Crazy Eskimo
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2005
- Messages
- 367
ah. good point. In that case, only the defender would ever have the high ground.
offensive bonuses???
- Thread starter MrMahk
- Start date
your probly right, but as i said once guns come around sholdnt this atvantage disapear as machien guns whold easly mowdown men runing down hill?? and since ther runing down hill, thay whear have a harder time stoping and more likly to slip up and fall over ect.
i hope the bounus wont aplie to mountans, since mountants are so rocky or steep, atacking shold be a dsiatvantage, shodlnt it?
i hope the bounus wont aplie to mountans, since mountants are so rocky or steep, atacking shold be a dsiatvantage, shodlnt it?
i think i know what battle you are talking about, but in that battle hannibal was the one on top of the hill going down at the romans, and it was a huge victory for carthage (albeit it was a surprise attack in the middle of teh night...but the terrain still played an advantage)Bluemofia said:
Crazy Eskimo
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2005
- Messages
- 367
Vietcong said:
Yes, but they'll have an even easier time mowing down running uphill.
1) Running uphill requires more effort, so the soldiers will be slower than if they were running downhill. More time for the machine guns to pick them off.
2) A machine gun's range will be less firing uphill than downhill, just like all projectile weapons (perhaps not easily noticable to the naked eye, but still less).
3) The same kind of cover provides better protection going downhill versus uphill. Because of the geometry involved, a boulder or gulley will provide protection to a greater volume if the attacker is uphill of the MG rather than downhill.
However, you're right, against automatic weapons, the advantage of the high ground largely disappears (unless you have them as well). I certainly wouldn't want to charge a machinegun, with or without the high ground, because, you're right, it'd mow me down.
Napo981 said:
We know. We were just discussing if these terrains should give offensive bonuses as well.
i understand the defensive aspect of the hill well, its jsut im not so keen on the idea of a offensive advatage, expecaly in more modren times then modren wepions such as machin guns, artilery, tanks, air craft of dif sorts. whold cancel the atvatage out prity much.. this whold be expecly true for rifle men, strait lines of men ruining fowrd down hill, being hit by cannon fire, then runing into 2 vollys of musket fire, then into a wall of bayonets.. i certanly wholdnt risk it, i whold rather let them atack me up the hill then me go down, u still whold get tired prity fast ruing down hill.. cus when u run down hill u go faster, but to keep ur self from falling over u got to allso move your legs much faster, a suden stop may cause you to flip over onto your back..but ther whold defently be much more power in the first impact of men, but thay whold be prity tired while the men at the boutom be nice and rested, as thay move very litel or not at all... am i the only one who has a lil problem with a bounus? maby this bounus shold count only for handcombat wepions agisnt other ones, and not count with units going aaginst gun units.
i got mroe to say but i g2g,
i got mroe to say but i g2g,
Bluemofia
F=ma
MrMahk said:
No, I ment another battle, where the Romans charged to attack Hanibal's troops, but instead of fighting the expierenced troops, they ran through and slaughtered the conscripts. Then, the Hanibal surrounded them with his expierenced troops, and slaughtered them. The Formation was originally like this:
Code:
[COLOR=Red] ---
---[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Sienna]\ /
\ /
\ /
-[/COLOR]Brown is Carthrage, and red is Romans.
Bluemofia
F=ma
MrMahk said:
No hill, but the speed concept was still used.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
It seems to be a valid point that being at the higher elevations should give the attacker a bonus, as this is one of the basic lessons you learn in infantry training.
Many reasons for this already have been stated and it stands true even (maybe even more) for modern times, as by the use of hand grenades literally any unit has become a "projectile" unit. It is easy to understand that you may throw your grenade at a larger distance when you have the higher position. Furthermore, you may throw it more easily INTO the trench than the other way around.
Another advantage is that it is easier for the human being to look down than up. Test it for yourselves... after a short while you necks will hurt, if you have to constantly look up. Needless to mention that for earlier times the one at the higher position had less effort in holding his shield than the one who had to fight upwards.
After all, the higher position clearly should have a bonus - this stands true for both the attacker and the defender.
Many reasons for this already have been stated and it stands true even (maybe even more) for modern times, as by the use of hand grenades literally any unit has become a "projectile" unit. It is easy to understand that you may throw your grenade at a larger distance when you have the higher position. Furthermore, you may throw it more easily INTO the trench than the other way around.
Another advantage is that it is easier for the human being to look down than up. Test it for yourselves... after a short while you necks will hurt, if you have to constantly look up. Needless to mention that for earlier times the one at the higher position had less effort in holding his shield than the one who had to fight upwards.
After all, the higher position clearly should have a bonus - this stands true for both the attacker and the defender.
charlesolmsted
Chieftain
Bluemofia said:
He is referring to Cannae - but there was no hill involved there. Not only that, but it wasn't so much that the Romans rushed into the middle of Hannibal's line as that they packed their formation very deep on a narrow front. This allowed Hannibal to achieve the well-nigh wondrous double pincer movement against a superior force that generals since him have tried (mostly in vain) to emulate. The Carthaginian line at Cannae was not originally so V shaped, the Romans forced back the middle (composed of Celtic and Spanish mercenaries) and Hannibal advanced his Carthaginian phalanx on each wing (under cover of his superior Numidian and Spanish cavalry).
Meleager
Stoned as a Statue
Commander Bello Makes good points.
I ask why should it be that in modern times high ground has no advantage?
In modern times people are not likely to rush a target (world war 1 an exeption). Instead they would just stay at the top and shoot downwards.
Think of a sniper. Being in a high position is a far greater location then a low position.
High positions also give you greater line of sight and a view of the battle field.
And as for rushing into enemy lines, how many of you have watched the lord of the rings? (i know its a movie). Also I would much rather go downhill then uphill (i know defencive bonuses already replicate this).
However All these ideas are at a very small scale compared to the civilization game. We are talking about things that happen on 1 tiny square.
Ideas such as the flanking against the romans simply cannot be replicated in civ. (a large scale flank of a supply line is different though)
I ask why should it be that in modern times high ground has no advantage?
In modern times people are not likely to rush a target (world war 1 an exeption). Instead they would just stay at the top and shoot downwards.
Think of a sniper. Being in a high position is a far greater location then a low position.
High positions also give you greater line of sight and a view of the battle field.
And as for rushing into enemy lines, how many of you have watched the lord of the rings? (i know its a movie). Also I would much rather go downhill then uphill (i know defencive bonuses already replicate this).
However All these ideas are at a very small scale compared to the civilization game. We are talking about things that happen on 1 tiny square.
Ideas such as the flanking against the romans simply cannot be replicated in civ. (a large scale flank of a supply line is different though)
Bluemofia
F=ma
But isn't there armor or something like that?
Crazy Eskimo
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2005
- Messages
- 367
@ Bluemofia (sorry, one last about the speed): I understand what you mean and how it worked, but I don't see how either the Romans had "extra speed" or how, if they had it, it hurt them. It looks more like Hannibal beat them with superior tactics and formations.
@ Vietcong:
First, what you described about the attackers being tired applies to all combat. If one side is standing still and the other is moving, then of course the moving side is going to be more tired. But imagine both sides are moving. In that case, the side that's moving uphill is going to be far more tired than the side that's moving downhill. Furthermore, even in the situation you described, the folks running downhill will still be less tired than if they had been running over level ground. Granted, if the incline is too steep, there is the opportunity for slipping and falling, but that's the same if you're going uphill or downhill. Downhill doesn't necessarily mean treacherously downhil.
Second, you seem to be assuming that the downhill position is superior technologically to the uphill position. If they're both matched, the uphill position still provides advantages, even in modern time. For instance:
Artillery - the range of the artillery will be further on a hill than at the bottom. That means it can hit even more enemy troop positions than you could on level ground.
Tanks - Tanks go faster going downhill than on level ground and consume less fuel doing so. This means that not only will the tanks have more fuel when they get to the bottom (and thus be able to fight longer), but they will reach the enemy quicker and thus be "exposed" for less time.
Machine Guns - I don't disagree with your assessment of the riflemen charging downhill at the machine gun turrent, though they would have more cover than if they were running uphill, and thus be a smidge more protected. But, imagine if there's a machine gun turrent on top of a hill and one in a valley. The one on top of the hill can use the hillside itself as cover from the one in the valley, while the one in the valley is pretty well exposed to the one on top of the hill. Even if the one in the valley has pretty good cover, the one on the hill can take out any possible reinforcement/resupply units, while the one on the hill can be resupplied by units that the one in the valley never even sees.
@ Vietcong:
First, what you described about the attackers being tired applies to all combat. If one side is standing still and the other is moving, then of course the moving side is going to be more tired. But imagine both sides are moving. In that case, the side that's moving uphill is going to be far more tired than the side that's moving downhill. Furthermore, even in the situation you described, the folks running downhill will still be less tired than if they had been running over level ground. Granted, if the incline is too steep, there is the opportunity for slipping and falling, but that's the same if you're going uphill or downhill. Downhill doesn't necessarily mean treacherously downhil.
Second, you seem to be assuming that the downhill position is superior technologically to the uphill position. If they're both matched, the uphill position still provides advantages, even in modern time. For instance:
Artillery - the range of the artillery will be further on a hill than at the bottom. That means it can hit even more enemy troop positions than you could on level ground.
Tanks - Tanks go faster going downhill than on level ground and consume less fuel doing so. This means that not only will the tanks have more fuel when they get to the bottom (and thus be able to fight longer), but they will reach the enemy quicker and thus be "exposed" for less time.
Machine Guns - I don't disagree with your assessment of the riflemen charging downhill at the machine gun turrent, though they would have more cover than if they were running uphill, and thus be a smidge more protected. But, imagine if there's a machine gun turrent on top of a hill and one in a valley. The one on top of the hill can use the hillside itself as cover from the one in the valley, while the one in the valley is pretty well exposed to the one on top of the hill. Even if the one in the valley has pretty good cover, the one on the hill can take out any possible reinforcement/resupply units, while the one on the hill can be resupplied by units that the one in the valley never even sees.
Similar threads
