Have the devs discussed or shown footage regarding how cliffs will affect combat?

[sTAPler27]

Terrain variation is one of my favorite new features coming to the game not only for aesthetic reasons but because in my first interaction with the mechanic in Humankind it shook up how combat worked. My main curiosity comes with the fact that civ is known for making a lot of ranged units technically melee units, an archer is a ranged unit yet a rifleman isn't. I understand that its likely for melee units to not be able to attack from cliffs but when it comes to the late game will there be an issue where these "melee" ranged units for no clear reason can't attack a unit on a cliff or while on a cliff themselves? I really hope this isn't the case because otherwise I feel like a lot of the potential complexity elevation adds to combat will be wasted.

 

[gdr_willter]

Well, I'll doubt the reallity of infantry battles beyond a cliff...

Musketeers have too short effective range, and can't shoot downward well. Modern infantries technically have enough range to shoot down toward enemies under a cliff without the threat of counterattack, but hundreds meters of terrain height interrupt our soldiers either - because the rear rank cannot effectively participate in the shooting due to the terrain.

Additionally, the forward movement is still important in the infantry battle. It involves soldiers to the combat, press enemies to collapse their formation, and enable the exploitation against the disorganized enemies. Without it, even when you massively succeed to brake the enemies in the first contact, your soldiers can't go further to exterminate the enemies.

So I will consider the difference between hills and cliffs as the possibility of infantry battle across them. Your infantries can charge to the enemies down the hill, while you need artillery to attack the enemies under the cliff.

 

[sTAPler27]

Well, I'll doubt the reallity of infantry battles beyond a cliff...

Musketeers have too short effective range, and can't shoot downward well. Modern infantries technically have enough range to shoot down toward enemies under a cliff without the threat of counterattack, but hundreds meters of terrain height interrupt our soldiers either - because the rear rank cannot effectively participate in the shooting due to the terrain.

Additionally, the forward movement is still important in the infantry battle. It involves soldiers to the combat, press enemies to collapse their formation, and enable the exploitation against the disorganized enemies. Without it, even when you massively succeed to brake the enemies in the first contact, your soldiers can't go further to exterminate the enemies.

So I will consider the difference between hills and cliffs as the possibility of infantry battle across them. Your infantries can charge to the enemies down the hill, while you need artillery to attack the enemies under the cliff.

Something I liked about Humankind system is it took into account trajectory. With infantry you couldn't attack directly up a cliff but if you had enough distance you could.

 

[gdr_willter]

Something I liked about Humankind system is it took into account trajectory. With infantry you couldn't attack directly up a cliff but if you had enough distance you could.

Ballistics is one of the most important mathematics in the modern warfare, but not mainly because of infantry battles.

Even after the infantry weapons get much longer range than spears and arrows, the principle of infantry battle isn't changed so much. Infantries need fields to move and fight, they have to get close to each other, and they need to be supported by the friendly forces among the tactical formation.

Moreover, they nearly can't overcome the rough terrain, and they are not good at searching and aiming the target with distance. Actually, the effective range itself is not so critical for them. Gun is critical because it's easy to train, easy to kill, and easy to maintain the combat strength.

As a retired soldier who was trained from ROK military, I can't see the possibility that the officers order the infantry to attack across the cliff, neither upward nor downward. They will rather order them to attack enemies who're surrounded by the cliff. If they need to attack enemies over/under the cliff, they will use mortar or call the fire support.

 

[AriochIV]

It seems pretty clear that unless they have a special ranged attack (as some unique units do), infantry units are melee units and can't attack across a cliff face. This has not been explicitly confirmed by the developers, but from what we've seen of Modern Age infantry fighting in the livestream, they behave just like infantry in other eras: there is no default ranged attack, and infantry attacks by moving into the target hex (or attempting to move, that is).

 

[sTAPler27]

Ballistics is one of the most important mathematics in the modern warfare, but not mainly because of infantry battles.

Even after the infantry weapons get much longer range than spears and arrows, the principle of infantry battle isn't changed so much. Infantries need fields to move and fight, they have to get close to each other, and they need to be supported by the friendly forces among the tactical formation.

Moreover, they nearly can't overcome the rough terrain, and they are not good at searching and aiming the target with distance. Actually, the effective range itself is not so critical for them. Gun is critical because it's easy to train, easy to kill, and easy to maintain the combat strength.

As a retired soldier who was trained from ROK military, I can't see the possibility that the officers order the infantry to attack across the cliff, neither upward nor downward. They will rather order them to attack enemies who're surrounded by the cliff. If they need to attack enemies over/under the cliff, they will use mortar or call the fire support.

Makes sense. I do feel like there should maybe be the potential for infantry to fight from cliffs maybe at a strength disadvantage though just to show that it is somewhat possible despite the difficulties and to give them some distinction from melee units armed with spears and swords. I feel like it helps give the advancements in tech more distinction when you unlock a new ability or way to engage in combat.

 

[evonannoredars]

I do feel like there should maybe be the potential for infantry to fight from cliffs maybe at a strength disadvantage though just to show that it is somewhat possible despite the difficulties and to give them some distinction from melee units armed with spears and swords.

I reckon a potential solution could be to grant the ranged-melee units a weaker one-tile ranged attack, allowing them to shoot down cliffs but not over other units as archers/longer range units can do. Might be a bit awkward in normal combat though, having two different ways to attack units in an adjacent tile.

 

[gdr_willter]

I reckon a potential solution could be to grant the ranged-melee units a weaker one-tile ranged attack, allowing them to shoot down cliffs but not over other units as archers/longer range units can do. Might be a bit awkward in normal combat though, having two different ways to attack units in an adjacent tile.

I cam image that attack action named after mortar, but I'll prefer it when it's a special action of Army Commamders unlocked by a promotion.

 

[sTAPler27]

I reckon a potential solution could be to grant the ranged-melee units a weaker one-tile ranged attack, allowing them to shoot down cliffs but not over other units as archers/longer range units can do. Might be a bit awkward in normal combat though, having two different ways to attack units in an adjacent tile.

Exactly, the ability to arc attacks should be limited to a more specialized class of unit, otherwise the infantry would become a jack of all trades.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Exactly, the ability to arc attacks should be limited to a more specialized class of unit, otherwise the infantry would become a jack of all trades.

Specifically, attacking up or down Cliffs in the Modern Age would be the specialty of units like Rangers or Special Forces or Mountain Troops. In earlier Ages back to Antiquity it was the province of units raised in mountains, like the 'specialists' used by Alexander the Great to storm the Sogdian Rock. That would not be easily modeled, and was extremely rare in any case, so I suggest that Cliff-side Combat be limited to specialist troops or specialist actions of Modern Age troop units or Commanders.

The great advantage of Cliffs, like any other high ground in Modern Age, is Visibility. From the high ground you can see potentially everything in the lowlands, and modern artillery and other long range ordinance can strike it. Modeling that in the game (assuming it isn't already modeled) would require some specialized interaction between the unit on the cliff top and the artillery, presumably behind the cliff top.

And just to introduce all the complications, 'calling in' or directing artillery fire with telegraph or telephone dates back to 1905 and originally had to be done by special artillery teams up front with the telephone, only after 1940 (in the US Army first, by the end of the 20th century everybody else) virtually every unit should be able to 'spot' targets for the artillery, and of course in the 21st century (which may be beyond the game's end-point at Release) drones and other UAVs allow the artillery to spot for itself far beyond the front line units on either side.

 

[Nikolai II]

It seems pretty clear that unless they have a special ranged attack (as some unique units do), infantry units are melee units and can't attack across a cliff face. This has not been explicitly confirmed by the developers, but from what we've seen of Modern Age infantry fighting in the livestream, they behave just like infantry in other eras: there is no default ranged attack, and infantry attacks by moving into the target hex (or attempting to move, that is).

This is my thought too. I guess ranged units and planes would be able to fight, but not melee units. They'd presumably have to go around.