Except for the part that if you are unfortunate enough to kill your opponent, now your weakened unit is sitting out in the open ground and it is about to become 4 on 2.
Open ground penalty.
- Thread starter AgentTBC
- Start date
Except for the part that if you are unfortunate enough to kill your opponent, now your weakened unit is sitting out in the open ground and it is about to become 4 on 2.
I am in favor. For reasons of realism and gameplay both. Granted, it makes things more complicated.
I disagree that it is unrealistic. Combat favors both attacker and defender depending on the situation. Generally the offensive side is bound to come out on top in a war of equal strength assuming they don't go off picking poor fights.
Attacking is having the initiative. The element of surprise. Choosing when and where the battle will take place. Need to be able to see the enemy and to move without restraint for this. In open terrain against a completely unprepared enemy this is the case in Civ5. This is the -33% for defenders in open terrain.
If they are not in open terrain unprepared, the bonus for attacker is lost. Makes sense since hills and forests are naturally easy to use for concealment and cover, while slowing down the attacker. Don't need time to prepare for it.
While in the open, then, if the defenders are prepared? That's the 50% fortification bonus. Defenders stronger.
That as well. As you said though, the combat is a lot more complicated than Civ4. It turned tactical. Knowing the force mix and amount required is just part of it compared to 5 with new modifiers, logistical issues and ranged combat.
You can do either of these three (including all three at once):
1. Fortify. +50% (a few turns of foresight required)
2. (no foresight required) Attack them as they approach within range (this is known as a 'spoiling attack') as suggested.
3. Build defensive structures (fortress or citadel) (foresight required).
Defense is not weaker. There's fortification bonus, forts and/or choosing to attack first. Defender is covered.
The combat isn't tactical because it is possible to fill jungles with units completely? It does not follow logically.
sosueme
Muckraker
Not trying to spoil discussion of this here, but there's a similar thread in the S&T section that might be worth your time as well: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=391032
Whoever is saying that the open terrain penalty favors defenders has not played in a game without it.
If there is no open terrain penalty, the AIs are better able to defend themselves, instead of being wiped out by the super AI that tend to form itself around midgame. Open ground penalty is the reason AIs get crushed so bad, by other AIs and the human.
If there is no open terrain penalty, the AIs are better able to defend themselves, instead of being wiped out by the super AI that tend to form itself around midgame. Open ground penalty is the reason AIs get crushed so bad, by other AIs and the human.
Jolly Rogerer
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 402
From a game perspective any one modifier is meaningless, it only matters in comparison to the other modifiers. Thus I have no problem with the malus for defending open ground per se in terms of game balance.
From a realism perspective it's a lot more complicated. Units that depended a lot on formations for their power would be weaker in broken terrain like forests or hills. Phalanx based armies tended to only offer battle on open ground for this reason. They should not be given an advantage for defending in forest etc. Mounted units likewise have a much harder time navigating woods and should be given a malus to attack and defense in such terrain (though many would dismount historically in order to be more effective).
It's important also to consider what is the unit defending against. Obviously terrain that offers cover and or concealment is going to advantage units defending against missile attacks (arrows, bolts, bullets, bombs, and artillery). Units that depend more on individual action like swordsmen and who are armed with fairly handy weapons (like swords) would be considerably less disadvantaged by woods than units armed with polearms that depended more on group action (like pikes or halberds). Thus swords should have an advantage over spears in woods.
One of the main reasons that the vast majority of battles have historically taken place on open ground is that it allowed command and control. With the complete disregard for realism (never a strong suit in Civ games, but reaching a new low in Civ 5) we can assume that this will never be a consideration.
From a realism perspective it's a lot more complicated. Units that depended a lot on formations for their power would be weaker in broken terrain like forests or hills. Phalanx based armies tended to only offer battle on open ground for this reason. They should not be given an advantage for defending in forest etc. Mounted units likewise have a much harder time navigating woods and should be given a malus to attack and defense in such terrain (though many would dismount historically in order to be more effective).
It's important also to consider what is the unit defending against. Obviously terrain that offers cover and or concealment is going to advantage units defending against missile attacks (arrows, bolts, bullets, bombs, and artillery). Units that depend more on individual action like swordsmen and who are armed with fairly handy weapons (like swords) would be considerably less disadvantaged by woods than units armed with polearms that depended more on group action (like pikes or halberds). Thus swords should have an advantage over spears in woods.
One of the main reasons that the vast majority of battles have historically taken place on open ground is that it allowed command and control. With the complete disregard for realism (never a strong suit in Civ games, but reaching a new low in Civ 5) we can assume that this will never be a consideration.
A complaint about Civ4 was that warfare was too focused on cities. There clear incentive was to bottle up in your city and hope for the best, rather than going out into the field and attacking to prevent pillaging. I would imagine this is an attempt to rectify that focus, although it's perhaps not necessary, given 1UPT.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
The system doesn't favor the strategic attacker. It favors the tactical defender. The defender has choice of where to defend and where not to defend. Not to mention the fact the defender can often pull back his forces and launch a powerful counterattack against the units out in the open. Open terrain is actually perfect for fast, mounted units. The problem is that units like the horseman work too well in rough terrain instead of being penalized, leading to problems.
There's another thread about this in the Strategy Discussion so I'll just quote myself from there.
If a spearman unit says gets a 100% bonus fighting mounted units and the horseman's strength was reduced to 11, then on even terms, the spearman will win. A spearman should be using shock promos mostly in any case so they don't have to worry about shock promoted horsemen. It almost becomes an arms race between the two units to who has more shock promos but in the end, a prepared spearman unit with the same amount of shock promos should be able to beat a horseman unit.
There's another thread about this in the Strategy Discussion so I'll just quote myself from there.
Spoiler :
If a spearman unit says gets a 100% bonus fighting mounted units and the horseman's strength was reduced to 11, then on even terms, the spearman will win. A spearman should be using shock promos mostly in any case so they don't have to worry about shock promoted horsemen. It almost becomes an arms race between the two units to who has more shock promos but in the end, a prepared spearman unit with the same amount of shock promos should be able to beat a horseman unit.
I think defenders should be entrenchment bonus for every turn they are fortified until about +33% bonus. Maybe 10% per turn? I think the default -33% defending on open terrain is fair if the unit just arrived in that tile and then gets attacked. That simulates an ambush or otherwise getting caught with your pants down. However if you fortify it should be 0% not -33% and then if you stay in place you should get entrenchment bonuses. Real life troops would set up defenses if they were left in an open field. Not just stand their with their swords in the air....
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
Pretty much agreed with you there. That's what I was thinking when I started thinking about why the penalty would be -33%. The AI needs to be taught to entrench its forces when it fears its going to be invaded soon.
Forts built on open terrain only reduce the penalty to -17% by the way.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
