I had gotten the impression that a fully healed warrior attacking without penalties would always beat a barb. Today playing Greece, though, twice I lost in this situation (1 vs 0.5) to barbarians. Is this because the game authors thought I should be using hoplites instead of warriors? Are Greek warriors more susceptible to losses to barbs, or did I just get rather unlucky?
What was the year? After 2000 bc i believe u have a much greater risk of losing a 1-.05 battle against barbs.
It's likely it was after 2000 BC. Thanks.Originally Posted by Star428
before 2000, if you (a human) is attacking, it is guaranteed - as in you will get the same animation but you cannot loose your last point of health. i believe there is another guarantee that takes effect in the next period and that too expires 0ad or 1000bc or so...
Apparently the testers got quite frustrated when they lost 1 vs .5 early on and it crippled their start - and sid andthe devs went - "yeah but sometimes you loose those odds..." and the testers went "!@%$##%!@%!"
So sid put in the guaranteed wins
Until 2000BC, you always win 1 vs. 0.5 when attacking. When defending that is a different issue. I recently lost two militias pre 2000BC to a three flag barb 0.5 vs. 1. But I don't think I ever lost a regular unit (warrior, horse, archer) 0.5 vs. 1 pre 2000 BC, no matter if they are attacking or defending.
Yes militia are a differnet kettle of fish. They will lose 0.5 to 1.0 against an aggresive barb more times than win. Should think so too with those pansy whites on and little food axes...
On another note should archers really be penalised by firing over a river? Me and Mawpawk had this conversation a while back... I can't remember our conclusion but that it was funny!! ;-)
A defending warrior won't do any better than a militia. And yes, the river suggestion has come up many times as a way to make archers/catapults/cannons/artillery stand out from the crowd. They shouldn't be penalized for attacking from a boat also.
I disagree. Units attacking from a naval unit (even siege units) should have a lowered attack because being on the water will make the boat rock, even if only a little.
I don't think I ever lost a warrior/horse pre 2000BC to a barb 0.5 vs. 1. In my experience only the militia is the exception pre 2000BC.
I'm pretty sure I've lost an injured vet warrior against an attacking barb.
Pre 2000, I lost W unit in defence from barbs attacking from a hill .75 vs 1. But the most frustrating ever was barbs (pre2000)attacked a bltz/march LA, that's .05 vs 6.0 and wiped out 7 guys before the 2 remaining guys woke up and took them out. I was left with 2 hearts and 3 embarassed stodges costing me 2 turns to heal... What a waste... What the odds here 12 to 1 againt?
lol. proably 3 in 144 or so - Ive used 1 vs 8 to cause a double injury and then won the next battle 3 vs 2.7 or so. I take it that you can pretty much injure any unit - it jsut becomes really unlikely, Its just wins that are guaranteed.
You can (and will) lose 0.75 vs. 1 any time. But pre 2000BC, as long as the odds stay at 2:1 in your favor, your regular units will not lose.
I get really annoyed when a barb attacks 0.5 vs. 4.5 and injures my HA. Seriously??? 9:1 and I get an injury ... Which means I have to heal and cannot overrun the barb anymore.
All units get the landing deduction from a boat, but certain units don't get a deduction when attacking accross a river. It's just logical that a catapult would be just as effective wether there was a river between it and the unit it is attacking or not.
But archers do get a deduction?
from a boat they do, I don't think they do from a river, but I'm sure someone else could confirm. I think Cats, cannons, artillery, archers and rifleman don't suffer the river deduction.
Actually, i'm pretty sure they do suffer a penalty. Only siege units (Cats, Cannons, etc.) don't suffer a penalty. Even tanks have the penalty.
I couldn't remember, but I thought archers didn't. It's just been so long that I've attacked with archers.
if u want a successful attack with warriors against barbs , may i suggest u use an army ; plus it depends what leader you are too , I find french and Mongolians the most effective .
Like Star said, it's all about the year. Before 2000 BC, a fully healed warrior will beat a barb flag every time—you don't need an army. In my opinion, a German, Aztec, or Arab warrior is way better than French or Mongol against a barb. If you're talking about a warrior army, it's Zulu time.
The problem is, if you wait until you can put together an army before you attack, it will take too long. If you attack at full health and not accross a river your guaranteed to win until 2000 bc. unless your playing as zulu, germans or arabs, you generally don't want to army up your warriors. France and Mongolia are generally considered two of the worse civs out there (along with russia).if u want a successful attack with warriors against barbs , may i suggest u use an army ; plus it depends what leader you are too , I find french and Mongolians the most effective .
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote