Defending on clear tiles is a DEATH sentence

[spoooq]

Actually, one of the mounted-unit promotions does exactly this (doesn't scale though). It does seem like the designers are aware of the historical tactical strengths and weaknesses of certain units, but bury them in the promotions. I'd like to see a lot of the more unique promotions (e.g. not Drill and Shock, etc.) folded into every base unit. Since Civ 5 is obviously attempting to make each individual unit important, why not make them all more versatile and powerful? It would make war a lot more interesting.

Interesting, do you know what the promotion is called? I like the sound of your suggestion. I might actually fire up the game tonight and take a closer look at highly promoted units.

Hrm...what if the open terrain defense penalty only applied when ranged units were attacking (which makes sense, imo) and then there was a "maneuvers" promotion for melee units giving a bonus when attacking units in the open?

I mean manoeuvres in the sense of actually running your pieces about the board

 

[KrikkitTwo]

One note: the -33% penalty in open terrain acts as a general bonus for Ranged+Mounted units... because if a Melee unit kills a unit in open terrain... that melee unit is stuck having to defend the open terrain.
(in a sense this is like Chess, where a unit is 'protected' by the threat of counter attack... ie if I take his Bishop with my Castle, my Castle will get killed by his Knight)

So Ideally,
You keep your Ranged+Melee units in rough Terrain, and Mounted units in Open Terrain

Your Melee units only attack units in rough Terrain (after they have been weakened by Ranged). Your Mounted units attack the units in Open Terrain.

The AI needs to understand this and actually build Mounted units.



To avoid the Steam Roll... both more penalties for conquered cities AND making cities harder to conquer is necessary.

To make cities harder to conquer, Beef up city defense Significantly.... City Defense buildings are "units" that you can't use or lose on an attack. So the more of your Military strength is there, the better for defense.


BTW, what is the formula for "amount of damage done" based on the Strength ratios?

 

[Cuba Libre]

Interesting, do you know what the promotion is called?

Uh, Charge I think.

 

[eric_]

I mean manoeuvres in the sense of actually running your pieces about the board

I realize. IMO, that's what the -33% open terrain penalty is trying to emulate. I think it would be better if all things were equal in open terrain unless a ranged or mounted unit is attacking (reflecting poor defensive manoevres by the attacked unit for being out in the open with ranged or mounted units nearby) or an offensive melee unit has a "manoevres" promotion giving it an attack bonus (reflecting good offensive manoevres arising from "experience" and/or "training").

One note: the -33% penalty in open terrain acts as a general bonus for Ranged+Mounted units..

I think it's important to keep this point at the fore so that when/if the universal -33% open terrain penalty is addressed, it will only be removed when melee units are doing the attacking.

 

[Paeanblack]

First, I'm almost positive I've observed a ZoC movement penalty during war.

Second, I'm pretty sure it only applies if you start your turn adjacent to an enemy unit.

If you start next to an enemy unit or city, then moving to a tile adjacent to that same unit or city will cost all of your movement points. If you are just moving away from the first unit/city into a tile adjacent to a different unit/city, then it costs the normal terrain movement.

 

[Ahriman]

The AI needs to understand this and actually build Mounted units.

This is one of the biggest AI weaknesses. One of the biggest reasons that its so easy to beat the AI, is because they can only throw so many units at you at a time, and you can often demolish those in a single turn with ranged attacks, so that the enemy never reaches melee.

If the AI was using more 3-4 movement units, then they would pose a much bigger threat, because they could throw their mass of units at you faster, and make sure that some made it to melee range. They'd also find it much easier to reach my ranged units - eg if I am on a hill with rough terrain in front and your unit beyond, you can't reach me with a normal unit but *can* reach me with mounted.

I see them use cavalry, and chariot archers (badly) but hardly ever see them use horsemen or knights (except Siam).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I realize. IMO, that's what the -33% open terrain penalty is trying to emulate. I think it would be better if all things were equal in open terrain unless a ranged or mounted unit is attacking (reflecting poor defensive manoevres by the attacked unit for being out in the open with ranged or mounted units nearby) or an offensive melee unit has a "manoevres" promotion giving it an attack bonus (reflecting good offensive manoevres arising from "experience" and/or "training").



I think it's important to keep this point at the fore so that when/if the universal -33% open terrain penalty is addressed, it will only be removed when melee units are doing the attacking.

You missed the point....
It is a penalty to Melee units because When they attack, they put themselves into a killing field.

 

[eric_]

It is a penalty to Melee units because When they attack, they put themselves into a killing field.

Right. I just stated it poorly. To restate:

"I think it's important to keep this point at the fore so that when/if the universal -33% open terrain penalty is addressed, it will only be removed [from melee units defending open tiles against] a melee unit [who is attacking the melee unit on an open tile]."

 

[eric_]

egad, what a mess!

Melee unit attacking a melee unit in an open tile: no defense penalty should apply
Mounted/ranged attacking a melee unit in an open tile: -33% defense penalty makes sense.

edit: my "should be kept at the fore" comment was meant only to say that it would be a shame if the latter were eliminated in addressing the former. Keep the baby, lose the bathwater.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

egad, what a mess!

Melee unit attacking a melee unit in an open tile: no defense penalty should apply
Mounted/ranged attacking a melee unit in an open tile: -33% defense penalty makes sense.

edit: my "should be kept at the fore" comment was meant only to say that it would be a shame if the latter were eliminated in addressing the former. Keep the baby, lose the bathwater.

That stil doesn't solve the problem

Melee 1 attacks (and kills) Melee2 (who is in open)

Melee 2 is now sitting in Open.... more vulnerable to Mounted and ranged units.... and even more damaged than if Melee 1 had a defensive penalty.

 

[eric_]

Ah. Are you saying the penalty should be removed across the board?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Ah. Are you saying the penalty should be removed across the board?

No I think it should stay... because it gives that Chess-like feel. Possibly it should be reduced (to 25%), but otherwise just getting the AI to deal with it, (by building mounted units) and getting pathfinding to work differently in 'potentially hostile' zones. (so as not to 'stop' a melee unit on an open tile.. instead use them to travel through)

 

[Ahriman]

No I think it should stay... because it gives that Chess-like feel.

Precisely. It makes positioning really matter, and it creates strategic tension with the possibility of over-extending yourself. You have to ask: is it worth attacking and killing that unit if it means that my unit gets killed on the next turn?

The right solutions are AI fixes, not a dull system that makes placement less interesting.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

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.

Actually in most grand strategy games the defender does get a bonus.

Europa Universalis

In this game if I'm not mistaken, the attacker gets hit by a game mechanic called attrition. This mechanic can whittle an attacking force down to a half or quarter strength. This means that you need a much larger attacking force to win in a war.


Empires in Arms

This is a game of where you pit the attacker's maneuver vs the defender's maneuver (outflank, cordon, echelon, etc.) Given that I'm not that familiar with this game I cannot say who has the real advantage. Maybe someone who knows can let us know based on two forces of equal strength, who if any has any advantage.


Warhammer

This may be one game that does not give any bonus to any terrain whatsoever (flat, hilly, etc.) There is no real "attacker" or "defender" as far as game mechanics are concerned. You can set up a scenario where you say "these lands belonged to the dwarfs and the skaven are attacking", but that is more for flavor.

I have never played the game but I have a boxed set of minis as well as the complete rules in my basement, i just don't feel the bug to go down and look it all up.


Civ4

Civ4 was never really considered a wargame. Plus CivV is now hex-based, 1upt (limited armies per area), and was supposed to be modeled off of panzer general. CivV is supposed to feel more war-gamey unlike Civ4.


Hearts of Iron

In this game the defender bonus is inherent in the units not terrain. There are three basic stats: 1) attack (soft, hard) 2) defense and 3) toughness; where defense > toughness.

In this game if you have 2 equal infantry, one unfortified in clear land and the other attacking then the defender will always have the advantage due using the more advantageous defense number.

The attacker on the other hand will have to use the not so great toughness number and will therefore take greater casualties.

And depending on the unit type (such as militia), some units can take up to 6x the casualties just by going on the offensive rather than just sitting there on the defensive.


Victoria

I don't know anything about this game maybe someone can enlighten us.


Advanced Squad leader

This game gives massive bonus to the defender. Especially in open terrain (in open terrain there is usually someplace to take "cover") the defender typically mows down attackers trying to get into position.

There have been numerous session with my buddies were I can remember my units with their SMGs/HMGs get LOS on the attacking forces maneuvering to gain a favorable position only to get KIAed (killed in action). The body count for the attacker can be massive.

If you read through the historical references in the rule manual that Avalon Hill put in most scenarios, you will find that just to get on even odds the attacker had to move in with 3:1 or 4:1 unit strength just to be on an even playing field vs the defender.


In conclusion

Most games give the defender a big bonus because that's what happened in history.

-The American civil war - the Union Army (the attackers) lost 2:1 in troops, despite having an army 3x the size of the South.

-Stalingrad - Massive soviet losses against the German 6th army under Paulus. The German 6th army was out-gunned, out-numbered, under strengthed, encircled, out of supply, starving, and no-where to retreat yet caused losses in the range of 2:1.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The "strategic attacker" does have a disadvantage. If you are in enemy territory, the defender
1. gets to use roads
2. gets complete visionof the territory
3. heals faster
4. has city bombardment support
5. may have combat bonuses (Oligarchy, Nationalism)

And if the 'tactical defender' sits there for 2 turns, they have an advantage.

 

[Paeanblack]

The "strategic attacker" does have a disadvantage. If you are in enemy territory, the defender
1. gets to use roads
2. gets complete visionof the territory
3. heals faster
4. has city bombardment support
5. may have combat bonuses (Oligarchy, Nationalism)

And if the 'tactical defender' sits there for 2 turns, they have an advantage.

None of which the AI currently uses. They just do a banzai charge with all of their units straight into a meat grinder just outside their borders and give up once their army is dead.

That's the heart of the problem. It really has nothing to do with specific bonuses for specific terrains.

If the AI could sensibly fight a defensive war (and know when to go defensive), it would be much more interesting.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

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.

This exactly the problem with Civ5. Maybe I don't want every game to have late-game AI superpowers. I mean how boring is that?

And maybe I'm not as awesome a player as you are. I want a game that varies. Sometimes there can be late game AI superpowers, but not EVERY game.

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.

@-33% the game is a slaughterfest. the high tech AI wins always.
@0% less of a slaughter, but still the 1 CIV per Continent problem
@+20% this makes attacking more difficult, even for the higher tech guy. Creates less possibility for late game AI superpowers. More variation, more fun.... who can argue with that.

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.

This whole post is about clear terrain, not rough.

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.

Actually I started a game last night. Doesn't seem boring to me.

Plus right now in vanilla there isn't much strategy. Just move your forces in and slaughter everything. @-33% you will always win. plus once you defeat all units on the field then it takes 50+ turns for the AI to rebuild everything so it instead surrenders 90% of it's empire.

Oooh, lots of strategy there.

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.

What about at prince level. At the mid-levels I don't bother with too much siege because it just slows me down and besides, I'm gonna win anyway.

Maybe if I make siege more important at mid-levels then the high levels will play as they are supposed to be -> unbeatable.

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

I am doing some test runs. You may be right that I have devalued fortification, maybe in a later game I will tweak that number some.

Constructive criticism is always appreciated.

 

[eric_]

No I think it should stay... because it gives that Chess-like feel.

I agree that it causes one to choose their paths more carefully during war, and can slow your approach to a city if you're worried about being caught in the open.

 

[Abegweit]

On the issue of CIV 4, the defender had huge advantages in that game, all of which have been eliminated in CIV 5 and been replaced by this 33% penalty.

Some of these include:
1) Vastly superior movement within your own borders
2) Cultural protection for cities
3) War weariness
4) The ability to make the first strike, if chosen
5) The ability to choose the battle location
6) Far stronger city defence (SoDs)

Now I realise that this thread is about flat land tiles but the discussion has to be placed in the overall context of invader vs invaded. There is no question that the defender had the edge. In this game, the edge belongs to the attacker. This is why the AI folds so easily to the human and why runaway AIs are so common.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

On the issue of CIV 4, the defender had huge advantages in that game, all of which have been eliminated in CIV 5 and been replaced by this 33% penalty.

Some of these include:
1) Vastly superior movement within your own borders
2) Cultural protection for cities
3) War weariness
4) The ability to make the first strike, if chosen
5) The ability to choose the battle location
6) Far stronger city defence (SoDs)

Now I realise that this thread is about flat land tiles but the discussion has to be placed in the overall context of invader vs invaded. There is no question that the defender had the edge. In this game, the edge belongs to the attacker. This is why the AI folds so easily to the human and why runaway AIs are so common.

So well said in such a compact reply. Me likes.