Can you attack a square without moving into it?
- Thread starter Kolyana
- Start date
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Play CivII. 
No, it's not possible to avoid moving into an area your attack vacated.
No, it's not possible to avoid moving into an area your attack vacated.
Marcus_Aurelius
The True Emporer
I was wishing the same thing the other day when all I had left to defend a city was my chariot and I needed to attack a unit that was on the square next to the city before he could attack me since the Chariot does not get a defense bonus. Attacking left the city undefended. But I think that is one of the reasons you can't stay where you are when you attack, it could be too powerful.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
ikell said:
Why are you not bringing enough troops to cover your wounded? Is there a good rationale for this?
IroquoisPlisken
Brigadier Idiot
^Exactly.
Plus, moving TO the square, then moving BACK after the attack would basically be getting 2 moves.
Plus, moving TO the square, then moving BACK after the attack would basically be getting 2 moves.
Nightfang
'Pointy Stick' Scientist
Your units are moving to that square to attack them, so yes, when the battle was done, and you were victorious, you would still be there. Hence, like stated above, to move again, would be granting the unit two move chances. Too powerful.
Sparrowhawk
The Builder
The obvious exception is when there are multiple enemy units in a square. Then you can attack and your unit returns its starting square.
DeadZoneMDx
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 30
If you could stay in the square, should only be allowed to units with ranged attack (archers, riflemen, tanks, etc)
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Because if I had enough troops to do that, I would not be making sallies against enemies besieging my city.warpstorm said:
You all know the situation; an enemy stack is outside your city, and your units are attacking out to kill them off. If your last attacker is a one-move unit, it will get stuck outside the city, quite probably badly wounded and so easy pickings of any enemy units a couple tiles away. You so wish it could scurry back inside the city walls like the previous attackers did.
This was much worse in CivIII, where your counterattackers were thing like Medieval Infantry, with good offense but poor defense, but it's still annoying.
DeadZoneMDx said:
Exactly.
To those who say "Why do it?" or "Why not back up your unit?", there are PLENTY of scenarios in which this is impossible and undesirable. Protecting a city with an active, offense, for instance. I may want to weaken or destroy the enemy rather than sit tight and let them wander around unchecked, but I don't want to occupy the square they are in because they have units that will then be able to counter attack.
I agree that melee units need to move and engage, period, but ranged units (Artillery, anyone?) or perhaps even ranged units with certain promotions should have the possibility of attacking without moving.
I would not be opposed to this being a weaker attack, promotion dependent, unit dependent, tech dependent or otherwise.
*OR* give me a zone of control like the old coastal fortresses
jameson
Emperor
Weirdly though, if you attack a unit in a roaded square from a roaded square, the action only uses up a unit's movement points as if it was moving along roads. So even move1 units can charge out from a city, fight and withdraw in the same turn !
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
That's true, and an improvement over CivIII in this regard.jameson said:
And it's yet another reason why you should build roads on every tile.
