The RoundTable

[Wotan]

Harbinger was unbelievably lucky, it is a true case of divine intervention.

On the topic and this is a quiz for everyone on this forum. You have the following units at your disposal, 5 vet Ancient Cavalry, 1 vet Medieval Infantry, 2 vet Horsemen, 9 reg Horsemen and a redlined Ancient cavalry. The stack you are about to attack has the following units in it, 1 vet Pike, 3 vet Medieval Infantry and 16 vet Mounted Warriors. So 20 defenders and 18 attackers. How would you allocate your attacking forces, in what order would you use your units?

We on team BABE are having a very interesting discussion about this and we want everyone to have a go at it.

 

[cubsfan6506]

Heres cubsfan's 2 cents. You should disband all you're units.

 

[denyd]

Vet MDI attack Vet Pike (60% chance to win)
3 Vet AC attack 3 Vet MDI (79% chance each win)
2 Vet AC attack 2 Vet MW (96% chance each win)
2 Vet Horse attack 2 Vet MW (79% chance each win)
9 Reg Horse attack 9 Vet MW (64% chance each win)

With those odds winning the first 7 would not be surprising and winning 6 or 7 of the last nine would be normal. With bad luck for the defenders it could have easily been 17 losses.

I probably wouldn't attack with the red-lined AC (only 33% chance to win)

*** Odds compliments of the CivIII Combat Calculator ***

 

[General_W]

@Wotan… uhm, you can see The Council’s answer to your question in the Battle Logs we sent you

As everyone can note in our newspaper, the RNG wasn’t exactly kind to us - except for that Harbinger thing - so we’ve decided not to burn all the RNG’s holy books… for now…


Reposted for ease of reference:
----------------------------------------------------------

Dear Citizens of the World…

On behalf of The Council, I am pleased to present
The Fourth Edition
of this world’s first International Newspaper…

The RoundTable


We hope you enjoy!

and the ImageShack/TubbyRower version…
​

disclaimer:

Spoiler :

Disclaimer:
"The RoundTable is published at the sole discretion of advisor to the council, General_W. All opinions are his alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or positions of The Council government. Heck, even the 'facts' in this paper are viewed through his personal lens and may or may not accurately reflect the real or perceived state of world and/or game affairs. This paper may frequently contain what is known as 'sarcasm' and should be taken as it is intended – in fun. Hate mail may be sent to General_W via PM if you wish. General_W reserves the right to laugh uproariously at any hate mail he receives. This paper is not designed to provide up-to-date news, cure any diseases, provide well balanced opinion, or relieve inflammation of the foot. The Council hereby absolves itself from any responsibility from any actions the reader does or does not take based on this 'news' paper."

 

[Niklas]

On the topic and this is a quiz for everyone on this forum. You have the following units at your disposal, 5 vet Ancient Cavalry, 1 vet Medieval Infantry, 2 vet Horsemen, 9 reg Horsemen and a redlined Ancient cavalry. The stack you are about to attack has the following units in it, 1 vet Pike, 3 vet Medieval Infantry and 16 vet Mounted Warriors. So 20 defenders and 18 attackers. How would you allocate your attacking forces, in what order would you use your units?

I can't answer fully without disclosing secret info , but the gist of it is this:

An AC has almost the same chances of winning against the pike as a mace, and much higher chances of survival since he can retreat. And since we only care to remove the pike from the top of the stack, use the AC first. Then use the mace and ACs to take out the maces. And once you have a MW on top, order doesn't matter any more, so take them as they come. We knew we were attacking with all of them anyway.

EDIT: Oh, and I didn't expect to win with that 1hp AC, but sometimes winning isn't the important thing.

EDIT2:

As everyone can note in our newspaper, the RNG wasn’t exactly kind to us

I did a lot of calculations for this with Offa's brilliant simulator before playing. On average, the outcome would have been 12.5 units surviving for our side, with one of them retreating, so 11 BABE losses. So I would say we had slightly better than average luck. You can't get perfect simulations, but killing at least 13 units was ~58% chance, but then the last attackers would face damaged troops so in reality our odds of taking 13 were slightly lower than that, probably ~40%.

 

[Paul#42]

EDIT: Oh, and I didn't expect to win with that 1hp AC, but sometimes winning isn't the important thing.

What is the important thing, if not winning?
Creating a martyr?

 

[Niklas]

What is the important thing, if not winning?
Creating a martyr?

Well, of course winning is the important thing. But it's winning the war that matters, not winning every single battle. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices. And I can't state publically why attacking with him was a good idea, that would give the BABEs too much info.

 

[Chamnix]

On the topic and this is a quiz for everyone on this forum. You have the following units at your disposal, 5 vet Ancient Cavalry, 1 vet Medieval Infantry, 2 vet Horsemen, 9 reg Horsemen and a redlined Ancient cavalry. The stack you are about to attack has the following units in it, 1 vet Pike, 3 vet Medieval Infantry and 16 vet Mounted Warriors. So 20 defenders and 18 attackers. How would you allocate your attacking forces, in what order would you use your units?

We on team BABE are having a very interesting discussion about this and we want everyone to have a go at it.

Odds courtesy of Offa’s town capture simulator:

In the order Wotan listed them (all Ancient Cavalry first, then MDI):

Mean surviving attackers: 12.9
Mean losses: 5.1
Mean surviving defenders: 7.81

In the order denyd suggested (MDI first, then all Ancient Cavalry - but I included using the redlined AC as well last):

Mean surviving attackers: 12.75
Mean losses: 5.25
Mean surviving defenders: 7.72

In the order I think Niklas said (1 Ancient Cavalry, then MDI, then back to Ancient Cavalry*):

Mean surviving attackers: 12.83
Mean losses: 5.17
Mean surviving defenders: 7.74

------------------------------------------------------------------

Actual surviving attackers: 14
Actual losses: 4
Actual surviving defenders: 7



*The Council wasn't necessarily only attacking with 1 Ancient Cavalry first - if the first one lost, but the pike was still on top, it sounds like they would have used a second AC before the mace, but that's too hard for me to do.

 

[ThERat]

@Chamnix, maybe what you suggest is that it does not matter in which order you attack. I would agree to an extent.

I might also use a ACav to attack the top defender due to retreat odds.

There is one thing though, no sane mind would attack with a 1/5 ACav. Unless you got a yellow/red enemy. The only thing you achieve with this is a free chance for promotion. In case you attack and your unit dies immediately, the next attack must succeed in order to prevent promotion.

 

[Niklas]

The Council wasn't necessarily only attacking with 1 Ancient Cavalry first - if the first one lost, but the pike was still on top, it sounds like they would have used a second AC before the mace, but that's too hard for me to do.

If the pike had stayed on top (3+ hp), I would likely have used a second AC yes. If he had been yellowed he would have come up after the maces but before the MWs, so likely an AC then as well (unless the fighting went really bad before that and I didn't have one left), but that wouldn't affect the order.

There is one thing though, no sane mind would attack with a 1/5 ACav. Unless you got a yellow/red enemy. The only thing you achieve with this is a free chance for promotion. In case you attack and your unit dies immediately, the next attack must succeed in order to prevent promotion.

I could tell you my reasoning, but then I'd have to silence you.

Seriously though, dying immediately was a 25% risk. I'm not sure of the exact odds for promotions, but even if promotions were assured, there was still a ~56% chance of taking at least 2 hp, and then the promotion wouldn't matter, you'd still be better off than you started (in terms of hp taken that is). I was expecting to lose the AC, but as I said, it's the war that counts.

As for sane mind... well, let's just say sanity wasn't even 50% assured. You can read about that particular aspect in our forum after it's been declassified...

 

[ThERat]

Seriously though, dying immediately was a 25% risk. I'm not sure of the exact odds for promotions, but even if promotions were assured, there was still a ~56% chance of taking at least 2 hp, and then the promotion wouldn't matter, you'd still be better off than you started (in terms of hp taken that is). I was expecting to lose the AC, but as I said, it's the war that counts.

One would use such a desperate move only when the situation is really desperate. I can think of a situation where there is one attacker left and this one attacker could wreak havoc.
I would certainly never expect someone to use that unit in the midst of a series of attacks. So, there is something creepy about this. As I said, nobody would use the unit in such a situation unless he had some psychic powers to know the outcome...and that might just leave a bad taste...

 

[peter grimes]

I would certainly never expect someone to use that unit in the midst of a series of attacks. So, there is something creepy about this.

It will all be clear when you can read our forum. There is indeed a rational explanation, but you'd have to know quite a lot about our situation over the last three turns or so to be able to guess it

 

[Marsden]

I don't know the situation, but I'd take a slight chance with a 3 attacking 1 over a 2 with the same hp defending a 3. Chances are you're going to die either way, at least attacking might do some damage first.

 

[Niklas]

One would use such a desperate move only when the situation is really desperate. I can think of a situation where there is one attacker left and this one attacker could wreak havoc.
I would certainly never expect someone to use that unit in the midst of a series of attacks. So, there is something creepy about this. As I said, nobody would use the unit in such a situation unless he had some psychic powers to know the outcome...and that might just leave a bad taste...

This is definitely one step too far. I'm going to try very hard to stay civil here, but quite frankly I've had quite enough of you guys. If you don't enjoy this game unless you can win easily on your own terms, go play the AI. Cause I'm going to continue doing whatever I can to see you lose, within the rules thank you very much. Bad taste? Oh yes, very much so. Your invasion force was beaten down by an ever so slightly better margin than the average outcome, and you cry cheat? That's simply ridiculous, and bad sportsmanship if I ever saw it.

I had several good reasons to do that attack. They did not involve psychic powers, however much I wish I had those. Even disregarding the context we are in, the attack was not a "desperate move" to use "only when the situation is really desperate" (see Marsden's comment). I cannot honestly say that I would have done the same thing 10 times out of 10 when placed in that same situation, as there are indeed several things that speak against the attack, but I'm quite positive I would have done it more than half of those 10 times.

I would have countered your claim by saying only a bad player wouldn't consider losing a unit for the greater good (referencing the fact that newbies often try to preserve every single unit all the time) but I don't want to be accused of bad manners again. So I'll leave those to others.

 

[peter grimes]

Drat, Niklas!

You spoiled my attempt to send their imaginations running.

However, I'm not sure the those comments were intended to imply what Niklas read into them. Were they?

 

[Niklas]

Oh please peter. "Nobody would", "something creepy", "psychic powers" and "bad taste". What else could he possibly be talking about? No he didn't say it straight out, but the innuendo wasn't even thinly veiled.

 

[denyd]

Since I'm not privy to the layout, I can't be sure how I'd have played this, but if I had a town range of the MW stack with the 1/5 AC in it and there was a chance that the AC would be forced to defend against a MW, then he'd be heading off to battle. I'm guessing (no access to combat calculator at work) that attacking with a 1/5 AC against a 4/4 MW has better odds of success than defending.

 

[donsig]

Mounted warriors were extremely lucky in the last MTDG against TNT's immortals. There have been too few battles here to start wondering who luck is favoring this time around. Whichever way it goes, luck is part of this game. I would hasten to point out that there are games that don't involve luck - like Diplomacy.

 

[cubsfan6506]

 

[Whomp]

Exactly. Thanks again for the confirmation cubsfan.