Combat issues – Defenders Have Unfair Advantage in the Modern Age

I have noticed that defenders end up having a huge advantage in the modern age.
This is due to several tile movements the defenders have in their own territory VS only one tile movement the attackers have in enemy territory.

In early ages there is not much difference between the tile movement that the defenders have VS the attackers, so this is an issue for modern age only.

In my current game I had two huge stacks of 50 units each (which was much larger than the enemy’s).
However, when I moved into enemy territory I was exposed to numerous attacks by fighters and bombers, as well as mobile artillery units that caused massive collateral damage.
The slow advance of my SoD’s (one tile per turn) allowed the enemy to attack my stacks many times and reduce their strength to almost nothing.
I had many SAM Infantry in my SoD’s but since they don’t intercept aircraft every time my SoD’s still suffered al lot of collateral damage from enemy bombers.
My fighters were also out of range so they could not intercept the enemy’s bombers.

Needless to say that my invasion was a failure.

So I loaded back earlier saved game, declared the war all over again, but this time I didn’t move my SoD’s into enemy territory.
I just waited for the AI to send his SoD’s to my territory and I then used my bombers, fighters, guided missiles, and mobile artillery units to destroy the enemy’s SoD’s.
I pretty much did to the AI what it did to me earlier.
The AI had no chance.

I therefore cannot help myself from arriving to the conclusion that the slow movement in enemy territory (in modern age) is a prescription for Failure .

In the modern age we have bombers, fighters, and guided missile that can destroy the invasion force without much of resistance.
SAM infantry don’t intercept all aircraft attacks (even with promotions) so all it takes is a few bombers to slip in and to lower most unit’s HP to the point that they will be defeated by the enemy’s ground forces.

The one tile movement in enemy territory just makes thing much worse while the defenders can move their forces several tiles giving the defenders huge advantage.

My proposal (for CIV 5) is to introduce two types of movements in enemy territory.
One type that uses enemy roads which allows 2 or 3 tile movements for infantry units (and more for mobile armory).
This type of movement will be vulnerable to enemy bombers and guided missile attacks.

The second type of movement will be a guerilla warfare movement that doesn’t use enemy’s roads.
This type of movement will allow only for one tile movement per turn.
However, units that use this guerilla movement CANNOT be intercepted by bombers and guided missiles.
They can only be intercepted by fighters, and gunships.

This will give players two methods they can use to invade enemy territory.
1. Faster movement (via enemy roads) with vulnerability to bombers and guided missiles.
2. Slow movement (guerilla movement off enemy roads) with protection from bombers and guided missiles.

Once the player arrives to a city and attacks it, only then his forces can be intercepted by bombers, and guided missiles.

This would make army invasion in the modern age more viable with less unfair advantage to the defenders.

I would also like to add a few more suggestions that are related to this matter.
1. Add more “Intercept” promotion to SAM Infantry so they can reach up to 80% interception chance against aircraft.
2. Add “Multiple Interceptions” promotion to SAM Infantry so they can intercept aircraft more than once per turn.
3. Introduce new transportation vehicles for artillery and infantry units in the modern age to allow for faster infantry/artillery movement in enemy (as well as friendly) territory.

I have always found that in the modern age, attackers have an unfair advantage. If you have a good air force, and a good navy, then you have no (or very little) need for the slower moving artillery. I think it reflects the fact that in modern wars, if you don't take a city quickly, you are screwed. You cannot have long marches realistically in modern wars. Also, if your air forces cannot reach what you are attacking, perhaps it was probably a bad move to attack it. The only situation I can think of where your aircraft wouldn't be able to get to combat quickly would be when you are attacking a faraway landlocked country. But that doesn't seem like a good decision in the first place, and any disadvantage you have is probably an accurate one. Besides, this situation could be remedied if you quickly took a city, and moved your air units there right away.

Also, I think having two types of movement would just be very confusing. And your suggestion for SAM Infantry interception bonuses would work both ways, to your advantage and to your disadvantage. But I think it would be more to your disadvantage. If you are invading a civilization in the modern age, you should have a higher power rating to be able to even possibly win, realistically. And to have a higher power rating would probably mean having a superior air force, meaning that an interception bonus for SAM Infantry would hurt you more than your opposition.

I have always found that in the modern age, attackers have an unfair advantage. If you have a good air force, and a good navy, then you have no (or very little) need for the slower moving artillery.

Click to expand...

True, but that is also limiting the game play possibilities.

It basically comes to air force only campaign with limited ground forces movement, and very slow advance from one city to another as long as the cities are very close to our borders.

What I am suggesting (even if it may not be 100% realistic) is a new viable strategy to move in with a large ground force deep into enemy territory with a capability to defend itself against air attacks.

This will also allow us to send a large ground force on ships in to different continent and march in enemy territory (D-DAY style).
For this we need a better Mobile SAM/SAM infantry.

Multiple interception promotion for SAM units will probably be sufficient.

The more viable strategies we have the more we will enjoy the game.

I think having two types of movement would just be very confusing.

Click to expand...

The default movement (right click) will be the normal movement on roads (faster than the current movement).
However, there can be a special icon that allows for guerilla movement off enemy roads.
This will be similar to the two attack options aircraft have.

There is nothing confusing about that.
CIV players are smart enough to handle that.

Double Post...

MosheLevi said:

True, but that is also limiting the game play possibilities.

It basically comes to air force only campaign with limited ground forces movement, and very slow advance from one city to another as long as the cities are very close to our borders.

What I am suggesting (even if it may not be 100% realistic) is a new viable strategy to move in with a large ground force deep into enemy territory with a capability to defend itself against air attacks.

This will also allow us to send a large ground force on ships in to different continent and march in enemy territory (D-DAY style).
For this we need a better Mobile SAM/SAM infantry.

Multiple interception promotion for SAM units will probably be sufficient.

The more viable strategies we have the more we will enjoy the game.

Click to expand...

Currently you can have a D-Day style invasion, in the form of taking multiple coastal cities in simultaneous amphibious attacks. This is probably needed for a successful war, and realistically so. In the modern day and age, would you expect a large army to be able to trudge through enemy land without taking a city, and not get destroyed?

Maybe you could have just an extra movement point for modern units, to reflect the fact that they, well, move faster.

The default movement (right click) will be the normal movement on roads (faster than the current movement).
However, there can be a special icon that allows for guerilla movement off enemy roads.
This will be similar to the two attack options aircraft have.

There is nothing confusing about that.
CIV players are smart enough to handle that.

Click to expand...

When I am in a war, however, I don't want to have to think about which of the two buttons I should press to move my units. This could get quite difficult if you have, say, a one-click mouse.

MosheLevi said:

I have noticed that defenders end up having a huge advantage in the modern age.
This is due to several tile movements the defenders have in their own territory VS only one tile movement the attackers have in enemy territory.

In early ages there is not much difference between the tile movement that the defenders have VS the attackers, so this is an issue for modern age only.

In my current game I had two huge stacks of 50 units each (which was much larger than the enemy’s).
However, when I moved into enemy territory I was exposed to numerous attacks by fighters and bombers, as well as mobile artillery units that caused massive collateral damage.
The slow advance of my SoD’s (one tile per turn) allowed the enemy to attack my stacks many times and reduce their strength to almost nothing.
I had many SAM Infantry in my SoD’s but since they don’t intercept aircraft every time my SoD’s still suffered al lot of collateral damage from enemy bombers.
My fighters were also out of range so they could not intercept the enemy’s bombers.

Needless to say that my invasion was a failure.

So I loaded back earlier saved game, declared the war all over again, but this time I didn’t move my SoD’s into enemy territory.
I just waited for the AI to send his SoD’s to my territory and I then used my bombers, fighters, guided missiles, and mobile artillery units to destroy the enemy’s SoD’s.
I pretty much did to the AI what it did to me earlier.
The AI had no chance.

I therefore cannot help myself from arriving to the conclusion that the slow movement in enemy territory (in modern age) is a prescription for Failure .

In the modern age we have bombers, fighters, and guided missile that can destroy the invasion force without much of resistance.
SAM infantry don’t intercept all aircraft attacks (even with promotions) so all it takes is a few bombers to slip in and to lower most unit’s HP to the point that they will be defeated by the enemy’s ground forces.

The one tile movement in enemy territory just makes thing much worse while the defenders can move their forces several tiles giving the defenders huge advantage.

My proposal (for CIV 5) is to introduce two types of movements in enemy territory.
One type that uses enemy roads which allows 2 or 3 tile movements for infantry units (and more for mobile armory).
This type of movement will be vulnerable to enemy bombers and guided missile attacks.

The second type of movement will be a guerilla warfare movement that doesn’t use enemy’s roads.
This type of movement will allow only for one tile movement per turn.
However, units that use this guerilla movement CANNOT be intercepted by bombers and guided missiles.
They can only be intercepted by fighters, and gunships.

This will give players two methods they can use to invade enemy territory.
1. Faster movement (via enemy roads) with vulnerability to bombers and guided missiles.
2. Slow movement (guerilla movement off enemy roads) with protection from bombers and guided missiles.

Once the player arrives to a city and attacks it, only then his forces can be intercepted by bombers, and guided missiles.

This would make army invasion in the modern age more viable with less unfair advantage to the defenders.

I would also like to add a few more suggestions that are related to this matter.
1. Add more “Intercept” promotion to SAM Infantry so they can reach up to 80% interception chance against aircraft.
2. Add “Multiple Interceptions” promotion to SAM Infantry so they can intercept aircraft more than once per turn.
3. Introduce new transportation vehicles for artillery and infantry units in the modern age to allow for faster infantry/artillery movement in enemy (as well as friendly) territory.

Click to expand...

well the rule of thumb is that a attacker needs a 3:1 ratio against defenders. Defender usually have a built advantage against invader because it is thier terrority and the are more familiar with the ground then the invaders.

if you have a problems against bombers and artillary i suggest you pack more units. more overall units and more varied units. if 50 units is not enough make that stack a 100 units. i once threw 3 200units stacks against a enemy. The stacks were also veried with a majority of modern armor for offense, mobile SAM for air defense, Mobile artillary for reducing defense, mechInf for defense, Gunship units for defense agianst mobile artillary and armor units and a healer unit for fast healing.

I don't think attacking is modern age is weaker than defending. I have had several situations in MP where i have been wiped out in modern era.

modern age: nuke first = win

this can be solved simply by adding 2 more promotions that further reduces collateral damage: drill 5 and drill 6 (mirror combat 5 and 6) that each drill grants an additional 20% reduction from collateral damage (like drill 2-4).

Just like in real life.

Hit them on two fronts.

The point that I am trying to make here is that there is a big difference between early warfare and late warfare (modern age warfare).

Until now I played 3 scenarios that ended before the modern warfare begun.
Now in my forth scenario I arrived to the modern age and it feels so clear to me that defenders have much more advantage (compared to early warfare) because of the extra movement they get in friendly territory.
At the same time most units still move one tile at a time in enemy territory and as a result they are way more vulnerable than before (in early ages).

I have now much more hard time attacking enemy cities even with twice the force they have, and at the same time it is much easier for me to defend against enemy attacks in my own territories.

So I am pretty much just expressing how the game feels now after experiencing the modern combat for the first time.

For that reason I think it would make sense if units can have a faster movement in enemy territory although I agree that units that defend their territories should be able to move faster.

MosheLevi said:

The point that I am trying to make here is that there is a big difference between early warfare and late warfare (modern age warfare).

Until now I played 3 scenarios that ended before the modern warfare begun.
Now in my forth scenario I arrived to the modern age and it feels so clear to me that defenders have much more advantage (compared to early warfare) because of the extra movement they get in friendly territory.
At the same time most units still move one tile at a time in enemy territory and as a result they are way more vulnerable than before (in early ages).

I have now much more hard time attacking enemy cities even with twice the force they have, and at the same time it is much easier for me to defend against enemy attacks in my own territories.

So I am pretty much just expressing how the game feels now after experiencing the modern combat for the first time.

For that reason I think it would make sense if units can have a faster movement in enemy territory although I agree that units that defend their territories should be able to move faster.

Click to expand...

And i still don't see what you are talking about, the techs have change but the rules are still the same, bring a big stack with a lot of counter units. The only real difference between warfare in the modern age and earlier is that you need a bigger stack in the modern age.

And i still don't see what you are talking about, the techs have change but the rules are still the same, bring a big stack with a lot of counter units. The only real difference between warfare in the modern age and earlier is that you need a bigger stack in the modern age.

Click to expand...

The movement rules have actually changed in the modern age.
Units can move several tiles in their territory, but they can only move 1 or 2 tiles in enemy territory.

As a result defending armies have a huge advantage by being able to attack from a distance with several mobile artillery causing massive collateral damage and winning every time with equal stacks.
The attacker on the other hand cannot attack the defender yet because of the one tile movement restriction.

As a result attackers need to have SoD ratio of 3:1 or even 4:1 and that is very hard to achieve.

You may want to bring some machine guns as stack defenders. They are immune to siege weapons including mobile artillery.

Also, bring along Interception promoted SAM Infs and Mobile SAMs to help against the air units.

But the best choice-and easiest on your War Weariness-is to let the AI come to you and break their army. Then counterattack into their territory when you have destroyed the majority of their SOD.

MosheLevi said:

The movement rules have actually changed in the modern age.
Units can move several tiles in their territory, but they can only move 1 or 2 tiles in enemy territory.

As a result defending armies have a huge advantage by being able to attack from a distance with several mobile artillery causing massive collateral damage and winning every time with equal stacks.
The attacker on the other hand cannot attack the defender yet because of the one tile movement restriction.

As a result attackers need to have SoD ratio of 3:1 or even 4:1 and that is very hard to achieve.

Click to expand...

1. if you have same number of units as the other AI then you shouldn't be attacking. You should let the other SoD into your terrority and take advange of your defensive advantage to take it out. Even the AI know better then to launch attacks with equal size SoD.

2. hard doesn't mean impossible. in my last game i threw 3 200 units stacks with several smaller stacks i used to occupied cities.

in my current game i attack joao who has a total 30gunships and 100 infantry and about 30 mobile Artillary. I will be attacking with a stack of 150tanks, 12 marines, 20mobile Sam, 30 mobile Artillary.

i wipe out Joao's biggest stack in a surprise attack and will be marching a 150unit stack against his cities with only 5-6 units each.

1. if you have same number of units as the other AI then you shouldn't be attacking. You should let the other SoD into your terrority and take advange of your defensive advantage to take it out. Even the AI know better then to launch attacks with equal size SoD.

Click to expand...

Sure, I agree.
I was just pointing out that defenders can wipe out enemy’s equal stack because of the advantage in movement while attackers can NOT do that.

I am basically comparing early age warfare with modern age warfare where in early age 2:1 ratio is sufficient to achieve victory (when attacking) but in modern age we need 3:1 ratio.

I just don’t agree with such difference.
It shouldn’t be harder to win in combat in the modern age.
That is my main point.

2. hard doesn't mean impossible. in my last game i threw 3 200 units stacks with several smaller stacks i used to occupied cities.

in my current game i attack joao who has a total 30gunships and 100 infantry and about 30 mobile Artillary. I will be attacking with a stack of 150tanks, 12 marines, 20mobile Sam, 30 mobile Artillary.

i wipe out Joao's biggest stack in a surprise attack and will be marching a 150unit stack against his cities with only 5-6 units each.

Click to expand...

I know, it is still possible to train such large armies but it takes too long to do that, lol.
By that time the AI is going to win with a space victory.

MosheLevi said:

Sure, I agree.
I was just pointing out that defenders can wipe out enemy’s equal stack because of the advantage in movement while attackers can NOT do that.

I am basically comparing early age warfare with modern age warfare where in early age 2:1 ratio is sufficient to achieve victory (when attacking) but in modern age we need 3:1 ratio.

I just don’t agree with such difference.
It shouldn’t be harder to win in combat in the modern age.
That is my main point.



I know, it is still possible to train such large armies but it takes too long to do that, lol.
By that time the AI is going to win with a space victory.

Click to expand...

if you want a military victory then shut down the other victory options.

if you want a military victory then shut down the other victory options.

Click to expand...

Yes, I normally play with only military victory option.
However, this time I am playing the 1000 AD scenario and there was no way to turn off the other victory options.

I don't agree with the premise at all. #1 option is nukes - they're really the end-all of modern warfare. Being the first to attack is most certainly devastating. You don't need 3:1 odds at all, probably not even as high as 2:1 - especially against the AI (like the 1 fleet of 40 ships that you kill all at once sitting in a city ). For "realism" sake, anything before mech inf/modern armor SHOULD have movement limits - WWI/WWII certainly saw many situations where moving into enemy territory was slow and painful. And then keep in mind that you can use gunships/paratroopers to strike quite far as well, and planes/ships hardly suffer mobility issues at all.

The main problem I would point out with modern era warfare is, like much of the rest of civ, the massive dependence on standing armies. Of course a lot of this is due to the AI having monstrous production advantages (and they do get era bonus that's quite significant by then). But in civ it's possible to field militaries whose relative strengths having never been seen in this world. Infantry/more basic units should not be stockpiled nearly so much (I'd increase maintenance as I've said before) and instead drafted more. So then modern warfare boils down to maintaining the high tech planes/tanks/ships + resources, not raw numbers. At any rate, modern warfare being different from earlier in the game does not mean it's harder - you can often own AI much easier with a smaller tech lead - like when you're the only one with bombers compared to early in the game when regardless of whether you have cannons/cavalry there muskets/bows/knights are still close in strength.

MosheLevi said:

The point that I am trying to make here is that there is a big difference between early warfare and late warfare (modern age warfare).

Click to expand...

Reflecting reality. It would be completely unrealistic if modern warfare was the same as ancient warfare. Actually, I think it should be even more varied. I don't really know how, though. Perhaps the ambush idea could be only applied in the modern era. Greater effects of espionage maybe?

MosheLevi said:

The movement rules have actually changed in the modern age.
Units can move several tiles in their territory, but they can only move 1 or 2 tiles in enemy territory.

Click to expand...

This reflects the considerable effect that modern transportation methods have had on warfare. Think World War One. Germany was able to mobilise quickly within its own territory, but once it moved out into Belgium and France, thinks drastically slowed down.

As a result attackers need to have SoD ratio of 3:1 or even 4:1 and that is very hard to achieve.

Click to expand...

This also reflects reality. For example, the America has not been successful in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite vastly superior amounts of troops. Of course, this is due to numerous other reasons, but giving defenders an advantage over attackers is the most straight forward way of putting this into practice.

MosheLevi said:

The movement rules have actually changed in the modern age.
Units can move several tiles in their territory, but they can only move 1 or 2 tiles in enemy territory.

As a result defending armies have a huge advantage by being able to attack from a distance with several mobile artillery causing massive collateral damage and winning every time with equal stacks.
The attacker on the other hand cannot attack the defender yet because of the one tile movement restriction.

As a result attackers need to have SoD ratio of 3:1 or even 4:1 and that is very hard to achieve.

Click to expand...

If you would have play some mutiplayer games, like Teamers, you would know that from the point on you have artillery, aka catapults in the early ages, equal stacks are always losing if they attack. that's due to artillery that gives a huge advantage to the attackers. that's not only in the modern age. And maybe that could be worked out by Firaxis for Civ5.

About your reinforcing story, well it might be tougher to take the first city, but equally easy to take the other cities, so i don't see really the problem here...