No, not the stupidity that gunships can't fly over water, which is always the case, but things that purport to work one way and sometimes don't.

Castles are stated to provide no defence against gunpowder units. But I've recently bombarded three cities, each showing 20% defence, using battleships which are rated at doing 20% bombardment damage: city A, with walls but no castle, went down to (20 - 20)% which is zero; city B, with walls and a castle, went down to (20 -(20% of 20))%, that is to 16%; and city C, also with walls and a castle, went down to zero like city A.

In my previous game, Great Generals appeared at 30, 60 and 90 points (only got three, plus the free one). In my current game at exactly the same settings (huge, 3 continents, Emperor, normal speed) they came at 30, 75 and soon at 120 points: after that, who knows ?

Why can a full-strength tank, showing movement 2 and adjacent to more than one enemy unit, sometimes make only one attack even if it was undamaged in its first ?

Why do those of my units which have a "withdraw" option always and invariably fight until they die against even slightly stronger opponents (against weaker opponents, my units frequently withdraw when their next hit would take the foe below the permitted damage threshhold) whereas the AI's similar units can, and do, withdraw sooner ? I saw two catapults attack a damaged tank of mine: first cat was killed, second withdrew, tank still had about half strength and could have taken another hit.

Um, I'm pretty sure a unit can only attack once per turn...I could be wrong I guess but that's always been my experience.

Um, I'm pretty sure a unit can only attack once per turn...I could be wrong I guess but that's always been my experience.

With the blitz promotion a unit can attack multiple times per turn.

if your tanks used up some of their movement they might not be able to make the second attack on that turn - the terrain type that they moved into could be the factor slowing them down. And for the second poster, the blitz promotion allows multiple attacks per turn, and tanks for instance come with the blitz promotion automatically.

gunships should not be able to fly over water - they can't fly over the ocean in real life without having a carrier or something nearby for landing/refueling, so this makes sense in the game - each tile represents a long distance and it's just a game balancing thing in the way they designed the game, to make these units less powerful (they are already pretty powerful as is)

your great general appearance rate is affected by other factors - if you are an Imperialistic leader you get them faster. if you built the Great Wall you get them faster if fighting in your own lands.

withdrawal promotion is only a chance at withdrawal, it is not guaranteed they will withdraw

I said "showing movement 2". In other words, the tanks in question had not moved before making their first, and sometimes only, attack.
Gunships can move 4 tiles: why should it make a difference if some of them are water ?
Imperialistic affects the rate at which "GG points" accumulate, as does the Great Wall. Neither should affect the GG-emergence trigger levels, just the speed at which these levels are reached. Anyway, my traits were the same in both games and did not include Imperialistic, nor in either game did I have the Great Wall.
I know that withdrawal is chance-based. But never for me, and often for the AI ?

I would post saves of the two games... I am betting someone if not myself can figure out the reasons for some of this stuff. I'm amazed at how often I've seemed sure it's a bug but someone comes along with an explanation.

for the withdrawal thing, I think you are just having some bad luck on a few rolls don't you think? so you are saying that you never get a withdrawal when your unit is fighting a slightly stronger opponent? I think the odds are stacked in favor of the stronger opponent of course, so you won't see this very often, but it should happen sometimes. then again, withdrawal chances are usually only like 10-20% I think

also there might be more complicated factors with the withdrawal promotion - I don't understand it all myself but I know these are just random odds and the AI is not given "cheats" in this area of combat

If attacking a 2-movement tile, a tank will not be able to move anymore. Is it possible that you thought it was a 1-move tile and it was not (oasis often get me on this)?

Re GG points, it really does read like you are playing by different rulesets (mod). I have personally changed my GG requirements so I cannot compare.

IIRC the text for castles it states that the bombard bonus does not get obsoleted only the defensive bonus.

Tanks use movement cost of tile they are moving on to. So attacking a hill would take 2 moves of the tank.

Withdraw is much more effective for units that have bad odds of winning. Damage is based on the strength of the units. The strength of the tank is much larger than the cat. So it may be hitting the cat for 55 points of damage. So the cat will take its withdraw roll at say 50 health. That same tank attacking a cat will only be getting it for maybe 5 points so it will only roll its withdraw chance at say 4 health. (not actual numbers, only there for visuialization.)

My only other idea as to these errors is selective memory.

I totally agree with Bushface concerning Gunships. THEY MUST BE ABLE TO ATTACK OVER OCEAN/SEA TILES. Then they should return to land tiles or carriers.

Quite an idiot thing to forbid Gunships intervening in naval combat.

for the withdrawal thing, I think you are just having some bad luck on a few rolls don't you think? so you are saying that you never get a withdrawal when your unit is fighting a slightly stronger opponent? I think the odds are stacked in favor of the stronger opponent of course, so you won't see this very often, but it should happen sometimes. then again, withdrawal chances are usually only like 10-20% I think. - Llama Cat

Well, so far as mounted units withdrawing. I could have hundreds of attacks in any given game, and maybe, if I'm lucky, I'll get a couple of withdrawals. I have the best luck with withdrawals with simply chariots. I can't ever recall having a cavalry ever withdraw. Which is highly irritating, because I can recall numerous occassions where an entire stack of AI cavalry will roll up and maybe...75% of them will withdraw. It doesn't matter the defending unit either, rifleman, infantry, tanks, modern armors...AI cavalry withdraw at remarkable rates. Certainly at levels above 10%, or even 30%...

So far as war goes, nothing is more annoying than the withdrawal rates of AI siege units/cavalry, compared to what you're blessed with.

On withdrawal: it's not just a few bad rolls, it's every time my units attack a stronger one, they die, but quite often the AI units do their bit of damage to the target unit (and more by collateral) and withdraw successfully.

On bombardment: rechecking, I see that Walls do protect against bombardment by gunpowder units - but only if the target city has a cultural defence of 20% or 40%, less than the 50% from Walls. So a city with Walls and 60% cultural defence is less resistant to gunpowder bombardment than one with Walls and a 20% cultural defence.

On Blitz: I repeat that a Tank, at full health, with all movement available, attacking with no defence bonuses from hills or deserts and with over 99% winning odds, sometimes makes its kill and can then make no further attack nor move. At other times a damaged tank in similar circumstances can make two attacks, provided it doesn't take too much damage - and I'd like to know the hit-point threshhold below which only one attack is permitted; it is apparently not related to combat odds.

I have already posted a WB-created save in another thread (somewhere - if I could find it I would add a link if I knew how to do that) for testing the bombardment-defence conditions. It wouldn't be hard to add some units for testing withdrawal.

P.S. The bombardment test save-game is attached to post #8 in a thread entitled "Bombardment" started by me on Nov. 11th.

On Blitz: I repeat that a Tank, at full health, with all movement available, attacking with no defence bonuses from hills or deserts and with over 99% winning odds, sometimes makes its kill and can then make no further attack nor move.

The question is what type of tile are you attacking? If you're attacking a unit on a hill/forest/jungle/oasis, that attack will use up both of the tank's movement points.

I can't ever recall having a cavalry ever withdraw. Which is highly irritating, because I can recall numerous occassions where an entire stack of AI cavalry will roll up and maybe...75% of them will withdraw. It doesn't matter the defending unit either, rifleman, infantry, tanks, modern armors...AI cavalry withdraw at remarkable rates. Certainly at levels above 10%, or even 30%...
On withdrawal: it's not just a few bad rolls, it's every time my units attack a stronger one, they die, but quite often the AI units do their bit of damage to the target unit (and more by collateral) and withdraw successfully.
Then you are either suffering from selective memory (most likely), or you have a much different version of the game than I do.

And you would expect cavalry to withdraw at rates over 30%; they come with a 30% rate builtin, and you can bump that up to 60% with the flanking promotions.

Not selective memory: ever since I first noticed that my units weren't withdrawing as I had reason to expect, I have kept a very careful eye on any such attacks either by me or the AI. The result is as I said previously. Even though a mouseover +Alt shows my catapult as having "Retreat odds 99% " (or whatever), what this means is that my winning odds are 1% and my catapult will, every time, die. Only when on the point of losing against a weaker opponent will my units withdraw - sometimes - or on the very rare occasions when they have actually brought their weaker foe down to the damage threshhold.
And I reiterate that terrain is not in any way responsible for the only-one-attack situation occurring. Moreover, it appears that the Blitz promotion is not applicable when bombarding, at least when using a battleship: it remains to be seen if I can catch a fleet to blast, or if my ship can both bombard and attack a vessel or two. Nor have I yet tried giving Blitz to a siege weapon.
Also, hasn't anyone any explanation for the varying GG-level condition ?

Not selective memory: ever since I first noticed that my units weren't withdrawing as I had reason to expect, I have kept a very careful eye on any such attacks either by me or the AI.
Okay then -- what are the statistics? What were the actual loss and withdraw totals you observed for each different unit? (And for this purpose, a flanking II chariot is a different unit than a chariot without flanking)



And I reiterate that terrain is not in any way responsible for the only-one-attack situation occurring.
You must realize since you haven't acknowledged you looked at the amount of movement it would actually take for your tank to move to the tile you attacked, that your word isn't very persuasive.

And you would expect cavalry to withdraw at rates over 30%; they come with a 30% rate builtin, and you can bump that up to 60% with the flanking promotions. - MyOtherName

I believe they start at ten, and get promoted to 30.

Then you are either suffering from selective memory (most likely), or you have a much different version of the game than I do. - MyOtherName

I wish there was some sort of program out there that catalouged the entire history of war. A program that tabulated all the attacks, how many times you withdraw, your enemy withdraws. A collection of statistics that shows how many times you win at 10% chance, 20% chance, 30% chance...so on and so forth, and how your enemies do as well. Not to mention a tabulation of how many times you use seige weapons, and it doesn't do ANY damage to the attacking unit, and how many times you get that benefit...

But no such thing exists.

I could take all the screenshots in the world. I could tabulate a whole game myself. But it wouldn't satisfy you. But I'll say it one more time. Over the course of a whole game, a game with lots of war, with hundeds, perhaps thousands of "Battles." I will only get a small handful, less than 10 withdrawals over the course of a game. It never happens, regardless of the supposid "odds" are of getting a withdrawal.

I believe they start at ten, and get promoted to 30.
civfanatics and civilopedia both say Cavalry start with a 30% withdraw chance.


I could take all the screenshots in the world. I could tabulate a whole game myself. But it wouldn't satisfy you.
Anecdotal evidence won't satisfy me. Cold, hard statistics which show a statistically significant deviation from the claimed withdrawl rates would prompt me to investigate.



But I'll say it one more time. Over the course of a whole game, a game with lots of war, with hundeds, perhaps thousands of "Battles." I will only get a small handful, less than 10 withdrawals over the course of a game. It never happens, regardless of the supposid "odds" are of getting a withdrawal.
I'll see your anecdotal evidence and raise you my own anecdotal evidence! I recently won a mounted domination victory; my knights swept over part of the continent, cuirassiers for the next part, and cavalry finished off my last opponents. I used the flanking promotions a lot, and I was rewarded with the expected frequent withdrawl rate.

Going back further... Hatsheput is one of my favorite leaders to play as -- the reason is because I once decided to use war chariots and was amazed at just how frequently they would retreat rather than die. (No more than chariots, of course, but I hadn't used chariots much at that time either)

Okay then -- what are the statistics? What were the actual loss and withdraw totals you observed for each different unit? (And for this purpose, a flanking II chariot is a different unit than a chariot without flanking)




You must realize since you haven't acknowledged you looked at the amount of movement it would actually take for your tank to move to the tile you attacked, that your word isn't very persuasive.

1). Total number of attacks made with units which had a possibility of withdrawal: not recorded, but estimated as thirty or forty over several games.
Total withdrawals when attacking stronger units: zero.
Total withdrawals when attacking weaker units: five (one Cat., four Cav.)
No flanking promotions have ever been given by me. After all, if a catapult is shown as having a 99% retreat chance then why bother with increasing that ?
2). In two attacks I have made since opening this thread, both my tanks were on grassland at full health (one with C3 and one with Barr3), attacked stacks of several assorted units (pikes, maces and trebuchets) also on grassland, made one kill plus collateral from the B3 tank, and then showed no further movement available and hence could not attack again. During my clearing-up operations, my other tanks have been able to make the expected two attacks - provided, of course, that there were two targets on a tile, or tiles, adjacent to the tank, that it had two movements available, and that it wasn't too badly damaged; moreover, terrain appeared to make no difference other that to the defence bonus of those of the enemy units which could recieve such additional defence. Clear ?
In any case, if movement on to a hill uses a movement point and an attack also uses a movement point, then no unit with only one movement point available could ever attack another unit which was on a hill. This is definitely not the case.

In any case, if movement on to a hill uses a movement point and an attack also uses a movement point, then no unit with only one movement point available could ever attack another unit which was on a hill. This is definitely not the case.

That logic is a little mangled there Bushface. Any unit can move onto any tile with it's last move, and if there's an enemy unit on the tile it will attack it and retreat. The attack itself is of no relevance to how many moves it consumes. If a tank attacks a unit on a tile which requires one move to go on to (i.e. any flat non forest/jungle/oasis) it uses one move point. If it attacks onto a two move tile, it consumes two for the move and none for the attack, that's all there is to it.

A tank can therefore only attack once if the enemy is on a two move tile, or twice on a flatland tile. You could technically get two attacks against a hill with a general unit and extra move promotion.

And I'm sorry, but anecdotes are meaningless. I've never seen a tank, or any other blitz unit break those rules and you pulling vague memories of past games isn't going to change that. If it's happening put up a set of screenshots or a save game. I suspect when you try, you'll find it isn't happening. There's a reason people push for this kind of proof - because people's memory is so selective and unreliable. If you cannot produce it, then the only conclusion is that what you say is not in fact occuring. I've seen this loop go round and round with accusations of broken combat odds and cheating AIs. If it exists, show some evidence.

Anecdotal evidence won't satisfy me. Cold, hard statistics which show a statistically significant deviation from the claimed withdrawl rates would prompt me to investigate. - myothername

Well, unfortunately, there's no way to verify such things. Nonewhatsoever. So we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

Going back further... Hatsheput is one of my favorite leaders to play as -- the reason is because I once decided to use war chariots and was amazed at just how frequently they would retreat rather than die. (No more than chariots, of course, but I hadn't used chariots much at that time either) - MyOtherName

That's funny, because I like using those units too (mainly because of mobility, but I like immortals more.) I really...very rarely get early withdrawals from chariots, war chariots, or immortals.

Well, unfortunately, there's no way to verify such things. Nonewhatsoever. So we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

Actually there is. You can supply exact specifications of the units you claim you're seeing odd results with, and we can then use world builder to test a few hundred of such combats to see if the retreat odds are accurate. It's been done for combat odds before, and there's no reason a proper test couldn't be done in this situation.

1). Total number of attacks made with units which had a possibility of withdrawal: not recorded, but estimated as thirty or forty over several games.
Total withdrawals when attacking stronger units: zero.
Total withdrawals when attacking weaker units: five (one Cat., four Cav.)
No flanking promotions have ever been given by me. After all, if a catapult is shown as having a 99% retreat chance then why bother with increasing that ?

Am I raight in saying that it makes 5 over 35? So approximately 15% of your attacks which failed? I don't see any inconsistencies there.

As for the tank thing, considering that everyone believes differently than you, I suggest you to provide a save to show your point. Otherwise, no one will believe you.

The tank thing: unless I had saved before every tank attack and remembered (after finding that a second attack was not possible) to go back and reload that save for posting, I could not (and cannot) provide a save. But believe me please, because it has happened. Furthermore, it still doesn't make sense that a one-move unit can attack on a hill whereas a two-move unit which has only one move remaining as a result of having made an attack cannot - though if it has moved and has a move remaining then it can make one attack. What does make a difference is whether the tank's tile and the adjacent target hill tile are connected (by road or rail) or not: in the first case, a second attack is (usually) permitted, if the tiles are not so connected then no second attack is allowed.
As for my idea that a damaged tank can make only one attack anyway, this is totally wrong, which means that I have had more occasions than I previously thought in which a second attack has not been allowed. Testing in WB reveals that a tank can make as many as 10 attacks if the enemy has been fool enough to put a line of weak units along a railway in neutral land, and that working along a line of stronger units the tank can still attack when it is down to only 0.8 strength.

Withdrawals: I haven't had 15% failed attacks, I've had 15% successful withdrawals, all against weaker opponents. Since flanking promotions only come into effect when your unit is at death's door, which for my units is always wide open, I have never used them, and based on horrid experience I no longer make suicide attacks. Why drag a catapult across enemy lands at one tile per turn just to lose it for the sake of some paltry collateral damage ?

Why drag a catapult across enemy lands at one tile per turn just to lose it for the sake of some paltry collateral damage ?

Because by doing so it will save the lives of five swordsman who who most likely would have died had the catapult just sat there? ;)

So you reckon the collateral damage will improve the swordsmen's odds by so much ? When a catapult costs more than a swordsman ?

So you reckon the collateral damage will improve the swordsmen's odds by so much ? When a catapult costs more than a swordsman ?

As far as I'm concerned, smart and judicious use of "disposapults" is a cornerstone war strategy, as is siege weapons in general. Most players will probably agree to some degree or another.

A tank can therefore only attack once if the enemy is on a two move tile, or twice on a flatland tile. You could technically get two attacks against a hill with a general unit and extra move promotion.

And has anyone realized that a unit with blitz and commando could potentially do 6 strikes against an enemy city (with roads and engineering) in one turn?

Furthermore, it still doesn't make sense that a one-move unit can attack on a hill whereas a two-move unit which has only one move remaining as a result of having made an attack cannot - though if it has moved and has a move remaining then it can make one attack.

Exactly! It doesn't make sense! Thus the main reason why I'm asking for a save. I don't know if you realize, given the complexity of the game, the number of complains for bugs made from users that were, in fact, due to a misunderstanding somewhere in the game.

As for the withdrawal thing, I realize I did not understand what your numbers are. I understood that you made 30 or 40 fights with units that had an opportunity to retreat (a % of retreat odds), that 5 of them survived and the rest died. If that's not the case could you please explain more clearly?

Also don't forget that, since BTS, the behaviour of "retreat" is different for siege units and for other units.

I very rarely see MY mounted units withdrawing, and I never use them for only damaging enemy.

I never base on my tactics on withdrawal chances, because they are so low.
however, I also observed that AI's units more often withdraw... (without flanking promotions , of course)

This is confusing on so many levels...

The basics of "Withdrawal Warfare":
Catapults (or all siege units for that case) will withdraw or die, never win.
So if the Catapult shows a 99% of retreat, this means it is quite sure to win.
Ive never checked for the retreat odds of winning cats, but then again they are the first attack wave who i calculate to not return.

For Mounted units, this is a bit different.
The will only withdraw if the lose the battle, and THEN roll successfully on their withdraw value.
Which means a double-flank cavalry (50% withdraw) showing 80% win chance, has a 20% to lose.
Of these 20%, it will retreat half the time, being 10%.
So a 50% withdraw Cav with 80% chance to win has the followinng chances:
80% win
10% withdraw
10% die.

So if you attack with vastly overpowered withdraw units, chances are you wont see too many retreats.

Siege units:
Trebuchet, 20% win, 10% (base withdraw?, cant tell here at work) withdraw:
80% lose, of which 10% are withdraw (10% of 80% = 8%)

20% win (withdraw)
72% die
8% withdraw

so a trebuchet with 10% base withdraw and 20% win has 28% chance to survive the fight.
Thats more than 1 in 4, though it may seem very crappy at glance, it means of 8 trebs 2 survive. maybe 3. check this in world builder.

I very rarely see MY mounted units withdrawing, and I never use them for only damaging enemy.
Well, if you never use flanking promotions, and most of your fights have very high win percentages, then of course you will rarely see your mounted units withdrawing. ;) (And that would be true even with a 100% withdrawl rate!)


I never base on my tactics on withdrawal chances, because they are so low.
however, I also observed that AI's units more often withdraw... (without flanking promotions , of course)
40-50% is low? I base my tactics on withdrawl chances because it is hammer efficient.

When a swordsman doesn't win, you have lost 40 hammers.
When a flanking II chariot doesn't win, you have lost 15 hammers.
When a flanking II horse archer doesn't win, you have lost 25 hammers.
(On average)

If you only ever fight battles where you significantly overpower the enemy, then clearly you won't see utility in any tactic other than "throw strong units at the enemy until they die". But when you're faced with a real defense where even your strongest city attackers would have poor odds on the initial attack, then it's usually better to start the fight with mounted units, because the expected cost is so much less.


Even the odds are in your favor, it may still be better to use flanking. If your Combat III cavalry have 50% win odds and your Combat I Flanking II Cavalary have 30% win odds, then the flanking cavalry have a better chance of surviving the fight. (50% win, 18% withdraw, 32% die versus 30% win, 42% withdraw, 28% die).

I base the defense of my cities on Withdraw/Flanking.

10 Horse Archers with double-flanking (50% retreat) WILL cause collatteral damage to siege units AT LEAST 49% of the time.
They will do collatteral damage if fighting mechanized infantry fortified on a forest-hill 50% of the time. (Provided the mech infantry brings catapults that is.)

without catapults, the AI will either stay and heal up (whoppe for reinforcements) or attack without proper siegeworks (breaking upon walls)

Bushface:
Furthermore, it still doesn't make sense that a one-move unit can attack on a hill whereas a two-move unit which has only one move remaining as a result of having made an attack cannot

Not only does it not make sense, but I don't believe that anybody has suggested that that is what is going on.

What is going on is that the first attack onto a hill/forest/jungle/oasis by a two movement point, blitz unit uses up both movement points.

All military units, regardless of their total number of movement points can move or attack onto a hill. If the unit has only one movement point, it can no longer move/attack. If the unit has two movement points it can no longer move/attack. But if a unit with two movement points was moving or attacking onto a tile that only took up 1 movement point - flat, unforested, non oasis tile - it will have one movement point left and will be treated as a 1 movement unit for the rest of the turn.

- though if it has moved and has a move remaining then it can make one attack. What does make a difference is whether the tank's tile and the adjacent target hill tile are connected (by road or rail) or not: in the first case, a second attack is (usually) permitted, if the tiles are not so connected then no second attack is allowed.

All of this is covered by the explanation given.

Assuming I have my combat simulator working, I just ran an experiment.

Situation: You are facing City Guardian II archers in a city with 40% cultural defense, not on a hill.

City Raider II Swordsmen suffer a slight disadvantage here; the total modifiers are:
-55% for city attack
+50% city defense (for archer)
+40% tile defense
+45% from city guardian
+25% from fortify
and the combat is 6.00 versus 6.15. A slight disadvantage has a significant effect on combat odds; you expect to lose around 28.4 hammers for each archer you need to kill. And there's that 1 first strike the archer has!

If you use Flanking II Chariots for the sole purpose of attacking uninjured archers, the situation improves significantly: you expect to lose 24.1 hammers per archer.

Flanking II Horse Archers offer another significant improvement: when used optimally, your expected losses drop to 20.3 hammers per archer.
(I don't know the rule for using them optimally; my optimizer suggests Horse Archers in certain ranges and Swordsmen in other ones, and I haven't computed a simple rule that you could use in game)

(Allowing combat promotions offers a miniscule improvement over always using flanking)

In fact, pure horse archers are better than pure swordsmen: with Flanking II, your expected losses are 21.5 hammers per archer. With appropriate use of combat II horse archers, that drops to 20.2.


If we increase the cultural defense to 60%, the all-swordsman army expects to lose 32.0 hammers per archer.

If you use Flanking II Chariots against archers with 89 or more HP, your losses drop to 26.3 hammers per archer.

Flanking II Horse Archers drop your losses to 25.1 hammers per archer. Swordsmen shouldn't be used until the archers are at 80 HP or less. Again, you can do slightly better if you use combat promotions in a nonobvious way.


(The cost of casualties in this post is a little less than reality.

I dont get all your :hammer:/Archer calculations, but i see it this way:

Flanking II Horse archers have at least 50% chance to survive.
Swordsmen die more easily.

Also, horses are way faster than swords, giving him less time to slave counters.
Big plus here.

Side Note: I also think the AI prioritizes Axes over Spears, if you dont exactly park them Horse Archers next to their borders.

So a hidden stack of HAs that breaks through in 2 turns is the best way to take that cities of him.

So you reckon the collateral damage will improve the swordsmen's odds by so much ? When a catapult costs more than a swordsman ?

I don't reckon - I know from hundreds of instances of experience. Try it a few times, particularly on large assaults. Bombard the defences and check your odds... If they're acceptable, just send the swordsmen/macemen/whatever in. If not, blow a catapult (crossing your fingers for a withdraw). It is not at all rare that using a sacrificial catapult ups combat odds 25% or more for the subsequent fights.

The big catch is... Let's say the first catapult has a 25% chance of success. It goes in, likely dies, and then the units jump from a 25'ish% to a 50%'ish percentile chance of victory. Send in another cat, good chance it lives - and all of the sudden you're looking at a 70+% of victory on all subsequent fights. Send in another cat, and it likely lives, and boom - you'll hear a dozen subsequent victory sounds in a row as a result of one or two lost cats, whereas before you'd end up blowing half your stack getting past those one or two archers/longbowmen/riflemen/infantry right off the bat. Catapults are tremendously useful as sacrificial units - of course, you don't do it if you don't have to, but doing so will make the difference between failure and success.

Bottom line whatever costs more to make, it's much easier to reinforce one or two catapults than five swordsman/macemen/whatever deep into enemy territory.

@bushface - It still sounds to me like you misunderstand the movement rules. Here is my experience so far, and every time I think I see a failure like you're talking about (What? My tank can't attack again?), when I look at the tile again, I see I was wrong.

When you attack a square with only one unit on it and succeed, your unit moves into that square, and the normal movement point cost is deducted from your unit.

When you attack a square with more than one unit on it and succeed, your unit cannot move onto the square, and the full movement point cost of the attacked square is deducted -- ignoring any roads. Single MP units will not be able to move, and tanks attacking a hill/forest/jungle/oasis (as pointed out earlier) will not be able to move/attack again.

If you are saying that you have found a case where you have a tank that can move but cannot attack, make a save and post it.

Maybe, concerning the helicopters, someone could mod it in that helis could go 1 tile away from carriers, so that it's not unbalanced...
But the hard part'd be finding a way to do this, as i've never been able to see a unit "Leashed" to another unit 1 or more tiles away.
They should also be able to fly over coast.