Battle questions

[Dexter25]

Hi to everyone,

This question is addressed to more experienced players.
Deployment conditions.
Player A has:
X one crossbowman (100 hp) with 2 promotions having ranged attack 40+5+7 = 42.
Y one crossbowman (100 hp) with 1 promotion having ranged attack 40+5 = 35.
Z one archer (100 hp) with no promotion having ranged attack 25
All ranged units can attack Musketman (Player B)
Player B has:
W Musketman (100 hp) with no promotions standing on the hill having power: 55+3= 58
Questions:
If first is attacking Player A, in what sequence should you attack (more powered target) in order to deal as many damage as possible? Maybe sequence does not mater. I do understand that there is random +/- 25% that could be ignored.
I see two options:
1. First hit with X since he has largest attack.
After W get wounded, his power will slightly drop, so Y would deal more damage, and then hit with Z

2. First hit with Z. The goal is to get W wounded. Then attack with Y - to increase wound penalty.
This would allow to deal last short with X most valuable

 

[Tabarnak]

Not sure but i would say Z then Y then X. More you have a gap between attacker and defender points more you do some damage. Hence attacking with lowest strength first and finish with huge blow.

 

[sa1vy]

I would suggest the opposite. Attack with highest damage first, usually. You don't want any of your damage to go to waste on overkill. In this case, it doesn't matter since none of the ranged units will come close to killing the musketman, since he has such a greater combat strength. But for general purposes, attack with highest first. It really sucks when you save your highest damage attack for last, and you have to waste it on attacking a unit with 1 hp...
Also, for general combat strategy, it's usually much better to focus your fire on attacking one (maybe two) unit(s) at a time. It's always better to kill a unit if you can, than spread the damage out.

 

[Tabarnak]

All ranged units only isn't my cup of tea. I usually shoot with 1 or 2 ranged units then finish with a melee or cav unit(or 2).

 

[Dexter25]

I would suggest the opposite. Attack with highest damage first, usually. You don't want any of your damage to go to waste on overkill. In this case, it doesn't matter since none of the ranged units will come close to killing the musketman, since he has such a greater combat strength. But for general purposes, attack with highest first. It really sucks when you save your highest damage attack for last, and you have to waste it on attacking a unit with 1 hp...
Also, for general combat strategy, it's usually much better to focus your fire on attacking one (maybe two) unit(s) at a time. It's always better to kill a unit if you can, than spread the damage out.

I agree with your proposed strategy, but in my example 3 ranged units will NOT manage to kill enemy, so the aim is to deal max damage within one turn and finish during the next one.

 

[sa1vy]

I agree with your proposed strategy, but in my example 3 ranged units will NOT manage to kill enemy, so the aim is to deal max damage within one turn and finish during the next one.

In pure ranged combat examples, I don't think there's any real effective difference if the higher/lower combat strength attacks first. AFAIK, ranged combat strength A always will do X damage +/- 25% against defending combat strength B. It *might* be the case that the *effective* ranged defending combat strength plays a role. So, a greater disparity in combat strength results in increasingly more damage. (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/hans-lemurson-figures-out-the-combat-formula.606147/). In simpler terms: the greater difference in combat strength there is, the greater damage returns you get, and the amount grows exponentially. So a +3 combat strength difference (from attacking a wounded unit) will be better for your stronger units. So probably attacking with the lower damage unit first will yield better results. It's probably not even a noticeable amount in most cases, though. Maybe a few more hp. Other concerns about unit placement and ability to kill enemies should weigh much more heavily into your considerations for battle plans.

All that said, I'm pretty sure that the ranged combat defense of any unit doesn't decrease with how much hp it has left (going back to my AFAIK above), so it wouldn't matter. However, I DO believe it would matter for melee combat. I'm almost positive I remember seeing effective melee defense combat strength. So a +3 combat strength difference you might get for attacking a wounded unit will give better results. Again, the damage amount difference isn't that great, and other considerations should weigh more.

 

[Dexter25]

In pure ranged combat examples, I don't think there's any real effective difference if the higher/lower combat strength attacks first. AFAIK, ranged combat strength A always will do X damage +/- 25% against defending combat strength B. It *might* be the case that the *effective* ranged defending combat strength plays a role. So, a greater disparity in combat strength results in increasingly more damage. (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/hans-lemurson-figures-out-the-combat-formula.606147/). In simpler terms: the greater difference in combat strength there is, the greater damage returns you get, and the amount grows exponentially. So a +3 combat strength difference (from attacking a wounded unit) will be better for your stronger units. So probably attacking with the lower damage unit first will yield better results. It's probably not even a noticeable amount in most cases, though. Maybe a few more hp. Other concerns about unit placement and ability to kill enemies should weigh much more heavily into your considerations for battle plans.

All that said, I'm pretty sure that the ranged combat defense of any unit doesn't decrease with how much hp it has left (going back to my AFAIK above), so it wouldn't matter. However, I DO believe it would matter for melee combat. I'm almost positive I remember seeing effective melee defense combat strength. So a +3 combat strength difference you might get for attacking a wounded unit will give better results. Again, the damage amount difference isn't that great, and other considerations should weigh more.

Thank you, I think it makes deeper understanding for me now

 

[Victoria]

@Dexter25
99-90 HP means you attack and defend at -1 including vs ranged troops
X is -16 which is 15 HP damage on average
Y is -23 which is about 11 15 HP damage on average
Z is -33 which is about 8 HP damage on average
Note the difference between -23 and -33 is only about 4 damage

Here is as close as I could get by manipulating the snow, I do not have any prince loads... so the musket was 59 but even doing 1 HP damage with the archer lowers it to 58 so normally shooting with the archer is the best option.
In this case shooting XYZ will give 1-2 more HP damage than shooting YXZ, not really much but the random element means there is more chance of gettiing as additional 10% damage going XYZ.
As a general rule saving your heaviest hitter until last will give better damage as the damage gets inccreasingly more beneficial but in this case it is not a lot.
On a side note... IF you were going to end up killing the unit regardless then killing it with the archer will give the archer more XP. To be fair the crossbow will also get good XP because they are also weaker than the musketmen. You get more XP for killing a unit stronger than you (you also get +1 XP fgor attacking rather than defending)
In this case killing a musketman with an archer will give the archer 7 XP
Killing the musketman with the xbow gives 5 XP
So while it my be better to attack with the archer first, if you want the archer to get 7 XP and can kill it, fire him last.
In this picture the archer fired first and did 8 HP damage.

It's always better to kill a unit if you can

Generally yes...but knowing how much XP you are giving them if you cannot kill them or risk not killing them is a consideration as you do not want them to promote, especially with Tortoise or similar.