promotions

[Vietcong]

how usefull are the combat 1 and 2 and 3 *i think it gose up to 3*??

the 20-30 precent combat strengh make that much a difrence cus i havent noticed Much of a change... probly cuse its just a small fractuion out of the total..

what upgrade line shold be used??
for calvery i usly go for withdrawl,and or shock.
infanty, axment and such i go for shock.
swordsmen i go for city raider,
and spear men the calvery killer thing.. ect ect.

 

[Zhahz]

I think it's kinda situational - promote based on your immediate need or future plans. When in doubt, something like 'Combat I-?' isn't that bad since it makes your unit less situation dependent.

Combat I isn't all bad because it opens up other things like medic.

For cavalry I'm not all that keen on the withdrawl thing since I prefer to "stack the odds" (attack/counter to maximize the odds) and retreat isn't part of my strategy. I'd rather boost their ability to inflict damage.

 

[Xeos]

Combat goes up to 5. 4 adds 10% healing in neutral territory as well as 10% more str, 5 adds 10% to healing in hostile territory, and the 10% str. Combat 4 leads to commando, use enemy roads. I never seem to have a lot of cavalry, mostly swordsmen, then musketmen/riflemen etc, haven't gotten to modern units quite yet in my games, so I can't say anything about those.

I generally just get combat 1-5, possibly city garrison or raider 1. The catapults I build I generally take barrage 1 + accuracy (vassalage + barracks)

 

[GoRy]

Collateral damage mods on tanks, cannons and the like is an absolute neccessity in the late game when attacking cities IMO. Bombers also cause collateral damage so they're very very handy to have around. In civ3 I always made a habit of not having any bombers til I needed them or fighters til I faced bombers but now im extremely frightened of air power lol.

 

[huang di]

I like combat 1 because it opens a lot of other doors. On the other hand, I can't stand the woodsman improvement. It seems like most of the fighting in Civ (except with barbs) is done either in defense of cities or in attacking in worked (i.e. non-forest) enemy territory.

 

[Mujadaddy]

I like combat 1 because it opens a lot of other doors. On the other hand, I can't stand the woodsman improvement. It seems like most of the fighting in Civ (except with barbs) is done either in defense of cities or in attacking in worked (i.e. non-forest) enemy territory.

Woodsman II doubles the unit's forest movement speed as well as giving another 20% strength...

 

[Shillen]

I find the combat promotion is good for knights and cavalry. It makes a big difference from what I can tell. Like I'll have one cavalry with the flanking promotions and another with combat promotions. The combat one will have like a 19.4/15.0 relative power to defender while the flanking one will be 15.0/15.0. That's a big difference. The flanker will lose 50% of the time while the combat one will win probably 80% of the time. Sure the flanker will retreat more often, but it's hardly noticeable, IMO.

For melee units I use
75% of the time city raider up to city raider 3.
25% of the time combat + medic

For horses I use
60% of the time combat up to combat 3
20% of the time combat 1 + medic
20% of the time flanking

For defenders I use
60% of the time city defense
40% of the time first strike
once in a while medic

For anti-mount units
Don't build many and their upgrades are rather weak anyway. You can upgrade their chances against melee/archers but they're only good for attacking mounted units so it's kind of a waste. So I generally pick medic.

For siege weapons
50% barrage + accuracy
30% barrage + barrage 2
10% first strike
10% combat/medic