1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

How risky are you in wars?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by atreas, Mar 14, 2006.

  1. atreas

    atreas King

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    799
    Location:
    Greece
    A simple "statistical" question that makes a big difference in the game play:

    Let's suppose you have two axemen, one well promoted and the other one just with Combat 1 and you are finding yourself with the task of capturing an enemy city with a lone archer inside. You check the percentages, and you see that the "good" axeman has 60% chance and the "bad" one has 30% chance (you can also change the numbers, if you want). The question is what do you think is best - attack first with the "good" one and if he loses then with the "bad" one on the injured archer, or make first an attack with the "bad" axeman and then (if he loses) with the good one?

    It seems that the second method gives better chances for a "sure" ultimate win, but has the disadvantage of 1) losing more units if you conduct wars like this, and 2) since your "good" units are always attacking injured opponents, they will never reach too high levels in experience (reduced experience bonus).

    Is it a matter of style, or has anyone thought of a strategy about it? The idea can be applied to many places in the game, not only in early rushes.
     
  2. Dusty4prez

    Dusty4prez Krazy Kanuck

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    413
    But the first one also has the disadvantage of more than likely losing the good unit
     
  3. atreas

    atreas King

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    799
    Location:
    Greece
    60% to win isn't "more than likely to lose" by any standard - but if you want you can change the numbers freely to 70-30 or whatever else and tell us what you do. In other words, just tell us when you feel sure and when you go the safe way.
     
  4. Moonsinger

    Moonsinger Settler Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,374
    Location:
    Iowa
    I would usually attack with the "good" axeman first. 60% chance is much better than 30%. If he dies, he would damage the lone archer bad enough. My "bad" axeman should have no problem to finish the job and he would most likely be promoted to "good". In the end, I would still have at least one "good" axeman.
     
  5. The Tyrant

    The Tyrant Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    445
    For me it would depend on how many other "well promoted" units I had. If this is my highest XP unit, I would attack with the weaker unit first. I would rather lose a pretty standard unit and have a greater chance of keeping the one I'm working up in promotions to allow me to eventually build the West Point and Pentagon wonders. If I had other units about equally promoted, then I might risk this one to have a better chance of having more units left after the battle.

    When I have a larger stack, I'll frequently attack with the least-promoted of my units first. This means when I finally attack with my most-promited units they get less XP but they have a better chance of survival. I would rather have slower but surer promotions. Attacking with the most-promoted units first would give a chance of more XP gain, but comes with the risk of losing ALL those promotions when the unit loses the combat.
     
  6. [Comrade]RaVE

    [Comrade]RaVE Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas.
    I hold my invasions until I've got at least a 70% chance of success. If I was in said scenario, I would keep my units near the city and wait for a catapult to arrive.

    I won't attack unless I've done everything in my power to assure I will be successful.
     
  7. Dusty4prez

    Dusty4prez Krazy Kanuck

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    413
    60% to me is pretty much the same as 50 so I'd much rather attack with the weaker one then go stronger.
     
  8. lutzj

    lutzj The Last Thing You See

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,693
    Location:
    New England
    Not a bad idea
     
  9. ArmoredCavalry

    ArmoredCavalry Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    195
    Location:
    Ontario
    I've tried a war (Cavalry vs longbowmen/grenaders basicly) in which I attack with the "bad" unit first, I lost a LOT of units, forcing the "good" units to seize a small window of oppertunity. They died. But this is most likely due to my impatience for the slowness of siege units. still, even if you lose with the "good" unit you will get an easyer fight with the "bad" one
     
  10. sgrig

    sgrig Comrade

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,123
    Location:
    Isaac Newton's College
    If none of my units have odds higher than 70%, I prefer to save my better units, and so attack first with the weaker ones. I see promoted units as an investment which shouldn't be thrown away too lightly, however I can always replace newly built units, so losing them is not a problem. Also this way my promoted units aren't damaged that much, and so don't have to spend a lot of time to heal. Thus they can take part in more battles, and gain more experience.
     
  11. N3pomuk

    N3pomuk Warlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    162
    Location:
    "Old Europe"
    I find that if I atack with the bad one first, I tend to not do enouth damage warranting the loss of production for the unit, rather raze the country side if you can't defeat the oponent in the cities.
    cheers
     
  12. petey

    petey Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2002
    Messages:
    569
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    I usually attack with the good one first. If it fails, you can still win with the bad one and then promote it to a good unit. If you win, you can then promote the good one and have yourself a great one.
     
  13. luckynick

    luckynick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    75
    if you attack with the weakest axeman first, chance are it will not deal enough damage to ensure victory for the good one, sometime it will not even deal any damage leaving you to an hard decision to or not to try with the good one, not trying meaning of course facing a promoted archer later.
    I would do that ONLY if i want to save the good one at all cost for any reason, otherwise i would enforce victory by attcking with the good one first then the weaker one should almost always pick the city for you.
     
  14. LordOfTheDrinks

    LordOfTheDrinks Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    18
    First one, obviously.
    Not counting experience, you'll end with TWO units left in more cases. The rookie will have his chance to gain experience eventually... in a more fair fight, sometime!
     
  15. cardin411

    cardin411 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Messages:
    9
    I agree, the good one is more likely to inflict hit points than the bad one. The bad one would surely be able to finish the job if the good one dies.
     
  16. Tatran

    Tatran Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    4,184
    The whole combat odds info is crap.This causes a lot of frustration.
    What's the difference between 60% and 80%?Or 70% and 90%?
    This info can be reduced to good,equal and bad odds.

    Another idea (feel free to criticize) would be replace the combat odds
    for withdraw chance and scrap the useless flanking promotions for units.
    Every unit should have a withdraw chance and no one wants to lose
    a high XP unit to high combat odds.

    On topic,I wouldn't attack with both.The risk is too high losing both.
     
  17. JerichoHill

    JerichoHill Bedrock of Knowledge

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    10,384
    Location:
    Washington DC
    Am I the only one here who doesn't mind attacking with bad odds?

    Sheesh, on the higher levels, you gotta strategerize and take a chance at some point.

    What would I do? \

    I need to know the following.

    Early game or Late game?
    What's my civ?
    Who am I fighting?
    How important is this city, locationally?
    How important is this city strategically?
    Is it an AI production center?
    How useful will the city be to my empire?
    Is it developed?
    What kind of victory am I going for?
    Do I have other units with better XP elsewhere?

    There is no set answer. And there is no simple answer.

    Think dammit!
     
  18. cabert

    cabert Big mouth

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,710
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    not quite as much questions as jericho,
    but given infos aren't enough to choose.

    If you want that city this turn, go with the good one first. If not, want for a cat, pillage whatever, but 60% is just not enough for this one, if you don't have massive backup.
    My other questions are:
    - what reinforcements are coming on my side, on the enemy's side? (taking down the archer, to lose with a wounded bad axemen next turn to the reinforcement isn't going nowhere)
    - what other cities/troops do the AI have?
    - how much do you need this city right now?

    Obviously, if it's the last city, with the last archer, i'll go for it. If it isn't, and my reinforcements are a bit far away, i go pillaging.
     
  19. Dusty Monkey

    Dusty Monkey Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    This is clearly an issue in the early game and not so much in the late game.

    It would be nice to know the chance that Mr 30% will get a hit in and do some damage.

    Does he have any first strike promotions?
     
  20. Brighteye

    Brighteye intuitively Bayesian

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Location:
    Oxford
    In this situation I'd probably attack with the bad one first. I'd rather have a mostly healthy, highly promoted axeman left behind and be fairly sure of losing one of them than risk having neither axeman or an unexperienced one left. After all, if I'm sending two axes, it's because I expect to use them both.
    It does depend on how many reinforcements I have etc. I assume that in this situation it's a small party I've sent to take a minor city away from his main forces and probably mine, and therefore I want to be sure of taking the city with just these two, because otherwise I'm going to have to waste time sending another party over, when I really want to have conquered the whole empire by then.

    I've been playing with cossacks against phalanx/longbow/spearmen and I find that it's far better to use the cossack with 90-95% than the less promoted one with 70-75%. When I have this much advantage and fewer troops I need to preserve as many cossacks as I can, rather than save the promoted units. There's usually only one nasty defender anyway, and then the unpromoted ones can take out the rest.
     

Share This Page