BtS: City Raider ignored

[AdamJH]

Hi there, on my game I am trying to attack a city with a Swordsman that has the City Raider ability, but he is still attacking with a rating of 6.



Is this a bug or am I misunderstanding something?

Cheers,

Adam

[Proteus_MST]

AFAIK there were some promotions that increased the atackers strength and some promotions that lowered the defenders strength.

If I remember correctly city raider fell into the latter category.
So you should calculate if perhaps the defender has the percentage you get frm city raider subtracted from his srength.

[AdamJH]

Thanks a lot! I thought this was a bug and it was discouraging me from playing. My enemy is an Axeman with a power of 5. So after his bonuses he should have a power of 11.5 but it is only 7.25.

Once again, thank you

[ColdPhoenix]

That's new to BtS, does anyone know why they changed it?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
AFAIK there were some promotions that increased the atackers strength and some promotions that lowered the defenders strength.

If I remember correctly city raider fell into the latter category.
So you should calculate if perhaps the defender has the percentage you get frm city raider subtracted from his srength.

I don't think that's what's happening here, though.

[joncnunn]

Unless it was removed in BTS, there should still be an easy way to get the odds of an attack without commiting along with such details as which modifiers were applied.

[Willem]

Originally posted by ColdPhoenix
That's new to BtS, does anyone know why they changed it?

I don't believe that is new to BtS. IIRC, that's always how City Raider has worked.

[Blaupanzer]

Correct, thats' always the way it worked.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I don't think that's what's happening here, though.

That's what I thought at first too, but indeed it is what's happening [or the inverse, which is identical]. It turns out the +85% from CRIII is countered by the -85% from the axeman's bonii. I think CRIII is actually the -85% and the axeman's bonii are the +85%, but it could be the reverse, I have no idea.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
AFAIK there were some promotions that increased the atackers strength and some promotions that lowered the defenders strength.

If I remember correctly city raider fell into the latter category.
So you should calculate if perhaps the defender has the percentage you get frm city raider subtracted from his srength.

That's exactly what happened here:

The 85% CR bonus is subtracted from the defender bonus of 130% to yield a net 45% bonus. It has to be an axe defending and if so it yields a defence of 7.25.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Willem


I don't believe that is new to BtS. IIRC, that's always how City Raider has worked.

It certainly does this in Warlords.

[ColdPhoenix]

Fair enough, I thought they all added but obviously am not very observant...

[patcon]

Originally posted by DrSpike


That's exactly what happened here:

The 85% CR bonus is subtracted from the defender bonus of 130% to yield a net 45% bonus. It has to be an axe defending and if so it yields a defence of 7.25.

That may be what happened, but it isn't "right".

Using the example given, the axeman's base strength of 5 was increased 45% (+130% for its defense boni - 85% for the swordman's attack boni) while the swordman's strength was left at 6, so the attacker/defender ratio was 6/7.25 or ~0.83. If instead of decreasing the defender's bonus the "+85% city attack" bonus did what it said and increased the attacker's strength by 85%, then the attacker/defender ratio would have been 11.1/11.5 or ~0.97.

Let's apply this to a less-balanced attack. An archer in a city with a +250% bonus attacked by a modern armor with a +85% city attack bonus. Using the method which seems to be in effect, the archer only gets +165% for a strength of 7.95 while the MA stays at 40, for an A/D ratio of ~5.03. If the MA's bonus was applied to the MA, then the strengths would be archer=10.5 and MA=74, for an A/D ratio of ~7.05. Granted, both ways give pretty lop-sided wins and the MA probably walks (drives) away without a scratch, but 7-to-1 is better than 5-to-1 no matter what. Of course, if the defender were stronger to begin with, the problem skews the other way - lessening the defeneder's advantage more than it should.

Let's try one more (hypothetical) battle. Attacker and defender both with a base strength of 10. The attcker has a +50% "attack" bonus and the defender has no bonus. If the bonus is applied to the attacker, the battle is 15 against 10, or 3-to-2. If the "anti-bonus" is applied to the defender, the battle is 10 against 5, or 2-to-1. Makes a big difference here.

Truth-in-advertising: a +x% attack bonus should increase the attacking unit's strength by x%, not decrease the defending unit's strength by x%. An attacking tank (strength 28) should get +7 if it has a +25% bonus, not have the defending infantry (strength 20) lose 5. If it's the other way around, it should be a "reduces defender's strength x& bonus".

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by patcon

That may be what happened, but it isn't "right".

Truth-in-advertising: a +x% attack bonus should increase the attacking unit's strength by x%, not decrease the defending unit's strength by x%. An attacking tank (strength 28) should get +7 if it has a +25% bonus, not have the defending infantry (strength 20) lose 5. If it's the other way around, it should be a "reduces defender's strength x& bonus".

It might simply be an undocumented feature although it is widely known that it is only the "generic" bonuses that ALWAYS increase the combat strength. The other bonuses are compared with each other so that only the higher bonus gets counted after reducing it by the lower bonuses.

It is not a question of right and wrong but simply how the combat values are calculated. You might as easily say that a 6 v 3 combat should rightly give a 67% to the attacker and a 33% chance to the defender.

I doubt we would have people complaining too much when they see that the +100% treb bonus gets deducted from the longbow defenders. Or maybe here the complaint there will be that the defender strength (Longbow+50%) should be 0.3 (6 minus 145% plus 50%)

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by couerdelion


It might simply be an undocumented feature although it is widely known that it is only the "generic" bonuses that ALWAYS increase the combat strength. The other bonuses are compared with each other so that only the higher bonus gets counted after reducing it by the lower bonuses.

It is not a question of right and wrong but simply how the combat values are calculated. You might as easily say that a 6 v 3 combat should rightly give a 67% to the attacker and a 33% chance to the defender.

I doubt we would have people complaining too much when they see that the +100% treb bonus gets deducted from the longbow defenders. Or maybe here the complaint there will be that the defender strength (Longbow+50%) should be 0.3 (6 minus 145% plus 50%)

You beat me to it, so, um, QFT!