16-12-2002 19:30									#1
	Why do offensive units defend before defensive ones Enter the AD-FREE zone

I never saw a post on this one but perhaps it is somewhere in the many discussions around here. Could not find it though.

If I stack e.g. swordsmen and spearmen for an attack on one of my opponents they generally have to travel a few tiles in enemy territory. This enemy does not like me being there and therefore starts to attack my stack. My intention of the stack with swordsmen and spearmen is to attack with the swordsmen (attack value 3) and defend with the spearmen (same defense value as the swordsman). However, unless I have an elite spearman, the first defenders in case of an attack are the swordsmen(?????). This continues until all of them are dead or have less health than the spearmen. Isn't that awkward?

Is there a strategy to avoid this bad behaviour? Afaik I can not do anything about it.

	16-12-2002 19:48									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The stack will defend with it's best (hp) defender. While you may want to reserve that 5 hp elite sword for attack purposes, the AI who after all is doing the defense when you are attacked, considers it's a better defender than a 4 hp vet spear.

	16-12-2002 19:51									#3
	Remove this text

The game will always select the unit in a stack that has the best chances at winning a combat on defense. This is a combination of Defense value and HPs If two units with the same Defense (Swordsmen and Spearmen) are in the same stack, the one with the higher HPs will be chosen to defend. Sometimes HPs takes precedence over Defense, for example when a healthy Veteran Warrior is enlisted to defend instead of a Spearmen with only 1 HP left.

In the case of ties, I always assumed that the lowest cost defender would be chosen. Your experience appears to be the opposite. In this case, there are two solutions to your problem: 1) make sure your Spearmen are always better trained than your Swordsmen, or 2) use Horsemen instead of Swordsmen. Agreed, both of these are not satisfactory, and ideally the lowest-cost, most capable defender would always be chosen to defend.


Dominae

	16-12-2002 21:15									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Thanks. We agree. So this would be an opportunity for improvement of the game in my opinion.

	17-12-2002 00:11									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I only let my elite swordmen heal to 4hp before they begin advancing again. They can still pick off easy targets but I don't have to worry about them defending.

	17-12-2002 00:30									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DaveMcW I only let my elite swordmen heal to 4hp before they begin advancing again. They can still pick off easy targets but I don't have to worry about them defending.

I hate it when someone has an easy solution for one of my pet peeves (okay maybe hate isn't the right word).


This one always bugs me when I'm trying to desperately to generate a GL.

	17-12-2002 03:31									#7
	Suffering from ads?

I typically use elite swords to pick off counterattacking AI archers. I *may* send them with stacks of troops, but usually only over good defensive terrain (jungle, hills, mts). The AI will often avoid attacking entirely in that situation.

When I stack swords and spears, it has been my experience that the spears will defend if they are vets and there are no elite swords. If I bring along regular spears w/vet swords, the swords will defend.

-Arrian

	17-12-2002 03:44									#8
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I've always figured that it was HPs times Defense. In case of ties the defender seems to be the unit with the lowest Attack, but that would usually also correspond to lowest cost.

Ithaca Mike

	17-12-2002 13:30									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Doesn't retreat capability also have som role to play, at least in the case of ties ? In my latest game I brought some vet pikemen to "protect" my vet riders. That didn't really work out as planned

	17-12-2002 15:40									#10
	Suffering from ads?

If your swordmen and spearmen have equal hp then your spearmen should defend. In ties the weakest attacker will defend. I'm not if this is the case 100% of the times but if I had seen on a regular basis that the opposite were the case then I would surely notice.

	17-12-2002 16:04									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Its correct that the AI simply picks the units that has biggest chance of winning, and picking the cheapest (i.e. the spearman) if its a tie.

But notice that factors like fortifying counts. In one of my previous games I set out with a stack of knights and pikemen, expecting the pikemen to do the defense, but I made the "error" of fortyfying the knight (since it had a spare movement). The result was that the knight was the best defender. The next turn, no knight got fortified, so a pikeman became the defender then.

	17-12-2002 23:54									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

As an aside, Soren recently said that if there are two ships of same defensive strength (e.g., two transports), the one withOUT cargo will defend.

	19-12-2002 02:52									#13
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Oh, good Have to remember that, could be useful.

Unfortunately a transport stacked with an ironclad will defend first I don't know if this still is the case if the transport has cargo though.

	23-12-2002 11:54									#14
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Don Giovanni Doesn't retreat capability also have som role to play, at least in the case of ties ? In my latest game I brought some vet pikemen to "protect" my vet riders. That didn't really work out as planned

why are u escorting ur knights anyway? they are supposed to be fast attackers. Escorts will slow them down. But if u are really bothered by this, mongols or arab UUs can easily solve the problem since their defense isnt as good as pike's.

	24-12-2002 05:02									#15
	Support Apolyton

The problem of course is poor game design by Firaxis. In SMAC you could designate defenders. In Civ3 you can't.

There is no excuse for that and it simply proves that Firaxis is following the current industry trend of intentionally creating games that will sell but leave us feeling hollow and ready to buy the next game in the vain search for a satisfying game experience.