Defending on clear tiles is a DEATH sentence

[Sonereal]

A patch has been released which is supposedly going to make the AI defend in rough terrain more often.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

To Sonereal:

The comparison of civ4 vs civ5 was to show that defending in Civ4 was easier.

1. Roads:
-In civ4: have a 12 tile front, no problem road/tile them all and move your units at will.
-In civ5: have a 12 tile front, well just build maybe 2 arteries to the front and don't road the rest.
Advantage Civ4 vs Civ5 for defenders

2. Cities:
-In Civ4: I don't remember cities being so easy to get conquered, I had to really prepare.
-In Civ5 cities typically get steamrolled in lands/regions full of clear land, and that's a fact.
Advantage Civ4 vs Civ5 for defenders

3. Unhappiness: Well lets just call this even:
-You say, In Civ4: you can completely ignore war weariness (unhappiness)
-I say, In Civ5: you can for the most part ignore unhappiness as well
No advantage

4. First Strike/unit vs unit combat:, I already stated that that was something I got confused over. Besides Civ4 was never a "war-game", not even a little bit. Anyway:
-In Civ4: no defender penalty in clear lands
-In Civ5: defender penalty in clear lands
Advantage Civ4 vs Civ5 for defenders

5. Choose battle location:
-In Civ4: Defender can easily place units anywhere whenever he wanted due to there being a road on each and every tile.
-In Civ5: Defender has easy access to areas he has placed roads. In those places that do not have roads there is no advantage.
Advantage Civ4 vs Civ5 for defenders

6. City Defense/Motherland Defense:
-In Civ4: cities surrounded by clear tiles can be effectively defended
-In Civ5: cities surrounded by clear tiles can NOT be effectively defended (steamroll)
Advantage Civ4 vs Civ5 for defenders

In conclusion: Civ4 the defender had more of a fighting chance than in Civ5.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

That's a broken chain of logic. Its an AI problem. Not terrain problem.

Where did my logic break down. Show me the broken link.

 

[eric_]

Link to patch info:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=393447

Potentially relevant fix:

* Military - Defensive tactical AI update. When you are at war and threatening an enemy city, the AI will better utilize the garrison, as well as the surrounding terrain in defense of the target city.

 

[eric_]

MJ, initially when reading this thread, my reaction was "you just have to choose your tiles more carefully," then I started to agree with you, but ultimately, I'm back to the view that the defense penalty is a good thing that imposes more tactical complexity.

I definitely think the AI just needs to be coded to handle that reality more effectively.

 

[Sonereal]

To Sonereal:

The comparison of civ4 vs civ5 was to show that defending in Civ4 was easier.

1. Roads:
-In civ4: have a 12 tile front, no problem road/tile them all and move your units at will.
-In civ5: have a 12 tile front, well just build maybe 2 arteries to the front and don't road the rest.
Advantage Civ4 vs Civ5 for defenders

Another AI/Bad human player problem. You can see a war coming a mile away when they're threatening you or massing at the border. Having forts NEAR the border (not on) with artillery in them while having other units on the border is a must. With ZoC, ranged units, and double movement from Civ4, defending a 12 front border is harder still but that's because in Civ4 you just had to worry about one or two stacks. Defending in Civ4 is easier just because stacks could be destroyed with siege units easily.

2. Cities:
-In Civ4: I don't remember cities being so easy to get conquered, I had to really prepare.
-In Civ5 cities typically get steamrolled in lands/regions full of clear land, and that's a fact.
Advantage Civ4 vs Civ5 for defenders

Cities were hard to conquer because the AI and player can turn every battle for a city into a Stalingrad-level deathmatch. Again, you're really failing to see the logic behind this. If a city is being sieged and there are no troops trying to relieve the siege, then that city will fall pretty quickly. Its the AI's or Bad Human Player's fault for not having a strategy.

Case in point: Alexandria is a highly defensive city on the Mediterranean Sea surrounded by clear land. It has a single artillery unit inside. Because of this, my infantry or artillery trying to get into range are smashed hard.

You keep citing problems that are AI related, not terrain related.

3. Unhappiness: Well lets just call this even:
-You say, In Civ4: you can completely ignore war weariness (unhappiness)
-I say, In Civ5: you can for the most part ignore unhappiness as well
No advantage

Glad we agree.

4. First Strike/unit vs unit combat:, I already stated that that was something I got confused over. Besides Civ4 was never a "war-game", not even a little bit. Anyway:
-In Civ4: no defender penalty in clear lands
-In Civ5: defender penalty in clear lands
Advantage Civ4 vs Civ5 for defenders

I don't understand the point of this one.

5. Choose battle location:
-In Civ4: Defender can easily place units anywhere whenever he wanted due to there being a road on each and every tile.
-In Civ5: Defender has easy access to areas he has placed roads. In those places that do not have roads there is no advantage.
Advantage Civ4 vs Civ5 for defenders

WRONG. I could bypass a stack of units pretty easily because no ZoC allowed me to do so. If you don't have roads going there, that's your fault. Especially if you knew you was going to have to go with them eventually. On the flip-side, when there WERE a ton of roads it was nearly impossible for a small AI to invade a larger because the large AI could have his whole army anywhere in nearly an instant.

6. City Defense/Motherland Defense:
-In Civ4: cities surrounded by clear tiles can be effectively defended
-In Civ5: cities surrounded by clear tiles can NOT be effectively defended (steamroll)
Advantage Civ4 vs Civ5 for defenders

In conclusion: Civ4 the defender had more of a fighting chance than in Civ5.

Again, we're talking unrealistic Stalingrad-level battles here. In most sieges, the defender has little chance of winning a battle if they're not relieved. AI...AI....AI problems are all you're spouting.

Where did my logic break down. Show me the broken link.

You're trying to fix and AI problem with changes to things not involving the AI and how they handle wars.

 

[Folket]

The -33% defence in open is madness. It makes battle terrible one-sided.

+20% and +50% sounds great to me.

That reminds me. Mongolia Jones, do you have the mod somewhere?

 

[Mongolia Jones]

The -33% defence in open is madness. It makes battle terrible one-sided.

+20% and +50% sounds great to me.

That reminds me. Mongolia Jones, do you have the mod somewhere?

I have been piggy-backing off other peoples (unrelated) mods and adding my own terrain modifying code to them.

I WILL have a stand alone mod by Sunday (or sooner), especially since you asked for one (yes i saw you asked earlier or was that someone else?). I will make time to sit down and work with mod buddy to make one and will upload it for download in the civ game.



On a side note, I have been playing with +20%/+50% clear/rough and it seems to be working very well.

There is a continent next to me where India and Siam are and right now (rene era) there has been no steam roll (8 city vs 11 city). They share a VERY long border due to sharing the continent length-wise, so there are plenty of clear tiles to attack into.

Also, I own 2 cities on another continent where Japan is and I have stationed swordsmen in 8 of the 10 mostly clear hexes, without fear that they will be annihilated (with only 1 treb as support... must build more...). I have no horses, but I have a slight tech advantage.

The fact that I can station troops all along my border without the fear that they will be slaughtered is making the game more enjoyable. Also, the fact that if I decide to attack without proper support (ranged, healers) my attack will go nowhere despite my slight superiority in troop quality.

In games where the clear was -33% to defense, I could get away with steamrolling Japan with a numerically inferior force without much need of support.

lots of fun.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

You keep citing problems that are AI related, not terrain related.

AI...AI....AI problems are all you're spouting.

Sonereal: In my current game by just altering the terrain values my AI problems seem to be going away.

How can you explain that?

 

[Perkus]

Last night I started my first game with the flat-land penalty zeroed out. It's early, but it made taking care of barbarians much more difficult (a good thing). Instead of waiting for them to stumble out into the open eventually, where even a single warrior could typically cripple or insta-jib them, I've often two units to take them out safely. I took Liberty over Honor and soon regretted it, as I've had to scramble to hold off the BBQ hordes.

 

[Abegweit]

War weariness was flawed. Did you really have problems with it? I didn't. I ignored its existence in most of my games and I was fine having wars that last thousands of years.

In Civ4? For real wars, not pretend ones? What level did you play at anyway?

 

[eric_]

Sonereal: In my current game by just altering the terrain values my AI problems seem to be going away.

How can you explain that?

It's a bandaid. If AI used terrain effectively (i.e., favored defend-able tiles over fastest route in risky scenarios), it would likely lead to the same outcome (much harder to steamroll).

 

[Mongolia Jones]

It's a bandaid. If AI used terrain effectively (i.e., favored defend-able tiles over fastest route in risky scenarios), it would likely lead to the same outcome (much harder to steamroll).

As a matter of fact, depending on how important the programmers tell the AI to use rough tiles over clear (i.e. rough = you live, clear = you die) , this may facilitate the steamroll even more.

Many times the only rough terrain is 2 or 3 hexes to the side, or maybe 2 hexes in the rear of the city. Go ahead and place your units waaay over there, that city is going down 1 or 2 turns sooner now.

Steamroll in overdrive baby.

 

[eric_]

If AI has a clue about how to use terrain, they will simply put their own units on those hills and force you to fight in the open. The patch explicitly states that this is what should happen now...we'll see how it plays out in reality, though.

 

[Seven05]

On a side note, I have been playing with +20%/+50% clear/rough and it seems to be working very well.

Lots of ways to 'fix' the steamroller problem without simply giving the defender an additional bonus. I find your change a little ironic, lowering fortification bonuses and then adding an 'always on' bonus instead. That also makes bonuses in friendly territory insane, or more insane since they were already pretty insane even with the penalty in open terrain.

Anyway, I solved the steamroller issue with four simple changes-

I doubled the HP of units (to 20 from 10). Not only does it do away with most cases of 'one shotting' units it also increases healing time making your decision to push onward or hold up to heal more important. It also increases the value of burning promotion on instant heals which is OK because that instant heal is a one-time bonus so that unit won't actually be better at subsequent combat which in itself slows down the steamroller.

I doubled the HP of cities (to 40 from 20). Cities simply fell to quickly and there wasn't time to try to break the siege regardless of terrain. If you can move in with a few units and take the city in one turn it won't matter where your opponent has the rest of their army.

I increased the city combat strength based on population. Taking border cities with 2-3 pop is still easy but large cities become extremely tough- they hit harder with their ranged attack, they do more damage when you 'melee' attack them and they are more resilient to ranged attacks. Taking a large city in one turn with a pair of frigates and a calvary or two is simply impossible.

Finally, I changed the fortification bonus from 25% per turn for two turns to 20% per turn for five turns. This means entrenched units gain a 100% bonus, easily overcoming the penalty in flatlands but without eliminating the ability to decimate units moving through flatlands. If you want more static lines with tougher defenders this is all you need to do, unlike a flat 'always on' defensive strength bonus this only applies to units that have had some time to prepare making hit & run tactics still a viable option against units that are moving. This also makes units significantly more resilient to ranged attacks if they are entrenched and makes it difficult to completely overpower a fortified unit flanking bonuses alone.

Four lines in one xml file if you're curious. The net effect is probably very similar, it takes much longer to blast your way through an opponent and the AI survives better against human and AI players alike. The biggest difference is in the way we decided to handle the defender. Your method gives a bonus to the player who is defending at that moment where my method gives a bonus to the player that is trying to hold territory rather than advance. With your bonus my infantry marching through your land is in less danger because even though I am the aggressor and on the offense if you decide to attack my units they are the defender for that combat so you have introduced the side effect of making careless aggression less dangerous.

Just some options to think about

If your curious about all of my failed attempts to tweak combat I'd be happy to share them too.

 

[hendo]

Just to make sure I'm getting this right: you're saying make units DEFENDING in open tiles get a 20% strength bonus, and units DEFENDING in 'rough' tiles to get a 50% strength bonus, and units ATTACKING in either type of tile to receive no terrain bonus?

If so, sounds decent to me

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Seven05, you ideas are interesting. The only problem that I see is that some battles may take way too long because of the high health totals. I may incorporate some of what you did in a later mod.

I find your change a little ironic, lowering fortification bonuses and then adding an 'always on' bonus instead. That also makes bonuses in friendly territory insane, or more insane since they were already pretty insane even with the penalty in open terrain.

Finally, I changed the fortification bonus ... to 20% per turn for five turns. This means entrenched units gain a 100% bonus

LOL, in one breath you attack my -33% -> +20% (53% total) change as "insane" (meaning too drastic a change).

Then in the next breath you give your (non-insane... I'm assuming) solution of a +100% fortification bonus (on top of double heath points no less).


Plus, I just don't ever see the AI ever fortify for more than 1 turn. Maybe in a future patch where the AI values fortification will it become worth it. But 100%? I'll just call that change "a tad too high".

 

[Mongolia Jones]

oops dbl poast

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Just to make sure I'm getting this right: you're saying make units DEFENDING in open tiles get a 20% strength bonus, and units DEFENDING in 'rough' tiles to get a 50% strength bonus, and units ATTACKING in either type of tile to receive no terrain bonus?

If so, sounds decent to me

Yes and yes and yes

 

[Sonereal]

Sonereal: In my current game by just altering the terrain values my AI problems seem to be going away.

How can you explain that?

The AI isn't getting smarter. It's just that you made wars favor the defender even more than they do. Again. How do you intend to balance the policies than at +33% defense modifiers? This is OP for human players as it the enemy ever possibly defeating them.

Jones, will you at least concede to the idea that if the AI knew to defend rough tiles/attack open hexes, that the +20% modifier would be unneeded?

In Civ4? For real wars, not pretend ones? What level did you play at anyway?

Noble to Monarch. Mostly Prince but I play Noble in mods using BBAI. I really don't see how bad war weariness is because it was very easy to ignore. They should've brought it back for Civ5 and tweaked it so that Aggressors suffer it heavily when they lose troops. That would make defensive wars better for the AI.