Defending on clear tiles is a DEATH sentence

[Krieger66]

First off, you're wrong about the last part. I've been a quiet reader for a while around here, but I had to finally jump in.

Combat in the real world is extremely terrain-dependent and while not being as much of an issue in close range vs close range combat in the ancient world, getting caught in open terrain by a more mobile attacker or by a ranged attacker IS a death sentence in real world combat, period. Especially so in modern combat.

As far as the games you mention are concerned, I think you're picking the wrong subset of games to use as examples. Risk and Axis & Allies are extremely high-level strategy oriented games. Their rules are based upon the assumption that commanders in the field are making equally sound tactical decisions. They take the tactical out of the equation in favor of focusing solely on strategy. Now, I've never played the last 4 on your list but I assume the rest are in the same vein.

Look at games with more of a lowl-level strategic or tactical element. Play games where terrain actually matters. Where you have to actually worry about supply lines and the like. Or, study history. You brought up WWII europe in a previous post. Try playing a game like WWII: Barbarossa to Berlin. That game essentially has 2 phases and actually follows history very well. In the first phase, the Soviets are the 'defenders' and are at an EXTREME disadvantage. They start with fewer armies that are at a significantly reduced strength compared to the German Panzer Armies. The reason ghe Sovs eventually held was because they didn't sit there and complain that they got butchered on open land (which they did). They understood the tactical advantages to trading territory for time, to shortened supply lines, and extremely importantly to this discussion, using terrain to their advantage. They didn't try and make their stand on the run in open terrain. They made their stands in forests, at river crossings, in cities.

The fact of the matter is in quality wargames there is no individual battle 'defender advantage'. There's an overall strategic advantage as the defender's supply lines get shorter, yes, but that's just as easy to see in Civ 5. In quality wargames, as in the real world, the advantage, initiative, balance of forces, etc is constantly in flux and good commanders/good wargame players constantly use things like terrain, flanking attacks and artillery to their advantage and their opponents' disadvantage.

The issue here is not a defensive modifier for open terrain, except maybe with short range units prior to gunpowder. I can tell you with 100% certainty that open terrain in the more modern eras is downright brutal. The issue is experienced Civ players know how to use terrain to their advantage and for some reason I can't fathom, the AI simply doesn't.

If its anything like civ IV than they probably weigh route choices with maneuverability in mind first and then defensive value.
ex: A swordsman will try to move 2 spaces in a lane of grassland surrounded by forest(as opposed to 1 in grassland) if the city is in the lane or adjacent to it. At the end of each move they will try to end in the highest defensive value tile available(hill with forest for example), but will not go out of their way to do so unless it doesn't alter their travel time negatively.

They don't "think" about being safe from a "potential" enemy attack as opposed to getting to their target ASAP as a priority.

 

[DuseCutter]

It would seem to me the defensive bonus granted to defending units in Risk or A&A, etc... are taken into account by the Fortification bonus that can be used by the unit that moves into the clear terrain. Then again, one is strategical and the other is tactical so maybe that is a false comparison.

 

[eric_]

An interesting factor I don't think I've seen mentioned much (at all?) in here is the flanking bonus. According to the manual, the flanking bonus is 15% for each unit adjacent to the target unit. This basically means that the -33% defensive penalty is offset if a unit on an open tile has two units adjacent to it, no? If three units are adjacent to the defending unit, it then has a 12% advantage over the attacker.

This might explain why I haven't had much trouble with the -33% combat penalty on open tiles; I almost *always* move units in a line or in groups, infantry in front, ranged units behind them. If the AI took this precaution (and it seems it may post-patch), things would be a lot different in general.

 

[Folket]

Those defending nits need to be next to the attacker. So the atatck will choose to attack units on the flank and the flanking bonus will work against the defender.

 

[eric_]

Oh, right, applies when attacking only...d'oh!

 

[Krieger66]

Oh, right, applies when attacking only...d'oh!

I think I've seen the ai get a flank bonus on defense before...

Those defending nits need to be next to the attacker. So the atatck will choose to attack units on the flank and the flanking bonus will work against the defender.

Only if the attacker has enough movement points to reach the unit on the end of the line(needing around 3 mp if your unit is 1 tile away from the middle unit in a line of 3 units), and if they don't(or are stuck there with no mp afterwards), their going to be pretty vulnerable to a counter

 

[milk steak]

I think I've seen the ai get a flank bonus on defense before...

Could be the Social Policy that grants +15% from adjacent units.

 

[Thomas G.]

Discussing real situations a bit, and not the game, I see a case for a penalty in open terrain as well. In modern combat today, 10 soldiers with helicopter support is worth 200 without. That would be transport helicopters too. Reason is mobility. They choose when and where to fight. Attack by surprise. Defend effectively and disappear before attackers can close and kill.

For the CiV rules, I imagine a unit is moved by a player, and ends up on open terrain without time to prepare. No fortify bonus. Now it becomes the other players turn, and he attacks it. He has initiative, can deploy as needed. Even if it is displayed as two units facing off on CiV map, just picture each side with 10 battalions of 1200 men. Attacker gets to place out last, and gets first move. He doesn't have to attack the enemy 'line' head on, he strikes a weak point or he might loop around to the back, spreading panic and disarray, or forcing the defender to make an ill coordinated improvised counterattack to break out.

Prepared defense is another story, but point of this exercie was to demonstrate an unprepared unit caught in the open. It is, as it should be, a death sentence.

Problem in CiV so far seems to be that the AI is not reading these boards and picking up ideas from here.

Ranged attacks might be a little to effective, as well, and completely destroying units should be very rare unless they are isolated and surrounded, but that is another story.

 

[Krieger66]

Could be the Social Policy that grants +15% from adjacent units.

Yeah that was part of it but there was another bonus too labelled "flanking"
I remember it because my attacking rifleman would have suffered a minor defeat against a pretty much equal unit in open terrain(no fortify bonus)

 

[eric_]

Yeah, I just saw it last night myself. There were three barb warriors in a line, and when I went to attack one with my spearman, it said "major defeat" and listed flanking as a bonus.

 

[neptune2000]

Discussing real situations a bit, and not the game, I see a case for a penalty in open terrain as well. In modern combat today, 10 soldiers with helicopter support is worth 200 without. That would be transport helicopters too. Reason is mobility. They choose when and where to fight. Attack by surprise. Defend effectively and disappear before attackers can close and kill.

For the CiV rules, I imagine a unit is moved by a player, and ends up on open terrain without time to prepare. No fortify bonus. Now it becomes the other players turn, and he attacks it. He has initiative, can deploy as needed. Even if it is displayed as two units facing off on CiV map, just picture each side with 10 battalions of 1200 men. Attacker gets to place out last, and gets first move. He doesn't have to attack the enemy 'line' head on, he strikes a weak point or he might loop around to the back, spreading panic and disarray, or forcing the defender to make an ill coordinated improvised counterattack to break out.

Prepared defense is another story, but point of this exercie was to demonstrate an unprepared unit caught in the open. It is, as it should be, a death sentence.

Problem in CiV so far seems to be that the AI is not reading these boards and picking up ideas from here.

Ranged attacks might be a little to effective, as well, and completely destroying units should be very rare unless they are isolated and surrounded, but that is another story.

I agree with this, and was going to post something earlier but the thread was pretty heated. A unit that has expended all its movement is on a fast march, and won't have the initiative. If you don't have any initiative in open ground, you're at a disadvantage all else being equal.

To counter this, you could move 1 hex then fortify each turn. This would represent a unit carefully moving, avoiding surprise and minimizing any disadvantages. For this reason, I think it makes some sense to lessen the penalty, maybe be -25% so a fortified unit has no penalty.

Because in CiV you get at least 2 movement points (so you can fortify on the same turn you move if on open terrain) and because it would be tedious to fortify each time, I think that units with excess movement points at the end of the turn should be auto-fortified.

 

[Galdred]

I agree with this, and was going to post something earlier but the thread was pretty heated. A unit that has expended all its movement is on a fast march, and won't have the initiative. If you don't have any initiative in open ground, you're at a disadvantage all else being equal.

To counter this, you could move 1 hex then fortify each turn. This would represent a unit carefully moving, avoiding surprise and minimizing any disadvantages. For this reason, I think it makes some sense to lessen the penalty, maybe be -25% so a fortified unit has no penalty.

Because in CiV you get at least 2 movement points (so you can fortify on the same turn you move if on open terrain) and because it would be tedious to fortify each time, I think that units with excess movement points at the end of the turn should be auto-fortified.

I somewhat agree with that, but then, the first fortification bonus should at least completely offset the terrain modifier.

We should have something like: open ground modifier < 0 <= open ground modifier + first fortification modifier < open ground modifier + 2 turns fortification modifier.

It would be much less stupid than having every unit in open ground automatically killed.

(and concerning air cav, it works much better attacking non open ground than attacking in a plain, as they need the cover to advance themselves).

It would really help making cavalry less overpowered at the same time anyway, so I'm all for reducing the open ground penalty (although I think it's still good to have a malus when the unit has force marched during its turn).

 

[Thalassicus]

Well, though I feel eliminating the penalty entirely might be too much, I'm experimenting with a reduction of the rough/open defense ratio from 190% to 160% (open penalty from -33% to -20%) in the Units balance adjustments. It seems to be working out rather well in the games I've played... not as lopsided a victory, but still a moderate advantage. I've noticed a lot more AI's surviving to the lategame.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Well, though I feel eliminating the penalty entirely might be too much, I'm experimenting with a reduction of the rough/open defense ratio from 190% to 160% (open penalty from -33% to -20%) in the Units balance adjustments. It seems to be working out rather well in the games I've played... not as lopsided a victory, but still a moderate advantage. I've noticed a lot more AI's surviving to the lategame.

My change of open terrain penalty to open terrain bonus (for non-horse, non-armor) units has also worked very well (open penalty from -33% to open bonus +20%).

In my games the horse units, although still powerful are not so overwhelming (a good thing). My strategy has changed from all horse all the time to a more balanced approach. In my current game we (myself and AI) are entering the age of armor so I will see if the same can be said of that unit type.

There are still in each game a number of civs that get wiped out even with such a "drastic" change. So it seems that my change may not have been so over the top after all.

 

[SureYouCan]

How do you even advance before you get artillery if the attacker always loses? My swords attack yours on open ground and mine loses, just not as badly as on rough terrain.

Allowing the defender to always win means I can fortify swords on open terrain next to rough terrain and until indirect fire the only way for your archers to hit me would be to move right next to my swords. Guess what happens then? I kill them and now my swords are in rough terrain for an even bigger bonus.

Basically the game would become one big stalemate. Me fortified on open terrain, you on rough terrain, neither attacking each other because its an autoloss. Just two swords staring at each other for 130 turns while watching the tech tree work its way to dynamite.

Hell I could just put 6 swords/pikes around any city you want to attack. In fact why would I ever attack your units at all, if my pike always loses to your pike when attacking why not just march past all your units and attack cities. If you attack me while I'm marching past guess what? Even on open terrain my units are 20% stronger than yours. Just marching swords across flat ground directly up to the walls of your city and I would win by never attacking.

Think about that for a second. with a 20% bonus on open terrain I could march units directly up to your city, ignoring any units near them and if YOU attack me to defend your city YOU LOSE!

 

[Krieger66]

My change of open terrain penalty to open terrain bonus (for non-horse, non-armor) units has also worked very well (open penalty from -33% to open bonus +20%).

In my games the horse units, although still powerful are not so overwhelming (a good thing). My strategy has changed from all horse all the time to a more balanced approach. In my current game we (myself and AI) are entering the age of armor so I will see if the same can be said of that unit type.

There are still in each game a number of civs that get wiped out even with such a "drastic" change. So it seems that my change may not have been so over the top after all.

Ive never actually used horeman in my game...except for the ones I get from city states of course

 

[Lynxx]

With the risk of angering two sides that refuse to listen to other ideas than their own...

Giving the attacker the advantage in open ground IS ridiculous. Especially for a game like civilzation. Giving a bonus to the defender IS EQUALLY ridiculous. My humble suggestion: 0% defence bonus for any unit and a bonus for horses(/"mobile units") to attack on open terrain (it is outside of this discussion, but the horses should get lower strength or spear higher too) leaving the rough terrain def bonus untouched.

I understand the argument about defenders being surprised in the open and all, but that does not fit into the game mechanics (atleast not as a flat bonus to the attacker), its not like the the defenders are caught with their pants down EVERY time in real life either. Besides, range attack would still be lethal for units in the open, but atleast they would be harder to do complete kills with range units as one can easily do now.

I would like "my" suggestion very much (surprise surprise huh). It would mean that units on open ground would be in great danger of getting range attacked and then killed of by ground troops moving in or just run over by mobile units while units in the forest would be much safer from annihilation in one single turn.

How to handle the fortify/ dug-in bonus is perhaps harder. A bonus to any unit that does not move for several turns (and thus should automatically dig-in) sounds right. 5% per turn as in civ 4 sounds about right, for a maximum of 25%. Play testing would get the final numbers right...

 

[Roxlimn]

Lynxx:

I have not found it problematic to keep melee units alive in rough terrain against ranged attacks. In fact, it's possible to "farm" XP in rough terrain by getting enemies to Range attack your units and then have them heal all the damage back in one turn.

 

[Humakty]

- 33 % is definitely too much => it allows for (muskets/knights/heavy swords) to play an offensive role against riflemen !
We all know knights wouldn't dream of charging a riflemen regiment, not to speak of heavy swords : I can perfectly imagine them turtling through the plains, shoulder against shoulder, while riflemen get their practice shooting ! For one helmet : a candy bar; for three : a teddy bear !

 

[Lynxx]

Lynxx:

I have not found it problematic to keep melee units alive in rough terrain against ranged attacks. In fact, it's possible to "farm" XP in rough terrain by getting enemies to Range attack your units and then have them heal all the damage back in one turn.

This I have seen too, however, it is more of a problem of a stupid AI than anything else. If the ai had attacked with range units first and then followed up with a ground troop you would have been in trouble. My problem with the ranged attack lies in the fact that with units in the open gets absolutely slaughtered by range attacks. One should get damaged for sure, but instant kills is just not a compatible with 1upt. That is actaully also my problem with the -33% for defending in the open. It is way to easy to do complete kills as it is now. Needing two or more units to attack one to completely kill it in one turn is ok (especailly as the first attacker will get heavily damaged and need to be defended for next turn). With the current rules one just takes turns dying in the open field. With 0% def bonus more thought would be required to actually win as easily as one can do now.