, these odds would mean you would win 2 out of 5 battles, but in SMAC, its more like 1 out of 10 or 15...I don't think it is a battle odds error, rather the random generator is different... |
I believe ( but am not certain) that the democracy game folks found some odd things when they looked at battle results. For example if a unit with a legitimate 1 in 3 chance at a particular time, won that battle, that result could be replicated a disproportionate number of times if the same turn were played in the same order by other players.
If you did the same attack but had changed a number of other unit movements and the order of doing things, your attacker might die and then if THAT turn was replicated a number of times, the attacker might die a disproportionately high number of times.
It seems that repeating the same attack a number of times will not give results that approximate even the correct batle odds.
I suspect that if you repeated your locust attacks on units of various reactors, on a different turn and using a differnt tile, you might get results where the locus LOSES far more than it should.
Its as if the game has already calculated, before the turn, the random numbers to be generated on each attack. The only problem with that theory was that the democracy gamers reported (IIRC) that the results weren't 100% repetitive
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Petek
|
 |
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2000
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
It is interesting...I have noticed this before...I don't have the actual data at hand, but if odds are against you, say 2-3, you almost always lose, every time pretty much...
In civ, these odds would mean you would win 2 out of 5 battles, but in SMAC, its more like 1 out of 10 or 15...I don't think it is a battle odds error, rather the random generator is different... |
I think that your observation (that battle odds don't reflect actual battle results) is correct. The reason, IIRC, is that each battle is actually a series of "mini-battles" between the two units. The loser of each mini-battle has its hit points reduced by one. When a unit's hit points are reduced to zero, it loses the battle and is eliminated.
The battle odds, I think, are the probability that the attacking unit will win one of the mini-battles. If the two units involved in the battle both have the same number of hit points (10, say, for a fission reactor), then the first unit that loses 10 mini-battles will be destroyed.
If the battle odds are, say, 3-2, then the attacker has a 60% chance of winning each mini-battle and the defender has a 40% chance. I think that it's intuitive that the unit with the 60% chance of winning each mini-battle is much more likely to survive than the unit that has a 40% chance of winning. That is, the probability of of winning is much greater that 60%.
There may be other factors involved, but I think this is the primary reason that the displayed battle odds don't seem accurate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Senethro
|
|
My observations support the "mini-battles" and the "pre-determined strings" theories. I was wondering about these things myself, but in an undeducated non-statistical way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Petek
The battle odds, I think, are the probability that the attacking unit will win one of the mini-battles. |
err no they are not. If you had a weapon 6 attack an armour 6 with equivalent morale and no other modifiers, the chance of a win in any mini battle is 50%. If the units have equivalent hit points, the stated battle odds will reflect that. Howver if you give one of the units 4 times as many hitpoints, the odds will skew markedly in that units favor despite the fact that the chances of winning any ONE of the individual mini- battles has not changed at all
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
Power represents the health of the unit times the reactor...a fusion unit with 30% damage will have a power of 14...
The odds do not represent the odds of a minibattle...they are the odds of the whole battle...this can easily be proven by having two equal combat units and changing the power, either by reactor OR by health... |
what commy said
Bu mini-battle I assumed you mean each little hit where one side or the other takes damage. It happens quickly but you can see the slugging it out before one unit or the other explodes
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Petek
|
|
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2000
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
Power represents the health of the unit times the reactor...a fusion unit with 30% damage will have a power of 14...
The odds do not represent the odds of a minibattle...they are the odds of the whole battle...this can easily be proven by having two equal combat units and changing the power, either by reactor OR by health... |
The question is whether or not the odds shown on the battle odds screen reflect the chance of the attacking unit winning the battle. I say that they do not (unless the odds are shown as 1:1).
You suggest that they do and that this can be proven (if I understand your above comment correctly) by starting with two units of equal battle value (so the battle odds will presumably be 1:1) and then giving the attacking unit a higher reactor (for example). Clearly the battle odds screen will then show that the attacker now has more favorable odds. However, this doesn't prove that the battle odds screen display the odds that the attacker will win. You would have to play the attack multiple times and note how often the attacker wins.
I used the scenario editor to set up a position where the attacker had favorable odds of 3:2 (according to the battle odds screen). If the true odds of winning are 3:2, then the attacker should win approximately 60% of the time. I played the attack 30 times. The result was that the attacker won 28 times (approx. 93%). I then set up two other units with different weapons and morale, but with the battle odds still showing 3:2 in favor of the attacker. The result was exactly the same: the attacker won 28 out of 30 battles.
This strongly suggests that the battle screen does not reflect the correct odds. You observed the same phenomenon in an earlier post in this thread:
"It is interesting...I have noticed this before...I don't have the actual data at hand, but if odds are against you, say 2-3, you almost always lose, every time pretty much...
In civ, these odds would mean you would win 2 out of 5 battles, but in SMAC, its more like 1 out of 10 or 15...I don't think it is a battle odds error, rather the random generator is different...:
I've suggested that the battle odds screen shows the odds of winning one of the mini-battles that ultimately determine who wins the battle. I brushed off my dusty probability skills and tried to calculate the odds in the case where the attacker has a 3:2 advantage in each mini-battle (and both units have 10 hit points). I came up with the attacker winning approx. 81% of the battles. The tests mentioned above show an even greater advantage, so I'm not sure if my calculation was wrong, or what.
Flubber -- Yes, by mini-battle, I meant exactly what you said.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-05-2005 07:30
...
. I still think it is correct to point out that a worm is relatively weak alone and is the equal of units much cheaper than itself.
|