Combat Odds not working properly?

[uat2d]

I've noticed this for some time now, but I can now prove for sure that something is wrong with the Combat Odds the game shows us:

Spoiler :

Can someone tell me what's going on and how to, if possible, fix this?

 

[G-Max]

The combat odds system is pretty screwed up, but it's doing the math correctly.

When a unit has +10% to strength, then its strength really is increased by that amount, regardless of whether it's attacking or defending. However, all other modifiers only affect the defender, so if a unit has +20% city attack, it doesn't really get +20% strength when attacking cities; rather, the defenders get -20%.

In this case, Combat I is giving your Praetorian a +0.8 strength, whereas City Raider I is only reducing the defender's strength by -0.6; thus, Combat I ends up being more important even though you're attacking a city.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is why war chariots are better city attackers than immortals, even against archers. It's amazing how many people STILL don't realize that.

 

[uat2d]

This is why war chariots are better city attackers than immortals, even against archers. It's amazing how many people STILL don't realize that.

Care to elaborate further?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Care to elaborate further?

No, I don't. The reasons are in the combat explained article that's been on CFC for years, and if you don't believe that you can just WB test practical scenarios (archers with 0-2 promotions fortified in cities with at least 20% city defense).

 

[uat2d]

No, I don't. The reasons are in the combat explained article that's been on CFC for years, and if you don't believe that you can just WB test practical scenarios (archers with 0-2 promotions fortified in cities with at least 20% city defense).

Ok, sure... you just don't have to act like such a dick about it, you know?

 

[vornan19]

^^^

(A quote from "Problems with playing Indian" thread - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=407810)

I realize I come off as arrogant...or more like I frequently am...

At least he acknowledges it

 

[uat2d]

Fair enough, I'm not mad, he just came as a little too arrogant. Never mind, it's not a big deal.

 

[G-Max]

war chariots are better city attackers than immortals, even against archers.

Care to elaborate further?

Immortals have a combat strength of 4 and War Chariots have a combat strength of 5.

DERP.

 

[uat2d]

Immortals have a 50% increase versus Archers...

 

[G-Max]

Yeah, and War Chariots ignore first strikes.

A fortified archer with CG I in a city with 10-99 culture will have a combat strength of 3 (base) + 1.5 (special ability) + 0.75 (fortify) + 0.6 (CG I) + 0.6 (culture) = 6.45; a unit with +50% vs. Archers will knock that down to 4.95

A unit that ignores first strikes will start the battle proper at full health, then face off against a unit with 6.45 strength; a unit with +50% vs Archers will take 4.95 damage from that first strike, then face a unit with 4.95 strength.

Let's also assume that these chariots have Combat I (since we're giving the Archers a promotion). A full-health unit with 5.5 strength can kill a full-health unit with 6.45 strength more easily than a damaged unit with 4.4 strength can kill a full-health unit with 4.95 strength... I think. If not, just pump up the Combat and City Garrison promotions until the math supports our conclusions.

 

[uat2d]

What about this?

Spoiler :

??

 

[G-Max]

That's called a "mod". It screws with the game rules.

But more importantly, CG I-III boost strength when defending cities, and Combat I-VI boost combat strength by the exact same amount. What's the source of your confusion?

 

[uat2d]

It's BAT, it doesn't mess up with the game rules.

 

[G-Max]

It's BAT

 

[Starfury]

What about this?

What about it? There's nothing wrong as far as I can see.

 

[uat2d]

Not that type of bat

 

[G-Max]

Oh? What about this kind?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Fair enough, I'm not mad, he just came as a little too arrogant. Never mind, it's not a big deal.

A combination of arrogant and semi-annoyed actually. Frankly, the combination of the OP and the explanation on post 2 should be all anybody needs to see my point: base str and increases to attacker str (combat) can overpower modifiers applied to the defender when the defender has a high enough total %boost. What more do you need beyond the example and explanation of rules in this thread? Nothing, if you think about it.

But if you really want more on how combat works, one only need note that 1) you've been a member of the forums longer than me and 2) this stuff is clearly defined on the forum and not especially difficult to find.

Immortal % bonuses are applied exactly the same way offensively as CR bonuses. Given the context of the thread, my reasoning for asserting WC are superior should be obvious.

Your other example here just proves the point further: combat/drill is always applied to the unit with the promotion, while other promotions are applied to the defender when relevant (CG III in this case is the same 75%). All of this could be inferred from the original example and post #2, if a person actually cared to think about it.

Once again, asking someone to hold your hand is ridiculous. If you really don't understand the math/implications right in front of you, don't want to use the search feature to find a complete in-depth article on the matter, and actually care about the results regardless, WB is a simple enough solution to the issue.

 

[G-Max]

Frankly, the combination of the OP and the explanation on post 2

...

All of this could be inferred from the original example and post #2

(scrolls up to post #2)

Hey, I wrote that! Somebody is paying attention to me! I'm so happy now...

EDIT: I just had to do some WorldBuildering to confirm. If a city with Fledgling culture is being defended by a fortified Archer with City Garrison I, then a War Chariot with Combat I will have a 28.5% chance of success, whereas an Immortal with Combat I will only have a 25.1% chance of success. Conclusion? THEY BOTH SUCK.