Question on Mixed Army Stats

[Catt]

This thread probably belongs in the General Forum, but the regular presence of so many army experts in the Strat Fourm and the small twist in strategy that I will try and place on the question compel me to post here.

PLaying 1.29f, Emperor, no mods, my civ is Russia. I just added a Cossak (6.4.3) to an army of 2 knights (4.3.2). See the screen shot below -- the "stats" of the army are listed as 5.3.2. Now, I've always known that an army moves only as fast as its slowest unit. I've certainly used my fair share of mixed armies on the past, and though I can't say I paid dilligent attention to army stats in the past, I always thought that a mixed army showed the stats of the "top-most" unit. The "5" attack doesn't match any unit in the army, but it does match the rounded average of the three attack values (6+4+4)/3. Similarly, the defense stat (3) matches the rounded defense average of the three defense values (4+3+3)/3.

So, my question: Is the ADM of the army purely eye candy, and when attacking, does the army have an attack value of 6 while the cossack attacks, dropping to 4 when the cossack yields to a knight? Same Q for defense stats. What are the strategic implications of the answers? (See, this does belong in the Strat Forum ).

Obscure Reference, in a sultry, female, faceless voice: "Well, boppers, it looks as if our ball players have struck out in the subway, and the Warriors are now headed uptown."

Catt

Edit for spelling.

[Theseus]

Naw, just eye candy, although sometimes a good shortcut.

The units act individually, in a series starting with the strongest unit for the application. So in this example, on both attack and defense, the Cossack goes first for each individual battle. They evidently 'share' the remaining hps for each individual battle, so if total hps available are 12, the Cossack gets 4, and if total hps available are, say, 8, I believe the Cossack gets 1/3, rounded, for 3.

That's a nice combo, btw.

And yes, I've decided that our leetle friend thought he was bringing a gun to a knife fight, only to get stabbed in the hand.

[Edit: ps, better hope Arrian doesn't pay too much attention to the picture... oh, look what I've gone and done...]

[Harovan]

Yeah! This anti-perfectionist and borg way you never will gain Ultimate Power .

[alexman]

I never noticed those Army stats before!

Yes, they are eye candy indeed, but a surprisingly good estimate to the exact stats. Use this Army combat calculator to see for yourself. (By the way, what happened to the other thread where I posted this? Did it get deleted because of the link to CF?)

Examples: (all veteran with defender 50% bonus)
Average strength 3
2 Immortals + 1 pikeman vs pikeman win 90% of the time
3 swordsmen vs pikeman win 91% of the time
Average strength 4.67
2 cavalries and a horseman vs rifleman win 80% of the time
1 cavalry and 2 knights vs rifleman win 80% of the time

[Catt]

Thanks all; I figured it was just eye candy, but thought I'd defer to the collective wisdom.

Alexman - great calc - I saw that in the other thread but didn't have time to post before.

Sir Ralph (and Arrian): this was/is a very challenging game. Basically all land northeast of Kiev and the Sverdlosk desert was jungle -- with the desert to the east and northwest, I was left with very little suitable terrain (especially without an industrious civ). It's a small map, everything random, and I turned off "culturally linked starting positions" which I usually leave on. Net result was that I experienced a GA-turbo-charged impi invasion from the Zulus to my south (who had a bunch of grassland and bonus tiles), and the occassional skirmish with the Americans to my northeast and Japanese to my northwest. I think Shaka invaded without warning (and in the process broke treaties) 3 separate times before about 200 AD. I actually gave up the first time I played it (after being reduced to one city) and replayed it from several hundred years after the start point - it was kind of a "Aeson iceberg impossible start" for my skill level - lots of fun! [BTW, I think the game is now in hand - just entered into the modern age and am fighting (and beating) the Egyptian powerhouse -- I have allowed Shaka to live and don't control my own continent - yet.]

Catt

[Theseus]

I also meant the Dark Side of Arrian...

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Theseus
The units act individually, in a series starting with the strongest unit for the application. So in this example, on both attack and defense, the Cossack goes first for each individual battle. They evidently 'share' the remaining hps for each individual battle, so if total hps available are 12, the Cossack gets 4, and if total hps available are, say, 8, I believe the Cossack gets 1/3, rounded, for 3.

Theseus are you sure? In 1.21f it was certainly true that if you bombarded an AI army, you would hit the unit with the most defense. If e.g. you shot him down from 4 to 1, and later on attacked him, that defender would only have 1 HP before retreating. Not the average of total HPs...

I'm really trying to remember what I did with the 2xMI,1 MA and longbowman army of the Germans in MT V, but I can't say for sure. I mean, I don't know if the longbowman was at full health before I killed him, and I don't know how many HPs I got from him. Even if I had a few of those mixed AI armies, I think I wiped out a few of them with some nukes... no problems with stats anymore

DeepO

[Theseus]

Hmmm, I dunno. I have a lot more experience attacking with them, or watching a strong defender in a MU Army fight repeated battles, and it always seems to me that available hps are shared.

How about any of the other Army mavens... Zachriel?

[DeepO]

That's why I was wording it very carefully, I know you are much more experienced with armies, and certainly with mixed ones. I do like them too so have a bit experience with them, but if you tell me it is like you initially said, I will spread the word from now on

DeepO

[Theseus]

Nope, not 100% sure. I'll put up a thread on the question, and see if we catch someone's attention.

[Arrian]

Catt,

Yeah, that looks like a tough one. Playing a weak civ (especially on a small map) and dealing with the mean, nasty, impi-wielding Shaka man...

To be honest, I didn't even notice the city spacing, but now that it's been pointed out, it's not all that bad. Closer than I would use (but then again, I'm still playing primarily on Monarch), but appropriate for your situation.

Theseus, even the Dark Side recognizes there are times when caution is the better part of valour. He's sandwiched between two militarists with nasty UU's, and he isn't a militarist, which makes early war harder.

-Arrian

[Catt]

I wasn't entirely happy with a 5.3.2 army so I added a Mechanized Infantry to create the more balanced 7.7.2 army.

When I finally finish this game, I will probably try and set up a simple scenario to test the mixed army "HP sharing" issue since no one seems to have come forward with a definitive answer on this.

Catt

PS: BTW, for a guy who believes in the power of Marines, I had never seen the AI use them in an amphibious assault -- finally happened in this game. Egyptian marines almost took a weakly defended coastal city (and may have taken it had proper pre-assault bombardment been employed - there were bombardment assets within range but they failed to soften up the city for the marine assault).

[Zardos]

Pardon me for being ignorant, but I noticed something about the screenshots that I've never seen before (and it left me wondering if I've completely missed something as I've been playing...)

You say that you are running an unmodded, 1.29f game, yet I've never seen a luxury show a 'happy face' on the map. Nor have I seen what seems to be irrigationx2 (a.k.a. farms in Civ2)...can you elaborate please?

Zardos

[Catt]

Originally posted by Zardos
Pardon me for being ignorant, but I noticed something about the screenshots that I've never seen before (and it left me wondering if I've completely missed something as I've been playing...)

You say that you are running an unmodded, 1.29f game, yet I've never seen a luxury show a 'happy face' on the map. Nor have I seen what seems to be irrigationx2 (a.k.a. farms in Civ2)...can you elaborate please?

Zardos

Sorry - should have been clearer - the game rules / mechanics are unmodded, but I use several graphics mods: (1) the terrain graphics are mostly snoopy's; (2) mountains and irrigation (IIRC) are womok's; and (3) the luxury and strategic resource "easy identifiers" mod (indispensible in my view) is by SkankyBurns.

Catt

[Zardos]

PHEW! And here I thought that I've been missing the 'farms' on Civ 3. Imagine not knowing that and still being able to handily beat the AI on Monarch (shameless self-aggrandizing (sp?)). However, having just started Emperor, I still get my hat handed to me .

Zardos

[Theseus]

I tested an MA/MI Army, I posted my conclusions on the thread in General.

I believe hps are shared.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
I tested an MA/MI Army, I posted my conclusions on the thread in General.

I believe hps are shared.

Phew! I didn't really want to do the test, but I did want to understand fully how M-U armies worked. Thanks for taking the time to test and post.

Catt

PS - I assume that you will post the same in the CFC thread?

[Sheik]

This may seem like a dumb question but why do you want to mix armies? I generally only use armies for offense and therefore choose powerful units of all the same type to put in there. Why not use only the best?

[Catt]

Originally posted by Sheik
This may seem like a dumb question but why do you want to mix armies? I generally only use armies for offense and therefore choose powerful units of all the same type to put in there. Why not use only the best?

It's not a silly question - I think most players are initially taken aback by the thought of putting different types of units in an army - especially different types of units from different ages in the same army. It's a somewhat long thread, but you should definitely read through Theseus' treatise (which is the Apolyton treatise on armies, IMHO) - the thread is one of the featured threads on the Strategy Page - and can be found here.

The short version (for me) comes down to one particular key point - I expect my army to essentially guarantee a battle win in almost any circumstance. Two swordsmen or two horsemen in an ancient age army just about get you there; 2 knights in the early middle ages will do the same. Adding a third unit doesn't appreciably increase the odds of winning a battle - the odds are so skewed in your favor due to the 8 or more HPs (no chance for defender promotions before death) that adding a third unit might rightly be thought of as overkill (might take expected battle win percentage in a given circumstance from 96% to 98%? not a big gain). Now also take into account that armies can be few and far in between until the ability to build the Military Academy arrives with Military Tradition. I don't want my army to become obsolete quickly -- as may naturally occur as tech progresses -- because I don't know if I'll get another one into well into the Industrial Age.

An example probably helps here: If I have carefully left a space in my early army (loading only 2 horseman, say), I can add a knight to my army as the age of chivalry arrives. The 2-horseman army is an exceedingly powerful ancient age attack unit, and I am pretty comfortable that it is going to take down anything in its way (yes, there are a couple of exceptions ). If I add a third horseman, the relative strength of the army vis-a-vis other ancient age units is largely unchanged - it remains a supremely powerful ancient age monster. But soon the age of chivalry arrives, and with it knights, pikemen and musketmen, together with more Cities (7 pop or higher) and the defensive bonus Cities provide. Had I created a 3-horseman army in the ancient age, the army itself would now be largely obsolete - sure, I could use it against spearmen, and I could use it against units in the open field, but I probably can't confidently use it to "crack open" that City guarded by a tough defender. However, since I only created a 2-horseman army in the ancient age, I can now add a knight to the army. My knight-horseman-horseman army is still very powerful in the Middle Ages - its 12 HPS, led by a 4 attack unit and then two 2 attack units, means it still retains the key capability I desire from my armies - the ability to essentially guarantee a victory in battle. By loading units into armies over time rather than as soon as an army appears, you can successfully extend the useful life of a single army significantly.

I've rambled on long enough - for another key reason to consider using mixed armies which centers on how HPs and ADM stats work together in the army context, see Theseus' thread in the General Forum titled How do Armies handle damage?

Catt

[Theseus]

Catt - Yes, I will post at CFC, thanks for the reminder... we need to bridge better and more often. Not a true dissection though; I'm happy to do empirical tests, but I'd love to see the true analysts, say alexman or Carver, do it right.

Sheik - Ahhh, mixed-unit Armies, still my beating heart. It's late, so not now, but I'm inspired to start a new thread extolling the virtues. Give me a couple days...

Short answer (not!): Create a 3x Swords Army right off. What damn good is that thing in the modern era, even with a Pentagon-allowed 4th unit?

My philosophy is to evolve Armies through the ages, increasing their strength over time, and taking advantage of older units' hps.

[Sheik]

Thanks.