I don't see why you would want to do that though. If defender is supported by other adjacent units, why wouldn't they get a bigger bonus than the attacker?
New Beta Version - November 9th (11-9)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 11-9 beta vox populi
- Status
I don't see why you would want to do that though. If defender is supported by other adjacent units, why wouldn't they get a bigger bonus than the attacker?
In realistic sense, it's called "flanking" bonus. You can't flank someone if you're the one being attacked. Better call it cooperate or support or something.
In game sense, the AI can only see that if a defender has bigger bonus, they might choose to withdraw even if there's no risk attacking, while if it's a human player, proper attack order would eliminate that bonus by attacking with ranged or unit not being flanked first. Get rid of defender's extra flanking bonus removes that false warning for the AI, as they won't hurt themselves too much even when attacking first using an unit being flanked by 3 others, and allow the AI to take more optimal choices.
In game sense, the AI can only see that if a defender has bigger bonus, they might choose to withdraw even if there's no risk attacking, while if it's a human player, proper attack order would eliminate that bonus by attacking with ranged or unit not being flanked first. Get rid of defender's extra flanking bonus removes that false warning for the AI, as they won't hurt themselves too much even when attacking first using an unit being flanked by 3 others, and allow the AI to take more optimal choices.
SpankmyMetroid
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 320
For the lazy, to fix cities taking too much damage.
Beyond the functional changes to flanking, it looks like the strength of it has also gone way down. Before it was 15% per flank, now its 5%. Even though shock's relative bonus is significantly stronger (adding 3%....effecting increases flanking by 60% instead of 25%), overall flanking's bonus looks much weaker than it was before.
That was the apparent intention in overall nerfing flank.
Which is another thing I don't agree with. I don't think I have ever heard a single person on this board complain that flanking was too strong, this is a pretty big change to just come out with no warning or discussion.
Further, this doesn't just nerf a combat mechanic, it fundamentally shifts the balance between melee and ranged back towards ranged.
Enrico Swagolo
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2013
- Messages
- 2,387
I agree about Flanking. It's too sudden and late in the mod's cycle to introduce changes nobody asked for that are so interconnected.. Not only can it disrupt the Shock - Drill balance, but also the balance of melee vs ranged. It also turns Sneak Attack from Kris even worse if it wasn't adjusted, meaning the ability would change from one I always disband/gift the unit if it is RNGd in, to an ability I always disband/gift the unit if it is gotten.
Granted it might not be that bad, but I don't understand what's happening yet or why and the version is full of gubs
Authority's bugged. Culture from Tribute doesn't proc, or at least it doesn't on minor tributes. Maybe heavy ones still get you something. I tried to abuse the fact Carthage's Quigonjinn makes CSs almost instantly afraid in ancient era while being very easy to buy/produce to make myself ball like I used to do in the past, but I didn't get the Cultretree. Same with Mongolia, minor tribute = no culture.
Spoiler :
Granted it might not be that bad, but I don't understand what's happening yet or why and the version is full of gubs
Authority's bugged. Culture from Tribute doesn't proc, or at least it doesn't on minor tributes. Maybe heavy ones still get you something. I tried to abuse the fact Carthage's Quigonjinn makes CSs almost instantly afraid in ancient era while being very easy to buy/produce to make myself ball like I used to do in the past, but I didn't get the Cultretree. Same with Mongolia, minor tribute = no culture.
Last edited:
tu_79
Deity
So, the real problem is that AI don't know how to position units first, and attack later. That why AI get bonuses everywhere. It would be nice to make AI do a few relocations during the same turn, but if it is very Cpu heavy, we will be fine with AI handicaps.
Just don't change a mechanic that is working well for the player.
Just don't change a mechanic that is working well for the player.
chicorbeef
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
Flanking bonus does not apply to units adjacent to the attacker. There is only one formula-delta of friendly - enemy units adjacent defender. You can verify this by checking the patch notes and my screenshot.
pza
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2017
- Messages
- 365
@ everone else: could someone else upload the fix, then? I have no idea about modding and am not gonna start trying.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to use a smaller generic flanking bonus, that any melee unit (drill or shock) could take advantage of (in this case 5%), but then use the shock line to amplify that flanking, while drill focuses on cities? I think that could be done before to some extent, but flanking was stronger before, allowing drill to be a bit strong when doing flank attacks, which isn’t its specialty.
EDIT: Either way, two things were changed this patch with respect to flanking:
1) Flanking mechanics (changed to be more AI friendly)
2) Flanking numbers (to 5% ADDITIVE per flank instead of multiplicative, in turn boosted by shock flank modifier)
I for one am fully in favor of number 2, I was the one advocating to change it from multiplicative to additive. The numbers (5%) per flank were numbers I tossed out as a starting point, totally open to debate of course, though it may have been prudent to debate here first before the change was made, so that’s my bad for not having foresight. Either way, I think making it additive is 100% a better path to take since it is much easier to calculate for a player for future attacks, as in, okay I’ll kill this archer with my horseman and that spearman with my archers, leaving this swordsman naked of flanks at X total combat power which I can then kill with 2 flanking spearman, or something like that, a la chess. If it’s multiplicative it’s not very straightforward.
As for number 1, I haven’t played the new patch yet to see how big of a difference it makes in war.
Last edited:
Txurce
Deity
Did Gazebo say he changed it because flanking was too strong? I thought it was because it wasn't working well for the AI. If that's the case, no discussion was necessary.
We can still adjust the formula if, for example, the balance between melee and ranged has been thrown off:
Questdog
Prince
Well, I have been testing this in game and the flanking does not seem to work like the "New Flanking" that is supposed to be, but it seems to be working like the old flanking, though the values are lower, making flanking irrelevant..... By the way, the "Old Way" is the way it should be...
Above: There is one flanker supporting the attacker and no units flanking the attacker, so there is a +5% Flanking Bonus for the attacker.
Above: There is no flanker supporting the attacker and one unit flanking the attacker, so the defender gets the 5% flanking bonus.
Above: There is one flanker supporting the attacker and one defender flanking the attacker, so the flanking bonuses cancel each other out.
Above: There is no flanker supporting the attacker and no defender flanking the attacker so neither side gets any flanking bonus.
This all seems the way it should be, though not the way advertised in previous posts. My only complaint is that the flanking bonus now seems too small to really matter.
Above: There is one flanker supporting the attacker and no units flanking the attacker, so there is a +5% Flanking Bonus for the attacker.
Above: There is no flanker supporting the attacker and one unit flanking the attacker, so the defender gets the 5% flanking bonus.
Above: There is one flanker supporting the attacker and one defender flanking the attacker, so the flanking bonuses cancel each other out.
Above: There is no flanker supporting the attacker and no defender flanking the attacker so neither side gets any flanking bonus.
This all seems the way it should be, though not the way advertised in previous posts. My only complaint is that the flanking bonus now seems too small to really matter.
Questdog
Prince
P.S. I checked situations with more than one flanker supporting an attacker and it seems that each additional flanker adds +5% to the bonus, which seems as it should be., though as I said, these bonuses are nothing to get excited about.
I would be more open to this change if we start it with our standard numbers. So a +15% additive per flank, and then shock adds 3.75% (which is 25% of 15%, aka the old value). That way we get the mechanics that are apparently better for the AI, without fundamental changing many aspects of combat.
The new flanking logic is supposed to be based on units surrounding the defending unit (aka the unit being attacked). So I agree the new logic doesn't appear to be working (see my notes below).
Questdog
Prince
The proposed flanking logic is nonsense.
HorseshoeHermit
20% accurate as usual, Morty
Flanking bonus per friendly unit is 10% in Brave New World, y'all might have forgotten that.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the mechanical change is only to award a flanking bonus to at most one of the combatants in a fight, which I see, later in the thread, is justified for AI reasons because of A.I. being too cautious about defender flank advantages. (source: nekokon, post 162)
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the mechanical change is only to award a flanking bonus to at most one of the combatants in a fight, which I see, later in the thread, is justified for AI reasons because of A.I. being too cautious about defender flank advantages. (source: nekokon, post 162)
- The flanking bonus is 5% when it was originally larger. This reduces flanking relevance.
- The bonus goes to at most one combatant, when previously there was a combination of the attacker's and defender's flanks. These flanks are still counting up the same numbers , it's just that the smaller one is cancelling out some of the larger one, which overall just means that inferior units in a grand melee with superior units will get better outcomes than before.
- The changes to "flanking modifiers" are not mechanical, just syntactic. They change the internals of how the bonuses are specified in design.
documental
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 66
It's easier to calculate what effect flanking has on your damage when it's a multiplier, especially so with a 10% base. And much harder to factor in what a value of 5% has in overall damage when you've already got 40%. The higher your damage from other sources the weaker flanking becomes. I don't know how and why this sounded like a good idea.
You guys are confusing this. I don't see rear units supporting a flank as AI friendly, or player friendly for that matter, because you'll find yourself moving a lot more units to adjacent before the attack. Normally either your units can be a next to an enemy, or they can't. Now I have to think about what unit to support with a unit who is ranged or can't attack anything. While you should probably do it anyway, now you to have move your entire army before making an attack just to maximize that flanking bonus. Or alternatively for example, say you have a 'straight' line of units, you can use 2 horseman who are behind that line and chain 5 flanking attacks by moving those 2 units 1 movement at a time between each attacker at a time.
What tu_79 highlighted as optional flanking in post #152 is actually the way it works now. Remember you are the attacker and they are the defender. Their is 8 ways to do this and opposite is to double dip.
Positive for friendly units adjacent to the defender (Or a positive modifier for each of your units adjacent to theirs) (Old)
Positive for enemy units adjacent to the defender (Or a positive modifier for each of their units to adjacent to theirs) (New - Rear flanking)
Negative for friendly units adjacent to the defender (Or a negative modifier for each of your units adjacent to theirs) (X) Well that doesn't make sense, the opposite of #1
Negative for enemy units adjacent to the defender (Or a negative modifier for each of their units adjacent to theirs) (X) Doesn't make sense, the opposite of #2
Remember, you are the attacker. So because of the way flanking works (applying a malus against you instead of a bonus for them even though you are the one attacking when outnumbered) below their positive is actually your negative. Otherwise you'd be double dipping.
Positive for friendly units adjacent to the attacker (Or a positive modifier for each of your units adjacent to yours) (New - Rear flanking)
Positive for enemy units adjacent to the attacker (Or a positive modifier for each of their units adjacent to yours) (Old) As above, their positive here is actually your negative, you receive the (negative) modifier.
Negative for friendly units adjacent to the attacker (Or a negative modifier for each of your units adjacent to yours) (X) Doesn't make sense, opposite of #5
Negative for enemy units adjacent to the attacker (Or a negative modifier for each of their units adjacent to yours) (X) Does make sense, opposite of #6
I think if you want to fix this you stick with the old way of flanking and only apply flanking bonuses from units who are adjacent to both the unit being attacked and the unit doing the attacking, and fix the conceptual bug illetori mentioned where the defender gets flanking bonuses as well. Dropping the bug alone would hold the most true to the concept of flanking, while also restricting adjacency would make it the simplest it can be for the AI. Anything other then that and you shouldn't call it flanking.
Also the post above by Questdog in the second pic the flanking bonus doesn't appear to be apply.
Last edited:
- Status
