Arioch's Analyst Thread

I believe the friendly unit needs to be adjacent to the enemy to give a Flanking bonus. In previous builds there was a separate bonus for adjacent friendly units.
But the cannon is adjacent to the attacking cavalry:

The rifle seems to give the cavalry its bonus, but there is no bonus from the cannon 'flanking' the cavalry.
 
This is a reach, but maybe siege weapons don't give flanking bonuses.

It's a bit weird. In Panzer General there aren't flanking bonusses, but artillery would give units within its range "support fire" when they were attacked, basically have a free shot at the attacker, less effective if the attacker was further away. So artillery would strengthen the defender even if it wasn't adjacent to the attacker as with flanking. It's rather historically inaccurate not to have artillery support defending positions, and not very good gameplay wise either I think. Or maybe artillery only gives support if it isn't in a flanking position? So flanking bonus = non-siege adjacent to both defender and attacker, siege support = siege adjacent to defender but not adjacent to attacker?
 
This is a reach, but maybe siege weapons don't give flanking bonuses.
The concept of having to setup siege engines may have confused this issue.
So maybe rather than having a flanking bonus only sometimes (if the cannon is setup) they took the simple approach and did what you suggest.
 
This is a reach, but maybe siege weapons don't give flanking bonuses.

the same cannon provided a flanking bonus in an earlier fight, just before that one, so either flanking bonuses have a one fight usage policy (lame and unlikely) or the cavalry is immune to flanking, and thefore the riflemen doesn't get that extra bonus.

As to where the cavalry gets his flanking bonus, theres a friendly and injured rifleman adjacent to the battle.
 
The concept of having to setup siege engines may have confused this issue.
So maybe rather than having a flanking bonus only sometimes (if the cannon is setup) they took the simple approach and did what you suggest.

Good point about siege set up, I think that might well be the reason.

I quite like the idea of the set up mechanism. It is historically quite accurate. I was reading a bit about the 100 Years' War recently and the English won against the numbers at Agincourt partially because they had good defensive position for their longbows, with wooden pikes dug into the ground and trenches to protect them from a charge (the other part was that the heavily armored French had to struggled through the mud and were almost too tired to fight by the times they reached the English lines).

In a later battle, the longbows didn't have enough time to build their defenses, were charged by French cavalry and the English lost.

There might be a high level promotion for siege that allows you to ignore set up.
 
The reason why the flanking bonus is gone when the cavalry attacks compared to when the infantry attacked is simple.

You cant flank moving horses, they are immune to flanking after all, its what they are designed to do and avoid having done to them.
 
yes immune to flanking like they were immune to first strikes in civ 4.

Anyone else notice that two cities started in the giant desert, maybe deserts offer something more than nothing, coz otherwise lame starting position!!!!
 
oh AND


Settler:
Cost: 90 hammers
Movement: 2
The growth of the city is stopped(?) while this unit is being bult
And also seems to say something about insufficient citizens(all I can make out is that the unit is unbuildable and that red message with the light blue pop symbol)

Worker:

Cost: 70 hammers
Movement: 2
Improves food, production and gold by improving tiles outside of cities


anyone else notice the scout in the above pics (on the build menu), its not lost after all!

wonder what those symbols mean that are next to it.
 
Yep, looks like monument and scout are in. I have no idea what the red and purple symbols mean though.
 
me niether, GREG!!!!!, help.



(my assumption is that all this stuff come from that elusive first super tech.)
 
Just seems that Scouts would be like Workers, Warriors and Settlers, in that they don't have a prerequisite tech.

The first super-tech is Agriculture, which you start with. Which makes a lot of sense, because Agriculture really is the defining difference between nomadic culture and civilization.
 
either way, basically the same thing, you start off being able to build them. I like that the monument is avaiable straight off the bat, culture is important in growing your cities.

I wonder if scouts have 3 movement, or if they have a terrain movement modifier to help with exploring.
 
Just seems that Scouts would be like Workers, Warriors and Settlers, in that they don't have a prerequisite tech.

The first super-tech is Agriculture, which you start with. Which makes a lot of sense, because Agriculture really is the defining difference between nomadic culture and civilization.

It also makes sense because gameplay wise it's no good giving the player no choice in what to do. Although I wouldn't be surprised if at the highest levels you don't start with Agriculture as a penalty.
 
I've seen the video so I can write here some info,
the 8 city governor focuses:

default
food
production
gold
science
culture
great persons
avoid growth
 
either way, basically the same thing, you start off being able to build them. I like that the monument is avaiable straight off the bat, culture is important in growing your cities.

I wonder if scouts have 3 movement, or if they have a terrain movement modifier to help with exploring.

Or maybe more visibility. I also wonder whether scouts are civilian or military units. They could be civilian as a combination of movement and spotting would allow them to outrun barbarians, although most likely they are military units that upgrade to on early melee unit. With a higher premium on units, you can't really have throw away scouts like in Civ4.
 
Hmm, its possible they classed an civilians. Would make them even more vunerable than normal.
 
Top Bottom