This is not a nice battle-result

[Tactilus]

Roland thats not a Logical calculation. X= 8 and Y = 3 you can't subtract 100% from a small portion of the equation because they both are over a 100% bonus

Total for Attacker = X(1 + (1 x 110%) = X (1 + 1.1) = X(2.1)
X = 8(2.1) = 16.8

Total for the Defender = Y (1 + (1 x 195%) = Y (1 + 1.95) = X (2.95)
Y = 3(2.95) = 8.85

You can't subtract or divide both by 100% because the 100% doesn't apply to X and Y or the 1's. Thus you wrongly added an element to an equation that shouldn't exist, reducing the affectiveness of promotions for stronger units.

Look X does not equal Y in this equation. They are TWO seperate equations. You can't subtract 100% from select part of each equation and call it even. Remember if you subtract or Add or Multiply something to an Equation, you do it to the WHOLE equation.

Total = X (1 + (1 x (195% - 100%)) = Not logical because the other is over 100% aswell. Don't know where you get that from...

 

[Tactilus]

Also 100% of 8 = 8 and 100% of 3 = 3

So -100% or taking away 8 from the Praetorian and only taking away 3 Power from the Archer is simply wrong.

-100% will hurt the unit with the largest BASE Power. Why? Because taking away 8 is more than twice that of 3.

Lets see what Bonus the Praetorian would have if he had 95% bonus instead of 110%

X = 8 (1 + (1 x 95%)) = 8 (1 + (.95)) = 8(1.95) = 15.6

Yeah 15.6 > 8.8 isn't it?

Yeah lets see what the Archer gets

3(1 + (1 x 195%)) = 3(1 + (1.95)) = 3(2.95) = 8.85

Lets just see which one is better aye?

15.6 / 8.8 = 1.772

8.8/5.8 = 1.5172

Oh would you look at that? NOT promoting the Praetorian over 100% is GREATER than doing it according to your misguided calculations. Thats right...

A Praetorian stuck at 95% has a greater chance of defeating the SAME Archer than if he was promoted to 110%.....

 

[Roland Ehnström]

Roland thats not a Logical calculation. X= 8 and Y = 3 you can't subtract 100% from a small portion of the equation because they both are over a 100% bonus

Well, duh! I wasn't claiming that it was logical, I was only claiming that that's the way it actually works in Civ4.

For the third time in this thread: Read Arathorn's article "Combat Explained": http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137615

-- Roland

 

[Roland Ehnström]

I'd better just quote the relevant parts of that article I'm trying to get you to read...

First, the attacker's strength

Apply any bonuses the attacker gets independent of the defender (generic strength promotions only in the default game). Multiply this total by the unit’s hps/100. This gives the attacker’s modified strength.

In the battle we are talking about, on page one of this thread, the attacker is the Praetorian (base strength 8), and it's only bonus independent of the defender is his 10% Combat I bonus.

He is fully healed, so he has 100 hps. So the calculation is simply: (8 + (10% * 8)) / (100/100) = (8 + 0.8) / 1 = 8.8

Now the defender's strength

Determine the defender’s bonuses from terrain, general strength bonuses, bonuses vs. the type of the attacking unit, fortification bonuses, etc. Sum those up. Now, subtract any bonuses the attacker might have if it attacks this unit. Those would include attacker bonuses against defender combat type, attacker bonuses against a city, attacker bonuses in the terrain type (?). If the overall value is positive, add that percentage to the defender to get its modified strength. If the overall value is negative, the defender’s modified strength is found by taking the original defender’s strength divided by (1-overall_value).

The defender is the Archer (base strength 3). It's positive bonuses are: 75% from Tile Defence, 25% from Unit Fortify, 70% from City Defence and 25% from Hills. Total 195%. Now we substract the bonuses the attacker has when attacking this unit: 25% vs. Archery Units and 75% vs. City, total 100%. The overall bonus for the Archer is: 195% - 100% = 95% THIS is why I say the 100% bonuses are zeroed out!

The Archer is fully healed, so the Archer's strength becomes (3 + (95% * 3)) / (100/100) = (3 + 2.85) / 1 = 5.85

And THAT'S why it's 8.8 vs. 5.8.

-- Roland

 

[Tactilus]

Well I'm glad you dont think the system is logical either, thats a relief. I do see where you are getting with these points being taken away but still lost somewhat.

Your saying since the Archer has 3 Promotions City Defense and the Attacker has 3 Promotions City Attack they are both nullified? Ok I can see where they might be going with that. Bonuses vs those without the anti-promotion. However, why is the +25% vs Archery taken away? I don't see the Archer having a +25% melee promotion. Heck IF the Archer had 3 Promotions of City Defense where the heck is the +10% against Melee? So basically it might have 1 promotion and the Praetorian needs 3 promotions to counter an obsolete unit from obliterating it? Thats doesn't make sense.

Also you say Independent bonuses, how can you tell, it doesn't say didly squat on the screen, nor does it mention canceling either out. A Line drawn through the bonuses nullified might be helpful.

As far as I can tell, the bonuses below the Battle Odds should display the proper Bonuses. And if a Praetorian doesn't get +50% to his Attack Power for Whatever reason, then it shouldn't be displayed as a +50% because he isn't getting it. Displaying it is not rational.

 

[Ragnoff]

Tactilus, while this is non-intuitive, the thread that you have been REPEATEDLY pointed to explains HOW the calculations are done. Indepedent bonuses are those an attack gets nomatter who or where or what he attacks, they are independent of the TARGET. Those are calculated into the ATTACKERS base strenght. (only the 10% Combat I in this case).

Next Dependent for the attacker are compade to ALL defender bonuses. IF the attack has a higher dependent bonus, the defenders strenght is REDUCED by (Attacker's dependent bonus-Defender's total bonus)%, if the defender bonuses are higher, the defender's strength is INCREASED by (Defender's total bonus - Attacker's dependent bonus)%.

In the case above, the attackers dependent bonuses are 100%, the defenders are 195% (NOTE: what gives those bonuses are no longer relevant one the totals are reached, i.e. that those came from City Raider and City Defender did not mena they cancelled specifically). Thus the Defenders strenght was increased by (195-100)%, or 95%

Of course, if you are only trying to Bash Civ IV, then I assume you will still not read the thread Roland Ehnström pointed you to and the fact that this can all make sense will be dismissed.

 

[storeslem]

I lost a combat V musketman to a archer in a town. Both units were at full strength, odds were at 13.5 : 6.5.

 

[Arkalius]

One must remember that it is never impossible for one unit to beat another. It can become extremely improbable, but even if it's 1 out of 100 times, then that just means on the 100th time (which you can get to pretty easily if you play a lot of civ), the underdog is going to win. If you keep playing this game, odd combat results are just going to happen to you. If they happen more often than you think they should then you're either just quite unlucky, or you're overemphasizing some bad losses in your memory.

 

[Tactilus]

Tactilus, while this is non-intuitive, the thread that you have been REPEATEDLY pointed to explains HOW the calculations are done. Indepedent bonuses are those an attack gets nomatter who or where or what he attacks, they are independent of the TARGET. Those are calculated into the ATTACKERS base strenght. (only the 10% Combat I in this case).

Next Dependent for the attacker are compade to ALL defender bonuses. IF the attack has a higher dependent bonus, the defenders strenght is REDUCED by (Attacker's dependent bonus-Defender's total bonus)%, if the defender bonuses are higher, the defender's strength is INCREASED by (Defender's total bonus - Attacker's dependent bonus)%.

In the case above, the attackers dependent bonuses are 100%, the defenders are 195% (NOTE: what gives those bonuses are no longer relevant one the totals are reached, i.e. that those came from City Raider and City Defender did not mena they cancelled specifically). Thus the Defenders strenght was increased by (195-100)%, or 95%

Of course, if you are only trying to Bash Civ IV, then I assume you will still not read the thread Roland Ehnström pointed you to and the fact that this can all make sense will be dismissed.

Wrong: all that is SMOKE and MIRRORS. Because, there are way to many units with 95% chance to win that are losing to the enemy. A good 50% or more at this so called 95% advantage losing to the enemy.

I have lost 6 count them 6 Redcoats vs Longbowman out of 8 tries with well over a 95% chance to win. No city wall, no city defenses except 6% which was reduced by Catapults. Score that in his equations, and you come up with some complete Improbable calculation.

Am I bashing Civ IV? NOPE I'm bashing the over analyzed, irrationally, illogical, redundant Combat System that DOESN'T match up to the numbers Displayed on the screen.

If you insist on Promotions that give + whatever to a Unit, I must insist those bonuses actually do what it actually means and not simply taken away because you feel irrationally like place some subtractions into the middle of equations for no logical reason. Some need to learn that in order to Add, Subtract or Multiply from an equation, you do it to the whole equation and not to a select part of it. Otherwise you screw up the whole concept of using Math and numbers and Percentages.

If Airplane A got a +25% boost to its fuel tank, yet turbulance from another Plane reduces Airplane B's turbulance, you don't subtract the percentage of Turbulance from Airplane A increased fuel capacity because Airplane B is having problems. Its simply NOT logical math. The math implimented in this game is Irrational and Illogical, that is why you are seeing so many problems with it.

The odds are not actually Odds.
The Bonuses are not actually Bonuses
The Percentages are not actually Percentages
The Math doesn't add up when you add +110% to 8 because it only totals 8.8 when it SHOULD logically be 16.8
In order to get from 8 to 8.8 the Bonus display should only read +10% not +110%

Promotions for higher units get the short end of the stick. If a Tank goes up against an Archer and losses 100% of its 100% Bonus then it is no better than it was before it was promoted. Its like a Tank who hasn't gained experience. Thats

All bonuses should be Independent for each and every Unit and Promotion. DUH, I didn't know the Archer was watching the Praetorians as they were training. I know how the Praetorian will attack, we watched them, so all their bonuses are belong to us.

Like I said earlier. Losing 40 Attack points off a more Advanced Unit is not fair when the Archer would only lose 3 points.

I also have to insist that if Numbers and Percentages are going to be used, that proper math and not illogical smoke and mirrors be used. If you can't use proper math, then you should use words to describe the Odds and not numbers.

High vs Low
Very High vs Very Low
Med vs Med
ect ect ect...

 

[snepp]

Wow.

 

[abbamouse]

My intuition would be that the chance of victory would equal (Attacker Strength with bonuses)/(Attacker + Defender strengths with bonuses). This would be 8.5/(8.5+5.8) = 8.5/14.3 = 59% So the attacker would win 3 out of 5 battles.

My intuition is wrong, but I don't know exactly how wrong. Of course, the game uses rounds of combat to calculate the winner, so that would presumably boost the stronger side's chances. Is there a combat odds calculator yet?

 

[Ragnoff]

My assumption is correct. You are not bothering to read. In the exmple I gave, the 95% is NOT the chace to win, it is the final increase to the archer's strenght. The formula is both consistant and the logic used to calulate is sound, but non-intuative. However, you cannot be bothered to attempt to understand, because does not work like you ASSUME it should, so therfore you say it is wrong.

You say the odds are not the odds, but the odds (i.e the ratio that determines who is likely to win) are never shown. Only the adjusted strenght. You then need to know the number of HP remaining, how much damage each unit does on a hit, and other details to calcutle the actual odds. The strenghts are there to give you a feel for it.

You say the bonuses are not the actual bonuses. Thsi is plain wrong, but they are used in a way more complex than you seem to be able to understand.

You say the percentages are not actual percentages, when the the way they are used can clearly be should to result is a number that is applied as a percentage to a base strenght, again appearently showing your lack of understanding.

You say the math does not add up when the formulas that show that they do has been explained, and you refuse to read the more detailed explanation. I assume that either you are not good at algebra or you are intentionally missing the point.

You want all bonuses to be independant, which would be a more limited way to do it. The current way allows the bonuses to interact with one another, allowing a more complex relationship, one that helps the "spearman vs tank" problem prevelent in oher Civ games. Basically, I think that, if anything, the way the bonuses are LABLED could improve, be more presise, although then you increase the complexity of explaining the unit promotions.

BTW, I am responding not because you will take the time and pay the attention needed to see the flaws in your reasoning, as you are already providing a classic example of "I have my opinion do not comfuse me with the facts," but so that others reading will not be fooled that your unfounded accusations and your general misperceptions have any basis in fact.

Have a nice day!

 

[Kolyana]

I lost a combat V musketman to a archer in a town. Both units were at full strength, odds were at 13.5 : 6.5.

THAT . WOULD . SUCK .

 

[Roland Ehnström]

My intuition would be that the chance of victory would equal (Attacker Strength with bonuses)/(Attacker + Defender strengths with bonuses). This would be 8.5/(8.5+5.8) = 8.5/14.3 = 59% So the attacker would win 3 out of 5 battles.

My intuition is wrong, but I don't know exactly how wrong. Of course, the game uses rounds of combat to calculate the winner, so that would presumably boost the stronger side's chances. Is there a combat odds calculator yet?

You're on to the right track abbamouse. The solution to this too is in Arathorn thread which I am not going to post a link to again but which I am going to quote to death:

Both the attacker and the defender always begin with 100 hps, regardless of whether they are injured or not at the start of combat. The attacker’s damage is given by floor(20*(3*A+D)/(3*D+A)). That is, you calculate the value and drop any fractional remainder. The defender’s damage is given by floor(20*(3*D+A)/(3*A+D)).

Going back to R notation, the attacker does floor(20*(3*R+1)/(3+R)) damage and the defender does floor(20*(3+R)/(3*R+1)) damage.

The maximum damage one size can do is 60 per hit. The minimum that can be done is 6. Only those values are possible, regardless of the relative strengths of the units.

Once one side goes below 0 hps remaining, it is destroyed (or retreats). The winner has strength remaining equal to starting_strength*hps/100, but it has fewer hps, so it is more likely to die in further combat. Modified strength no longer matters.

Exact odds can be found at http://c4combat.narod.ru/c4c_v0_13.htm [Note: Last I checked, this did not have the capability to deal with starting hps other than 100.]

The upshot of all these calculations is this:

Ratio value	      Odds of winning
   >1.8                   99%+
 1.58-1.79	        95%-98%
 1.39-1.57	        87%-90%
 1.25-1.38	        75%-80%
 1.01-1.25	        62%-75%
    1.0                   50%
 0.80-0.99	        25%-38%
 0.73-0.79	        20%-25%
 0.64-0.72	        10%-13%
 0.56-0.63	         2%-5%
   <0.56                  <1%

"Ratio value" is the ratio of the attacker's modified strength (8.8 in our example) and the defender's modified strength (5.8 in our example). 8.8/5.8 = 1.52, so the TRUE odds for the battle lie in the region of 87-90% chance of the attacker winning. NOTE: This does not include the Archer's FIRST STRIKE ability, which lowers the attackers chance of winning to 85% or so.

-- Roland