Combat issues – Defenders Have Unfair Advantage in the Modern Age

[PieceOfMind]

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.

I don't use forts a great deal either but when I do use them they're more often for an offensive position or advantage than defensive. Obviously it makes sense for your enemy to go around your forts, but you can use that to your advantage. It is where you can base some of your reactionary troops and extra aircraft etc. Paradropping from them and basing missiles are offensive advantages.

 

[Xellos-_^]

I don't use forts a great deal either but when I do use them they're more often for an offensive position or advantage than defensive. Obviously it makes sense for your enemy to go around your forts, but you can use that to your advantage. It is where you can base some of your reactionary troops and extra aircraft etc. Paradropping from them and basing missiles are offensive advantages.

i don't use paratroops. Never found much use for them. As far as building them, by the time i finish working every tile in my terrority and can free up the workers to built them i don't need them. 9 out of 10 my army is on the offensive.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I was really just trying to say that what you said earlier was a non-argument.

As premise/conclusion you loosely wrote:

P1. I am on the offensive.
P2. Forts are good at defending positions.
C: Forts are of no use in my offensive war.

C does not follow from P1 and P2.

My argument:

P1. I am on the offensive.
P2. Forts are good at defending positions.
C: Forts are good at defending positions during an offensive.

C follows from P1 and P2. Note however that it does not mean forts are necessarily useful during an offensive war. They will only be useful if there are points you wish to hold/defend and that is the whole point.

The point of forts is not to build them on your borders in the vain hope that your enemy will attack your units garrisoned in them, but to keep your enemies off the fort tiles, usually with minimal defensive garrison needed.

 

[Camikaze]

I propose making forts more useful. Give them 50% defensive bonuses, and make them unusable by enemies, perhaps.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Forts cannot be used by your enemies unless they lie in neutral territory. Or did you mean they should not be able to enter the plot with the fort?

As for a 50% defense bonus, I think it would be too much, and making forts too powerful would IMO be a bigger problem than them being too weak. Keep in mind CG promotions work in forts, and that forests are not cleared on fort tiles. A fort on a forest hill would give 125% defense with your proposal, or 200% defense with CG3. Longbows and archers would get further bonuses due to being in a city tile and a hill as well (at least another 50%).

IMHO I think the current +25% is fairly balanced.

I think the problem with forts is they take slightly too long to build. They should only take 7 or 8 turns to build instead of 10, on Normal speed.

 

[Camikaze]

Forts cannot be used by your enemies unless they lie in neutral territory. Or did you mean they should not be able to enter the plot with the fort?

Yeah. Although, you could have a situation where a city is completely surrounded by forts, and therefore, is unable to be taken. Also, it's probably a bit silly to not allow enemy forces to enter an empty fort.

As for a 50% defense bonus, I think it would be too much, and making forts too powerful would IMO be a bigger problem than them being too weak. Keep in mind CG promotions work in forts, and that forests are not cleared on fort tiles. A fort on a forest hill would give 125% defense with your proposal, or 200% defense with CG3. Longbows and archers would get further bonuses due to being in a city tile and a hill as well (at least another 50%).

IMHO I think the current +25% is fairly balanced.

I think the problem with forts is they take slightly too long to build. They should only take 7 or 8 turns to build instead of 10, on Normal speed.

This could be the problem. Maybe make them buildable in 2 turns,so you can easily make them in the event of a war, just like trenches, or something.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Also, it's probably a bit silly to not allow enemy forces to enter an empty fort.

Silly is the main theme of Civ. Like when 4 horse archers beat an Infantry.

 

[Camikaze]

Silly is the main theme of Civ. Like when 4 horse archers beat an Infantry.

Well this silliness and absurdity should be changed, and not suggested. That is, after all, the whole point of Civ Ideas & Suggestions, IMHO. To iron out the crinkles.

The situation you suggested is quite ridiculous, but it could be feasible with, say 8 horse archers. Imagine a group of, let's say, 100 infantrymen. If they were attacked by 800 guys on horse, with bows and arrows, there is quite a large possibility that they would lose. So, perhaps instead of making it impossible to kill units that are a lot better than yours, there should be some sort of modifier, that increases as the difference in the starting strengths of the two opposing units does. For instance, even if an Infantry with health of 2 faced a Horse Archer, it would still get the same modifier bonus as when it had 20 health. Or something like that.

 

[Shackel]

Actually, I found that the fact that "Mechanized Infantry", which is a Bradley APC(ARMORED PERSONAL CARRIER, in fact does NOT carry any infantry, Marines, or anyone.

Shouldn't there be carriers for land(APCs), sea(Transports), AND air(C-30 Hercules)?

 

[Camikaze]

Yes, there should. I hadn't considered air before, but this is kind of covered by paratroopers. And as for land, I think the assumption is that troops stay within their mechanized infantry vehicles. APC's would have to be different units, IMO.

 

[Shackel]

Well, the model for the Mechanized Infantry is a Bradley APC, which (kinda) makes you think that it should be able to carry troops.

Also, air should have one, very important thing.

Refueling planes. They can be planted up to 20 tiles away from a city, and they stay up for 2 turns, traveling back on the 2nd turn. Now, your bombers can finally hit that increasingly annoying continent on the other side of the world.

 

[cardgame]

The only solution to this 3:1 of attackers:defenders problem is to have an airforce.

If it is out of range, take a carrier. If a carrier still cannot reach, then just build a fortress or four somewhere close to them before declaring, and guard them while your airforce pummels the enemy, then move in for the kill. This is very simple and straightforward.

Well this silliness and absurdity should be changed, and not suggested. That is, after all, the whole point of Civ Ideas & Suggestions, IMHO. To iron out the crinkles.

The situation you suggested is quite ridiculous, but it could be feasible with, say 8 horse archers. Imagine a group of, let's say, 100 infantrymen. If they were attacked by 800 guys on horse, with bows and arrows, there is quite a large possibility that they would lose. So, perhaps instead of making it impossible to kill units that are a lot better than yours, there should be some sort of modifier, that increases as the difference in the starting strengths of the two opposing units does. For instance, even if an Infantry with health of 2 faced a Horse Archer, it would still get the same modifier bonus as when it had 20 health. Or something like that.

How about something more like this: Modern era units -> 20% bonus against industrial, medieval, classic, and ancient units...
Industrial units -> 20% bonus against medieval, classic, ancient... you get the picture. Right?

TBH this is in LoR in the Navy; every ship gets abonus against ships of previous Ship Ages. For example, steamships get +20% bonuses against Age of Sail ships, and Modern ships get +20% against steamships and Age of Sail ships.

 

[cardgame]

sorry double post

 

[Camikaze]

How about something more like this: Modern era units -> 20% bonus against industrial, medieval, classic, and ancient units...
Industrial units -> 20% bonus against medieval, classic, ancient... you get the picture. Right?

TBH this is in LoR in the Navy; every ship gets abonus against ships of previous Ship Ages. For example, steamships get +20% bonuses against Age of Sail ships, and Modern ships get +20% against steamships and Age of Sail ships.

Yeah, that makes sense, although you would've thought that they'd try and factor this in when deciding units initial strength. I mean, why make Infantry 20 when you could make it 24 and already factor in that extra 20%?

 

[MosheLevi]

The only solution to this 3:1 of attackers/defenders problem is to have an airforce.

Yes definitely.
But that is NOT the issue.

The issue is that we have to move from one city to the next which is limiting our strategy.
Currently it is a suicide to move an entire stack deep inland into enemy territory bypassing two or three cities and going for their capital (as an example).

The slow movement, vulnerability to air attacks, and no air support will cause this strategy to fail every single time.
Before the Modern Age this strategy could have worked.

If it is out of range, take a carrier. If a carrier still cannot reach, then just build a fortress or four somewhere close to them before declaring, and guard them while your airforce pummels the enemy, then move in for the kill. This is very simple and straightforward.

Yes, and that is why I am playing a campaign with one continent.
I can just use carriers to attack cities on the water.
However, this would NOT work for maps that have little or no water.

Currently we have the “Commando” promotion that allows military units to use roads and railroads in enemy territory.
The problem is that Combat 4 is required before you can get this promotion.
I never managed to get a unit this far.

If they move the “Commando” promotion down to be a third promotion then more units will have access to it (but not all units), and striking deep in enemy territory will then be more viable strategy in the Modern age.

 

[Hail]

The situation you suggested is quite ridiculous, but it could be feasible with, say 8 horse archers. Imagine a group of, let's say, 100 infantrymen. If they were attacked by 800 guys on horse, with bows and arrows, there is quite a large possibility that they would lose. So, perhaps instead of making it impossible to kill units that are a lot better than yours, there should be some sort of modifier, that increases as the difference in the starting strengths of the two opposing units does. For instance, even if an Infantry with health of 2 faced a Horse Archer, it would still get the same modifier bonus as when it had 20 health. Or something like that.

that depends on what the infantry were armed with. ak-47, carabines, or 19 century rifles. and greatly depeneds on the terrain. additionaly the horse archers will be suffering morale degradation as their fellows in the front lines get slaughtered.

Yes definitely.
But that is NOT the issue.

The issue is that we have to move from one city to the next which is limiting our strategy.
Currently it is a suicide to move an entire stack deep inland into enemy territory bypassing two or three cities and going for their capital (as an example).

The slow movement, vulnerability to air attacks, and no air support will cause this strategy to fail every single time.

add to your stack of doom some sam infantry and/or mobile sams. and yes the fighters will no longer protect you and the bombers will be useless. i think that it's the way firaxis wanted it to be.

Before the Modern Age this strategy could have worked.

really? even if the ai will start mass producing siege units?

i think that the main issue of civ4 war model is that tank loosing about 60% of it's "health" turns into a knight. that should not be so.

 

[MosheLevi]

add to your stack of doom some sam infantry and/or mobile sams. and yes the fighters will no longer protect you and the bombers will be useless. i think that it's the way firaxis wanted it to be.

Sam Infantry has only 40% chance to intercept aircraft.
Even with the first Interception promotion the chance is only 50%.
The enemy can just have 20 bombers attacking that SoD every turn.
Half of them will be intercepted but only a few will be shot down.
The other 10 will cause 10% damage for each unit in the SoD (assuming there are 50-60 units) every turn (assuming the enemy keeps training new bombers to replace the ones that were shot down).
Just imagine what happens to this SoD after 10 turns of movement deep into enemy territory.

Going deep into enemy territory is only viable with mobile SAM units that have both Interception promotions.
The chances of interception are then 80% and more intercepted aircraft will be shot down.
The only problem is that it is hard to come by with 20 mobile SAM with both interception promotions.

So I think that the Interception promotion has to become better and/or easier to come by.
Either that or allow for increase movement in enemy territory via new promotions that are easier to get.

 

[Shackel]

Well, I think realism does come into play, here. The Modern Age brings in all types of units, and has many, MANY different strategies.

Yes, in Ancient through Renaissance rushing through to their capital may just work. However, in today's time, do you think if America just sent a huge fleet of ships carrying SEALS, Tanks, and Artillery(Melee/Xbow, Mounted, and Siege, like in Ren.) straight to China, that they could just waltz right through and take Beijing?

No.

Instead, they would get "Seiged" by Bombers, Missiles, ships, gunships, etc. This is why, in Civ, you bring in SAMs, Mobile SAMs, Gunships, Fighters, Bombers, Guided Missiles, and maybe even a SLBM or two when you dive into enemy territory.

It's why I like the Modern Age(besides the droning music). It's the most realistic when it comes to warfare. They could make an entire game based off of just the Modern Age(Better music, though), and it would still be a good game to me.

 

[MosheLevi]

However, in today's time, do you think if America just sent a huge fleet of ships carrying SEALS, Tanks, and Artillery(Melee/Xbow, Mounted, and Siege, like in Ren.) straight to China, that they could just waltz right through and take Beijing?

If they have a huge SoD? Sure why not? No one will dare to approach them, Lol.

Well, in real life Mobile SAM has accuracy close to 100% so as long as they have many Mobile SAM in the SoD then enemy aircraft don’t stand a chance.
On the other hand long range artillery and ground to ground missiles could do the trick and decimate those SoD’s.
Unfortunately we don’t have long range bombardment in CIV 4, and missiles don’t kill units (just injure them), so I think that CIV 4 is far from reflecting the reality of modern combat.

One more thing that CIV 4 doesn’t reflect accurately is the fact the Jet Fighters and bombers can travel thousands of miles into enemy territory.
CIV 4’s aircraft range is too short.
In modern combat the invading country can dominate the entire sky if they have better Air force.
In CIV 4 that is not possible because of the short range aircraft has.
Fueling in the sky is also not possible in CIV 4.
This will allow Jet Fighters to fly even deeper into enemy territory and return only half way for refueling in the sky.

 

[Shackel]

Ah, but those lead to many balance errors. Think about SoDs of just MobileSAMs, Modern Armors, and bombers.

Oh, and that SoD would get nuked in about 3 "turns".