Are combat promos better than shock for phracts attacking pikes?
Shock removes 25% from a strength six pike, so it removes 1.5 strength from the defender. Combat adds 10% = 1.2 strength to the attacker. What improves odds the most?
C2 is worth 1.2 /1.1 (ratio of C2 unit strength vs C1 unit strength) = 1.09 repeating.
It is exactly equal to shock when the defending unit has +200% net bonuses not including the shock, i.e. shock takes the unit from 300% strength to 275% strength. (300/275 = 1.09 repeating, too.)
Dave's pikes are inherently +100% vs mounted, behind a castle for another 100%, and probably have at least C1 and fortify bonuses on top of that (plus maybe hill or river crossing bonuses). Under these circumstances (with castle defenses still up), C2 will be more effective than shock, as the defender situation is at greater than 300% existing multiplier.
novice Wrote:Or maybe Dave just noticed no Theology and concluded no Theocracy, when Mistanod have the Paya (IIRC).
I think this is more likely, especially since Dave is severely underestimating the number of phracts that Mistabod have outside his view.
Edit: Wait, nevermind, he knows how many prhacts they have. Turn order is messing with my head.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
Longbows don't do squat. Pikes do somewhat better, but not when the phracts have collateral support.
Man, aren't I glad that Sian got crippled early in bts35 . Of course, I would have had a tech parity with Sian and been able to get collateral initiative on, so I daresay I would have done better. Shame bts35 is dead.
Gaspar/NH are too negative concerning their chances. They still have a pretty good shot at this game. They've played a solid although quite standard game and Isabella has pretty good traits for late game. Most of the civics are soon unlocked for a good flexibility and +2 health will get useful after Assembly line. They're also geographically in pretty good position with weak neighbor in the south and relatively easily defendable border in SW. So late game they probably can stay out of fighting more likely than Commodore or Mistabod.
plako Wrote:Gaspar/NH are too negative concerning their chances.
Seriously...
I've actually been reading many of the old PBEMs and it seems that a lot of people get very fatalistic when their first and second plans fall apart, not that I necessarily blame them.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
. Of course, I would have had a tech parity with Sian and been able to get collateral initiative on, so I daresay I would have done better. Shame bts35 is dead.