(Poll) New Skirmisher Concept

[pineappledan]

Is the melee attack target counted in the calculation of flanking at all?

Each unit is. The attacker and the defender each count as 1, so they cancel each other out. But if the defender is counted twice then it has an innate defense bonus in melee

 

[azum4roll]

The result from it would be that mounted melee and mounted ranged units would complement each other, as these two would be effective or weak against the opposite types of foot unit that the other is. This alone should be a solid niche for the mounted ranged units, especially on civs that emphasize cavalry-heavy armies.

My Logistics Skirmishers mod effectively does that.

 

[Rekk]

My Logistics Skirmishers mod effectively does that.

Can you elaborate how adding logistics does that?

 

[Rekk]

Is the melee attack target counted in the calculation of flanking at all?

Each unit is. The attacker and the defender each count as 1, so they cancel each other out. But if the defender is counted twice then it has an innate defense bonus in melee

Checked the dll; the flanking function chooses to exclude the attacker/defender, likely for performance reasons.

 

[Stalker0]

Checked the dll; the flanking function chooses to exclude the attacker/defender, likely for performance reasons.

And for the simple fact is.... a unit shouldn't be providing flanking bonus to itself.

 

[Gazebo]

And for the simple fact is.... a unit shouldn't be providing flanking bonus to itself.

delicious flank recursion, my favorite cut of meat

 

[Rekk]

And for the simple fact is.... a unit shouldn't be providing flanking bonus to itself.

I mean, it used to count itself in 2018 (and canceled out with the other unit), before code was specifically added to cut down on computation time.

 

[Fluffball]

It absolutely helps on defense, I don't think you understand how flanking works. The flanking bonus we are proposing would always give the skirmisher a flanking advantage. Since they are ranged, they can't take advantage of that to attack, but it increases their own defense against melee units.

To clarify the whole of what i wrote. If the skirmisher is going to be nerfed on defense when it is already very weak on defense anyway you will have to withdraw the skirmisher before the end of the turn so it doesn't just become a free kill for the enemy and thus it will not provide flanking support to the melee units being attacked (when those melee units defend) as the skirmisher would have moved back. Thus it doesn't help other units on defense.

If you leave the skirmisher on the front line to provide flanking bonus defense when your units are being attacked it may help defend the other unit only by the virtue of the fact that the skirmisher is extremely squishy and an easy free kill with it exposed on the front line so the skirmisher will be attacked first as (a) it is squishy and (b) killing it will remove it's defensive buff to adjacent units and then it is likely that upon killing the skirmisher an enemy unit will take it's place and thus giving the enemy an additional flanking bonus to the unit you were trying to buff which means it goes from having a double flanking buff from the skirmisher to a flanking debuff from an additional unit adjacent to it. Therefore do you not only sacrifice the skirmisher for no benefit you also provide additional easy flanking for the enemy so doubly bad to try to use it on defense.

It is explictly stated in the solution concept that skirmishers will not be benefiting from flanking so as not to make a swarm of skirmishers OP so it won't help skirmishers at all on defense.


Overall i could only see it being situationally useful on attack where you are finishing off a unit with melee and don't quite have enough damage to kill it and additional flanking 'may' just give you the additional one or two points of damage but even then i would probably be setting up so i had two melee units stationed to finish off the target with two actual attacks generally being better than one with additional flanking and this would involve less micro management, e.g. i am thinking when i only have one admiral or general which doesn't quite cover the whole front and having to move them around too provide the buff as i cycle through the units and then often wanting to make sure they end up in the optimal place at the end of the turn to cover the units i expect to most be in danger and often forgetting to do so. Paraphrasing one of the stated issues with skirmisher design is it can be hard for players to remember when trying to optimise the buffs/debuffs and lead to frustration (especially in new players).

See the problems with plagues noted above.

Looking at making it as simple as possible with both for the player and comutationally I was thinking something more like the sickle(?) promortion etheopian units get which reduced movement to any unit attacked or the boarding party promotion which reduces movement but possibly one which /reduced defense rather than movement rather than an aura/plague. I am not well versed on how much of a difference that makes but as i guess it is not as computationally intensive as it applies specifically to the unit attacked rather than all nearby units. From the players perspective and i assume from the AI use also this is much simpler and easy to deal with as the debuff is applied on attack and then can be forgotten about rather than it having to be in consideration for multiple moves to ensure it is applied optimally at the right time and without leaving the skirmisher exposed as an easy kill

 

[Rekk]

It is explictly stated in the solution concept that skirmishers will not be benefiting from flanking so as not to make a swarm of skirmishers OP so it won't help skirmishers at all on defense.

All units benefit from flanking on the defense. They just don't contribute to the numbers themselves. That won't change. The OP is clarifying how flanking works for ranged units when they attack (ie, it doesn't).

Skirmishers, especially with 5 moves can move into positions that other units can't, in order to provide flanking bonuses that other units cannot. That works right now. The proposal just improves their ability to do it.

They will take more damage in open terrain than they do now, but skirmishers (especially early) are almost invincible in open terrain, so that's not saying much.

Looking at making it as simple as possible with both for the player and comutationally I was thinking something more like the sickle(?) promortion etheopian units get which reduced movement to any unit attacked or the boarding party promotion which reduces movement but possibly one which /reduced defense rather than movement rather than an aura/plague. I am not well versed on how much of a difference that makes but as i guess it is not as computationally intensive as it applies specifically to the unit attacked rather than all nearby units. From the players perspective and i assume from the AI use also this is much simpler and easy to deal with as the debuff is applied on attack and then can be forgotten about rather than it having to be in consideration for multiple moves to ensure it is applied optimally at the right time and without leaving the skirmisher exposed as an easy kill

You have described a plague (= a debuff on a unit, applied by another unit attacking it, that lasts some amount of turns).

 

[Fluffball]

The use of the term plague seems like a new addition to me and i obviously missunderstood it's reference, i obviously assumed it meant an aura which seemed most logical as plagues spread and eminate. Is there a reason we are using the confusing term plague instead of the traditional and obvious term debuff? =)

In regard to flanking, the best i can say is without some proper in game testing is i am confused as to what benefit this change may or may not have and on last check i have 2000+ hours playing vp and 30+ years playing strategy games in general. If the point is to make it simpler, less confusing and less frustrating to use skirmishers this does not fit that description which in essence is my main point and concern, especially if the CS/RCS is going to be additionally nerfed to compensate for the 'buff' which seems micromangy to use, not obvious to understand and probably not considered most of the time as it isn't so obvious.

For the most part when using skirmishers i am only concerned with can they move in, hit the enemy and move to safety/not die afterwards. I have never used a skirmisher (or any other unit) because it is in ideal terrain or not used a skirmisher (or any other unit) as it is not in ideal terrain for example and i even go as far as noting promotions in the units names to make it easy to optimise use of units based on what promotions they have and optimising as far as possible so that units get promotions quicker. If i have a specific choice of a unit with an advantage and a unit without one then yes i will choose the unit with an advantage but for the most part you are using the unit which is available to you as you often (especially on attack) have to deal with what you are given and that is why more generic promotions are generally better than potentially strong but highly situational promotions which i feel this buff falls in to the second category.

Personally i doubt i would really bother that much to micro manage skirmishers to give additional flanking to melee units while they finish off an already dead unit not least because probably once per game at most i will try to provide a flanking bonus for either attack or defense to gain that slither of extra damage or minor amount of extra defense. I certainly don't see any instances where i will leave a skirmisher on the front line at the end of a turn to give protection to adjacent units as the skirmisher is just going to die or be so heavily damaged it need to be withdrawn for a number of turns to heal.

 

[Rekk]

Is there a reason we are using the confusing term plague instead of the traditional and obvious term debuff? =)

This is what it's been called since before it was introduced to base VP with the Boarded promotions. Primarily, it uses code from JFD's work in the dll, in which it's been named plague.

It has been communicated as status or condition in the past, but never debuff (which is too generic and can refer to more than just a temporary negative promotion). Condition and Status refer any temporary promotion applied for any source. Plague refers specifically to a temporary promotion that is applied to a unit by another unit attacking it.

 

[Fluffball]

Thanks for clarifying about plagues. I have been playing for a long time and only recently seen the term used so thought it was a relatively new mechanic that had been added which i had missed in the various patch notes or during a break =)

 

[Gazebo]

This is what it's been called since before it was introduced to base VP with the Boarded promotions. Primarily, it uses code from JFD's work in the dll, in which it's been named plague.

It has been communicated as status or condition in the past, but never debuff (which is too generic and can refer to more than just a temporary negative promotion). Condition and Status refer any temporary promotion applied for any source. Plague refers specifically to a temporary promotion that is applied to a unit by another unit attacking it.

Specifically, it was code that JFD asked me to add for one of his mods, that I decided was a fun enough concept that I added it to VP.

 

[azum4roll]

Can you elaborate how adding logistics does that?

Skirmishers have 4 moves, can attack twice but have low RCS (does 17.5 damage to same tier melee not counting Cover/Formation). In general you don't want them to be hit at all, whether it's from melee or ranged, unlike mounted melee which can soak some hits.

It's not easy to compare melee and ranged as they work differently (I usually compare skirmishers to foot ranged instead), but an obvious difference is that skirmishers are better suited at attacking into rough terrain and tight formations (ZoC) or across rivers while mounted melee can only attack a flat flank if they want to retreat.

Mounted melee does more damage to foot ranged and siege (and takes less damage in return) while skirmishers' damage to foot melee and foot ranged/siege are closer because of the higher defensive RCS. Which is why you want to attack melee with mounted ranged and ranged with mounted melee. Conversely it's also true - skirmishers take relatively more damage from ranged even with the +50% defensive bonus against it, as a melee unit attacking into a skirmisher not only takes counter damage but also will get hit twice on the skirmisher's turn unless it's killed.

At the end it's easier to grasp the role of these skirmishers if you play with/against them.

 

[lunker]

I'm not really a fan of the proposed skirmisher -- it just seems strange for their main role to be flanking on the frontline. I don't really like Skirmisher Doctrine either because of how heavy-handed it feels. It would like for the skirmisher's hit-and-run identity to have more natural and intuitive strengths and weaknesses, and I don't think the changes satisfy that.

I think that the main issue with skirmishers is something that is not unique to them, but just the most apparent, and that is that roads are being abused by human players. I'm not really a history guy, but I think the usage of roads were more often for supplies and reinforcements rather than actual combat. I don't think they provided that much of a combat mobility increase compared to open plains either. In-game, the human player builds a bunch of roads near their borders to cycle their units more effectively, but I don't see the AI doing the same (and frankly, it would be lame if they did). Would it be feasible for there to be some sort of mechanic where units in recent combat cannot benefit from roads? Or maybe some sort of movement debuff like what we did with Naval Melee?

 

[DeAnno]

Would it be feasible for there to be some sort of mechanic where units in recent combat cannot benefit from roads?

You could have units with Move-After-Attack have a minimum movement cost of 1 per tile.

Or alternately, have that minimum only kick in after they attack.

 

[usadefcon1]

Has anyone tried +1 Movement on Open Terrain and -1 Movement on Rough Terrain for the Skirmishers yet?

I might give it a go.

 

[pineappledan]

Azum and my chariot reworks both use the -1 movement on rough terrain/features

 

[usadefcon1]

Azum and my chariot reworks both use the -1 movement on rough terrain/features

How about attacking doesn't cost movement? Has that been tried?

 

[pineappledan]

That's new code, though I do have a UU in 4UC (Egypt's Mamluk) that does something similar