Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by Mongolia Jones, Oct 12, 2010.
three words: the last samurai
No, but if defenders were moving as fast as they could they would most likely be at a disadvantage. That's why I think that defenders with 0 movement should be at a penalty (though less than 33%) but a defender with a movement point left should be autofortified for 25% bonus which would then cancel out the penalty. They're moving carefully through open terrain. Of course you can manually move 1/fortify but this is kinda tedious.
The exact numbers could be playbalanced, but I think the principle works.
Another issue I haven't seen brought up in here:
That's from the manual. This whole issue is moot, imo. Unless you're invading (i.e., on the offensive) or being totally overrun, you should always be able to position your troops in time to either have them in defensible terrain or fortified for 2 turns or more. Add the flanking bonus to the 50% fortification bonus in open terrain and you're talking a very difficult line to break. Retreat to a position behind a river, form a line, and fortify for two turns, and you're unbeatable even in the open unless there's artillery or a serious tech advantage.
Units in the open do not get slaughtered by range attacks quite as badly as you describe. A Crossbowman will OHKO a Warrior, and a Crossbowman with Accuracy 3 can possibly OHKO a Pikeman, but in general, equally promoted range units with equal tech don't OHKO corresponding melee units, even when those are the default melee units and not the resource-requiring ones of the era.
Archers with Accuracy are terrors of open terrain, but I think that's what those promotions are supposed to do.
One thing that I don't think I've seen mentioned in this thread - and maybe it's because with the AI in it's current form it is almost completely unnecessary.. but has anyone considered the effect of having forts built on flat terrain?
I've never really tried it (frankly.. my workers usually have better things to do - and forts still work better in rough terrain!) but they are the obvious answer to how to meaningfully defend "flatland" choke points - or attempting to create them if you're so inclined.
If the AI was a bit more crafty then their use it might be enough to stymie a half-assed attempt at steamrolling. Of course if the AI was that terrain-aware we'd probably not be having this discussion.
I guess I can accept that the reason I think archers are over powered is because I tend to keep them safe and they get crazy experience pretty fast leading to devastating double attacks. This boils down to either the ai being to stupid to allow me to use the archers as well as I am now, or the promotions being a bit to good...
neptune2000: I think the idea to get bonus for "diging-in" is a good idea, I still do not think it make sense to have a negative modifier for just staying in open grounds.
To put it into perspective of the civ game: How on earth can one argue that there is a surprise effect of units being caught in open ground when the unit has been staying there for several years!!! (One turn is pretty darn long). There is no surprise in civ and there is no other reason than that of surprise to give someone defending a negative modifier.
If you fortify, it's 25% on turn one, 50% on turn two, and then 15% for each adjacent friendly unit, adding up to a total of 125% defense in open terrain with 5 adjacent units (leaving one open hex for an attacker, who obviously shouldn't be attacking the guy in the center, but still).
The AI may not effectively be able to take advantage of these factors right now (although in my last game they sure did plenty of times), but it is definitely possible to defend well on open terrain if you plan well.
Mongolia Jones, could you post the accumulated code changes you've made? Hard to dig them out from the sturm und drang of this thread.
Clear terrain @0%
Rough terrain @40%
Fortify @20% (40% max)
It took me some time to figure that out...
The old system with modifiers for terrain type, forests and rivers seemed more logical.
Hills with a forest seem easier to defend than hills without trees, so why is there no difference
Since you have to occupy some clear tiles to prevent the AI from hurting your siege units, this will cost precious units.
Not if you position them well (i.e., fortified and flanked by at least one friendly unit).
I've done this from time to time. The key is to build a road up to said fort so that you can swap out injured units at a rapid pace. (The road leads back to your territory so the units can heal.) Still, as you say, hill forts (with an artillery piece inside) reign supreme.
Separate names with a comma.