offensive bonuses???

[MrMahk]

well i was watching the gamespot video for civ4, and i remember the guy saying something about an offensive bonus when attacking down a hill??

1: was this at all in civ3?? cause if it was i never heard anything about it

and 2: does anyone want to talk more about offensive bonuses, because i for one am for the idea

 

[Meleager]

Its been a while scince i watched that movie, I don't think i remember anything like that though.

If it is in though it would be quite interesting. How about an attack bonus for attacking the "back" of a unit (where the unit faces the direction it just travelled). Do any of you see this playing out well?

 

[mastertyguy]

1 No, it is not in civ3. Only defensive bonus.

 

[Bluemofia]

Well, in wars, the only real offensive bonus is getting your pick on time. No other bonuses.

 

[MrMahk]

i disagree with you bluemofia:

there are certainly ways to get an offensive edge against an opponent, and i believe attacking down a hill/mountain is a main one:
especially back when they used to clash with spears and shields, and even now with guns, it is always good to have your momentum going down, and force your opponents to be moving uphill in order to advance

 

[Roi du Culture]

Well, in wars, the only real offensive bonus is getting your pick on time. No other bonuses.

You're kidding me, right? read Art of War or any of Fredrich the Great's works if you wish to be corrected. Obviously, archers are going to faire well against unarmoured troops, and large, all-tank divisions are going to do well against simple infantry.

 

[Vietcong]

whold atacking down hill realy give u a bounus?? ur men are moveing faster down hill, so thay may get tired quicker. and thay whold make easy targets..
ther runing down at u, and ur shoting up at them.. or in older hand to hand ages, when troops are close to one another.. when the men runing down hill clash with the front line of the ones at the boutom of the hill.. wholdnt the trops in the rear, going down hill be pushing the ppl infront into the fron line.. makeing a sorta deth trap thing

 

[Djc]

I think that an offensive bonus for attacking down a hill would be a pretty realistic addition. Yes, your first troops might experience a "death trap" effect, but remember the horde of other soldiers coming in behind them. Especially with something like a cavalry charge, you could literally smash through the defensive front lines with the extra momentum of charging downhill. Being uphill of your enemy has been a solid military tactic for centuries, and remains so today.

 

[Bluemofia]

You're kidding me, right? read Art of War or any of Fredrich the Great's works if you wish to be corrected. Obviously, archers are going to faire well against unarmoured troops, and large, all-tank divisions are going to do well against simple infantry.

Yeah, but that is represented by the higher attack power in civ.

 

[Bluemofia]

i disagree with you bluemofia:

there are certainly ways to get an offensive edge against an opponent, and i believe attacking down a hill/mountain is a main one:
especially back when they used to clash with spears and shields, and even now with guns, it is always good to have your momentum going down, and force your opponents to be moving uphill in order to advance

...But the extra speed can be used against you, as Hanibal did with the Romans.

 

[Own]

In civ3 there's radar towers which give 25% attacking bonus if attacking unit is within 2 square radius.

 

[Bluemofia]

In civ3 there's radar towers which give 25% attacking bonus if attacking unit is within 2 square radius.

But that is because of the extra information/intellegence of the battlefield positions, as to better coordiante the attacks.

 

[Pablicosta]

I think attacking Downhill should give you an attacking and defencive bonus-remember the famous battle where an army set up a shield wall ontop of a round hill. If it hadnt been for absolutely superb, last minute improvised tactics then it would have worked with allmost no casualties.

 

[Bluemofia]

But what would attacking do anything for defending?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Something that would sense is bonuses for mounted or mechanized units in open terrain (or, equivalently, penalties for them in woods, mountains, etc).

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

@ Meleager - I think that's a good idea, but only if the unit had a reason to be facing in it's original direction (e.g. it was attacked from that direction). Sometimes, the direction a unit is facing seems a bit random.

Example: Defending unit is facing SW with enemy units A and B to the W and E. Enemy unit A attacks from the E and combat goes as normal. Defender happens to win. Enemy unit B attacks from the W and gets a free shot, because the Defender has to reposition his forces to deal with the attack.

@ Bluemofia - there's a lot more to the Art of War than the little that Roi took the time to describe. Suffice to say, offensive armies had their advantages too, if their commanders were smart.

What is the incident you refer to with Hannibal and the Romans where extra speed became a liability?

@ Vietcong - Not quite. There's a reason that "holding the high ground" became a cliche. It's because it really was effective in battle. The troops running downhill were able to move faster using less effort (while those running uphill would have to expend more effort), make them less tired than their opponents. Add in other factors like: a) the fact that the forces located on the hill would have greater projectile range than those firing up the hill (anyone whose played golf knows the unfortunate truth of this); b) The troops with the high ground had a better choice of targets as they could strike at their opponents heads and torsos, while the opponents could only easily reach their legs and shins and would have to expend all the more effort to reach the troops vital areas; c) the added momentum of gravity adds a lot of force to their charge. All in all, holding the high ground gave the advantage to attacker and defender alike.

@ The Last conformist - Sounds good to me! Although some would say this is already included in the movement penalty, but I think combat should suffer too.

 

[Jaybe]

The main advantages of being on hills (or high ground) are
1. Greater visibility. You can see more of the ground below you (unless it is masked by another hill).
2. Cover. You can be protected from enemy projectiles (javelins, guns, etc.) by being behind the "earth".
3. Concealment. They cannot see you if you are on the reverse slope or at least not silhouetted against the skyline.

In addition to the advantages of inertia and height from being on the higher ground.

 

[charlesolmsted]

Actually, being on a hill can be a liability in terms of cover, unless you are behind the crest. When defending a hill top against troops equipped with missile weapons (arrows, javelins, guns, etc.) you always defend the reverse slope of the hill. If you are defending the reverse slope the enemy can only hit you with howitzers, unless he is very close. If you defend the forward slope, your troops expose more of their formation to missile fire, because the men in the front row cannot completely cover the men behind them with their shields (because the rear ranks are higher up then they are). This happened to some of the Roman formations at Carrhae (53 BC). The disadvantage of defending the summit or reverse slope against a shock army is that if you get forced back, the enemy is now pursuing you down the hill. This happened to the Spartan left flank at Sellasia (222 BC). Defending the reverse slope gives you great cover, but it takes away any advantage you have in terms of visibility (because the other side of the hill is dead ground). It also cancels any advantage you get from throwing weapons down the hill.

Of course defending the reverse slope of a hill has some other advantages as well - you can only hit the enemy at very close range. Usually in modern warfare this is a good thing - because it maximizes the effect of your fire power. Not only that, but if the enemy sends tanks at you, they expose their belly armor as they come over the crest of the hill - this is bad news for nearly all tanks. An instance of this is the battle of El Gitar in Tunisia (1943), where the American 2nd Corps repelled an attack by 10th Panzer.

It is never a bad thing to make the enemy climb up to get you. Charging down on them might give you a temporary advantage in shock combat, but it is a big gamble. For one thing, if you do not win at the first rush, then your formation is likely disorganized by the headlong charge down the hill. This is what happened to the Saxon army at Senlac/Hastings (1066). Also, if things don't go well for you, then you have to retreat back up the hill.

So, this is all to say that if you attack down the hill it might be an advantage, but I would not count on it.

 

[Own]

Pablicosta, you talking about the Battle of Hastings?

 

[Tomoyo]

Remember that in civ, tiles represent 100x100km squares. I always assumed that the battle itself took place on the tile that was attacked.