Open ground penalty.

A

AgentTBC

Warlord
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
295
I'm putting together my first quick and dirty balance tweak mod and of the things I see how to do pretty easily, the one I'm most conflicted about is the -33% penalty to units defending on open ground. It hugely privileges attacking over defending and I'm not sure that should be the case. Yes, a cavalry charge on open ground is devastating against most types of foot, but I do not see why a group of attacking swordsmen would have a huge advantage over a group of defending swordsmen. They're both a bunch of guys standing in open ground with swords!


So does anyone feel like this penalty is actually a good thing? Any arguments FOR it? 'Cause right now I am leaning towards open ground being the traditional no modifier.
 
I think calvary doing better in open ground is the only real reason for the defensive penalty there, and they could be given that bonus separately. In real life, most major battles were fought in open ground. If it were that hard to defend, they wouldn't have done it.
 
Playing with "no modifier" for quite some time, see a lot of occasions where units now survive seemingly hopeless fights with 1 or 2 HP left. On the offense you get an incentive to better employ flanking or a combined arms approach. And it seems to contribute to the AI being less likely to fold completely when attacked by another AI (Using some other combat mods, too).
Makes for a better game imho :)
 
Ruanek: Geez, horsemen don't need the help! They're brokenly overpowered. I'm already planning on making them a bunch more expensive. Hell, maybe I'll make them require TWO horses each. Anything! They're game breaking!

tokala: That's about what I thought. Gone it is.
 
Ground modifiers I would go for:

melee units:
open ground: no modifier
forest: +30% defence
hills: +20% defence
attack over river: -33%

range units (unit shoots at # tile):
open ground: no modifier
forest: -50% attack
hills: -20% attack

range units (unit stands at # tile):
open ground: no modifier
forest: -30% attack
hills: +20% attack

mounted units:
open ground: no modifier
forest: -50% attack, -30% defence
hills: -10% attack, -10% defence
attack over river: -50% (sorry, forgot that one)
 
Open terrain should give advantages to defenders because they have lot of time to see enemies approaching from far distance due to the open terrain....
 
AgentTBC said:
It hugely privileges attacking over defending and I'm not sure that should be the case.
Click to expand...

It does that if you think unit vs unit but that is the Civ IV approach.

If you think 5 attacker units vs 3 defender units open ground penalty actually favors defender. Defender can place his troops in forests, hills or in town. Same time attacker has to move towards objective and often has to leave his units in open ground where they are vulnerable to defenders attacks.

If there were no open ground penalty then attacking would be much easier. Attacker with 5 units would always beat defender with 3 (unless there is choke point) since he could just walk around defenders units and force defender to attack on open ground where odds would be even. With open ground penalty 5 vs 3 is much closer fight. Defender has advantage of picking the terrain and attacker quite often has to leave his unit in open if he plans to move to his objective. So defender gets fights where he has the advantage and can beat superior force. Exactly as defense should work.

As counterintuitive it seems open ground penalty is actually feature that makes defending better than attacking.
 
Semmel said:
Ground modifiers I would go for:

melee units:
open ground: no modifier
forest: +30% defence
hills: +20% defence
attack over river: -33%

range units (unit shoots at # tile):
open ground: no modifier
forest: -50% attack
hills: -20% attack

range units (unit stands at # tile):
open ground: no modifier
forest: -30% attack
hills: +20% attack

mounted units:
open ground: no modifier
forest: -50% attack, -30% defence
hills: -10% attack, -10% defence
attack over river: -50% (sorry, forgot that one)
Click to expand...

The above table is fine so far, but then you have different type of troops

Melee (Pikeman or similar)

Flat v Mounted 20% Defence
Flat v Other melee (as above)


Gunpowder units

Flat tile v all melee +20% Defence
Flat tile v Mounted units -10% Defence
Hills tile v any unit +10% Defence and attack
Forest tile v Mounted units no bonus
Forest tile v all melee -10% attack (unit don't just stand there, they can hide)
Forest tile v Range units +20 defence

Aircraft units

Flat land v all melee units +30% attack (what are they going to do, throw their swords)
Flat land v all range/gunpowder units -10% defence
Range units on hills get 20% attack
Melee units in forest/Jungle gets a 30% defence bonus

this is just some changes which would make the combat even.
 
This penalty means the game heavily favors the attacker in most situations. I think only mounted units should get +25% bonus in open terrain, as well as -33% when attacking cities, which would help nerf Horsemen from their present (and unrealistic) role in taking walled cities
 
The Great Apple said:
Except where the AI is involved...

In terms of gameplay it works, in terms of realism it doesn't work so well.
Click to expand...

Realism is way too often used as argument to ruin a game. Civ is not realistic at all with units size of cities and archers having range of cannons.

I think once again real argument against open ground penalty is "There wasn't such in Civ IV, I don't want it in Civ V". People don't understand that with one unit per square logic changes. If open ground penalty is removed it actually makes defending much harder and favors attacker.
 
Brawndo said:
This penalty means the game heavily favors the attacker in most situations. I think only mounted units should get +25% bonus in open terrain, as well as -33% when attacking cities, which would help nerf Horsemen from their present (and unrealistic) role in taking walled cities
Click to expand...

It does not. Open ground penalty means that game heavily favors the defender.

Defender chooses where to put his units. He can have them in forest, hills and cities. Then attacker has to move towards his objective. Smart defender has placed his units in such way that attacker have to leave his units in open where defender can fight them with advantage. If there were no open ground penalty attacker could just walk around defenders units that are in rough terrain and force defender to either let him through or to fight on even terms.

With Civ V you have to think whole picture, not just single stack vs stack combat like in Civ IV.
 
Namel said:
It does not. Open ground penalty means that game heavily favors the defender.

Defender chooses where to put his units. He can have them in forest, hills and cities. Then attacker has to move towards his objective. Smart defender has placed his units in such way that attacker have to leave his units in open where defender can fight them with advantage. If there were no open ground penalty attacker could just walk around defenders units that are in rough terrain and force defender to either let him through or to fight on even terms.

With Civ V you have to think whole picture, not just single stack vs stack combat like in Civ IV.
Click to expand...

You're assuming the defender even has a choice.

What if you have to defend a big open plain?

The current system overly and INTENTIONALLY avours the attacker (listen to the old Shafer quotes talking about how he wanted to give the advantage to the attacker). This was a design decision where...like so many decisions in Civ5.....the gameplay mechanic was thought up first and then the historical rationale was thought up later (which is totally backwards, in my book)
 
The I go - you go system already gives you silly edges for attacking (and horses get to retreat as well.) And in game terms it lets you stomp on misplaced AI units even more easily than the norm. There should be neither bonus nor penalty in the flatlands. In the game as this is yet another advantage that players have over the AI and it's completely avoidable.
 
jjkrause84 said:
You're assuming the defender even has a choice.

What if you have to defend a big open plain?
Click to expand...

Defender still has the advantage. In case of axeman vs axeman all defender has to do is wait that attackers moves in two hex radius of him and then fight him. Defender can also "hide behind" city so that city's zone of control stops enemy before he can attack defender's unit.

Of course unlike stack of death using defender advantage that open ground penalty gives actually requires thinking and planning.
 
ohioastronomy said:
The I go - you go system already gives you silly edges for attacking (and horses get to retreat as well.) And in game terms it lets you stomp on misplaced AI units even more easily than the norm. There should be neither bonus nor penalty in the flatlands. In the game as this is yet another advantage that players have over the AI and it's completely avoidable.
Click to expand...

I don't think game mechanics should be designed to compensate currently horrible AI. Instead AI should be fixed to take advantage of the open ground penalty.
 
Namel said:
I don't think game mechanics should be designed to compensate currently horrible AI. Instead AI should be fixed to take advantage of the open ground penalty.
Click to expand...

I don't even see a game justification for making defense so weak most of the time and so conditional on terrain. It's not even a question of tactics per se: the foolish no-stacking approach means that units can end up shoved out into the open because the Amazon jungle isn't large enough to hold all of them.
 
My thoughts on this, are that the units themselves should determine if there is a penality for being in the open.

If youre in an open field, and some warriors come at you, you will most likely see/hear them coming, and be able to turn in their direction, preparing for the attack.

At the same time, if you are in an open field, and there is catapults or archers shooting at you, it might take a little more time to realise exactly where those projectiles are coming from.

My example may be bad, i only did 150(ish) turns of demo, but from a realism/gameplay point of view, i still think the units themselves should be the factor.
 
ohioastronomy said:
I don't even see a game justification for making defense so weak most of the time and so conditional on terrain. It's not even a question of tactics per se: the foolish no-stacking approach means that units can end up shoved out into the open because the Amazon jungle isn't large enough to hold all of them.
Click to expand...

Defense is not weak. Open ground penalty is what makes defense strong. It just requires actual thinking instead of just making stack of death.
 
Building the right mix of units in a stack requires thought. Picking off AI units spilling off into the open, not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_J
Can you make an anti-imperial empire game? The 4Xperts behind Civilization, Syphilisation and Victoria 3 discuss eXperimental 4X design
Replies
5
Views
2K
martindo
M
Recursive
  • Locked
New BETA Version - 4.5.1 (February 28, 2024)
9 10 11
Replies
211
Views
24K
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (6-73) Keep or Revert Change to Bowman/Atlatlist Promotions
Replies
3
Views
880
dostillevi
D
amateurgamer88
AG Land Combat Mod for AGYRM
Replies
3
Views
1K
amateurgamer88
amateurgamer88
Legen
  • Locked
(4-19a) Proposal: Atlatlist and Bowman promotion swap
Replies
9
Views
899
Recursive
Recursive
Top Bottom