Attack with strongest units first or not?

[Lain]

You have 10 units. Some with CR3, some new ones with CR1 or no promotions. Which ones would you use first to attack? I see two lines of thinking..

1) Attack with the weakest ones first to preserve the veterans and use them at better odds
2) Attack with the strongest ones first to deal more damage (?) to top defenders and maybe lose less units in total

What makes more sense?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The goal should be to minimize losses. I think you would be better off by sacrificing your best units because that will likely minimize total casulties but Im not sure, it depend on the combat odds. Eventually the units get outdated anyway so there is not much reason to save units in the long run.

Low level units do level up quickly anyway so your CR III losses can be replaced quite quickly as long as you keep wining with the low level units. If you have barracks, vassalage and theocracy all at the same time you can pretty much produce units at CR III.

 

[Imploding]

Agree with Denkts rephrasing.. what is the goal of the attack. In most instances it's is to kill the most and loose the least.

I have not found a "one rule" way.. to me it is a situational thing. Depending on how many dangerous defenders.. how many good upgraded units etc. for example I might take my top guy @ 30 % chance to take out the top defender.. which might give 3-4 unpromoted unites 10-20 % better fighting odds.

It is possible to use math and chain probability.. to calculate the order.. even tho I mostly eyeball it. But it certainly a good skill to master or get better at
I recently had a game (which I'm starting to upload today).. that I probably lost like 30 units unnecessary because of bad combat estimation (cavalry vs infantry)..

 

[Fippy]

Interesting topic, i would say it depends on several factors.
In order of importance, imo..

1) strength of defenders after the best ~2? If your vets would face weaker units soon, and you estimate that their experience is of great help in those fights as well (weaker attackers could lose those fights too), you might not lose more units by letting your vets fight a bit later with good %.

2) danger of not taking a city if bad rng? I compare odds then, and if CR3 gets 60% while others get only 20-30% (example numbers ), it's def. CR3 first.
Or in other words, if it's a really important battle i usually want no risk of doing no damage or running out of units cos too many unexperienced were used first, and not enuf cleanup left.

3) Looking at reinforcements & further war plans, if the toughest cities are goals (hill, most culture) and you think those are more important, it's certainly good thinking about your stack for those. If you worry that top hill defenders might be really hard to beat soon, Vets are more valuable.
Or you might worry about the amount of reinforcements instead, and not having enuf guys left..then you may want to try losing less, and always attacking with your best first.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Attacking with the strongest unit may not win the battle but it may greatly weaken the defender meaning the next unit will have a guaranteed victory and get a promotion after the battle. Unlike civilization V and VI there is really no reason to try to get high level units. Each level get harder to get and the unit can still be killed quite easily. It is better to have many low level units instead of a few high level once in civilization IV.

Getting the damage on the defender mean the next battle is going to be far easier and as far as I know it is always best to focus on losing as few units as possible which I think is best done by using your best units first.

 

[sossos]

It depends:

1. Is the unit easy to be promoted? exp 9/10 and exp 5/10 are totally different
2. If the odds is below 50%, the withdrawal odds may be considered first.
3. How many units are there in enemy's stack? The selection of siege or non-siege is more important in this situation
4. The first strike effects needs to be considered when your CR1 unit may not even be able to cause damage
5. Which unit will stay/recover and which will keep moving after the combat? This will be also considered to keep your units fighting.

There are two many factors which are considered before the factor of CR. Frankly speaking, CR3/CR1 might be the second least important to me if it's not the least.

 

[elitetroops]

I usually go with the strongest first. What's the point in having strong units if I'm afraid to use them? But I still always consider my options first and check odds with different units. If the promotion doesn't reduce the amount of hits needed to kill the defender, units with different amounts of promotions might have almost identical odds. In those cases I tend to choose the weaker one first, then I can use the stronger unit in a battle where the extra promotion makes a difference.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I would think it depends on the flow of the war itself.

If you are doing well and you main goal is to merely neutralize the current threat and prepare for a future war, it may make more sense to preserve your stronger units and possibly even upgrade them a bit later. A few extra losses in these cases may not be a big deal. On the other hand, if you're encountering resistance, losing more units is a very bad idea and you might actually run out of steam and also suffer more war weariness, so in those cases you wouldn't want to hold anything back. But yes, it doesn't make much sense to invest in a strong unit and then not use it.

In other words, does the war give us the leniency of milking a few veteran units, or do we really need to finish it decisively, right now?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Worth to mention that there are some national wonders that require you to keep a high level unit alive.

 

[rah]

I generally attack with my strongest first unless the odds are less than 20% then I may whittle away with a weaker unit first, but if there are that many defenders that are producing those odds, I probably shouldn't be attacking.
If I have a few great general nut crackers, I'll preserve them a little more to those 95% battles figuring that about the risk level I want to take to lose them. (usually later in the game when I've gotten a LOT of GGs those mobile 3 cr rifles moving with your cavalry stacks )

 

[SnipedSoul]

I usually attack with my strongest unit when I have 50% odds or better. The AI usually doesn't have many highly promoted defenders, so the rest of my units can clean up.

Protective civs or tough hill cities usually require siege and some sacrificial units to crack that top defender. If it's Sitting Bull with longbows on top of a hill, just go somewhere else until you out tech him.

 

[Lennier]

Worth to mention that there are some national wonders that require you to keep a high level unit alive.

Whut? HE and WP dissapear if you loose all your lvl 4/5 units? You sure about that?

 

[sampsa]

Whut? HE and WP dissapear if you loose all your lvl 4/5 units? You sure about that?

No, HE just requires that you have a lvl 4 unit alive to build it. WP should be the same.

 

[Lennier]

That's what I thought. Barbs usually get me the HE unit. But what if my only lvl 4 unit dies while I'm in the middle of building the HE? Or do you only need a live lvl 4 unit to start the HE?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I think it work the same way as strategic resources, if you lose a strategic resource the game will not let you build units that need the resource the next turn but you do not lose the units you have.

 

[Fippy]

Almost certain the xp must be used (unit promoted).
I know for sure that once you reached an unit with enuf promos, you can always build HE no matter if it dies or disappears in mysterious ways
Once unlocked, you cannot lose it again.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Almost certain the xp must be used (unit promoted).

That is probably true as then you press a promotion you can see the experience cap increase. One trick that I have seen used is if you lack a level 4 unit is to use a great general to promote a unit to level 4.

 

[Macksideshow]

The general approach I take is to preserve my CRII units, particularly if they're 8/10, 9/10. CRIII's realistically arent going to get much better so might as well use them for what they are good at. CRI's are easy to replace so might as well use them.

Of course, it's all situational depending on my army composition. If we aren't talking about siege and I am using CRI's to protect CRII's then I got the siege/assault ratio wrong or the RNG made it so.

Particularly with seige, especially trebs and cannons (less so catapults), I find the survivabilty and nut-crackability of CRIII's vs. CRII's to be a decent jump when compared to resources required to make that jump (sacrificed CRI's and low exp CRII's) so I look to make it.

 

[SnipedSoul]

CRIII is indeed quite strong on siege. The best part is you only need a couple to get that collateral cascade that virtually guarantees survival of everything else.