Ranged Combat: Return Fire

[gumiga]

In naval warfare? Not really. The strategic attacker doesn't necessarily get into gun range first, or have the wind gauge, or a superior offensive position.

In post-sail naval warfare, ships that are in bombardment range of each other are simultaneously trading blows. The idea that I could charge in and focus fire to death one of your ships before it could get a shot off is absurd.

Well, I cannot think of many cases where there was a naval battle where there was surprise or where there was a true first attacker in human history, except for pearl harbor. From that perspective, I could agree with you. But also, in real life it is hard to focus fire on a single ship because they usually go around in fleets that don't spread for more than a couple of kilometres. Then again, the strategic attacker doesn't consider getting into gun range. That's for the tactical or operational commander to think. As for those two, yes, they will try to get in gun range first if they can be sure to stay out of the enemy's range.

There is no way that this should be possible. If two civs have equal navies, they should have roughly equal combat outcomes. The situation you describe is precisely what is wrong with a system where there is no counter-battery fire. Its purely an artifact of a turn-based system, and its an undesirable one.

Really? Why did the British get sea superiority during the XVIII century when, for the most part, the French navy was not inferior to it in any aspect? Yes, it is an artifact of a turn based system, and turn based systems will always have lots of flaws if you compare them to real world battles because those don't happen in turns. And even in real life, when the forces are equal, it is usually the positioning that wins.

Irrelevant. Production capacity has nothing to do with tactical combat mechanics.
In your world, if A and B have equal navies and production capacities, then the unambiguous winner should be whoever attacks first. I think this is bizarre.

Yes, production has nothing to do with TACTICAL combat mechanics. It has to do with STRATEGY.

a) We're talking about naval bombardment, not nuclear warfare

True

b) Nuclear warfare is exactly the opposite of what we're getting with bombardment. A first strike attack was not possible because you couldn't remove the defender's ability to counterattack with sufficient force to deter the attack.

Hence why both nuclear superpowers of the cold war signed treaties to prohibit anti-missile protection.

Which, in your Civ A/B example where A wipes out half of B's navy in a pre-emptive strike, is not happening.
Real world powers didn't want to suffer the consequences of even a handful of nukes because they are so destructive. But you're fine with letting half their fleet attack you, after you kill half of theirs.

They did, they didn't want to suffer from lots of nukes hitting them even after they bombed the enemy back to evolutionary step 1. The nuclear example was not to show how first strike was considered the BEST option and yet, because you could not be certain to stop the enemy from retaliating, not used. As opposed to you using first strike to destroy your enemy's defense, or to wipe out half his fleet, and then know that, even though he can still cause you SOME damage, he won't be able to stop you.

This makes no sense. What makes you think that you can somehow afford half your navy to be disposable screens, and that you have a difference between "big guns" and small guns?
Naval units have movement of ~5+ and bombardment ranges of 3+. How are you going to stop me from, in a single turn, moving my fleet in and focus firing on whatever I want?
If your screens are a long way out, then how will you stop me from coming in, killing your screens, and then moving away again out of range?
[This depends on whether using a bombardment attack consumes all remaining movement points or not; I don't think we know this yet.].

True. I am assuming you cannot move your units after bombarding.

Why? I note you assert this, but you don't make an argument.
What mechanics favor screening?

I am assuming that ZOC will work for ships too, so if the average range for guns is 5, I can safely place my BB about three hexes behind my DDs. If you get to kill them I can run away with my BB or fight back with whatever remaining DDs I have. If you move to attack my BB, I can later get you with my DDs. As you said before, I can only devise a true tactic once I have the game and see how it works. I could always try to draw pictures trying to show you what I mean if you insist, though.

IRL naval combat, if you fire on an enemy ship, it’s going to get to fire back. Both ships are going to take hits.
Moving to a turn based system where all my ships get to fire (and sink yours) before you get the chance to do any damage at all is incredibly unrealistic and is bad for game play.
A duel between dreadnoughts or battleships takes hours - many, many shots are fired and hits are landed. It’s not like you shoot a single round that sinks me, and then I don't get to respond. That's not how real battles worked. Go look at some historic naval battles.

Now here you are assuming, just as I am, that naval battles will end in one turn. I haven't seen ANY video of two BBs fighting each other, so I am thinking that roughly equal ships will not be sunk in 1 turn. Now, if your ship is much better than mine, or if your crew has far superior training, I cannot see any possibility for me to even hurt you. For example, I cannot think of a single case where a WWII destroyer could single handedly kill a battleship. It would be annihilated before it's guns were even in range. Also, you're talking about historic battles and real life. Considering some turns take 1 year, I wonder if you could provide me with an example of such a long engagement. If you want more realistic naval battles I could recommend a few titles to you. =P

This just didn't happen, except in massively lopsided contests. Take a look at real historic naval battles.

Yeah, I know it didn't. I'm just saying what I think it meant when you got to kill the other guy before he could even respond.

How is this an argument against counter-battery fire, particularly for naval units?
I'm not too worried about land units, since there are a mix of unit types and ranges, and movement speeds are slower, so it’s harder to charge up a big fleet and open fire in an alpha strike.

Yes, that's not a good argument against counter-battery fire for naval units. I can give you one without playing the game, not on a practical level. I can only say that I haven't seen a single video of an engagement between two equal ships to tell that they will be sunk in a single blow.

 

[Ahriman]

with no land in the way to bottleneck the fleet

When ships have a range of 3-4 tiles, you would have to have an *extremely* narrow strait (1 tile wide, 4+ tiles long) to prevent me from being able to focus fire one of your units with say 4 units of mine.
This seems extremely unlikely to be a common occurrence.

Also, since the units will most likely heal over time as they have in previous games retalitory strikes are a moot point in almost every case.

Uhhh... what?

How is slow healing over time relevant to a mechanic where a unit gets completely destroyed in a single turn?
If we both have 4 ships, you focus fire on one of mine and kill it, it definitely matters if that ship gets to damage your ships or not. Because I have 3 ships left on my turn; I'd much rather that I get to attack your ships if they're already damaged than if they're not damaged at all.
How can you possibly argue that it doesn't matter whether your ships get damaged or not when they bombard my ships because of slow healing over time?

1:1 equal ships the attacker will probably win, if the attacker takes 0-99.9% damage it doesn't really matter unless the defender has units available for a follow-up attack, but then it's not really 1:1 is it?

Whoever said this was about 1 vs 1 engagements? We're thinking about fleets vs fleets here.

There will be so many variables in play that saying something like "no retalitory strikes will make naval battles suck" is absurd, well unless you plan on playing on maps with no land and only two equal opposing forces composed entirely of naval vessels.

Its absurd to think that naval conflicts between similar sized fleets will be common? Its absurd to object to a combat model where the attacker has a huge advantage? How so?

* * *

But also, in real life it is hard to focus fire on a single ship

Yes. Which is an argument *against* a game model where ships have long range bombardment. In Civ5 it will be very easy to focus fire on a single ship, and you cannot prevent this through say screening, because the enemy can just fire over you.

Why did the British get sea superiority during the XVIII century when, for the most part, the French navy was not inferior to it in any aspect?

Because the British navy was much larger, and because the French navy *was* inferior; less experienced/training, particularly for gunners.
How can you possibly think that British naval superiority was due to some kind of arbitrary advantage for the attacker?

Yes, production has nothing to do with TACTICAL combat mechanics. It has to do with STRATEGY.

Production has nothing to do with whether combat between equal sized fleets should heavily favor the attacker or not.

Hence why both nuclear superpowers of the cold war signed treaties to prohibit anti-missile protection.

?Relevance to the point here?

I am assuming that ZOC will work for ships too, so if the average range for guns is 5, I can safely place my BB about three hexes behind my DDs. If you get to kill them I can run away with my BB or fight back with whatever remaining DDs I have. If you move to attack my BB, I can later get you with my DDs.

If range for guns is 3-5, then putting your BB 3 hexes behind your DDs will not stop me from focus-firing your BBs to death. When I can move 4+ tiles and then shoot ~3-4 tiles, you will not be able to use a screen to prevent me from picking my targets with long-range bombardment.

Now, if units actually had to be in adjacent tiles (or 1 tile away), then you'd be able to use a screen to stop me from targeting your BBs.

This is my point; it is much easier to screen if bombardment ranges are shorter. It is very hard to screen in an environment with large movement rates and long bombardment range.

Now here you are assuming, just as I am, that naval battles will end in one turn. I haven't seen ANY video of two BBs fighting each other, so I am thinking that roughly equal ships will not be sunk in 1 turn

Yes, I am assuming that with focus firing, I will be able to bring one of your ships down entirely in a single turn. For example, if we each have 4 ships, and I am the attacker, then I can have all of my ships bombard one of yours and kill it before it gets a shot off. I'd prefer a system with counterbattery fire, where if you bombarded my ship then my ship got to fire back.

Now, if your ship is much better than mine, or if your crew has far superior training, I cannot see any possibility for me to even hurt you. For example, I cannot think of a single case where a WWII destroyer could single handedly kill a battleship. It would be annihilated before it's guns were even in range.

Relevance? We're talking about engagements between roughly equal fleets.

Also, you're talking about historic battles and real life. Considering some turns take 1 year, I wonder if you could provide me with an example of such a long engagement. If you want more realistic naval battles I could recommend a few titles to you. =P

This is ridiculous. The time scale is an entirely separate form of realism.
I'm simply arguing that it is neither good for realism nor gameplay for naval bombardment to allow attackers to destroy defending units without that unit getting to fire back.

I can only say that I haven't seen a single video of an engagement between two equal ships to tell that they will be sunk in a single blow.

Why do you think that 2 ships is the issue? The issue isn't 1v1s, its say 3v3s or 4v4s.
We have seen a video where 3 frigates fired on and sank an enemy frigate in a single turn without taking any damage in return.

 

[gumiga]

This is why I love talking to sophists.

Because the British navy was much larger, and because the French navy *was* inferior; less experienced/training, particularly for gunners.
How can you possibly think that British naval superiority was due to some kind of arbitrary advantage for the attacker?

Wrong. The French fleet was actually bigger for the most part of that century. Read Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers for more information on the subject.

If range for guns is 3-5, then putting your BB 3 hexes behind your DDs will not stop me from focus-firing your BBs to death. When I can move 4+ tiles and then shoot ~3-4 tiles, you will not be able to use a screen to prevent me from picking my targets with long-range bombardment.

Now, if units actually had to be in adjacent tiles (or 1 tile away), then you'd be able to use a screen to stop me from targeting your BBs.

This is my point; it is much easier to screen if bombardment ranges are shorter. It is very hard to screen in an environment with large movement rates and long bombardment range.

You forget ZOC. I will draw a picture to you and make another post with it.

Yes, I am assuming that with focus firing, I will be able to bring one of your ships down entirely in a single turn. For example, if we each have 4 ships, and I am the attacker, then I can have all of my ships bombard one of yours and kill it before it gets a shot off. I'd prefer a system with counterbattery fire, where if you bombarded my ship then my ship got to fire back.

You destroy 1 on my ships, then I destroy one of yours. Sounds just about right. If I position my ships correctly, you'll have doomed a good part of your fleet doing so, as I will try to show in my image. In the long run, the winner will be the one with better strategy and better production capacity. The individual units are barelly relevant for the strategic planning.

This is ridiculous. The time scale is an entirely separate form of realism.
I'm simply arguing that it is neither good for realism nor gameplay for naval bombardment to allow attackers to destroy defending units without that unit getting to fire back.

I'm arguing that realism is not a factor that should be even considered when you talk about civ games and that, game play wise, the move to ranged naval combat is good.

Why do you think that 2 ships is the issue? The issue isn't 1v1s, its say 3v3s or 4v4s.
We have seen a video where 3 frigates fired on and sank an enemy frigate in a single turn without taking any damage in return.

And you think that an N-ship fleet is the issue and refuse to regard empire capacity of production.

Actually, you are a good sophist. You keep moving the focus of your argument. You use strategy based arguments to counter tactics based ones and then, when people try to introduce strategy, you say it is irrelevant to the mechanics of tactical naval combat. Guess what, there is no tactical part to civ. I may be a lousy player, but this new system seems to take the focus away from how big an army you actually have but how you will be able to sustain your battle in the long run, which makes for better strategical thinking in my opinion. I'll post the image of the naval battle I have in mind in a few hours.

 

[Seven05]

When ships have a range of 3-4 tiles, you would have to have an *extremely* narrow strait (1 tile wide, 4+ tiles long) to prevent me from being able to focus fire one of your units with say 4 units of mine.
This seems extremely unlikely to be a common occurrence.

Now I understand your argument, you assume that the only terrain that will affect naval battles are long, narrow straights. I won't argue with you, you'll just have to see it in action.

If we both have 4 ships, you focus fire on one of mine and kill it, it definitely matters if that ship gets to damage your ships or not. Because I have 3 ships left on my turn; I'd much rather that I get to attack your ships if they're already damaged than if they're not damaged at all.

How can you possibly argue that it doesn't matter whether your ships get damaged or not when they bombard my ships because of slow healing over time?

Because in the end it won't matter, you already dismissed sombody elses argument regarding production and that is the only argument that would make a difference. Without considering production the outcome is either that you win or you lose, if you win with 1 ship left or 3 ships left what does it matter? Or, are we now considering production?

Whoever said this was about 1 vs 1 engagements? We're thinking about fleets vs fleets here.

No you aren't. You're thinking about naval combat in a vacuum in an effort to support your argument that retalitory strikes are essential and the lack of them will remove all strategy & tactics from fleet combat. I guess you missed all of the other exampels that weren't 1:1.

Its absurd to think that naval conflicts between similar sized fleets will be common?

Yes, well 1:1 fights between ships exploring will probably be common, but you don't care about 1:1, right?

Its absurd to object to a combat model where the attacker has a huge advantage? How so?

Only when the 'huge advantage' isn't the 'huge advantage' you make it out to be. It would only be a 'huge advantage' if it would completely sway the fight in their favor when they would otherwise not be able to win. Completely sway the fight in their favor, not partially, not sometimes, not occasionally or just when the planets are in allignment as none of those equate a 'huge advantage.'

A lack retalitory strikes for the defender is not going to let an attacker always win against a larger fleet because it only makes a difference on the first turn of combat, once that turn is completed you're just trading blows back and forth and it no longers matters who fired the first shot.

Four attackers against eight defenders, who wins? Too lop-sided for you... how about four vs. six? So much for this imaginary 'huge advantage' or are we going to start looking at the big picture now? If so, you may find out that yes, terrain will have a substantial impact even if it isn't in a single tile wide, four tile long straight. One unit per tile, remember? Now think about that for a little bit and look at some game maps so you can see what effect it will have. I'm not going to do your thinking for you.

In Civ5 it will be very easy to focus fire on a single ship, and you cannot prevent this through say screening, because the enemy can just fire over you.

How many Civ5 games have you played?

Because the British navy was much larger, and because the French navy *was* inferior; less experienced/training, particularly for gunners.
How can you possibly think that British naval superiority was due to some kind of arbitrary advantage for the attacker?

This may surprise you but even without retalitory strikes numerical advantage will still be the primary deciding factor.

If range for guns is 3-5, then putting your BB 3 hexes behind your DDs will not stop me from focus-firing your BBs to death. When I can move 4+ tiles and then shoot ~3-4 tiles, you will not be able to use a screen to prevent me from picking my targets with long-range bombardment.

And this all assumes that you know that battleship is sitting back there. It's funny that you argue how screens don't work when they are exactly the reason you would (or wouldn't) know those other ships even existed. Are we assuming ships will have 5 hex visability now?

Yes, I am assuming that with focus firing, I will be able to bring one of your ships down entirely in a single turn. For example, if we each have 4 ships, and I am the attacker, then I can have all of my ships bombard one of yours and kill it before it gets a shot off. I'd prefer a system with counterbattery fire, where if you bombarded my ship then my ship got to fire back.

So in your assumption you forgot that you're fighting between two continents in a sea that is only three tiles wide and his destroyers are preventing you from getting in range to attack his battleship... wait, sorry, terrain and screening won't matter, right?

Relevance? We're talking about engagements between roughly equal fleets.

Equality again? If you only fight fair fights you're doing something wrong, didn't Civ4 teach you that? If we can get you to grasp that concept you'll realize that the bonus you get from attacking first isn't nearly as significant as you're making it out to be. It will easily be overcome with numbers, positioning and smart strategies (like making sure you are the attacker). Retalitory strikes will change none of that.

 

[loliologist]

While not entirely following the current discussion, I believe that it is important for ranged units to be very strong.

What I would suggest to rectify the balance issue is to allow range units to only have a limit number of ranged shots. I mean lets face it, for the most part in historical combat ranged units have been far superior, but the main disadvantage is that they require ammunition (whether it be arrows, cannonballs, or bullets).

I think this need for supply would add an interesting dimension to combat and furthermore would favour defenders (since it would be likely easier for them to resupply).

I also think this would allow for different levels of ranged attacks, ie a cannon (with a 5 ammo supply) could chose to use 1,2 or 3 ammo units, they would inflict more damage using more units using 3 ammo, but only sustain that level of fire for one turn, whereas by using a 1 ammo attack provide a less powerful but constant support.

I am not sure of the best method to recharge ammo, but you could have it be on a timer or require a special supply unit or require the unit to visit a fort that has trade routes with a city.

 

[gumiga]

Anyway, the post following my own opened my eyes to another thing. No, I don't think the British won naval superiority out of some "arbitrary advantage to the attacker", but because it had a bigger capacity to replace lost ships and to produce new ones, aswell as a bigger capacity to acquire and repay debt. Not a stronger economy per se, you see, but a better managed economy. In that respect I totally agree with Paul Kennedy, even though I think he places too much importance on economy in his analysis.

 

[Seven05]

What I would suggest to rectify the balance issue is to allow range units to only have a limit number of ranged shots. I mean lets face it, for the most part in historical combat ranged units have been far superior, but the main disadvantage is that they require ammunition (whether it be arrows, cannonballs, or bullets).

The problem with representing supply in Civ games is the scope of the game. Two things in particular being the relative size of a tile and the relative length of a turn. Civilization is too coarse, or abstract, to really take advantage of this level of detail. It doesn't really take an aircraft carrier twenty years to circumnavigate the globe, but in Civ it does so it would be hard to believe that in that twenty years they were never resupplied.

Scenarios and mods covering more specific time frames and limited areas would benefit greatly from this, but not the general game.

 

[Arkangelus]

Something that I assumed early on would be that zone of control would work differnetly for ships. Would I be right in thinking that how it works now would essentially just be stopping an enemy ship from retreating once it has opened fire?

Surely a very simple method of making things fairer in a turn-based system would be that ships defending a certain area could exert their zone of control in a similar manner to "sea patrol" from Civ 4 - where an enemy comes into range, they automatically move to engage them? It would allow ships to hold a position and make the battles much 'fairer', if a battleship comes within range of another battleship, they engage each other and promotions, fighting in own/enemy territory bonuses etc all come into play.

There's still a tactical layer though with assymetric battles, different classes of ship having different bombardment and intercept ranges meaning you could get free shots off from a battleship onto a destroyer, or from a sub onto a battleship and so on. It'll make coastal defence much more fun I would have thought than essentially just having your ships lined up offshore and trading slow blows over 4 or 5 turns, and where the defender is always at a disadvantage.

 

[Ahriman]

Lets analyse the situation in the case where we don't have counter battery.

Right, this is exactly the kind of situation I'm talking about. I think the former situation gives too much of an an advantage to the attacker.

As to Seven05... I'm not assuming that battles will *only* happen in places where terrain and other things won't matter, but its safe to assume that it will often happen in such places. [And even then, I don't see that terrain can matter that much when bombardment ranges are so long.]

As to your discussion of 1:1, and indeed the rest of your comments, you can't argue "it doesn't matter if there is a situation X which leads to weird results, because there is another situation Y where it doesn't matter".
Lack of counter bombardment massively favors the attacker - as shown in Olleus' example.
You have totally failed to engage with this issue.
You have to either:
a) Argue that you think that the attacker *should* have a massive advantage (which I disagree with)
b) Argue that a lack of counter-bombardment doesn't favor the attacker (which it clearly does, as in Olleus' example)
c) Concede the point.

Just saying "well, it doesn't matter if the attacker wins an even fight because not all fights are even" doesn't address the point at hand.

What I would suggest to rectify the balance issue is to allow range units to only have a limit number of ranged shots

This would be very boring micromanagement. I don't think this is a fun solution.

but a better managed economy

It makes no sense to think about economic management when comparing the tactical outcomes of battles between fleets. You can't say "yeah, the defender in an equal matchup gets screwed, but thats ok because they might have a better economy". That's not how you analyze mechanics.
In order to sensibly make a comparison you *have* to think about holding extraneous factors equal.
What if the attacker has a superior economy? Then they're even better off!

 

[gumiga]

Ok. It seem like I'll have to be blunt. What I'm saying is your concern about the battle mechanic is irrelevant because civilization war system doesn't occur on a TACTIC layer but on the STRATEGIC one. So even though on a single fleet vs fleet battle the system might appear to unbalance the game favouring the attacker, it doesn't necessarily do so. On the one hand when you combine ZOC and ranged naval combat it means that, even for equally sided fleets, if you don't plan your attack or defense well you will probably lose the battle. But, being a STRATEGY game, positioning will be even more important as the economic strenght of the attacker or defender will matter even more.

Let me try to put it in a short sentence so you might actually get my point: counter-baterry might give the attacker an INITIAL advantage, which is something which I consider CORRECT; but this will not translate into STRATEGIC advantage automagically. Also, it will favour the person who thinks better about how to position his/her navy, and what might have been an initial advantage might prove a disadvantage.

 

[Ahriman]

What I'm saying is your concern about the battle mechanic is irrelevant because civilization war system doesn't occur on a TACTIC layer but on the STRATEGIC one. So even though on a single fleet vs fleet battle the system might appear to unbalance the game favouring the attacker, it doesn't necessarily do so.

Ok, I'll be blunt - and add excessive CAPITALIZATION.

It is just plain crazy to say "it doesn't matter if the defender loses badly, because they might have a better economy", because being the defender is in no way related to them having a better economy.
Yes, if the defender's ships get destroyed, they can build more, but the attacker can build more too.

On the one hand when you combine ZOC and ranged naval combat it means that, even for equally sided fleets, if you don't plan your attack or defense well you will probably lose the battle. But, being a STRATEGY game, positioning will be even more important as the economic strenght of the attacker or defender will matter even more.

Yes, the economic strength will matter for the outcome of the war. So what?
It doesn't effect the outcome of a battle, and economic strength might favor the attacker, it might favor the defender. It is ridiculous to consider economic strength (an entirely unrelated issue) when thinking about the outcome of a particular battle.

I have seen no evidence that ZOC, planning or positioning will matter much for naval combat, and you don't provide any argument that they will.
They do not stop an attacker from focus firing on whatever unit they want. If I have a bombardment range of 4, then you have to be able to stop me from moving to within 4 tiles of your ship in order to stop me from firing on it. How are you going to do that? You would need a huge wall of ships and/or land to stop me from getting within that range.

Long-range bombardment makes positioning and ZOC and planning less important. If I had to manuever to be adjacent to tiles, then positioning matters - as it will for land combat. But when I can just shoot over your units, it doesn't matter how you place your units.

counter-baterry might give the attacker an INITIAL advantage, which is something which I consider CORRECT

I assume you mean a LACK of counter-battery fire. Counter-battery fire would shift the balance more towards even footing.
Why do you consider it correct that the attacker should have an advantage?
This hasn't been true in previous civ games, in Civ4 the defender had an advantage (10% terrain bonus).

Also, it will favour the person who thinks better about how to position his/her navy

How so?
How is positioning MORE important if units have a long bombardment range and no counterbattery fire than if they had a shorter bombardment range and/or a counterbattery ability?

and what might have been an initial advantage might prove a disadvantage

How could winning a naval battle by destroying my enemy's ships (the INITIAL advantage) possibly prove a disadvantage overall? I'm better off if my units get destroyed? Seriously, that's your argument?

 

[gumiga]

You are mixing two of my arguments to make your rebutal. I'm saying that your worries, when you consider the wars should be considered as strategic engagements, will not favour the ones who attack first in a war. Other things, like economy, must be considered.

I have seen no evidence that ZOC, planning or positioning will matter much for naval combat, and you don't provide any argument that they will.

I haven't seen evidence they won't and I cannot provide you with such an argument by writing, so you'll have to wait a little more until I can finally finish my images. Anyway, I cannot say for sure how ZOC will work for naval units, so I am supposing a lot. I might prove very wrong when the game is finally released.

I assume you mean a LACK of counter-battery fire.

I stand corrected.

How could winning a naval battle by destroying my enemy's ships (the INITIAL advantage) possibly prove a disadvantage overall? I'm better off if my units get destroyed? Seriously, that's your argument?

No, but on thinking that by attacking first you will have a huge advantage might make you more prone to making mistakes. The defender might try to lure you to a place where he will have the advantage and the loss of 1 or 2 ships might not matter anymore. Who knows. It would obviously depend on both sides.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm saying that your worries, when you consider the wars should be considered as strategic engagements, will not favour the ones who attack first in a war. Other things, like economy, must be considered.

I'm saying this is ridiculous. You don't need to be a genius to work out that, all else equal, winning a battle will make you better off rather than worse off. If I destroy your units while you don't destroy mine, then I am more likely to win the war.

Lack of counter-battery favors the attacker more than would be the case if there were counterbattery fire.

Its That Simple.

Positioning matters less with long-range bombardment because it is much harder to stop me from targeting a unit I want to target.
If bombardment were only 1 range, you would only have to stop me from getting to an adjacent tile to stop me from attacking a particular unit.
You could do this for example by surrounding it with 6 other vessels (in an extreme case).
If bombardment is 4 tiles, you have to stop me from getting with a 4 tile range to stop me from attacking a particular unit. This is much harder to do.
Hence, positioning is less important with long range than it is with short range.

by attacking first you will have a huge advantage might make you more prone to making mistakes

Wow. Just, wow. It doesn't matter if the attacker has a big advantage because.... they might get overconfident?

 

[gumiga]

Wow. Just, wow. It doesn't matter if the attacker has a big advantage because.... they might get overconfident?

on thinking that by attacking first you will have a huge advantage might make you more prone to making mistakes

Missquoting serves only when you're doing it against dead people or in academia when your teacher wasn't the one who wrote whatever you're quoting.

 

[Seven05]

As to Seven05... I'm not assuming that battles will *only* happen in places where terrain and other things won't matter, but its safe to assume that it will often happen in such places.

It is? In Civ4 I don't remember ever having a decisive naval battle out in the open sea away from coasts and islands that involved anything more than a lone ship that was out exploring or scouting. But in Civ4 you didn't have to worry about the one unit per tile limit or any sort of ZoC. Remember, even fighting along side a coast will limit your movement options (hexes = no diagnal movement 'cheat' to get around them).

Lack of counter bombardment massively favors the attacker - as shown in Olleus' example.

To quote him (emphasis mine): "Personally, I think the second situation makes for better gameplay, but barely." So yeah... massively indeed.

Maybe you should read it again.

You have totally failed to engage with this issue.
You have to either:
a) Argue that you think that the attacker *should* have a massive advantage (which I disagree with)
b) Argue that a lack of counter-bombardment doesn't favor the attacker (which it clearly does, as in Olleus' example)
c) Concede the point.

You keep insisting it is some 'massive advantage' (ok, before it was only 'huge' anyway...) but it isn't. I see there is absolutely no convincing you otherwise so you will have to see it in action to realize that it really isn't going to matter because these fights will not happen in some mystical vacuum that you insist on looking at them in. You have consistently argued that this 'massive advantage' will make tactics and/or strategies unimportant and you really couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you forget that as soon as you press 'End Turn' you go from being the attacker to being the defender.

Just saying "well, it doesn't matter if the attacker wins an even fight because not all fights are even" doesn't address the point at hand.

It addresses your point entirely, unless your point is no longer that being the attacker infers a 'massive advantage' and the lack or retalitory strikes makes tactics irrelevant. It's no different that arguing that tanks are too powerful because they have a massive advantage over knights. It's a strategy game, that means you need to come up with a strategy that allows you to exploit your opponents weakness with your strength. If you want perfect balance regardless of strategy, just flip a coin once and if it's heads you win the game.

It makes no sense to think about economic management when comparing the tactical outcomes of battles between fleets.

It makes perfect sense because it's part of the entirety of the game. If you allow yourself to be put in the situation where you're going to lose because somebody gets to shoot first you have completely neglected the strategy part of the game, you have failed to secure an advantage for yourself over your opponent, you have failed to deny them of that advantage over you and to ignore any of that means that you're looking at the wrong game. Are you seriously looking at the game as though it's decided by putting 10 frigates up against another 10 frigates out in the open sea, no promotions, no replacements, no tech advantage, no upkeep cost, nothing but those twenty ships?

Here is the simple solution to your dilema... ready? Make sure you are the attacker. Think that alone will win the game? If no, then it obviously doesn't really matter all that much, does it?

 

[Schuesseled]

Wow. Just, wow. It doesn't matter if the attacker has a big advantage because.... they might get overconfident?

Actually there is something to that, now with 1upt, making sure you don't just rush into combat is going to be important, if you can scout out the region your moving into, then your golden. If you can't then you'll be going in blind, and then mistakes can really hurt, accidentally walking into the zoc of a submarine, big mistake for your carrier etc.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I haven't read every detail of every post above, but I can make some comments based on my experience with Advance Wars games which a lot of these game mechanics relate to.

In that game, there are both "melee" naval units and ranged naval units (ranged units cannot fight melee and have a min range of 2, though they can still be attacked by melee of course). e.g. Battleships have a range of 2-6. Submarines and destroyers are melee. Subs have a vision range of 5, battleships of about 2 IIRC, and destroyers 3. Subs and bships have a low movement range, destroyers have a longer movement range. Bships can't move and fire on the same turn.

In AW discussions, players discussing tactics often talk about "FTA" which is short for first turn advantage. AW games are played on much smaller maps and with fewer units so FTA is a much bigger deal there. In fact maps are designed usually to give player 1 a slightly weaker start to try and counter the FTA.

The point I want to make is that in that game, when you are sending units in to battle where there are ranged defenders present, if you go in with 1:1 numbers, the attacker is actually at the disadvantage because they are the ones who first must enter within range of the enemy. It looks like in civ5 ranged naval units can move and fire in the same turn which changes the situation a bit, but the idea is still the same.

When you all talk about the attacker simply being able to move his 4 (or whatever) ships to concentrate fire on 1 of the enemy's 4 ships, you're assuming there was no cost in getting into that position in the first place. Instead you can think about scouting as being the counter to first turn advantage. If you know your enemy units are just out of range, would you move your units into their range so that you can attack them next turn? Usually the answer would be no, as they would then be the ones with first opportunity to attack you. (It's a bit tricky explaining exactly what I mean here, but think of "range" as being both movement and firing range combined.)

In that game because units have firing ranges bigger or similar to their movement ranges, combat becomes a lot more about positioning and recon. I suspect a similar thing will happen in civ5. The FTA probably won't be as big as some of you appear to fear. But combat will probably be quite different to civ4 - that you can safely assume IMO.

I made some comments in another thread about the similarities between the combat model of AW and what appears to be coming in civ5.

You can actually play a clone of the game free at http://awbw.amarriner.com/
Unit chart: http://awbw.amarriner.com/units.php

 

[Ahriman]

And what happens when my ships are on your border, only a few tiles away, and I declare war, move in, and destroy 1/4 of your naval units without you being able to get a shot off.

Massive FTA, and no cost required to get into that position.

I don't see any cost of getting into position to be the attacker (eg, a single recon run) as in any way balancing out the attacker advantage from this situation.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Maybe (I emphasise the "maybe"!), you will not be allowed to attack on the first turn of war? But I agree you have a good point.

Maybe if two civs already have pretty frosty relations, a buildup of naval units off the coast would be enough to prompt a pre-emptive strike. Also, I suspect there will still be a defensive bonus for naval units on coast tiles.

 

[Ahriman]

you will not be allowed to attack on the first turn of war?

This seems very unlikely.

Maybe if two civs already have pretty frosty relations, a buildup of naval units off the coast would be enough to prompt a pre-emptive strike.

Possibly, but if units have say a range of 4 and movement 4 (or range 3 movement 5), then my units can be 7 tiles away from yours when I declare war and still be able to attack you.

Should you really pre-emptively attack me just because my naval units are 7 tiles away from yours?