combat and retreating + fortification

[criZp]

now when attacking a unit, if the attacker cant kill the defender the attacker will always retreat to the tile he came from.

would it not make more sense if the retreating unit would be the one that took most damage? so if the defender takes more damage they will move to a tile away from the attacker, and the attacker remains on the tile where they fought, where the defender used to stand.

especially if paired with a lowering of the huge +65% defense bonus from fortification/terrain, being one military tech level ahead would become much more important if you could eliminate that defensive bonus with one attack.

I do imagine early all-out attacks could become annoying for non-warmongers without such a reliable defensive combat bonus. This might be fixed by adjusting the unit supply in low-pop civs, ie if you just have a city of 7 and a city of 3 people then you cant support around 10 combat units, maybe more like 6 (not counting scouts)

interesting idea or not?

 

[Acken]

No because when you move forward in the 1upt combat of civ5 and civ6 you get into a higher danger zone with more range and melee unit being able to attack the tile you just moved on. The current efficient way is usually to not break your melee line and use ranged units to finish off enemies. The fact that a melee unit occupy the tile of the unit it killed is a huge problem for melee survivability and one of the major reason why horses are more practical since they can move back after killing a unit.

That solution would be an additional blow to melee efficiency. So unless you compensate by allowing for the unit to move back it wouldnt be a good idea.

 

[criZp]

Interesting, but how would it pick which tile to retreat to? What if there are non available?

Anyway, I might not want my attacking unit to move forward if it "wins" the combat.

Might just let the player choose a tile to retreat, and include an option to autoretreat (have computer choose). If no tiles are available to the defender the attacker will have to retreat even if he does more damage.

Could also include an attack option where your attackers retreat, even if the defender has room to retreat and your attackers deal more damage, so the whole thing becomes optional and simply gives extra tactical room.

 

[Big J Money]

An interesting idea, although I'm not sold it adds much.

Plus now you've got to teach the AI to understand such tactics. So this isn't so easily implemented.

 

[Acken]

While having the option instead would add tactical gameplay it also adds extra clicks from a part of the game where many users are already feeling takes too much time and too much micro.

 

[lankypeter]

I would say auto-retreat would depend on attacking vs. defending (not on the specific attack, but regarding the overall war/territory). If I'm attacking, I'm fine with auto-retreat. If I'm defending, auto retreat could be disastrous. I don't want my line to break, I don't want to lose that district, etc. There are times where losing a unit is a better option (or the only option) and I don't want any retreat. Best case IMO would be the option to retreat to a specific hex if you want to, but you don't have to do it. But, as said above, that adds a lot more clicks/actions for each specific battle.

 

[Krajzen]

No because when you move forward in the 1upt combat of civ5 and civ6 you get into a higher danger zone with more range and melee unit being able to attack the tile you just moved on. The current efficient way is usually to not break your melee line and use ranged units to finish off enemies. The fact that a melee unit occupy the tile of the unit it killed is a huge problem for melee survivability and one of the major reason why horses are more practical since they can move back after killing a unit.

That solution would be an additional blow to melee efficiency. So unless you compensate by allowing for the unit to move back it wouldnt be a good idea.

This.
Defender's retreat would be really bad idea.

 

[criZp]

If I'm attacking, I'm fine with auto-retreat. If I'm defending, auto retreat could be disastrous. I don't want my line to break, I don't want to lose that district, etc.

That's the idea really. To make military tech more important, as it allows you to break the fortifications of lagging opponents. If you don't want your line broken at any cost then you better keep up in the lower part of the tech three.

 

[isau]

I don't agree with this. However, I do strongly feel a unit should not be able to regen health if it took damage the turn before, even if it technically stood there and someone else did the attacking. Being attacked should interupt healing, so that the ideal way to deal with assault is not to just park.