Does something seem wrong with the RNG/combat odds to you?

[MSTK]

I have 4 neatly divided stacks of units, each with 3 swordsmen, a pair of their own catapults, and an axeman and a crossbowman apiece. Each one was has two promotions. That's 28 units.

They are parked outside of Washington, which is defended by 4 units (longbowmen and axemen assorted). I start bombardment. Pretty soon Washington's city defenses is down to 0%.

And then I start the attacks. The first batallion, though superiorly upgraded, goes down immediately. There are no casualties to the defender.
The second one takes out two of the defenders with one swipe, but the remaining single one takes out all three.
The third one seems to be equal until that one eventually dies as well.

And all in all I lose almost half of my 28-unit attack force to 4 defenders in a city with 0% CD's.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Eyemaze]

did it have walls? was it on a hill? Does seem extreme. Although longbow folks will really rip you apart because of their first strike they may even have the upgrade for additional first strike or +city defence...

Civ4 is definitely defence biased which is not necessarily a bad thing imho.

 

[zilfondel]

Upgraded, those longbowmen and axemen will pose a serious challenge to your swordsmen. Both of them receive very good bonuses (can't remember off the top of my head). I belive axemen receive a +50% bonus to fighting melee units? Longbowmen similarly. Also, if they are upgraded - which they probably are - they could have the following types of upgrades:

+20% city defense
additional first strike (very deadly for early missile units!!!)

etc...

It's not really surprising that you died. I highly suggest using either longbowmen, or axemen heavily upgraded (2 upgrades minimum) with the Cover upgrade (+25% vs archers) and the city assault one as well. You should do much better then... but still, prepare to take a bunch of losses! Sacrificing a couple of catapults helps to even the odds as well, as they do collateral damage.

 

[zilfondel]

btw, the 'city defense' value is only the cultural defense value - it doesn't actually show the true odds, which include city walls, defensive terrain, fortifying (max +25%), not to mention unit-specific attributes (+20% city defense, etc) that are playing a role.

 

[Kissamies]

Yeah, definitely sacrifice some of those catapults to weaken the stack.

 

[warpstorm]

Bombardment will do nothing for fortification and any unit bonuses. Look at the odds before committing to the attack. If their modified strength is twice yours, hang it up you will throw a lot of troops into the grinder.

 

[Zurai]

I have noticed that the odds display does not actually change the number based on City Raider promotions. For example, an Axeman with City Raider 2 (45% total increase vs cities) fighting an archer would be listed as having 5 strength when really it should have 7.4 strength. I havn't been able to tell if it actually changes the combat outcome or if it's just a display bug.

 

[Khaim]

I think it's just simplifying the numbers, Zurai. That is, the real number is 7.4 vs 4 (or something) but it shows 5 vs 2.8 instead. Don't ask me why, but I'm pretty sure that's what's going on.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I have 4 neatly divided stacks of units, each with 3 swordsmen, a pair of their own catapults, and an axeman and a crossbowman apiece. Each one was has two promotions. That's 28 units.

They are parked outside of Washington, which is defended by 4 units (longbowmen and axemen assorted). I start bombardment. Pretty soon Washington's city defenses is down to 0%.

And then I start the attacks. The first batallion, though superiorly upgraded, goes down immediately. There are no casualties to the defender.
The second one takes out two of the defenders with one swipe, but the remaining single one takes out all three.
The third one seems to be equal until that one eventually dies as well.

And all in all I lose almost half of my 28-unit attack force to 4 defenders in a city with 0% CD's.

Am I missing something here?

Where've you been on GRs???? this is DMK btw

 

[warpstorm]

I heard from Soren that the math is done on the defender side (so their defense should be less if in a city attacked by a city raider).

 

[Jaybe]

MSTK, you FOOL!!
WHY did you not potentially sacrifice one or two of your catapults to do collateral damage on the defenders????!!

You could have cleaned their clock with no sword losses at all. 25% chance of not losing each of the cats you hit them with also.

Know better next time. Smash their defensive bonuses from the city with bombardment, then hit the units inside with your seige once or twice (on the same turn as the assault).

 

[Zurai]

That doesn't bear out though. The ONLY modifier that doesn't show up is city raider - and it'd better not apply the modifier to the defender. It IS a different thing to increase the attacker's power by 70% vs decreasing the defender's power by 70%. City Raiders would be impossible to defeat with unpromoted defenders, even modern ones.

Example: Axeman with Raider 3 vs Machine Gun with no upgrades (assume artillery has battered down all defenses, no city walls, no hills).

With raider adding to attacker: power 8.75 vs 18
With raider subtracting from defender: power 5 vs 4.5

Obviously VERY different combat odds.