Damned Units???

[Gosnork]

We already know the formula. So what if it is a battle simulator? It uses the same info and formula that the game uses! The only difference is that the game shows you the graphics.

 

[chuckiferd]

where is the formula?

 

[Gosnork]

It is in the manual, but you already stated that you don't believe it.

 

[chuckiferd]

that is not the whole formula, it is just a formula for estimating.

It even says "The important factors in combat are the attack and deffense strengths of the combatants, as well as their hitpoints , the presence of veteran or elite units on either side, the terrain occupied by the deffender, and any defensive improvements in the square. In addition to considering all these factors, combat also includes an element of chance. Sometimes a unit just gets lucky. We don't want to drag you through lots of heavy arithmetic for each combination of factors, but the calculations for each round of combat can be boiled down to a simple comparison."

See they boil it down and give you a ratio for probability of dammage done to either unit. It is all watered down

 

[Nergal]

but combat calc is based on the actual formulae used. Try it and see.

 

[MAS]

Probability is the whole basis of the combat engine. Its chance based. And, the dice is not loaded, regardless of what some people continue to insist.

Its simple: Basically an archer attacking a spearman has a chance of 50% winning a single round because archer attack is 2 and spearman defense is 2.
Calculated like this: (attacker att value) /(attacker att value + defender def value)
So 2/(2+2) = 2/4 = 1/2 = 50%

But actually... its modified defense. A spearman on flat terrain still has a 10% def bonus. SO it works out like this
2/(2+2.2) =2/4.2 = 48% (rounded)
If the spearman is fortified, he gets 25% def bonus as well. so it becomes 2/(2+2.7) =43%

The loser of the round will lose a HP, then an other round starts, this goes on until one units loses his last HP, then that unit will die.

If both units have the same amount of HP, then you can pretty much use the above methode of calculating the odds. Though more HP mean getting the expected result is more likely, and less HP mean its more likely you get fluke results, but it still works out over a large number of battles.
If one has more HP than the other, it gets complicated to calculate the end result, I suggest sing a combat simulator. (ask someone else for a link)

Complicated, but not difficult:

Say the archer has 4 HP (veteran) and the spearman has 3 HP (regular)
The chance of the archer winning rounds in a row vs a fortified spear on flat terrain:
Result: AAA = 0.43*0.43*0.43=0.0795 or about 8% (Archer wins takes no damage)
The result: AASA = 0.43*0.43*0.57*0.43 = 5% (Archer wins, takes 1 dmg)
The result: AASSA= 0.43*0.43*0.57*0.57*0.43 = 3% (archer wins, takes 2 dmg)
AASSSA = 0.43*0.43*0.57*0.57*0.57*0.43 = 1% (archer wins, takes 3 dmg)
ASAA = 5% (variant of AASA)
ASSAA = 3% (etc...)
ASSSAA = 1%
SAAA =5%
SSAAA = 3%
SSSAAA = 1%
SASAA= 3%
SASSAA = 1%
SASASA = 1%
SAASA = 3%
SAASSA = 1%
ASASA = 3%
ASSASA = 1%
ASASSA = 1%
total 8+5+3+1+5+3+1+5+3+1+3+1+1+3+1+3+1+1= 49% archer wins.

Note that I rounded liberally in the middle of my calculations, so my calculations are probably not as accurate as the output of a combat simulator.

 

[Theov]

It's ~1600 and I got my first great person (army). I got a few knocks from my elites, but this is the first time I got luck.
Is that normal?
I'm Hittie so no mili treat.
:
OT, no I don't see any units that seem damned. I use my elite primarily to finish the enemy.

 

[chuckiferd]

but the reports a fully healthed elite spearsman will collapse after a single fight, after fighting off hundreds of waves in previous turns

thanks for the full formula, they should have just included that its not that complicated

 

[Flak509]

oh yes if you have a good unit then use other weaker units to weaken the enemy or youll loose all ur units. esp chariots unless in grassland is a gamble even against barbarian warriors

 

[MAS]

In a RL-military, the elites are also kept for last, or special situations at worst,
strange as it may sound. But Elite soldiers are expensive, they cost a lot of money and resources to train, and their loyalty is rare. So the generals are very careful not to waste them.

In an all out war, elites would be the ones that stand behind the drafted commoners (or other lesser soldiers) to force them to fight the enemy. (the ones that flee are then "executed" by the elites for being cowards or traitors to their nation) The elites would then mop op the already worn out enemy.

Its dirty, but war is hell.

 

[chuckiferd]

not always MAS, yes the Romans did this, the youngest lowest rank Hasti and Principes were used first then the oldest highest rank Triiartes would come in if the battle is dire (there is a phrase in latin that means to fall upon the Triiartes which is a general phrase meaning that a situation turned dire.) but usually this was not the case, unexperienced warriors or iregulars were never used for the main fighting

 

[Nergal]

I'd disagree with that MAS, CivIII Elites are gained through bravery, so they are simply promoted and much decorated troops. Its like the unit promotion mechanics in CIV. I prefer to think of them as getting as special badge, like a big target to wear. It would corrwespond with the way the AI goes after them.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

chuckiferd:

The only thing "dammed" about knights is their 70 shield price tag
The only thing "dammed" about horses is their 30 shield price tag for archer's combat ability

Seriously though:
The dice aren't weighed. It's been tested hundreds of times, and the developers even mentioned that they didn't code any "bias against the player" in the combat rules.

1)
Check the game in my sig. Read all the combats that happened. I had very good luck in this game, and won ~90% of my battles where my odds were 60% or less chance of winning (Like 2 spears fending fending off 7 swords, archers winning all but 1 battles against swords, one spear fending off 2 knights...).
According to my game, combat loves the human

2)
You may not be considering defense bonuses.
Pike fortified on grassland = DEFENSE 4 (it has +35%) (it's actually 4.05, but I think decimal is lost)
Also, defensive bombard (archers) lowers chances of attackers winning.

3)
You may need to consider cost
1 Knight = 70 shields = 2 Pikes and 1 warrior

So if you send a few knights to attack a city....
You're fighting LOTS of pikes at 50% chances for each battle...
That's a lot of coin flips you need to win.

Please run a test. I dare you
In fact, since my 1 AWDG game finally died, I may run tests myself

EDIT:
@ MAS

A spearman on flat terrain still has a 10% def bonus.

Is this correct?
In programming world, I think ATT & DEF are truncated to INTEGERS.
So I believe spear on flatland only has 2 defense, not 2.1
And a warrior fortified on a hill has 1 + .25 + .5 = 1.75 -> 1 defense. Still just 1.
Can anyone confirm this is how Civ3 works?

Example:
int actualValue;
float calculationValue;

calculationValue = 1.0 + .25 + .50 = 1.75
actualValue = int( UNIT_BASE_DEFENSE x calculationValue)

So when actualValue is stored, it loses the decimal...

 

[MAS]

not always MAS, yes the Romans did this, the youngest lowest rank Hasti and Principes were used first then the oldest highest rank Triiartes would come in if the battle is dire (there is a phrase in latin that means to fall upon the Triiartes which is a general phrase meaning that a situation turned dire.) but usually this was not the case, unexperienced warriors or iregulars were never used for the main fighting

Well, in modern, democratic nations, all battles are done by professional soldiers and commoners will be spared as much as possible. I made an example of the worst case scenario, but the practice would still apply to a lesser amount. Elites are valuable so the general will not waste them on battles where they have a high chance of dying, unless there is a special situation, if the general sees a battle that involves a lot of sacrifices, he will generally use soldiers for that, who are not the most valuable.

Even in civ3, you'd do battles with vets, not with regulars So far, you are correct, but we are not talking about the difference between regs and vets, we are talking about elites.

I'd disagree with that MAS, CivIII Elites are gained through bravery, so they are simply promoted and much decorated troops. Its like the unit promotion mechanics in CIV. I prefer to think of them as getting as special badge, like a big target to wear. It would corrwespond with the way the AI goes after them.

Regardless of what RL concept the Civ3 elite is suppose to represent, the elite in civ3 have a special place. He gains an extra HP, and ,if fast, also a higher retreat chance. So strategically, in civ3, the elite unit is more than just a batch of honor. Most of all, they can spawn a GL!
The best way to use elites is to save them for battles where they have a high chance of surviving, such as red-lined units. Because they are valuable.
Even after they already spawned a leader, You'd still want to save the elite for special situations that warrant it, such as in a very tough fight, to reduce casualties. Better to use them there than to lose one in a less important fight.

 

[TheOverseer714]

In the real world, elites would be special forces, ace pilots, most trusted and most valuable members of the military. They are used to great effect and really kick butt. In this game, they are valuable mostly for their ability to creat great leaders. Which means let your veterans do the main fighting, save your elites for redlined defenders so that even if they don't give a leader this time, they will survive for later attempts.

 

[Snarkhunter]

Well, in modern, democratic nations, all battles are done by professional soldiers and commoners will be spared as much as possible. I made an example of the worst case scenario, but the practice would still apply to a lesser amount. Elites are valuable so the general will not waste them on battles where they have a high chance of dying, unless there is a special situation, if the general sees a battle that involves a lot of sacrifices, he will generally use soldiers for that, who are not the most valuable. . . .

Even after they already spawned a leader, You'd still want to save the elite for special situations that warrant it, such as in a very tough fight, to reduce casualties.

Actually, I don't think that the first is true, unless you have a loose definition of "professional". Most of the nations you are talking about still use conscript armies whose effectiveness is somewhat lesser than what one considers a "professional" army to be. And there is considerable tension between the "elite" real life units & the regulars; not very many commanding generals support the concept of "elite" (read: special forces types) units held out for special situations. In WWII, US special forces were habitually misused as superb light infantry, instead of being held back for their true missions, and a good many commentators after the war noted the waste inherent in sucking off the best troops for air force, airborne, armor, etc., leaving the poor bloody infantry to fend for itself--when it needed the best troops of all. So it's an iffy proposition from both directions at once.

As for the latter, I always try to save my elite* units for joining into armies, to get the last ounce of hp into the organization as possible. If not possible, & if no upgrade is available, yeah, they are my troops of choice for a tough job.

kk