Info: Combat (GL)

[SlowThinker]

deleted

[Marquis de Sodaq]

(Deleted text redundant with later posts)

1.6 The domain flag in the rules.txt is the likely reason. A quick test with a fighter altered to stay aloft for 2 turns would answer if it's the domain or the units.

I have incorporated all your comments for 3.7 and 3.9.

[SlowThinker]

removed

[SlowThinker]

removed

[SlowThinker]

deleted

[Marquis de Sodaq]

ST, I've rewritten 3.7 for fighters. This should clear up any ambiguity. Let me know if a non-native speaker agrees!

[SlowThinker]

deleted

[SlowThinker]

deleted

[SlowThinker]

During a debate with Boco about an interface of his combat calculator I wrote the following table of combat exceptions.

I suppose that the Civ2 algorithm checks if all "Requirements for the effect" are true and then the "Effect" is applied. Blank cells are not checked at all.

Circumstance	Requirements for the effect				Effect		Note
	Attacker		Defender	Defender's square
Entrenched			ground unit	entrenchment	DFx1.5		Superceded by Fortress and City Walls
Fortress	ground or naval unit		ground unit	Fortress	DFx2		Superceded by City Walls
City Wals	ground unit and no Howitzer flag		ground unit	City Walls	DFx3
Coastal Fortress	naval unit			Coastal Fortress	DFx2
SAM	air unit			SAM	DFx2		ignored if a non-missile attacks a fighter
SDI	missile			SDI	DFx2
DF x2 vs horse	"Horse" (HP=10, MF=2)		Pikemen flag		DFx1.5
Attacking partisans	Partisans		AF=0		AFx8
Shore bombardment	naval unit		ground unit		dFP=1 aFP=1
Ship caught in city	ground or air unit		naval unit	ground	dFP=1 aFPx2
DF x2 vs Air	air unit except Missile	Missile	AEGIS flag		DFx3	DFx5
Fighter scramble	air unit except Missile and Fighter	Fighter	Fighter	city	DFx4	DFx2
Fighter vs. Helicopter	Fighter		Helicopter		DFx0.5 dFP=1

abbreviations in the "effect" column:
DF is a defender's defense factor
AF is a attacker's attack factor
MF is the "movement factor" - squares per turn
dHP/aHP is defender's/attacker's hit points
dFP/aFP is defender's/attacker's firepower

Please read and check it out.

 

[Marquis de Sodaq]

(edited)

For clarification, fighters don't scramble against missiles, do they? I don't think I've ever had a cruise missile fired at one of my cities. Your table looks good. I agree with the idea that bonuses are applied only after the program checks criteria - some variation of if/then loops for each flag.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
For clarification, fighters don't scramble against missiles, do they? I don't think I've ever had a cruise missile fired at one of my cities.

I never tested missiles. I remember that civilopedia says that SAM works only against non-nuclear missiles...

[DaveV]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
DaveV, see the discussion in the Credits link to the "Civfanatics combat odds discussion and testing." Tests do tend to favor the additive method. More test are always welcome, my summary changes with new discoveries, including debunking misnamed fact! In this case, the additive 50% matches tests, but a multiplicative 25% might give very similar results...

Why would rivered terrain be an exception to being multiplicative? Because it is not its own terrain type, per se. It is the sole terrain that must appear with another.

After some testing of my own, I have to agree with rivers being additive. I have edited my original post.

[Boco]

During a debate with Boco about an interface of his combat calculator I wrote the following table of combat exceptions.

...SlowThinker

Some debate...I don't think I've won a point yet.

SlowThinker, Henrik, and Marquis have helped me design a worksheet that makes the calculations listed in this forum and its precedents. Thanks to them a large number of bonehead errors have been corrected. It's not quite ready for public testing, but it's close.

Stupid question on Section 3.9 (Pearl Harbor): AFP doubling effect has been tested or mentioned in the manual? The DFP=1 I read about, but I missed the AFP adjustment.

SlowThinker, have you posted about your injury equation? If you have, forgive my lousy eyes. Excel VBA has ruined them.

A zip of a screen shot gif is attached (can't legibly shrink it to 600 pixels for a posted image). Suggestions are welcome.

[SlowThinker]

Boco,

SlowThinker, have you posted about your injury equation? If you have, forgive my lousy eyes. Excel VBA has ruined them.

I don't understand...Do you want to say you are not able to find my e-mail? Here it is:

It is valid for equal firepower and hitpoints (I missed this in my initial post) only, or equal number of wins that are needed to destroy an opponent. The idea of my equation is that if the winner wins 75% of battles (=probability of success Per Round) for example, then these 75% kills the 100% of opponent. Therefore 25% of defeats causes that 25/75=33% of the winner is killed.

Of course, if the number of wins that are needed to destroy an opponent is not equal, then the result must be adjusted: it must be multiplied by

RoundedUp(dHP/aFP) / RoundedUp(aHP/dFP)

dHP is defender's hit points etc.
then RoundedUp(dHP/aFP) is the number of attacker's wins that are needed to kill the defender

I hope there is not very much of errors in my reasoning.

Stupid question on Section 3.9 (Pearl Harbor): AFP doubling effect has been tested or mentioned in the manual?

My testing only.

Notes:
I would let the "All units" field blank. The user has to read it now, it retards.
Adjusted DF has "%" but terrain has "DF x". Should be unified. I vote for "DF x" intensively.
AF will be adjusted too now: Partisans.
Details: The "Basic modifiers"legend could be omitted, veterans could be in one row...

Don't forget your idea about hit points left. I would provide three outputs:
winner's hit points left
injury of winner(!, below 100%),
number of equal units of loser needed

[SlowThinker]

Originally published by Boco
Fighter vs. Helicopter: Def FP = 1

But you are right! I tested it now: Helicopter's FP is pruned to 1.

One question remains: Is helicopter's DF halved or fighter's AF doubled? It would be hard testing, because we would have to check the 1/8 advantage for the defender...
But I vote for fighter's AF doubled: all factors are multiplied, none is divided in other cases. Your opinions?

Edit: this was solved, Boco suggested me to read the manual.

[Boco]

SlowThinker, I still have your email, but I felt that it was a valuable contribution that should be posted publicly. If you look closely at the screen shot, the average number of killed attackers and the injury to the first victorious attacker are listed. I'll edit it to include remaining hit points.

Regarding the helo, I simply went with the manual's description (DF/2). No testing, yet.

Still have a few more changes to make, but I think I can send a copy ~12h from now.[FONT=arial]

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Boco
Regarding the helo, I simply went with the manual's description (DF/2). No testing, yet.

Ah, you are right. I usually don't read the manual

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
3.9

I verified that if a naval unit attacks an air unit on the ground square, then no unit have his firepower reduced to 1, i.e. no shore bombardment effect.

What naval unit(s) can attack an air unit? Bombers seem impervious to all non-fighter units unless in a city.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
What naval unit(s) can attack an air unit? Air units seem impervious to all attackers unless in a city.

1. A city square is also a ground square
2. Airbase
3. Any helico

In fact only bombers are impervious to all attackers excluding fighters.

[SlowThinker]

IMHO the combat formula is wrong.
Please read http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=25291

Edit: The combat formula is correct

[Marquis de Sodaq]

IMHO, the combat formula is correct.

See my response in the other thread. I think you've found another way to come up with the same result, but want to verify some more.

[Boco]

The manual states that when Ships attack Ships in cities, dFP is reduced to 1 (Combat - Shore Bombardment). It fails to mention the effect on aFP. I think it also fails to mention the fp adjustments that accompany other shore bombardment (Naval vs Ground).

It appears that the manual is inaccurate about Naval vs Ground. Is it also inaccurate about Naval vs. Naval on land?

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I've added a false statements section, but need to look over the credited threads and the old combat thread to see if I've forgotten any that ought to be added. The manual might also be a good source.

Sections 5 and 6 have been numbered for easier reference.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Boco
The manual states that when Ships attack Ships in cities, dFP is reduced to 1 (Combat - Shore Bombardment).

I think they illogically repeated the fact of Pearl Harbor at the bad moment.
Anyway I retested it: naval vs. naval is always a normal battle, no FP, DF, AF adjustments.

Edit: "always" was too strong in the last sentence. A better expression:
Coastal Fortress and Shore bombardment are ignored in the case of naval vs. naval.

Edit 2: Definitely I wanted to say
Caught in port and Shore bombardment are ignored in the case of naval vs. naval.


BTW they should pay more attention to the manual. Too much of false statements.

[SlowThinker]

How do you understand the following sentence (page 107 of the manual)?
PEARL HARBOR
...Air units also pick off city defenders one at a time, except for Nuclear missiles