First strike seems useless

[Tristan_C]

I like the guaranteed damage. Civ4 is missing guarantees. But then Drill walks in and is like "Yo here's a guarantee," and everyone's mind=BLOWN because they've never heard of such a thing b4. "Guarantees? In my Civ4?!" It's more likely than you think, said Drill; it's GUARANTEED.

 

[UWHabs]

I like the guaranteed damage. Civ4 is missing guarantees. But then Drill walks in and is like "Yo here's a guarantee," and everyone's mind=BLOWN because they've never heard of such a thing b4. "Guarantees? In my Civ4?!" It's more likely than you think, said Drill; it's GUARANTEED.

Drill has no guaranteed damage. You can have a unit with 5-8 first strikes and still lose without damaging the opponent.

Drill is only useful when you can get to drill 4. Maybe drill 3 on units that start with first strikes (Cho-Ko-Nus, for example). It's best for cleaning up after siege. Bring a stack of cannons and D4 Oromos, let the cannons do their work, and your oromos can clean up without getting damaged at all (plus, they get lots of XP in battles with high odds).

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Uh well now I'm confused.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

First strikes are basically combat rounds where the person with the first strike can deal damage. But they can lose the round, and no one gets hurt.

If you are 50/50 with your opponent and have 4 1st strikes, on average, you should hit them twice, doing something like 20 points each time - which is huge, because you are very likely to win.

You will almost certainly do SOME damage (1/16th chance of not), but it;s not guaranteed.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Thank you kindly AutomatedTeller, that helps!

So the chance of a first strike inflicting damage scales based on the relative strengths of the combatants, if I understand you correctly?

 

[Derakon]

Correct.

In any given combat round, victory depends on the two units' relative strengths. If the attacker wins, then the defender takes damage (again, based on their relative strengths), and vice versa. First-strike rounds are identical to normal combat except that the unit performing the first strike cannot be hurt.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

and, of course, anything with flanking II or most mounted units past horse archers are immune to them completely, which makes drill less effective as a city defender.

 

[Tristan_C]

Alright, yeah, I was wrong. It's not totally guaranteed.

The niche for Drill which I was trying to highlight was a common situation where you need to deal with an apex defender. Say you have a pack of trebs, and you find a Garrison-III longbow fortified in a hill city. You're going to blow through hundreds of hammers getting through that. CR3/collateral trebs might squeeze in lots of collateral on the guys underneath, but never actually make a dent in that unit. He'll eat macemen and sh** victory, too. Instead, Drill one of your trebs or maces, and send that one in first. It will die, but it's almost guaranteed to get hits.

 

[Iranon]

Drill is generally bad for win percentages in individual fights between similarly strong units. It tends to be good in lopsided fights though.

If you're throwing junk at a superior foe, it increases your chance of damaging them significantly. If you're having good odds already, it greatly increases your chance of surviving with no/neglegible damage... useful when you're beset by superior numbers of outdated units. I generally like the promotion very much.

 

[barbertje]

Alright, yeah, I was wrong. It's not totally guaranteed.

The niche for Drill which I was trying to highlight was a common situation where you need to deal with an apex defender. Say you have a pack of trebs, and you find a Garrison-III longbow fortified in a hill city. You're going to blow through hundreds of hammers getting through that. CR3/collateral trebs might squeeze in lots of collateral on the guys underneath, but never actually make a dent in that unit. He'll eat macemen and sh** victory, too. Instead, Drill one of your trebs or maces, and send that one in first. It will die, but it's almost guaranteed to get hits.

It's actually only slightly more likely for a CR III treb to score no hits against an entrenched CGIII longbow, (10.9% vs 10%) and the hits will be bigger with CRIII, and there's a bigger chance of getting more hits with CGIII, and about a 10% chance of surviving. I wouldn't ever attack with Drill III siege, except maybe in the field. If there's only one good defender left, you can attack with a mace or knight.

This is because CRIII makes a very large difference in strength, because CRIII, together with the innate 100% city attack wiil completely wipe out the defense
bonus, but 75% of the bonus remains with drill III.
CRIII is 4 vs 6, but drill III is 4 vs. 10.5

It would be different if there was a realistic way of getting drill IV with siege.

Macemen can't get drill unless you play Japan.

 

[obsolete]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. Next time use the sarcasm face. : /

 

[Revenant]

I think that should say "The only service I offer".

 

[TheWilltoAct]

badum tish!

 

[Deckhand]

In any given combat round, victory depends on the two units' relative strengths. If the attacker wins, then the defender takes damage (again, based on their relative strengths), and vice versa. First-strike rounds are identical to normal combat except that the unit performing the first strike cannot be hurt.

close
I think it works like this:

"In any given combat round," a virtual coin is flipped and the winner damages the loser. This damage depends on the two units' relative strengths.
"First-strike rounds are identical to normal combat except that the unit performing the first strike cannot be hurt."

Thus, relative strength does not affect victory in any particular round but is key for the combat victory. Stronger units cause more and suffer less damage. Healthier units have more hit points and so survive more. Weakened units cause less damage and don't last as long.

 

[Derakon]

Deckhand: that doesn't jive with what the source I was referring to says:

The odds that the attacker will win each round is given by A/(A+D), so the odds the defender wins a round is D/(A+D).

Do you have some evidence to show that each round is a coinflip instead? Someone with more initiative could do this fairly easily by pitting some warriors against modern armors using WB...

 

[Rittmeyer]

haven't seen people mentioning collateral damage imunnity (for Drill promoted units). a stack of rifles promoted from oromos (drill IV) will eat piles of cannons.

 

[Crocutrax]

The drill promotions have thier uses and on defense I like to field at least a few units with drill II or higher to soften the hit from collateral damage caused by siege. On the offensive, I'm less fond of drill as a promotion, although recently I have been experimenting in the use of drill promoted units for myself. In general I'm particularly fond of in the (very) late game adding the drill promotion to SAM infantry after I've increased thier chance of interception.

All that being said, the Drill promotions has enough versatility for me to be used sometimes. Usually to enhance defense.

 

[Iranon]

There is one problem with this: The best defender code hopelessly overvalues first strikes, so your collateral-resistant unit will probably end up defending against anything that isn't immune to first strike.

Offensively, first strikes are particularly strong against wounded units - to the extent that Oromos can be better than Riflemen.

 

[Deckhand]

Deckhand: that doesn't jive with what the source I was referring to sayso you have some evidence to show that each round is a coinflip instead? Someone with more initiative could do this fairly easily by pitting some warriors against modern armors using WB...

No. It is what I recall reading years ago somewhere on this forum. It would be great if someone that knows could confirm or deny. The "coin flip" is consistent with observed behavior - that is how we lose 99.6% odds - see how lose 6 "flips" in a row - that is more likely when it is .5 **6 vs ~.1 **6. (and I've read RNG is "streaky").

 

[UWHabs]

I'm almost positive it's not 50/50. Otherwise, any battle without first strikes would be guaranteed at least a 50% chance of the weaker unit damaging the stronger one, which is most certainly not what I see.