Flanking

[GeZe]

My friend had this idea...

Units should have a side they "face". When moving the side the unit faces atomaticlty changes but you could ajust it before you end your turn to face the enemy. If the unit gets attacked from the side then the other unit gets a bonus and if it is attcacked from the back the other unit gets an even bigger bonus.

Turning would not decrease movement points, and you would rarly have to turn a unit manually as the computer does most of the work.

This feature would enable attckers to 'break the lines' and flank opponents, also you would be able to do suprise hit and run tactics with hidden units attacking the back of another unit.

This feature would also make people make lines with there units, not just a big stack of units.

Any comments, suggestion etc?

 

[primeminister99]

I think it's a decent Idea however I would worry about how able the AI would be able to exploit such a strategy. The game-designers could probley do it though, program the AI to enable this i mean.

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

Well, the only way to really make this idea work well in the game would be to allow coordinated attacks (which, IMHO, would be a great idea)!

Coordinated attacks would allow a person to select up to "x" units and have them each attack the same square/group of squares at the same time. This would make it more realistic, because if an enemy sees one group of guys running at him from the front, they will prepare for the front attack, but only a select few will see the attack from behind as well, and so they will be slaughtered (especially if you could plan which unit could go slightly faster than the other).

 

[GeZe]

@primeminister99
I think its pretty easy to impliment this into the AI, all they need to do is make the AI face the nearest threat.

@ShADoW^HawK
Yes, this idea would work well with cordinated attacks.

@everybody
any more ideas, suggestions

 

[Trade-peror]

This seems like a simple idea that could increase tactical considerations considerably.

However, I can also hear the cries of those who may find micromanagement to become a problem.

I suggest an option, perhaps an "Auto face threats" option, that could automatically have every unit face the nearest threat, and the player can then go back and straighten out specific special cases.

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

Well, this is a turn-based game, so micromanagement doesn't really depend on clicks-per-second, as in most good strategy games (aka warcraft III, Starcraft). Maybe we can just implement that into a governor and have it be on for military governor if people want it. I think it's a bad idea because it takes less away from management and strategy and makes things more artificial and computer organized. If things would be better that way, Computers would be running the world and not humans.

 

[warpstorm]

I don't want it. (And not because of micromanagement)

Why, then?

Because I feel that Civ is a strategic level game, to add this would turn it from a strategic level game to an operational (especially if supply is added) or even to a tactical level game. I want a strategic level game. There are much better games and systems for those other levels already.

 

[GeZe]

@Trade-peror
Yes, I think a auto-face threat would be good, with manual adjustment after that. Thats what I was going for.

@warpstorm
I disagree; you should voice your opinion in the "what is civ" thread

@ people who don't like this idea beacuase of micromanging
Well, you could basically ignore this feature and youd still be okay, its just for the hard-core military fanatics, this would be cool.




My friend who had the idea has only been playing Civ3 for only a couple of weeks. Its funny how humans intantly, when they get something, think of how to improve it.

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

Yes, but this small addition would only be for those who really use every thing they have, like a true general/leader. That's why, mostly people playing at level Sid/Diety, would be the only ones who would really need it. For most of the other levels, it wouldn't help too much.

 

[one_man_assault]

I think this would be really nice like a 25% bonous or something from side and 50% bonus but it would be farer to take a movement point to face the opponent or something like that.

 

[warpstorm]

@warpstorm
I disagree; you should voice your opinion in the "what is civ" thread

I think my opinion and why I said it is relevant to this topic. As far as the stuff in that other thread, the developers know how I feel already. I'd rather stick to more focused threads.

 

[DogmaDog]

Heh...I bet you'd still see big stacks, but with units facing all, or most directions.

You'd only ever see the advantage come into play against AI onesies and twosies.

Unless a lot of re-balancing was done, it wouldn't be especially important--it is not hard to get overwhelming superiority locally to crush the AI defense, but spending an extra turn moving to the flank wouldn't be worth it.

Now if you made the cavalry offense no better than the musket defense from the front, but gave a 50% advantage from the flank, you might see it used.

DogmaDog

 

[warpstorm]

The only way you could really get this to work is to limit the number of units in a stack, and make the AI build fronts and dig in. If you do this, you are starting to go the operational route.

 

[loco-newf]

I think the way to implement this would be to move all attacking units into a defending square and then resolve combat. The defender would then choose the facing for each of his defending units. The unit with the proper facing would defend until destroyed. Then, any units not facing the attacker would defend with penalties.

Personally, I think it's a good idea, just not a good idea for Civ 4. Unit moves, unit wins or loses. Simple. Good.

 

[Civman33]

Flanking would be better if you got a bonus when you attack a unit behind or on it's side... Nuff said...

 

[Shackel]

Each tile in Civilization is, if I am correct, has an area of 360km. Also, this may end up with you having to have 160 units in a city, each facing a separate direction instead of 20 in one tile.

I've played the "tactical team" mod(Planetfall?), and I know what that option is like.

It's one of the most annoying things I have ever used.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

On the realism side, I've estimated that the average Civ land unit represents a division. In addition, turns are generally weeks, months, or years each. One would assume that during each turn, they have time to at least set up camp (even if they're not fortified), making the idea of "facing" any direction in particular meaningless.

And on the gameplay side, I agree with warpstorm. It would be one more variable that spoils the point of the game and makes strategy that much more annoying to deal with.

 

[Argetnyx]

Flanking is too tactical for Civ. Civ is a strategic game, if you haven't noticed. It is losing good players because it is turning into a tactical game instead.

 

[the reverend]

I don't think this would work well for Civ, because it is a turn and tile based game. If it were RTS, that would be another story.

 

[Argetnyx]

the reverend: where did you come from? You have very good ideas that are not tainted by civ4's tampering with the strategic formula, trying to make it into a tactical game.

If you people have not read the above, please do so before reading the next part.

Stop trying to make Civ into a tactical game. If you want to do that, make up a new game series, but don't do that to Civilization, you're losing strategy fans!