Happy Holidays Roland
Yes, I did read your earlier posting and mistakenly took oyzar's confirmation of your description as a sign there had been more serious changes made to combat mechanics.
As for that quote I pasted two postings ago, let me expand it a bit:
If the expected attacker bonus that is eventually subtracted from the defender’s bonus is greater than the defender’s bonus, the peculiarity helps the attacker (i.e., when overall value for the defender bonus is negative). That is, both the attacker and the defender have bonuses, but the attacker’s bonus is larger than the defender’s. So, a lot of bonuses will be more valuable than expected if they overcome defender’s bonus. If you’re attacking fortified units in cities, for example, that don’t have a city defense bonus, the specific promotion for that scenario will be worth a little more than its listed percentage value.
Example: A sword (str:6) with City Raider I, II, and III is attacking a pike (str:6) defending a city. The city has a 30% defensive bonus. The attacker’s strength is just 6, but the defender’s strength is 6/(1+1.1-.3) = 3.33
Now, the formula for calculating the defender's strength (after combat promos etc.) seems a bit wacky, but I think I understand it. The only problem I have is where the author of the article claimed that if the attacker's bonus outweighs the defender's bonus, it actually makes the attacker's bonuses worth more than "face value" at some point. After looking at the above example where a shock promo might have accidentally been left out (as oyzar noted), there seems to be no way an attacker's combat bonus can match face value under any circumstances (thus, weighing combat in favor of defenders more than most players realize). Can you or anyone else figure an example where the attacker would have more of an advantage over "face value" of its combat bonus? I couldn't find any and I tried a few different combat scenarios (both where the attacker's bonuses outstrip the defender's bonuses using the above formula, or the more standard formula in cases where attacker bonuses does not outstrip the defender's).
EDIT - It seems as though an attacker's bonuses are allowed its "face value" only when they do not exceed the defender's bonuses. When the attacker's bonuses actually exceed the defender's bonuses and the usage of the formula: defender's strength = base defender str/(1+(excess attacker bonuses over defender's/100)), the performance of the attacker's bonuses actually decline compared to "face value" once the attacker has more bonuses than the defender. It almost seems as though Civ 4 slightly penalizes the attacker for bringing a "gun to a knife fight", proverbially speaking.
DOUBLE EDIT - "Diminishing Returns" In fact, as I review this posting I just wrote, it seems as though the more an attacker's bonuses outstrip the defender's the more of a penalty is applied. Civ seems to have made it so that adding more of a disparity of an attacker's bonuses over the defender's only seems to provide diminishing returns.
EXAMPLE: -
a) Ignoring all other factors attacker has 50% in bonuses where defender (strength 6) has only 25%. The defender's bonuses are outstripped by 25% and it's adjusted strength is 4.8 (using the above formula)
b) Attacker has 75% in bonuses while the defender maintains 25%. Defender's bonuses are now outstripped by 50% yet the defender's strength is still calculated at 4.0 (only a 16.7% decrease in strength even though 25% in attacker bonuses were added). Hence it seems there are diminishing returns when the attacker piles on more bonuses in excess of the defender's. This would seem to have implications in making highly promoted units slightly less valuable overall, assuming they are not of the Combat line promos.
~Benford's Law
