Defending on clear tiles is a DEATH sentence

[KrikkitTwo]

On the issue of CIV 4, the defender had huge advantages in that game, all of which have been eliminated in CIV 5 and been replaced by this 33% penalty.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

In civ 5

2) Cultural protection for cities

Cities have auomatic unitless protection now, not just a % bonus

3) War weariness

Conquered city unhappiness

4) The ability to make the first strike, if chosen

That's an Attacker advantage, and in Civ 5, unless you are referring to point 1)

5) The ability to choose the battle location

Attacker advantage, and in Civ 5, unless you are referring to point 1)

6) Far stronger city defence (SoDs)

That's not City defense, that's an army defence... that happens to be in the city... armies can still defend cities in civ 5. just not in the same tile.

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.

No I think it is far more.
1. general AI incompetence.. and the randomness allows military focusing AIs to start steamrolling nonmilitary ones
2. AIs 'rage quitting' ie surrendering everything to the enemy.

the only components are
3. Weak city defence... city defences should be Much better investments than units for defending a particular city.. they aren't
4. insufficient conquest penalties.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

@Krikkitone

In defense of Abegweit where the defender in Civ4 had a bigger advantage.

1) Vastly superior movement within your own borders
Because of road/rail spam, infinite rail move, and a default unit move of 1 (tops 2) square(s), the defender had a huge movement advantage.


2) Cultural protection for cities
It is true that cities have an inherent protection now, but in Civ4 you could put huge stacks in cities where they became an absolute pain in the ass to conquer. Not so in Civ5. Yea you get a bonus, but I haven't had any problem taking any city up to now. Not like in Civ4 where sometimes I had to back off completely until i amass enough forces to take it.


3) War weariness
In Civ5 there are ways of getting around unhappiness. You can puppet or you can raze. In civ4 you don't even have to conquer any cities and you still get hit with unhappiness. Either end the war or trash your gold/science to keep your pop happy.


4) The ability to make the first strike, if chosen
In Civ4, if I am not mistaken the Defender ALWAYS gets first strike as a default. The First Strike was a unit special and part of the Drill IV advance (I believe) to counter the inherent defender bonus.


5) The ability to choose the battle location
I guess in connection to point 1. With road/infinite move rail spam the attacker can choose the location of the battle much more effectively.


6) Far stronger city defence (SoDs)
In civ5 cities surrounded by clear tiles are sitting ducks. There is no effective defense of a city in such a case. The only defense is a good offense (i.e. quickly wipe them out before they wipe you out.) Again, cities in Civ5 aren't really that much of an obstacle, hence the mod to make cities in Civ5 stronger. From what I can tell it is quite popular a mod.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Agree with the rest (bonuses toned down rather than eliminated) but

4) The ability to make the first strike, if chosen
In Civ4, if I am not mistaken the Defender ALWAYS gets first strike as a default. The First Strike was a unit special and part of the Drill IV advance (I believe) to counter the inherent defender bonus.

First Strike applied whether you were attacking or defending.

Add in Collateral damage (Civ 4 tacticall attack bonus).


Strategic defense has a problem in that it is overpowered against the AI.... once the AI attacks you and it loses its army in your killing field, the cities don't have significant strength.

I do agree that City Defenses should be stronger, to encourage players to focus on those rather than military units to defend a city.
But a lot of the problems could be solved by an AI Fix.


BTW, does anyone remember the formula for how much damage is done in an attack (based on Str of Attacker+Defender)

 

[Mongolia Jones]

First Strike applied whether you were attacking or defending.

Add in Collateral damage (Civ 4 tacticall attack bonus).

Sorry I did not clearly state point #4.

In civ4 for green unpromoted units, the defender always attacks 1st.

There are formulas (which I still have on excel somewhere) where it showed if 2 units being equal in all ways (strength, same promos, clear terrain) that the defender will win (55% vs 45% or somesuch) due to the fact that the defender by default gets the first hit to cause damage. Then after the defender fires a new calculation will take place with the attacker that fires on the defender at a possibly reduced effect due to being damaged by the defender.

Again, in civ4 I'm pretty sure the defender had a 55/45 advantage.

First Strike was a special that allowed the attacker the first strike vs the defender (who always got the first attack by default). And if BOTH attacker and defender had First Strike then the defender got to attack first.

 

[Ahriman]

Because of road/rail spam, infinite rail move

Rail movement in Civ4 isn't infinite. Road/rail speed is the same in Civ5.
Road movement is still a huge advantage in Civ5. For example, it means I can kite with siege units; move back a tile (or two), set up, fire.

Also in Civ5 are at least three accessible massive bonuses for defending in your own territory; Oligarchy, Nationalism, Himeji Castle.

But note that you guys are starting to confuse the strategic defender (eg the one fighting in their own territory) for the tactical defender (the one whose tile is getting attacked).

The existence of various strategic defensive advantages in no way means that there should be a tactical advantage for defenders regardless of terrain.
If you want a tactical terrain advantage, maneuver for it, and get onto rough terrain or behind a river.

In Civ5 there are ways of getting around unhappiness.

So? In Civ4 there were various ways to get around war weariness.
And war weariness seldom affected small cities at all.

Again, in civ4 I'm pretty sure the defender had a 55/45 advantage.

Show source. I do not think that is true. There are no first strikes except through the ability.
Combat in Civ4 happens in rounds, where each has a winner. Its not "I try and hit you, then you try and hit me".

I am 95% sure that two identical vanilla units in Civ4 fighting on open ground with no modifiers have a 50/50 victory chance.

First Strike was a special that allowed the attacker the first strike vs the defende

Nope. The first strike ability didn't care whether it was on the attacker or defender.
It simply meant that whoever had more first strikes couldn't be damaged in the first X rounds of combat (X = number of first strikes I have more than you), even if they lost. (If they won, it had no effect).
There were no first strikes except those granted by ability/promotion.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Rail movement in Civ4 isn't infinite. Road/rail speed is the same in Civ5.
Road movement is still a huge advantage in Civ5. For example, it means I can kite with siege units; move back a tile (or two), set up, fire.

Okay, not infinite but there was a civ version where it was infinite. Anyway, because of road spam defending in Civ4 was easier vs Civ5, which was the point of the post.

Also in Civ5 are at least three accessible massive bonuses for defending in your own territory; Oligarchy, Nationalism, Himeji Castle.

I don't want to be forced to invest in a wonder or certain policies just to be able to defend at par, and only in my own territory no less. Those should be real benefits, not some mechanic to hide a flaw in the game.

If you want a tactical terrain advantage, maneuver for it, and get onto rough terrain or behind a river.

In Civ5, the penalty for attacking across a river is -20% (to the attacker).

So if I see a unit in the clear, on the other side of the river, I will ALWAYS attack because the defender is still at a disadvantage -> (my -20% vs his -33%).

So? In Civ4 there were various ways to get around war weariness.
And war weariness seldom affected small cities at all.

The most effective way to get around unhappiness due to ww in civ4 was to move the slider from cash and science to luxuries. Which effectively trashed your economy.

Unhappiness in Civ5 is different. You don't lose science nor do you lose gold, your economy stays intact. What you do lose is benefits, such as city growth and a reduced rate of golden ages. All of which do not cripple your economy.

Plus as stated above in Civ5 you can puppet and raze to your hearts content and never worry about unhappiness. You can be at war from 4000 b.c. and remain at war till 2050 A.D. and have a happy population.

Can you do that in civ4?

Combat in Civ4 happens in rounds, where each has a winner. Its not "I try and hit you, then you try and hit me".

I am 95% sure that two identical vanilla units in Civ4 fighting on open ground with no modifiers have a 50/50 victory chance.

You are correct. I got civ4 mixed up with another game. Anyway in a previous post I mentioned that civ4 was never really called a "war-game", nor was it modeled to be as such which is evidenced with the SoD and square tile layout.

 

[Roxlimn]

Mongolia Jones:

Aside from Himeji Castle, Oligarchy, and Nationalism, you also heal faster in friendly territory, and can upgrade.

You can also make Forts and Citadels, which are very effective in Civ V's 1UPT model of war. There's also the Great Wall, but its arguably broken defensive benefit is not a percent gain.

It is not always a good idea to attack across a river, particularly when the opposite terrain is Open Terrain. The reason for this is that moving across a river uses up all movement points, so a Horseman that attacks across a river gets stuck there, and that's a bigger matter than simply having the defense percentages up.

Generally speaking, I find it best to stay on the other side of a defensive barrier like a river and massacre the enemy melee or mounted units with ranged units.

 

[Ahriman]

I don't want to be forced to invest in a wonder or certain policies just to be able to defend at par

You don't have to. Use rough terrain. Rough terrain + oligarchy = huge bonus.

You seem to demand that the tactical defender is *always* at an advantage.
But thats an idiotic way to design the game. It pushes everything into tank-push style tactics, where melee units are just for defending my ranged bombardment units. The game already encourages this enough.
Part of the game design is that even with ranged units, you have to have *something* that is vulnerable, or very good placement.

In Civ5, the penalty for attacking across a river is -20% (to the attacker).

So don't sit right behind the river - sit a tile behind that. Units are forced to stop after crossing the river, and then you can kill them on the counterattack. Use the terrain properly.

The most effective way to get around unhappiness due to ww in civ4 was to move the slider from cash and science to luxuries.

That's one way, but its a profoundly wasteful way. Much easier to build war weariness reduction buildings in your large cities. And I never found WW to be that much of a problem.

You don't lose science nor do you lose gold, your economy stays intact.

You lose production and military strength at very unhappy. [And growth, which effects science.]
Now, I agree that unhappiness isn't a big enough penalty in Civ5 yet (and I think it should effect science and culture), but the appropriate fix is to increase the penalty, not to mess with terrain.

Plus as stated above in Civ5 you can puppet and raze to your hearts content and never worry about unhappiness

No you can't. Puppets still cause unhappiness, and razing causes lots of (temporary) unhappiness because you have to annex.

I agree its not painful enough yet, but again, tweak unhappiness, not terrain.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

You don't have to. Use rough terrain. Rough terrain + oligarchy = huge bonus.

Again, this thread is about clear terrain, not rough. That is the second time you have made this mistake.

You seem to demand that the tactical defender is *always* at an advantage.
But thats an idiotic way to design the game.

Then most war game designers are idiotic? I guess this is where we agree to disagree.

Defenders ALWAYS have the upper hand. Most games are based on this real world fact. You choose to ignore this that's on you.

So don't sit right behind the river - sit a tile behind that. Units are forced to stop after crossing the river, and then you can kill them on the counterattack. Use the terrain properly.

No wait... you feel that it's perfectly okay for a unit to have the advantage when directly attacking over a river.

*shakes head*

That's one way, but its a profoundly wasteful way. Much easier to build war weariness reduction buildings in your large cities. And I never found WW to be that much of a problem.

That's probably because you didn't stay at war for that long. I don't remember having to completely ignore war weariness.

Besides I was a big FFH2 player, maybe war weariness was just a little nuisance that could be completely ignored once you built your 3 or 4 buildings in your big cities.

...tweak unhappiness, not terrain.

No one has even come close to giving a good argument as to why modifying terrain penalties is not the right route to go.

And to say "such and such is idiotic" is not an argument.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

It is not always a good idea to attack across a river, particularly when the opposite terrain is Open Terrain. The reason for this is that moving across a river uses up all movement points, so a Horseman that attacks across a river gets stuck there, and that's a bigger matter than simply having the defense percentages up.

Generally speaking, I find it best to stay on the other side of a defensive barrier like a river and massacre the enemy melee or mounted units with ranged units.

With the exception of those units that can move after an attack, a river does not offer enough of a deterent to stop from attacking especially since attacking from behind a river still causes the attacker to have an overall bonus when attacking into clear terrain.

Again, it is absurd that a unit attacking over a river would have any kind of advantage but in Civ5 they do.

I am convinced that the -33% penalty was a design flaw and am almost certain it will be removed in a future patch.

 

[Ahriman]

Again, this thread is about clear terrain, not rough. That is the second time you have made this mistake

Its not a mistake. Its pointing out the fatal problem in your argument.

Your argument goes like this: you are at a penalty defending on open terrain. Solution, remove the penalty.

When the real solution is: so don't defend on open terrain, put some thought into your unit positioning!

You don't *have* to defend on open terrain if you don't want to.

Then most war game designers are idiotic? I guess this is where we agree to disagree.
Defenders ALWAYS have the upper hand. Most games are based on this real world fact. You choose to ignore this that's on you.

"Most wargames" don't necessarily give the defender an advantage on a tile. Very very often, they give mobility advantages (which we have) or fortification advantages (which we have) or terrain advantages (which we have) or other advantages (which we have).

And most wargames don't have mechanics where you have attacks with no counterattack, like ranged bombardment. If the tactical defender always has an advantage, then you can use tank-push strategies at will.

No wait... you feel that it's perfectly okay for a unit to have the advantage when directly attacking over a river.

If they're attacking an unprepared enemy, sure. But guess what, either they won't kill it, or they'll be incredibly vulnerable on the counterattack.
The current system has a strategic tension; if I attack that unit on open ground, if I kill it, I will be vulnerable next turn. Only cavalry don't have this, but *even* cavalry have this if they attack across a river.

Besides I was a big FFH2 player

War weariness was very different in FFH2 than it was in vanilla.

No one has even come close to giving a good argument as to why modifying terrain penalties is not the right route to go.

We've explained to you many times. The current system makes positioning important. It makes it matter what tile you're on. It makes it possible to over-extend yourself.

If defending was always an advantage, then the terrain would be much less important, and you'd be able to use melee units to screen ranged without ever having to make anything vulnerable, so you'd have no reason to actually attack with your melee units, you'd just use them to defend while bombarding the enemy to death.

I am convinced that the -33% penalty was a design flaw and am almost certain it will be removed in a future patch.

I am convinced that you are wrong, and that it was a very deliberate design decision, made carefully.
Before I played Civ5, I also thought it was weird and unrealistic. But now that I've played a while, I changed my mind, and I think its necessary for the combat engine to work.

 

[Luthervian]

I've been thinking about this, and wanted to immediately jump to Mongolia Jone's defense. If he wants to make a mod that attempts to slow down the rampant slaughter of the AI, I can't fault him.

I even had several points to make to Ahriman, about how he was starting to stray into a tone of belligerance and hostility, which I don't believe that M.J. deserves.

*Then* I realize that this is posted in Strategy and Tactics, when it really doesn't pertain to strategy and tactics for Vanilla Civ. It's either a discussion about modding alternatives, or a criticism of the way Civ V does things, and neither really should be here in the strategy & tactics, where it may confuse newer types that might come here looking for ways to beat Civ V (Is there anyone really having that problem )

I can definately see the arguments on both sides of the fence, even if I instinctually feel put off by the percieved tone and want to jump to who I see as the "underdog".

I imagine that when/if the AI ever gets fixed, these types of debates will no longer be necessary. Right now, however, the AI is borked, and as a person that never got past the early/middle difficulty levels of Civ IV, even I find this game too easy. I see so much potential (I love playing the strategic view) but right now Im struggling to stay interested. I want to love this ugly stepchild -- but it's so dang tough.

So in the meantime, I am greatful for any sort of mod that might prolong my enjoyment and increase my difficulty and I would think we'd want to explore every option available to temporarily patch this game until the real one is out. Even if you disagree with the attempt, constructive criticism is always better than belittlement and harsh tones - especially when the target's intentions are good.

That said, again - this really shouldn't be in Strategy & Tips -- being here gives Ahriman very solid ground to vehemetly oppose your fix. I just wish the tone was a wee bit more polite about it.

To stay on topic in a topic that isn't topic'd right:

What other options do we have, modding wise, that might delay the early game steamroll and cut down on every game becoming me against which ever Civ Superpower is remaining?

The defensive changes suggested by Mongolia Jones has it's pros, but Ahriman has more than sufficiently covered the cons as well. What about increasing the defensive value of cities as well as providing more defensive bonus buildings for those cities? I've seen a few mods go that route. For the record, my curiosity is piqued about changing defense to 0% but I agree with quite a few others that giving it a bonus of 20% seems high. I understand your arguments, but it still feels high.

I've seen suggestions to reduce the horseman speed to 3, or reduce the strength of them. This seems to address the horseman steamroll to some extent, but I can steam roll enough civs early enough with even non horseman units that the end game gets terribly one sided.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Its not a mistake. Its pointing out the fatal problem in your argument.

Your argument goes like this: you are at a penalty defending on open terrain. Solution, remove the penalty.

When the real solution is: so don't defend on open terrain, put some thought into your unit positioning!

You don't *have* to defend on open terrain if you don't want to.

So what you are saying is that I should never defend in open terrain and only defend in rough, especially because my units will be worth double strength if they do.

Hmm, always defend in rough...
never defend in clear...

Yup... Lots of strategy involved there.

Thats like saying if you stand in this hex you live, and if you stand in that hex you die... Which do you choose? Well duh... And how much strategy does that take?

"Most wargames" don't necessarily give the defender an advantage on a tile. Very very often, they give mobility advantages (which we have) or fortification advantages (which we have) or terrain advantages (which we have) or other advantages (which we have).

But they never give terrain disadvantages to the defender.

Why does Civ5 do that yet all the other games don't?

And most wargames don't have mechanics where you have attacks with no counterattack, like ranged bombardment. If the tactical defender always has an advantage, then you can use tank-push strategies at will.

Right now clear terrain gives a unit the advantage on the attack. Which makes every unit act like a tank. Attack and you cause more damage. Defend and you cause less damage.

In a nutshell. If on a primarily flat continent "tank-push" everything. Which is what happens now as witnessed by the AI steamrolling everywhere.

This is like a game of checkers you jump me, i jump you (you slaughter me, I slaughter you).

The current system has a strategic tension; if I attack that unit on open ground, if I kill it, I will be vulnerable next turn. Only cavalry don't have this, but *even* cavalry have this if they attack across a river.

That precisely whats WRONG with the current system. If you keep a unit in open terrain, you get slaughtered. And you agree with the current system of I-slaughter-you-slaughter.

There's no tension when the expectation is certain loss of a unit.

In the current system if I am in clear terrain I have the expectation of losing/dieing. See no tension.

But if in a system where I have a good (even) chance at surviving an attack/counterattack then I may be a little more tense because I may expect/hope to live.

Right now, I EXPECT a unit in clear terrain to die... see no confusion... no tension.

War weariness was very different in FFH2 than it was in vanilla.

Evidently, I didn't know you could ignore it so easily.

We've explained to you many times. The current system makes positioning important. It makes it matter what tile you're on. It makes it possible to over-extend yourself.

Yes, yes. Rough terrain = you live, Clear terrain = you die. Lots of strategy involved there, how could I have missed that.

The title of the thread is "Defending on clear tiles is a DEATH sentence", but i keep forgetting that and placing my units on clear tiles in my games. I keep forgetting the very involved strategy of placing units only in the rough.

Sheesh

If defending was always an advantage, then the terrain would be much less important, and you'd be able to use melee units to screen ranged without ever having to make anything vulnerable, so you'd have no reason to actually attack with your melee units, you'd just use them to defend while bombarding the enemy to death.

Right now -> terrain = the difference between life and death.

My system -> terrain = much less effect on combat with benefits in rough terrain.


My system works. You bombard with ranged, and mop up with melee units (as it should be). You could also attack directly with the powerful horse and tank units to whittle down the enemy then attack with weakened units with melee.

You can still attack and take ground, it just won't be as easy as it is now. You will have to actually use some REAL strategy.

Before I played Civ5, I also thought it was weird and unrealistic. But now that I've played a while, I changed my mind, and I think its necessary for the combat engine to work.

If the Civ5 combat engine was designed to enable civs to steamroll, then it works very well.

But... I didn't sign up to play Civ5: Steamroll Edition.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I've been thinking about this, and wanted to immediately jump to Mongolia Jone's defense. If he wants to make a mod that attempts to slow down the rampant slaughter of the AI, I can't fault him.

I even had several points to make to Ahriman, about how he was starting to stray into a tone of belligerance and hostility, which I don't believe that M.J. deserves.

*Then* I realize that this is posted in Strategy and Tactics, when it really doesn't pertain to strategy and tactics for Vanilla Civ. It's either a discussion about modding alternatives, or a criticism of the way Civ V does things, and neither really should be here in the strategy & tactics, where it may confuse newer types that might come here looking for ways to beat Civ V (Is there anyone really having that problem )

I can definately see the arguments on both sides of the fence, even if I instinctually feel put off by the percieved tone and want to jump to who I see as the "underdog".

I imagine that when/if the AI ever gets fixed, these types of debates will no longer be necessary. Right now, however, the AI is borked, and as a person that never got past the early/middle difficulty levels of Civ IV, even I find this game too easy. I see so much potential (I love playing the strategic view) but right now Im struggling to stay interested. I want to love this ugly stepchild -- but it's so dang tough.

So in the meantime, I am greatful for any sort of mod that might prolong my enjoyment and increase my difficulty and I would think we'd want to explore every option available to temporarily patch this game until the real one is out. Even if you disagree with the attempt, constructive criticism is always better than belittlement and harsh tones - especially when the target's intentions are good.

That said, again - this really shouldn't be in Strategy & Tips -- being here gives Ahriman very solid ground to vehemetly oppose your fix. I just wish the tone was a wee bit more polite about it.

To stay on topic in a topic that isn't topic'd right:

What other options do we have, modding wise, that might delay the early game steamroll and cut down on every game becoming me against which ever Civ Superpower is remaining?

The defensive changes suggested by Mongolia Jones has it's pros, but Ahriman has more than sufficiently covered the cons as well. What about increasing the defensive value of cities as well as providing more defensive bonus buildings for those cities? I've seen a few mods go that route. For the record, my curiosity is piqued about changing defense to 0% but I agree with quite a few others that giving it a bonus of 20% seems high. I understand your arguments, but it still feels high.

I've seen suggestions to reduce the horseman speed to 3, or reduce the strength of them. This seems to address the horseman steamroll to some extent, but I can steam roll enough civs early enough with even non horseman units that the end game gets terribly one sided.

I think cutting dwn the steamroll (both AI and Human) has to focus on strengthening cities themselves.

Because Bonuses in 'my territory' can be used to destroy the enemy army, allowing me to invade them.

I think that City Defense needs to be improved. Specifically Defensive Structures. If a city that a player Invested in was likely to hold out, then the AI/human enemy might think twice about trying to take it.

I'd say 2x city defense Building values (so wall 10, Castle 15, Military base 25)
possibly give Siege units a greater bonus v. cities to compensate.

 

[Roxlimn]

With the exception of those units that can move after an attack, a river does not offer enough of a deterent to stop from attacking especially since attacking from behind a river still causes the attacker to have an overall bonus when attacking into clear terrain.

Again, it is absurd that a unit attacking over a river would have any kind of advantage but in Civ5 they do.

I am convinced that the -33% penalty was a design flaw and am almost certain it will be removed in a future patch.

I think you ought to play more wars.

Any unit you send forward is going to get attacked, and most likely attacked by several enemy units. If your unit doesn't die, it will only get a chance to retreat if its retreat isn't being blocked by a river. Otherwise, it's dead meat.

The biggest defensive measure a river grants is the limitation on movement. This alone makes attacking across a river a suspect move unless you're moving across the river en masse with your entire army - and even then you can be caught unawares if the AI was smart enough to swing around and attack from behind.

The way you want combat to work for rivers is that the melee ought to stand at the banks of the river and defend it like it was a goshdarned fort. It doesn't work that way currently, but it doesn't mean that a river has no defensive value. In fact, the value is quite large.

The way to work it is to have ranged units to punish all units that cross the river, and mounted or melee units to finish off what the ranged units don't immediately kill. This mechanic is so effective that it's frequently a better idea to fall back and allow the AI to stumble over its own defensive river than it is to push forward bluntly.

In short, attacking across a river has worse penalties than simply having -20% to attack. Ending up in Open Terrain on the wrong side of a river is not a good idea.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

The defensive changes suggested by Mongolia Jones has it's pros, but Ahriman has more than sufficiently covered the cons as well.

No he hasn't sufficiently covered the cons.

What he is saying that there is a grand strategy of unit placement in the current system.

This hex you live and that hex you die does not make for a grand strategy game.


Or am I missing something here?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This hex you live and that hex you die does not make for a grand strategy game.


Or am I missing something here?

No... this "hex" you live, that one you die is Chess.

I makes terrain/unit position important

 

[Mongolia Jones]

In short, attacking across a river has worse penalties than simply having -20% to attack. Ending up in Open Terrain on the wrong side of a river is not a good idea.

yes, yes, yes, YES....

And in Civ5 what is a worse penalty than attacking over a river tile...

The REAL penalty is plainly sitting on a clear tile...

a DEATH penalty.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

No... this "hex" you live, that one you die is Chess.

I makes terrain/unit position important

No, chess is if you move forward and attack me then the resulting counter attack could be much worse than your attack on me.

Right now it's checkers. It is always to my benefit to attack rather than reserve my attack because i will always cause MORE DAMAGE.

Similarly it is always in your benefit to attack on your turn.

You kill me I kill you.

Checkers.

 

[Roxlimn]

Mongolia Jones:

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. The current setup favors defensive stances and ranged units. It is NOT advisable to move your Warrior on his hill putting down his ZOC to attack the enemy warrior, because your Warrior will die when he's counterattacked. Instead, it makes more sense to have the Archer attack the Warrior on the Open Terrain, and then let your Warrior sit on the Hill.

It's not checkers because checkers doesn't have ranged units that can take out other pieces. Have you used ranged units? Honest question there.