My first eight attempts at approximately 60% and the results..... zero success. By my poor math skills that comes to 1 chance in 1,500 of happening by chance. Is this bugged?
Colonialize Sucess = 60%
- Thread starter morganja
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Wow that's bad luck! =(
Well, statistically those things do happen sometimes. 1 in 1500 chance isn't all that unlikely when you consider the many thousands of people playing EU.
What province is it you're trying to colonize?
Well, statistically those things do happen sometimes. 1 in 1500 chance isn't all that unlikely when you consider the many thousands of people playing EU.
What province is it you're trying to colonize?
Manhatten, Moron and Martinique. Is it just provinces that start with m that won't colonize?
By the way, not to throw this off topic, but how do you repay a loan if you miss the pop-up box?
A savegame edit. Easiest would be to go through the save, find your country. Wipe out the loan, then deduct its value from your cash total.
The savegame files are written in a fairly easy to understand pseudo-english. Search for items that will be associated with your country's information in the save, such as the exact badboy score.
The savegame files are written in a fairly easy to understand pseudo-english. Search for items that will be associated with your country's information in the save, such as the exact badboy score.
Thanks. Found it. Being able to pay it off in your ledger would be a little more convenient..
I got that problem too when i was playing as Germany and i was trying to colonize Sierra leon and Gold Coast in Africa . I found out what to do: I put one of my armies on the province that i was trying to colonize. Then i pressd attack natives like forever until my colonisation attempt was successful. Then I kept on sending colonists until it got to 1000+ colonists then i formed a city. It takes abit of work but its worth it the gold keeps on flowing in my game now.
As the last poster said, killing off the natives will help a lot. It's just bad luck other than that. I tried colonising Havana, and it took around twelve attempts before I managed it while the rest of the island, and the others I colonised, only took one or two attempts. It happens sometimes, but believe me, killing the natives will help. It was the only reason I managed to colonise Havana.
It's not necessary all the time though, once you reach 1000 any surviving natives join the city (I think?), so sometimes it's worth leaving the the less agressive ones.
It's not necessary all the time though, once you reach 1000 any surviving natives join the city (I think?), so sometimes it's worth leaving the the less agressive ones.
Last edited:
I sometimes get the feeling there's something fishy about the success percentages the game presents. My most recent experience comes from merchants, and not colonists though. I sent 17 merchants with 99% chance and 5 were succesful. I even kept statistics of all the few hundred merchants I sent during that game and my soccess rate was consistently lower than the COT information window showed as my chance of success. :wacko:
Abraxas said:
Are you sure that the 99% was not just the chance of arriving safely. You still have to compete with the merchants already there unless there are open positions.
Its pretty unlikely your chance was 99%... Hover your cursor over the other merchants and you see your chance.
And on the original poster. If the natives were still there, were they not just revolting once your colonist came? Because that's outside of the statistics, you'd get a pop up saying the natives destroyed your colony. But those natives are pretty peaceful up there (Pocahontas and all) so I'm afraid it could just be bad luck. 60% for a first try is pretty high.
BTW if you get a city founded, the territories around it will get a bonus in colonization chance. But thats only really needed for the first one, after that the chance rises quickly.
And on the original poster. If the natives were still there, were they not just revolting once your colonist came? Because that's outside of the statistics, you'd get a pop up saying the natives destroyed your colony. But those natives are pretty peaceful up there (Pocahontas and all) so I'm afraid it could just be bad luck. 60% for a first try is pretty high.
BTW if you get a city founded, the territories around it will get a bonus in colonization chance. But thats only really needed for the first one, after that the chance rises quickly.
I'm pretty sure 99% equals to 100% in EU3, they can never fail. But <99% can. Not sure if this is correct though.
I too suspect fishiness in some of the probability subroutines, or what have you. A while back I did a small study of dice rolls, and found that computer averaged about 10% higher than me in a hundred or so rolls.
It's easy to get frustrated by events that seem to occur despite all odds. Spy missions especially seem prone to worse-than-expected results.
However, to determine whether there really is a bias, you would need to to an exhaustive study recording all of your successes and failures. With dice rolls, that would be easy, you can just record the differentials, since there's always the same probability; you also have a huge potential sample size.
Things like missionaries and colonists would require a somewhat more sophisticated model, because they have variable success probabilities. Perhaps you could record successes as 100's and failures as 0's, and record the success percentages the day before the event occurs (ie the day before a colonist is set to arrive). Then average the two (after accumulating a good sample size, like 750 or 1500) and see if there's a bias. You could even try to do it with AI missions, to see if they operate at some advantage.
It's easy to get frustrated by events that seem to occur despite all odds. Spy missions especially seem prone to worse-than-expected results.
However, to determine whether there really is a bias, you would need to to an exhaustive study recording all of your successes and failures. With dice rolls, that would be easy, you can just record the differentials, since there's always the same probability; you also have a huge potential sample size.
Things like missionaries and colonists would require a somewhat more sophisticated model, because they have variable success probabilities. Perhaps you could record successes as 100's and failures as 0's, and record the success percentages the day before the event occurs (ie the day before a colonist is set to arrive). Then average the two (after accumulating a good sample size, like 750 or 1500) and see if there's a bias. You could even try to do it with AI missions, to see if they operate at some advantage.
hahahhaha that's great.
I used to do that but it took way way waaaay too long to resign, reload every time and I realized that if I was cheating anyways why not do it fast.
I used to do that but it took way way waaaay too long to resign, reload every time and I realized that if I was cheating anyways why not do it fast.
morganja said:
The random number generator Paradox uses is known for its strange way of working. It is not accurate in the short term, but accurate in the long term.
This means you'll get clusters of the same result, but when looking at the big picture (the game over the centuries) the % are more or less correct.
ubik said:
Random number generators are never accurate in the short term. That statement doesn't really make sense.
you're saying the random number generator creates the clusters on purpose? That would make it somewhat less random.
I seem to recall discussions on many, many other games, where gamers claim that a random number generator often isn't all that random.
That is...people report being able to generate statistically very improbable results, by figuring out the mechanisms behind the randomiser. (Eg, some actually use the an algorithm based on the computer's internal clock, and such, so a small tool can tell you when to roll to get a better result.)
That is...people report being able to generate statistically very improbable results, by figuring out the mechanisms behind the randomiser. (Eg, some actually use the an algorithm based on the computer's internal clock, and such, so a small tool can tell you when to roll to get a better result.)
Timmetie said:
Actually, either you don't play the same game, you did not understand what I said or you are not making sense.
One thing I did not say was about the random number generator creating clusters of results on purpose.