I don't have much faith in the Archer for offensive wars in this game.I've seen them beat legions and lose to horsemen.Considering the important role the longbow played they should have been given more punch.

I've often wondered if units attack better from mountains or whatever due to added defense.

Going back to units attacking from mountains or hills or defensively 'enhanced' terrains: it's been awhile since I played some of those hexagonal mapped wargames--like blitzkreig or Africa Corp or Battle of the Bulge, but if memory serves me, units lose their 'enhanced' bonuses when attacking. I've also assumed, possibly wrongly, that units don't get their defensive bonus' unless they are fortified (well, I just have been operating with this assumption--not convinced.)

Another assumption, is that fortified units regenerate faster after a battle. This I'm more certain of.

I think it's coincidental that a unit from the mountain does so well. I would hate to attack it though. Would love to hear the definitive answer! Someone should provide us with a percentage breakdown of the defensive conditions as they provided percentage breakdown concerning happy factor as it pertains to critical city limit under certain governments ...Oww!

This is what he did. Before a year or two he passed from civ1 to civ2 (I stayed with Civ1 as I had 386 then ). As we both weren't sure how this new combat was being calculated, he did a test.

He calculated odds on a paper, and then attacked. Wrote down result. Then he loaded, and did it again....

He did this a number of times ( I laughed at him when I heard ) as he tried to find a good formula to describe combat. Anyway, when I bought a modem, I read about how combat is done and he compared it to his "experiments". He found that they don't match! He is a good matematician.

The x2 horse described above;
x2 vs. air is really x3 vs. planes/x5 vs. missiles;
The rules say, FE, "x2" and "+100%" interchangeably, but in reality everything is multiplied one after the other. So

2 DEF * 1.5 (fortify) * 2 (on hill) * 1.5 (veteran)= 9 DEF, you don't add the bonuses together 1st and then multiply. Does anyone else remember any other tests?

------------------
Theben
Co-Moderator of the Civ3 Forums

The terrain from which you are attacking definitely has an impact on the outcome.

Knowing this, has helped my early game tremendously -- especially with raging hordes. I will back up back up back up until the attcking unit is forced to attack from plains.

I'll say this, my elephants are always getting killed in the mountains--they don't even get to attack (which is the discussion.)

To answer the discussion question, you have to consider the defensive nature of both units as well. And then you have to figure out the little idyiosyncrasies the makers put into the formula.

In the end, you you'd have to make a chart of every unit attacking every unit in all it's potential defensive situations. DAUNTING mathematics!

But all things being equal, I like to guestimate too.

Aurelius.

It's nice to know now about the lesser power of the pikeman. I don't know how many times I've expected a fortified pikeman in a forest or on a river defeat an elephant (should happen, at X2, even if the elephant is a vet.)

Also, we had a big discussion long ago, and the consensus from guys who tested it out was that bonuses aren't cumulative.

A rifleman, fortified on a river, and a vet., should be

4 + 2 (fortified) +2 (River, forest, jungle, swamp) +2 (vet) =10.

NOT

4*1.5*1.5*2=18. Think about it--in your experience, how would this hypothetical rifleman do against cavalry? In the first example, the rifleman has a slight edge against non-vet, slight disadvantage against non-vet. And that's what I see.

Still, I stand by my point, that in the old thread, the consensus was that the hypothetical rifleman would have defense of 10.

Although the original post seems to have vanished, a summation can be found here:

../../Forum1/HTML/000629.html