Flanking

[Rusty Edge]

I doubt if facing will reduce stacks. I'd want to add enough good defenders to face four directions at once. If auto facing doesn't do well at facing the counter in the stack toward the appropriate threat, I still see it as further gimping the A.I.

 

[Argetnyx]

A facepalm would be good now... Flanking and facing are too tactical!!!!!

 

[Rusty Edge]

A facepalm would be good now... Flanking and facing are too tactical!!!!!

This thread was part of the discussion on the most recent episode of Polycast, causing me to revisit the thread and comment further.

 

[King Flevance]

I think it would be better to have a unit suffer a penalty for being surrounded. For each enemy unit adjacent to the unit's tile, the unit suffers a penalty if attacked. Possibly this could only apply if attacked by a unit with flanking or something. I have always thought that surrounding a unit with multiple units was a good way to discourage SoDs. It would also make defending a city a proactive defense. The AI could be programmed to utilize this as well as many other strategy games have employed this tactic and the AI seems to know how to use it fairly well.

 

[Argetnyx]

This thread was part of the discussion on the most recent episode of Polycast, causing me to revisit the thread and comment further.

What does the popularity of this thread hang in the balance?

I think it would be better to have a unit suffer a penalty for being surrounded. For each enemy unit adjacent to the unit's tile, the unit suffers a penalty if attacked. Possibly this could only apply if attacked by a unit with flanking or something. I have always thought that surrounding a unit with multiple units was a good way to discourage SoDs. It would also make defending a city a proactive defense. The AI could be programmed to utilize this as well as many other strategy games have employed this tactic and the AI seems to know how to use it fairly well.

Not a bad idea, but unit facing is still too tactical. Any large units will have patrols surrounding it so that it won't be attacked from the flanks or behind.

 

[Rusty Edge]

What does the popularity of this thread hang in the balance?

Any thread that becomes a topic on Polycast is 1)going to reach a broader audience, and 2)cause people to give the thread further consideration, just as if it were bumped and discussed directly.

 

[Gamemaster77]

If they keep Civ4 promotions this should be added as an EXTRA option an it should give a first strike chance or whatever that is instead having a better combat odds.

 

[Argetnyx]

Keeping the civ4 promotions is a very bad idea.

 

[Camikaze]

...but not as bad as any other models that have been proposed. It's a necessary lose-lose. There needs to be some representation of experience, but there seems to be no good way of doing that.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Why does everyone hate promotions? I haven't got much experience with them but they seem like a good idea.

 

[King Flevance]

The problem I see with the promotions isn't the promotion system itself but the way they were implented. For the most part it was done right IMO. But I think there should be more terrain based promotions.

I am interested to hear why promotions are a bad system. I much prefer this to +HP as in the previous versions of civ. Veteran status really didn't mean much. Plus its boring. Now, at least your 'veteran' gets to stand a better chance either all around - or a much better chance specialized. (Shock, Pinch)

Not a bad idea, but unit facing is still too tactical. Any large units will have patrols surrounding it so that it won't be attacked from the flanks or behind.

Well in my system, you don't neccessairlly have to be behind the enemy and it matters not which way the sprite is facing. You have to make 2 of your units be adjacent to 1 of his yet not be adjacent to each other.

If enemy unit is on tile 5 (via number pad) Your units must be on either tiles 8,4,6, or 2 to recieve the bonus. OR tiles 7, 9, 1, and 3. Or 6 and 7, 1 and3, 1 and 8, etc.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Referring to the original post/point:

IMO, more options rock the house. To implement this as a default "autoface" and then allow a preference option to turn off "autoface" would be good. Of course, with autoface on, you could self adjust particular units.

 

[Argetnyx]

I seem to be having the same conversation on two threads.

 

[Camikaze]

Why does everyone hate promotions? I haven't got much experience with them but they seem like a good idea.

It's not so much the central idea of promotions themselves that are idea, so much as the way they are implemented. The promotion system in Civ4 is completely unrealistic, and unfairly distorts battle. Take for example, your often seen Rifleman vs. CG2 Longbowman on a hill scenario. The CG2 promotion of the Longbowman endowed by the presence of a barracks and perhaps theocracy somehow means that they have the ability to fend off a rifleman? That isn't realistic or truly reflective of what battle results should be.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

The CG2 promotion of the Longbowman endowed by the presence of a barracks and perhaps theocracy somehow means that they have the ability to fend off a rifleman? That isn't realistic or truly reflective of what battle results should be.

Why not? The rifle men still have to fire accurately uphill at a fortified position. The Longbowmen can launch their arrows fairly from their fortifications (at least for a while). How about the reason a spearman should be able to destroy a tank? A tank rolling through the tight streets of a tech backwards city can easily be overtaken by fairly low tech guerrillas.

I think that the military tech level should decide more of the survivability of older era units. What's to stop a spearman from using a grenade? I mean, look at Iraq today.

 

[Camikaze]

If they were using a grenade, they would no longer be spearmen. My point is that why is it realistically possible for a longbowman to beat a rifleman, it shouldn't be the most likely outcome, which is what promotions make it.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Yeah, I guess that would make them grenadiers LoL

 

[Argetnyx]

Yeah, I guess that would make them grenadiers LoL

Just because they're called grenadiers doesn't mean that they use grenades. Grenadiers were actually specialized assault infantry units in the revolutionary age.

 

[Camikaze]

But if spearmen were to have grenades, that's probably what you would call them.

 

[Argetnyx]

I dunno...any military unit armed mainly with grenades is not going to last long. What I'm saying is that grenades are secondary weapons.

Even so: yes, I would call them something that includes 'grenade'.