Combat System Explained - Page 4

vmxa1 · January 16, 2002, 02:33

Yes being on a hill or mountain gets a boost and I use it as often as I can. I would not be happy to see my riflemen in a city lose to swordsmen, but I do not call it a major problem as they are not that far apart. 3 attack 4 HP is within the parameters against a riflemen. It is not like the barb horsemen that just beat my vet knight that was fortified. This is on Monarch.

Hurry · January 16, 2002, 07:18

Only the terrain of the defending unit is counted during combat, so it doesn´t matter where your units are.

And PLEASE, if you (Gen.Dragolen for example) want us to take your arguments seriously, POST A SAVEGAME!!! You have it in the autosave folder.

Nmintz · September 7, 2002, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Yohan
I've discovered something odd about the combat model.

I tried this a few times and it seems to be consistent. I tried attacking a regular spearman with a veteran swordsman and lost. I reloaded the game, tried the same attack, and lost again. What was strange was the sequence of hit point losses was EXACTLY IDENTICAL. I thought this was a strange coincidence, so I tried it a few more times, and the hit point loss sequence was identical every time. Curious, I tried attacking with a different veteran swordsman instead, and the results were once again identical.

But then I tried attacking with an elite swordsman and I won.

I have this strange suspicion that prior to each turn a table of combat results is precalculated. So depending on the attack/defense ratings of the units involved in combat and the number of hitpoints, the game looks up the results in a precalculated table to determine who wins. I have no other plausible explanation for this, and it strikes me as a very strange way to resolve combat.

I have indeed noticed this same result. I've even taken advantage of it when I'm in a cheatin mood (when your playing 15 civ games at emporer, it is awfully tempting at times).

I think the program is making use of a random number table like you will find in the back of most statistics textbooks. At the beginning of each turn it picks a line to start on and goes from there. That would explain a great many things (such as why cultural defections, which are based on probability), seem to be inevitable even if you start the turn over again.

makes sense to me.

Nathan

Theseus · September 7, 2002, 21:29

Nathan,

If you are patched up to 1.29f, you may recall seeing a checkbox for "keep random seed," or something like that, when starting a game.

The game does indeed drive several probabilities from a PRNG, and thus reloading (unless you un-check that option) does not change any probability calculation results.

vmxa1 · September 7, 2002, 22:17

Yup, the rnd num is locked in at the start,of the turn unless you turn it off at the start of the game. The reload will be exactly the same. If you have a bad first roll and reload and do the same sequence of events they come out the same. Change the sequence and the first roll will be used else where, so the battle will be with another permutation (a form of cheating).

Blue Moose · September 7, 2002, 23:36

The problem could be solved with hitpoints, as people say...just double or triple them. The lower the hitpoint levels involved, the closer to Civ1-type combat it is. Civ2 had hitpoints as multiples of 10, which is the main reason why it was so much better.

Anyhow, someone asked "where should you draw the line?" The answer to this is simple.

Units that are one tech behind should still be able to adequately defend and attack (though are a noticebly reduced effectiveness). Units 2 or more tech progressions back should get slaughtered nearly all the time. So warriors should get killed off easily by bowman and knights (and exceptions should be so rare you should be almost guaranteed not to see them). Cavalry should slaughter any ancient age unit. Riflemen should be at the end of their lifespan defending against tanks, and so forth.

While there would be some unrealism with the above, it would still be better than what there is now, and it would handle the complaints about the most modern units rolling over less advanced ones too easily. If you are far enough back that you are defending against tanks with musketmen (or modern tanks with riflemen)...you should get run over.

vmxa1 · September 7, 2002, 23:54

Amen brother. HP or FP or something could be used to make battles of obsolete units lose nearly always. A Fire Power factor that has each ages unit say 10 for earliest and 10 more each age. Now Warriors beat Calv once in 50,000 fights or something crazy. An extra HP each age may do the same, not sure. Many will scream that a warrior/spearmen should win those battles once in a while, but it should be like a Blue Moon, very few in your lifetime.

Catt · September 8, 2002, 12:56

IMHO, there are 2 big problems with altering the HPs or other game features in an effort to make the more advanced units significantly stronger than older units:

(1) the AI civs are not adept enough at managing their treasuries to deal with upgrades. If they have the money, the AI will upgrade. But I've seen no evidence that the AI will adjust its science slider downwards for a turn or two in order to horde the gold necessary to make the mass upgrade that will come with the next tech (as a human will often do).

(2) It seems to me that the AI also has a problem upgrading units in cities without barracks. Rather than move older units to cities with a barracks for the upgrade, it seems that the AI leaves the older units until they happen to have a barracks handy. In a game with shifting borders, this often means that the AI borders will be guarded by weaker, older units.

Both of these aspects of the AI's gameplay processes mean that radically increasing the power disparity between old and new units tends to unbalance the game towards the human, making it easier. Maybe more in tune with the real world, but, in my experience and IMHO, less of an engaging game.

Catt

vmxa1 · September 8, 2002, 14:31

Sorry Catt, that is a very weak counter arguement. All that you said is true, but the change will not materially impact the game. How many times in a given game do these types of battles occur and the older units win? Most swear they have never seen them. If that is so they are not making enough impact to matter. I think they are not making an impact, except in the perception of the game, so correcting it will not hurt the civs much. The short comings of the AI's tactics can be addressed (or not) independently. It will have its biggest impact on the naval units, they are a joke in combat. even the nay sayers admit to seeing galleys sink battleships.
So I do not se it as a big deal, but it could improve peoples view of the game. Making the AI smarter is another thing altogerther.

Proteus_MST · September 8, 2002, 14:38

Dunno,
I´ve seen some very extreme Forms of Mass Upgrades.

One time, I´ve observed my old enemy Katherine upgrade all of her Infanterie-Units to Mechanized Infanterie (more than 100 Units) in one turn.

On other times I encounter old Musket Men in the same city with more modern Riflemen.

But I can´t say for sure if the AI is just too incompetent to adjust the science slider, or if it just has other Priorities and just spends the money with hurrying Cavalry instead of upgrading old Musketmen.

In the first case observed I was at Peace with Russia and Kathy had only one war running, with another far distant Civ.

I often encounter the second case (i.e. obsolete and modern Units in the same City) if I am at war with an AI-Civ and just have a big Offensive running, where I strike deep into enemy territory.

vmxa1 · September 8, 2002, 17:02

I did not get into that aspect, but for my two cents, I do not think failure to upgrade is the AI's biggest problem. A bigger issue is the willingness to send troops into battle piece meal at times.It has other serious flaws as well. Like I said, correcting the combat a bit will not really crush the AI. It will only make it less irksome.

Blue Moose · September 8, 2002, 17:09

Aye, the AI is very wierd in that if you take a city and are having a huge invasion, it just locks all its units up in cities (for the most part), instead of moving bunch to the front lines and working to destroy your attack force. It seems to then build defensive units almost exclusively as well. The AI doesn't know that offensive is better than defense in Civ III.

vmxa1 · September 8, 2002, 17:34

Among its many problems. I do not mind it being less than optimal. If it was super smart, I could not over come its extra units and such.

Blue Moose · September 8, 2002, 18:19

Of course, if it was super-smart, it wouldn't need extra units.

Catt · September 9, 2002, 00:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Units that are one tech behind should still be able to adequately defend and attack (though are a noticebly reduced effectiveness). Units 2 or more tech progressions back should get slaughtered nearly all the time. So warriors should get killed off easily by bowman and knights (and exceptions should be so rare you should be almost guaranteed not to see them). Cavalry should slaughter any ancient age unit. Riflemen should be at the end of their lifespan defending against tanks, and so forth.

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
. . . . mean that radically increasing the power disparity between old and new units tends to unbalance the game towards the human, making it easier. Maybe more in tune with the real world, but, in my experience and IMHO, less of an engaging game.

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Sorry Catt, that is a very weak counter arguement. All that you said is true, but the change will not materially impact the game. How many times in a given game do these types of battles occur and the older units win? Most swear they have never seen them. If that is so they are not making enough impact to matter. I think they are not making an impact, except in the perception of the game, so correcting it will not hurt the civs much.

You could be right, but I certainly see a lot of battles between units that differ by two tech progressions - and the smart human player would rush like hell with the first significant tech lead. Get to chivalry (knights) before neighbor has large numbers of pikemen (or is without iron)? Bye-bye neighbor. Get to cavalry and a neighbor has no saltpeter or hasn't upgraded all pikes? Bye-bye neighbor. And so on.

I haven't played with modded HPs under 1.29f, so it might be diffferent, but I suspect it also has a proclivity to be worse from a gameplay perspective. It's been my experience that the changes to the tech progression in 1.29f have allowed some civs to essentially fall out of the tech race - they get behind and there is no way for them to catch up. Modded HPs in such a circumstance would exacerbate the already nearly overpowering strength of a tech lead -- it essentially would lock out a civ that doesn't stake a claim very early.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying don't mod the game to one's liking; I'm just saying that modding carrires risks - one of the principal risks being that gameplay balance is messed up and the game loses some of its challenge / fun / strategic options. Not true for all players and not true for all mods, but I eventually stopped modding and went back to the straight game because I felt I couldn't make the game more interesting through my mods. Others have had more success.

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Making the AI smarter is another thing altogerther.

Yes, indeed. This is the real challenge.

Catt

vmxa1 · September 9, 2002, 01:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
You could be right, but I certainly see a lot of battles between units that differ by two tech progressions - and the smart human player would rush like hell with the first significant tech lead. Get to chivalry (knights) before neighbor has large numbers of pikemen (or is without iron)? Bye-bye neighbor. Get to cavalry and a neighbor has no saltpeter or hasn't upgraded all pikes? Bye-bye neighbor. And so on.

I do not mod. First let me contgratulate you for keep the discuss civial.

You did not say what the out come of those battles was, when they are two ages apart. If as I suspect in 129f the out come is a smashing success for the new units, then it is as I claimed, not much of a factor. I would submit that the human players already rush when they get a tech lead in units. If you get to Calv first, you are going to starts somw scuffles. I would expect the correction (whatever it could be) to not make it so a defensive unit like the pikemen would not hold its own if fortified in a city against say Knight or even an occasional Cal, but no MA, please. If it attacked or attacking on the field, sad movies. The case you mention are already bad news for whomever is missing the key tech or resource. Again the tweak would not make much difference. All I would lobby for is no more warriors or spearmen beating anything form two ages away, ever or nearly so, no matter what stories or icon respresentation one wishes to propose. Finally, it is not a big issue to me, I am not one of the one who hate the combat any longer after all the patches. Originally it was bad, not so now.

Catt · September 9, 2002, 03:07

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

You did not say what the out come of those battles was, when they are two ages apart. If as I suspect in 129f the out come is a smashing success for the new units, then it is as I claimed, not much of a factor. I would submit that the human players already rush when they get a tech lead in units. If you get to Calv first, you are going to starts somw scuffles. I would expect the correction (whatever it could be) to not make it so a defensive unit like the pikemen would not hold its own if fortified in a city against say Knight or even an occasional Cal, but no MA, please.

Ah - but I'm not commenting on two ages apart. I'm commenting on two "tech progressions" apart (from the original post). To be honest, not sure exactly what that means, but the examples given were (1) warrior versus knight / longbowman, (2) cavalry versus any ancient age unit, and (3) riflemen vs. tanks. I interpreted this to mean essentially two steps forward in the military chain, offensive units attacking defensive units.

And I'm arguing that the game plays better, IMHO, if (1) a knight will not always defeat a warrior fortified on a mountain, if (2) a cavalry is not a shoe-in against a spearman fortified in a city (or town) on a hill, and if (3) riflemen in cities had some chance against a tank assault.

Quote:

The case you mention are already bad news for whomever is missing the key tech or resource. Again the tweak would not make much difference.

Yes, bad, but not hopeless. I defend (and have enjoyed seeing the AI defend) with technically inferior units but better tactical positions. If the "two tech progression" is cavalry to pikes, for example, the human can have XX horsemen / knights ready for immediate upgrade in a border town, hit Military Tradition, upgrade, and carve through a neighbor without taking any losses. The AI isn't capable of this foresight and planning as it stands today. Big advantage to human player.

In my mind, being the tech leader is so important to the game as it is that handing out "Do Not Pass Go" cards to other civs because they fall two techs behind makes for a less interesting game.

Quote:

All I would lobby for is no more warriors or spearmen beating anything form two ages away, ever or nearly so, no matter what stories or icon respresentation one wishes to propose. Finally, it is not a big issue to me, I am not one of the one who hate the combat any longer after all the patches. Originally it was bad, not so now.

I can empathize - I am still waiting for the spearman vs. tank (even though I saw a more extreme RNG string some time ago, I haven't seen the ancient era unit defeat an industrial age unit yet). Also, I really don't care how anyone wants to mod their game - mod it in whatever way makes it more fun (or don't mod it at all if that's preferable, as it apparently is for both you and me) - but since the discussion drifted to modding and I didn't see anything but positive comments on modding the HPs or combat related stats, I decided to throw my $0.02 in on some of the potential side effects of modding that aren't necessarily readily apparent when someone first starts modding the game.

And now it's late and I'll go to bed

.

Catt

vmxa1 · September 9, 2002, 04:23

Originally posted by Catt
"And I'm arguing that the game plays better, IMHO, if (1) a knight will not always defeat a warrior fortified on a mountain, if (2) a cavalry is not a shoe-in against a spearman fortified in a city (or town) on a hill, and if (3) riflemen in cities had some chance against a tank assault. "

I could have sworn I said that the fortified stuff is not at issue, it is a special bonus, just talking about no bonus combat, straight up. I agree about those cases, they are not an outrage.

Originally posted by Catt
"I can empathize - I am still waiting for the spearman vs. tank (even though I saw a more extreme RNG string some time ago, I haven't seen the ancient era unit defeat an industrial age unit yet). "

Prepatched, I saw the tank lose many times to spearmen and even occassionlly to warriors, no longer see that. They do beat Calvary units at times (no bonuses for either). That is strange, but not heinous. BB losing to galley is quite common and is silly.

Anyway, I was not looking for a editor mod, but a game correction. It is not going to happen, so it all just for fun.

I still do not see the AI as having any chance, once you get ahead in unit tech at any level. The game is over, so all of the things that you mention as tactics that will kill the AI are irrelevant as the AI is a dead man walking at that time. I have Calv and they don't or I have Tanks and they don't, turn out the lights.

Blue Moose · September 9, 2002, 04:28

By "two technology progressions" I did indeed mean 2 steps up the combat chain...the 'chains' would be:

defense
(1)warrior - (2)spearmen - (3)pikemen - (3.5)musketmen - (4)riflemen - (5)infantry - (6)mechanized infantry

offense
(1)warrior/chariot - (2)swordsmen/horsemen* - (3)knight/longbowmen - (4)cavalry - (5)tank - (6)modern armor

Musketmen fit in a little oddly, I think**. It might be better to think of the units as ealy/late age units (though ancient units are more along the lines of warrior/not warrior). In my mind, the units that come near the tail end of an age should pretty easily win against units that are from the previous age. Early units from an age should be able to fairly easily win against early units from a previous age. In standard circumstances. Now, a late unit from one age might have a hard time against a late unit from the previous age if that unit is fortified in a fortress that was built on a mountain, or the like. But in most circumstances, I think this should hold. If you are that far behind in tech, or aren't updating your units, then you deserve to have your men slaughtered.

This would help the game feel more realistic without a significant handicap, I think. I've never noticed the AI to be this bad at upgrading (by and larger, occasionally they will have a couple non-upgraded units, but it is a small percentage, and they aren't on the front lines). So I think this would work rather well. Again, I am not saying these units should always win though, in exceptional causes (really rare or really well fortified defensive troops), then things could be different, I am just talking about your 'typical battle'.

Btw, in my riflemen vs. tanks scenerio, I meant to say modern tanks (I haven't double checked to see if I have or not). Against regular tanks they should just be a noticeable disadvantage (but not a crippling one).

*With Swordsmen, they are argueably a "2.5"

*Musketmen are an early age unit, and they aren't too different defensively than pikemen...so they are a bit hard to rate, and they'd push all the defensive units up by one. You could argue this makes sense though, since in later wars you should be using artillery and bombers to support your troops.

Zachriel · September 9, 2002, 08:40

I'm certainly not against improvements in the combat system, but more modern units already get significant advantages. For instance, the defensive units:

warrior 1
spear 2
pike 3
musket 4
rifle 6
. . .

The Rifleman has six times the defensive power of warriors. If anyone advocates bloodless combat, then I think you are the one being unrealistic.

Proteus_MST · September 9, 2002, 09:06

Any knight could gain Victory over a Line of Riflemen (unfortified) in ~30% of all Cases:
Listing of Chance of the Unit winning with x HP remaining
Knight vs. Rifleman (Regular)

Code:

Knight:
HP remaining	Chance (%)
3	         6,4
2	       11,52
1	       13,824
Rifleman:
HP remaining	Chance (%)
3	       21,6
2	       25,92
1	       20,736

I usually double the Hitpoints of the Units (and the Firerate of Artillery) along with other modifications (for example giving Ranged Attack Units such as Archers a Bombarding Value [and a Range of 0], to simulate the Capability of such Units to give Fire Support [just imagine a Defensive Volley of Arrows while a Horde of Warriors is approaching the Prime Defenders of the City, a Bunch of Speramen])

The doubling of HPs lowers the knights Chance of winning to ~22%

Code:

Knight:
HP remaining	Chance
6	       0,4096
5	       1,47456
4	       3,096576
3	       4,9545216
2	       6,68860416
1	       8,026324992
Rifleman:
HP remaining	Chance
6	       4,6656
5	     11,19744
4	     15,676416
3	     16,7215104
2	     15,04935936
1	     12,039487488

Zachriel · September 9, 2002, 11:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Any knight could gain Victory over a Line of Riflemen (unfortified) in ~30% of all Cases:

Actually, Veteran Knight v. Veteran Rifleman is 25%
http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html
If the defenders are prepared for the attack (fortified) they will win five out of six combats.

That means that most of the time the Rifleman will win, however, occassionally the Knights may attack from a flank (presumed) and overwhelm the defenders. Think of it this way. Consider six Riflemen and six Knights (individual combats for simplicity, stacking would usually favor the defenders). When all is said and done, only one or two of the Riflemen may be dead and nearly all of the Knights, excepting those Knights with the sense to retreat.

The Knights may attack at night. They may blow up the enemy ammo. They may bribe a few of the guards. The Riflemen may be led by an idiot. Anything can happen in war and victory is nearly always purchased in blood.

Expect the Riflemen to win, but not without any losses. Meanwhile, presumably the Riflemen are not fighting in a vacuum, but are backed by other modern weapons such as Cannon and Cavalry and are attempting to use terrain to their advantage. The chances of actually losing significant numbers of units is negligible, and with a little attention to tactics, none of the Knights are likely to survive.

vmxa1 · September 9, 2002, 12:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel
The Rifleman has six times the defensive power of warriors. If anyone advocates bloodless combat, then I think you are the one being unrealistic.

Not sure what you mean by bloodless. but if you mean dead, then I disagree. In the cases that I envision, the "bloodless" battles should be normal. I was only talking about huge mismatches. Warrior vs Calv/Riflemen or better, those types. No cities, no bonus. I am not talking about units with small value differences, 212 vs 321, those are up for grabs. A 111 vs 633 or 461 should be a forgone conclusion. Again, not talking about forted in a mega city with the blessing of the gods, just out in the open no other factors, no support. Yes miracles can happen, but how many have you seen in person?

Zachriel · September 9, 2002, 12:50

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Warrior vs Calv/Riflemen or better, those types. No cities, no bonus.

Veteran Cavalry v. Veteran Warrior 98.6%
That's about as much of a sure thing as you can get considering the turns last at least a year. There must be at least a 1% chance of bribery, disease or treachery. History is replete with the corpses of "sure things."

Of course, if you are scared, then bring along some cannon.

Alantus · September 9, 2002, 17:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
I can empathize - I am still waiting for the spearman vs. tank

I can't remember if I attacked with a Tank, MA or MI but I did get whipped by a longbowman 2 or 3 games back! He was in a size 16 city and it could have been cross river. I wasn't paying careful attention as it was a mop up job. Can't even remember if my guy died or had the sense to retreat. I had a spare unit to finish him so it wasn't a big deal it just upset me when it happened but I got over it fast.

Alantus

Blue Moose · September 9, 2002, 18:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Veteran Cavalry v. Veteran Warrior 98.6%
That's about as much of a sure thing as you can get considering the turns last at least a year. There must be at least a 1% chance of bribery, disease or treachery. History is replete with the corpses of "sure things."

Of course, if you are scared, then bring along some cannon.

1% is still way too high....I think it should be more along the lines of .1% or .01%

Zachriel · September 9, 2002, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Moose
1% is still way too high....I think it should be more along the lines of .1% or .01%

1. If you have a lot of combats in which the combatants are more than one Age apart, then you may want to increase the difficulty level a notch or two. I almost never see such situations, and when I do, it is because my rival is whipped and I have already won the war.

2. Assuming you have 100 such combats in a game (a lot!); you may see one or two odd results or frequently none at all in the entire 6,000 year history of civilization -- fewer than in real history. Even when such events occur, they presumably represent a small percentage of your total military in the field, so are strategically inconsequential.

3. You failed to address the issues of "bribery, disease or treachery," not to mention friendly fire, weather, logistics, political infighting, or shear incompetence.

4. Do not make the mistake of thinking the spearmen are just going to line up and let you shoot at them. They are presumably intelligent, and sometimes well-led. They will study their opponents. They will hide and organize and wait for the enemy to make a mistake. Occasionally, they will succeed. (Most of the time, they won't.)

5. If you experience the theoretical 1%, it means you are not maximizing your tactical advantages. God gave you artillery for a reason. Why not use it? Or why not use fast units which retreat? Your forces are only "technologically superior" when you use the technology and tactics available to you.

6. In real life strategic planning, no one provides a flat statistic for planning purposes. This is a huge advantage. To create the illusion of strategic planning there must be variability in combat results. Indeed, in real life, there is much more variability than anything ever contemplated for Civ.

vmxa1 · September 9, 2002, 19:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Alantus
I can't remember if I attacked with a Tank, MA or MI but I did get whipped by a longbowman 2 or 3 games back! He was in a size 16 city and it could have been cross river. I wasn't paying careful attention as it was a mop up job. Can't even remember if my guy died or had the sense to retreat. I had a spare unit to finish him so it wasn't a big deal it just upset me when it happened but I got over it fast.

Alantus

I do not get upset by losing to a fortified unit in a metro, but it seems strange. I accept their defensive bonus and take my lumps it I had to bombardment units.

vmxa1 · September 9, 2002, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Moose

1% is still way too high....I think it should be more along the lines of .1% or .01%

I like your style.

vmxa1 · September 9, 2002, 20:19

Originally posted by Zachriel [/SIZE]

"3. You failed to address the issues of "bribery, disease or treachery," not to mention friendly fire, weather, logistics, political infighting, or shear incompetence. "

This stuff is just hokkum, I do not see any of these mentioned in the doc. The are a figment of someones imagination. They are for real life, not Civ.

"4. Do not make the mistake of thinking the spearmen are just going to line up and let you shoot at them. They are presumably intelligent, and sometimes well-led. They will study their opponents. They will hide and organize and wait for the enemy to make a mistake. Occasionally, they will succeed. (Most of the time, they won't.)"

Again it does not exist and is not part of the game dynamics. If it did spearmen are not smater than the more modern unit they are facing. In real life you would be correct. I can not consider factors that do not exist such as aliens landing to help out the spearmen. They come up with a device or a trick. It is a straight up computation, nothing more. Leave the romantic ideas out of the equation. Anyway if they agreeed to be a spearmen, I would challenge thier being intelligent. Spearmen would be more liekly to break ranks and flee.

"5. If you experience the theoretical 1%, it means you are not maximizing your tactical advantages. God gave you artillery for a reason. Why not use it? Or why not use fast units which retreat? Your forces are only "technologically superior" when you use the technology and tactics available to you."

Again, that may or may not be true, but is irrelevant for this conversation. One roving spearmen, does not require me to send a wave of combined arms to defend. For the purpose of this debate, lets leave the tactics out.

I will and have said, I could live with the 1% or whatever it turns out be. My whole interest is that it would be less likely to annoy new players to the game. When it first came out I read alot of people on many boards complain about this feature and say they took the game back. It has been improved, but it is smart to not allienate potential customers over something that could be corrected and not impact the game.
If one sends an elite calv to kill a spearmen on the flat lands and it loses, it will annoy you, not ruin the fun, only irk you. It may in fact be fair that time and the 1% came home. It still makes you go what the..... Now I know all of the players that will say, see you should have sent in 3 bombersand two arties and tehn attacked... oh really....... Maybe an MA army of four would be safe, do you think????