Flank Attacks (or: Suicide Cataphracts FTW!)

[Duuk]

The AI just tipped me off to a new and odd strategy.

I have a Big Stack of Doom sieging Constantinople, 10 catapults with pikemen, crossbowmen and macemen in support.

The Byzantines suicide charge me with a cataphract, which gets instantly destroyed by the pikeman. As it's dying, the cataphract manages to (wait for it...) kill 3 catapults in a flank attack.

I put this in this forum first even though I think it's a bug.

 

[the_elf]

I was trying to see if someone had figured out the math for that here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=235321

But yeah...it looks like a strategy that the AI's pretty good at.

 

[largedarryl]

Well mounted units are bunk at defending, so its a pretty good idea to use them on the offense.

 

[Duuk]

But allowing suicide charges is just idiotic.
Especially:

Flanking attacks should require a _successful_ kill, or flanking should be made to attack the _least_ powerful unit first instead of the _most_ powerful. That would be a good definition of "flanking". "Randomly killing siege units while dying" isn't a good definition of anything.

 

[Spiceweasel]

But the thing is, they're not dying: they're withdrawing. The concept of the mechanic is that they're sending in a highly mobile force to harass the vulnerable and mostly immobile siege equipment, and retreating before the defending forces can react.

The flanking attack only works if they successfully withdraw, which is hard (but not impossible) if your defenders are a lot better than their attackers.

The *reason* for the mechanic is to discourage the huge-stack mentality, by introducing extra risk for marching up with "10 catapults with pikemen, crossbowmen and macemen".

 

[Draknith]

If you think about it though, in middle ages' warfare, most cavalry assaults were on the less mobile weak troops. Since mounted units are much faster on the battlefield it's logical to use them to attack these troops so as to keep the attacker from bombarding the other sides army.

 

[Duuk]

But the thing is, they're not dying: they're withdrawing.

I've also seen it happen when the attacker dies too.

On withdrawl, I don't mind it. It makes sense. On death, I mind it.

 

[Vietcong]

whats stupid is arty suicied atacks!

 

[Lillefix]

If you think about it though, in middle ages' warfare, most cavalry assaults were on the less mobile weak troops. Since mounted units are much faster on the battlefield it's logical to use them to attack these troops so as to keep the attacker from bombarding the other sides army.

One of my standard tactics in Rome Total War.

 

[Duuk]

whats stupid is arty suicied atacks!

also true

 

[Vietcong]

both suicied atacks need to be fixed.

 

[WJF]

I've never seen them flank when they die. However there is the whole 'spoiling the result of the battle' problem - You can see if your horses were successful (or survive) the instant you fight a stack with siege units because the little message will pop up.

It's a small thing, but it does destroy that bit of tension battles create...

 

[Alsn]

I've never seen them flank when they die. However there is the whole 'spoiling the result of the battle' problem - You can see if your horses were successful (or survive) the instant you fight a stack with siege units because the little message will pop up.

It's a small thing, but it does destroy that bit of tension battles create...

Stack attack + quick attack ftw! no time for epic battles!

 

[Tiberias]

I'll agree that it does seem to reduce the tension of the battle; it also seems overly random.

One fix might be to make flank attacks a corrollary to collateral damage; whenever a mobile unit attacks, regardless of its target, siege units in the stack take some damage. That should serve the purpose of reducing the "mass trebs ftw" tactic, while making combat more logical and consistent.