Combat Modifiers

[Verrucosus]

Hello Everyone,

I have been an occasional SMAC-player for the past two years, but since I have found this forum and read the Strategy Guide regularly referred to here, my enthusiasm for the game has increased dramatically. I have always enjoyed playing it, but now I find myself paying much more attention to details. That is why I would like to ask you some questions regarding the combat modifiers as displayed on the bottom of the screen. There are two issues that bother me.

First, the morale modifier listed in the display seems to be higher than it should be for base guards defending against wild mindworms. In particular, during my recent game as Lal, my veteran trance scout would defend the base with a listed "Veteran + 37%" modifier. They had the usual "Veteran + 25 %" modifier when attacking, fighting outside bases or defending against other units (including Believing mindworms - I know I too had to look twice before I believed it). We are not talking about the HQ base or a base with a children's creche either. Both the planet and morale ratings on the social engineering table were "0", so I really have no idea where the increased morale modifier comes from.

More generally, I have trouble calculating the actual attack or defense value from the various modifiers. On the lower difficulty levels I could not make any sense of the display at all, but now I am on Librarian level and it seems that rather than adding the modifiers and applying the sum to the base value, they are applied to the base value and to each other. In other words the defense value of a veteran trance scout defending against mindworms in open terrain

is not: 2 + (2 * (0,25 + 0,5)) = 3,5

but: 2 * 1,25 * 1,5 = 3,75

This does not seem to correspond to the manual which seems to simply add up modifiers (I'm not quite sure at the moment in which context - maybe base facilities) nor does it correspond to the examples I have read in the Strategy Guide where, in a section called "The Multiplicative Value of Bases", the analysis is clearly based (though not dependent) on the adding-up-
method. Therefore, I wonder whether the display really reflects the "reality" of the game, whether it will correspond to the manual when I reach higher difficulty levels and whether I should better do my own calculations rather than rely on the display.

I hope my questions do not reflect too much the confused state of my mind on this issue. If someone here could help me to find out what is really going on in that display, I would be an even happier SMAC-player.

Verrucosus

[Velociryx]

Hmmm...you've got me thinking about this now....the short answer is, "Now that you mention it, I'm not sure." The various factors *should* be added, rather than multiplied, but I'm curious to see. Might have to install the game on the new 'puter (acck! And it has a wheel-mouse...Nooooo!) and see what's up with that.

If it turns out that they ARE multiplied though--and based on your own experiences, I'd bet that's the case--so much the better for the defender, who has, in general, more factors to multiply, which will be yet more help against those pesky X-rovers....

-=Vel=-

[RedFred]

There was a great thread on this a few months ago. I seem to recall MoSe and big_canuk had a few great explanitory posts. If anyone remembers that thread title and could bump it that might be easier than re-inventing the wheel.

[Hoplite]

I haven't payed enough attention to the combat modifiers listed but there are a few more things that I am confused about. Often when listed the moral will be followed by one or more '+'s in parenthesis. Are these for the moral bonus for defense based on MORAL or Children's Creche removing the negative moral?

Also with a PLANET rating of 4 do you get a 40% bonus. In the combat display it shows 40% percent but in the manual it only goes up to 3. Is it a display bug that shows the 40% when it should stop at 30% or does higher than 3 planet really give you a bigger bonus?

I know combat has some pretty high random factors involved but it seems weird that mind worms are still effective against units with the fusion reactor. Should these fusion units almost always beat mind worms in combat or are they treated as having only 10 hit points when fighting mindworms.

Another moral question is when you have -2 MORALE it says modifiers are halved but they are not halved in the combat display.

One thing I do know that is not mentioned in the manual (maybe this will help people) is that the aerospace complex gives +100% defense against air attacks. I haven't been attacked by ships in a base with a naval yard yet, but does the naval yard give a defensive bonus vs. ships?

[WhiteElephants]

As reactors increase in h.p. value so does the amount of damage a mind worm does per attack. The percentages given in the combat odds are therfore incorrect and a mindworm, or any psi combat, is effective regardless of the reactor level.

If I understand the "+"s correctly, yes they account for the children's creche modifiers, and the "-"s would then have to accout for negative morale modifiers (Wealth). Anyone else on this one? I forget.

One thing that wasn't answered early was that a unit (Veteran in your example) will attack at a +25%, but defend as a commando unit at +37.5% if I'm not mistaken. Consult the manual under the Social Engineering section, in particular the Morale graph that listed the differences for each level. It should read somthing like: +2 Morale = +1 offense, +2 defense, which translate into higher percentages for defense.

I also believe that the combat modifiers are worked out as in the second example -- multiplicative.

I don't know about the -2 Morale modifier. Anyone?

[big_canuk]

Here is the old thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum12/HTML/001350.html?36

[Verrucosus]

Thank you so much for all your information. I've started to read big_canuk's thread; it contains a lot of facts, but most importantly, the testing reported there confirms that the modifiers are indeed multiplied. Until now, I had assumed otherwise, so I may have to reconsider some old habits. As Velociryx points out, the multiplying method tends to favour the defender. (By the way, I really have to thank you for your Strategy Guide. Just reading it was so much fun, and your enthusiasm for the game is contagious.) After my base guards have gained some morale and taking sensor and base bonuses into account, it may often be better to defend against mindworms than to attack them when they move next to the base despite the attacker's 3 : 2 advantage in base values. Of course, I'd forsake the income from planet pearls, but in the early days preventing my tiny bases from being eaten should be my top priority.

In that context, the increased morale modifier when defending a base against mindworms that I mentioned in my original post becomes even more important. I realise that the morale modifier is influenced by the morale value on the SE-table, but in the Peacekeeper game where I made the observation I was running Democracy/Planned only, so my morale value was "0", so I'm still confused about that.

For the moment, I am not certain what the (+)/(-) signs mean exactly, but I think I have seen a (++) sign only when defending my HQ base after having built a creche there. Well, maybe there are more answers to find in big_canuk's thread, so I'll go back reading it.

Verrucosus

[Rastapopoulos]

Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator,
I very much enjoyed your user name, if it is the one you are referring to as I assumed.
Have you ever played an old Avalon Hill boardgame called Republic of Rome, one of the greatest strategy games of all times?
Here, an extremely complex and fine-tuned balance of power has been implemented. Possibilities include various ways of winning the game and an option for all players to loose if common interests are neglected thus forcing cooperation. The game is probably about as complex as a non-computer game can ever get.
And it`s such a great thing to play with actual real flesh-and-bone people sitting around a table. You may require an entire weekend, though, to get through to the point where someone can actually win.
And wouldn`t you just love to have Verrucosus`special ability: half all losses in combat! No questions to ask on that one...
Cheers
Rastapop

[Verrucosus]

I knew it would not take long for someone to find me out. I chose the name because the historical Verrucosus' hesitation to engage the Carthaginians which earned him his nickname "Cunctator" has inspired the way I approach games like Alpha Centauri.

I find it extremely tedious to build tons of units, send them to the front and conduct a war of attrition. I prefer to wait till I'm ready and finish things quickly. Indeed, my proudest victories are diplomatic victories with Lal. When I play him, I try not to have any vendettas at all, submitting to neighbours' demands regarding technology or social choices if necessary and delaying the population boom long enough that my allies still like me when I call the election for Supreme Leader. I just love that outcome: everyone looks down at Lal for being a whimpering idealist, but in the end he takes over the whole place by a simple council vote. Sometimes, it does not work so easily because Yang or Miriam become too strong. In that case, I wait for superior technology and take the time to build a tailor-made attack force, that will allow me to take over enough of their bases in a single turn to ensure my 3/4 majority. After all, Fabius Verrucosus would never have set foot in Hive territory without choppers and drop troops.

Unfortunately, I don't know "Republic of Rome". It sounds like a great game, and if my Roman role-model features prominently, I bet I'd enjoy it. I played a lot of complicated boardgames in my schooldays, but since then, I lack the time for such intense gameplaying weekends. I still play lots of shorter boardgames that can be finished in an evening, because even our familiar faction leaders are no replacement for flesh-and-bone opponents.

[Solver]

WE,
About the worms. They just don't care what armor (unless Resonance) the defender has, and they don't care about Reactor. So, all reactors are treated like Fission with these guys.

[RedFred]

Solver, I believe what you have said about reactors is what Firaxis intended. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Units with higher level reactors have an advantage in battles with native life.

[MariOne]

I'm afraid that I have to confirm that psi combat ignores reactors - or rather, if you have a fusion reactor, you take 6 points damage whe you are expected to take 3 - that's exactly as having 10 hitpoints.

< slackjaw >
the great Vell still believed combat is additive????

There is ONE case where defense modifiers are "combined" in a specific way, rather than individually multiplied:
the Tachyon Field

Tachyon alone = 100% against all domains (i.e. *2 multiplier)

BUT

Tachyon + Perimeter = 200% mod against Land
i.e. ONE *3 modifier, NOT two *2 ones

Tachyon + AeroComplex = 200% mod against Air
Tachyon + NavalYard = 200% mod against Sea

Beware, this is because the two facilities are seen as a single base defens system, and this is clearly stated both in the manual and the datalinks.
Indeed you see ONE Item in the modifiers list, not two separate ones for the two facilities.

(before someone objects taht you can't build a Tachyon w/out a Perimeter, remember that the latter can get scrapped or sabotaged)

Rereading in the winter holidays thread, I did perform more thorough tests later, but didn't find the time to rescue the thread and post them.
Offhand I found out that Sikander's model perfectly stood the trial.
It was the STRENGTH itself that gets NOT applied as we thought (and declared)!
There is an UNDOCUMENTED modifer to be applied to the two strengths before using them as probability for each single hit.
That modifier went in the direction of FAVORING the unit which already had the greater strength.
IIRC it was something like furtherly adding to the stronger unit 1/3rd of the strength delta it has over the weaker. I should scoop up my buried data to be sure...
I remember I didn't keep track anymore of ecah displayed hit, but only recorded the final outcome of the combat, including the winner's final damage. 100 combats for each test. I must have written the results in a .txt I saved somewhere...

[buster]

The original thread pretty much gets it all in place except one point where the scene seems not fully clear.

I refer to the siutuation of combat between units of different reactor classes where the short testing done seemed not to align with what one would expect.

(Basically that reactors have somewhat less influence on odds of out-come than one would immediately expect).

Information from anyone who has checked more into this would be welcome. Otherwise I plan to do some testing of my own as I have recently run into somewhat unexpected results in this situation.

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Hoplite
Another moral question is when you have -2 MORALE it says modifiers are halved but they are not halved in the combat display.

Just in case you were still wondering, the way it works is this: at -2 MORALE you have -1 to the base morale of the unit. In addition, the +2 morale from Command Center, Naval Yard, or Aerospace Complex, and the +2 morale from Bioenhancement Center, instead become +1 morale.

As I understand it, this halving is permentant and the bonus to the base unit morale from these facilities is determined by the SE MORALE rating at the time of creation. In other words, never build military units in Wealth or Eudomania.

On the other hand, I believe (but could be wrong) that the bonus or penalty directly to morale from the MORALE SE is instantaneously changed when you change your MORALE SE. Check the thread link above to confirm if this is correct.

[Verrucosus]

Here is some more anecdotal evidence on the issue of the (+)/(-) signs in the morale line.

Last night, one of my Trance Scouts attacked a mindworm boil from within UN Planning Authority. At that time, my Peacekeepers were engaged in heavy pop booming running Democracy/Planned/Wealth, so I had the morale value of -2 on the SE table. UN Planning Authority was not the HQ base, but it had built a Children's Creche. The Trance Scout unit had not been trained at a Command Center. The morale line read: "Hardened (-)(+)(+): + 37 %".

This is surprising because the standard modifier for hardened units is + 12 %, so if it is lowered once and raised twice it should be + 25 %. My interpretation would be that the (-) sign indicates that the hardened unit would actually be a veteran unit but for the -2 Morale Value resulting from Wealth, that the first (+) indicates that this penalty is cancelled by the Children's Creche, so the unit is actually treated as a veteran unit, and that the second (+) reflects the usual morale bonus from the Children's Creche.

I also remember to have seen the (-) sign when the unit's home base was shaken by drone riots, but I have not paid enough attention to be sure.

Thanks to MariOne, I now know where I picked up the idea that modifiers are additive. It seems that base facilities enhancing economy, psych and labs output, too, are additive. On the other hand, it appears from the F2 screen that the research modifier from social engineering is applied only after all base-related modifiers have been taken into account. Oh, I just realise that this is probably an entirely different issue, so I better stop here.

Verrucosus

[Fitz]

Drone riots in a units home base give a -1 morale to that unit.

That sounds resonable that the - might indicate that the actual level is one less than it should be, not that the level is reduced by one from what is listed.