Combat formations

[Txurce]

Daydreaming about using the Greek and Ottoman UUs made me wonder about formations - not so much the obvious placement of cavalry (or ranged units) behind infantry, but how to specifically line them up to get maximum impact and protection. I haven't played a hex board game in years, so am drawing up some hex sheets on which to experiment. In the meantime, I thought it would be interesting to see what people come up with for different eras (as well as UU's).

 

[Purpureus]

Daydreaming about using the Greek and Ottoman UUs made me wonder about formations - not so much the obvious placement of cavalry (or ranged units) behind infantry, but how to specifically line them up to get maximum impact and protection. I haven't played a hex board game in years, so am drawing up some hex sheets on which to experiment. In the meantime, I thought it would be interesting to see what people come up with for different eras (as well as UU's).

I would say it doesn't make much sense to place cavalry behind infantry... It would make the cavalry pretty close to useless. I would place it on the flanks and arrange formations depending on the armies involved.
The outline and basic formations of the roman legion are an excellent example of beautifull tactics in the ancient and even medieval warfare.

For modern times the benefit of air units will be huge. Ranged units like artilery coupled with air support will give one's infantry the breath of fresh air they need to push through.

 

[CommanderZ]

I don't think complex combat formations will be practical. Everything will be way too dependent on terrain

Are air units able to kill (unlike in Civ IV)? That would make air units pretty much dominate modern battlefield (exactly like in RL).

 

[Grimlin]

Everything I've seen of the combat mechanics in CiV so far looks perfectly like Panzer General. Play the game and you'll see the worth of air units

 

[Hail]

[...]

For modern times the benefit of air units will be huge. Ranged units like artillery coupled with air support will give one's infantry the breath of fresh air they need to push through.

exactly!

since air units do not abide by the 1u/t rule, air unit spam will definitely become a viable strategy

Spoiler :

how said that SoD's are gone? they just morphed

back on topic:

Daydreaming about using the Greek and Ottoman UUs made me wonder about formations - not so much the obvious placement of cavalry (or ranged units) behind infantry, but how to specifically line them up to get maximum impact and protection. I haven't played a hex board game in years, so am drawing up some hex sheets on which to experiment. In the meantime, I thought it would be interesting to see what people come up with for different eras (as well as UU's).

units' position will be terrain-dependent.
imho regardless of terrain, you will always want to have a battlefront longer than your enemy, so you will get combat bonuses by surrounding his outer (on the edges of the battlefront) units and killing them with minimal losses

 

[vaugula]

you will always want to have a battlefront longer than your enemy, so you will get combat bonuses by surrounding his outer (on the edges of the battlefront) units and killing them with minimal losses

this is great for pre modern warfare and shows how cav would be used to roll up a flank. On the other hand I am assuming that when we get to the modern era you will be able to field armies large enough to have a flank anchored at the sea or mountains so not really having a flank. I see combat in these conditions to be reminiscent of the blitzkrieg where air and artillery can be used to knock a hole in the line and then armour placed behind the line of infantry can then hit the gap and attack with good flanking bonuses. Unlike the real world version of that you probably don't want to create an encirclement but would prefer to roll up the line from the inside instead.

 

[Schuesseled]

i would place my army in a long line so that my troop placement goes ranged/melee/range/melee.

My ranges units (prfereably not siege units at this juncture) would walk forward one hex and fire, my melee troops would forward two hexes placing themselves right in front of the ranged guys, protecting them.

 

[Babri]

In cIV you had stacks so you issued orders to the whole stack for movement. Due to 1 UPT I think there should be formations or atleast you can select all the units by dragging mouse & then telling them where to go. Final adjustments would be made when the units get nearer to the target. Otherwise there would be hell of micro if you have click each unit separately to march a long distance.

 

[migkillertwo]

what others have said: Place your mobile units on the sides (cavalry, tanks, etc.), heavy units at teh forefront, and ranged units behind it. Then use your cavalry to flank the enemy, then hit them with your ranged units, then have cavalry attack if you have any movement points left, and then attack with heavy infantry, and BAM, you've probably either won the battle by now, or have incurred tremendous losses upon your enemy with minimal losses to your own forces.

 

[rh1n0man]

It will be interesting to see legionnaires building forts along their entire front line. I can also see placing pike men along the inner flanks in case of a lost cavalry battle for their zoc

 

[12agnar0k]

I might go with a melee (swords and spears) front line, with a line of archers behind them, and two little groups of cavalry on the side's of these two lines.

 

[Sonereal]

Assault formations aren't that hard to come up with. Fast striking units disperesed escorted by slower units. You wouldn't want to have your cavalry just on the outside or else a human player would just start placing pikemen on the outside.

Probably a line of units with fast striking units dispersed throughout (and yes, some on the outside just in case). That way you have units fast enough in the middle to exploit gaps in an enemy line.

Hopefully one can order fighters to patrol above a line or else bombers would go unopposed.

As for artillery/siege units, focused fire on one point is probably better than a butch of potshots all along the line unless you have that much firepower simply because concentrated firepower makes it easier to bust through the line.

 

[Txurce]

I would say it doesn't make much sense to place cavalry behind infantry... It would make the cavalry pretty close to useless. I would place it on the flanks and arrange formations depending on the armies involved.
The outline and basic formations of the roman legion are an excellent example of beautifull tactics in the ancient and even medieval warfare.

I think the advantages to studying ancient formations is one of the many upsides of the improved combat system. I'm actually pretty familiar with notions like flanking, local superiority, and so on. When I mentioned cavalry behind infantry, I imagined them working much like counter-attacking armor would in the modern era: take the hit, then smash the weakened center. (Sonereal said something similar.) Attacking, you might have a different formation.

I agree that terrain and to some degree the make-up of the opposing force will determine your overall alignment. But how do you line up your basic core fighting group - your "legion"? What is your "legion"? Do you even have one, or just build a bunch of foot- and horse soldiers? Babri is thinking basic formations, and so am I. Say:

s s s
h b b h

Would you line them up like this (with s a spearman, b a bowman, h a horseman)? Assuming a plain field of battle, do you leave gaps?

Or would you do as schuesseled proposes and go with:

b s b s b s b s

Or something altogether different? Until the modern age, there should be a lot of overlap in tactics and formations, with adjustments made for UUs as well. But there is a lot to chew on with regard to tactics that hasn't existed at all in Civ, thanks to hexes and 1upt.

 

[Dearmad]

exactly!

since air units do not abide by the 1u/t rule, air unit spam will definitely become a viable strategy

Sort of wrong to my understanding- they abide by it in that you can only base X amount in cities / carriers and maybe airbases (forts?) so their use on the battlefield will be limited by that number as well as any resource required to field them. No spam.

 

[Sonereal]

Why not

h m m h m m h
h b b b b h

That's pretty general because formatting is a tad strange here but it keeps your flanks protected and gives you some power in the mid-section to push through and maybe even surround with the extra horse units in the rear.

 

[Txurce]

That seems like a good basic formation. One question I've wondered about is spacing. Say we use a "-" as a space. Would you put one between any or all your front-line units?

 

[Sonereal]

That seems like a good basic formation. One question I've wondered about is spacing. Say we use a "-" as a space. Would you put one between any or all your front-line units?

Unless I was planning on using tactical nukes, no. The problem with that is that a break in a frontline can lead to very misfortunate things such as half your army being enveloped and eventually encircled because the area they need to encircle is smaller.

Unless you're planning on them doing that and you're just setting up for a trap but it's pretty risky.

Also, we're assuming grasslands here with formations right now. Hills and forests will greatly affect the formation and you'd probably want your bow/artillery units on one anyway.

 

[Nicolas10]

I think it's interesting that people are talking about such large groups of forces...

Anyway, I think the biggest principle will be tactical offense. First-Strike will be powerful, whether on an offensive war into an enemy's land, or waiting for the enemy to come to you.

I think the biggest thing will be combining ranged units and fast moving units. If you can damage and destroy, you'll quickly reduce the other side, so that even if they repulse you with a counter-attack they'll have less units to hit with; if two armies come into contact but one side decimates the other's ranged units while leaving theirs intact, it will be a massive advantage.

So, on formation specifics, use the terrain, but keep your mounted troops concentrated and ready to burst. I don't think there will be a specific formation because of terrain differences... you'll mostly want to avoid leaving troops on flat terrain unless you absolutely have to. But the chessboard of civ will have such terrain bonuses that specific, general formations won't be too practical, I'd think.

 

[AriochIV]

I think that keeping reserve melee units behind the front lines is going to be very important in any battle between two large armies. And in most cases, I think you're going to want to keep your best melee units in reserve whenever possible.

On his turn, the enemy can destroy nearly any single unit in your front line if he wants to, through bombardment and focused attacks from multiple units, so it will be key to have units in reserve to plug these holes. And, since you really can't prevent any front-line unit from being killed, you're probably going to want to have the reserves be your most elite units, so that they can provide decisive support and still have a chance to survive the battle.

Similarly, when you're the one doing the attacking and kill a unit in the enemy line, the unit you won the battle with has moved foward and now opened a hole in your own line (and is probably dead meat on the enemy's next turn), so you're going to need reserves to plug the hole at the very least (or continue the attack on other units if conditions permit).

So I think what you will see especially early on when Iron is limited, are formations with spear units in the first rank, and heavy infantry reserves interspersed with ranged units in the second and third ranks, and the odd mounted units on the flanks. The melee reserves can be several ranks deep, allowing for them to use the new two-space movement and unit swapping to jockey in and out of position with ranged units in the critical second rank.

As resources become more plentiful, more and more of your front line can be replaced with heavy infantry, but I think the wise commander will keep his most elite units in reserve.

I think it's interesting that people are talking about such large groups of forces...

I'm seeing some pretty big armies in these preview screenshots.

 

[Sonereal]

I think it's interesting that people are talking about such large groups of forces...

I didn't think I was talking about that large of a force. After all, it's all within the strategic resource limit as far as I know.

Anyway, I think the biggest principle will be tactical offense. First-Strike will be powerful, whether on an offensive war into an enemy's land, or waiting for the enemy to come to you.

Drill is actually cool again!

I think the biggest thing will be combining ranged units and fast moving units. If you can damage and destroy, you'll quickly reduce the other side, so that even if they repulse you with a counter-attack they'll have less units to hit with; if two armies come into contact but one side decimates the other's ranged units while leaving theirs intact, it will be a massive advantage.

Truly which is why a few cavalry divisions should be left in the rear to deal with flanking units..

So, on formation specifics, use the terrain, but keep your mounted troops concentrated and ready to burst. I don't think there will be a specific formation because of terrain differences... you'll mostly want to avoid leaving troops on flat terrain unless you absolutely have to. But the chessboard of civ will have such terrain bonuses that specific, general formations won't be too practical, I'd think.

I want to fight wars of attrition now.

@Arioch

I challenge you to an MP match then.