flanking?

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually, a good flanking method would be a penalty to a units defense (and possible attack as well) if there are enemy units on multiple sides of it. you wouldn't consider what it had done 'last' you just assume it automatically 'faces' any particular threats, which is made more difficult by those threats having multiple Possible directions.

 

[tcjsavannah]

Isn't there flanking in the Pirates! game? You get an attack bonus if you flank a group in a square. I would think the flanking bonus would work exactly the same way if they're using the same engine.

 

[Slyk]

I think the best version of flanking on this scale is hitting the enemy from two directions geographically...make them choose or split their forces to defend. I know that isn't on-topic of the main post, but as so many of said, the scope and scale of Civ as we know it is just not that finite. I could see getting an attack bonus if the enemy unit was cut off from 'supply' ie. if you cut the road/rail lines tied to their current tile, then they would be 'out of supply' and maybe you could get a +1 on the attack?? That is a whole new level of CPU usage though.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

I definitely think flanking should be included. I even came up with an idea of how to do it with CivIII-like armies. It involved standing orders for armies when they engage the enemy, where different units do different things in the same combat. For instance, cannons would bombard the enemy, infantry would perform a holding manuever while cavalry would head out to try to flank the enemy. These would all happen in the same combat action, so the scale of Civ would be maintained. It would also increase the value of armies and create a reason to have multiple types of units in the same army. Damage would be done in different sequences, so proper management of the troops orders would be necessary to mastering army combat.

Then I heard that Civ IV is doing away with armies. Oh well. I have faith in them that their combined arms solution will address flanking in some manner and that'll we'll get away from SoDs.

 

[Gnarfflinger]

Personally I don't think this fits into the scale of civ. Considering each turn is at least a year isn't more realisitic that any unit would have just turned round in that time?

The flank attack represents hitting them from behind. They could theoretically be flanked several times in one turn if they survive the attacks...

 

[North King]

BTW, my personal opinion is that flanking doesn't really exist on the scale of civ games, which is a strategic level, rather than a tactical level.

Not at all, in any sense of the word.

Flanking exists on both tactical and strategic scales; those that disagree; tell that to the Mongols...

 

[seveb33]

I, for one, believe some sort of flanking tactic would benefit the game. I think military tactics are a subset of the "strategy" Civ embraces. I would greatly enjoy winning battles against a larger army with smaller, well-positioned troops. It would be the exact opposite of the stack-of-doom strategy that is now so effective. I also hope the diplomatic and ecomomic models are overhauled so those stategies can be more aggressively pursued, but the ability to be an intelligent and recourceful general would be fun. It would add a chess-like element to the battles.

 

[Reboot]

In a civ military engagement the comparison between the the defender's defense and the attacker's offense is taken to influence the outcome.

If you take the vulnerability of any ground unit to flanking on the plains as a default then any attempt to seek rough terrain translates to a reduction of that vulnerability (among others), leading to a defense bonus.

 

[Vietcong]

if u wana talk about the scale of civ, then y include a atvatage for atackers if its gonna be a down hill battel, or include defesive bounses for acrose rivers or any thing for that matter?
a simply way to implament flanking is like this..
if a unit is atacked from the point a one turn this will decied witch derection the defending units faceing. then in the same turn if a unit atacks from point b, its side. the unit will not be able to move the bulk of its forces thear to defend so the atacking unit will have a 25% atvantage. now if another unit in the same turn atacks from pont c *defending units rear* it will have even less forces ther, so it will be a 50% atacking atvantage. so the faceing of a unit is decited by whear its first atacked, on faceing the first atacking unit, its no longer able to turn in any direction to meet new threats.
if the first atacking unit atacks, then retreats or leave the space nest to it, ther shold be no flanking bounus. so for the bounus to work, the first atacking unit must remain in the squer whear it atacked the defending unit.

now if a unit is completly surounded, the unit shold suffer a 50 defensive penalty, no mater witch side its atacked from. and a 25% atacking penalty.