Defending on clear tiles is a DEATH sentence

[Perkus]

I'd like to add that AFAIK cities are NOT neutral ground. Although it doesn't show any terrain modifiers in the battle forecast panel when you're attacking cities, careful observation shows that in fact is is still applying at least the Shock/Drill modifiers defending on if the city is on flat or rough ground. You can verify this easily enough by comparing predicted damage between attacks from identical units with different promotions. I'm not sure if it also uses the -33% FLAT_LAND_EXTRA_DEFENSE for attacks on cities in open ground, but I suspect it does. This isn't so easy to detect since it applies no matter what you attack with. You'd have to compare attacks vs. two cities with the same defense rating on different types of terrain.

If it is as I think, modding this would also make it more difficult to take over cities on open ground. Taking over cities is another thing that is commonly complained about being too easy, and which has been getting modded (see Active City Defense, for example).

As far as pathing is concerned, a quality pathing AI would have an "in danger" mode, which is used whenever a unit is at war near enemy combatants, and strongly emphasizes staying on good defensive terrain over the speed of advance. The only exception might be nearly dead units retreating to heal (which will die regardless of terrain if attacked), and when a unit is extremely likely to capture a city with its attack (in which case it'll be protected by the city next turn). I'm quite certain the game doesn't do any of this right now.

 

[Mortal D]

I will eventually make a mod for download (if no one else does it first).

ihttp://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=392840

Hope that solve the problem.

 

[AriochIV]

The problems with the tactical AI are much more complicated than that. Chief among them are the complete lack of a concept of how to protect vulnerable units (workers will walk up to your combat units and kiss them) and no idea how to use ranged units (archery units will usually rather fortify than fire at you).

 

[player1 fanatic]

It's not firing that's the problem. It's that if they do fire at you, they are sitting ducks if there is nothing to position in between. In such case, it's better to retreat then get slaughtered.

 

[Bibor]

The problems with the tactical AI are much more complicated than that. Chief among them are the complete lack of a concept of how to protect vulnerable units (workers will walk up to your combat units and kiss them) and no idea how to use ranged units (archery units will usually rather fortify than fire at you).

The AI needs to stop treating units individually and start grouping them into coherent wholes.

 

[photophor]

I'd like to add that AFAIK cities are NOT neutral ground.

What is 'AFAIK'?

 

[Perkus]

What is 'AFAIK'?

"As Far As I Know"

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Update Oct 20, 2010 (updated in main post as well)

Played for a while with 0% defense values on clear terrain. Not totally happy so going 1 step further.

Updated:
1) Clear terrain defense increased to +20% (-33% in vanilla)
2) Rough terrain defense increased to +50% (+25% in vanilla)
3) Fortify bonus decreased to +10%, max +20% for two rounds (+25% x2 in vanilla)

Rational:
-clear terrain bonus -> help melee vs horse units & slow down 1cpc (1 [AI] civ per continent)
-rough terrain bonus -> keep defense spread between rough vs clear terrain & slow down 1cpc
-fortify bonus reduction -> just being cautious so that stacking of defense bonuses don't get too high

 

[Ahriman]

1) Clear terrain defense increased to +20% (-33% in vanilla)
2) Rough terrain defense increased to +50% (+25% in vanilla)

Why would you want to favor defense like this?
This just makes Fortify and Bombard even more dominating than it already is.

The -33% penalty has some important logic behind it. It is roughly the strength difference between unit tiers.
Eg: longswords at -33% penalty are ~swordsmen. Rifles at -33% penalty are ~muskets. Infantry at ~33% penalty are ~rifles.

It is specifically designed so that a unit of a higher tier is basically the same strength as the unit below it on open ground.
So even if you're a tier ahead, you can't just completely stomp through your enemy without worrying about losing units, because the superior tech unit is on parity with the lower tech unit if its on open ground.

Remove this penalty and you significantly mess with the combat balance.

I think the game design of rough/open terrain actually works really well, and creates a good tactical framework. The AI isn't good enough at using it yet, but removing it won't really fix that.

 

[Sonereal]

Update Oct 20, 2010 (updated in main post as well)

Played for a while with 0% defense values on clear terrain. Not totally happy so going 1 step further.

Updated:
1) Clear terrain defense increased to +20% (-33% in vanilla)
2) Rough terrain defense increased to +50% (+25% in vanilla)
3) Fortify bonus decreased to +10%, max +20% for two rounds (+25% x2 in vanilla)

Rational:
-clear terrain bonus -> help melee vs horse units & slow down 1cpc (1 [AI] civ per continent)
-rough terrain bonus -> keep defense spread between rough vs clear terrain & slow down 1cpc
-fortify bonus reduction -> just being cautious so that stacking of defense bonuses don't get too high

Why would you increase clear terrain to 20%?

There should be some kind of disadvantage which is what 0% is.

0% for clear terrain will help spearmen greatly and only someone at tech parity or supremacy would go fight in open terrain with that number. Meanwhile, 50% is too high. 25%+another 25% from being fortified makes a lot more sense.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Why would you want to favor defense like this?

To stop 1cpc (1 ai CIV per CONTINENT) spam.

The -33% penalty has some important logic behind it. It is roughly the strength difference between unit tiers.
Eg: longswords at -33% penalty are ~swordsmen. Rifles at -33% penalty are ~muskets. Infantry at ~33% penalty are ~rifles.

It is specifically designed so that a unit of a higher tier is basically the same strength as the unit below it on open ground.

Your logic is flawed. Yes the lower tech guy gets the benefit of 1:1 odds attacking clear tiles - but on the flip side, the higher tech guy gets a MASSIVE 3:1 odds when attacking on clear tiles, the penalty/benefit cancels out and in the short term the high tech guy wins big (i.e. total control of a whole continent).

So even if you're a tier ahead, you can't just completely stomp through your enemy without worrying about losing units, because the superior tech unit is on parity with the lower tech unit if its on open ground.

By the time the higher tech ai civ wipes the lower tech ai civ's unit's butts all over his own fields, there aren't any units left for the low tch guy to cause any real damage.

Remove this penalty and you significantly mess with the combat balance.

Messing with combat "balance" is exactly my goal. Plus I am of the opinion that vanilla combat is imbalanced.

 

[Sonereal]

20% is imbalanced and quite frankly doesn't make any sense. Why would a defender get a bonus on open terrain? He shouldn't get any penalty or advantage for being out in the open other than the fact he's at risk for bombardment and shock units.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Why would you increase clear terrain to 20%?

To stop 1cpc. (see above)

There should be some kind of disadvantage which is what 0% is.

I agree in principal, the attacker should almost ALWAYS attack at a disadvantage, 0% is neither a disadvantage or advantage for either party, hence the +20% (advantage for defender).

0% for clear terrain will help spearmen greatly and only someone at tech parity or supremacy would go fight in open terrain with that number.

Going from -33% -> 0% -> +20% will not only help spearmen, but will help all melee units defend better.

Also this helps solve to a degree the horseman problem.

Plus it gives more of a reason to bring archers and siege to combat. Use you support to weaken the defenders before you attack with your melee units (just like you had to in Panzer General).

Meanwhile, 50% is too high. 25%+another 25% from being fortified makes a lot more sense.

Currently in Vanilla -> rough + fortify defense = +25% +25% +25% = +75% max defense.

In my modified defense -> rough + fortify defense = +50% +10% +10% = +70% max defense.

Virtually the same.

 

[Ahriman]

To stop 1cpc (1 ai CIV per CONTINENT) spam.

I think this is a bad idea. The only way for the human player to ever have a challenge in the late game is if there are AI superpowers.

If the AIs can't conquer each other, but the human can, then there is no chance of the game still being tough in the lategame.
If you can't beat the late-game AI superpowers, then play on an easier difficulty level.

Your logic is flawed. Yes the lower tech guy gets the benefit of 1:1 odds attacking clear tiles - but on the flip side, the higher tech guy gets a MASSIVE 3:1 odds when attacking on clear tiles, the penalty/benefit cancels out and in the short term the high tech guy wins big (i.e. total control of a whole continent).

No, my logic is fine.
If there are no penalties, then the higher tech guy always wins.
If there are big penalties, then the high tech guy wins when attacking on open ground, but loses when defending on open ground.
The higher tech guy is probably the attacker, and so is much more likely to have to keep their units out in the open.

By the time the higher tech ai civ wipes the lower tech ai civ's unit's butts all over his own fields, there aren't any units left for the low tch guy to cause any real damage.

This just isn't true.
The AIs have lots of units.
And attacking an enemy who is 1 tier below you, fortified on rough terrain, you aren't going to instapwn them.

Messing with combat "balance" is exactly my goal. Plus I am of the opinion that vanilla combat is imbalanced.

Well, I think you're going to make it worse, and you're going to make it more boring.
If there isn't much difference between rough and open terrain (defender is always favored) then there is much less tactical variation in combat, and the best tactic will always be creeping ranged bombardment with meatshields that retreat to heal - which is precisely what the AI is *worst* at.

Plus it gives more of a reason to bring archers and siege to combat.

?
At high difficulty levels, there is already a massive reason to bring archers and siege to combat. Archers and siege are how you maximize the efficiency of your army, because you don't take return damage.

Currently in Vanilla -> rough + fortify defense = +25% +25% +25% = +75% max defense.
In my modified defense -> rough + fortify defense = +50% +10% +10% = +70% max defense.
Virtually the same.

Not virtually the same. You've gone from a system that encourage fortification to one where fortification is almost meaningless.

 

[Sonereal]

To stop 1cpc. (see above)

In a way that makes no sense whatsoever. I know that sometimes you sacrifice realism for the sake of gameplay but there's no logic to a guy on an open tile being in a better or worst position then the guy he's fighting. There's no difference at all. It isn't like that unit can't fortify for a few turns, get the 25% defense bonus, and be done with it.

I agree in principal, the attacker should almost ALWAYS attack at a disadvantage, 0% is neither a disadvantage or advantage for either party, hence the +20% (advantage for defender).

0% is the disadvantage for the defender. Instead of increasing the tile to an irrational 20%, the AI needs to taught not to go onto open terrain if not at tech parity. Are you forgetting the shock promos? Why should a unit, right off the bat, get a 40%-60% defensive bonus on open terrain with shock promos? That doesn't make any sense.

Going from -33% -> 0% -> +20% will not only help spearmen, but will help all melee units defend better.

Can't argue there but that's not the point. What the point is that at 0%, the only two civilizations that should be fighting there are those at tech parity.

At 33% and tech parity. The attacker has the advantage which causes the game to steamroll as he gains more cities, more of a production base, more of a research base.

At 0%, in the early game, most civilizations will be at tech parity. Wars will be decided by sheer dumb luck on the AI's part but the steamrolling will decrease.

Also this helps solve to a degree the horseman problem.

If you're going to go the route of completely unrealistic solutions, you probably should've made spearmen insta-kill horsemen. Horsemen were powerful because their combat strength is too high and they don't receive defensive penalties on open terrain.

So setting the defensive bonus to 0% and lowering the strength to 11 should see an unpromoted spear man defeat unpromoted horsemen on open terrain most of the time while seeing other melee units fail at such a job. This is a better system. One that doesn't cause major problems that affect the rest of the game.

Plus it gives more of a reason to bring archers and siege to combat. Use you support to weaken the defenders before you attack with your melee units (just like you had to in Panzer General).

But that doesn't make sense. You shouldn't have to SIEGE unfortified targets in open terrain. A mass of riflemen in open terrain that aren't dug in should be torn to pieces by cannons with accuracy promos. The problem in CivV vanilla is that they're torn up too easily by a siege unit with a single promo even with a cover promotion.



Archers through artillery have a MASSIVE advantage already with accuracy promotions. They can strike an unfortified target on open terrain with impunity and do serious damage like they should since we're talking about an unfortified mass of units.

There's no reason why you should have to siege unfortified units that are in open terrain.

Currently in Vanilla -> rough + fortify defense = +25% +25% +25% = +75% max defense.

In my modified defense -> rough + fortify defense = +50% +10% +10% = +70% max defense.

Virtually the same.

No it isn't. Rough terrain+fortify defense only equals 50%. Where did you get the extra 25%? Or do they fortify to 50% in CivV vanilla?

In any case, rough terrain+fort+fortify defense should probably work out to be only 75% in any case or else you run into huge problems.

 

[Paeanblack]

If I ask all the players, "Which makes for a more fun game, an overall defender advantage, or an overall attacker advantage?", I think I'd get vastly different answers. Some people like to build, some people like to conquer. Some people like having 3 cities, some people want to have 60. Some people like to bounce around between a bunch of different playstyles.

In MP, an attacker advantage is probably best way. Once one side has an overwhelming lead, it's generally better for the game to end quickly instead of the leader pounding on an impregnable turtle for another 150 turns. This means more games get played in the same amount of time, and more games means the players spend more time during the phase when their decisions have a significant effect on the outcome.

If there were a form of MP game where each player was randomly assigned 2 of the possible 4 victory conditions, then the question becomes more interesting. A small turtled empire with a defender advantage that can only win on Culture or Spaceship vs an enormous warmonger that can only win on Domination or Time could be a very interesting fight.

In SP, it's tough to make everyone happy. There seems to be consensus about the combat AI being, well, extremely dumb, and any advantage-tweaking that helps the AI (like removing the -33% on the open terrain they like to travel in) will probably be a good thing until some AI improvements come along.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

In a way that makes no sense whatsoever. I know that sometimes you sacrifice realism for the sake of gameplay but there's no logic to a guy on an open tile being in a better or worst position then the guy he's fighting. There's no difference at all. It isn't like that unit can't fortify for a few turns, get the 25% defense bonus, and be done with it.

In every war game the defender always gets a bonus. Even in RISK, the most basic of war games, the defender gets an advantage where if the attacker and defender both roll equal on die 6's, the defender wins.

In most other war games, the defender is usually at 100% bonus for defending in open terrains (hill and mountain even giving higher).

Plus, in civV combat, the ai is moving all his units around so much, I don't ever think it gets benefit of the fortify bonus.

0% is the disadvantage for the defender. Instead of increasing the tile to an irrational 20%

20% is not irrational. (see above)

...the AI needs to taught not to go onto open terrain if not at tech parity. Are you forgetting the shock promos? Why should a unit, right off the bat, get a 40%-60% defensive bonus on open terrain with shock promos? That doesn't make any sense.

You really need to re-read my OP. In vanilla civV the difference between clear and rough terrain is almost 100%. Once the ai is programmed to recognize this then there will be absolutely NO fighting in open terrain because it will be a DEATH sentence.

Plus if the defender can have shock promos, also the attacker can have the same promos, there is nothing new here, both balance out. You can always find ways to stack bonuses to fight more effectively.

At 0%, in the early game, most civilizations will be at tech parity. Wars will be decided by sheer dumb luck on the AI's part but the steamrolling will decrease.

And at 20% the steamroll will happen even less. Have you played the game at 0% defense. I have and the steamroll still happens, albeit at a reduced rate.

If you're going to go the route of completely unrealistic solutions, you probably should've made spearmen insta-kill horsemen. Horsemen were powerful because their combat strength is too high and they don't receive defensive penalties on open terrain.

Now that's just going overboard. 20% defense bonus is NOT completely unrealistic. And it's nowhere near insta-kill, insta-defend. Be reasonable.

So setting the defensive bonus to 0% and lowering the strength to 11 should see an unpromoted spear man defeat unpromoted horsemen on open terrain most of the time while seeing other melee units fail at such a job. This is a better system. One that doesn't cause major problems that affect the rest of the game.

You are only looking at the spearman/horseman relationship, which is flawed when trying to balance a whole game. 11 vs 0% is not far off from 12 vs +20%. If the spearmen seem like overkill then you can tweak the spearmen bonus vs horsemen.

But that doesn't make sense. You shouldn't have to SIEGE unfortified targets in open terrain. A mass of riflemen in open terrain that aren't dug in should be torn to pieces by cannons with accuracy promos. The problem in CivV vanilla is that they're torn up too easily by a siege unit with a single promo even with a cover promotion.

At +20% you still don't NEED siege/archers. you can fight hand-hand with melee units but you need to bring a better strategy or more troops. There are always options.

The problem before is that once the steamroll starts, there is almost no strategy that can be used to stop it.

Archers through artillery have a MASSIVE advantage already with accuracy promotions. They can strike an unfortified target on open terrain with impunity and do serious damage like they should since we're talking about an unfortified mass of units.

Since ranged units have such a massive advantage I don't see the objection to the +20% defense bonus. Instead of a "MASSIVE advantage" it is a VERY LARGE advantage.

No it isn't. Rough terrain+fortify defense only equals 50%. Where did you get the extra 25%? Or do they fortify to 50% in CivV vanilla?

In any case, rough terrain+fort+fortify defense should probably work out to be only 75% in any case or else you run into huge problems.

In civV you can fortify for 2 turns @+25% each for a total of +50% fortify bonus plus your terrain bonus which on a hil/forest will be +75% total.

 

[Ahriman]

If I ask all the players, "Which makes for a more fun game, an overall defender advantage, or an overall attacker advantage?", I think I'd get vastly different answers. Some people like to build, some people like to conquer.

Except, while a -33% penalty favors the the tactical attacker, it does not favor the strategic attacker. In fact, just the opposite, it can often favor the strategic defender, who can place their units on the better terrain (eg I build a defensive line on the edge of rough terrain, where you have to be on open terrain to attack me) and who can have bombardment units ready to rain down beatings on attacking units that must cross open terrain to get there.

In every war game the defender always gets a bonus.

Thats not true at all. In plenty of wargames (or games with warfare) there is not necessarily a defender bonus, particularly if the defender is not fortified. Europa Universalis, Empires in Arms, Warhammer (if units are out in the open), Civ4 (no defensive advantage if not fortified) just to name a handful. I think Hearts of Iron and Victoria defender bonus comes only if fortified (or in cities). Been a long time since I've played Advanced Squad leader.
In many turn-based wargames, the defender doesn't even get a chance to do anything. Dungeon's and dragons style, Player A attacks a defender on A's turn, and then B counterattacks on B's turn.

Every wargame normally has circumstances where the defender gets an advantage, but it isn't always true.

And often, the defender's only advantage is to pick the terrain. Like the Total War games.

In most other war games, the defender is usually at 100% bonus for defending in open terrains

Most? Nonsense.

Plus, in civV combat, the ai is moving all his units around so much, I don't ever think it gets benefit of the fortify bonus.

I've attacked fortified AI units many times, but even to the extent that it is less common, that's an AI problem fixed through AI changes, not mechanic changes.

Once the ai is programmed to recognize this then there will be absolutely NO fighting in open terrain because it will be a DEATH sentence.

Except that sometimes being in open terrain is unavoidable, because there isn't enough rough terrain around, or because you need to protect another unit, or because you don't have enough movement to get out of the way, or because you're trying to throw lots of troops in fast, or for all kinds of other reasons.

but you need to bring a better strategy or more troops. There are always options.

Except that you're actually removing options and strategy, by making every tile more the same. We currently have a situation where unit placement really matters. Why move to a system where unit placement matters less because the defender always has an advantage?

Since ranged units have such a massive advantage I don't see the objection to the +20% defense bonus.

A defense bonus everywhere encourages ranged units even more than the current system, because it means that I can adopt a pure strategy of defending and bombarding. I never have to attack with melee units. And I can create a melee screen in front of my ranged units even in open terrain and still have an advantage.
Whereas in the current system, in order for my archer to be able to shoot you, I have to make it vulnerable or have a blocking unit which will be vulnerable (unless there is some conveniently placed rough terrain nearby).

 

[sosueme]

Clear terrain defense increased to +20% (-33% in vanilla)...clear terrain bonus -> help melee vs horse units & slow down 1cpc (1 [AI] civ per continent)

Interesting. I can see wanting to tone down the horse rush, but penalizing horse units for attacking on open ground against melee feels wrong. Wouldn't open terrain be the most ideal battleground for a mounted unit where their maneuverability could be used to its full advantage?

 

[Sonereal]

I've been saying open land should be 0%. Now I'm starting to think -33% makes sense.

The fact of the matter is that open terrain isn't meant for anyone, but especially not slow moving melee troops, archer troops, infantry, riflemen, and whathaveyou. Let's take this example.

A unit of spears enters and ends their turn in open terrain and another unit of spears of equal promotion attacks them. UnitA is caught off-guard and unprepared, putting them at a huge disadvantage.

However, say that UnitA had fortified their area. They're at less of an disadvantage but they're still fresh troops and may be from a culture not suited for fighting. This is completely ignoring flanking bonus.

This applies more than just to spearmen however. A charge of any melee unit against another, unprepared melee unit in open terrain should spell trouble for the unprepared unit. But if that unprepared unit has combat experience in the open (Shock Promos) and are battling a lesser-trained unit, they can survive and probably win in some cases. However, if the other unit has shock promos as well....you run into the same deal with the previous paragraphs. They're equally trained but one side is unprepared.

Why don't horsemen get the penalty? Because they're far more mobile. Sure, they run into problems when attacking spearmen but otherwise, them not being penalized for being on open terrain makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is the fact they're not penalized heavily enough for being in rough terrain and their strength needs to be reduced by one so that spearmen can take them down reasonably.

Right now, horsemen can smash anything, anywhere. Give them a strict penalty for attacking rough terrain and coupled with the no defensive modifier, they're always operating at a disadvantage on rough terrain and can easily be taken down by spears still.

Let's take a recent scenario I played for example. North Africa is mostly open terrain. The technology is WW1ish right now. Playing as the Ottomans, I invade Egypt. Using mostly infantry and artillery.

I was surprised when my infantry were smashed near Alexandria by another infantry unit. Even more surprised when an artillery battery did so much damage on my other infantry but it makes sense when you think about it. In open terrain, the guy with the longer range weapons (artillery) and faster units will dominate.

Artillery is the bane of an GI's existence. With accuracy promos, its a game changer. Ahriman is completly right. The defender has the advantage of choosing where to defend at. In this case it was in a heavily-defended city surrounded by wide-open desert. Perfect for artillery.

Alexandria, without the AI even knowing it, was impossible to take. Infantry and artillery would be shredded to pieces before they reached the city. The only way someone could've taken the city was through massssive shore bombardment and airpower coupled with artillery pieces and several dozen infantry units ready to die once the fighting starts.

The only way to take that city was to have it ready to be taken by the time cavalry/tanks rolled in. In open-terrain, the guy with the longer ranged weapons would've won and the guy with faster units would've won.

-33% makes perfect sense. What doesn't is the OP horseman strength and the fact they, probably many other mobile units, don't receive a penalty for attacking rough tiles. If they got a penalty attacking rough tiles, then they would stay in the open where only their counter units can take them down.