 |
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Tsk tsk. How violent. Why not rush the spaceship parts?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
vmxa1
|
 |
Oviedo, Fl
Nov 2001 time: 21:17
|
|
It seems that it is not clear about getting a second leader, if one is idling in a city already. I have not seen it, but that does not make it false, just rare. Those that say they have seen it, only suggest that it is not very common, hence you make my case to use it soon. The claim that you had one for 40 turns and then got another reenforces my idea. I said use it and when you get to the next wonder in 40 or more turns, you may well get another, if not you probably do not need a leader to win the wonder race. Having a 300 shield resource laying around earning nothing, is not the best use. If you bust a 200 or so shield wonder that would have taken 60 turns (example), you would have been able to build a number of things and the wonder in that 60 turns. Which is better: leader idle, build university, market and some otherthing or wonder and all of those items and leader is gone? Inaction and slought are the bain of civ3 above the first two or three levels, you need to be moving and growing. Better yet, you need to be making the others civs shrink, cut down their armies and take their land, this prevents them for beating you in the research and wars.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gillskill
|
|
quote: This is of course just speculations, and I asked Gillspill to tell if he actually had the two leaders simultaneously. |
Yes, there were two leaders at the same time. Looking back over the thread there was about a 32 turn gap between them. One had been left (by the previous player), maybe because there was no GW to build and, like me, they saw that it would have strategically weakened our attack if an army had been made, and then a new one arose in battle.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dimension
|
 |
Columbus OH
Feb 2001 time: 00:17
|
|
3 in a turn? Nice.
I'd still like to see some solid numbers on leader generation. I've heard several people say chances are 1/16 or 6.25% of getting a leader (from elite units in non-barbarian combat, of course). I've also heard several times that your chances are 1/12 or 8.33% after you build The Heroic Epic. People also say your chances start off at 1/12 if you are Militaristic.
Has anybody in any way verified these numbers with Firaxis, with game code, or with extensive testing? How does the Military / Heroic Epic bonus stack? When you have both, are they they redundant (1/12 total, or 8.33%)? Are the resulting ratios additive (1/12 + 1/12 = 1/6 total, or 16.67%)?
Having played nothing but the Aztecs lately, I would have to say that I doubt it is 16.67% for both. What makes the most sense to me is that the bonuses themselves would be added. This could be done as follows:
base leader production = 6.25% (1/16)
militaristic = 6.25% + 2.0833% = 8.33% (1/12)
heroic epic = 6.25% + 2.0833% = 8.33% (1/12)
mil. + epic = 6.25% + 2.0833% + 2.0833% = 10.4167% (5/48)
This could be better expressed as:
code:
base leaders: 3/48 (1/16 or 6.2500%)
militaristic: 3/48 + 1/48 = 4/48 (1/12 or 8.3333%)
heroic epic: 3/48 + 1/48 = 4/48 (1/12 or 8.3333%)
mil. + heroic: 3/48 + 1/48 + 1/48 = 5/48 (5/48 or 10.4167%)
This seems logical, although I would bet it's still not how it works, or at least the numbers are off a little bit, because from a code standpoint, 12ths (and therefore 48ths) can't be expressed normally with byte, word, or double-word ratios. That is, 12 is not a factor of 256, 65536 or 4294967296. Firaxis could've coded these bonuses as type real, with a value of 0.0069444, but that seems odd.
The way C++ works, you predefine your max random integer, then use that for all random numbers generated. Generally, you're going to define RAND_MAX (+1) as either a power of 256 or a power of 10 (i.e. 65536, 100000, or something like that). That's why it seems strange that 48 is not divisible by any power of 256 or any power of 10. I doubt all random numbers in Civ3 are based off of factors of 48. It is common to use the following kind of statement to find a random number with max value n:
(double(rand())/RAND_MAX)*n
That works just fine, and may be the case with Civ3, but it just seems strange. Software that makes extensive use of random numbers will generally not use such an arbitraty inefficient method to generate those numbers.
Perhaps they are coded like this:
code:
base leaders: 16/256 (6.2500%)
militaristic: 16/256 + 5/256 = 21/256 (8.2031%)
heroic epic: 16/256 + 5/256 = 21/256 (8.2031%)
mil. + heroic: 16/256 + 5/256 + 5/256 = 26/256 (10.1563%)
That still seems a little odd, though. Anybody know how this actually works?
What I'm trying to say here is that I wouldn't be surprised if the whole theory of militaristic/heroic epic giving you a 1/12 chance of leaders was completely wrong.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|