Combat formations

[Louis XXIV]

I think it's interesting that people are talking about such large groups of forces...

I remember one of the reviewers of the demo at Gamescom said that, since they didn't have many units, combat basically felt like a Civ4 game. For the purposes of discussion, we're assuming enough units to make the game noticeably different from the predecessor (there's no point in discussing formats if you have 2 swordsmen and an archer).

 

[ShaqFu]

Has there been any mention of if civilian units get captured/killed as soon as the military unit on it falls? I'm asking, since it's relevant for Great General placement and maximizing its +25% combat bonus.

 

[Louis XXIV]

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.

I would argue that there shouldn't be a cap. Afterall, there is a natural cap of five (that's all that can surround the unit, not counting the attacking unit). And a unit that is surrounded completely honestly deserves to lose (leaving aside Sun Tzu's theories for a moment). The effect is powerful, but not overwhelming. A swordsman I believe has a strength of 11. With flanking bonuses attacking a completely surrounded unit, it would max out at 19.25. While quite good, it doesn't even outdo some of the bonuses units got against other units in Civ4 (some had +100%, this is +75%).

 

[PeterWimsey]

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.

That's not how tanks work historically at all. Infantry, usually with much artillery support, first make a breakthrough. Tanks then go through the hole made by the infantry and use their superior speed to attack weaker and unprepared rear units. Tanks without infantry are too vulnerable to concealed and emplaced anti-tank assets.

 

[migkillertwo]

I would argue that there shouldn't be a cap. Afterall, there is a natural cap of five (that's all that can surround the unit, not counting the attacking unit). And a unit that is surrounded completely honestly deserves to lose (leaving aside Sun Tzu's theories for a moment). The effect is powerful, but not overwhelming. A swordsman I believe has a strength of 11. With flanking bonuses attacking a completely surrounded unit, it would max out at 19.25. While quite good, it doesn't even outdo some of the bonuses units got against other units in Civ4 (some had +100%, this is +75%).

But you also have to remember that if you have 6 units surrounding one unit, then you shouldn't be attacking it only once. If any other unit attacks, they also get the 80% flanking bonus, and if the surrounded unit attacks any of the unit, the defending unit gets 80% bonus.

So if the strengths of the surrounded units and the surrounding units are at all comparable, its a guarantee that the surrounded unit will be destroyed failing that there is a massive army standing by just to bust the unit out of the pincer.

 

[AriochIV]

Has there been any mention of if civilian units get captured/killed as soon as the military unit on it falls? I'm asking, since it's relevant for Great General placement and maximizing its +25% combat bonus.

It appears that civilian units will be captured/killed without a fight if a hostile military unit enters the same hex. The GiantBomb video showed an enemy Worker being captured.

Of course, it's unlikely they'll let you capture a Great General, so it that case it will probably be destroyed.

 

[SirSaab]

I'm just gonna spam siege units! Like so:

xxx
x x
x

 

[qwerty25]

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.

Actually if those place holders might actually be useful. Well if you don't make a huge number of them making you bankrupt. They can give your unit's flanking bonuses, serve as meat shields for your stronger units, and attack (probably useless) if needed. Their meat shield efficiency will defend on how many hits they can take before dieing.

 

[SalmonSoil]

Has anyone considered the tactical importance of having cavalry /scouts movign ahead of your army, watching for enemy movements? I know I certainly will. That way, with forewarning of any enemy assault you could move your cavalry around in a wide arc for a direct attack on enemy archers/artillery.

 

[Elenhil]

Given the 'non-lethality' the devs talk of, even weak units would require two or three units to kill it altogether - so much for a mere speed bump! The thing I'm sick of is the notion that ANY type of unit can prevent a tank or a gunship (even more bizzare) from going past them at full speed. It is one thing for a couple of infantry units to stop a tank. Now, to imagine a couple of scouts routinely holding down a Blitzkrieg requires a suspension of disbelief. It's like any unit is a regular 300 Spartans.

IMHO, it is a shame and a tactics killer that 1UPT+'non-lethality' means a unit's primary value is the fact it occupies a hex (and stops enemies from sidestepping it), not its actual combat strength.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Tanks will still be able to take out scouts in one turn. The "non-lethality" clause only applies to units that are comparable in strength. No need to panic yet

 

[Haig]

I think it would be cool that CiV would show the power of trench warfare, that really started during the Crimean war and is most well known from WWI, when infantry assaults were stopped on machinegun and trench defences.

Like the invention of Rifling or something would allow infantry units to construct trenches that could bring stalemates to wars between advanced nations, and later the invention of tanks, air support etc. would again help to overcome those obstacles.

 

[Calouste]

Trench warfare was modeled quite ok in Civ4 with Machine Guns (except that they forgot to give them a bonus against mounted). Very effective against gunpowder units, but somewhat helpless against tanks.

Don't think there is anything like that in Civ5 though.

 

[migkillertwo]

Trench warfare was modeled quite ok in Civ4 with Machine Guns (except that they forgot to give them a bonus against mounted). Very effective against gunpowder units, but somewhat helpless against tanks.

Don't think there is anything like that in Civ5 though.

someone should mod it in. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of infantry-killing unit (machine guns) are in Civilization V that come along before tanks. Trench warfare was a very important part of our history.

 

[Ahriman]

There seems to be nothing that models trench warfare.
No machinegun unit.
The fortification bonus of 25% doesn't even cover the -33% open terrain penalty.

So, two WW1 infantry units on flat ground. One attacks the other, which is fortified. The *attacker* has higher strength.
Which is bizarre.

I think its a big shame. I really liked how some previous versions of civ modeled the historic swings between dominant offense and dominance defense in different eras, trench war breaking into mechanized mobile war being the most significant of these.

 

[Sonereal]

There seems to be nothing that models trench warfare.
No machinegun unit.
The fortification bonus of 25% doesn't even cover the -33% open terrain penalty.

That's the biggest problem I have right now and I'm sure some modder is going to want to tweak that so only certain units (cavalry and tanks....maybe GDR) can take advantage of the -33% open terrain penalty.

 

[12agnar0k]

I'm not that fond of the decision to input a -33% open penalty, I would have thought defenders were getting the short end of the stick as it was, but apparently it was decided to be implemented for balance reasons one would guess, so I will wait till I play to make a verdict on it.