Combat formations

[ShaqFu]

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

What era are you seeing these armies in? Between limited strategic resources, high hammer costs, and "supply" (which I'm still very interested in) I don't see huge armies being viable before the early modern period. It sounds as if we'll see a lot of single climatic battles in the ancient/classical eras (Marathon), as entire small armies are wiped out in a few turns, and bloody grinds in the post-industrial era (Stalingrad), with dozens of units dying over the span of a half-century.

Kinda like real history. I know Gameplay > Realism, but you have to give credit to Firaxis for really getting the Realism feel down so well.

I'm a Builder at heart but after reading In the Presence of Mine Enemies I've learned that leveling a city to the ground should give me a canvas to paint a new image.

Ed Ayers or Harry Turtledove?

 

[Tarkhan]

I like a good balance of gameplay and realism. The realism shouldnt hamstring the game, but Civ should be historically accurate enough that it resembles the real timeline. Sort of a "what if Rome never fell" alternate reality.

 

[Mannu]

Do we know how flanking will work? Is there unit facing? If not how can they determine whether or not an attacking unit is rushing head on into a unit or should get a flanking bonus? Panzer General maps (if I remember correctly) always begun with forces facing each other, left to right.

 

[Txurce]

I think we really need to start looking at what the best defensive strategies should/will be - because that will largely determine the offensive strategies used to counter them. Terrain plays such a huge part in this, and will often require a defensive line that is not straight: so when is it more important to maintain a strong line, and when is it more important to follow the defensive terrain (trees, hills, rivers)? You want the enemies front line in open terrain (-33% defensive penalty), and you want enough ranged units in your second line to punish those same units. . .

Keeping the initiative by staying on the offensive is almost always a good strategic plan. But when encountering the enemy in battle, it seems like the AI will form itself in sensible formations. This is why I expect customized defense using terrain, followed by counter-attack, to be the most effective response to the AI. The goal would be to have the AI break up his own formation, and expose it to your flanking moves.

Now, we should learn from Hannibal. Battle of Cannae, wher Hannibal defeated Rome's army that was twice as his.?

This is a good example of what I mean about (for example) using a weak center to draw the enemy into an exposed position, where even a larger AI opponent could be beaten piecemeal by better positioning.

 

[Ahriman]

Do we know how flanking will work?

Yes. You get a +15% combat bonus (up to some cap maybe??) for each friendly unit you have adjacent to a unit you are attacking.

So for example, if you're going to gangbash an enemy with several of yours, you should move up all your units to surround them before you start attacking with any of them, so all your attacks get the bonus.

Is there unit facing?

No.

If not how can they determine whether or not an attacking unit is rushing head on into a unit or should get a flanking bonus?

Flanking is solely based on the presence of other units.

 

[Txurce]

What era are you seeing these armies in? Between limited strategic resources, high hammer costs, and "supply" (which I'm still very interested in) I don't see huge armies being viable before the early modern period.

My sense from screenshots is that battles seem small compared to Civ4, and that terrain leads to formations that are narrow but deep.

The following formation is viable, but is probably as wide as you could hope to deploy"

As far as defensive alignment, considering the terrain I would try the following:

1) Place your strongest defensive unit (infantry) forward on the strongest defensive bonus tile
2) Flank left and right back hexes.
3) Ranged unit rear hex.
4) Mobile units on the flanks, but far enough away to not present a target.
5) Line should end, if possible on strong defensive tiles, probably with anti-mobile units such as spears.
6) Support units in the rear to counter where the enemy attacks.

In this setup:
1) The enemy must attack units on the strongest defensive tiles OR present their flanks to those units by attacking a unit that is set back from that unit.
2) Attacking units will be vulnerable to ranged fire from the rear hex.
3) The lines flanks are hopefully strong enough to hold while mobile units swoop in and flank the attackers flanking units.

vulnerabilities:
1) The forward defensive infantry can't be supported by reserves because the ranged unit in the rear hex means that the closest reserves are two tiles away. Might make a promotion for an extra movement point important for units you intend to act as reserves.
2) An attacking force that employs an unbalanced line and pushes hard on one of the flanks could cause problems, depending on the terrain behind your units. If successful it may cause the defensive line to have to shift, perhaps onto less defensively valuable tiles.

 

[migkillertwo]

Do we know how flanking will work? Is there unit facing? If not how can they determine whether or not an attacking unit is rushing head on into a unit or should get a flanking bonus? Panzer General maps (if I remember correctly) always begun with forces facing each other, left to right.

There are adjacent unit bonuses and flanking bonuses of 15% for each unit. For instance, if I have two units attacking one unit, each of the attacking units will get a 15% bonus. So if you manage to completely surround an enemy unit, you're pretty much guaranteed to win.

This means that if you have a bunch of cavalry, just movement abilities of the mounted units will give you a big bonus in combat.

Again, this is why I am extremely excited about fighting a war in Civ V. Sure tanks have machine guns and huge 120mm cannons and that gives them a big edge, but Civ IV didn't make the movement abilities of tanks important, whereas in real life their speed makes them REALLY ****ING IMPORTANT.

 

[SRV]

That's a good point I never thought to use my calv/tanks just to move them in for the flanking bonus.

 

[DioAurion]

Keeping strong formations versus efficiency of conquest is going to be another limiting factor in building your armies.

Think about the terrain. Mountains and hills and deserts will slow your front line movement from 2 to 1. The larger your army, the wider the formation will have to be to keep prepared for ambushes and cavalry flanks.

You'll also have to consider the promotions you give your units. If a valley with hills on the side separates you and your opponent, you'll want melee specialized in rough landscape fighting to be the book-ends on your front line.

 

[Elenhil]

So far I see regrettably little chances of punching through the lines or speed flanking due to the ZoC dead-stop effect. What's the point of breaking through a line, then?

 

[migkillertwo]

So far I see regrettably little chances of punching through the lines or speed flanking due to the ZoC dead-stop effect. What's the point of breaking through a line, then?

ZOC only works if you move from one tile that is adjacent to a unit to another tile that is adjacent to that same unit. If your units are fast enough (Cavalry, tanks, mech infantry) you can just move outside any one ZOC.

 

[r_rolo1]

Note, he is talking of breaking a enemy line by killing a unit, and then punch that advantage out ( somewhat like it happened in Trafalgar ). It has nothing to do with the ability of flanking a enemy, that ,as you pointed , can be adressed by using fast units ( if the terrain allows , OFC )

 

[Elenhil]

Exactly. I've outlined a more realistic ZoC mechanic elsewhere that would enable that kind of tactics.

 

[AriochIV]

It's pretty easy to kill a single unit (with a ranged attack and two melee attacks), so without the Zone of Control rule, it would be way too easy to run a mounted unit through the hole and trash all the ranged units. It's required for the system to work.

The way the rule is set up though, it does allow you to get through a 2-hex gap by zigzagging.

 

[Lyoncet]

The way the rule is set up though, it does allow you to get through a 2-hex gap by zigzagging.

Which, IMO, is a perfect compromise.

 

[Elenhil]

It's pretty easy to kill a single unit (with a ranged attack and two melee attacks)

I wouldn't call THAT easy! So it's no problem for me. Still, with ZoC the whole point of this thread (double lines) is somewhat missing

 

[Txurce]

Still, with ZoC the whole point of this thread (double lines) is somewhat missing

Double lines isn't the whole point of this thread - it's one possible formation, likely to be prevalent because geography will inhibit the creation of wide formations.

 

[Sonereal]

What era are you seeing these armies in? Between limited strategic resources, high hammer costs, and "supply" (which I'm still very interested in) I don't see huge armies being viable before the early modern period. It sounds as if we'll see a lot of single climatic battles in the ancient/classical eras (Marathon), as entire small armies are wiped out in a few turns, and bloody grinds in the post-industrial era (Stalingrad), with dozens of units dying over the span of a half-century.

Kinda like real history. I know Gameplay > Realism, but you have to give credit to Firaxis for really getting the Realism feel down so well.

Can't wait for the Battle of Troy mod that will surely pop up (right modders?)

Ed Ayers or Harry Turtledove?

Turtledove.

 

[Elenhil]

Anyway, it is kind of countertactical for a tank not to be able to punch through enemy lines at full speed because of virually ANY kind of unit, however weak (technically even a Warrior or a scout), standing - not even IN the way - ALONG the way.

Vice versa, to successfully obstruct even the most mobile enemy units by sheer placeholder units is a tactic as improbable as it is inevitable thanks to a nondiscriminate ZoC effect. Cheap resourceless unit spam rules the field.

 

[Seven05]

Anyway, it is kind of countertactical for a tank not to be able to punch through enemy lines at full speed because of virually ANY kind of unit, however weak (technically even a Warrior or a scout), standing - not even IN the way - ALONG the way.

Vice versa, to successfully obstruct even the most mobile enemy units by sheer placeholder units is a tactic as improbable as it is inevitable thanks to a nondiscriminate ZoC effect. Cheap resourceless unit spam rules the field.

History has shown that tanks are far from indestructible even when they face only poorly equipped foot soldiers. In fact, punching through blindly like that is probably the best way to ensure their own destruction

Cheap, 'resourceless' units will probably be little more than a speed bump for an army with even the slightest amount of combined arms and tactical movement. It's also pretty easily counted by simply not attack to see how long your opponent will bleed gold paying for that wide spread line of placeholders.