Warrior, Archer, Spearman Screens using 4roll combat

[Jaybe]

Re: OT

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Interesting... can you supply any references to medical texts on this subject? :-)

Sorry, it was in and editorial in some issue of Strategy & Tactics magazine in the 1970's. The author was either James F. Dunnigan or Redmond Simonsen. I don't have possession of those magazines anymore, perhaps Shogun Gunner can help you.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
Let's use this 12 Archer vs. 3-4 Pikes example:

It's a silly example. As previously stated by others, excepting unique situations (e.g., the mountain / nearby city / culture boundary example... sheesh), no human or AI player is gonna walk up to an attack that way; rather, that stack will be bolstered with Spears and Swords... and, btw, the defense will prolly never be so simple as 3 Pikes alone, but will rather also have bombard and attack units.

Thus, isn't the example a canard? Sorta non-representative of GAME BALANCE?

Grr.

* Theseus smacks Jeem with a large wet trout.

First of all, lemme address point 'G'.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I've never heard of this strategy (building walls after capture) being used, and I've been here posting and lurking for years now. I build enough units prior to war that I blow through the enemy. My units only stop to heal, the rest march onwards, I don't wait around for him to counter attack.

You must leave some sort of garrison in place though? If you leave them undefended, you could be asking for trouble. This is particularly true if the enemy you are fighting has a large border with your own race, or if you capture a city on the coast.

By the time walls could be built, ie. after resistance has ended and I could rush them, there are rarely enemy troops within sight.

I'll generally send in a big enough army to quash the resistance in 1-2 turns max. Walls are dirt cheap to build, and therefore rush build, with cash. Usually 30-60 gold will do it 2-3 turns after capturing the city. If you've moved up a proper defensive garrison then from that point onwards you can truly consider the city as being part of your own empire on the front line.

The last major attack I made was against the Aztecs (who were bigger and had a bigger army than me). I sent in around 40 Gallic Swordsmen and took 6 cities off them within 3 turns. The main reason I was so successful was because they're own HUGE army was off slapping the Vikings around. However, I had to keep 2-3 Swordsmen per city in order to cull rebels and keep the population from starving itself, as well as to defend from horsemen coming back at me. My attack soon petered out due to losses and garrisoning the captured cities.

And if my goals are finite, say to capture a lux or resource city, then I don't wait for the enemy to march to my gates, I take them out before they attack. Walls never come to my defense. In civ, the only good defense is a good offense.

Unfortunately, that is true thanks to the randomness of the combat system. Wouldn't it be nice to actually feel confident when you've got your cities defended by units that are miles ahead in the tech-tree over what your enemy is throwing at you? The example of longbows consistently beating riflemen is indicitive of what is wrong with the game IMO - we're talking a full age worth of tech difference and in general the longbows won't do too badly overall against them - it's the exact same as archers vs pikemen except the numbers have doubled from 2A and 3.3D to 4A and 6.6D.

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by Jeem

Well, that's a pretty poor strategy IMO. If 12 archers can go through 3 defended pikes more often than not, then by my reckoning (untried, naturally), 8 will go through 3 spears. Actually, the figure is probably closer to 6-7.

Are you saying that whether on not you have Iron dictates whether or not you attack? If so, perhaps you should try out some archers as they really aren't that bad at it.

AAAAAGH! Keep in mind our discussion! I stated that I would never attack pikes with only archers, asking why I wouldn't use swords. YOU said "maybe because you don't have iron." I said, "then I wouldn't attack." The obvious meaning is that I wouldn't attack PIKES with only archers. I regularly use archers (plus horses) to attack spears.

No they aren't! 12 archers will beat 3 fortified pikemen behind walls around 65% of the time. The odds are with the attacker.

I misread the post on this (I thought it said no walls). Yes, my archers will win most of the time (I think actual percentage is 60.6). I still would not attack with only archers (as others have pointed out, an opponent that has pikes surely has a good enough ability to counterattack to make the assault too costly.

If you attack 3 fortified pikes behind walls with 12 attackers and lose, you've been unlucky.

If you lose 3 fortified pikes behind walls for the consolation of just one archer, you've been even more unlucky.

Put it this way - you may as well roll a dice at the start because the combat is so random that it can go to either extreme too often. Far better that both parties have a reasonable expectation of what the outcome will be, and the times when the reasonable expectation isn't met are rare enough to be actually 'rare'. That is what Mike from Firaxis was alluding to in the other thread - the combat is still going to be capable of swinging both ways, but the likelyhood of it doing so is made much rarer. That way, wild swings are going to be so unusual that they really are rarities, and all the more important for it.

So, are you then saying that you believe the RNG is flawed? That is the only way to explain what you claim are very rare event happening too frequently. As I've said, IF the RNG is flawed, it should be fixed. However, the burden is on those who want to make a change to prove the RNG is flawed.

I do, frequently. Walls are the first thing I'll build after taking an enemy city. They are cheap and give 50% defensive bonus to the defensive troops I move up after taking it. This allows me to be confident that I have left a decent defence in place so I can move my attacking troops on to the next city. Does the AI never counter attack you?

I generally bring several defensive units when I take a city. If the AI does counterattack (which is occasionally), it does so immediately (long before walls could be built.) Within the first couple of turns of occupation, I'm on the offensive again, and will simply intercept their counterattack with my offensive forces.

So, when you send a settler out to build a city, you also send a full complement of defensive units every time? Or, you always have a standing army nearby?

As I said in my post, if at war, I would have to be crazy to build a city near your enemy without significant forces nearby. If at peace and friendly with the AI, I may escort the settler with a spear or just take my chances w/o escort. I've never seen the AI immediately attack a newly formed city while at peace. If there are tensions between me and the AI, I'll send a couple of spears and maybe an archer.

Do you ever expand in 2-3 different directions at the same time? Don't you feel the need to grab the best land ASAP when against an Emperor level AI? If you don't do it, they certainly will. You cannot always protect every city you create - most times you are hard pushed to defend your core cities early on.

Of course. I expand in any direction I can that's profitable. If expanding in the direction of several AIs, I prioritize between ones that will require more escort and ones that do not. I also don't worry too much about protecting my core cities. I will often have one or two warriors doing MP duties in most of my core during REXing. Any spears I've built go to border towns, which are more likely to be sneak attacked anyway.

If you think the AI sends it's units in small bunches then surely that's the problem? Any decent defence and road network leading to the front lines will be able to halt anything except the most dominanant of AI attacks. This is true *right now*. To me, that's a bigger problem with the game than any proposed change to the combat.

I agree. I would vastly prefer Firaxis improving the way the AI conducts war than having them screw around with multi-roll averaging of the RNG.

I am not a statitician. If Firaxis say the combat is streaky then I'm quite happy to agree because I do. If you are saying that it isn't streaky, then perhaps your own definition of 'streaky' differs from mine and the Firaxians.

Why not ask them to define what they mean by 'streaky' and we can go on from there? I can't *prove* something is broken unless there are specific rules governing it. All I've got is gut feeling and instinct, and like many others, I feel that the randomness of combat is so marked that it's basically bringing the game down.

You personally may not be able to prove the combat system is broken. However, you claim that "many, many people" here agree that it is. Certainly one of this multitude can do the reliable, replicable statistical analysis that is required to prove this claim.

I'm talking stuff like the AI beating my fortified pike on mountains with longbows in 4/5 combats, then me taking their Riflemen defended cities (size 7+) with Cavalry in equal measure. The whole game as it stands rewards higher numbers of reasonable troops in preference to small number of elite troops.

Beyond a certain point, large numbers of troops will defeat high quality troops. Why is this a problem?

[Myrddin]

Think Korean War

[Jeem]

Tall Stranger - I think you are looking for a different meaning of 'flawed' than I am.

To me, the 'flawed' nature of the rng is that it allows for 'streaky' results too often. This is what Mike is trying to say. Firaxis want to change the rng so that combats are more predictable, but still retain the outside chance of causing an upset.

Your final point on this is linked to it - Sure, you can reasonably expect to win through with numbers. 12 archers probably should beat 3 Pikes behind walls. The problem is the rng can make the combat swing wildly from losing 1-2 archers from losing them all for no pikemen deaths and the defender getting a great leader out of it. That should be able to happen, but not with the regularity it does.

If both parties could look at the combat and think 'well, those 12 archers will take the city, but the losses are going to be up at around 8-9 archers' then it would be a bit more playable. The rng could then throw up a stunning surprise in that the pike hold out, or only one archer dies. The thing is - it aught to be a surprise when it happens, not just a shrug of the shoulders and thinking 'well, thats the random nature of the rng for you'.

If you knew that the odds were firmly in favour of taking a pike defended city with archers, you'd probably think it was a good idea. However, in the back of your mind you'll always know that there is a not-small-enough chance of your archers not killing a single pikeman - it's the chance of it happening that needs to be addressed. I'm assuming this sort of attack could make or break your game - wouldn't you rather be able to think - 'at least the rng screwed me at a vital time through throwing up a very unlikely result'?

[Kuciwalker]

If you attack 3 fortified pikes behind walls with 12 attackers and lose, you've been unlucky.

If you lose 3 fortified pikes behind walls for the consolation of just one archer, you've been even more unlucky.

Put it this way - you may as well roll a dice at the start because the combat is so random that it can go to either extreme too often. Far better that both parties have a reasonable expectation of what the outcome will be, and the times when the reasonable expectation isn't met are rare enough to be actually 'rare'. That is what Mike from Firaxis was alluding to in the other thread - the combat is still going to be capable of swinging both ways, but the likelyhood of it doing so is made much rarer. That way, wild swings are going to be so unusual that they really are rarities, and all the more important for it.

1 in 200 isn't rare enough for you?

So, when you send a settler out to build a city, you also send a full complement of defensive units every time? Or, you always have a standing army nearby?

And yet you postulate having three pikemen in the city

[Tall Stranger]

Jeem,

Based on your response, I assume that you agree that, in our "favorite scenario" of 12 archers vs. 3 pikes, the attacker SHOULD win with only the loss of a single archer about 1 in 200 tries.

All you (or those who agree with you) need to do is scientifically demonstrate that these results occur (over the long-term) either more regularly or in non-random streaks. You claim that Firaxis agrees with you on this. Perhaps. But THEY then need to demonstrate that there is a flaw in their RNG AND they need to explain why they need to change the rules of the combat system rather than simply fixing the RNG.

As I said before, if this flaw CAN be proven, I'll fully support fixing it. Until then, I will continue to oppose what I view to be a dangerous threat to the balance of the game.