Flanking

[Camikaze]

I thought I already posted in here...but apparently not.

I agree that it is way, way too tactical. There should be scope for some level of tactics (without making it mandatory), but this idea is just way too far, IMO.

 

[Argetnyx]

Surrounding is a strategic move though...

 

[Bozorgh]

I think the original idea is good, you could have the option of forming a hedgehog in certian circumstances, for instance the modification wouldn't apply to units that are in cities/fortresses, and marines don't get the flanking ability.

 

[Camikaze]

Too many tactics. It is just too inconvenient and for most, and not keeping with the spirit of the game.

 

[Argetnyx]

Too many tactics. It is just too inconvenient and for most, and not keeping with the spirit of the game.

I agree, Civ is not a tactical game (It's in the name). Defensive tactics are all covered in the 'fortify' action, so no more discussion about it.

 

[Shackel]

I think having a unit on the opposite side should give a small bonus called "Dual Front" or something.

 

[Argetnyx]

Deul front? What is that supposed to mean? Did you mean dual?

 

[Shackel]

Exactly, dual front.

More or less an option, but it gives you a reason to watch that second smaller stack wondering around.

 

[Argetnyx]

I think we discussed this in the ammunition thread. Mostly me and Camikaze though...

 

[Rusty Edge]

Sid's Pirates! in city attack mode incorporates direction, muliplying the attack strength for rear and side assaults. Basically it works to human advantage. The A.I. only flank attacks the human when it ends a turn adjacent with back or flanks turned toward the A.I . The A.I. doesn't do multi-move flank attacks. In a situation with 4 two movement units (A= A. I. , H= Human ) .. with foes head to head and friends 2 spaces away.

A _ A
H _ H

The A.I will attack head on, while the human will learn to move between the two enemies on the first movement point of his turn and turn and attack the flank on his second movement point.

Anyway, the tactical maneuvering tends to favor the human as well as make the game take longer... another dimension in micromanagement.

Tactical games are fun sometimes.

I think flanking promotions represent this adequately in a strategic game, just as I believe that the medic promotions represent , not just health, but food, fuel, ammunition, replacement parts and personnel. Basicaly I think promotions represent the tactical elements of this strategic game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Although part of me does want an aspect of "side" or "back" attack because it would encourage splitting SoDs up, I still don't like it. As other have said, the tactical aspect of it makes it dangerous (and could utterly cripple the AI). You'd also run into balance issues -----> what happens when you get into enemy territory, and they can flank you with their ENTIRE STACK, literally just walking around behind for "flanking" ?

Civ already takes long enough, and this adds a micromanagement aspect as well as some danger in terms of gameplay. If it were implemented it would have to be done with extreme care or an entirely new combat model.

 

[Argetnyx]

Who cares about it ruining gameplay, it's not possible. As said before, this rule is way too tactical to be used in a (almost formerly) strategic game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Who cares about it ruining gameplay, it's not possible. As said before, this rule is way too tactical to be used in a (almost formerly) strategic game.

Nonsense. No matter what the genre, considering gameplay elements depends on whether they make the game better or worse. If tactical elements can be introduced into a strategic game without hurting the depth/gameplay of the latter, they are useful, not harmful.

Ruling tactical aspects out just because we're talking about civ is foolish. Ruling them out because they're bad for game play, not fun, and so forth on the other hand...

 

[Argetnyx]

Ruling tactical aspects out just because we're talking about civ is foolish. Ruling them out because they're bad for game play, not fun, and so forth on the other hand...

Ruling tactical perspectives out is not always a bad thing. Civ is a strategic game, if people want a tactical game, then go and play another cuz civ is not the game for you. Anyway, the are bad for gameplay, because it takes the strategic perspective away.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

because it takes the strategic perspective away.

Baseless assumption.

Besides, some degree of tactical consideration has existed from civ I beta up until the the BTS 3.19 or civrev. There are very, very few strategy games that do not include a layer of tactics.

So

Ruling tactical perspectives out is not always a bad thing.Ruling tactical perspectives out is not always a bad thing.

Is true but it is also not always a good thing and

Civ is a strategic game, if people want a tactical game, then go and play another cuz civ is not the game for you.

Feels off-base since every single game in the series could be won or lost on tactics, including your favored civ III.

 

[Vulcans]

I agree, civ is a strategic game, the addition of flanking tactical side of battle does add micromanigment, and furthur handicaps the already handicapped AI, thus taking away from the game.

IMO there is already a fair bit of strategy in combat
-chosing which units/promotions to use in a situation
-proper use of collateral damage
-if the opponent doesnt have many catapults: hitting the opponent with catapults first, then letting them take a move, so that your units will be defending with the strongest unit (eg a spear kills a damaged elephant etc)
-purposely sacrificing a single unit out in the open as bait for the opponent to kill, thus seperating some units from the opponents stack to kill on your next turn
-suicide chariots to cut enimy supply lines, making it possible to take down a city
-luring the opponent into your land where you can use hit and run with siege weapons(and air if in modern age), also limiting WW due to casualties on your teritory, purposely softening up the opponents arsenal before stepping onto their teritory.
-purposely chosing which units to attack with so your sacrifices die while the highly promoted ones gain even more promotions.

in many situations its best to use some strategy instead of simply a SOD, this becomes even more significant in the higher levels where the opponent gets a tec lead, meaning you are fighting cats+achers+sword+phants+spears vs knights+mascemen+longbows etc in overwhealming numbers. the only way to succeed is to play a few gambits to try to even the score.

all this is in the spirit of civ, having significant strategy in battle, as stated promotions cover the unit abilities. as stated before, if i wanted battle tactics i'd go to one of the numerous RTS games. adding it here just adds another headache to the game. i'd hate to check the unit direction of every unit every turn on a huge map modern war, ouch!

 

[Argetnyx]

You're just talking about civ4, I'm talking about more than that.

including your favored civ III.

Hey, civ4 isn't the best thing on earth by far.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You're just talking about civ4, I'm talking about more than that.

Hey, civ4 isn't the best thing on earth by far.

Well obviously I wasn't talking about only civ IV. I'm just pointing out that exactly 0 games in the civ (or alpha centauri) series are lacking in *important* tactical considerations, and as such it's a little silly to rule a suggestion out merely for being tactical.

 

[Continental Op]

As much as I do like tactical games, and even am better with tactics than strategy, I don't think this would be appropriate to Civ games. When you think about the scope in which the game represents the world, each unit represents a huge army by itself. The player is the high commander of the army, who does not have to bother himself with tactical issues of single battles. Each unit has its own general for that stuff. I think the promotions do well for that.

 

[Argetnyx]

I almost completely agree with you. I think each unit is actually more like a division, but the piont of view is still the same; it's not your problem.