Defending on clear tiles is a DEATH sentence

[Paeanblack]

If you wanted to really change things around, how about this:

Entering the ZoC of an enemy unit costs 1 extra MP.

 

[Sonereal]

If you wanted to really change things around, how about this:

Entering the ZoC of an enemy unit costs 1 extra MP.

Wait. Doesn't ZoC already do that?

 

[weregamer]

The pathfinding AI isn't *totally* stupid. It will end moves in a rough hex whenever it can, as long as that won't make the trip take longer.

That said, all the observations above apply. This ought to go into an official patch.

 

[Ahriman]

If you wanted to really change things around, how about this:

Entering the ZoC of an enemy unit costs 1 extra MP.

This would destroy the game. It would mean an archer could kite infantry forever.

You are 2 tiles away, I shoot at you.
End turn.
You move towards me, entering the adjacent tile. Oops, that cost you 2 movement (its in the ZoC of my archer), so you have no movement left to attack.
End turn.
My turn: I move back 1 tile, then shoot you.

Repeat.

 

[Sonereal]

The pathfinding AI isn't *totally* stupid. It will end moves in a rough hex whenever it can, as long as that won't make the trip take longer.

That said, all the observations above apply. This ought to go into an official patch.

It isn't the pathfinding AI. It's the defensive AI. That AI will attempt to fight in open terrain just as often as it does in rough terrain. It will attempt to defend those areas as well.

What the official patch needs is to lower horseman strength and give all mounted/tank units a penalty for attacking rough terrain.

 

[Paeanblack]

This would destroy the game. It would mean an archer could kite infantry forever.

You are 2 tiles away, I shoot at you.
End turn.
You move towards me, entering the adjacent tile. Oops, that cost you 2 movement (its in the ZoC of my archer), so you have no movement left to attack.
End turn.
My turn: I move back 1 tile, then shoot you.

Repeat.

Yeah, the vanguard unit would be taking damage while chasing a ranged unit on open ground, but at least it would be advancing. In hills/forests, the archer can only run, not run and shoot.

Also it means the retreating rearguard of the opponent are archers on open ground, ripe for being picked off by mounted units.

It doesn't seem unreasonable, especially in a MP game. The AI would need to learn to deal with it.

Or you could just remove ZoC from ranged units.

 

[Perkus]

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

But where is it written that just because it's not my turn I'm unprepared? In turn-based games, we (obviously) have to take turns to move, but just because I entered the open first, and you joined me, it doesn't me that you're are any more prepared to fight there than I was. If we're both melee, we will see each coming, and be equally ready. Why penalize the defender at all, and especially so harshly (33%!).

If you penalize the guy making the first move, two smart sides would end up staring at each over a "no-man's land". Realistic when each side is fortified, has cover & concealment, and is using ranged attacks, but not will hand-held weapons!

 

[Sonereal]

But where is it written that just because it's not my turn I'm unprepared? In turn-based games, we (obviously) have to take turns to move, but just because I entered the open first, and you joined me, it doesn't me that you're are any more prepared to fight there than I was. If we're both melee, we will see each coming, and be equally ready. Why penalize the defender at all, and especially so harshly (33%!).

If you penalize the guy making the first move, two smart sides would end up staring at each over a "no-man's land". Realistic when each side is fortified, has cover & concealment, and is using ranged attacks, but not will hand-held weapons!

You're unprepared because your unit moved into the spot and hasn't fortified. Again, I use to think that two melee units should be at even standing but they're not. The attacker is the one charging and while they're charging, you only get so much time to prepare.

-33% is probably too harsh but the number should be negative. Maybe -25%.

 

[Perkus]

@Sonereal
But why do you assume one side is charging and the other is not? Because it's "their turn" ? That's a totally artificial game mechanic! Imagine it in happening in real-time, that's what we're attempting to simulate.

 

[Sonereal]

@Sonereal
But why do you assume one side is charging and the other is not? Because it's "their turn" ? That's a totally artificial game mechanic! Imagine it in happening in real-time, that's what we're attempting to simulate.

This is where it gets tricky because it depends on where the unit comes from once you think about it. A melee unit charging from a forest has an element of surprise. Meanwhile, a unit charging across open field...doesn't have nearly as much. The problem is that units have 2 moves, not one and in theory, you should have a flanking bonus if you're defending right.

And yes, because its turn-based. You can't get both real-time and turn-base mechanics in everything. The fact that a single battle can last 15 years and it can take 70 years to get a troop transport across the Atlantic forces this.

It's the defender's fault for trying to defend on open terrain, during a war, unprepared. And a counter-charges are already possible....turnbased. Whoever starts the charge first has the advantage.

Then there's ranged units. You can't respond too well in real time against that either. An artillery shell goes off by you, you don't have time to dig 10-feet deep trenches. A lot of people will die before its over.

Global happiness, flat building maintenance, flat road maintenance, and many other things are artificial game mechanics. The Russian's automatically having double of every strategic resource and the Americans being able to expand cheaper on any map are artificial game mechanics.

The linear nature of the tech tree is an artificial game mechanic.

As a matter of fact, flat defense bonuses and penalties are all artificial game mechanics.

 

[pi-r8]

If you wanted to really change things around, how about this:

Entering the ZoC of an enemy unit costs 1 extra MP.

This would make mounted units even more dominat than they already are.

 

[Perkus]

This is where it gets tricky because it depends on where the unit comes from once you think about it. A melee unit charging from a forest has an element of surprise. Meanwhile, a unit charging across open field...doesn't have nearly as much.

I agree with that in principle, but in this game most of the time the defender knows about the attacker well in advance - if you saw the unit that is attacking you at the start of your turn, it means your side has them well scouted & under observation, and nothing they do on their turn should take you by surprise. Even if they're in a forest - since the game doesn't make units 1 tile deep into a forest any more difficult to see, we have to assume the defender is prepared for any charge and responds accordingly (e.g. a counter-charge). If the guy in the forest wants an advantage, he should wait in that forest until *he* is attacked, running out in the open means both sides are on equal terms. I don't believe in this "charging" concept just because it happens to be your turn.

I would be all for giving the attacker a surprise advantage if the defender was not aware of him while he'd still had movement points - e.g. he stumbled into an ambush on his last move, or the attacker is something really fast like a mounted unit or on a road which lets him arrive quickly from out of the fog of war. But we can't change the code (yet?) to add such complexities, so we have to do the best with what we have.

I also agree that I would give a penalty to defenders in the open that are being range-attacked. It's hard to prepare for that when you're not fortified and there's nothing to hide behind, even if you know it's coming. But again we don't have that option without recoding the internals of the combat system.

I just don't think it's fair to slap this same harsh penalty on those melee vs. melee engagements out in the open.

I reread your previous message and I think what you're saying is that we need a firm defensive penalty because horsemen in the open are de-facto the "neutral" situation - no bonus or penalty. That view certainly does have some merit...

 

[player1 fanatic]

It makes sense that unit that moved 2 tiles is less ready, and thus facing penalty when attacked.

Still, unit that moved one tile or not at all, gets only +25% fortify bonus when defending, which is not enough to offset disadvantage of holding ground on open. You would expect that fortified unit would have at least some advantage.

 

[spoooq]

I agree that defenders should have significant bonuses in all terrain, even in the open. The strength of attacking is choosing where and when to fight, ie manoeuvre. 100% bonus is quite a normal modifier in wargames. This probably seems shocking to people who haven't played this kind of game before, but are now confronted with ciV.

Disciplined infantry in good order are not the sitting ducks to cavalry that you might expect. For one thing, infantry tend to seriously outnumber cavalry, for obvious reasons of horses being expensive. For another, horses do not like to charge into massed groups of people. Finally, turning around if you are being flanked isn't that hard (unless of course you are already in contact with the enemy). I'd like to see cavalry reduced in strength, and actually get a bonus against damaged opponents, maybe even depending on the amount of damage already done to the target.

I would guess some of the conceptual problem here comes from the different scales that people imagine the combat is happening at. At the literal scale by distances between cities, being attacked after movement or from behind is not much of an issue. Modelling supply lines is far more important here. Tactical problems only come into play with smaller forces. However, the different kind of units seem to show regiment or even brigade scale, which are about the largest formations that don't imply combined arms.

The "forest+hill" calculations are just strange. Why shouldn't the defender get both advantages?

 

[sosueme]

I would be all for giving the attacker a surprise advantage if the defender was not aware of him while he'd still had movement points - e.g. he stumbled into an ambush on his last move, or the attacker is something really fast like a mounted unit or on a road which lets him arrive quickly from out of the fog of war. But we can't change the code (yet?) to add such complexities, so we have to do the best with what we have.

I also agree that I would give a penalty to defenders in the open that are being range-attacked. It's hard to prepare for that when you're not fortified and there's nothing to hide behind, even if you know it's coming. But again we don't have that option without recoding the internals of the combat system.

The fortification mechanic could deal with both of these circumstances. If a unit that used their last movement point to fortify should be able to negate the defensive penalty on open land and enhance the defensive bonus on hills/forests. A unit that fails to fortify should be penalized for being on poor terrain and get the standard defensive bonus for being on advantageous terrain. A unit that spent all week marching should be less prepared to defend themselves than a unit that only marched for a few days and then set up a defensive position.

 

[Cuba Libre]

I'd like to see cavalry reduced in strength, and actually get a bonus against damaged opponents, maybe even depending on the amount of damage already done to the target.

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.

 

[eric_]

You are 2 tiles away, I shoot at you.
End turn.
You move towards me, entering the adjacent tile. Oops, that cost you 2 movement (its in the ZoC of my archer), so you have no movement left to attack.
End turn.
My turn: I move back 1 tile, then shoot you.

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. In other words, if I start two tiles away from an enemy unit, and there is one tile of flatland between us, I will be able to attack on my next turn.

 

[Ahriman]

Second, I'm pretty sure it only applies if you start your turn adjacent to an enemy unit. In other words, if I start two tiles away from an enemy unit, and there is one tile of flatland between us, I will be able to attack on my next turn.

That's how the current system works, yes.

But that isn't what is proposed. My comment about archer kiting was in response to a proposed change where it took 2 movement points to enter a tile which was ZoC, regardless of where you started.
Which is a terrible change which would make ranged attacks and mounted units even more dominating than they already are.
It has all kinds of problems, and no advantages (what problem does it solve??).

 

[eric_]

I agree that defenders should have significant bonuses in all terrain, even in the open. The strength of attacking is choosing where and when to fight, ie manoeuvre.

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?

 

[eric_]

Ahriman - got it, agreed, and glad to have ZoC's existence confirmed . I think ZoC is a good addition and is fine as implemented.