Defending on clear tiles is a DEATH sentence

[hendo]

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.

Under current rules, a fully fortified, full hp tank (base strength 50) defending against another HP tank, in neutral territory, with no modifiers other than tile bonuses, will have a strength of either 58.5 (clear tile), or 87.5 (rough tile). While I don't dispute that a defensive tile bonus should apply, the contrast between these two figures is a little jarring. The attacker almost break even with the defender in open ground, despite its fortification, and will come off much worse against the tank in rough territory, with the defender scoring a notable victory over the attacker, but the first scenario seems a little skewed in the favour of the attacker when perhaps it shouldn't be.

Under MJ's rules, the defending tank has a strength of either 85 (open), or 100 (rough). Here the defender will defend fairly well in open land, and will decimate the attacker in rough land. Bearing in mind that the defender is fortified, one would except the defending unit to be tough to destroy. Imo, the open territory bonus is a little high, perhaps just 0% (75 strength) is more balanced, or maybe 10% (80 strength).

Under Seven05's rules, the defending tank has a strength of either 88.5 (open), or 110 (rough). Combat results would be fairly similar to those seen under MJ's rules (with the defender doing a bit more damage), but the key difference really being how long it takes to fully fortify units, 5 turns, as opposed to the current 2 turns.

I personally like the idea of meshing the two ideas together, with MJ's new territory rules (but with 0% for open tiles instead of 20%), combined with Seven05's rule of taking longer to fortify BUT make it 10% per turn for 5 turns, so that the maximum fortification is unchanged, but it takes longer to build up. I wasn't as keen on the double HP idea

Just my thoughts and some numbers anyway, I might have got stuff wrong.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

It's just that you made wars favor the defender even more than they do.

By your statement above it seems you believe that wars favor defenders in Civ5 in it's current form. Due to the amount of steamrolling I disagree, Civ5 in its current form is an Attacker-pro game.

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.

Human players get that right now by sitting units on rough ground & the policy with up to 50% fortification (+25% +33% +50%).

Using your logic, we should change rough terrain bonus to maybe a -10% penalty because the AI cannot handle such high bonuses.

I mean, how does the AI defeat you now if you are up on hills?

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?

No.

It doesn't solve the problem of AI steamrolling primarily flat regions.

 

[Sonereal]

By your statement above it seems you believe that wars favor defenders in Civ5 in it's current form. Due to the amount of steamrolling I disagree, Civ5 in its current form is an Attacker-pro game.

I've defended open terrain pretty easily. If the only thing you're looking at are tile defense modifiers and nothing like the AI's ability to effectively defend, then yes, Civ5 favors the attacker.

I can easily make the case that it favors the defender since the defender has first choice of terrain to defend on.

Human players get that right now by sitting units on rough ground & the policy with up to 50% fortification (+25% +33% +50%).

The AI knows when you're in hills and knows when you're on poorly-defendable terrain. It's the reason why the AI loves attacking people in open terrain but it fails to follow up on that. It's like a chess AI that never learns.

No, do AIs do that? 20%+33%=55% unfortified right off the bat which is insane. This system heavily favors the defender more than the game already does but it favors the human player more.

Using your logic, we should change rough terrain bonus to maybe a -10% penalty because the AI cannot handle such high bonuses.

That wasn't my logic. Using your logic, all terrain should be raised to a 100% with a flat bonus since that would accomplish your singular goal of defeating the Runaway Civilization without heed to gameplay balance or realism. Your changes aren't challenging. They're only useful to the AI pre-patch (new patch AI uses rough terrain more).

Again, instead of thinking of gameplay (which you're not helping with), think with an eye for realism. I gave you an realistic reason why there would be open terrain penalties. You haven't given a single counter to those reasons.

No.

It doesn't solve the problem of AI steamrolling primarily flat regions.

Yes it would. The AI has never steamrolled me in a flat region because I don't fight in flat regions. Only an idiot would use melee units in open terrain instead of ranged/mobile units. Only an idiot would think that was a good idea in any real war.

There's a reason why this "problem" wasn't patched even though its a simple fix. It's because it isn't broken.

 

[Sonereal]

Let's take this example. There's a man named Henry. He was conscripted into a rag-time force of spearmen from a frontier city with no military building. One day his unit has to move out to defend a city in open-terrain.

He's nervous. His culture isn't use to war. There's no strict "Honor" system or "Warrior Code". Nothing like that. He's carrying a spear and he's practiced a little with it but other than that, he's never seen combat nor trained professionally.

His unit is crossing a wonderful field of green when on the horizon he's sees men on horseback. The scouts didn't mention anything about this! His unit is surprised and hasitly sets up a defense but they're untrained and defending an area very hard to defend.

The horseman unit is also made up of untrained units but they're confindent. They're faster and more mobile but lack any real training. Just like the unit they're fighting. So, both units clash and the predictable happens. Heavy casualties on both sides.

If Henry had been better trained. He could've handle the sudden raid. If his unit had received word earlier of an attack, his unit could've dug in and morale would've increased along with the fact that they would be fortified and ready for a charge. With more experience, the casualties would've been heavier for the horsemen and lighter for the spearmen. Had they fortified the same thing would've happened. If it was both, the spearman unit would've won.

Again, the only problem with horsemen and mounted units in generally is that they don't receive a heavy penalty for attacking rough terrain.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

I've defended open terrain pretty easily. If the only thing you're looking at are tile defense modifiers and nothing like the AI's ability to effectively defend, then yes, Civ5 favors the attacker..

Nobody can effectively "defend" on clear tiles @-33% penalty. What you do is attack them before they attack you because the attacker has a 3:2 advantage.

And no you did NOT defend your clear tiles. You slaughtered the AI when it entered clear tiles in your region. You hit them hard before they could hit you.

Simple.

The AI knows when you're in hills and knows when you're on poorly-defendable terrain. It's the reason why the AI loves attacking people in open terrain but it fails to follow up on that. It's like a chess AI that never learns.

My assumption is that the AI does not know whether or not you are sitting on a hill or flat ground. Rather it checks the odds in any given combat and makes a decision based on the possible outcome.

Odds, odds, odds...

To test my theory change the bonus penalty around. Give hills/forest a -33% defense and give flat/clear +25% defense without telling the AI anything else.

Where do you think the AI would prefer to attack in the above scenario?

The AI may not be as stupid as you believe.

That wasn't my logic

Okay lemme explain your logic:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU said that the AI cannot handle defeating a human player with my clear terrain changes coupled with the policy that gives +33%.

THEREFORE:

IF
The AI cannot defeat a human defending on flat ground in my mod (+53%)

THEN
How can the AI defeat the human defending in Civ5 vanilla on rough ground? (+58%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By YOUR logic the AI cannot defeat any human because of the AI having to face the human at a +58% odds.

Which is false because humans do lose to the AI currently.

THEREFORE

The AI can win with my changes to clear terrain.

Again, instead of thinking of gameplay (which you're not helping with), think with an eye for realism. I gave you an realistic reason why there would be open terrain penalties. You haven't given a single counter to those reasons.

I have, they are all over this thread.

The AI has never steamrolled me in a flat region because I don't fight in flat regions. Only an idiot would use melee units in open terrain instead of ranged/mobile units. Only an idiot would think that was a good idea in any real war.

1) This thread is about AI steamrolling other AI, hence the 1 AI CIV per CONTINENT problem. The fact that you are an awesome Civ player and that the AI did not roll you is completely irrelevant.

2) Lots of wars were fought in flat regions. To even suggest that only an idiot would think it is a good idea to fight in flat regions in a real war makes me now think arguing with someone who has no knowledge of history and war... which is okay btw, we all have to learn sometime.

There's a reason why this "problem" wasn't patched even though its a simple fix. It's because it isn't broken.

Oh, it's broken alright.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

There's a man named Henry.

One day his unit has to move out to defend a city in open-terrain.

His culture isn't use to war... he's never seen combat nor trained professionally.

His unit is surprised...

If Henry had been better trained. He could've handle the sudden raid.

What you are describing here is a promotion problem.

Build Henry a barracks and he will be a happy warrior.

 

[Roxlimn]

Mongolia Jones:

I think the main problem with your assumptions is still that you're assuming that we're all just playing with melee units.

The AI's main problem with open terrain is that it doesn't consider them, or considers them badly. It's not hard to get the AI to charge up on open terrain and then slaughter it by the bucketful on counterattack. This is part of how you can get monster kill ratios on the higher diff settings.

Nerfing the combat game by making it simpler definitely helps the AI. If we wanted to do that, we might as well make all units identical to each other and every terrain have the same bonus.

 

[Sonereal]

Mongolia Jones, I've tried to convince you but you just don't listen. You're failure to put together promotions (combat experience) with open terrain, indirect morale representation, and pretty much everything else just says to me you fail to understand simple military thinking.

You even pointed out in your first paragraph response that you do not "defend" on open terrain.

Tada!

You're not supposed too. Again, give me one scenario where defending on open terrain is beneficial to a melee unit. Ever. Or any unit. No unit is supposed to be defending in open terrain.

It's supposed to be a life or death situation when fighting in open terrain. It's meant for ranged units and mobile units.

Seriously. This isn't some unrealistic thinking with the -33% modifier. If the developers wanted people to defend on open terrain ever then why didn't they make it a flat 0%? They didn't because everyone who can take a look at a farm in Indiana and think logically can think of a hundred million reasons why you wouldn't want to defend a farmhouse in the middle of the plains. Easy to surround. Easy to shoot at. Easy easy easy easy easy to attack. There's no uphill battle and the defender has to take the blunt of the charge because it isn't their turn for a countercharge.

If you want to cover up AI problems with unrealistic defensive modifiers meant for casual gamers. Go ahead. You still haven't provided a realistic reason why open terrain should have a defensive advantage. There's a reason why the defenders had an advantage at Gettysburg. They had cannons shooting at Confederates marching across open ground while keeping forces in the hills. Meanwhile, the Union had problem on open terrain because they were being charged.

There are so many situations where defending on open terrain is something only idiots do because its so bad to do. Again, if you want to go ahead and make your changes go ahead. I'm not a casual gamer so I don't think those changes are good for either gameplay or realism.

 

[Seven05]

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 guess that depends on what you consider 'too long' and what constitutes a battle

If it's a small fight it'll probably be over in 3 turns or less. It's a really easy change to test, max unit HP is defined in Global Defines (all of my changes are in that file).

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).

The insanity comes from adding all the other friendly territory bonuses on top of it. It's pretty trivial to get a +58% bonus in all friendly territory, add your change and I suddenly have a MINIMUM bonus of +78% in friendly territory without doing anything. Thats the insane part, that means if I attack you in my territory you have to deal with that bonus of mine if/when you want to counter attack. It means I can shuffle units around without even looking at the terrain and move right next to your units with little risk.

The biggest difference between that and a +100% fortification bonus is that the fort bonus requires 5 turns to set up and requires that unit to stay put. If you need to move the unit or if you want to use it to attack the army marching through your land you lose that fortification bonus.

I personally like the idea of meshing the two ideas together, with MJ's new territory rules (but with 0% for open tiles instead of 20%), combined with Seven05's rule of taking longer to fortify BUT make it 10% per turn for 5 turns, so that the maximum fortification is unchanged, but it takes longer to build up. I wasn't as keen on the double HP idea

Just my thoughts and some numbers anyway, I might have got stuff wrong.

That looks right and yes the overall effect should be very similar. The biggest difference is in what is required to get the maximum defensive bonus. Combining them would be easy. We'll all have different ideas of what 'feels best' for the combat so I would definately encourage you and anybody else to try out different combinations until you find what you think works best for your game... what anybody else thinks doesn't really matter unless you like MP games.

 

[lilnev]

Historically, many battles were fought on open terrain. This has a lot to do with communication and command/control issues. The commander needed to be able see what was happening. Orders were delivered by flags, or horns, or couriers (who needed to be able to see where they were going). If your army is perhaps not ideally disciplined, you need the officers/noblemen to be able to see who was following orders and who was declining to engage the enemy. Soldiers need supplies and support services, which means wagons and tents and such. Distributing your troops on bad ground may hinder the attacking enemy, and certainly terrain was often used by the defender. By it can also reduce your ability to direct cohesive action. An army isn't very effective if can't move out, or shift reinforcements where needed, or counter-attack, because no one knows where anyone else is.

In terms of realism I'd say +0% makes sense. Equally matched forces meeting in the open should fight at parity. I think it would also make better gameplay. I don't really like the tit-for-tat nature of the current system ("Aha, he foolishly left his unit in the open, I will attack and auto-destroy it! Oh noes, now my unit is left in the open and will be auto-destroyed in turn!" In fact, I often hope to nearly destroy the enemy, but not quite, so that I don't have to advance into the death zone). The attacker's advantage is the ability to choose which defending unit to attack, and to gain localized force superiority by attacking with more than one unit and/or concentrating ranged fire. The defender gets to fortify (I like the suggestion of longer fortification), and use terrain if it's available. Open ground should be the weak point in a static defensive line, but it shouldn't be a death sentence to put a unit there.

I'd also like to see a supply system implemented, like that in The Operational Art of War -- each tile has a "re-supply value", based on your ability to trace supply routes (roads work better than open terrain better than rough) back to a supply point (e.g. friendly city). So an army operating far from home can deliver a strong initial blow, but it will lose effectiveness depending on distance and the quality of supply line you're able to secure.

 

[hendo]

I personally like the idea of meshing the two ideas together, with MJ's new territory rules (but with 0% for open tiles instead of 20%), combined with Seven05's rule of taking longer to fortify BUT make it 10% per turn for 5 turns, so that the maximum fortification is unchanged, but it takes longer to build up. I wasn't as keen on the double HP idea

Just my thoughts and some numbers anyway, I might have got stuff wrong.That looks right and yes the overall effect should be very similar. The biggest difference is in what is required to get the maximum defensive bonus. Combining them would be easy. We'll all have different ideas of what 'feels best' for the combat so I would definately encourage you and anybody else to try out different combinations until you find what you think works best for your game... what anybody else thinks doesn't really matter unless you like MP games.

My quote! But thanks for the response. I'll probably try to mod these rules into a game or two, try it out with normal hp and double hp as you've said, see which one 'feels' best. I'm certainly keen on the idea of getting rid of the open tiles penalty and just make it neutral land, as well as the decision to fortify a unit now being a much more tactical choice with 5 turns to max fortify. Both of these make the game more realistic and balanced as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

I think the main problem with your assumptions is still that you're assuming that we're all just playing with melee units.

I never made that assumption anywhere, ever.

It's not hard to get the AI to charge up on open terrain and then slaughter it by the bucketful on counterattack. This is part of how you can get monster kill ratios on the higher diff settings.

The reason you slaughter so many AI units is mainly because they are effectively worthless in open terrain. That is the problem.

Nerfing the combat game by making it simpler definitely helps the AI. If we wanted to do that, we might as well make all units identical to each other and every terrain have the same bonus.

1. Nerf: My solutions "nerf" the wholesale slaughter of units on clear terrain (good thing)
2. Simpler: My change doesn't make anything simpler. It merely changes the focus from terrain being the most important aspect of combat in line with other aspects of the game.
3. Identical: My changes don't make clear identical with rough. There is still a decent spread between the tiles defensive bonuses. There is still reason to use rough over clear, it just wont be the ONLY reason as it is now.

 

[pi-r8]

I'm also getting pretty annoyed lately at how deadly that -33% penalty is. If two units are completely identical, and they're slugging it out in a melee battle, there's no reason one should be at a disadvantage just because it entered the tile first.

The open terrain penalty is a big part of the reason why mounted and ranged units are so strong in this game. With melee units, the fighting goes like this:
1)unit A enters open terrain
2)unit B kills unit A
3)unit C comes from behind unit A and kills unit B
etc...
ranged and mounted units don't get stuck defending, so they don't get killed. They just endlessly slaughter whatever units enter that square.

I don't know what exactly should be done to fix this, but I think a good start would be to remove the penalty. If two units are identical, let them fight equally.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Mongolia Jones, I've tried to convince you but you just don't listen.

Oh, I listen, you just haven't convinced me of anything.

You're failure to put together promotions (combat experience) with open terrain, indirect morale representation, and pretty much everything else just says to me you fail to understand simple military thinking.

Huh? Consider indirect morale representation and everything else?

Do I need to consider weather effects, disease, trench foot, fuel, etc. etc. etc. to understand that combat on clear terrain is broken?

Get a clue.

You even pointed out in your first paragraph response that you do not "defend" on open terrain.

Correct.

In Civ5 vanilla you do not EVER defend on clear terrain.

My mod fixes that.

You're not supposed too. Again, give me one scenario where defending on open terrain is beneficial to a melee unit. Ever. Or any unit. No unit is supposed to be defending in open terrain.

Wargames model the defender as having the advantage in almost EVERY instance regardless of terrain. The defender has the advantage in open terrain and has a bigger advantage in rough.

Games where defender has a automatic default combat advantage:
Risk
Axis and Allies (foot soldiers)
Rise and fall of the Third Reich
Hearts of Iron
Advanced Tactics
Diplomacy

It's supposed to be a life or death situation when fighting in open terrain. It's meant for ranged units and mobile units.

Right now it's only a DEATH "situation" for the defender, no chance for LIFE involved.

Don't worry padawan, I'm bringing balance back to the world of Civ5.

Seriously. This isn't some unrealistic thinking with the -33% modifier.

Oh, it's unrealistic.

If the developers wanted people to defend on open terrain ever then why didn't they make it a flat 0%?

I don't know. Why did the developers call the penalty -> FLAT_LAND_EXTRA_DEFENSE in the code if it was supposed to be a penalty?

They didn't because everyone who can take a look at a farm in Indiana and think logically can think of a hundred million reasons why you wouldn't want to defend a farmhouse in the middle of the plains. Easy to surround. Easy to shoot at. Easy easy easy easy easy to attack.

Ever play paint ball? I can take me and 4 of my buddies and sit them in that farmhouse.

Then you and your buddies (5 of you, even 10 of you) attempt to charge us through open terrain.

We will mow you down, the attacker, and you won't even know what hit you.

And if you bring enough to completely surround that farmhouse, then you are coming with at least 6:1 force ratio (at least on a hex map ) and I would expect you to win.

If you want to cover up AI problems with unrealistic defensive modifiers meant for casual gamers. Go ahead. You still haven't provided a realistic reason why open terrain should have a defensive advantage. There's a reason why the defenders had an advantage at Gettysburg. They had cannons shooting at Confederates marching across open ground while keeping forces in the hills. Meanwhile, the Union had problem on open terrain because they were being charged.

1. My changes have nothing to do with casual gaming.
2. I have provided reasons why defenders have the advantage.
3. Gettysburg: your example has cannon shooting at infantry on clear ground. That holds true in my changes -> cannons still destroy troops on clear.
4. Union being charged: does that mean if that just 30 minutes earlier the Union decided to do the charging first that the Union would have slaughtered the Confederates?

There are so many situations where defending on open terrain is something only idiots do because its so bad to do. Again, if you want to go ahead and make your changes go ahead. I'm not a casual gamer so I don't think those changes are good for either gameplay or realism.

Many a time defending on clear terrain is not a choice but a necessity due to the lack of rough terrain anywhere. It has nothing to do with being an idiot.

Plus my changes reflect combat in the real world.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

The insanity comes from adding all the other friendly territory bonuses on top of it. It's pretty trivial to get a +58% bonus in all friendly territory, add your change and I suddenly have a MINIMUM bonus of +78% in friendly territory without doing anything.

Huh?

The insanity is the terrain defense disparity in Civ5.

A swordsman (str 16) defends on clear: 10.7 strength
A swordsman (str 16) defends on rough: 20 strength

Thats a 87.5% difference "without [really] doing anything" (meaning I don't even have to buy a policy to get that spread).

That my friend is insanity.

 

[Roxlimn]

Mongolia Jones:

I contest your assertion that you include things like ranged units, or even promotions, in your assessment. At what point in the game is a Ranged Unit ever going to be attacked by melee in the open short of a huge strategic error?

In fact, I don't even attack melee with melee in open terrain that often, since using Ranged units is just that much more efficient.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Just to add something related to terrain modifiers.

If 0% modifier is used, moving 1 tile to open terrain and starting fortify will net you exact same bonus as if you finished your move on rough terrain. It dulls a bit importance of rough terrain.

10-15% penalty would be better. Open terrain should not overshadow rough terrain, or feel as equal, defense wise.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

I contest your assertion that you include things like ranged units, or even promotions, in your assessment.

Ranged units: In my mod ranged units still cause damage to units in flat lands. Nothing has really changed except for maybe now ranged units have less of a chance of annihilating units on their own. This is a good thing since ranged units historically were used to "soften up" enemies, not annihilate them.

Promotions: Whatever the defender can get as a promotion so can the attacker, they cancel out.

At what point in the game is a Ranged Unit ever going to be attacked by melee in the open short of a huge strategic error?

When there is no rough terrain in the vicinity.

In fact, I don't even attack melee with melee in open terrain that often, since using Ranged units is just that much more efficient.

Ranged units are another issue with Civ5 that needs to be addressed in another thread. Ranged units are simply too powerful especially when you consider the clear terrain penalty.

 

[Roxlimn]

Facepalm.

So now we're changing the Ranged Units, too? It sounds less like you have a problem with game elements and more like you want an entirely different game altogether. That's well and good, but let's not parse it as if the current system is problematic. You just prefer something entirely different.

And no, promotions do NOT cancel out, because defenders and attacks don't all have the same promotions! A defender with Shock against an attacker with Drill is an entirely different proposition from having both units be blank.

 

[War_Pig]

What this topic has become --> http://xkcd.com/386/


Simple you like it you use it, you don't and you don't have to use it!

Would be different if say you were all talking about how to make it work better or balance but well this topic hasn't been that since like 7 pages back.