Honestly it's an old topic,
flanking has been shown to be weaker than combat several times
Situation can only get worse if you fail taking a city, some low health chariots that survived will not dry your tears.
Honestly it's an old topic,
flanking has been shown to be weaker than combat several times
Situation can only get worse if you fail taking a city, some low health chariots that survived will not dry your tears.
OK, but it doesn't change anything that the "die has already been cast", assuming that the percentages the game gives are correct. Of course combat 1 doesn't change the result most of the time, since it just makes a 4 strength unit a 4.4 strength unit and you are fighting against fortified archers in a city. The question is if that 4.4 vs 4 is a bigger impact than a 10% withdrawal chance.The way the random seed works is, on a particular turn, no matter what promos your unit have the general "course" of every battle is already decided. That means that if you have 2, 5, 10% odds with a chariot and lose that fight and the archer survives at 2.0/3, having combat 1 will not change the result at all most of the time. Or, only change it so that the archer survives at 1.9/3 instead. Only with a very large improvement in odds will you see a significant difference in combat outcome (so...using an HA instead, or attacking another unit, say an archer in the open and not in a city).
Good points, but we are discussing whether to promote chariots to flanking or to combat while attacking deity AI. Chariots don't inflict flanking damage, and even deity AI shouldn't have catapults this early.That's... not entirely true.
Most mounted units (except Chariots and Cavalry) are immune to first strikes. For these units, Combat is almost always superior to Flanking, with the possible exception of Protective defenders that stack first strikes.
The only exception to this is if you're attacking into an enemy stack to crush its siege. In that case, Flanking II superior, because if the unit retreats, it still does flanking damage (unlike a regular death where the unit just... dies).
A flanking I chariot softens the defenses less than a combat I chariot on average, because it's strength is lower. However, 10% of the time when an unpromoted chariot would die, a flanking1-chariot ends up not dying, but being one round of combat away from dying. So a combat I chariot has a higher chance of winning, inflicts more damage, but ends up dead more often. If the aim is to wound the top defender, combat I is clearly superior. If the aim is to reduce the chance of dying, flanking is superior. I have hard time coming up with situations where latter would be a more desirable outcome, that's why I initially raised the question.For chariots and cavalry it's a bit different, because first strikes hurt like hell. For these units, presuming you have 2 attackers for each defender, it's actually superior to bring 1 Flanking unit per defender (to soften up the defenses), except if the strength difference is so high in favor of the defender, that you're deliberately suiciding Combat I/II units to soften up the defenders more than a flanking attack would.
The Drill promotion line is also often overlooked. In case of attackers like Samurai, the math is pretty simple - they simply lose way less HP than regular attackers so you need to bring fewer of them and they heal up faster. For ships it's even better.
OK, but it doesn't change anything that the "die has already been cast", assuming that the percentages the game gives are correct. Of course combat 1 doesn't change the result most of the time, since it just makes a 4 strength unit a 4.4 strength unit and you are fighting against fortified archers in a city. The question is if that 4.4 vs 4 is a bigger impact than a 10% withdrawal chance.
Good points, but we are discussing whether to promote chariots to flanking or to combat while attacking deity AI. Chariots don't inflict flanking damage, and even deity AI shouldn't have catapults this early.
A flanking I chariot softens the defenses less than a combat I chariot on average, because it's strength is lower. However, 10% of the time when an unpromoted chariot would die, a flanking1-chariot ends up not dying, but being one round of combat away from dying. So a combat I chariot has a higher chance of winning, inflicts more damage, but ends up dead more often. If the aim is to wound the top defender, combat I is clearly superior. If the aim is to reduce the chance of dying, flanking is superior. I have hard time coming up with situations where latter would be a more desirable outcome, that's why I initially raised the question.
Sounds completely wrong to me. Strength doesn't only cause you to inflict a small amount of extra damage, it more importantly helps you to win fighting rounds.I actually only see a single combat promo making a difference about 25% of the time when the odds are this stacked against you (strength ratio of 4 vs 6 or worse).
So let's say C1 helps do an extra 0.1 damage 1/4 of the time. That's basically an average of an extra 0.025 damage per promotion. Now ask yourself, why would you take a promo that literally does less than 1% of the damage required to kill a defending unit (archer) over 10% greater survival odds? The scenario of a bunch of low-HP chariots being left after failing to take a city sucks, but at least that's better than no chariots left after failing to take a city.
Of course my assumptions could be completely wrong. Perhaps someone should test this...