Flank attacks... how to?

[Shudd]

Morning all. I'm a total novice when it comes to stack warfare, and I really need someone to explain how you perform a flank attack.

Is it literally just a case of moving your mounted unit alongside the stack and the unit focuses its attack on the siege units within the stack? Or do you actually have to attack the stack containing the siege units themselves (i.e. like collateral damage?).

Thanks!

 

[oyzar]

Your mounted unit have to survive combat when it is attacking whether it is through withdraw or winning then it does flank attack on siege units of the same era. Kinda like collateral except it have to survive.

 

[Shudd]

OK - so if it attacks a stack including the siege units and is not defeated, then the siege units suffer the damage at that time?

Kind of goes to what others were saying on other threads... if you've got a tech advantage over other civs it's worth keeping loads of unpromoted Horse Archers / Knights to take out the Trebs / Cats in the opposition's stacks...

 

[Tyrant Roger]

I don't understand why more advanced units - like cavalry - don't gain the flanking advantage against older siege units. It makes no sense. I hope that is changed in a patch.

 

[obsolete]

I also am puzzled by this silly paradox too. Reminds me of another quirky issue, where Knights ignore first strike from longbowmen, but their much superior improvement (the cavalry) don't.

What!!?

 

[MrCynical]

I suspect it's an oversight that the flank attacks don't work on the older units. There are similar oddities like airships being able to spot submarines when the more modern aircraft can't.

 

[Morgrad]

I also am puzzled by this silly paradox too. Reminds me of another quirky issue, where Knights ignore first strike from longbowmen, but their much superior improvement (the cavalry) don't.

What!!?

You're talking different eras, here. It would be nice if Cavalry ignored first strikes from Longbows (as they should), but they *shouldn't* ignore first strikes from... say... Riflemen or Infantry.

Let's be honest here - if you're fighting Longbowmen with Cavalry, you're going to win that war, anyway......

 

[Polycrates]

I also am puzzled by this silly paradox too. Reminds me of another quirky issue, where Knights ignore first strike from longbowmen, but their much superior improvement (the cavalry) don't.

What!!?

I think it's mainly a fudge factor so that Cavalry will get slaughtered by Drill promoted Infantry and Machine Guns (as they should). You can kinda justify it by saying it represents Knights having armour to protect them from arrows while Cavalry don't (you have to conveniently forget about horse archers here ).
On the other hand, Cavalry get a base 30% retreat chance while Knights get none, making Flanking II very attractive for Cavalry, which is a promo that also just happens to give immunity to first strikes as well...


But yeah on topic, I'd like to see flank attacks work against older siege, and I'm not really convinced that game balance demands it stay as it is.

 

[oyzar]

honestly who would bother to teach cavalery how to flank cats and trebs?

 

[CivDude86]

Is it really that different? Instead of shooting the guys behind the big metal things as we retreat you shoot the guys behind the big wooden things.

 

[justkilled]

since Cav vs. Cats/Trebs is a very common scenario since cannons need steel, its really stupid that they dont get the flanking bonus (and it becomes even more considering that they do recieve collateral damge from outdated siege weapons).
As for Cav vs. Longbows ehm well thats slaughter anyway so I don't care for the few Hps my cavs may lose because of longobow first strikes.