A simple "statistical" question that makes a big difference in the game play:

Let's suppose you have two axemen, one well promoted and the other one just with Combat 1 and you are finding yourself with the task of capturing an enemy city with a lone archer inside. You check the percentages, and you see that the "good" axeman has 60% chance and the "bad" one has 30% chance (you can also change the numbers, if you want). The question is what do you think is best - attack first with the "good" one and if he loses then with the "bad" one on the injured archer, or make first an attack with the "bad" axeman and then (if he loses) with the good one?

It seems that the second method gives better chances for a "sure" ultimate win, but has the disadvantage of 1) losing more units if you conduct wars like this, and 2) since your "good" units are always attacking injured opponents, they will never reach too high levels in experience (reduced experience bonus).

Is it a matter of style, or has anyone thought of a strategy about it? The idea can be applied to many places in the game, not only in early rushes.

But the first one also has the disadvantage of more than likely losing the good unit

But the first one also has the disadvantage of more than likely losing the good unit
60% to win isn't "more than likely to lose" by any standard - but if you want you can change the numbers freely to 70-30 or whatever else and tell us what you do. In other words, just tell us when you feel sure and when you go the safe way.

I would usually attack with the "good" axeman first. 60% chance is much better than 30%. If he dies, he would damage the lone archer bad enough. My "bad" axeman should have no problem to finish the job and he would most likely be promoted to "good". In the end, I would still have at least one "good" axeman.

For me it would depend on how many other "well promoted" units I had. If this is my highest XP unit, I would attack with the weaker unit first. I would rather lose a pretty standard unit and have a greater chance of keeping the one I'm working up in promotions to allow me to eventually build the West Point and Pentagon wonders. If I had other units about equally promoted, then I might risk this one to have a better chance of having more units left after the battle.

When I have a larger stack, I'll frequently attack with the least-promoted of my units first. This means when I finally attack with my most-promited units they get less XP but they have a better chance of survival. I would rather have slower but surer promotions. Attacking with the most-promoted units first would give a chance of more XP gain, but comes with the risk of losing ALL those promotions when the unit loses the combat.

I hold my invasions until I've got at least a 70% chance of success. If I was in said scenario, I would keep my units near the city and wait for a catapult to arrive.

I won't attack unless I've done everything in my power to assure I will be successful.

60% to me is pretty much the same as 50 so I'd much rather attack with the weaker one then go stronger.

I would usually attack with the "good" axeman first. 60% chance is much better than 30%. If he dies, he would damage the lone archer bad enough. My "bad" axeman should have no problem to finish the job and he would most likely be promoted to "good". In the end, I would still have at least one "good" axeman.
Not a bad idea

I've tried a war (Cavalry vs longbowmen/grenaders basicly) in which I attack with the "bad" unit first, I lost a LOT of units, forcing the "good" units to seize a small window of oppertunity. They died. But this is most likely due to my impatience for the slowness of siege units. still, even if you lose with the "good" unit you will get an easyer fight with the "bad" one

If none of my units have odds higher than 70%, I prefer to save my better units, and so attack first with the weaker ones. I see promoted units as an investment which shouldn't be thrown away too lightly, however I can always replace newly built units, so losing them is not a problem. Also this way my promoted units aren't damaged that much, and so don't have to spend a lot of time to heal. Thus they can take part in more battles, and gain more experience.

I find that if I atack with the bad one first, I tend to not do enouth damage warranting the loss of production for the unit, rather raze the country side if you can't defeat the oponent in the cities.
cheers

I usually attack with the good one first. If it fails, you can still win with the bad one and then promote it to a good unit. If you win, you can then promote the good one and have yourself a great one.

if you attack with the weakest axeman first, chance are it will not deal enough damage to ensure victory for the good one, sometime it will not even deal any damage leaving you to an hard decision to or not to try with the good one, not trying meaning of course facing a promoted archer later.
I would do that ONLY if i want to save the good one at all cost for any reason, otherwise i would enforce victory by attcking with the good one first then the weaker one should almost always pick the city for you.

First one, obviously.
Not counting experience, you'll end with TWO units left in more cases. The rookie will have his chance to gain experience eventually... in a more fair fight, sometime!

if you attack with the weakest axeman first, chance are it will not deal enough damage to ensure victory for the good one, sometime it will not even deal any damage leaving you to an hard decision to or not to try with the good one, not trying meaning of course facing a promoted archer later.
I would do that ONLY if i want to save the good one at all cost for any reason, otherwise i would enforce victory by attcking with the good one first then the weaker one should almost always pick the city for you.

I agree, the good one is more likely to inflict hit points than the bad one. The bad one would surely be able to finish the job if the good one dies.

The whole combat odds info is crap.This causes a lot of frustration.
What's the difference between 60% and 80%?Or 70% and 90%?
This info can be reduced to good,equal and bad odds.

Another idea (feel free to criticize) would be replace the combat odds
for withdraw chance and scrap the useless flanking promotions for units.
Every unit should have a withdraw chance and no one wants to lose
a high XP unit to high combat odds.

On topic,I wouldn't attack with both.The risk is too high losing both.

Am I the only one here who doesn't mind attacking with bad odds?

Sheesh, on the higher levels, you gotta strategerize and take a chance at some point.

What would I do? \

I need to know the following.

Early game or Late game?
What's my civ?
Who am I fighting?
How important is this city, locationally?
How important is this city strategically?
Is it an AI production center?
How useful will the city be to my empire?
Is it developed?
What kind of victory am I going for?
Do I have other units with better XP elsewhere?

There is no set answer. And there is no simple answer.

Think dammit!

not quite as much questions as jericho,
but given infos aren't enough to choose.

If you want that city this turn, go with the good one first. If not, want for a cat, pillage whatever, but 60% is just not enough for this one, if you don't have massive backup.
My other questions are:
- what reinforcements are coming on my side, on the enemy's side? (taking down the archer, to lose with a wounded bad axemen next turn to the reinforcement isn't going nowhere)
- what other cities/troops do the AI have?
- how much do you need this city right now?

Obviously, if it's the last city, with the last archer, i'll go for it. If it isn't, and my reinforcements are a bit far away, i go pillaging.

This is clearly an issue in the early game and not so much in the late game.

It would be nice to know the chance that Mr 30% will get a hit in and do some damage.

Does he have any first strike promotions?

In this situation I'd probably attack with the bad one first. I'd rather have a mostly healthy, highly promoted axeman left behind and be fairly sure of losing one of them than risk having neither axeman or an unexperienced one left. After all, if I'm sending two axes, it's because I expect to use them both.
It does depend on how many reinforcements I have etc. I assume that in this situation it's a small party I've sent to take a minor city away from his main forces and probably mine, and therefore I want to be sure of taking the city with just these two, because otherwise I'm going to have to waste time sending another party over, when I really want to have conquered the whole empire by then.

I've been playing with cossacks against phalanx/longbow/spearmen and I find that it's far better to use the cossack with 90-95% than the less promoted one with 70-75%. When I have this much advantage and fewer troops I need to preserve as many cossacks as I can, rather than save the promoted units. There's usually only one nasty defender anyway, and then the unpromoted ones can take out the rest.

Am I the only one here who doesn't mind attacking with bad odds?
The AI does it very often,even at 4.6%.

I can't remember ever going to take a city with less than 3 units. But if i had 3, i would sent the new guy every time and get my good one promoted higher. I always want 2 more units than the defender.

Many of you stick too much in NUMBERS and trivia, while the question was a different one. If you want the same question with 3 units, have 3 units 60-30-30 or whatever else. You can also make it "4 axemen vs two archers, 60-60-30-30 odds, or 6 grenadier vs 3 riflemen, 60-60-60-40-40-40 odds". My point is to see how much is it reasonable to risk.

And no, you can't wait for catapults - they are about 2000 years away for this scenario. Also don't stick in specific units: suppose it's Modern Armor age but the situation is same: imagine you have two Modern Armors vs one, with odds 60-30, and you want (for whatever the reason you think critical - perhaps because you want to save that town) to attack at THAT turn and you don't have any more Stealth Bombers around. Which way do you go?

As correctly stated by some, AI is not afraid to start with the low odds units - but I wonder if this is a correct policy (that's why I posted the question).

I need to know the following.

Early game or Late game?
What's my civ?
Who am I fighting?
How important is this city, locationally?
How important is this city strategically?
Is it an AI production center?
How useful will the city be to my empire?
Is it developed?
What kind of victory am I going for?
Do I have other units with better XP elsewhere?

I'm gonna add some other questions:
- How many cities do you intend to take after this one?
- How long has the war been going on (war weariness)?
- How long can you keep up the war (war weariness)?
- How much time does it take to make a new unit and get it there?

In most cases though, I'll attack with the strongest unit that hasn't reached Combat IV yet. (I'm not going to risk a future commando unit)

given the new infos by the op, I go with the good one first
odds are he lives
if he doesn't you have high odds to get the city anyway
So in the end you should have 2 axemen left, one being in full health. If per bad luck you don't, you still got the city with one hurt axeman that should get a promotion (giving him some health back).


The other way round,
the bad axeman usually gets killed, odds are high he doesn't even scratch the defender
the good one should get the city, but will be hurt bad. It could happen you end up losing!
With this solution, you in most case end up with one hurt axeman, that probably won't get any promotion (higher promotion are a far way to go). You can even end with nothing!