Warrior, Archer, Spearman Screens using 4roll combat

[notyoueither]

You rush a city with 12 archers. It's defended by 3 Pikemen behind walls. You *know* you're going to take it.

You'd be deluding yourself. Unfortunately, that 240 shields worth of offensive units should only win about 60% of the time vs those 90 shields of defensive units. [Edit. Oops, I supposed 120 shields for 3 pikes, my bad./Edit]

I guess that means we really need averaging so that the 240 shields is totally wasted. That would make things better.

[notyoueither]

Oh, and when they fail? It's like 11 or 12 dead archers. *Flush*

When they win? Usually more than 120 shields worth of them are dead on the battle field. Talk about Pyric, unless that was one heck of a city.

[asleepathewheel]

who attacks pikes with archers anyway? losing proposition. wait until longbows and pray.

[vmxa1]

That is what I was thinking? Rush pikes with archers? Not me, if they have three pikes in a city in the ancient era, I probably will want an army of some kind.

I do think Jesse is trying to make it more predicatable. It is not a problem to me if 12 archers go against 3 pikes. I am happy with the out come, IF it is fairly repeatable. That is, if I saw that battle 50 times, it would have the same out come 45 times. Which sides wins, I don't care. I want to not see no loses on one side and then next time no loses on the other.

Once I know what to expect, it is up to me to figure out how to deal with it.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Jeem
We both know that archers can rush through spearmen, pikemen and muskets with a similar level of ease.

I am highly suspicious of this fact -- I have never tried to take musket-defended cities with archers, but I bet it is more than twice as costly to do so as it is against spearman.

You rush a city with 12 archers. It's defended by 3 Pikemen behind walls. You *know* you're going to take it.

The real random factor comes into play only on which of your 12 units will get lucky. If your first 3 get lucky, you can take the city and still be left with all 12 units. More often than not, you'll lose 5-6 and take it with the 5th, 6th and 7th. Or maybe the 10th, 11th and 12th?

The changes which Firaxis are going to bring in will still allow 12 archers to rush 3 pikemen behind walls - it's just that you'll be forced into taking high casualties in order to do it.

Or merely higher casualities. What is too high in such circumstances? And who is more likely to be attacking strong defenders with archers, the human or the AI?

BTW, I wouldn't *know* I was going to take it. My math tells me that a fortified pike in a walled town has a defense value of 5.55 -- if it were on a hill it would be 6.75. Are these rounded to 6 and 7 respectively? Forgetting about rounding for a moment and assuming a 5.55 defense, each round of combat would represent a 26% chance of success for the archer; in a series of attacks one might expect to lose 3 archer HPs for each pike HP. If we assume that not one pikeman earns a promotion but is a veteran, we're still expecting an "average" cost of 3 full archers per pikeman -- I would frankly assume that each pike would be promoted before death, meaning 15 pike HPs are going to cost, on "average," 45 archer HPs. About even money that 12 archers take the target. And so one could expect to trade 9 archers, or 180 shields, to destroy 90 AI shields. If that's the approach one wants to take, I'd submit it's not a winning one in most circumstances.

The way the system is now, you could quite easily take no casualties (esp with horsemen who can retreat), because it's just too random.

Whether or not it is too random or not is a of course a matter of opinion.

It is my opinion that a 4-roll-combat regime would mess up the ancient age -- only swords would make decent attackers, and even then only within certain constraints. This would radically alter the balance of power based on the location of the strategic resource iron. It would make researching Bronze Working and Iron Working before any other tech the normal start in too many games, reducing variability. It would mean securing BW and spearman so powerful as to demand it. It would encourage the AI, based on its starting bonus units and the comparative strength it enjoys versus an early human army, attack in circumstances in which it had very little chance of doing any real damage. How welcome would an early AI-started war be for any reasonably competant human player? Tremendously, I'd say.

Outside of the ancient era, it is my opinion that the combat change would significantly strengthen defense at the expense of offense. Fortified pikemen in Cities (7+pop) would be decent defenders until tanks. Muskets would be reasonably powerful until tanks. Rifleman would be very strong. And infantry would be almost tough as nails. All of which means (i) that defensive strategies become strengthened, and (ii) use of bombard on offense becomes necessary. Effective use of defensive strategies and "peaceful dominance" by the human already puts the AI at a serious disadvantage (more so than effective human military offense, IMHO). The disparate uses of bombard units between human and AI puts the AI in a no-win situation.

If the goal was only to win, the path would become pretty clear, IMHO -- techs that provide military upgrades become a lot more useful than they are now. Multiple decent defenders on the border cities means AI attacks are nothing to be feared. Even less need than currently for interior defenders -- focus all attention on bombard units, defenders for the frontiers, and attackers for killing wounded AI units (after they've been bombarded, of course). Beeline to cavalry and pick a nearby AI civ without either (1) knowledge of Gunpowder, (2) saltpeter, or (3) the money to upgrade pikes to muskets. With cats upgraded to cannons and Cavs on the offense, march through any such neighbor taking very few casualties. If the above circumstances don't present themselves, focus military builds on strong defenders and artillery units. An artillery unit stack of doom can dominate offensive operations, from catapults right on up through artillery. If content with one's REX, forget investing a whole lot in military -- you can bet that your thoughtful defense will absolutely shred any AI offensive.

None of which the AI could do! Without radically altering AI decision-making, it would launch its hopeless horsemen / archer attacks. It would attack far superior defensive positions. It would continue to research a wide smattering of techs, many of which have effectively been devalued by the inherent strengthening of the military-related techs. It would not understand that absent compelling circumstances (i.e., Cav versus spears or pikes) that it would rarely make sense to go on the offensive. It would blow innumerable shields and gold on wars and battles that it cannot win.

It will be better balanced overall.

While I acknowledge your example of the archers versus pike above, I am sceptical that it shows any increase in balance. I want to understand how the game would be better balanced overall. A tech lead now is a powerful position; a tech lead with 4-roll-combat would be even more powerful. In my opinion, 4-roll-combat would dramatcially strengthen human play versus the AI -- the game would become both easier and less variable.

Why do you think it would be better balanced? Is it based on the view that a human must regularly take on superior AI defenders with inferior attackers and the present system strengthens this tactic? Is it based on something else?

Balance is the issue, and I feel that a few players are getting confused with this because they like the unrandom 'randomness' of rushes.

Yes, it will hurt rushes, but overall the game will be better. It will affect your enemies too, remember.

I'm not sure why the focus on rushes? Rushes are such a small part of the single player game that I can't imagine the demand for a "solution" to rushing. Or are you using "rush" to mean simple concentration of force?

In any event, the proposed change would seem to weaken the effectiveness of an archer or horseman rush, but it would almost certainly greatly strengthen a sword rush -- indeed, a sword rush would be exceedingly powerful. And only a human can conduct a sword rush. Even if rushes were weaker, do you really think that this proposed change is focused on rushes, or that many of those who have voiced concerns about the proposed change are focused on rushes?

In other words, I am frankly a lot more concerned that 4-roll-combat would dramtically weaken the AI; I am not at all worried about losing some human-only advantage. I am worried that the game would become even more linear and straightforward in terms of "best strategy." I am concerned that the game would more quickly become stale, and lose a lot of the replay value it now has.

Can you explain why you think the change would provide better balance? Is your view limited to the presumption that humans routinely attack AI civs with inferior units and the proposed change would make this more costly? Are there other reasons for the view?

Catt

Edit: Cross-posted with a bunch of posts while I drafted the above "novella" and ate some dinner - I see I'm not the only one to think stacking archers for an assault on pikes might not be the best approach With the change to bombardment of cities, how much more powerful would a catapult-strengthened assualt be? Significantly, but that is of course something else the AI can't do. End Edit.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by vmxa1
That is what I was thinking? Rush pikes with archers? Not me, if they have three pikes in a city in the ancient era, I probably will want an army of some kind.

I do think Jesse is trying to make it more predicatable. It is not a problem to me if 12 archers go against 3 pikes. I am happy with the out come, IF it is fairly repeatable. That is, if I saw that battle 50 times, it would have the same out come 45 times. Which sides wins, I don't care. I want to not see no loses on one side and then next time no loses on the other.

Once I know what to expect, it is up to me to figure out how to deal with it.

The system as it is now is exctly what your ask for.

I just tried it 10 times. 12 archers vs a size 7-12 city on grass (I couldn't get the AI to not sell the walls at size 6 )

6 times the archers won through. It took 11, 4, 9, 11 , and 9 archers attacking in those cases.

4 times the pikes held. They lost 1, 2, 1, and 0 in those cases.

Now average the 2A vs the 4.8D x4 each. Can you say archer suffle? Can you say that if you have no resources, you can put your head between your legs and kiss your plumbs goodbye?

[korn469]

after reading catt's post which i agree with

in a Inigo Montoya voice...

Let me 'splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up...
the rich get richer in this set up, so more chances of humans running amok

[notyoueither]

The short answer. x4 combat averaging destroys the balance of the game with A and D ratings that have been being refined for 2 years after countless thousands of games by disparate players all over the world.

In all the games I have played, and that is a few, and I tend to make a bit of war, and I usually see Tanks and other modern toys unlike some players, I HAVE NEVER LOST A TANK TO A SPEARMAN! I almost lost a tank to a musket, ONCE!

This is an issue that screams out... FIX ME AND TURN OFF CULTURE FLIPPING BECAUSE I AM CORACLE AND I SAID SO!

Ahem, now I feel better. Thanks for listening.

[Antrine]

Gee, the AI sells off it walls! After it garners a little defensive bonus at category II. What a cheap, sniveling AI. Mayhap I'll wait until its cities are well-fattened before I attack again? On a more smiling note, think they (gods of Firaxis) could tweak the AI not to declare war unless there is a 'reasonable' potential for some kind of contact within the allotted 20 turns? In addition, am I missing something somewhere? Can that ’20 turn’ setting be adjusted?

[Sarxis]

Yeah, I'm not too convinced we really need this change anyways.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Antrine
Gee, the AI sells off it walls! After it garners a little defensive bonus at category II. What a cheap, sniveling AI.

I thought it very queer when the AI sold the walls at size 1 with 12 achers adjacent. That's why I had to pump the city to size 9. Then after it rushed a unit, the city still had a 50% defence bonus. Unfortunately, it also had a 10% bonus for grass, which would not have been there with walls at size 1. Understand now?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
Yeah, I'm not too convinced we really need this change anyways.

It would be great as an option. Then the people who really want it could use it.

Unfortunately, I think they have opened Pandora's box, and that anyone who is unhappy with combat will be very unhappy if the change is abandoned. However, if they push through as not an option, it will alienate everyone who actually understands how to play the game and has even a passing understanding of basic mathematics.

[notyoueither]

Oh, I forgot to give a sign of sarcasm. Here it is.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I HAVE NEVER LOST A TANK TO A SPEARMAN! I almost lost a tank to a musket, ONCE!

I lost however MIs attacking horses and longbowmen. Very, very frustrating. And it wasn't against the AI, so it does make a difference.

The combat system is too random. The problem is that with a 4 roll system it'd become too predictible. They should either use a 2 roll combat or balance it in some other way.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tiberius


I lost however MIs attacking horses and longbowmen. Very, very frustrating. And it wasn't against the AI, so it does make a difference.

The combat system is too random. The problem is that with a 4 roll system it'd become too predictible. They should either use a 2 roll combat or balance it in some other way.

4 to 1. You are going to lose some of the time. Some smaller number of times you are going to lose several.

Of course, I heard about your luck. Snake bit would be a better thing to call it.