WTF: no firepower?

[Jason Beaudoin]

Ya... you're right ChrisShaffer.

...but what if it was a Musketman and a swordsman? Would there be a big difference between the two?

I guess we'll have to see.

[izmircali]

The rounds thing is also what gets me. Lets take the Phalanx vs Armor scenario (based on what we know). It said a 90% chance of winning in any given round and it goes 3 to five rounds. So elites can go more rounds than "green" units which is good. But really, an elite bunch of phalanxes (even the Theban sacred Band) I doubt can go more rounds than a green (3) or veteran (4) armor.

I'm hoping that tanks will have a ranged attack (not bombardment) as do gunpowder units (I think there was a ranged attack capability, can anyone else confirm that?)

[StratAll]

Possible interpretation

Hey,

I think what they meant with the 90% thing is this :

X = Attacker's attack rating + Defender's defense rating.

% chance attacker wins = Attacker's attack rating / X
% chance defender wins = Defender's defense rating / X

That way you have X = 9 + 1 = 10
And since the attacker has 9 attack it's 9/10 = 90%

And this happens every round until either one's hitbar is depleted.

So as for a phalanx versus a battleship (I'm assuming 24 attack rating because I'm too lazy to check the screenshots) (and assuming they have 3 hitpoints either because of normal morale?)

Attacker % = 24 / (24+2) = 92.3%
Defender % = 2 / (24+2) = 7.6%

So the chance for the battleship to win with 3-0 is
(92,3%)^3 = 78.6%
Come to think of it, that's quite low. Firaxis, please help?

Anyway, the odds for a phalanx to beat a battleship would be
the sum of a 0-3, 1-3 or 2-3 victory for the phalanx which is lower than 0.05%

But with only the 78.6% chance for a battleship to get unharmed in an encounter with phalanx I fear there must be more to the calculation system.

Just my two cents.

[hexagonian]

The realistic battle results may very well hinge on the hp numbers now. It is too bad that FP numbers are not in the mix though, because this would allow for a greater degree of flexibility and control on establishing realistic results.

As long as Firaxis have the hitpoints worked out correctly, then in a straight up battle, advanced units should be able to defeat earlier units (Note that ctp1 had 10hp for all units in the default game, as well as a standard FP of 2 for all units , which was the cause of the unbalanced combat results - but ctp2 had not only different hp/attack/defend numbers for all units, but also different FP and Armor numbers, which allowed for realistic results.)

I have a feeling that there will be some undesirable results, based more on whether a unit is wounded - but this could be offset, for example, by limiting whether ancient units can even have the ability to inflict damage on air units.

[Jason Beaudoin]

You're calculations are wrong, StratAll. I wish I was a math person so that I could show you, but I know that Krazyhorse can figure it out.

[KrazyHorse]

EDIT: see my next post

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Possible interpretation

Anyway, the odds for a phalanx to beat a battleship would be the sum of a 0-3, 1-3 or 2-3 victory for the phalanx which is lower than 0.05%

Actually, this part is wrong. Good spotting.

The odds for a phalanx to beat a battleship are closer to the order of ~.5%

[hexagonian]

Anyone taking into account if the Phalanx is bunkered down with some defensive 'assistance'???

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
Well, regardless of what can beat what... I wouldn't want to see an army of spear throwers beating up on an army of riflemen. That isn't only inaccurate, but it's agrivating and not very much fun. You would expect that a civilization that is vastly more advanced than another, would easily take out a bunch of rock throwers.

How is it that it is inaccurate to have an army of spearthrowers beat up on an army of riflemen? After all it happened only a little more than 120 years ago during the Anglo-Zulu War.

At the Battle of Isandlwana on Jan. 22nd, 1879, an army of Zulus armed mainly with spears, attacked and slaughtered a large portion of a British army (armed with rifles) that had been marching against them. Some 1300 British officers and men died in that battle.

Admitedly, there were a large combination of factors that played into that victory, and in that same day at the Battle of Rourke's Drift, a force of a well-led and fortified unit of approximately 140 Welsh infantrymen were able to hold off 4000 troops of that Zulu army, but it can happen.

Superior technology does not always mean victory, as armies have discovered to their misfortune time and again throughout history.

[StratAll]

KrazyHorse,

You're right, that last one should be more like 0.35%. My mistake!

[KrazyHorse]

Ahh...the Zulu war. Brought up on both sides of the "pointy sticks can't beat guns" debate. What happened the day after the Battle of Isandlwana, Hex? I'll give you a hint: the British didn't lose this battle.

[hexagonian]

Actually, I don't mind seeing the very rare 'unbelievable' battle results, because it actually makes the game more fun - I just do not want to see it happen on a regular basis.

I do hope that removing the FP numbers does not make it happen too much though.

[Grumbold]

Sigh. Tanks are not invincible. Some people have amazing misconceptions about how great they are. Shove a tree branch or rail in the tracks and they are immobilised. Block the vision slits and they are blind. One molotov cocktail and the crew are roasting. Catch them in camp and killing the sentries allows you to overrun the whole unit. Blow up their supply dump and they are immobile and out of ammo. Spear armed infantry had good successes against tanks in WW II and the post war history of Afghanistan should show you just how effective lightly armed troops can be. The key is not to fight head on but rely on guerrilla tactics and ambushes. In cities or bad terrain the infantry even have the advantage. Good leadership and appropriate use of combined arms is the important thing. One incompetent general can get whole divisions captured or killed.


On the civ combat thing, it will make a difference if a 60% attack chance will result in an automatic loss on failure (the old Civ I method) or whether the defender performs a reciprocal attack in order to score a hit. For instance:

6 v 4 = 60% chance per round of attacker scoring a hit
1 v 4 = 25% chance per round of defender scoring a hit

That would change the success odds significantly.

Either way I can't see anyone except the most hardened militarists trying to conduct a campaign in the early years. Its going to take stacks of bombards to shift the odds away from the defender with all the early stuff having such low attack ratings.

[Jason Beaudoin]

Ya... the British may have taken a beating, but the Zulus out numbered the British by a huge factor. The British simply couldn't kill the Zulu warriors fast enough.

So... in a game scenario, if there were about 10 phalaxes beating up on one rifleman... ok... let them win. That wouldn't bother me, but a one on one battle, forget it.

[Knigget]

If there's no firepower the roman legions and musketmen are equally good...

Say it ain't so