Combat issues – Defenders Have Unfair Advantage in the Modern Age

[Shackel]

i threw 3 200 units stacks

Talk about overkill!

 

[MosheLevi]

I am going to explain again the issue the way I see it because I think that some people here missed the point.

First I want to say that I am comparing between early ages invasion VS modern age invasion.

In modern age the defender has two advantages he doesn’t have on early ages.

1. Faster movement in his own territory and the ability to attack enemy units from several tiles away while the aggressor still moves and attack one tile per turn.

2. The defender can use guided missile against enemy units while the aggressor cannot do that (in most cases) due to their short range.

All the defender has to do is accumulate large number of mobile artillery and attack the aggressor from far away causing heavy collateral damage, then continue with missile attack (that cannot be intercepted), and then finish the job with his normal units that are now much stronger than the enemy units.

So if there is a 50 unit stack approaching my city I can attack them with 10 mobile artillery (causing collateral damage), followed by 10 missiles, and then 20 more units of mine can kill 15+ enemy units.
At this point the aggressor is in bad shape.

In early ages I couldn’t do any of that.

So if 2:1 aggressor VS defender ratio was sufficient to conquer a city in early ages, now in the modern age it has to be 3:1 and sometimes even 4:1.

I am basically saying that it shouldn’t be harder to attack in the modern age.
Let us keep the difficulty level the same as it is in early ages.

 

[Camikaze]

I am basically saying that it shouldn’t be harder to attack in the modern age.
Let us keep the difficulty level the same as it is in early ages.

The reality is, however, that it is harder to attack in the modern age in the real world. And this is reflected in the game. After industrialisation, weapons have become better for defending, like the machine gun. Look at World War One for an example.

So, the game reflects that you cannot rely on easy late game conquest in order to win the game. Realistically, it is easier early on. And whilst I think that there should be some better early game defence mechanisms, such as defensive trebuchets, realistically, as history has progressed, the defender has become more advantage. This is further evidenced by the defensive bonus culture gives. This is designed to reflect the fact that as time progresses, it is easier to defend.

 

[Naokaukodem]

1. Faster movement in his own territory and the ability to attack enemy units from several tiles away while the aggressor still moves and attack one tile per turn.

Man if you don't read the replies, I can't nothing for you. I repeat what i said before: if with movement your aim is reinforcing, it will be easier to take the following cities. That was your first argument. Now it changes slightly, you say now "bombers" can attack long distances, that is true, but it is not like if you couldn't protect from them. Remind me: do bombers do collateral damage?

2. The defender can use guided missile against enemy units while the aggressor cannot do that (in most cases) due to their short range.

Same question here: do guided missile do collateral damage?

All the defender has to do is accumulate large number of mobile artillery and attack the aggressor from far away causing heavy collateral damage, then continue with missile attack (that cannot be intercepted), and then finish the job with his normal units that are now much stronger than the enemy units.

So if there is a 50 unit stack approaching my city I can attack them with 10 mobile artillery (causing collateral damage), followed by 10 missiles, and then 20 more units of mine can kill 15+ enemy units.
At this point the aggressor is in bad shape.

In early ages I couldn’t do any of that.

I already said you that it was the case since catapults... play some multiplayer game, you will be enlighted.

So if 2:1 aggressor VS defender ratio was sufficient to conquer a city in early ages, now in the modern age it has to be 3:1 and sometimes even 4:1.

For sure, the "ratio" changes since archers to upgrade in longbow, but i wouldn't say 3:1 or 4:1.

I am basically saying that it shouldn’t be harder to attack in the modern age.
Let us keep the difficulty level the same as it is in early ages.

If bombers or missiles don't do collateral damage, never it is harder to attack in modern ages.

 

[MosheLevi]

The reality is, however, that it is harder to attack in the modern age in the real world. And this is reflected in the game. After industrialisation, weapons have become better for defending, like the machine gun. Look at World War One for an example.

So, the game reflects that you cannot rely on easy late game conquest in order to win the game. Realistically, it is easier early on. And whilst I think that there should be some better early game defence mechanisms, such as defensive trebuchets, realistically, as history has progressed, the defender has become more advantage. This is further evidenced by the defensive bonus culture gives. This is designed to reflect the fact that as time progresses, it is easier to defend.

Actually it is easier to attack in the modern age as long as you have air superiority.

I am a retired Israeli officer and I participated in the 1982 Lebanon war fighting against the PLO and Syria, see 1982_Lebanon_War

Israel achieved air superiority after the Israeli Air Force shot down 86 Syrian aircraft, with no air combat losses of its own.
This was the largest combat of the jet age with 150 fighters from both sides.

This allowed Israel to march in fast speed straight to Beirut in just a matter of days.

The US was also able to move its forces very fast to Iraq thanks to its air superiority.

So you see, the slow movement (in Civ 4) in enemy territory doesn’t reflect the reality of modern combat.

Infantry can move 10 tiles in friendly territory while it can only move 1 tile in enemy territory.
That is just extreme.
It’s ironic that I am promoting faster movement in enemy territory because when I played Medieval 2 Total War I called for the exact opposite.
You see, in the Total War series units can move in enemy territory as fast as local units (same movement speed for both sides).
Back then I called for slower movement in enemy territory because I believe that should be the case (even before I played Civ 4).
However, Civ 4 takes it to the extreme while Total War takes it to the opposite extreme.
I say it should be somewhere in the middle.
Infantry units should have 2-3 tile movement in enemy territory in the modern age.

I repeat what i said before: if with movement your aim is reinforcing, it will be easier to take the following cities.

Yes I do that.
However, I find reinforcing slow and tedious for that same reason (slow movement in enemy territory).

Remind me: do bombers do collateral damage?

Yes they do (5-7 units usually).
In fact I use them all the time to defend from SoD’s that march in my territory.
The results are devastating to the enemy.
I was able to wipe out large enemy stacks with ease thanks to my bombers.
In fact that was too easy to do and somewhat boring (unchallenging).

The enemy had more than 15 SAM Mobile units but still my bombers had around 50% success rate and only a few of them were shot down.
I then let the rest of them heal and use them again.

do guided missile do collateral damage?

No they don’t, but they do serious damage and they are cheap.
They do 30% damage to healthy units in most cases.
Bombing an enemy unit with a missile and then use one of my other units to attack that enemy unit can increase the chances of combat success from 30% to 80%.
That is how effective missiles are.
However, due to their short range (4 tiles) defenders can use them much more than attackers.

In any case I find it too easy to defend my territory by taking advantage of the fast movement of my units with the help of my bombers, jet fighter, and guided missiles.

At the same time I find it a bit hard to attack enemy territory in the modern age.
Right now I am attacking the closest cities and I just roll from one city to another.
That is the most viable and effective strategy of attacking.
However, I find it impossible to take a big stack and march deep into enemy territory because that takes too long and my units are just too vulnerable for too long.

Faster unit movement in enemy territory will open to us new strategic ways to attack enemy territory, and flank enemy cities in more satisfying way.

 

[Camikaze]

Actually it is easier to attack in the modern age as long as you have air superiority.

I am a retired Israeli officer and I participated in the 1982 Lebanon war fighting against the PLO and Syria, see 1982_Lebanon_War

Israel achieved air superiority after the Israeli Air Force shot down 86 Syrian aircraft, with no air combat losses of its own.
This was the largest combat of the jet age with 150 fighters from both sides.

This allowed Israel to march in fast speed straight to Beirut in just a matter of days.

The US was also able to move its forces very fast to Iraq thanks to its air superiority.

So you see, the slow movement (in Civ 4) in enemy territory doesn’t reflect the reality of modern combat.

Infantry can move 10 tiles in friendly territory while it can only move 1 tile in enemy territory.
That is just extreme.
It’s ironic that I am promoting faster movement in enemy territory because when I played Medieval 2 Total War I called for the exact opposite.
You see, in the Total War series units can move in enemy territory as fast as local units (same movement speed for both sides).
Back then I called for slower movement in enemy territory because I believe that should be the case (even before I played Civ 4).
However, Civ 4 takes it to the extreme while Total War takes it to the opposite extreme.
I say it should be somewhere in the middle.
Infantry units should have 2-3 tile movement in enemy territory in the modern age.

The scale in Civ 4 would have Israel in the tile next to Beirut. If you are attacking a city in a tile bordering you, then you wont need to worry about the extra advantage defenders have, as you will attack first and take that city before they have a chance to hit you with their defensive might.

And, as for America's invasion of Iraq, I would beg to say that that was easy due to the large superiority of forces, in terms of advancement. If both invasion force and defensive force had power ratings, I dare say that America's would have had that 3:1 ratio. But, yes, air superiority is a large factor. And this is reflected in Civ. If you have unquestioned air superiority, you can do far more damage to the defenders than they can do to you. But if your air forces can't reach the target, as in real life, they will be ineffective.

 

[Xellos-_^]

The scale in Civ 4 would have Israel in the tile next to Beirut. If you are attacking a city in a tile bordering you, then you wont need to worry about the extra advantage defenders have, as you will attack first and take that city before they have a chance to hit you with their defensive might.

And, as for America's invasion of Iraq, I would beg to say that that was easy due to the large superiority of forces, in terms of advancement. If both invasion force and defensive force had power ratings, I dare say that America's would have had that 3:1 ratio. But, yes, air superiority is a large factor. And this is reflected in Civ. If you have unquestioned air superiority, you can do far more damage to the defenders than they can do to you. But if your air forces can't reach the target, as in real life, they will be ineffective.

the major problem with air force in bts is that the game has nerf air superority by limiting only 8 jets/bombers per city and 4 per fort. Back in vanilla i had like 20 fighters and 30 stealth bombers in each front line city.

 

[MosheLevi]

But, yes, air superiority is a large factor. And this is reflected in Civ. If you have unquestioned air superiority, you can do far more damage to the defenders than they can do to you.

But you can still NOT use enemy roads and you cannot move faster in enemy territory.

That is the issue I was talking about all this time.

the major problem with air force in bts is that the game has nerf air superority by limiting only 8 jets/bombers per city and 4 per fort.

It’s actually only 4 per city if you don’t have an airport in that city.
If you have an airport the limit is higher (didn’t have the chance to check the limit yet).

There is no limit for guided missiles so I use them extensively.

 

[Camikaze]

But you can still NOT use enemy roads and you cannot move faster in enemy territory.

That is the issue I was talking about all this time.

Perhaps invaders can have double movement on enemy roads, but at the cost of -10% strength, as they'd be more vulnerable in real life, IMHO. That seems like a reasonable way of balancing the movement side of things a bit more.

It’s actually only 4 per city if you don’t have an airport in that city.
If you have an airport the limit is higher (didn’t have the chance to check the limit yet).

There is no limit for guided missiles so I use them extensively.

Well, as a Mac user, i.e. no BtS, I was unaware of this. It should definitely be done away with.

 

[MosheLevi]

Perhaps invaders can have double movement on enemy roads…

Yes, even 2 tile movement for infantry (and 4 for vehicles) in enemy territory is much better than the way it is now.

Right now I am forcing myself to use only vehicles such as modern armor, mechanized infantry, Mobile SAM, and Mobile Artillery because they have 2 tile movement in enemy territory.
However it is somewhat annoying that I cannot use infantry too (because of their only 1 tile movement).

I think it would be nice if FA adds Transport Trucks for infantry units (in Civ 5) so they can move at the same speed as vehicles.

 

[Xellos-_^]

Yes, even 2 tile movement for infantry (and 4 for vehicles) in enemy territory is much better than the way it is now.

Right now I am forcing myself to use only vehicles such as modern armor, mechanized infantry, Mobile SAM, and Mobile Artillery because they have 2 tile movement in enemy territory.
However it is somewhat annoying that I cannot use infantry too (because of their only 1 tile movement).

I think it would be nice if FA adds Transport Trucks for infantry units (in Civ 5) so they can move at the same speed as vehicles.

why do you want to used infantry when you have mechinf?

 

[MosheLevi]

why do you want to used infantry when you have mechinf?

Because I have some marines and paratroopers left over so the more units I have the better.
They are good as meat shield when the enemy bombards my units and sometimes I am down to the last few units (that can attack) when I am about to take a city.

So I consider these units as reserves.

 

[Xellos-_^]

Because I have some marines and paratroopers left over so the more units I have the better.
They are good as meat shield when the enemy bombards my units and sometimes I am down to the last few units (that can attack) when I am about to take a city.

So I consider these units as reserves.

i found paratroopers pretty damn useless so i never built them. As for marines I used for garrison duty on behind the line cities.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Yes they do (5-7 units usually).

Ouch. Very, very powerfull. I tend to avoid modern wars for that reason, plus the ability they have to pillage any square in long range. I hate modern wars. And by the way, I always found that the movement in enemy territory was too slow, not only in modern era, but in all the eras: once you have discovered the tech, you have to put your science slider to 0 and your gold one to 100, and WAIT the coffers to fullfill. Then, you have to wait several turns more to complete your army with some other units. Only then, you can start to attack the enemy. And by the time you reach his capital, he may have rejoined you in tech, and as the AI has ridiculous upgrade advantages, you get the picture.

What I'm for is automatic upgrade since each tech is discovered, plus instantaneous drafting under any government.

No they don’t, but they do serious damage and they are cheap.

Well, considering that modern eras have plenty units, i would say those kinda sucks. But if you find a good use for them, I am sincerely happy for you. Maybe I should take example on you and insist in using them.

In any case I find it too easy to defend my territory by taking advantage of the fast movement of my units with the help of my bombers, jet fighter, and guided missiles.

That's true for every era to some extent.

At the same time I find it a bit hard to attack enemy territory in the modern age.
Right now I am attacking the closest cities and I just roll from one city to another.
That is the most viable and effective strategy of attacking.
However, I find it impossible to take a big stack and march deep into enemy territory because that takes too long and my units are just too vulnerable for too long.

That is due to railroads, if you start by attacking a civ in modern times by entering directly the enemy country, you will face all his ground forces in 1 turn. On the contrary, if you let his forces approach, you will have no problem to shut them down, just like in anterior eras.

 

[nullspace]

Because I have some marines and paratroopers left over so the more units I have the better.
They are good as meat shield when the enemy bombards my units and sometimes I am down to the last few units (that can attack) when I am about to take a city.

So I consider these units as reserves.

Marines and paratroopers are the fastest units in the game! Marines go on transport ships (5 moves at least) and attack amphibiously. And paratroopers airdrop into enemy territory up to 5 squares from your city. They're not meant to walk through enemy territory. For that you have mech inf, modern armor, mobile artillery, and mobile sams, all of which have two moves. If you need to go even faster on land, there are gunships and the commando promotion. And all of this can be supported by your airforce and even nukes. So there are plenty of options for fast attacks.

But really, defending in the modern age is supposed to by much easier than attacking. The attacker has had lots of time to build up a powerful military for the attack, and there are a lot of features to help that weren't available earlier, like factories, war civics, pentagon, corporations, etc. So if you want to attack, you need to use these to get an overwhelming advantage.

The defender needs some easy advantages in order for peaceful victories to be possible. Say there's one civ going for a culture victory and another civ going for domination victory and they're both doing well with a chance to win. To be strong in culture, the first civ had to give up strength somewhere else, like tech, production, or military. The second civ is weak in culture but strong in military. But to win, the culture civ must achieve victory first, and defend himself from the domination civ. Defending must be easier so that the culture civ has a chance to win even though his military is somewhat weaker.

 

[PieceOfMind]

MosheLevi,

You can base guided missiles in forts in your own territory or in cities you have captured. This won't be an option in the initial assault in an intercontinental invasion but in that case you'd use subs instead.

Having a stack of workers ready to build forts on the frontline as you absorb more territory may give you more chances to use the missiles against enemys defending their territory.

Also, there is no limit for guided missiles (or tactical nukes) in forts/cities either.

 

[AlienSexFilth]

Build Forts 3 tiles into your borders and station mobile SAMs and Fighters/Jet Fighters there with intercept on. This way, your Fighters will be able to cover your stack when advancing through enemy territory, intercept bombers , etc.
But for me, it seems you have chosen a wrong way to attack... going by land, taking 3 turns to reach an enemy city is a no-no. In modern age, when you declare a war, you should get a city the moment you declare on.

As of the movement issue, I think that Mobile Artillery, Modern Armor and Mechanized Infantry should have a movement value of 3 AT LEAST. Tank is ok with a 2 (early tanks were not actually Chevvys on the road ) but all the rest, I cannot accept them be as fast as a freaking Chariot.

 

[MosheLevi]

As of the movement issue, I think that Mobile Artillery, Modern Armor and Mechanized Infantry should have a movement value of 3 AT LEAST. Tank is ok with a 2….

Why only 2 tile movement for tanks?
Tank can travel at approximately 40 kilometers per hour (25 mph) across flat terrain and up to 70 kilometers per hour (43 mph) on roads.

Mobile artillery cannot drive much faster than that.
In fact, Mobile artillery is a tank with larger cannon and no armor.
I was in a mobile artillery division and I know that Mobile artillery have similar speed as tanks.

You can base guided missiles in forts in your own territory or in cities you have captured

Building a fort on the border line is a good idea before the war starts.
However, once I capture the first city the border usually goes right on the city line so building forts closer to enemy cities is no longer a viable option.

Sometimes the next enemy city is 4 tiles away within my guided missiles range but usually it is not.
I then have to rely on superior air force attacking enemy cities, taking down enemy fighters but at the same time suffering heavy casualties from enemy jets and enemy’s Mobile SAM.

It doesn’t take too long to move my forces from one city to the next but it is not really a good idea to skip 2 or 3 cities and go deep into enemy territory to capture a larger city.
The best strategy is role from one city to the next (which is very predictable).

I think that Civ would be more interesting to play if going deep into enemy territory was a viable strategy.
Faster movement in enemy territory would have allowed for that.

I think that CIV 5 needs new transport units on land such as army tracks to transport infantry, and transport helicopters.
Helicopters have 4 tile movement, so if we have the ability to transport 3 infantry units on each helicopter, then it would be possible to send a strike force deep into enemy territory in order to take undefended city in a surprise attack.

I think that would have been great.

 

[Xellos-_^]

Forts never figure much into my style of play. As it is by I usually the one on the offense in a war. The couple of times i built a fort the enemy just by pass it and i usually by pass the fort as well when invading.

 

[Camikaze]

Why only 2 tile movement for tanks?
Tank can travel at approximately 40 kilometers per hour (25 mph) across flat terrain and up to 70 kilometers per hour (43 mph) on roads.

Tanks, not modern armor. Early tanks, which is closer to what is represented in the game, were slower.

I think that Civ would be more interesting to play if going deep into enemy territory was a viable strategy.
Faster movement in enemy territory would have allowed for that.

Perhaps your ambush idea? That was a very good idea.

I think that CIV 5 needs new transport units on land such as army tracks to transport infantry, and transport helicopters.
Helicopters have 4 tile movement, so if we have the ability to transport 3 infantry units on each helicopter, then it would be possible to send a strike force deep into enemy territory in order to take undefended city in a surprise attack.

I agree with this, so long as the transport units and anything in them are as susceptible as naval transports are. And I think they should work the same way, as in, you cannot disembark the same turn you embarked. So, you would use them by filling them up, and then waiting a turn, before declaring war, and moving them to just outside a city, disembarking waiting a turn, and taking the city, before repeating the process.