Coming from behind

[Josh_38_80]

this is a very simplistic idea and not much thought went into it but anyway, if a unit attacked from behind it immediatley looses a bar(s) of life. However defining 'behind' is a bit complicated . Someone else probably posted it but hey why not.

 

[plastiqe]

I think this is a great idea. Since the game map is already divided into a grid, keeping track of unit facing would be easy. Just put a little arrow or something below to show which way the unit is facing, allow units to rotate for no movement cost and make each unit in a stack have to face the same way.

Picture it like the numeric keypad turned on an angle so 1 is south, 9 is north and 7 and 3 are west and east. If a unit is facing north (9) and is attacked from a unit from the south (4, 1 or 2), then there could be a free hit, or a % bonus given to the attacker or something.

This would add a lot of worth to fast units that can circle around behind and flank a unit and it would make battles that much more strategic as armies jockey for position. You would have to spread out your units in formations rather than keep them all in one stack to make it harder for the enemy to get around you. And zone of control units would get free attacks if someone else tried to get behind them.

 

[rhialto]

If units were individual soldiers, this might mke sense. But each tile is 80 miles, and each unit represebts 500+ infantry or the equivalent other units. To suppose that none of them are watching each others' backs is strange for an armed squad in potentially hostile ground. Facing only really makes sense at individual or squad level at most.

 

[plastiqe]

If units were individual soldiers, this might mke sense. But each tile is 80 miles, and each unit represebts 500+ infantry or the equivalent other units. To suppose that none of them are watching each others' backs is strange for an armed squad in potentially hostile ground. Facing only really makes sense at individual or squad level at most.

How many units a single soldier represents is up for debate, I personally lean more towards the individual/squad level. And a large army of 1000+ men is still vulnerable to flanking attacks. I do think that combat needs a little more strategy to make it more fun, and since the game is already on a grid facing would work perfectly.

 

[rhialto]

So you reckon it at best a megacity produces a single squadron of soldiers? Oookaaaayy.

What you're talking about is tactics, not strategy anyway, which is something that is largely irrelevant in any realisitic representation of armies at this scale.

 

[plastiqe]

So you reckon it at best a megacity produces a single squadron of soldiers? Oookaaaayy.

What you're talking about is tactics, not strategy anyway, which is something that is largely irrelevant in any realisitic representation of armies at this scale.

Tactics and Strategy are synonymous.

And actually the megacity produces one soldier. Since no value for how many actual soldiers this represents is given in the game it is open to interpretation. I lean more towards platoon/company while your thinking battalion/regiment, but it doesn't really matter. Flanking tactics are used at all levels from individual soldier up to army division.

In the game I think flanking would add more depth to the current system of move your army in a big stack and try to catch the opponent on poor defensive ground.

 

[rhialto]

Tactics and Strategy are synonymous.

This is why I generally dislike discussing military matters on non-military forums.

Real military scholars will tell you that while both of these are important (and yes, they are different, that's why we have different words for them), wars are decided on neither of these. Logistics is far more important, an aspect that isn't modelled at all in civ yet.

 

[plastiqe]

Well, we pay unit support costs, thats kind of like logistics.

As a gamer I think that tactics are the best part of a military strategy. And this is getting way off topic considering it started out as what I think is a good idea of adding an attack from behind bonus to combat, which I think is a good idea.

 

[Jon Shafer]

If units were individual soldiers, this might mke sense. But each tile is 80 miles, and each unit represebts 500+ infantry or the equivalent other units. To suppose that none of them are watching each others' backs is strange for an armed squad in potentially hostile ground. Facing only really makes sense at individual or squad level at most.

13.5 miles, actually.

That having been said, I do think that the idea has merit. I will think more about this in the future.

 

[rhialto]

13.5 miles x 250 tiles = a circumference of 3375 miles. My planet has a circumference of about 24000 miles. You obviously are on another planet. Either that, or you aren't fully aware of the difference between radius, diameter, and circumference.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Errr, not 13, 31.6 miles. 1 tile is 1,000 square miles ACCORDING TO WHAT IT SAYS IN GAME. 1,000 square miles is 31.6 by 31.6.

And the planets ARE different. You think a tiny map vs. a huge map are designed to be the same sized planet?

 

[rhialto]

Now I'm curious. Where in the game does it say this?

 

[Jon Shafer]

In the demographics screen.

Every 1 tile = 1,000 square miles if you look at Land Area. At the start of the game when you build your first city it should be 9,000 (because your city covers 9 tiles). After your radius expands, it grows to 21,000.

Later in the game when you can't count tiles individually, you can reverse the process and see how many you have. If it says your Land Area is 143,000 miles, you know that you have 143 tiles.

 

[Teabeard]

If units were individual soldiers, this might mke sense. But each tile is 80 miles, and each unit represebts 500+ infantry or the equivalent other units. To suppose that none of them are watching each others' backs is strange for an armed squad in potentially hostile ground. Facing only really makes sense at individual or squad level at most.

I agree completely. Plus this is already kinda represented with ambushes.

 

[kulgan]

Scale wise I think it could work because its one "army" verses another, rather than idividual units". However the impact of such a surprise attack, would better be effected in a situation where the two civs are not at war to begin with. Because once at war a hightened sence of defence would prevail and one army would find it difficult to surprise another.

 

[rhialto]

Kulgan, I think you're issing my point. It is possible to surprise an individual because he literally canot see behind him. Small squads too, if on a forced march it is conceivable that they are all facing the same direction and can be surprised. But once you have groups of several hundred soldiers or more, there will be a dozen or so soldiers whose role is to act as lookouts to avoid being surprised in this manner.

Situations in which an army sized force could be surprised are when camping for the night (a situation not worth modelling on the civ scale where each turn is a year or more), and surprise attacks by allies (where RoP rape is advantage enough, no need to make the advantage even stronger for acting evil).

 

[Teabeard]

I think the thought that an army could tip-toe up to another army from behind is stupid. Ambushes are already in CIV3 and that's good enough, IMHO.

 

[plastiqe]

I think the thought that an army could tip-toe up to another army from behind is stupid. Ambushes are already in CIV3 and that's good enough, IMHO.

But once you have groups of several hundred soldiers or more, there will be a dozen or so soldiers whose role is to act as lookouts to avoid being surprised in this manner.

Agreed, unless there was some camouflauge or something like that then you shouldn't be able to make surprise attacks.

However, flanking and surprising aren't really the same thing. An attack from behind doesn't have to be an ambush, it would be like attacking the weakest point of the unit. I'm sure you guys have heard of the pincer maneuver. That is what a bonus for attacking from behind would represent (since you can't really split up your one tank unit).

 

[Jon Shafer]

I think the thought that an army could tip-toe up to another army from behind is stupid. Ambushes are already in CIV3 and that's good enough, IMHO.

Really?

That's news to me.

 

[rhialto]

I'm sure you guys have heard of the pincer maneuver. That is what a bonus for attacking from behind would represent (since you can't really split up your one tank unit).

I think pincer movements are already adequately reflected in civ3 in that if your units suround an enemy force, they are almost always cut off from any location where they can heal.