Drill 4 vs Combat 4

[PieceOfMind]

If you present such cases (20% on attacker vs. -20% on defender) make it more clear for unexperienced readers that you only do it for illustrating, in practice the comparable CR unit would have -45% (CR2).

Back on topic, as Feyaria pointed out, promotions do not exist in a vacuum.
Later available promotions (and those that are not like CR for gunpowder after the uprgrade) are a huge factor.

I was a bit rushed with my previous posts so I was a lot less clear than I could/should have been. I used the CR1 and C2 praetorians because it was the easiest way I could think to get exactly equal bonuses but where one was applied to the attacker and where one was subtracted from the defender. It was not meant to serve as any sort of comparison for the two promotions - just to illustrate the effect of where the bonus gets applied.

10% increase to the attacker is equivalent to -9.09% (-1/11) to the defender in this case.

2.2 / 1 = 2.2
2 / 0.909 = 2.2

Like Oyzar pointed out, it's the ratio that determines combat odds, not the absolute difference.

Agreed. Oyzar already pointed it out and I agreed. However it is more complicated than examples like yours suggest.

First define what you mean by a term before you use it. What is this R value? Is it the ratio between attacker and defender?

If you look at promotion by a case by case basis then combat will be worse except when you are attacking a defender with very strong defensive bonuses. For example where combat frequently outpreform CR or counter promos are during amphibious assults. Here it is not uncommon for the defender to get up to 200%+ defensive bonus. When fighting a war from boats you'll hardly ever want to pick up counter promos(or even CR if that is an option).

R = attacker's modified strength over defender's modified strength. Essentially it's the one ratio that determines everything for combat except damage per hit which can also be affected by unit damage. Of course, number of hits to kill is the other thing affected by unit damage.

The reason it's good to use R is that it's just the ratio of the two numbers that are actually presented to you on screen. On screen you are given the attacker's and defenders modified strengths, whether you use the game's odds display or the one in Advanced Combat Odds.

simple explanation:
Combat usually has better odds than the drill line does. Drill allows you to get XP quicker, is resistant to siege damage, and has better odds when defending against weaker/disadvantaged units successively.

I have a question for piece of mind; do you know if the ingame combat odds are correct for units with a lot of first strikes? It feels to me that they aren't.

The game combat odds are correct to good accuracy for all combat except rare cases of using siege units to attack. Drill promotions work absolutely correctly but because of the way they alter combat they give very different statistics to what other promotions give. Think what happens if I tell yold you the average age of civfanatics was 18 and the average age of Grade 12 students was 18. Both may be correct but civfanatics would have a wider spread of ages compared with the grade 12s, and so a single statistic - the mean - only gives you a little bit of information. A single combat odds statistic is a bit the same way - it only gives you a little bit of information and not the whole story of how the combat is likely to turn out. Drill units tend to "spread" the results more - unit is both more likely to die and more likely to survive with high health compared with using combat. Using combat is more likely to usually give the average HP result which might be 70HP or so. Using drill you might get half with 12HP and half with 100HP - it depends.



Back to my point about the effect of high base strength on choice of promotions for attackers...

Now oyzar has pointed out that the good use of combat promotions on attackers is due to defender having high number of defensive bonuses and nothing to do with the base strength of the attacker. I agree with that partly. The fact is, a high base strength unit is more likely to be able to use a combat promo to overcome one of the jump points using combat promos than a lower strength unit.

In the following picture example, the praetorian will get an additional 0.8 each time he uses a combat promo, and the archer would lose 0.3 each time he got an extra 10% defense. For the swordsman, it's 0.6 per combat promo and again 0.3 each time the defending archer gets another 10% defense. So if one of the attackers is in a situation where he is very close to a jump point like the significant R=1 jump point (R = 1 is when attacker's modified strength equals the defender's modified strength) then taking pretty much any promotion will drastically improve the odds.

Spoiler :

NOTE: 1 small correction. In the box on the right where I have said the archer's modified strength is 7.95, it should be 8.55

Because the praetorian's strength is closer to the defender's modified strength, using the combat promo (or the CR promo) sends him over the jump point and gives him cosiderably better odds, but not so for the weaker swordsman.

Interestingly, if you give the archers another +5% fortify, the CR on the praet is not enough to send his strength through the jump point and will only have 37% odds. If he takes C1 in that situation he'll have 63% odds.

Now the R=1 case is usually the most extreme jump point so any promotion that takes the ratio through 1 (in the attacker's favour of course) is always going to be an effective promotion. I would contend that this happens more often for higher base strength attackers than lower base strength attackers when using combat promos due to the simple fact that it is adding on a greater piece of strength each time.

There are other jump points which are less obvious to spot because their effects are smaller, but they are there, and again higher base strength units are more likely to be able to use combat promos to send themselves over those points.

*****

Let me give a couple more examples. I'll try to be as clear as possible this time...

Suppose there is a defender with base strength 8 and tile defense 50%, so total modified strength is 12.

Let us compare two possible attackers - a cataphract (str12) and a praetorian (str8). Assume the praetorian already has an attack bonus of 50% for that battle.

So we have cataphract v defender as 12 vs. 12, and the praet vs defender is 8 vs. 8. So both units have exactly 50% odds.

Now, as oyzar would correctly point out, using combat 1 on either of these attackers leads to exactly the same effect: 13.2 vs. 12 (for R = 1.1) for the cataphract, and 8.8 vs. 8 (also R=1.1) for the praetorian.

So it would seem the combat promo does just as well on either unit right? Well, technically yes but not compared with other promos they could take.

What happens if we give each of the attacker's a +25% ordinary bonus instead of the combat promo. Then we have 12 vs. 10 for the cataphract giving R=1.2, and we get 8 vs. 6.4 for the praetorian giving R = 1.25. So the weaker base strength unit comparitively benefits more from a non-combat promo. The higher base strength unit has his other promotions having a weaker effect and so indirectly making his combat promo seem better.

Is the effect here only because R is close to 1? Let's try the same example but with R as 2/3 or 0.67.

****

Defender base strength 9 (a musket for example). Attacker's are cataphract and pikeman. This time the defender has +100% vs. the cataphract but not the pike. So the ratios come from 12:18 and 6:9. (Both are R=2/3).

Both attackers start with odds 9.94%. Giving both attackers combat 1 leads them both to get odds of 20.91% (as predicted by oyzar).
But giving each of them a +25% vs defender bonus (eg. Pinch promotion), the numbers change...

Cataphract gets 22.66% vs. the defener. The pike gets 27.23% vs. the defender. This again means the higher base strength attacker does comparitively better by using a combat promo than using an ordinary counter-flavoured promo.

This example is interesting because the battle where the defender has more defensive bonuses is the battle where the combat promo is the least effective. This goes against the intuition oyzar suggested.

I am fairly certain the real explanation here is that combat just works better on higher base strength attackers than it does for lower base strength attackers when compared with alternative promotions like city raider, pinch etc.

This is why I sometimes dish out the advice that combat promos work better on higher base strength units. It would be more correct of me to say counter-type promos work less effectively on higher base strength units and so combat promotions look better. Perhaps most importantly, the combat promotion obviously has the advatange of being general so if you are attacking a city where the defender could change based on what promo you take, taking the combat promo will often be more effective than taking a specific-counter promo.

I still would argue, for example, that using combat instead of CR on praetorians is a far more effective strategy when compared with doing the same thing on swordsmen. The extra defensive ability of the praet vs. any type of unit is valuable, and the reason it works better for praetorians is their higher base strength.

 

[Crusher1]

When I get lazy I simply put all units on automatic upgrade

Besides, once you have cannons/artillery it doesn't matter if your units have any upgrades at all.

 

[muxec]

What would you say about drill 4 on siege? While definitely worse than CR3+B1 against cities it can be useful in SoD vs SoD combat. Or should I go through Barrage line for SoD vs SoD combat?

 

[PieceOfMind]

Using D4 on siege is very unlikely and not likely to be very helpful at the best of times.

Firstly, siege units when attacking can not earn more than 1xp per combat because they can only withdraw when they redline the defender.

Secondly, siege units need 17xp (12 if charismatic) for Drill 4. You can't get Drill 1 from Protective for siege units, so getting to 17 xp will take a long time.

Thirdly, siege units are usually treated as expendable. They are usually used as the first attacking units when taking cities because of the collateral damage they supply.

But to answer the question, if you're doing proper SoD vs. SoD combat I'd probably recommend barrage rather than drill. One reason for using drill is when you are forced into a situation where you're fighting a lone unit and outside of cities/forts. Using drill on siege can be useful if they're needing to defend for some reason as well, as drill is the only promo that helps siege units on defense.

 

[oyzar]

R value is a bad variable to go by. The effect a promotion will have on the R value is very dependant on the bonuses of the attacker or defender. As taken in the example above combat 1 is actually better than CR 1 in the example against 210% defensive bonus(irrelevant of the base strength of the defender and hence irrelevant of the R value) while the example of the no bonuses either way CR far outpreforms C1 like in the example of tank vs rifle(again irrelevant of both base strength and R value). A mace attacking the rifle would still want to take CR and not combat while instead of the praet attacking the heavily defended unit there was a tank it would still want to take combat...

 

[StrategeryBush]

As a minor point in Combat 4's favor is that Combat 4 leads to Combat 5, while there is no Drill 5.

 

[PieceOfMind]

R value is a bad variable to go by. The effect a promotion will have on the R value is very dependant on the bonuses of the attacker or defender.

That's true but it doesn't make the R value a bad indicator. R value is not meant to directly tell you what promotions to use. I use it as an indicator because, as I said above, it is directly what is used to calculate the battle odds. In the end, it is the odds you are trying to improve when you take promotions so if you can do the quick math to see which gives a bigger increase in R value you can determine which is the better promotion (ignoring side-effects and other uses of promotions for the moment). It's true that to determine if CR is better than Combat or not you can't just use the R value, but what is better to use? The sum of defensive modifiers?

Whatever the case, I don't claim R to be a good variable for deciding on promotions, just that it's good for comparing odds from various combats. Ignoring first strikes, when combats are fought with the same R value they have the same statistics.

Also, at least for full health units, you can use R values to find the jump points. Considering how important these jump points can be in changing battle outcomes, the R value can be a good indicator in that sense.

As taken in the example above combat 1 is actually better than CR 1 in the example against 210% defensive bonus(irrelevant of the base strength of the defender and hence irrelevant of the R value) while the example of the no bonuses either way CR far outpreforms C1 like in the example of tank vs rifle(again irrelevant of both base strength and R value).

Oyzar I see what you are trying to say but I still think base strength is important.

Firstly, how do you explain the result from the 2nd example I gave in post 21?

Both attackers start with odds 9.94%. Giving both attackers combat 1 leads them both to get odds of 20.91% (as predicted by oyzar).
But giving each of them a +25% vs defender bonus (eg. Pinch promotion), the numbers change...

Cataphract gets 22.66% vs. the defener. The pike gets 27.23% vs. the defender. This again means the higher base strength attacker does comparitively better by using a combat promo than using an ordinary counter-flavoured promo.

Summarising:
low base str vs. high defender bonuses --> combat good, pinch excellent

high base str vs. low defender bonuses --> combat good, pinch better than good but less than excellent.

If base strength of the attacker did not matter, and only the sum of defensive modifiers mattered, then the pikeman should have the combat promo as a better option (when compared with other promos) than the cataphract. Yet the cataphract has similar results for pinch and combat, so the conclusion is combat is decent for him because of his base strength.

Here is the example done in ACO. You will be able to see why it was that the combat promo worked better for the cataphract than for the pike (when compared with alternative promotions). Look closely at the "HP per hit" values... The pike (with lower base strength) benefits more from ordinary bonuses than the cataphract does.

Spoiler :

• High base strength units are usually the ones that have few, if any situational bonuses inherent. (e.g. tanks, knights, praetorians, modern armor. I'd imagine riflemen also qualify as high base strength when they first arrive and their situational bonus is small.)

• Therefore high base strength units more often benefit from combat promos

This is a roundabout way of saying what you're saying. As an example, the praets vs. archers scenario is one where the praets dominate almost solely because of their base strength. They can fight battles where the defensive bonuses are huge yet still win with few, if any, promos.

The actual decision process to whether one should go for combat or city raider does, as you say, depend on the defensive bonuses. This is useful when treating units individually, like if you pay attention to promotions right before city attacks. Making more sweeping generalisations, one can also say that generally for higher base strength units the combat promos work better, if only because they typically come up against higher defensive bonuses (having less situational bonuses for their own attacks).

Anyway, thanks for the comments - you've consolidated my views somewhat.

A mace attacking the rifle would still want to take CR and not combat while instead of the praet attacking the heavily defended unit there was a tank it would still want to take combat...

I'm not suggesting you lack punctuation but I don't follow the logic/meaning of this statement.

 

[Indiansmoke]

In multiplayer drill line is almost useless....reason being that Mounted units are imune to first strikes.

However drill 1 that protective archers get is quite usefull for early skirmishes as chariots are not immune and early on that 1 drill promo can save you as you have less units and every battle counts.

Now for drill being better on injured units, it is just a very small benefit. Your units will win anyway so winning by la bit more health is irelevant.


The only benefit is the less colateral damage. but i cannot imagine spending 4 promos on drill instead of having combat 3 and pinch for example.

Also another thing that makes drill even more useless is the fact that units with bigger odds to win can come out of battle unscrached without having a single first shot.

In a multiplayer game recently I attacked a combat 1 praetorian on a hill with a shock axe. Axe had about 35% chance of winning...he lost and praetorian still had 8 strength!!! I attack with second axe (this time combat1 (20 something%) praetorian wins still with 8 strenght. So he won 2 fights far from 99% or anything like that and lost 0 strenght....what do you need drill for

 

[PieceOfMind]

Now for drill being better on injured units, it is just a very small benefit. Your units will win anyway so winning by la bit more health is irelevant.

If you're talking about the comments I've made about drill units being better attacking injured units, I have to say again that what you said is the standard response which IMO misses the point.

It seems I always have to clarify, of course it's easier to attack injured units because your odds are better anyway. The point is, you can attack even with old units. As the defender becomes more damaged, and if we assume the odds are still not perfect (maybe we're attacking a destroyer with a frigate), then drill favours the attacker much more than it normally would when compared with promotions like combat.

Try this quick example: D4 stands up quite well to even C3+pinch.

Spoiler :

******

I agree that the small boost in odds of surviving with 100HP is often minor, particularly when the odds of actual survival do not improve much. Having said that, this thread is about drill 4 and combat 4, and I think you'll find D4 usually does a very nice job of improving odds even when the defender is 100HP. It only works well when R (the ratio of attacker's modified strength over defender's modified strength) is more than 1 IMO. As an example, a shock1/C1/D4 axe has better odds attacking a C2 praetorian than does a shock1/C1/C2 axe. Note the first axe does not have D1,D2 or D3 (so it's a world buildered test).
Using drill units to attack when R is 1 or less is usually disastrous unless the enemy has less than 20HP or something.

Also another thing that makes drill even more useless is the fact that units with bigger odds to win can come out of battle unscrached without having a single first shot.

While sometimes true, I think you are slightly under estimating D4 here. D4 generally gives twice the odds of surviving with 100HP than does C4. Despite what you say, it's still one of the few strengths that the drill promotions (mainly D4) have.

In a multiplayer game recently I attacked a combat 1 praetorian on a hill with a shock axe. Axe had about 35% chance of winning...he lost and praetorian still had 8 strength!!! I attack with second axe (this time combat1 (20 something%) praetorian wins still with 8 strenght. So he won 2 fights far from 99% or anything like that and lost 0 strenght....what do you need drill for

Just letting you know, in the first battle, the praet had 3.42% chance of surviving with 8 str like he did.
For the second battle, he had 5.41% chance of surviving unharmed.

You were pretty unlucky.. Doing the usual naive calculation of multiplying the two probabilities gives roughly 0.19%.

 

[oyzar]

Both attackers start with odds 9.94%. Giving both attackers combat 1 leads them both to get odds of 20.91% (as predicted by oyzar).
But giving each of them a +25% vs defender bonus (eg. Pinch promotion), the numbers change...

Cataphract gets 22.66% vs. the defener. The pike gets 27.23% vs. the defender. This again means the higher base strength attacker does comparitively better by using a combat promo than using an ordinary counter-flavoured promo.

The fact that the R value change is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the difference in defensive bonuses. With higher defensive bonuses combat get better(which is what i said).

Compare a Cataphract attacking a musket vs a pike doing the same(without toying with bonuses) and you'll see that pinch are better for both. Opposite if you are attacking a lbow in a forested hill fort with cg2 from a galleon then combat will be better for both.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Drill promotions for my designated stack defenders, combat promotions for my gunpowder+ era attack units or riflemen-marine units (Combat I/II, Amphibious on riflemen) if I'm planning on Galleon/Frigate sea assaults.

The drill line becomes powerful at Drill III/IV and is great for stack defenders because they can do double-duty as captured city defenders in the later stages of the push (while waiting for city garrison reinforcements) allowing the combat/CR promoted units to accompany siege to the final enemy cities.

 

[PieceOfMind]

oyzar, you're either not understanding, completely igoring or again missing the point I'm making.

Summarising:
low base str vs. high defender bonuses --> combat good, pinch excellent

high base str vs. low defender bonuses --> combat good, pinch better than good but less than excellent.

If base strength of the attacker did not matter, and only the sum of defensive modifiers mattered, then the pikeman should have the combat promo as a better option (when compared with other promos) than the cataphract. Yet the cataphract has similar results for pinch and combat, so the conclusion is combat is decent for him because of his base strength.

The comparison is not just which is better - combat or pinch? The thing we are trying to do here is determine whether combat is better on high base strength units or low base strength units. To show combat is more effective on high base strength units I have shown ordinary modifiers are less effective on high base strength units. Since ordinary bonuses on high base strength units are less effective, it makes combat promotions on them better when compared with units that had lower base strength.

Again, the example that you quoted is an exact example that disproves your thesis. I gave an example where the battle that had high defense bonuses involved was the one where pinch was more effective than combat. You're explanations so far simply cannot predict that.

The problem is you are treating units in isolation because you already believe base strength does not matter. If you'll consider for a moment that base strength might matter, you'll see that Combat is a "less bad" promotion on them (the higher base str units). I will agree with you that it is only the defensive modifiers that determine whether it is strictly better to go with combat or pinch, but when looking at which units sacrifice the most by taking Combat, you'll see that it is low base strength units that benefit least from Combat.

I don't think it's too great a leap of logical deduction to see that high base strength units can benefit more from combat promos than low base strength units.


By the way, you think I'm toying with the bonuses in my examples? I'm actually adjusting the bonuses to make the comparison fair. When I have given one defender more bonuses than another, it is because I have shown your argument predicts the reverse. i.e. providing a counter-example.

Your suggested example with the musket, cataphract, pike and longbow, only suggests to me you're missing the point because you are not doing any comparison between units but only between promotions on units in isolation. I think we'd both agree now with the knowledge we have that it's fairly obvious to determine whether combat or pinch does more in any one particular battle - it's just a matter of looking at the size of the defense bonuses - but you need to give some thought to how much better pinch is when it is better. I argue the extent to which it is better depends on the base strength of the unit - as base strength goes up, the margin between combat and pinch narrows.

Do I need to say any more?

 

[oyzar]

But you varied the defensive bonus making the whole comparison useless... Your attemt at making the comparison "fair" invalidates the basis for it. Now if you did the comparison in a fair manner you would probably see that it doesn't matter(as variances in base strength doesn't lead to the combat promotion affecting R value differently, that is except when you cross a jump point compared to when you don't).

The thing that makes combat better than say pinch or civer is if you are fighting a lot against high defensive modifiers. For example in a blitz war with cavalery against longbows where you don't bother to bombard / use ep to blow down defenses, combat will get a lot better than cover. If the defenders were instead mech infantery(meaning that the cavalery's base strength was comparativly low), then combat would still be the better choice compared to pinch(though flanking would prolly be better in either case for quite a few units) if the defensive bonuses were the same.

 

[peter450]

The way combat works is calculated off base str

base str not only determines how likely you are to hit an opponent, but also how much dmg you do when you hit them, and how much you take when they hit you

If both units have around = str, the chances to hit and dmg are =, off the top of my head the dmg per successful blow is around the 20hp mark, given and taken with = str

If 1 unit has 50% more str, ie a str 4 unit vs a str 6 one, not only is the weaker unit more likely to be hit, while the stronger one is less likely to be hit, but the weaker unit only does 16 dmg per hit, vs 24 per hit for the stronger one

If one unit has twice the str of the other, not only are the chances to score a hit significantly increased, to the point a hit is almost guranteed, but the dmg done increases to 28hp per hit, given and 14 per hit rec'd

Equal str units need 5 successful blows for the kill
As a units str goes up in comparison to the unit it fights, it ends up needing less blows to get the kill and takes lower dmg in combat aswell, it gets harder to hit, while scoring easier hits itself

Drills get calculated before proper combat begins but work off base str, so if your unit has less str than the unit it fights, even if you have 3-6 First Strikes (for having all the drill promo's) your FS will likely all miss, or most of them will miss and the odd one that lands will deal low dmg

Combat proper then begins and your unit will likely die as just like it's FS missed so will it's combat blows and any that land will do low dmg, compared to what it takes, in short if the unit you attack is stronger drills are pretty much worthless

If the units have = strength, Drills will help soften up the unit, so when combat begins, after the FS phase is finished, you might only need to land 3 or 4 blows instead of 5 to win

However in practise, because str increases the chance to hit, get hit, dmg and rec'd dmg, when units are around the same str, adding 40% str usually makes more differance to combat odd's than lots of FS

Finally, when you units has a lot more str than the unit it faces, typically around double, FS are far superior to adding more str

The reason is more str while it will help, it won't stop the odd lucky blow landing, so having a unit of 4 str fight a unit of 2 str and after 2 or 3 battles you will likely have dmg and the unit's effectiveness will drop so it will loose after a few battles

If you add in 4 or more FS in such a combat situation, you can fight around 10 times longer, because of the str disparity, what it means is since all your blows are more or less guranteed to hit, all your 4 FS will hit, since you will do over 25hp of dmg per blow combat will be over in the FS phase and the risk of your unit taking dmg is practically nill

So a swordsman with 3-6 FS faced by 20 archers sitting on a grassland tile will likely beat them all and have no dmg to show for it

That same swordsman with combat 4 will likely get through a few archers only before dmg set's in and the odd's drop right off and it dies

In short

lots of Drill in combat vs units with higher str = waste, get combat promo's to even that str up
lots of Drill in combat vs units with = str or slightly lower str, ok, but combat provides a better boost overall, unless vs already damaged units, were the FS will help you kill without taking a counter blow
lots of Drill in combat vs units with significantly lower str (str of around half your unit) is the the differance between a high str unit killing 5 or 6 units or killing 25 to 30 or more

 

[Aardan]

I would suggest downloading and running my modcomp Advanced Combat Odds, opening up world builder, and experimenting for yourself.

There are a wide range of unique circumstances where one is stronger or more useful than the other.

A couple of rules of thumb that I use:
-Combat promos work really well on units with high base strength.
-Combat promos are the best promotion for completely general use. i.e. you cannot predict what type of battles the unit will fight.
-Drill promos are stronger when you can attack injured units e.g. right after siege collateral when attacking cities.
-Drill units often take less damage when they win due to a number of their first strikes successfully hitting the opponent. Sometimes this gives a nice boost in survivability of defending units.
-Drill units benefit more from defensive terrain than combat promoted units, generally. Any situational or defensive bonuses effectively multiply out with the extra first strikes, whereas combat promos only increase the bonus in an additive way.
-Drill promotions are weak at the start of the line. Drill 1 in particular, and to a lesser extent drill 2 and 3 are much weaker than D4. For this reason, D4 is more useful when you can expect to get it reasonably quickly. Building 5xp units as a protective leader for example, you can get D4 after only 2 or 3 battles which is when the drill line is really strong.

Also, here is an old thread I ran last year which attracted a bit of debate. Some of my comments in the thread are a little out of date now, meaning I have changed my opinion a bit since then but there were some great comments from other civfanatics.

Related to the topic. In my latest game as a Khan, I received the swordsman quest, which if I win, I can choose to give all melee units, Drill 1 promotion or option 2 is to give all my swordsman city raider prmotion. Since you guys are very familiar with prmotions, since I plan on doing some rushing, what is your preferences please?

 

[oyzar]

Drill 1 is largely useless, if you are going to be using swordsmen to any degree cr1 is preferable. Remember to not promote the units before finishing the quest though... This quest as romans is unfair. If you are not going to use much if any swordsmen you might as well go for drill.

 

[peter450]

If you give them the drill promo, you can unlock this promo line on all your melee units, but city raider is best if you plan on going on the offensive

 

[PieceOfMind]

But you varied the defensive bonus making the whole comparison useless...

You're driving me nuts. Are you even reading my posts? If you are going to keep disagreeing with me please show me the courtesy of addressing actual things you think I'm doing incorrectly rather than just broadly saying "you are not doing it right" (which is basically what you're doing). I've said repeatedly that the last example where I varied the defensive bonus actually was done to show you the effect of defensive bonuses is not all that matters. You claim combat gets better when defensive bonuses get higher. I AGREE! I have said several times I agree with you on that but it is NOT the point.

I am trying to think of an analogy that might make you understand. Here goes:

Let's say that there are two attackers, A and B. Attacker A has twice as much base strength as B. They are going to attack a defender C. C has a +100% defense modifier vs. B but not against A.

I'm going to make up the numbers here to show you the type of argument. If you come back saying a made up example is pointless I'm going to scream!

Unpromoted, A would have 60% odds.
Unpromoted, B would have 60% odds as well.

Promoted to combat, A would have 80% odds.
Promoted to combat, B would have 80% odds.

Promoted to pinch, A would have 82% odds.
Promoted to pinch, B would have 99% odds.

Now I ask you, which unit would be better off with the combat promotion? You are trying to tell me over and over that because they both get 80% odds with combat 1 it means base strength is irrelevant. For the 80% odds figure, sure, that's right - base strength doesn't matter. But when considering whether or not to take pinch instead, which I might add is a more situational bonus and so might not always get applied, the attacker B taking combat is making a huge sacrifice on odds, whereas the attacker A is making a marginal sacrifice in odds by taking combat over pinch.

So who would you prefer to use combat on? A or B? When considering your reply, consider the facts that
a) The combat promotion will work in battles against non-gunpowder units
b) If attacking a stack where the defender could change, promoting to pinch means you could get 0% odds increase, whereas promoting to combat guarantees an increase in odds.

Now this was a made up example where changes in odds were quite extreme. Fair point. Look back at my pike/cataphract example though and you will see the example is identical except the numbers are "less extreme". But just because the numbers are not extreme doesn't make the argument baseless.

Your attemt at making the comparison "fair" invalidates the basis for it

Explain why it is unfair? I have provided an example (the pike and cataphract) where the ONLY things that varied were the defensive bonuses and the base strength (the promotions were identical on each unit). I showed that in this situation pinch was more effective on the lower base strength unit. What you keep saying in your posts doesn't challenge this. In fact, what you keep saying has nothing to do with the point.

Now if you did the comparison in a fair manner you would probably see that it doesn't matter(as variances in base strength doesn't lead to the combat promotion affecting R value differently, that is except when you cross a jump point compared to when you don't).

EXACTLY. You just acknowledged it. "that is except when you cross a jump point compared to when you don't". Jump points don't happen once in a blue moon. There are many jump points and they happen frequently, especially when choosing promotions. Higher base strength units are less likely to make those jump points with ordinary modifiers, so combat is not such a bad promotion for them. In comparison, low base strength units are more likely to go through jump points when they use ordinary modifiers, so combat is a lot worse for them. I think you are finally starting to get it!

By the way, by ordinary modifiers I mean non-combat promos basically. Ordinary modifiers are added or subtracted from the defender bonus.

The thing that makes combat better than say pinch or civer is if you are fighting a lot against high defensive modifiers. For example in a blitz war with cavalery against longbows where you don't bother to bombard / use ep to blow down defenses, combat will get a lot better than cover. If the defenders were instead mech infantery(meaning that the cavalery's base strength was comparativly low), then combat would still be the better choice compared to pinch(though flanking would prolly be better in either case for quite a few units) if the defensive bonuses were the same.

oyzar your example only proves a point for which I've already agreed on. I agree that combat works better than other promotions when there are more defense bonuses. What I am talking about is how much better it works in those situations. To see how much better it works, you have to consider base strength as my examples have proved.

 

[Crusher1]

Man! Lol ^^. Just keep it simple - put it on auto promote and kill everything anyways .......... or give everyone jungle even though there is none and go kill everything. I mean really, It's the AI and it has no idea how to War - Just go kill them with any randomly promoted units after siege of course ^^.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Man! Lol ^^. Just keep it simple - put it on auto promote and kill everything anyways .......... or give everyone jungle even though there is none and go kill everything. I mean really, It's the AI and it has no idea how to War - Just go kill them with any randomly promoted units after siege of course ^^.

lol I am actually wondering whether he is just trolling now. If he makes a post along the same lines again I'm going to have to get a second opinion on this to clear it once and for all.

I don't like to see misconceptions propogated by people who aren't prepared to support their arguments.