Enemy specific bonusses

[pirke]

I know from the civ board game that artillery has a bonus when fighting mounted units, mounted units have a bonus fighting foot units and foot units have a bonus fighting artillery.

Maybe it is possible to implement this? So you don't just stockpile stacks of foot units if the opponent has cavalary.

Also units from an earlier age should get a penalty over newer units. Tank against archer, the archer shouldn't be able to win.

 

[judgement]

Enemy-specific bonuses are fine, but there's no reason to make it circular (Artillery>Cavalry>Infantry>Artillery, or whatever). Real life warfare is not a giant game of rock-paper-scissors, and personally, I find the strategic choices involved in that sort of game rather limited.

What I'd like to see is terrain-specific bonuses for certain units. We already have units with no movement penalty in certain terrain. Why not give Infantry bonuses in cramped quarters like cities, jungles, etc., give cavalry and tanks bonuses on open ground like plains and grassland, and give artillery bonuses from high ground like hills and mountains. After all, military strategy is as much about choosing the ground that suits your troops as it is about choosing the troop types that counter what your enemy has.

The problem with both of these suggestions is the complication they would bring (and, of course, that's also the whole idea, since more complications allow more interesting strategies).

 

[warpstorm]

Sure it's possible, but is rock-scissors-paper a fun model of warfare? Soren, the lead on Civ4 doesn't think so.

 

[Adler17]

But I think to have units which have special attack values against certain untis can make the game more fun. I think certain units like a destroyer can detect subs, but is vulnerable against battleships. And battleships should be vulnerable against subs. In certain aspects of the game like modern naval warfare this allow new tactical possibilities.

Adler

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I agree that the rock-paper-scissors approach should be avoided, but that does not preclude certain units (not unit types) from having special attack and/or defense bonuses against a particular class of unit. The obvious one that comes to mind is the classic pikeman vs mounted units, or the aegis vs. air units!
Another thing is that, in stacked combat (or armies) the presence of one unit type might be able to confer some kind bonus to a specific type of unit. I can't think of SPECIFIC examples, but I do think that the combination of these two ideas would help to push players and the AI towards a more 'Combined Arms' combat approach. Which is, in my opinion, what Pirke was trying to get it!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rcoutme]

Umm...Adler17, sorry but battleships (at least WWII ones) were not very vulnerable to submarines. Submarines were most often used against "soft" targets. This means carriers and supply ships. Occasionally a cruiser or battleship would be attacked, but quite often, the sub that attacked a battleship was the one worse for the wear. Battleships are designed to resist enemy torpedoes (which, btw, were a common weapon on many destroyers and quite a few Japanese Cruisers as well).

 

[Philips beard]

Originally posted by Aussie_Lurker
I agree that the rock-paper-scissors approach should be avoided, but that does not preclude certain units (not unit types) from having special attack and/or defense bonuses against a particular class of unit. The obvious one that comes to mind is the classic pikeman vs mounted units, or the aegis vs. air units!
Another thing is that, in stacked combat (or armies) the presence of one unit type might be able to confer some kind bonus to a specific type of unit. I can't think of SPECIFIC examples, but I do think that the combination of these two ideas would help to push players and the AI towards a more 'Combined Arms' combat approach. Which is, in my opinion, what Pirke was trying to get it!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Yeah! Give the TOW-infantry bonuses vs armoured vehicles, both while attacking and defending!

Airbombardment should also have bonuses vs vehicles, making it more atractive to use foot infantry! Only bombardment vs vehicles and ships should be lethal!

Airbombardment should have certain maluses vs units hiding in a forest or a jungle square!

Pikemen defending vs mounted units should also get a bonus!

These are the most important bonus/maluses I can think of by the moment, but there are certainly more!

Thanx

 

[rcoutme]

I think that another point is that destroyers should not see submarines until the subs reveal themselves. The entire reason Germany built subs was that they couldn't be spotted while under water.