first strike?

[cef71]

is there a way to tell if a unit was successful with a 'first strike' chance? it doesn't really 'sell' the promotion if i can't ever see that it works.

 

[Psyringe]

After a fight, check the combat log (press Ctrl-Tab, then choose the "Combat" tab). First strike means that the unit cannot take damage during the first round(s) of combat. However, the combat log doesn't tell you something like "no damage taken because of first strike promotion", instead you have to conclude from list of damage dealt that your unit *probably* has evaded some attacks because of its first strike promotion.

 

[panzooka]

not really, i just did a test a while ago, i got chu ko nu with 2 first strike, then get level 4 drill, then final first strike is 5-8, then in combat log, my unit got hit first, and other people said, sometimes all 5-8 first strikes fails, which is not enough to convince me. so my conclusion is that first strike is broken

 

[enchanter100]

I haven't noticed any benifits from this unit promotion either. Anyone else?

 

[segawang]

not really, i just did a test a while ago, i got chu ko nu with 2 first strike, then get level 4 drill, then final first strike is 5-8, then in combat log, my unit got hit first, and other people said, sometimes all 5-8 first strikes fails, which is not enough to convince me. so my conclusion is that first strike is broken

Sounds like a bug, if you were fight some units with similar strength. Also, could you make sure that the unit your Drill 4 Chu-Ko-Nu fought with was not immune to first strike? Would be great if you have the save and do more experiment with that Chu-Ko-Nu to prove whether it's a real bug on first strike or not.

 

[Kolyana]

Panzooka .. make sure you email firaxis your findings ... it'll be the only way we get stuff like this fixed!

 

[warpstorm]

If you attack another unit with first strike, they cancel out. In addition, many units get Ignore First Strike.

All first strike does is prevents you from taking damage on a given combat round. If you missed on that round, rather than you taking a hit, nothing happens.

 

[panzooka]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=140124
here is my original thread

 

[segawang]

The first strike promotion is useful, when you need a flexible unit with both attack and defend ability. I used to go for it a lot, coz in my calculation it's better than Combat I, unless the promotion of Combat I brings the odds (strength ratio of the two sides) breaking a critical point (1.000, 1.444, and 1.571, to name three most commonly applied critical points). However, I've changed my mind recently, when I found in MP and higher difficulty SP games, it frequently involves in units with same original strength dualing each other. In these duals, I desperately need the Combat I promotion to break or reach the 1.000 critical point to get an upper hand. Also, Combat I leads to Shock, Cover and Medic, which are all very useful!

Many players (like me) prefer to hold the promotion until the last minute before the combat. In that case, you could calculate the ratio and see if Combat I could help you to break any of those critical points. If yes, choose Combat I; if no, pick first strike. Two exceptions: in the case you are guarding a city, city garrison I (the 20% strength increase) is always be the best choice over the other options. Similarly, Guerilla I is the best to go when guarding on a hill.

 

[panzooka]

i understand the formula from that "combat explained" thread.
to break the 1.0 ratio point, your unit need 5 hits to kill your opponent, while your opponent needs 6 hits to kill your unit.
but if ratio point of 1.0, and your unit have 1 first strike. your still need 5 hit, and so does your opponent, but in his theory, u get 1 free hit, means actually, u only need 4 hits, but opponent need 5 hits.
from the hit ratios of 5:6, and 4:5, it does look like that 4:5 have an advantage over 5:6, but if first strikes are chances, then it is not 4:5, its 4.5:5 or 9:10, which is much weaker than 5:6.

but that person said if unit with same strength, first strike promotion > strength promotion, but it only work like that when it is 4:5, which means first strike = sure hit.
but he also said first strikes are chances, so if your unit have 5-8 first strike, when combat happens, it will randomly have 5-8 first strike CHANCES.
but that breaks his own formula.

any way, too much math, made me headache, if first strike are chances, then its much weaker than strength promotion in ALL cases, not to mention when you vs another unit with first strike, and vs units immune to first strike.

edit: the above were original post, but i'll like to re phrase it abit, so everybody understand.
----------------------------------------------------------
combat explaination thread
here are some quotes from that thread

First Strike

First strike round(s) are special. The number of them is determined by looking at the number of first strike rounds of the attacker and the defender. Whichever number is greater gets the difference of values in first strike opportunities. For x-y first strikes (possible first strikes), the math is still unknown.

A first strike round is like any other round, except that the first striker is the only one who can do damage. For example, if the attacker has two first strikes and the defender zero, the first two rounds have two possibilities – the attacker wins so the defender loses damage or the defender “wins” and nobody gets hurt. The odds in this round are just like any other.

here he said first strikes are chances.

1.01-1.25 62%-75%
1.0 50%
The final jump point is around an even battle. Even a tiny bit of strength makes a HUGE difference. Any stronger unit, by even .01, will have at worst a 62.3% chance of winning the combat. That’s because the stronger unit does 20 damage and the weaker only 19. 5 rounds to kill vs. 6 rounds to kill. That’s all there is to it. Going from a tiny bit stronger to a tiny bit weaker drops your chance of winning from 62.3% to 37.7%. A 40% chance of winning is impossible for fully-healed units(without first strikes).

this shows the winning odds with pure strength calculation
it means if you unit strength : opponent unit strength = 1.01, your chance of winning is 62%

If your unit is barely stronger with first-strike or barely weaker without first strike, then the first strike promotion is better than a strength promotion. This appears true out to about the 1.38/1.39 strength ratio barrier. If the strength ratio is outside 1.38, strength beats first strike. And if strength would change which unit is stronger, strength wins out. Exact calculations on this may come later.

i found his calculation unreliable.
assume you have an archer with 1 unspent promotion, fighting another archer with no promotion.
according to his "third law", that unit with similar strength will do better with first strike than combat promotion.
but

Two units with identical strength and equal first strikes each have a 50% chance of winning (YAY! Something that finally makes sense in this mess of math). Give 1 a single first strike, though, and the odds of that unit winning goes up to 56.8%.

but if you give that archer combat promotion, which adds 10% strength. and that 10% will surely break the 1.01 ratio, (1.1 ratio), and that means it will atleast have 62% chance of winning according to his "second law"
which prooves combat promotion beats first strike promotion in all cases.

the statement "if 2 unit with same strength, then first strike works better" will only be true if first strike = sure hit, which will result with 64% chance.

and i dont even know how he calculated the chances, my 64% is an estimate lol.
the way i calculate is by number of hits required.
for example, at 1.01 breakpoint, my unit need 5 hits, and enemy unit need 6, so my chance of winning is 6/(5+6) = 54.54%repeating
but with "sure hit", and 1.0 ratio, winning is 5/(4+5) = 55.55%repeating
if chance of first strike and 1.0 ratio, winning is 52.63% 5/(4.5+5)

 

[segawang]

First strikes are chances. Let's say you have a unit with first strike fighting a unit without that ability. There will be an extra round at first. If you win the round, you make the damage. If you lose the round, no damage made, coz that is a first strike round.

Now to my understanding, even this chance is sometimes not guaranteed. Drill I only grants a first strike chance (instead of an extra first strike), which essentially means a chance to have that chance... Thank you for pointing it out, coz I've never noticed that before. Then, when an archer with Drill I facing a unit without first strike ability, I guess it would have 1-2 first strike. I guess you simply got 50% to have 1 first strike, 50% chance to have 2. The effect of Drill I would be halved than that I expected. Drill I then would be basically worse than Combat I in every case! OMG, the one to avoid.

 

[Arathorn]

Calling those laws is a bit overstating things, I think. They're works in progress.

And, yes, moving past 1:1 to 1.0x:1 is breaking a critical point, so it would be the better promotion to take.

The exact mechanics of first strike are still under investigation, too.

FWIW, I (almost) never promote drill. But Sirian recommends it. <Shrug> Only time will tell which is ultimately more popular.

Arathorn

 

[segawang]

I think what he means by similar strength is when the ratio is between 1.000-1.444. As I mentioned before, 1.444 is the second critical point that you will meet. Basically, If A/D>1.444, D will need to hit A 7 times (instead of 6, when the ratio is 1.000-1.444) to kill A. The next point is 1.571, when A only need 4 hits instead of 5 to finish D off. What he said in the original post is if a promotion of Combat (10% increase in strength) would bring you breaking a critical point, then another first strike is a better choice in terms of winning odds. It is true. You could take an example like 3.0 to 2.75. If you get a 10% increase in strength, it brings the ratio to 3.3 to 2.75, which is still between 1.000 to 1.444. The final winning chance is 72.9%. If you instead give it a first strike, while the ratio remains at 3.0 to 2.75, the final winning chance is 73.4%. First strike beats 10% strength here.

However, I do need to point out - as I just realized myself - that the Drill I promotion is different from an extra first strike used in the above test. It actually could only be considered as 0.5 extra first strike, as it is only a first strike chance...

 

[gunnergoz]

All these numbers make my poor head hurt. Just tell me which is better, first strike or level 1 promotion, and under what circumstances?

 

[segawang]

All these numbers make my poor head hurt. Just tell me which is better, first strike or level 1 promotion, and under what circumstances?

As far as I can see, no Drill I any more.

 

[RadagastdeBrun]

As far as I can see, no Drill I any more.

Drill is most useful when you have highly superior units defending against large stacks, as the first strikes greatly increase the chances of your units getting out of the combat with minimal damage (even if they are, in fact, more likely to lose in each round of combat). The place where I see it being most useful is if your opponent is sending axemen into longbowmen defending a city on a hill.

 

[segawang]

Drill is most useful when you have highly superior units defending against large stacks, as the first strikes greatly increase the chances of your units getting out of the combat with minimal damage (even if they are, in fact, more likely to lose in each round of combat). The place where I see it being most useful is if your opponent is sending axemen into longbowmen defending a city on a hill.

Even highly superior units should choose Combat I over Drill I to receive less damages from the enemies. You could do some experiments yourself with the calculator. Remember Drill I only gives another first strike chance, which means you need to average the two results from 0 or 1 first strike.

However, a city on hill is an exactly (if not only) situation that Drill I could be better than Combat I, not because the units is highly superior, but the huge defence bonus. The 100%+ defence bonus actually makes the 10% increase in original strength less powerful (it's effectively like a less than 5% increase). But still, Combat I beats Drill I consistently in every other situations. It also leads to the useful Shock, Cover, and Medic promotions, which could beat Drill II easily. For the only situation Drill I wins (marginally), I would still not choose it. I go for City Garrison I if that units is determined to fortify that hill city.

 

[RadagastdeBrun]

I did a little bit of semi-scientific testing of the effects of three levels of drill versus the effects of three levels of garrison for those longbowmen on a hill. You should note that this includes the massive +40% strength from Garrison III.

These longbowmen were placed in a hill city with walls and a castle.

The number of axemen it took to defeat the single longbow in the ten rounds of testing is below (note that each round had the same random seed for drill and garrison).
Garrison Drill
6 -------8
15 ------6
9 -------7
14 ------23
21 ------12
6 -------10
7 -------13
6 -------7
16 ------15
13 ------18


Mean 11.3--- 11.9
S. Deviation 5.2---- 5.50 (pretty much meaningless as this follows some permutation of the extreme value distribution).


As you can see, there is a slight edge to the drill but hardly a statistically significant one. There are also a better range of future promotions for these drill trained longbowmen (drill IV is better than I,II, and III combined). This implies that there are at least limited situations in which the drill line is a valid promotion choice.



If you remove the castle and walls, leaving only a single level of cultural protection (fairly standard for a border city). The statistics become as such. I have additionally tested with Drill IV which, as I expected, is huge, and to compensate Guerrilla I the best promotion for this situation after you get through the Garrison line.

Drill I-IV---Drill I-III---Garrison I-III---Garrison I-III &Guerrilla I
11-----------6-------------7---------------7
14-----------5-------------5---------------5
9------------6-------------7---------------7
20-----------6-------------4---------------5
14-----------5-------------5---------------8
6------------3-------------4---------------4
12-----------7-------------8---------------10
7------------7-------------6---------------6
11-----------6-------------7---------------7
15-----------6-------------7---------------13


11.9--------5.7-----------6---------------7.2------Ave
4.121-------1.15---------1.41------------2.65-----Std Dev

As you expected, the power of three levels of drill did decrease here, but frankly nowhere near to the extent I expected. The difference is now slightly in favor of Garrison, but again well within error. Most interesting is the extreme extent to which Drill IV can increase you longevity and the near uselessness of Guerrilla I. This perhaps indicates that Drill is a line that gets significantly more powerful the more that you invest in it, another reason that you should only attempt to use it if you have superior forces that stand a good chance of making it to level 4 (interestingly, I think that you accrue experience faster in a drill trained unit than one with strength based promotions).



Further testing on longbowmen facing axemen on flat terrain (ie no defensive bonuses). In 50 trials, the average number of unpormoted axemen to defeat a Combat I-IV longbowman was 2.24; the average number to defeat a Drill I-IV longbowman was 2.32. This difference was only about 70% significant. With only Combat I and Drill I, this test strongly favors Combat I with an average of 2.12, as opposed to 1.92.




[Edit] Formatting: still not good, but at least make some sense. Also added the second table.

 

[segawang]

I did a little bit of semi-scientific testing of the effects of three levels of drill versus the effects of three levels of garrison for those longbowmen on a hill. You should note that this includes the massive +40% strength from Garrison III.

These longbowmen were placed in a hill city with walls and a castle.

The number of axemen it took to defeat the single longbow in the ten rounds of testing is below (note that each round had the same random seed for drill and garrison).
Garrison Drill
6 -------8
15 ------6
9 -------7
14 ------23
21 ------12
6 -------10
7 -------13
6 -------7
16 ------15
13 ------18


Mean 11.3--- 11.9
S. Deviation 5.2---- 5.50


As you can see, there is a slight edge to the drill but hardly a statistically significant one. There are also a better range of future promotions for these drill trained longbowmen (drill IV is better than I,II, and III combined). This implies that there are at least limited situations in which the drill line is a valid promotion choice.

[Edit] Formatting: still not good, but at least make some sense.

I respect your effort in trying to prove that Drill is not a totally worse ability than Combat or other power-based promotions. I like the talks in a scientific ground.

I can see that you got my point that when your units receive a lot of defensive bonus, Drill will be relatively more valuable than the other power-based promotions. But seriously, in a real game how many times do you think a unit will receive 200%+ defensive bonus, like you did in your experiment? With the products put into the wall+castle, I usually make 2-3 more longbows... I guess your results might go significant in favor of City garrison, if you remove the wall+castle in that hill city.

 

[RadagastdeBrun]

Some more data on less powerful defensive cities has been placed above.



I have focused on defensive longbowmen here because they are the last unit that you can legitimately put first strikes on, Cho-ku-nos and crossbowmen being the only other possibilities (Drill on artillery seems one of the worst uses of your promotions). I would claim that Drill is certainly most useful on the defensive, firstly because it seems most useful in stopping being overwhelmed by superior numbers of inferior forces, and secondly because of the aforementioned defensive bonuses. I would never place drill on offensive units.