why do cavalry defeat infantry easier than other infantry do?

[dexters]

Statistically there is nothing to prove that units with the same attack cause diferent amounts of damage. However, do to the nature of the Civ3 combat system, it is much more likely to get skewered results from combat than in Civ2. The HP system is the problem as a max of 5 is just to little to present an accurate representation of the damage levels each unit has.

Uhhh... if you know statistics, yoiu'll know that probabilistically speaking two evenly matched units offensively and defensively will, with a large sample, show no significant difference.

If people still insist, they we can have someone get the data and conduct a hypothesis test. A simple variance from the mean doesn't mean it's significant. As long as the range of the variance falls within 0, it is considerend insignificant. Given a certain level of significance.

In anycase, I'm a strong supporter of the probabalistic random number generator system userd in Civ3.

For starters, it evens the playing field, and introduces the concept of risk. No matter how advanced you are, you don't win every battle. Civ 3 is not a war game, and has no need for specific military commands like "Ambush" or "guerilla warfare" and thus, when an outdated unit take down a more advanced unitr, it is I believe a built in system of introducing this variability into battle.

People who want to get their tanks and win all the time against all units isn't playing the right game. The Russians in their tanks were slaughtered by what were essentially ragtag units in Afghanistan.

[Master Zen]

Dexters, re-read my post, that's exactly what I said

Statistically given a large enough sample, the results will show there is no difference, but as I said, the low HP levels will make some games tend to show differences when they really don't exist. It's the classic my-Battleship-got-killed-by-a-Phalanx, i.e. bad luck repeated. Civ1 units had just one HP which made this scenario very common. In Civ2 units had a much greater range of damage which reduced these occurances even though the units had basically the same stats. Civ3 lowered the range of damage, making wierd results more likely.

[dexters]

I added a bit more to my post. And no, I absolutely hate the Civ2 battle system. It's outdated and simplistic. A risk based probabilistic model is superior. If they can refine this in Civ 4, I'm all for it. But I'm pretty sure they won't go to the old system used in Civ2, which I suspect was used primarily for conveniance given the more limited computer power of the time.

Edit: Regarding your comments on statistics, I apologize if I misunderstood you.

[The Templar]

Hmmm, I've never seen anything except hordes of cavalry charging to their deaths against infantry. Real charge of the light brigade stuff. (Although, old cav are useful for softening infantry before the tanks roll up.)

[dexters]

[vmxa1]

I am not a fan of the RNG used in Civ III. If you turn it off and run the same battle over and over you got too much variance to suit me. I like the idea, but would like the variation to be smaller. Then the outcome is not a given, but is fairly consistent. I did not care for CivII combat either, but the FP factor could have been used to smooth out the combat in CivIII in regards to out dated units.
I understand they wanted to have obsolete units be less of a waste, but I am against it. FP wold have reduce the likely hood of those low level units winning against 3 levels improved nits.

[Cruddy]

Personally, I think all combat systems are a waste of my time. Painstakinlgly calculating odds and trying to get away with building minimum units to ensure victory... It's a pain.

I'd rather just order a set of AI generals to get out there and do their stuff. Ah, the joys of building. Of course, I'd still have to build the generals the tools to do the job - I just think warfare is a waste of my time when there is a dirty great processor there to do all the hard work for me.

Hoping for something radically different for Civ4, but not really expecting it will arrive.

[georges bonbon]

What's even more intriguing is - for me - that both units come out of a different age. Cavalry is the attacking unit against riflemen. As tanks are fighting against infantry. Etc...

So to be fair cavalry should not have superior odds over infantry.

[Murtin]

Originally posted by dexters
I absolutely hate the Civ2 battle system. It's outdated and simplistic. A risk based probabilistic model is superior. If they can refine this in Civ 4, I'm all for it. But I'm pretty sure they won't go to the old system used in Civ2, which I suspect was used primarily for conveniance given the more limited computer power of the time.

I must have missed something important about the Civ2 battle system. Up till now I was certain that Civ 1, 2, 3 used the very same battle system, except that in Civ2 there was the concept of firepower, and the fact that the number of hit points for a unit ranged from 10 to 40 whereas in Civ3 the range is 2 to 5. Have I been completely misinformed? Was Civ2 not using a random number generator?

[vmxa1]

Just for starters, CivII you fought one unit in the stack and if the unit lost, you lost the whole stack.
CivIII each unit gets its turn and goes against the best defender.

[gunkulator]

It's a shame bombarment doesn't affect the whole stack because really there's no penalty in Civ3 for creating SODs.

CivIII combat strikes a balance between too many hps in CivII(10 - 40) and too few in CivI(1).

[Murtin]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I like the idea, but would like the variation to be smaller. Then the outcome is not a given, but is fairly consistent. I did not care for CivII combat either, but the FP factor could have been used to smooth out the combat in CivIII in regards to out dated units.

If the variation is what bothers you then it is actually more hitpoints you want. It will have that effect.

Just for starters, CivII you fought one unit in the stack and if the unit lost, you lost the whole stack.
CivIII each unit gets its turn and goes against the best defender.

Well, ok, that's a difference I forgot to mention. But what about the RNG? Isn't Civ2 combat (pseudo)probabilistic?

[Theseus]

1. Cruddy, I'll be your General, happily.

2. I am a big fan of combat as represented in Civ3... I'm a Marine, and although I never was in combat, I'll tell you that just moving troops from here to there has more error-potential than you'd imagine. So fine, give me an odds-driven combat model, with the rare Spear-beats-Tank phenomenon... that's actually RL to me, as in "Company... TENHUT... we will be facing an enemy battalion today, and you will KICK ASS AND TAKE NAMES."

Marines have done it.

[Master Zen]

I truly doubt that a real life Tank company would ever lose to even a Spearman brigade

Me, gimme a REAL wargame like TOAW. Civ3 combat is sadly eons behind in terms of realism which is sad since IMO just a few things could be tinkered with to make it great....(not that I don't enjoy it of course.... )

[dexters]

Originally posted by Master Zen
I truly doubt that a real life Tank company would ever lose to even a Spearman brigade

Me, gimme a REAL wargame like TOAW. Civ3 combat is sadly eons behind in terms of realism which is sad since IMO just a few things could be tinkered with to make it great....(not that I don't enjoy it of course.... )

Far inferior units have slaughtered technologically superior ones throughout world history. Get off the case about technology and firepower.