Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions
- Thread starter Civrules
- Start date
Conquistador 63
Deity
Quick comment: might be old news for everyone, but I just discovered a situation where accepting a demand from an AI doesn't grant us a 10 turn period safe from declaration of war by said AI.
That happened when said AI (Mansa) accepted another AI with whom I was at war (Elizabeth) as a peace vassal, exactly 1 turn after I accepted a demand for a civic switch. Sounds a bit unfair to me. To make matters worse, on the next turn an AP resolution forced peace, so now I have to wait 10 turns if I want to capture Liz's last 3 cities.
That happened when said AI (Mansa) accepted another AI with whom I was at war (Elizabeth) as a peace vassal, exactly 1 turn after I accepted a demand for a civic switch. Sounds a bit unfair to me. To make matters worse, on the next turn an AP resolution forced peace, so now I have to wait 10 turns if I want to capture Liz's last 3 cities.
R82
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
- Messages
- 85
Other things being equal, who has the better chance of winning in a fight between a regular Axeman and a Sumerian Vulture? In theory, they should be about evenly matched, because if I remember my basic percentage math correctly, 6 + 25 percent is the same as 5 + 50 percent (7.5). But I think I vaguely remember reading somewhere that because of some obscure detail of how the combat odds are calculated, one of them actually has a bit of an advantage. Problem is, I don't remember which one.
And that's with unpromoted units. Once you get promotions, the Vulture should theoretically have a bit of an advantage, because his promotion percentages are calculated from a higher base. But I'm not sure how much, if any, difference that makes.
I'm asking because I just played a really fun unrestricted leaders game as Huayna Capac of the Sumerians, and I thought the Vultures were really neat for ancient warfare.
And that's with unpromoted units. Once you get promotions, the Vulture should theoretically have a bit of an advantage, because his promotion percentages are calculated from a higher base. But I'm not sure how much, if any, difference that makes.
I'm asking because I just played a really fun unrestricted leaders game as Huayna Capac of the Sumerians, and I thought the Vultures were really neat for ancient warfare.
AcaMetis
Deity
- Joined
- May 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,122
The short answer is that promotions don't work as simply as they first appear. All else being equal an Axe will have better odds to win against a Vulture, and a Dog Soldier will destroy a Vulture.
EDIT: To clarify as best I can, Combat promotions simply add to a unit's own strength (so a Combat 1 Vulture has 6×1.1=6.6
, Combat 2 has 6×1.2=7.2, etc.), and other modifiers are applied to the defending unit's (either positive or negative depending on whether the final modifier is positive or negative).
In the example of Vulture vs Axeman, with no promotions or terrain in play, an Axe attacking a Vulture gives the vulture a -25% modifier (-50% from the axe, +25% from the vulture), meaning 5 vs 6/1.25=4.8, giving the axe ~65% odds to win. A vulture attacking an axe will give the axe a +25% modifier (-25% from the vulture, +50% from the axe), meaning 6 vs 5×1.25=6.25, giving the vulture a ~35% chance to win.
Because of this interaction there are situations where taking Combat promotions can actually make more of a difference than taking the relevant -25% vs. specific unit type promotions, or City Raider promotions. A full health Praetorian gains a flat 0.8 per Combat promotion, whereas taking Cover/City Raider II only takes away +25% from a defending Archer, which translates to 0.75. If you're using Catapults (or other siege units) to damage defending stacks you can likewise be better off with either straight Combat or First Strike promotions in some cases, since even the +100% vs. Mounted units that a defending Spear/Pike gets is only meaningful so long as it has a decent remaining to benefit from the high multiplier.
EDIT: To clarify as best I can, Combat promotions simply add to a unit's own strength (so a Combat 1 Vulture has 6×1.1=6.6
, Combat 2 has 6×1.2=7.2, etc.), and other modifiers are applied to the defending unit's (either positive or negative depending on whether the final modifier is positive or negative).In the example of Vulture vs Axeman, with no promotions or terrain in play, an Axe attacking a Vulture gives the vulture a -25% modifier (-50% from the axe, +25% from the vulture), meaning 5
vs 6/1.25=4.8, giving the axe ~65% odds to win. A vulture attacking an axe will give the axe a +25% modifier (-25% from the vulture, +50% from the axe), meaning 6 vs 5×1.25=6.25, giving the vulture a ~35% chance to win.Because of this interaction there are situations where taking Combat promotions can actually make more of a difference than taking the relevant -25% vs. specific unit type promotions, or City Raider promotions. A full health Praetorian gains a flat 0.8
per Combat promotion, whereas taking Cover/City Raider II only takes away +25% from a defending Archer, which translates to 0.75. If you're using Catapults (or other siege units) to damage defending stacks you can likewise be better off with either straight Combat or First Strike promotions in some cases, since even the +100% vs. Mounted units that a defending Spear/Pike gets is only meaningful so long as it has a decent remaining to benefit from the high multiplier.
Last edited:
Your explanation of the axe vs. vulture fightis flawless. However, the explanation about combat promotions is not quite right.
In short combat promotions only work differently for the attacker. They are always worse for the defender as they simply get subsumed into the summation of defense bonuses (but you only get 10% instead of possible 25% from formation and the like). For the attacker, combat promotions multiply their strength and are not included among the defense bonuses unlike any other combat modifier. They can be better than a city raider promotion if and only if the the total defense bonus is extremely high (fortified unit inside hill castle level). However, the base strength of both involved units does not matter at all!
Edit: You may be right about wounded units actually. Gonna check.
Edit2: Checked. Damage on either unit is irrelevant, too.
In short combat promotions only work differently for the attacker. They are always worse for the defender as they simply get subsumed into the summation of defense bonuses (but you only get 10% instead of possible 25% from formation and the like). For the attacker, combat promotions multiply their strength and are not included among the defense bonuses unlike any other combat modifier. They can be better than a city raider promotion if and only if the the total defense bonus is extremely high (fortified unit inside hill castle level). However, the base strength of both involved units does not matter at all!
Edit: You may be right about wounded units actually. Gonna check.
Edit2: Checked. Damage on either unit is irrelevant, too.
Last edited:
AcaMetis
Deity
- Joined
- May 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,122
Did some quick tests myself, surprised by the results:
A Combat 1/Cover Praetorian vs. an unfortified archer in a flatland city with 0% defences is 8.8 vs. 3.75, listed 99.41% odds of victory, whereas a Combat II Praetorian in the same situation is 9.6 vs. 4.5, listed 99.07% odds of victory. Yet the latter scenario gives the Praetorian a higher 5.1 advantage over the former's 5.05 advantage. Not a major difference in either case, but it's bizarre that the higher unit strength advantage actually yields lower listed odds of victory.
You are correct that Combat is only a flat increase for attacking units. For defending units it indeed works the same as other modifiers like Shock/Cover/etc.
A Combat 1/Cover Praetorian vs. an unfortified archer in a flatland city with 0% defences is 8.8
vs. 3.75, listed 99.41% odds of victory, whereas a Combat II Praetorian in the same situation is 9.6 vs. 4.5, listed 99.07% odds of victory. Yet the latter scenario gives the Praetorian a higher 5.1 advantage over the former's 5.05 advantage. Not a major difference in either case, but it's bizarre that the higher unit strength advantage actually yields lower listed odds of victory.You are correct that Combat is only a flat increase for attacking units. For defending units it indeed works the same as other modifiers like Shock/Cover/etc.
It's multiplicative; 8.8/3.75 > 9.6/4.5.
www.civfanatics.com
Combat Explained - CivFanatics
Ahh..fighting. Love it or hate it, there will be times it’s part of your Civ-ing career. This article attempts to explain a bit about how combat is figured, discusses some “jump points” where your odds of success change dramatically with a very small change in strength, discuss some odd ways...
www.civfanatics.com
Bonyduck Campersang
Odd lookin duck
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,663
Would you recommend this game to someone who's only played 5 and 6 in the Civ series? Would I find the game too antiquarian? Or is good enough to play without the nostalgia factor?
Yes. Somewhere between this and 3 is I think the optimum of complexity and abstraction.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 27,061
Highly recommend. I do not think of Civ 4 as antiquarian.
It's something you have to check for yourself. Some have issues with the graphics. Also Civ6 has an incredible amount of little mechanics and fluff to occupy you which you won't find in Civ4. However, on a macro level Civ4 is a deeper and more serious strategy game then its successors.
Bonyduck Campersang
Odd lookin duck
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,663
Thanks. From what I've seen of screenshots, the graphics do turn me off, but if the gameplay itself is enjoyable enough I won't mind them, I already enjoy Caesar III and OpenTTD
Bonyduck Campersang
Odd lookin duck
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,663
That may be because you might have started playing the game when it first came out. It's more difficult for someone who's used to slicker graphics and more modern UI to go back in time to try a game he's never played before.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 27,061
I get your point. (Please do note that I played both 5 and 6) I actually prefer the Civ IV graphics to both 5 and 6. The graphics will never get old. IMO the interface is superior too. Overall, IV hit a sweet spot graphically.
R82
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
- Messages
- 85
Do I get this right that AI leaders will never, except if there's danger approaching, tell one of their workers to stop doing something he's currently doing? I'm asking because of something weird that happened in my current game:
I had just researched Industrialism and discovered that I didn't have any aluminum anywhere. I did have coal, so I could theoretically have gone quickly to Rocketry and used the GS I had kept in reserve for that case to found Aluminum Co. But I had also just gotten a GE, and I really, really wanted to use him to found Mining Co (which competes with Aluminum Co).
Thankfully, one of my capitulated vassals had aluminum, only one source of it, very close to my borders. He didn't have Industrialism yet, but that could be remedied. (He was weak enough that I didn't have to worry about him regaining independence or winning the Space Race; he had never really recovered from losing my war against him.) So I started to give him very good deals for the techs leading up to Industrialism. In the meantime, I prepared a potential invasion force just in case that he wouldn't be willing to give me the aluminum.
There was just one small problem: While all this was going on, one of my vassal's workers was busy replacing the existing mine in the aluminum hill with a windmill. Ok, he didn't have Industrialism yet, so he didn't know about the aluminum there, so a windmill in the place might have made sense to him. But when I eventually gave him Industrialism, the worker just kept working. When I made a deal with my vassal to get the aluminum, the worker kept working. Eventually, the windmill was done, my vassal lost access to the aluminum, and the aluminum supply deal got automatically cancelled. Then, the very next thing my vassal did was to tell the worker to replace the brand new windmill with another mine. Then, when that new mine was done, I made sure to get the aluminum back.
I mean, if I would suddenly discover that a hill where one of my workers is currently replacing an already existing mine with a windmill contains a valuable mining resource, I would instantly tell my workers to stop the work on that windmill, but apparently the AI isn't smart enough to figure that out.
I had just researched Industrialism and discovered that I didn't have any aluminum anywhere. I did have coal, so I could theoretically have gone quickly to Rocketry and used the GS I had kept in reserve for that case to found Aluminum Co. But I had also just gotten a GE, and I really, really wanted to use him to found Mining Co (which competes with Aluminum Co).
Thankfully, one of my capitulated vassals had aluminum, only one source of it, very close to my borders. He didn't have Industrialism yet, but that could be remedied. (He was weak enough that I didn't have to worry about him regaining independence or winning the Space Race; he had never really recovered from losing my war against him.) So I started to give him very good deals for the techs leading up to Industrialism. In the meantime, I prepared a potential invasion force just in case that he wouldn't be willing to give me the aluminum.
There was just one small problem: While all this was going on, one of my vassal's workers was busy replacing the existing mine in the aluminum hill with a windmill. Ok, he didn't have Industrialism yet, so he didn't know about the aluminum there, so a windmill in the place might have made sense to him. But when I eventually gave him Industrialism, the worker just kept working. When I made a deal with my vassal to get the aluminum, the worker kept working. Eventually, the windmill was done, my vassal lost access to the aluminum, and the aluminum supply deal got automatically cancelled. Then, the very next thing my vassal did was to tell the worker to replace the brand new windmill with another mine. Then, when that new mine was done, I made sure to get the aluminum back.
I mean, if I would suddenly discover that a hill where one of my workers is currently replacing an already existing mine with a windmill contains a valuable mining resource, I would instantly tell my workers to stop the work on that windmill, but apparently the AI isn't smart enough to figure that out.
s.bernbaum
Mostly lurking
Yes indeed. I have many times seen an AI have workers replacing a village with a farm, while on the adjacent tile of the same city, there are workers replacing a farm with a cottage!
ArchGhost
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 584
The AI does things by issuing AI packages to units at the moment it makes the decision to do whatever that thing is -- send out a settler party to this spot, improve that resource, join this stack/wait to join up.
It doesn't interrupt the packages until they are completed, unless certain situations supercede and force the AI to take new action immediately -- such as a worker/settler in danger, a city being threatened, someone settled the spot already, etc. So yeah, you are watching the AI just do what it normally does -- it gave an order to that worker to build a windmill, and it didn't give another package to that worker until he completed it.
It does this a lot with with unit movements and orders, but also build orders in cities. Very common things you'll see if you watch the AI play is the AI seemingly slavishly building a wonder or settler but if the city is threatened (barb or enemy units at way) it may change the build order to defensive units instead, or walk a settling party out only to run the settler away but NOT the escorts if they see a barb unit, stacks dancing around for many turns as they pick off units and reconsolidate over and over, or everybody's favorite: bombarding a city forever with one catapult because the AI won't change the attack package until either the defenses are low enough or the units are outnumbered by enough to hit the city.
It doesn't interrupt the packages until they are completed, unless certain situations supercede and force the AI to take new action immediately -- such as a worker/settler in danger, a city being threatened, someone settled the spot already, etc. So yeah, you are watching the AI just do what it normally does -- it gave an order to that worker to build a windmill, and it didn't give another package to that worker until he completed it.
It does this a lot with with unit movements and orders, but also build orders in cities. Very common things you'll see if you watch the AI play is the AI seemingly slavishly building a wonder or settler but if the city is threatened (barb or enemy units at way) it may change the build order to defensive units instead, or walk a settling party out only to run the settler away but NOT the escorts if they see a barb unit, stacks dancing around for many turns as they pick off units and reconsolidate over and over, or everybody's favorite: bombarding a city forever with one catapult because the AI won't change the attack package until either the defenses are low enough or the units are outnumbered by enough to hit the city.
Similar threads
