Combat System Explained

[squid]

Originally posted by jones


principle of choice (combinations)
Pr(
(2/3)^3 - base chance of a winning 3
(
3c1 (3)- to go 4 rounds, d must win 1
4c2 (6)- " 5 " 2
)
(1/3)^n++ - pr d will win 1 more round each time

Bleh..i'm terrible at explaining math. However,

two words:

monte carlo

[knott]

Originally posted by Azrael-42
Khargath, i agree with a lot of what you said but your comment on tanks is absolutely ridiculous. 100 tanks could fight 10 000 modern soldiers, out in the open, and probably hardly even take a few scratches. Modern tanks have 4 heavy machine-guns mounted on them... Not to be confused with assault-rifles/submachine guns, which is what infantry carry around with them. Machine guns are the ones that need to be set up on bipods (light) or tripods (heavy) before use. They have a range far greater than assault rifles and mow down infantry like so much wheat. They spit out heavy calibre bullets at insane firing speeds. The only way the infantry have a chance is if they are trying to hold a defensive position. That way, they can a) use cover, and b) Set up anti-tank missile systems, notably the Sager russian system and the TOW american equivalant. This is actually a post WWII development. Probably, the absolute peak of usage of tanks in warfare was the Six-Days war, fought by the Israelis in 1967. They used classic, hard hitting, flanking tactics in perfect combination with air support (ironically, similar to German panzer tactics). However, when the Israelis tried to use the same tactics in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, they took heavy tank losses because the Egyptians (which relatively relied more on infantry) were prepared, and using Sager missiles.

I think you are wrong. 10 000 soldiers could easily cut of supplies, assault them on nights and so on. And good anti tank weapons are relative cheap and effective, so they should have a fair chance in direct combat to.

[Barchan]

Begin Rant:

Here's what sticks in my craw:

Presumably, each CivIII unit represents a larger number of forces than the little dude with a pointed stick or the single tank. Brigade, Division, Corp: who knows? But surely more than one.

I understand that even the lowly pikeman, in sufficient numbers, would be able to kill a tank. Perhaps, it could be argued, more than one. Even, though I doubt it, enough to reduce the effectiveness of the unit.

But I find it impossible to believe that a Division-strength mass of pikemen will *eliminate* a Division-strength number of tanks.

Thus, I'm willing to accept that a modern armor unit will take a hit or two rolling over pikemen. But when the pikemen are left standing amid the wreckage of an entire armored division?

Hogwash!

These results cannot be defended by saying "well what about personnel anti-tank weapons" and whatnot. Pikemen shouldn't have 'em. Period. Sure, they can get them when they upgrade to INFANTRY, but you have to pay for that. Pikemen aren't just going to "find" enough anti-tank weapons around the place to be an effective force against armor. They'd have to be upgraded. Until such time, they shouldn't be able to inflict more than minimal damage against armored units. Including mech inf as well.

Rant complete.

[Azrael-42]

Actually, the infantry couldn't do a darn thing. You are badly underestimating the machine gun. This isn't red alert buddy, machine guns kill infantry instantly, and in fact mow through entire groups with ease. Its very easy to use machine guns to mow down infantry, whereas even with advanced anti-tank weapons, destroying a tank is difficult. As for the infantry cutting the tanks off, thats nuts. part of the point of armor is that its much, much faster. Its exactly the opposite, the tanks would have no problem cutting the infantry's supply lines. Again, this is a famous German tactic, using panzers to blitzkrieg through enemy weak points, cut off supply lines, and ultimately encircle and destroy the enemy in combination with frontal infantry forces.

[Raleigh]

With respect to phalanxes vs. tanks.

There is just no reason they should ever win no matter what. In early 19th century european colonial times, a platoon of machinegunners could easily defeat thousands, not hundreds, but actually thousands of spear throwing natives.

If any of you have ever seen Shaka Zulu, that movie paints a believable picture of a platoon of riflemen holding off hundreds of spear throwers, despite massive rushes and hand to hand combat. Now, it was a very very close battle, and the platoon had a "leader" so we could even call it 2 rifle units, but still. Imagine if they had just one tank or machinegun...

[Mercani]

In SMAC when attacking, there was an option that would let you know your odds of winning. Well, it may take the fun out of combat a little, but at least we should have the right to know how combat is calculated. This is not real life simulation, "strategy" game. If I don't know the rules of the game, how am I supposed to develop tactics and strategy. I want to know the odds of a tank losing against a phalanx. While this is ridiculuous, at least it helps me when I need to decide which tech to discover.

Firaxis, we need to know all the formula used in the game(rules of the game, simple). Because computer knows them. It is not fair for us not to know. I want formula for all kinds of combat, corruption, how fast workers work, etc.

I hope you are reading these posts.

-- From a civ 3 player(one of your customers, if you want to think that way!)

[cultureshock]

Originally posted by Raleigh
With respect to phalanxes vs. tanks.

If any of you have ever seen Shaka Zulu, that movie paints a believable picture of a platoon of riflemen holding off hundreds of spear throwers, despite massive rushes and hand to hand combat. Imagine if they had just one tank or machinegun...

And if you've ever seen those "Amazing police chases" tv shows... They had one where the guy stole a tank and the police could do nothing to stop him. What eventually did was that he got stuck on the median guard rail on the highway.

[Growler]

Originally posted by Raleigh
With respect to phalanxes vs. tanks.

There is just no reason they should ever win no matter what. In early 19th century european colonial times, a platoon of machinegunners could easily defeat thousands, not hundreds, but actually thousands of spear throwing natives.

If any of you have ever seen Shaka Zulu, that movie paints a believable picture of a platoon of riflemen holding off hundreds of spear throwers, despite massive rushes and hand to hand combat. Now, it was a very very close battle, and the platoon had a "leader" so we could even call it 2 rifle units, but still. Imagine if they had just one tank or machinegun...

That battle was called Rorke's Drift. Just hours before, just a few miles up the road in a battle called Isandhlwana, the Brits lost 1800 troops after being attacked by 20,000 Zulus organized into impis. The difference was at Isandhlwana the commander did not circle his troops but tried to confront them a line, and then they ran out of ammunition because the supply wagons were too far away from where the ammo was being used.

Poor leadership can go a long way to wipe out a technological advantage.

[Barchan]

As Raliegh pointed out:

"In early 19th century european colonial times, a platoon of machinegunners could easily defeat thousands, not hundreds, but actually thousands of spear throwing natives."

Could, indeed. But not always. And that's my only point. As the last two posters pointed out, things go wrong. Leaders make poor calls, guns jam, equipment breaks, the enemy just gets plain lucky.

I noted in recent news that the Afghan Northern Alliance troops sent large waves of cavalry to charge the Taliban's modern armor. "Many of you will die" the men were told, "they cannot kill you all before some of you reach the tank." And many did die, but once the soldiers who didn't reached the tanks, they were dead meat. Small arms and grenades are more than enough to disable a tank if you can get on it; not one of its many guns are able to fire backwards to kill people sitting on it.

Again, read "Black Hawk Down" for an example of how elite, technologically superior troops sometimes lose to technologically inferior conscript troops in sufficient numbers. But even given this example, I'd have to point out that the US QRF was not eliminated during this encounter. Perhaps it lost a "health bar" or two as a unit, but it was not destroyed.

That's my gripe, I suppose. I don't expect to just run over any military unit like so much roadkill, but I similarly don't expect that regular pikemen are going to completely eliminate 100%-strength elite modern armor. Sure, 10 units of pikemen attacking in one turn, that I might be able to believe. But 1v1, they should never ultimately win that battle.

[cgrecu]

here is how [I think] the combat system should be:

All units should have HP,Attack,Defense,Damage,Range and Shield.

A is the attacker, B is the Defender
r is random number betweem 0 and 1
s is surprise factor

First Round

a.Hp:=a.Hp - (A.Attack-B.Shield)*Damage*r;

B.HP := B.HP - (B.Attack - B.Shield)* Damage*(r/s);

This means that when A attacks B, at the same time B responds, but the response depends on the surprise factor, if it is an ambush, then the response should be almost null.Also if the A attack destroys B, then there is no response.
This goes on untill one units is destroyed (or retreats if capable)

Attack and defense is based on type of bullet (from arrow and sword to 120mm and higher) and shield depends on armor.

Let's taks an impi fighting a tank, even in the worst ambush ever, his weapons would never get passed by the Tank's heavy armor.

Even a tank with very light armor could not possibly damage a tank with very strong armor.

Of course things could be more detailed, there could be types of weapons, with splash, precision, range or the mobile vehicles could have subparts (like engine, weapons, wheels or rails).

But it is not ok for a trireme to sink a battleship.
Of course maybe if it was a custom weapon, like a trireme loaded up with dynamite(or an A-Bomb ).

Anyway, I think that the CIV3 combat system is far inferior to CIV2's.And generally speaking, this game is clearly one big step behind.

Maybe Sid Meyer's decision to start a golf game during the development of Civ was just an warning that nobody really understood.

[cej]

Another issue with Tanks being defeated by Pikemen is that Pikemen have to mass in tightly organized groups. These tight, highly compacted formations are ideal for machine gun fire.

There is no way this could / would ever happen.

All of this harkens back to the days in Civ 1 of having a Phalanx unit defeat an armor unit in an assualt. 3 generations of the same game and we all still have the same gripe. Yet, we keep playing.

[Kc7mxo]

ahhhhh, i miss firepower. oh well. perhaps things will work better when i play this weekend. but first, i must be tested on my automata skills.

[JasonLBarnes]

the combat system but rather the RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR!

I've been savefile scumming for quite a bit trying different units vs the AI's units and came up with some interesting results.

A good example:

I had regular 10 warriors (cannon fodder ) and veteran 7 swordsmen vs 6 Zulu Impis. If I threw my swordsmen at the Impis I would only kill 1 of them and lose the rest. If I threw my warriors at them I would kill 1 then lose 6 and then kill 2 more before the rest of my warriors died off.

What was interesting to me that the swordsmen only inflicted 2 hits when the warriors didn't. According the Civ Calculator the Veteran swordsman have 62.554% Chance each to kill once Impi. While the Regular warriors only have 9.136% each to kill.

So there is something we don't know about the combat system or the Random Number Generator is very streaky. It producing long series of the same or simular numbers.

[Barchan]

I've noticed curious results as well when reloading to see if a particularly outrageous combat result was luck or fate. It almost always appears to be fate; no matter what the odds, if I died once I'll die a hundred times. Strangely, if I change the attack sequence, the fated attack simply shifts to the next unit. Here's the scenario: my first attack (legion v. spearman) always failed while the second (legion v. warrior) always succeed. So I reverse the attacks; this time the warrior repeatedly won while the spearman repeatedly died.

I'm not really sure there *is* a good explanation for this combat system. It seems a bit mysterious to me....

[cgrecu]

Originally posted by Barchan
I've noticed curious results as well when reloading to see if a particularly outrageous combat result was luck or fate. It almost always appears to be fate; no matter what the odds, if I died once I'll die a hundred times. Strangely, if I change the attack sequence, the fated attack simply shifts to the next unit. Here's the scenario: my first attack (legion v. spearman) always failed while the second (legion v. warrior) always succeed. So I reverse the attacks; this time the warrior repeatedly won while the spearman repeatedly died.

I'm not really sure there *is* a good explanation for this combat system. It seems a bit mysterious to me....

If this is true, then we could imagine nice strategies:
One tank and a lot of warriors, Tank attacks first and wins, then we load the game and attack with the warrior.Then again the tank attacks, he wins and we go back to the warrior ...
But I think it was just a coincidence, otherwise it would be really idiotic.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

In the CivII combat testing, it became clear that the random generator is not truly random. This is not surprizing, as a computer never makes a true random number, it often will use something like the internal clock to generate a number. Also, the "random" number is set within the range of the unit's attack or defense strength, say 0 to 3 for a unit with attack=4.

Have you read the CivII combat thread for the math?

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Azrael-42
Actually, the infantry couldn't do a darn thing. You are badly underestimating the machine gun. This isn't red alert buddy, machine guns kill infantry instantly, and in fact mow through entire groups with ease. Its very easy to use machine guns to mow down infantry, whereas even with advanced anti-tank weapons, destroying a tank is difficult. As for the infantry cutting the tanks off, thats nuts. part of the point of armor is that its much, much faster. Its exactly the opposite, the tanks would have no problem cutting the infantry's supply lines. Again, this is a famous German tactic, using panzers to blitzkrieg through enemy weak points, cut off supply lines, and ultimately encircle and destroy the enemy in combination with frontal infantry forces.

There are these neat implements infantry have. They're called shovels.

As pointed out before, infantry have anti-tank weapons and are trained in using them against tanks.

Tanks have quite a few limitations which you are glossing over, or don't realize. Like seeing out of one. There is a reason why most armies tend to bring infantry with their tanks: to keep enemy infantry from doing unpleasant things to them.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Barchan
I've noticed curious results as well when reloading to see if a particularly outrageous combat result was luck or fate. It almost always appears to be fate; no matter what the odds, if I died once I'll die a hundred times. Strangely, if I change the attack sequence, the fated attack simply shifts to the next unit. Here's the scenario: my first attack (legion v. spearman) always failed while the second (legion v. warrior) always succeed. So I reverse the attacks; this time the warrior repeatedly won while the spearman repeatedly died.

I'm not really sure there *is* a good explanation for this combat system. It seems a bit mysterious to me....

At the start of your turn the computer generates a number of random 'seeds' that are used in succession. This is to prevent the reload-til-you-win technique and is a welcome addition to combat and exploring (goody huts anyone). Of course this can be exploited as was pointed out by someone earlier by, in a multiple combat setting, saving the 'good seed' for the tough battle (pike vs tank for instance).

Speaking of the combat system, Soren (AI wiz at Firaxis) has this to say:

gamadictG> Soren, I don't know if this has been addressed before, but do you think low-tech units have too
good of a chance to defeat higher-tech units...??
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> gamad...: concerning the loss of firepower. Firepower added needless complexity to the
game. For example, there is no significant difference between a unit with an offence of 10 and a firepower
of 2 and a unit with an offense of 20 and firepower of 1... however
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> having said that, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2.
This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if
you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X

Zap

[jbird]

One poster here said that enveloping a city in Civ3 provides no bonus. I've found the opposite to be true.

I often use my more mobile units to surround a city, securing important terrain features such as mountains and hills, as well as river crossings. When they are reinforced by some leg infantry of some type (from spearmen to infantry), the more mobile units are *highly* useful for destroying the road network connecting the enemy's city to any resources that might be coming to him. Take away every *single* luxury and strategic resource he used to have, and his people get ticked. Not only that, but that city can no longer produce anything that requires a resource. Another bonus is that city has to take civilians off of productive work to become entertainers if the city was reliant on luxuries for stability.

It doesn't work in one turn, but enveloping a city (especially one that you don't particularly plan to take but you have soldiers not needed for your main offensive) can be a highly useful strategy in Civ3. Oh, and even after peace is declared, they have to clean up the mess from your pilaging hordes for 10+ turns, just another bonus.

[gfrazieror]

There is no direct benefit of envelopment in the combat system itself. What you describe is pretty good strategy for placing a city under siege in CivIII. However, unlike in a lot of paper wargames of 20-30 years ago, there is no direct benefit in combat resolution when you surround an enemy city or units. Units don't fight at have strength due to lack of supplies or cut lines of communication, for example. The exception is that fast units don't have the option of retreating when engaged with other fast units...but that doesn't even require being surrounded to be true.

[jbird]

Oh, i'll agree, the envelopment bonus isn't as well represented in Civ3 as some other games, but in my experience, even in dedicated war games, this bonus isn't represented well (and neither is bombardment, I actually think that Civ3's bombardment is a touch better than many wargames i've played).

Thing is, I don't play Civ3 for a *full out* wargame. War is part of it, but it's an abstraction, not highly detailed combat.

Maybe in Civ6, i'll get to order my formations against those of the enemy in full 3d in real time, but until then, i'll play a wargame for my battle lust, and i'll play Civ3 for my empire-building game.

Jbird

[alva]

Fortify

see first post: it says: fortify gives 50% defensive bonus.
ins't this 25%? sorry if wrong

[JayKay]

Originally posted by Valant
Fortify
A fortified unit receives a defensive bonus of 50%, but no offensive bonuses.

The fortified unit bonus is 25%, not 50%!
_________________________________________________



Portugal
Nation of: Magellan's (from Magellan's Expedition);
Vasco da Gama (Discoverer of the Maritime path to India);
and Pedro Álvares Cabral (Discoverer of Brazil in 1500)

[Matos]

Originally posted by FeathersMcGraw


I've noted this behavior with galleys and caravels -- I'm not sure if it also extends to "offensive" naval units such as frigates, ironclads, etc. (I would suspect that it would, so you might want to evacuate those battleships if your port city's about to be taken!).

Capturing a city with workers housed inside results in the capture of those workers, as well.

I seem to recall reading that artillery units can be captured only if your civilization has the technology which enables its construction (e.g. mathematics for catapults, etc.), but I don't recall if I've ever captured one along with a city I've conquered militarily.

I have played only 2 games of Civ 3 since I bought it, but I have played them to all possible game-endings thanks to the Auto-save. I have noticed during my conquest victories that:

1. A fortifed unit may take more than one 'free shot' per turn, and that they only have to be fortifyed, not in a fortess.

2. When capturing an enemy city not only are all the naval units in port destroyed, regardless of whether they are transports, carriers, or ironclads; but all the air units including helicopters are destroyed without the option to capture them.

3. On the games that I have played, I havn't ever captured an enemy artillery unit that is more advanced than my tech, but I have noticed that the Industrial Age civs didn't capture my Radar Arty, they destroyed them.

Now for a rant about changes I'd like to see.

First, if a carrier goes down within flight range of a friendly city, there should be a chance, maybe 33.33% that some of the planes get out, instead of sinking with the ship.

Second, I really miss the concept of collateral damage. If my Crusiers trash an Ironclad, I would like to see some damage to the Transport that was hiding in the same square. I know that the 'squares' are actually huge areas, but as someone pointed out, if two Division sized army's fight, there is not much that is un-affected.

Third, I dislike the fact that my Elite Modern Armor is being killed attacking un-fortifyed pikemen on mountaintops. Bring back either firepower, or a penalty for units that come from differant ages.

Fourth, why can my Bombers, Fighters and Helicopters be based out of any city, when my Paratroopers can only air-lift to cities with an Airport improvement? There should be some uniformity to this situation.

Jeez I'm long-winded today. Comments welcome.

[seer_98]

It seems everyone is assuming that an ancient unit represents the same amount of individuals as a modern unit. Maybe a phalanx is 20,000 defenders and a tank is 150 men in 50 tanks.

[gamma]

One thing I'm noticing here is people claiming that, say, pikemen should never beat tanks, and others saying they can in certain circumstances.

It sounds to me like each side is using different rules. The distinction is in tactics. Classic pikemen fight in tightly compacted squares, presenting a wall of sharp points in any of four directions. Classic WW-era tanks trundle slowly forward in a line or phalanx, often accompanied by foot soldiers. (Honestly, I can't see WW-era tanks being effective without infantry support, unless the battle is all tanks.)

Naturally, pikemen tactics work really well against nearly anything medieval, and fail horribly against armor tactics. However, if those same pikemen were to scatter and hide, the tanks suddenly have a lot of trouble; people can go in a lot of places tanks can't. And there's very little a tank crew can do against a single person sitting on top of the escape hatch with a knife or club. In other words, pikemen CAN kill tanks, but only by using different tactics.

I suppose Civ combat could be improved by souping up the combat to include things like tactics and other details. But then it would start to be Art of War or Command & Conquer rather than Civ. Actually, if it were to add more detail to combat AND tech AND culture AND resources, that might be cool, but it might also be too complicated and/or drawn-out to be fun.

[HardRock!!]

The number of the people who understood the calculation: UNKNOWN

[Xenowan]

I was under the impression from the manual that Elite units would also have a bonus in combat besides the number of hit-points. Even so using the save and reload technique or postponing combat for varying number of turns to get new seed numbers (if it was the first combat in the war), has demonstrated to me that regular and veteran units fair far better in combat than Elite units. However, for computer vs. computer combat Elite status is a huge advantage. It can get rather embarising when an Elite Battleship losses to a regular galley (no not even a galleon). I can see more obsolute units winning sometimes, but combat should average out according to the relative attack and defense numbers, hp's, and defense bonuses. I always have to send far more units into combat. I once had an army of 8 Elite horsemen (attack:2, Defense:1, hp:5), 7 veteran horsemen(attack:2, Defense:1, hp:4), 5 elite archers(attack:2, Defense:1, hp:5), and 4 elite swordsmen(attack:3, Defense:2, hp:5) defeated and almost annihilated by 5 regular chariots(attack:1, Defense:1, hp:3) in just a few turns (2 horsemen and one swordsman barely got out with their lives with one bar left each). Fire-power was a bit overated in civ 2, but my main complaint about combat is the additional number of oportunities for primitive units to do damage. Yes Pikemen could defeat tanks in some situations, but Pikemen could never stay in combat against tanks for as long as say infantry, but if they are both veteran then they are guaranteed at least 4 opportunities to do damage.

In reality I can deal with this... if I faired as well in reverse situations. However what really bites me is when a city you just captured folds after 3 turns even if you bought a temple, a cathedral and kept everyone happy and all the units in there (an army of 4 tanks, 3 other tanks, 6 calvary units, 2 mech infs) are lost forever. I think they should just be expelled from the city. I know they wanted to focus on other things, but they made combat ridiculous. I've already got a huge text file going... course I still keep playing... oh well addiciton before pleasure.

[vmxa1]

I do not have a problem with tech beating non tech and old civs getting clobbered, they should. I do have a problem with a galley sinking an elite battleship, samuari killing elite modern armour and the like. It is true artillery is a smart way to go, but still if you see a spearmen approach your worker and you have a riflemen, you should not have to worry about losing. You should be able to and must be able to protect you stuff. I have seen all of the most laughable battles and they are common. Warrior (reg) attacks city and beat fortified Impi with walls? The brits did it four times to me? I don't get it, if I attack with a warrior I never win that fight. I have seen pikemen take no hits against armour and win, yes they were in the city, but come on, not even a hit point? We need FP or maybe a penalty for units that are from the previous age. I do not want to see archers win any fights against any modern units at any time. If you still have bows, you should go exstinct. If they are using massive numbers, that is another story. Say 10 archers against one mobile infantry, but not one on one. Even the numbers in most of these battle would seem to dictate they would lose, but they do not. Plus I am tired of hearing about imbuing these units with something they do not inherintly have. I mean stop talking about a spearmen learning guerilla tatics and having rpgs now because they are in the modern age. That does not exist in the game, they are spearmen period. I do not need to hear about not sending one unit to fight one unit. Do you think a commander would hold back his elite calv unit for fear of losing to the jag warrior that is destroying things or pasing through to be added to a larger force? That makes no sense to me. Yes I would not send it to attack the town unless I bombed it first, but open field combat?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Valant

Terrain Bonuses:
When combat occurs over a river, the defender receives a 25% bonus.

Bombarbment/bombing
(Have only tried bombardment a little so its hazy here)
The attack value of the boming unit affects its successful rate, but how exactly is UNKNOWN. Also what factors determine the probability that determines if its a city improvement, unit, city wall, population hit is UNKNOWN. Also I assume all successful bombarbments on a military units only results in 1hp lost. I recently found that bombardment units have a value called rate of fire. From feedback, rate of fire is the number of "projectiles" the unit can fire per attack turn. For example a unit with a RoF of 2 does 1 attack on a city, the city is affected by 2 hits (if both did hit).

Army
Units in an army can only move as fast as the slowest unit in the army. When an army attacks or defends the first unit continues to fight/defend until the unit is down to 1hp. After which the unit gets replace with the next unit. This continues until the army gets to its last unit where that one is destroyed when its hp reaches zero, but the other 1hp units remain undestroyed (albeit heavily damaged).

Nuclear Attacks
Has a 50% chance to destroy each unit caught in its blast area (reguardless if its a friend or foe unit) and reduces a city's population by 50%. Size of the blast area is UNKNOWN.

Well its late and I am tired so going to end it here without proofing.....please add what you can.

1. River bonus: I am positive I have seen situations where moving diagonally across a river did not effect movement (prior to bridges). If so, in these cases there might not be a combat bonus. I can try to dig up a saved file if anyone is interested (but I don't check these forums often).

2. Bombardment: I have seen many cases of Artillery and Bombers doing multiple hits to units (more frequently to units with lower defensive values).

3. Army: I don't think any units die until the last hit point of the entire Army. I could be wrong here because I have not had an Army severely beaten up often, but the once I did I think I went to 1 HP left (I could be wrong and had 3 or 4 left).

4. Nuclear Attacks: Have a blast radius of 1 square. They pollute everything they touch (9 squares) as well as destroying every terrain improvement. They can also degrade terrain like Global Warming (Plains or GL to desert).

5. Air Superiority: Not high-lighted in the quoted post, BUT... I have seen Air Superiority work (for the AI). During an Industrial/Modern era war with the Greeks I lost about 10 Bombers to Jet Fighters (the bomber would start its run only to be intercepted midway through and explode as the Jet flew across its path). Our Bombers shot down 2 Aircraft (1 Fighter and 1 Jet Fighter). There were turns in which we were intercepted more than once bombing the same target with multiple bombers (he had multiple Interceptors). My experience leads me to guess that there is a 10 to 20 percent chance of an interception occuring if a fighter is in position and has the right orders. Our own Jet Fighters retained a high level of polish on their fuselages as they remained on the ground inert to the enemy Jets and the enemy never bombed close to them (or much at all). I didn't try bombing with them first, but I should have.

I added the bit about Air Superiority because I have seen other comments about it not working at all, but apparently it does. The question I would have is how escorts would work. Do Fighters ever fight each other if neither is bombing? And, do you have to renew the AirSup orders every turn? Anybody?