Drill IV or Combat IV? You decide! Includes graphs

[cabert]

on your numbers, I read 1 succesful round of combat with CR2 causes the loss of 13 HP to the LB, while 1 round of combat with D2 only causes the loss of 12HP. No big deal IMHO, but not exactly the same.

Now that I'm sure that what I suspected is true, I will promote a few (like 1 said 1 or 2 for defensive purposes) that I will use first.
When all the good defenders are at least hurt, the CR promotions increase significantly the survivability of the catapults and thus there is no point in using drill anymore.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Oh yeah, and I just remembered the other reason drill is fairly crappy on siege - siege units only ever get 1xp if they "win" (withdraw from combat), completely negating one of the few benefits of drill (that being the better xp collecting).

The question is, at what odds is using catapults effectively throwaway? 0.5%? 1%? 5%?

After the D2 catapult has hit the longbow once, in the example from earlier, so the longbow has 88HP, the next D2 cat would have 2.1% odds vs. 5.1% if it had CR2 instead (vs. 1.0% for an unpromoted cat). Although I often say attacking wounded units with drill is a good thing, I wouldn't say so for siege, because half the point of doing it is meant to be the easier xp. But with 1xp one might as well go with best odds regardless and for city attacking cats, it's almost always going to be CR.

So as you were pretty much suggesting...

CR on catapults attacking injured units, or when units are not too heavily fortified. Drill on catapults when they are heavily fortified and damaging the strongest defender is high priority.

 

[Roland Johansen]

As usual, it can also be useful to use drill on siege units that are going to win anyway. So when you're attacking that 40 hp CG1 longbowman with a trebuchet, then a trebuchet with drill IV might have a good chance to win the battle without any damage. This might reduce healing time.

Of course, these kinds of promotions are more likely later in the game when you have a few settled great generals. So drill IV artillery vs 40 hp infantry is more likely.

By the way, it can be useful to keep bombing that enemy until minimal hitpoints if you have the required number of siege units because it can give you more experience and great general points (one xp for going from 40 hp to 15 hp and one xp for cleaning up instead of just one xp for killing the 40 hp unit). Next to that, if you use drill IV units for bombing the last few hitpoints and drill IV units for cleaning up, then these last battles from 40 hitpoints down to 15 hitpoints won't cost you a lot of hitpoints or healing time. You do need some CRIII units for the first few tough fights of course.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Voted:

Both the Combat and Drill promotion lines have their own merits. Neither is better than the other.

Drill line for temporary-captured-city defense / stack defense

Combat line for offensive field fighting, post-gunpowder city attacking, and Commando paratroopers.

However, I generally provide some of my CRIII units with Drill promotions instead of combat.

 

[Venger]

Figured this was as good a place as any to note an experience in my last game. I have a notable tech lead, so I am finishing up a domination victory by hitting the other large land mass and taking out the most powerful civ there. I am rolling with heavily promoted generals with MechInf (many updated from Legions, so they have a fat City Attack stack) and start rolling through taking out their cities, the weaker ones first, surrounding his one powerful city that has a big stack of 40 or so units in it, mostly cavalry. My one general in particular is loaded with Combat 6 and Drill 4 in a city when Mehmed makes his move - he sends everything he has at a decently but not overwhelmingly defended city - maybe 5 or 6 units, including the C6D4 general. Well, His promoted cavalry are of course half as strong as my MechInf, but this general destroys *17* upgraded cavalry and sends another 7 or so retreating in that single defending turn, all because he has that first strike advantage (almost positive Cavalry don't ignore first strikes) and with his strength advantage, those first strikes are enough to destroy the attackers before regular combat even begins. He might have been hit twice in the entire combat round, for minimal damage. It was a sight to see the same general over and over and over and over savaging the attackers, all due to first strikes.

When you have a strength advantage of 2 to 1, first strikes in a defense mode are AMAZING. It is a stackbreaker. The strength advantage would have been even more ridiculous if he had any City Defender promotions, which he did not...

He ended the round with 217 total XP, up around 35-40...

 

[jmas]

Nice. I would have liked seeing that in one of my games. It does underscore the power of the first strikes. Thank you for sharing that.

 

[zizzeus]

Followed the whole thread; great work by everyone involved in the calculations. You guys are quite good at explaining your mathematics to the layman.

The last post by Blitzkreig brought up a point that I see in almost every game I play towards domination. Like most, I'll keep some (10ish) axes or macemen with CRIII and upgrade them to rifles/infantry later in the game. I like to upgrade at 10 experience so that nothing is wasted, but I often get another 1 or 2 promotions in the field. I've never been sure what to take with that promotion. DI sucks, but these guys are veterans for a reason, as I've been attacking at 90%+ each time. Also, with CI, they may end up defending the stack, which I do not want.

Which promotion would be better here, given a typical situation against a protective leader:

Attacker:
CRIII + DI or CI rifleman
Cultural defense gone
Some cannon attacks to preceed CR rifles (perhaps this is the independent variable - how many cannons (or HP damage) does it take before DI is better than CI)

Defender:
CGIIDI rifleman, no hill

I don't like losing these guys, so combat odds is my metric. Any takers?

 

[Ghpstage]

Means as the threads been ressurected,

I'd assume that the amount of XP the enemy gets for killling my Drill units is reduced, correct? I haven't seen it mentioned and it seems quite obvious, but it is significant all the same.

This hp difference is interesting, looking at DanFs picture I wonder if a similar effect will occur with the Combat line, and will it be to the same extent?.
If not, would Drill be more effective than combat against higher tech units after large siege attacks? e.g. In Rifle vs Infantry wars

 

[popejubal]

Means as the threads been ressurected,

I'd assume that the amount of XP the enemy gets for killling my Drill units is reduced, correct? I haven't seen it mentioned and it seems quite obvious, but it is significant all the same.

This hp difference is interesting, looking at DanFs picture I wonder if a similar effect will occur with the Combat line, and will it be to the same extent?.
If not, would Drill be more effective than combat against higher tech units after large siege attacks? e.g. In Rifle vs Infantry wars

XP isn't "reduced" by the drill promotion, but the drill promotion isn't counted in the XP calculation, so the enemy unit will get fewer XP than it "should" based on combat odds.

Because XP gained is calculated based on relative strengths, any promotion that doesn't change a unit's strength isn't going be counted in the XP calculation. That means Combat promotions always reduce the amount of XP that you get while City Guard promotions would (obviously) only reduce the amount of XP that you get while your unit is in a city.

The extra benefit that Drill gives in XP is that it increases your chances of winning/surviving the fight without increasing your strength score in the combat. If you could magically have a much lower strength score than your opponent but still have 99% combat odds, you'll get a bunch of XP from the fight. XP doesn't come from combat odds, just from the ratio of the two units' strengths.

If you're really looking for a way to increase the number of XP that you gain over the course of a set number of turns, I'd actually say that March is your best bet.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Means as the threads been ressurected,

I'd assume that the amount of XP the enemy gets for killling my Drill units is reduced, correct? I haven't seen it mentioned and it seems quite obvious, but it is significant all the same.

This hp difference is interesting, looking at DanFs picture I wonder if a similar effect will occur with the Combat line, and will it be to the same extent?.
If not, would Drill be more effective than combat against higher tech units after large siege attacks? e.g. In Rifle vs Infantry wars

You might like to have a look at this post I made in another thread.

I pretty much directly addressed the question, "Is drill more effective than combat against higher tech units after large siege attacks?"

When attacking injured units, drill is the superior. The more injured the better. It is not just the fact the defender is weaker that causes this - it is the fact that the firepower of units depends on their health and that first strikes are much more effective when there are fewer hits required to kill the defender. (It is not strictly just because the attacker can kill the defender using first strikes alone, which many people claim. If it would take two hits to kill an enemy, 1 first strike is still very useful compared with a combat promotion.)

 

[Ghpstage]

XP isn't "reduced" by the drill promotion, but the drill promotion isn't counted in the XP calculation, so the enemy unit will get fewer XP than it "should" based on combat odds.

I know it doesn't literally increase or reduce XP earned, but it does skew the XP/odds ratio in favour of Drill units, increasing the exp individual units will likely recieve before death and getting more GG points per kill, and assumedly reducing the GG points attacking enemies will gain from the same fights.

You might like to have a look at this post I made in another thread.

I pretty much directly addressed the question, "Is drill more effective than combat against higher tech units after large siege attacks?"

When attacking injured units, drill is the superior. The more injured the better. It is not just the fact the defender is weaker that causes this - it is the fact that the firepower of units depends on their health and that first strikes are much more effective when there are fewer hits required to kill the defender. (It is not strictly just because the attacker can kill the defender using first strikes alone, which many people claim. If it would take two hits to kill an enemy, 1 first strike is still very useful compared with a combat promotion.)

Thanks PoM, some interesting info.
I have done a few tests myself that lead me to the conclusion that Drill is generally better against units after siege, especially when the units are outdated.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem as simple as just that, promotions and defensive terrain can make some strange changes.
Looking at your linked post Drill Cho Ku Nus certainly look interesting .

 

[PieceOfMind]

Ghpstage, the problem with expecting more gg points from defenders is that you would only get about half as many xp or gg points as for a similar battle where you were the attacker. In general, it is better to focus on earning gg points by attacking. Besides, by being the one doing the attacking you set the terms on how battle is carried out, when the drill units are used, etc.

Keep in the back of your mind that injured drill units get shafted by the best-defender code, often getting up to defend despite there being other units that have fewer first strikes but far better odds of surviving. This is why despite my drill units being good defenders, I prefer them to not be the ones that defend my stacks as they march towards cities. In the linked post of mine above, all those macemen came from drafting, so I was using disposable macemen to soak up attacks from enemy curassiers and grenadiers.

 

[Ghpstage]

Ghpstage, the problem with expecting more gg points from defenders is that you would only get about half as many xp or gg points as for a similar battle where you were the attacker. In general, it is better to focus on earning gg points by attacking. Besides, by being the one doing the attacking you set the terms on how battle is carried out, when the drill units are used, etc.

Keep in the back of your mind that injured drill units get shafted by the best-defender code, often getting up to defend despite there being other units that have fewer first strikes but far better odds of surviving. This is why despite my drill units being good defenders, I prefer them to not be the ones that defend my stacks as they march towards cities. In the linked post of mine above, all those macemen came from drafting, so I was using disposable macemen to soak up attacks from enemy curassiers and grenadiers.

I didn't mean that you gain more XP from defence, I know the XP system renders that negligable. My argument for defensive XP advantage lies on enemy attackers having lower odds for any given R, leading to succesful enemy attackers getting less XP for the same odds.
So the total XP advantage of drill units against other promo lines, will be mostly due to better XP for succesful attacking, and less XP for succesful attacking enemies.

Keep in the back of your mind that injured drill units get shafted by the best-defender code, often getting up to defend despite there being other units that have fewer first strikes but far better odds of surviving. This is why despite my drill units being good defenders, I prefer them to not be the ones that defend my stacks as they march towards cities. In the linked post of mine above, all those macemen came from drafting, so I was using disposable macemen to soak up attacks from enemy curassiers and grenadiers.

This on the other hand is a really stupid problem in the code

 

[PieceOfMind]

Ok, it would reduce the xp and gg points earned by enemies attacking you, I guess. I know this is obvious but I think it would be smarter to just avoid taking the losses in the first place. People already question why I care about xp so much for my own attacking troops. Worrying about how many xp your enemies are earning from the deaths of your own units is taking it to another level.

It's true though... If you are attacking an enemy that has lots of first strikes on their units, you don't earn as many xp throughout the battles as you "should" for those odds. This is why when I'm attacking drill units, I prefer to use alternate mechanisms for dealing the damage, then mopping up the weak drill units. Basically, use collateral (from siege or planes) to hurt them first, then use high base str units.

As good as drill units are for attacking injured defenders, drill units suffer from a large combat disadvantage when they are injured, for similar underlying reasons. I would very rarely initiate an attack using an injured drill unit, but sometimes will initiate an attack with an injured Combat unit (for example).

By the way, another reason to not worry so much about enemy gg points... I don't know about you but I often find as I'm conquering enemy cities in my games I'll find a gg or two in a city every now and then. If you lower the xp for your enemy when they kill your units, you're denying yourself those spoils of war - captured GGs!

 

[Roland Johansen]

Keep in the back of your mind that injured drill units get shafted by the best-defender code, often getting up to defend despite there being other units that have fewer first strikes but far better odds of surviving. This is why despite my drill units being good defenders, I prefer them to not be the ones that defend my stacks as they march towards cities. In the linked post of mine above, all those macemen came from drafting, so I was using disposable macemen to soak up attacks from enemy curassiers and grenadiers.

Could you explain what is wrong with the best defender code in this instance? Why does it choose the unit with more first strikes over the one with a better chance to win the battle?

If the unofficial patch was still being maintained, would this in your opinion be something that should be fixed in the unofficial patch?

 

[PieceOfMind]

Could you explain what is wrong with the best defender code in this instance? Why does it choose the unit with more first strikes over the one with a better chance to win the battle?

If the unofficial patch was still being maintained, would this in your opinion be something that should be fixed in the unofficial patch?

It was discussed for a little while in the Better AI forum. I talked about it, and Yakk explained the relevant code though I don't pretend to understand much of what's going on there. All I know is units with a lot of first strikes sometimes get up to defend when they shouldn't. This picture from that post demonstrates it perfectly.

Spoiler :

Oh, and in my opinion there is no need to change the rules here for an unofficial patch. I consider it a small disadvantage of using drill troops in large numbers but it's not exactly game-changing. It took a long time for it to even be noticed anyway. The best defender code is not meant to always pick the best defender anyway (take loaded transports as an example) so it would invite arguments (perhaps) if it was changed. Also, consider that on average the effect of the problem would normally be to give the human player a slight disadvantage because for most games it is the human player attacking injured units rather than the other way round.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Oh, and in my opinion there is no need to change the rules here for an unofficial patch. I consider it a small disadvantage of using drill troops in large numbers but it's not exactly game-changing. It took a long time for it to even be noticed anyway.

You normally can't really compare the odds of the various units in your stack against various defenders, so it is hard to notice. You'll need to do specific tests to notice it, so it isn't surprising that is wasn't noticed early on.
If a similar mistake was made with AI units defending against human units with city raider promotions, then it would have been noticed very early.

The best defender code is not meant to always pick the best defender anyway (take loaded transports as an example) so it would invite arguments (perhaps) if it was changed.

I understand, but I consider the situation with loaded transports very very different. In that case, the game also considers what you would lose when the transport would sink with all units in it. A very sensible consideration. (However, there has been some discussion about this with missile carrying missile cruisers.)

Also, consider that on average the effect of the problem would normally be to give the human player a slight disadvantage because for most games it is the human player attacking injured units rather than the other way round.

What does it matter whether the human player would on average be at an advantage or a disadvantage due to these rules? Such an argument shouldn't be important when deciding whether the best defender code works correctly or not.

Thanks for the information. It's not a big issue, but I'd rather have the game pick the best defender using a more accurate guess of the best defender. I don't expect any changes however in the unofficial patch or BetterAI. It's just not that important.

 

[PieceOfMind]

You normally can't really compare the odds of the various units in your stack against various defenders, so it is hard to notice. You'll need to do specific tests to notice it, so it isn't surprising that is wasn't noticed early on.
If a similar mistake was made with AI units defending against human units with city raider promotions, then it would have been noticed very early.

In fact, it happens when attacking as well. I haven't been observing it that closely but every now and then I'll be attacking with two identical units in a row, and the second one gets worse odds than the first. I haven't got a definite example to back this claim up right now. But it makes sense considering how first strikes muck things up in the best-defender code.

I understand, but I consider the situation with loaded transports very very different. In that case, the game also considers what you would lose when the transport would sink with all units in it. A very sensible consideration. (However, there has been some discussion about this with missile carrying missile cruisers.)

I consider it very different as well, but similar in another sense. The sense in which I consider it similar is simply that there are situations where the best defender that should be picked is not necessarily the one with the highest odds of survival. Drill units that are injured may be more likely to die when attacked, but maybe they are also more likely to inflict damage on the attacker? As I said, I'm not 100% sure on the logic used in the best-defender code, but I don't see any obvious reason to consider it a bug. I mean, why would they write a completely separate algorithm for how first strikes were handled, when they could easily have used the actual odds-calculating code instead?

On another note, the bug involving the odds calculation for siege units attacking when they can damage the defender to exactly the combatLimit is more troubling and is definitely an oversight in that part of the code.

What does it matter whether the human player would on average be at an advantage or a disadvantage due to these rules? Such an argument shouldn't be important when deciding whether the best defender code works correctly or not.

I would imagine some people don't welcome changes to rules that make the game harder for the standard strategies they apply. Of course, the change here would be pretty minimal. But yeah, as you said it's not really the point.

Thanks for the information. It's not a big issue, but I'd rather have the game pick the best defender using a more accurate guess of the best defender. I don't expect any changes however in the unofficial patch or BetterAI. It's just not that important.

Me too. I think the bestdefender code is a bit bizarre but I suppose it's one of the few things that remain a mystery to me, and maybe that's a good thing. Having said that, I'm sure one day I will have analysed it and removed all fascination with it for good.

 

[Ghpstage]

Worrying about how many xp your enemies are earning from the deaths of your own units is taking it to another level.

Possibly not so much in MP games. It could be a decent way to counter IMP leaders there as your going to take heavier losses against a person than AI. I know its a bit extreme thought and MP isn't very common though

I know this is obvious but I think it would be smarter to just avoid taking the losses in the first place

True, but not always possible. Besides, how does Drill compare to other promos on stack survivability? The higher liklihood for no damage and great collateral resistance quite likely come out ahead in many situations.

A somewhat related question to anyone that might know:
How do AI decide whether they should attack enemy units or not? If you ignore the combat courage is it; pure odds? ratio and %modifiers? Or do they take into account other influences like collateral resistance, medics, presence of siege units in a stack and such? And also where does the courage actually get added?

By the way, another reason to not worry so much about enemy gg points... I don't know about you but I often find as I'm conquering enemy cities in my games I'll find a gg or two in a city every now and then. If you lower the xp for your enemy when they kill your units, you're denying yourself those spoils of war - captured GGs!

I agree, unfortunately the AIs in my games settle the majority of their GGs in cities with pretty much no productive potential

 

[Roland Johansen]

Drill units that are injured may be more likely to die when attacked, but maybe they are also more likely to inflict damage on the attacker? As I said, I'm not 100% sure on the logic used in the best-defender code, but I don't see any obvious reason to consider it a bug. I mean, why would they write a completely separate algorithm for how first strikes were handled, when they could easily have used the actual odds-calculating code instead?

Yakk explained that pretty well in his post (which you referred to). He said that the code to pick the best defender could be accessed pretty often during a game turn and thus it needed to be fast. At least faster than the odds calculation algorithm. But I do think the algorithm could be improved upon in a similar way as explained by Yakk in the suggestion in his post. I agree with his assessment of how to calculate the damage that an immortal unit would receive when trying to kill another unit and that it is a good measure for the 'power' of a unit.

On another note, the bug involving the odds calculation for siege units attacking when they can damage the defender to exactly the combatLimit is more troubling and is definitely an oversight in that part of the code.

What goes wrong? Does the calculation consider one extra round or one fewer round? I vaguely recall reading about this in your combat calculator mod thread.