A PENALTY from flat land positions?

[Dearmad]

So from the podcast they said units in flat land get a penalty on defense....

this is completely ahistorical for a lot of combat styles- horse archers, phalanx, legions, etc...

This should be a penalty for some units but not all... wish they;d balanced this into the game better from what I have heard.

oh well.

 

[AriochIV]

It's not a penalty per se for open terrain. There are promotions (Shock for melee and Accuracy for ranged units) that give a bonus against targets in open terrain. There are also promotions (Drill and Barrage) that give bonuses against targets in rough terrain.

 

[Ramesses]

It's not a penalty per se for open terrain. There are promotions (Shock for melee and Accuracy for ranged units) that give a bonus against targets in open terrain. There are also promotions (Drill and Barrage) that give bonuses against targets in rough terrain.

So in other words, it gives no tactical advantage, just like in Civ IV.

 

[demidyad]

Giving units more defense on hills and giving them less defense on flatland are the same thing.

 

[Mercade]

This should be a penalty for some units but not all... wish they;d balanced this into the game better from what I have heard.

Maybe you haven't heard the whole story yet

Giving units more defense on hills and giving them less defense on flatland are the same thing.

That's all in the eye of the beholder. It's not like there's a game modifier that says -25% penalty for defending on flat land. There's a +25% (or whatever the percentage is) for defending on a hill. This is historically quite defensible (to stay in that theme).

 

[Thyrwyn]

It's not a penalty per se for open terrain.

That is not correct. Watch the videos of land combat. We have seen a -33% penalty for defending in open terrain in many of them.

See this video from IGN (lousy resolution and hard to see, but the first one I found). At 00:44, there is a Legion attacking a Swordsman in open terrain. The swordsman unit has a "-33% terrain modifier".

It is seen again at 00:56 during an Archer's Ranged Attack on a Warrior. And again at 01:02 when a Spearman attacks a Brute.

 

[Thormodr]

If horse archers or other mounted units have a -33% to defend in open terrain then that will be ridiculous. I do hope they will use some common sense here.

I'm not quite sure why a melee unit would get a -33% to defense when fighting another melee unit on open terrain either. Against ranged units or mounted units I can understand but surely not against other melee units.

 

[Zhahz]

I'm sure they put no thought into this at all, and we all know the bozos at firaxis are total fail and noobs to game development, so it's very unlikely they'll create a decent game, and even though few here have played it, everyone here knows the game inside out even though it hasn't been released yet. Pretty amazing how all this works.

Yeah......

 

[Thormodr]

I'm sure they put no thought into this at all, and we all know the bozos at firaxis are total fail and noobs to game development, so it's very unlikely they'll create a decent game, and even though few here have played it, everyone here knows the game inside out even though it hasn't been released yet. Pretty amazing how all this works.

Yeah......

No need to go overboard. I think ciV will be a good game. Whether it will be a great game or not remains to be determined.

We obviously don't know the game inside out (and no one is claiming they do) so we are speculating about various aspects of it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If horse archers or other mounted units have a -33% to defend in open terrain then that will be ridiculous. I do hope they will use some common sense here.

They could just move away from enemy units on open terrain. That's enough bonus for them, I think.

 

[Lyoncet]

Does it not stand to reason that perhaps the reason they gave open terrain a -modifier instead of beefing up the hill/forest/jungle +modifier was specifically so that cavalry can fight at full strength in the open? As in if they don't get terrain bonuses, perhaps they don't get open field penalties either? That was my first thought at least, but of course we have no way of confirming.

It would also be interesting to see if they made it so that the penalty only happened in larger stretches of open field (like a 3x3 or larger). Would probably make more sense, since it's easy to hold a pass, but pretty difficult to hold a field. Unless you fill the entire field, I guess. Still, that would be a really, really confusing way of doing things, so probably not going to happen.

I'm sure they put no thought into this at all, and we all know the bozos at firaxis are total fail and noobs to game development, so it's very unlikely they'll create a decent game, and even though few here have played it, everyone here knows the game inside out even though it hasn't been released yet. Pretty amazing how all this works.

Yeah......

The lack of emoticons makes it tough to tell that you're being sarcastic until the second read-through, btw. At least it did for me, but it's 3 a.m. so that may have had something to do with it.

 

[Thyrwyn]

The penalty does have some justifications, as well. All things being equal, any unit is especially vulnerable in open terrain.

Even when considering a mounted unit being attacked by a melee unit: if combat is occurring (in civ terms), then the melee unit has managed to catch up with the mounted unit, so their mobility is not an issue.

 

[Jaybe]

If there is a fortification bonus, perhaps that makes up for the plain terrain penalty.

I had previously thought the penalty only applied to ranged unit targets.

there is a Legion attacking a Swordsman in open terrain. The swordsman unit has a "-33% terrain modifier".

I hadn't seen that one.

 

[Stilgar08]

Does it not stand to reason that perhaps the reason they gave open terrain a -modifier instead of beefing up the hill/forest/jungle +modifier was specifically so that cavalry can fight at full strength in the open? As in if they don't get terrain bonuses, perhaps they don't get open field penalties either? That was my first thought at least, but of course we have no way of confirming.

That sounds quite reasonable - every unit except those which don't receive terrain-modifiers is weaker in plain fields. From cIV those would be the mounted ones...

 

[SalmonSoil]

The bonus from flat terrain (For mounted units in particular) IS THAT IT DOES NOT HAMPER MOVEMENT. They don't need a defensive bonus because they probably shouldn't even be defending. (I have never heard of mounted soldiers being charged ever.)

 

[Xetal]

the -10 (or greater) unhappiness penalty is -33% strength. Are you sure that isn't what you're seeing?

 

[Thyrwyn]

the -10 (or greater) unhappiness penalty is -33% strength. Are you sure that isn't what you're seeing?

Pretty sure

1) The devs are quoted as saying there's a penalty.

2) The penalty in the videos is listed as "-33% terrain modifier"

3) One of the units with the penalty was a Barbarian Brute (not German).

 

[Xetal]

Ahhh, scratch that then.

 

[DeepQantas]

The proper way to avoid the -33% penalty on open terrain is to make sure you attack first. Just like in naval combat, timing matters.

 

[Xetal]

The proper way to avoid the -33% penalty on open terrain is to make sure you attack first. Just like in naval combat, timing matters.

As a turn-based game Civ lacks the ability to portray this well.

Lets say one group of swordsmen attack another group of swordsmen on a flat tile. Both units are aware of the other, this is not a surprise attack. Why would the attacker have a massive terrain advantage? They're both fighting on the same terrain, which doesn't really provide much of an advantage to either party.

The same is true for naval combat and the lack of two way bombardment combat: The length of a turn in the game is months or years, so attacking with a naval unit first isn't "crossing the T".