"One unit per one tile" strategy thoughts

[Jabba]

If the pikemen are advancing on your encampment, what will you do? Abandon your supply train?

The scenario is an imaginery one. By the time the enemy has reached your supply train he has not only chased off your cavalry, but fought his way past every other unit as well.

To have a supply train in every area occupied by cavalry would imply that the mobility of the cavalry was limited to the speed of a heavily laden horse-and-cart. That would defeat the whole object of having cavalry.

Really? Pikes weren't particularly effective vs infantry in post-Macedonian warfare. Too slow, too inflexible, too immobile. The Phalanx went out of style a long time ago. Weren't bit in Medieval periods except for some militias, and even then it was mostly as cavalry defense.

Pikes were used rather effectively against both infantry and cavalry. Also, pikemen were typically equipped with swords as well for close-quarter combat. Pikes were common weapons for a period that lasted from the 14th to the 17th century, and they were still in use in the 18th Century. It wasn’t until the mid-17th century that muskets became the main weapon of choice against infantry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_(weapon)
http://militaryhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_pike_as_a_weapon_in_history_

Bayonets are much shorter, and aren't used in formation at all.

They were very much used in formation, in infantry squares, to protect against cavalry charges. Here is a famous example:

http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/waterloo_001.JPG

And again, the gameplay issue (without a unit that can threaten cavalry, you don't have to be careful about your placement of them) stands unchallenged.

I really can’t see what the problem is. Cavalry can be attacked by the same units that can attack cavalry in real life, including:

1. Other cavalry. (The most important method to deal with enemy cavalry.)

2. Archers.

3. Artillery.

4. Not forgetting, of course, elephants!

In Civ 4, I’m always extremely careful about where I place my cavalry, but this isn’t because I am terrified of rampaging pikemen.

 

[Ahriman]

2. Archers.
3. Artillery.

Placement is going to be relatively unimportant for these, because they have long range bombardment. We want something that encourages you to think about where your cavalry units end up between turns.
Besides, surely cavalry should be good vs archers and artillery?

4. Not forgetting, of course, elephants!

Incredibly rare/limited.

So the only counter to cavalry is other cavalry? That's a bit weak.

In Civ4 you don't have to be careful about your cavalry, because you can protect them with other units (or move them back into your stack of doom).

 

[Jabba]

Placement is going to be relatively unimportant for these, because they have long range bombardment.

Placement of ranged units is no less important than placement of other units. Much more so really.

Besides, surely cavalry should be good vs archers and artillery?

Good if the cavalry is attacking them, bad if the cavalry is being bombarded by them. Quite logical really.

So the only counter to cavalry is other cavalry? That's a bit weak.

As far as I'm concerned it is perfectly fine.

That's how it works in previous games, in other games, and (by the way) in the real world.

In fact the vulnerability of any of your units to attack depends not only on unit specializations. It also depends on relative experience levels, relative numbers, promotions and so on.

The idea that there is a problem of invincible cavalry seems quite invented to me. Mine are always getting jumped on by other horse units or blasted by catapults.

 

[Ahriman]

Placement of ranged units is no less important than placement of other units. Much more so really.

Sorry, I was unclear. Placing your cavalry unit on tile A vs adjacent tile B is much less important when facing off against ranged units, because the ranged units can bombard you whichever tile you are in.
An archer with 2 moves and a 2 range bombardment (can move, then shoot) can threaten a 7x7 zone of tiles, and cannot easily be blocked from doing this. A spearman with 2 moves and melee only attack can threaten only a 5x5 zone, and can be restricted/blocked from accessing particular tiles by screening forces.

That's how it works in previous games, in other games, and (by the way) in the real world.

No its not. In Civ4, a spearman or pikemen gets a +50% bonus when attacking a cavalry unit as well as when defending against it. What game were you playing?

Mine are always getting jumped on by other horse units or blasted by catapults.

People attack your cavalry units with catapults? Seriously?
The new system is also designed to make placement important in a way that it is unimportant in Civ4 (because of stacking).

 

[Jabba]

No its not. In Civ4, a spearman or pikemen gets a +50% bonus when attacking a cavalry unit as well as when defending against it. What game were you playing?

Oh yeah. Been a while since I played.

The main reason why I forgot is that it so rarely happens in my games. Even if a pikeman bags a cavalry unit by attacking it, it would lose its fortification bonus, making it (and the city it is defending) dead meat the next turn. Had it remained in a defensive posture, it might have brought down four or five attacking units.

The AI seems to understand this as I don't recall it sending many pikemen on suicide attack missions against my cavalry.

The bigger risk to my cavalry units comes from other mobile units. These are lurking somewhere out of sight which makes them such a nuisance. They do not receive fortirfication bonuses so they are ideally suited for such counter-attacks.

As far as catapults are concerned, the AI will blast anything in sight with them.

Now that you mention it, I have no great objection to the existing attack bonus for pikemen, but I don't see how this is a make-or-break issue. Like I say, it doesn't seem to make a big difference in my games.

 

[chongli]

How about this for a solution? Zones of control.

This would allow a small number of infantry to block off a fairly large area and screen the rest of your army pretty damn effectively.

 

[Jaybe]

How about this for a solution? Zones of control.

This would allow a small number of infantry to block off a fairly large area and screen the rest of your army pretty damn effectively.

Don't think that is going to happen, except possibly for units such as horse or armor. The reason is that it has already been stated that breaking through front lines is going to be integral to the combat dynamics. ZOCs would totally destroy that concept. Though with SOFT ZOCs (it costs extra movement to move through them, movement isn't totally blocked), it could work out well.

With relatively small numbers of units in Civ5, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[tom2050]

No its not. In Civ4, a spearman or pikemen gets a +50% bonus when attacking a cavalry unit as well as when defending against it. What game were you playing?

That may have been a gameplay > realism moment right there, although that combat advantage for attacking makes no sense.

Civ 3 usually had defenders with 1 attack, and so even attacking a horseman with 1 defense had the odds against it. The faster horseman could retreat, with slightly better odds of winning the battle due to bonus' from terrain.

Can't remember if Cavalry could retreat or not from a spearman or pikeman in 4, it's been a long while since I've played a game. In this case, I would go with realism preferred over gameplay for Civ 5.
------------
For cities, I seriously believe that the defender will add to the cities total hitpoint count, and not be a single unit that must be defeated before it can attack the city itself. Doing the latter would imply the defender is not actually working as 'part of the city defense' but more of a seperate entity.

Depending on how city strengths are incorporated, it may not be easy at all to take cities early in the game.

 

[chongli]

Don't think that is going to happen, except possibly for units such as horse or armor. The reason is that it has already been stated that breaking through front lines is going to be integral to the combat dynamics. ZOCs would totally destroy that concept. Though with SOFT ZOCs (it costs extra movement to move through them, movement isn't totally blocked), it could work out well.

With relatively small numbers of units in Civ5, it shouldn't be an issue.

What about a different type of ZoC? A system where instead of interfering with movement the defenders simply get free attacks on anyone trying to move through their ZoC?

 

[boredatwork]

I have no problem with 1UPT system - it worked great for PG and I can see it working great for the Civ series as well.

The only thing I'm slightly concerned about is the scale of the maps - PG worked because in general there was plenty of terrain in and around objectives to maximize maneuver. If it's true that infantry are being given the 2 hex movement range they need to make 1UPT work, (and presumably tanks and cav 4-5 hexes) I hope that means maps are increasing 1.5-2 times current dimensions for a given number of cities to give proper room to maneuver. (ie trading space for time, penetrating front lines to attack artillery from behind, cutting off wounded units path to escape, etc.)

 

[Tlalynet]

In so far as Ahriman makes the distinction between pikes and pole-arms in general I see the point, the pike is an extreme. My point about a bayonet is that its a pole-arm type weapon that keeps cavalry (and anything else) at a distance if you're out of shot for your gun. When a Rifle plays an anti-cavalry role on its own pikes are obsolete, but its still a pole-arm or spear type weapon that keeps cavalry away.

I didn't intend to challenge game play issues, it just annoys me that spears are usually relegated to cheap counter cavalry units.

But on topic, if all spears are going to be relegated to anti-cav they'd better be able to attack with a bonus, realistic or not. If not they're going to be ultravulnerable in 1upt since we can expect even the AI to have different unit types and the attacker is the one that picks the fight. They would rarely be worth having at all if they just sat there waiting to be killed by a mellee unit so the enemy cav had a straightaway through.

 

[Jabba]

In Panzer General, infantry does not get an attack bonus when attacking tanks, even though it gets bonuses when defending against them.

Anti-tank guns are useful only in defence. You can't use them to attack stuff. You have to attack them with infantry rather than with tanks.

The best thing to attack tanks with are other tanks.

Guess what? It all works FINE.

All these problems people are imagining are just imaginery problems.

 

[tom2050]

What about a different type of ZoC? A system where instead of interfering with movement the defenders simply get free attacks on anyone trying to move through their ZoC?

That is precisely how ZoC was incorporated in Civ 3.

 

[r_rolo1]

That is precisely how ZoC was incorporated in Civ 3.

Well, IIRC , in Civ III ZoC is reliably close of non existant for pretty much everything besides armies and fortifications ( oh, I surely miss the coastal fortifications in Civ IV ... they would definitely help ). If the objective is that, better not have it IMHO

 

[boredatwork]

Anti-tank guns are useful only in defence. You can't use them to attack stuff. You have to attack them with infantry rather than with tanks.

Guess what? It all works FINE.

Actually antitank guns were fail in the original PG for anything but cheap canon fodder.

The PG2 system was much better - where anti-tank units only automatically lost the initiative against tanks if they moved before firing. You still couldn't use them to hunt down tanks (which is as it should be) but you could move them the turn before to be in a position where they could punish an expected armored attack next turn (again as it should be, see Rommel, desert).