Gunships

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MattPilot


I don't know who you are, so i'll ask whether the A-team means anything to you?

Ever heard of "I pitty the Foo(L), who ....." ?

Yeah, it means something. It was also puerile crap like your original comment.

[Silencer]

Oki chess and civ is something different - civ battle is based on strenght - chess is something that each unit has equal power - but differ in movement to make things harder. So why can knight defeat castle?? Have you played "Battle Chess" ??

But still give an example of how gunship or tank can be desrtroyed by something that can't pierce armor of steel.
There should be something called like technology bonus.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by SpencerH
They may have been on hills but IIRC they were in jungle.

No, there must have been Hills. Otherwise what did the blinded pilot fly into? If it was Jungle the Gunship pilot wouldn't have even been blinded by the glare off the armor either, as the Knights would have been under the tree canopy hidden from view!

The background to this is that it was my first civ4 game (played at chieftan). As expected, I had built virtually every wonder, and was building the spaceship when my neighbors were still in napoleonic era. Just to see, given the reports that 'spearman v tank' was a thing of the past, I attacked my neighbor with modern units and was surprised to see unit after unit loose.

To be serious... It is possible to conquer this backwards of a civ with only taking any losses when extraordinarily unlucky. You just have to use and support your units properly. The way you use your units to support each other has drastic impact on the results, just like in real life.

Were you bombarding down all city defenses before attacking? Were you using airpower to soften up all targets as much as possible before committing attack units? Were you making sure your units were in tip-top shape so as to have the best chances of success? Were all your units as high XP as you could produce them? Were you intelligently promoting units and using the ones which best applied to the situation when called for?

The Gunship vs Knight specifically:

You should have had at least 3 Promotions on the Gunship. You're using West Point Graduates to command, the Pentagon as a command center, Barracks of course? That's 10XP without Civics. The Knight when just produced would be 8XP. 10str with +20% from Combat II. The Gunship should be 20str with 3-4 first strike chances.

Then you have airpower which can't be countered by the backwards civ. That allows you to reduce the Knight to 5str. So if you're using your assets properly, it's 20str with 3-4 first strikes against 6str. Without doing the math I can't be sure, but that's not going to be significantly more than your 1:1000 odds you want (it may be quite a bit longer odds actually).

This is an example of what has been a problem with all civ combat since the beginning. The loss of one damaged gunship (and I'm not sure if it was damaged) to a knight, well, c'est la vie. The loss of two gunship units, thats just ridiculous even on hills, even in jungle, even fortified, etc.

If you weren't paying attention to the situation, then that isn't a fault of the combat system. If a modern commander were issuing orders irregardless of the situation, that in and of itself could kill the units involved regardless of what the opposition was using.

"I don't care about the fact that your pilot is injured or that you are low on fuel and ammunition... take out those Knights!"

The problem with the 'spearman v tank' scenario is that is diminishes the importance of building modern units. If a gunship attacking a knight is not at least 1000 to 1 probability of success then we still have a problem.

It is very high odds in your favor if you apply your modern advantages properly. If you use Fighters and/or Bombers to lower that Knight's str to 5 before attacking. If you use the proper promotions on your units. If you keep track of the status of your units and make sure to only attack with those which are in tip-top condition.

If you attack full strength units needlessly, that is a blunder on the part of the commander. If you order attacks with units without regard to whether they are in condition to carry out your orders or not, that is a blunder on the part of the commander. If you order the wrong unit to attack for the conditions, that is a blunder on the part of the commander.

You want reality, so here it is... if you as the commander are making these blunders, you get worse results than if you are making smart decisions. You lose units you shouldn't due to your mistakes.

I dont remember who did it, but to prove a point someone won civ 3 starting with one city on a small island while only building warriors and galleys through the whole game. Masses of primitive units should not be superior to a few modern units.

You have a right to that opinion. My own is that game balance far exceeds "reality" when determining what the proper odds should be. In the debate of "quantity vs quality", the game is best served if both can compete.

Though the Warrior thing isn't going to fly in CIV on any real difficulty level.

At the very least, that principle has been known since the romans defeated Boudica at Mancetter.

Reality has also taught us that the vast majority of us would have been dead after the first 40 year turn or two. That rather than leading a civilization, the vast majority of us would have been the "workers" rather than the "leaders", with very little impact on what happens.

While reality is a concern, it takes a backseat to fun gameplay thankfully. I'd hate Civ if the first turn the game ordered me to work a Forest tile, and the second turn I got the message "You died of dysentery. Game over."

[4-Bit]

About Reality...

Gold Leader: [stands up to ask question] Pardon me for asking, sir, but what good are snub fighters going to be against that?

But that's not reality either (though it is fun)

Anyway, there was a case (story? since I can't quote place and time at you right now) in WWII where a polish cavelry (sword, not rifle) division did take out 1 panzer division by riding too close to the tanks for them to use their guns and everytime someone looked out of the tank to better fix thier position they were run through.

The cavlry devision was descimated the next day when several more panzer divisions arrived to remedy the situation.

But that's not a gunship.

Why would knights beat a gunship, real answers:

1) Pilot Error. (IE Dumb Luck)
2) Technical Malfunction. (IE More Dumb Luck)
3) Good Cover by the knights bringing the chopper in low enough to use some improvised tactics...
4) Ambush, get the choper to land (fake a rescue, etc) then kill the crew.

While I wouldn't want to be the knight in that situation it is possible. What made it aggrivating in Civ 1 is that it happened WAY to often. And if you think Spearman vs Tank is annoying, explain a spearman vs Battleship.

Like everyone else said though, you're talking about a game, as long as it's not a common occurance I'm willing to roll with it.

[Volstag]

Originally posted by Silencer
Badly damaged but still flying ... so how can a knight wound a gunship or a TANK.. Yep a knight killed my TANK... incredible...

Why does everyone take it so literally?

Combat is abstract and, ocassionally, inferior units are going to beat technologically superior units. Gunships, and tanks, have to be refueled and rearmed, no? A big enough hole with render a tank useless... and that requires the "shovel" technology.

When these weird situations arise, I laugh it off, and crush the offending unit with my next tank. Y'all make it sound like it was your last unit for your final chance at victory.

If technologically superior units instantly vaporized inferior units, then the game would degenerate into a race for military techs. If you allow inferior units the chance of beating superior units, then it's going to happen sooner or later, no?

[Snotty]

Im rather more concerned that gunships are incapable of flying over water.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Volstag

If technologically superior units instantly vaporized inferior units, then the game would degenerate into a race for military techs. If you allow inferior units the chance of beating superior units, then it's going to happen sooner or later, no?

I dont know how you play, but every civ/smac game I've ever played is a race for population -> production -> science -> better units (even if I dont play a conquest game I have to have em to defend). It got so predictable in civ3 that if I built Hoover Dam I won.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Aeson
If you attack full strength units needlessly, that is a blunder on the part of the commander. If you order attacks with units without regard to whether they are in condition to carry out your orders or not, that is a blunder on the part of the commander. If you order the wrong unit to attack for the conditions, that is a blunder on the part of the commander.

You want reality, so here it is... if you as the commander are making these blunders, you get worse results than if you are making smart decisions. You lose units you shouldn't due to your mistakes.

Aeson being as sharp as ever Of course you're right Aeson, but give him the time to learn the system

And SpencerH, it generally is not a good idea to argue about game balance with Aeson. There's a good chance he was the one who tried the warrior-galley thing just to proof his point.

DeepO

[fuji]

Oh come on, the knights all chucked their swords at the rotars of your gunship which knocked it out. Everyone knows the rotars are where to throw your swords, not at the pilots!

[Aeson]

I didn't mean for that post to come out so harsh sounding. I'm sorry.

I wasn't the one who posted about doing the Warrior-Galley thing. I did try it out though. While it works against the AI (forget which difficulty levels), it's not very efficient use of production.

What are the odds on the scenario DeepO? 20str Gunship with 3-4 first strikes attacking a 5str Knight with Combat II? And are the first strikes on the Gunship better odds than taking the Combat III promotion as I'm thinking it is? (Gunships don't have Formation btw, I had to check that.) Would Flanking I and II with Combat I be better for absolute survivability?

[BgT]

Originally posted by Aeson
What are the odds on the scenario DeepO? 20str Gunship with 3-4 first strikes attacking a 5str Knight with Combat II?

I have 6/6 case unit with combat II (no other bonuses). The odds are in this case (with gunship 20/20 and 3-4 fs):
1:85266

And are the first strikes on the Gunship better odds than taking the Combat III promotion as I'm thinking it is? (Gunships don't have Formation btw, I had to check that.)

The odds are:
1:101953

I hope this really works and that I wrote correct info.

Combat III is always better, when the extra strength pushes it to more required hits to kill. But even when that doesn't happen the advantage is not that high:

9/9 (20max) 3-4 fs : 9/11.7 (20 max) = 59.98% : 58.37%

Ok I think this is perfect time for someone to calculate this by hand, so that we can confirm the Combat calculator is ready for shipment.

[DeepO]

Aeson, regarding fs 3 vs combat 3: it really depends on the situation. fs don't drastically change your combat odds when you are in the disadvantage, in those cases going for combat 3 is certainly a better option. For the given example, though, it is different: the gunship already vastly overpowers the knight. Combat 3 will give better odds for winning outright, but you don't need better odds as you will win anyway.

Which means the other effect of fs becomes apparant: fs will avoid damage to overpowering attackers. With the 3-4 fs on the gunship, you nearly always will win unharmed. With combat 3, there is a good chance (e.g. 30%) the gunship gets hit once, and perhaps a 2% chance it will get hit twice. For those vastly overpowering attackers, you want to keep moving, and this becomes more important than getting the absolutely best odds...

Originally posted by BgT
Ok I think this is perfect time for someone to calculate this by hand, so that we can confirm the Combat calculator is ready for shipment.

'Someone' didn't hear that

Seriously: maybe later, I'm too busy tonight. The numbers you provide seem reasonable, though...

Oh what the heck. She can wait

knight hp = 5/10 * 100 = 50 hp.
gunship hp = 100

knight deals 11 hp damage each round it wins (actually, can someone tell me: if iDamage is an integer, setting iDamage to 11.51 does round to 11, right?)
gunship deals 34 hp damage each rounds.

knight needs to win 10 rounds (100/11, rounded up)
gunship needs to win 2 rounds (50/34, rounded up)

Knight will win a round in 6/26 = 23% of cases
gunship will win in 20/26 = 77% of cases.

the gunship has an additional 3 or 4 fs.

So you've got a 4 times higher chance of the gunship winning a round, combined with 6 times as many rounds a knight must win. I'm not going to do the odds calculation by hand again, but I'm pretty sure this is a very large odd to beat.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Aeson
Would Flanking I and II with Combat I be better for absolute survivability?

Forgot a bit it seems. Flanking I and II do not give better results for overpowering units, they are quite specifically designed for underdog units. You are not going to lose that gunship anyway, which means withdrawing will never happen... flanking I and II are lost. This is of course different if you would be attacking mechs with helicopters, where fs don't help (you will lose to a decent mech, fortified in a city, so it doesn't matter anymore whether you would have more health in case you would be so lucky to win), and flanking is the right answer.

Flanking and fs are each other counter parts: one is intended for stronger units, one is intended for weaker units. They both change very little on the basic chance of succeeding, though, and used in the contrary situation (so flanking in the gunship vs knight example) don't do any good. I consider both promotions a bit more advanced: if you're not sure, simply go for the combat promotions. If you do understand the system, flanking or fs promotions can get you more gain.

Oh, and the CIV system is unpredictable because of the leaps, keep that in mind. Combat 3 on the knight would have given 13 hp damage each round it wins, which mean only 8 rounds would be enough instead of 10. That's a big change, for such a small number.

DeepO

[Aeson]

Thanks for the odds both of you.

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

I wasn't asking if Flanking would be better in general, I know it's not in those situations. What I was wondering is if it would make more difference on odds of actually losing the Gunship. (Regardless of how small the odds are.)

[BgT]

Originally posted by DeepO
knight deals 11 hp damage each round it wins (actually, can someone tell me: if iDamage is an integer, setting iDamage to 11.51 does round to 11, right?)
gunship deals 34 hp damage each rounds.
DeepO

The numbers seem correct so far, I hope there is no mistake in calculating the odds. However, my calculator rounds that to 12. Hm. I see no reason why wouldn't it be rounded to 12, (mathematically correct normal rounding), in this case. If the damage is really integer it jsut has to be 12. If the damage would be real number, than it could be possible that when taking hitpoints away, it takes only 11 points. But as I said I think that is less probable.

My calculator is in final phase: combat of two units with both having FS chances.

Oh, and one more bug to solve - when the unit has more first strikes than it is the number of maximum possible rounds in a combat, there is a mistake of 0.0001% or something like that. It's not a lot but it bothers me.

Anyway, do you have any other idea about what else could be implemented in the calculator that would be useful for players?