If all that you have are A's and B's, saying A is at a penalty is the same as saying B is at an advantage. It's just as Shakey-Lo said.
A PENALTY from flat land positions?
- Thread starter Dearmad
- Start date
If all that you have are A's and B's, saying A is at a penalty is the same as saying B is at an advantage. It's just as Shakey-Lo said.
I think only archers & cavalry should be given a bonus when attacking an infantry unit in open terrain. Bonus in Melee infantry vs Melee infantry fight makes no sense.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
If all that you have are A(defenders) and B(attackers) on open terrain, then
Civ 1-4 A=B (neither had advantage or disadvantage
Civ 5 A<B A has a disadvantage or B has a Penalty
This is substantially different than before.
What it is basically doing is making attack strength greater than defense strength by another means, and increasing close terrain bonuses.
Countered by all sorts of defense (in addition to attack) bonuses we are yet ignorant of ... at least the dynamics involved. Active defense, action trumping inaction. Will the AI be active enough and capable of coordinating the movements to maximize the supporting units?
What would happen if there was a "concealment" promotion, allowing an enemy to march right INTO you unawares?
--
Arrggh! Sleepless days and sleepless nights in anticipation, and I REALLY want to be well rested when I get the game!
--
Nonsense, a group of men with any equipment were sitting ducks in an open field, or perhaps you're referring to fortified units? I believe that is already covered by it's own game mechanic.
Well, I wasn't there to watch them, I know that history is written by the victor and having been to Greece, Turkey and Iraq I noticed that there was a lot more than simply flat, open ground. If I have my back to a ridge and you charge across an open field to get to me the fight really isn't happening *in* the open field, is it?
Why?
Since you appear to be as stubborn as I am I'd invite you to find one conclusive (not speculative) example of any military unit in any era not being at a disadvantage while defending wide open, flat land. Make sure there is no fortification involved, nobody is crossing a river and that the fight is *in* the open ground, not at the edge of it. Being caught in the open and forced to defend is the most undesirable situation *any* military unit could find themselves in.
Since Civ 5 is turn based and on a large scale you'll never have the ability to simulate two armies meeting on an open field of battle as in that case, neither is really defending. However, that situation is covered by having either of those units fortified. The penalty for defending flat, open land is both appropriate and interesting from a gameplay standpoint as it makes it possible to actually ambush units and lead decisive counter-attacks, neither of which are really possible otherwise without getting into vastly more complicated sets of bonuses and penalties which have no place in Civ games.
What?
Do you play very passive games by any chance? I've noticed that any mechanic that gives any advantage to the attacker is something you oppose. Perhaps you're not used to turn based games. Remember (I know I've said this a lot) the term 'attacker' only means the person who is actively moving their units at that time. There is nothing preventing you from always being the attacker except for a poor implimentation of your own strategy. Seize the advantage, if that advantage didn't exist the game would be boring as the defender would ALWAYS have the advantage by simply placing all of their units in tiles with a defensive bonus (ala Civ 4 and the stack of doom). Of course, you can still do that and completely ignore any flat land penalty if you so chose, or you can take advantage of the fact that your opponent will be very vulnerable as they move through that open terrain to get to you, a game element that is impossible if not for a penalty for being standing out there in the open.
Right, *you* get to chose which fights happen, unless your strategy has completely failed and you're getting the crap kicked out of you by an opponent that is in control of when and where the fighting happens. The beauty of this is that in your argument the 'you' can be either player, make sure it is you and not me, that's what strategy games are all about.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
They also have a built in advantage in that they can choose to attack (by staying out of range of the enemy until they do so). Therefore, they wouldn't get the -33% modifier unless you're careless (in which case, they would be at a disadvantage in real life in a situation where they are forced to hold a fixed position).
I would argue that, to make up for the flatland penalty, fortification in flatland should be a +33% modifier (basically, bring the units back to even terms). Good representation of digging in so you aren't sitting ducks (of course, I'm dealing with gunpowder onward for the most part here).
I'd also argue that flanking bonuses benefit defense over offense. Since it would be suicide to attack the center line, it forces you to attack the sides. The defender knows this and might be able to position his line so his best defenses are on the sides (perhaps making his line end in a forest or hill or even spreading across to a mountain to block all attacks that don't have a flanking bonus).
Even if the fortification bonus is only 25% it'll work well since the defending unit can easily have ranged units behind it that will be able to fire on any adjacent attackers with impunity. The ability to swap units will also work strongly in the favor of the defender in these hypothetical fights since their units will heal faster in most cases they'll be able to rotate units in and out of the front line much more effectively since the attacker will need their units to have movement points remaining in order to attack. So a slow retreat, for one example, will simply beat out an aggressor through attrition and stall their advance.
The beauty of Civ 5, from what I've gathered, is that the actual fight with all of it's modifiers is going to be the least important aspect of warfare. Positioning, combined arms and the pace of advancement through the enemy is all going to be so much more important than it was in the past. Once people have had a chance to play it we'll probably see some changes in opinion
Maybe they have promos for flat ground battle?
Ahriman
Tyrant
What are you talking about? Have you even looked at most ancient battles? How am I a sitting duck vs other melee attackers?
Suppose that two regiments of swordsmen are fighting each other out in an open field. Why should one of them magically have a massive 33% bonus over the other? The terrain is the same for both of them.
If we're in adjacent tiles, both on open grassland, why should the attacker get an extra advantage?
How about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela
Look at the nice clean formations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Gaugamela,_331_BC_-_Opening_movements.gif
Or:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pharsalus
There is a river nearby, but both sides are on the same side of it.
Or:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zama
Big flat open plain.
Or:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Omdurman
On a wide flat plain, with hills on the edges.
MOST battles have been fought in open ground.
And it certainly doesn't give the attacker any advantage over the defender, it just doesn't give the defender an advantage.
No. Just the opposite. The attacker doesn't need more advantages because they already have strategic initiative. Especially since we've moved away from the ridiculous stack combat system where the defender had a big advantage because the best defender always defended.
Perhaps you're a colossal ass engaging in ad hominem attacks rather than logic?
Sure you do. A unit on a grassland square attacks another unit on a grassland square. They meet on flat ground on open terms.
Uhh, yes, this is how warfare typically works. This is why you typically have to have a superior force to attack against an enemy on good terrain or with foritifcations.
Like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg
Yes, and the person whose turn it is is choosing which fights happen. Which is already a big advantage, as it should be. Strategic initiative is the fundamental advantage of the attacker. They don't need an extra strength bonus too when identical units are fighting on equal ground.
Senethro
Overlord
They give the attack an advantage because hes had to walk through two tiles of indirect fire and is already injured.
Dearmad
Dead weight
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2001
- Messages
- 1,527
But not anything like how they actually worked in history... they were aggressive in the plains. To attack them was to let them control the battle, when in the open field. To defend against them was to let them control the battle, IN the OPEN field.
My point is only that some units should be (I hope) balanced in such a way that not all units receive penalties in the open field. Placing cavalry them in HILLS or FORESTS to AVOID a penalty against a melee unit...? OMFG that would suck hard.
Speculation, I asked for conclusive but I'll play along with you since it's a slow day at work. Of course finding anything conclusive going that far back in history is impossible since they will be based on eye witness accounts which are seldome accurate and frequently embelished, particulay in a society where battle is considered glorious, but anyway from this one in particular:
"the location of Gaugamela has not been established definitively. Supposedly, the battle was held near a hill in the form of a camel's hump"
I didn't really need to read any further than that (if they can't say where it happened with any certainty how can the rest of the account be considered accurate?), but I did for the sake of the debate.
First, I see several units involved (in a Civ sense) not simply 2 with one of them attacking another in an open field. Then we have: "While Darius had a significant advantage in numbers, most of his troops were of a lower quality than Alexander's" which will be relevant in Civ as well in terms of actual units and promotions and very easily relevant enough to offset the penalty for defending in open terrain.
However, the most important part is: "Alexander's decisive attack" So, in this example, you have proven my point for me thank you very much. To summarize, the smaller (but arguably better) Greek army attacked a larger force on an open field and won.
Again, you prove my point for me with a smaller force winning by attacking a larger force on an open field.
For those who do not wish to read the entire article: "Pompey ordered his men not to charge, but to wait until Caesar's legions came into close quarters" Guess who reportedly won?
Again if you read the account and assume it is accurate you see a trend. Infantry attacks infantry in the open field and pushes them back, second line counter-attacks and pushes them back, etc. The common theme is that the ATTACKING melee troops are victorious against the defending melee troops.
I'm not even going to bother disecting the last one.
I think you should re-read those. It sounds like you're getting the role of attacker and defender mixed up, especially in the context of a turn based game. If you think Darius was the attacker in the first example you didn't read the details, the same with the others. In Civ you can't just say that one player si the attacker and the other is the defender, that isn't how it works. If I attack your unit with my unit, I'm the attacker regardless of who started the fight or who owns the tile we're fighting over.
The defender will continue to have a big advantage because terrain bonuses are free in the sense they don't require promotions. There is one exception.
Right. Well, at least I haven't (and won't) call you a 'colossal ass' at least you've made your stance clear now so I'll leave you to your complaining without any fuirther discussion.
Ahriman
Tyrant
What? It was near a hill, thats an identifying landmark, it wasn't held on a hill. It was flat plains. They just don't know which flat plains.
So? There is a row of units on flat terrain across from another row of units on flat terrain.
But has absolutely nothing to do with whether flat terrain gave an inherent advantage to the attacker or not. Troop quality is modeled in Civ with an entirely different mechanic.
No, your point isn't proved at all.
The Greek army didn't win because it was on an open field, they won because of superior quality and tactics.
The challenge was to find battles on an open field where that wasn't a disadvantage, not to find open field battles where the attacker didn't win. Though that can be done too.
If you want examples where the attacker is defeated (though again not because of terrain):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk
Pretty much anything in WW1 (attackers repulsed again and again)
Again, you fail the basic issue: the victory had nothing to do with the fact that they were both on an open field.
The attacker always wins most battles, because if they didn't think they were going to win, they wouldn't attack. Generals aren't suicidal.
The common theme is that on open ground, the terrain provides an advantage neither to the attacker, not defender, and victory is based on troop size, quality and tactics.
Dearmad
Dead weight
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2001
- Messages
- 1,527
Uh beg to differ with both of you- the type of troop matters. Any of you infantry types want to charge a position of archer cavalry on the open ground!?!? Even with your spears?
This is the story of the huns and the khans again and again... open ground was the advantage at ALL times whether defense or offense, because defense was turned into an offensive situation instantly because of maneuverability... wait for it... ON the OPEN GROUND. It didn't matter what they faced, archers on foot, spear defenses, legion types, field weaponry, anything...
This is the story of the huns and the khans again and again... open ground was the advantage at ALL times whether defense or offense, because defense was turned into an offensive situation instantly because of maneuverability... wait for it... ON the OPEN GROUND. It didn't matter what they faced, archers on foot, spear defenses, legion types, field weaponry, anything...
Probably a flaw in the overal combat system/1upt they are trying to correct for, to make attacking viable.
Yep, something like that.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Yes, probably.
But I hope that this is a gameplay-oriented decision they came to through testing, rather than an arbitrary "wouldn't-it-be-cool" design decision.
The combat odds display changes so often that I had stopped paying attention to it, but it does appear a little more consistent in the recent videos, and I think Thyrwyn is correct.
I've gone over the recent videos, and the terrain bonus/penalty appears to be binary, based on whether the terrain is ROUGH (hills, forest or jungle) or OPEN (anything else). So you get +25% bonus for defending in rough terrain, and -33% penalty for open terrain.
That seems a little bit harsh, as 33% is a pretty huge advantage to give to the unit that strikes first (when both are standing in open terrain). Maybe that makes sense for ranged attacks, but not as much for melee attacks.
Notice though that the defensive bonus for rough terrain is a flat 25%; it doesn't matter whether it is hills, forest, or hills+forest. You can see a case of a Spearman defending against a Legion in Hills+Forest terrain at 2:09 in the IGN video.
You still get the other bonuses/penalties as well:
+25% unit fortification bonus
-20% crossing river penalty
+15% flanking bonus (per unit)
+25% bonus for nearby Great General
+15% bonus for one adjacent friendly unit with Discipline social policy
I've gone over the recent videos, and the terrain bonus/penalty appears to be binary, based on whether the terrain is ROUGH (hills, forest or jungle) or OPEN (anything else). So you get +25% bonus for defending in rough terrain, and -33% penalty for open terrain.
That seems a little bit harsh, as 33% is a pretty huge advantage to give to the unit that strikes first (when both are standing in open terrain). Maybe that makes sense for ranged attacks, but not as much for melee attacks.
Notice though that the defensive bonus for rough terrain is a flat 25%; it doesn't matter whether it is hills, forest, or hills+forest. You can see a case of a Spearman defending against a Legion in Hills+Forest terrain at 2:09 in the IGN video.
You still get the other bonuses/penalties as well:
+25% unit fortification bonus
-20% crossing river penalty
+15% flanking bonus (per unit)
+25% bonus for nearby Great General
+15% bonus for one adjacent friendly unit with Discipline social policy
Ahriman
Tyrant
Which means the difference is vast: 1.25 vs 0.67
You are nearly twice as effective defending on a hill than you are in the open.
But surely if anyone the defender would be the the first to fire with ranged attacks? Thinking about a regiment of muskets marching up to exchange fire with the defender.
I wonder if this will be a single turn thing like in Civ1-3, or a gradual thing like in Civ4.
Similar threads
