Somebody please justify flanking for me!

[marstinson]

I'm in kind of the same boat as kazapp:

Huh? confused: indeed)

Let me see if I understand what we're talking about here, which is a nice way of saying that if I'm wrong, please say so.

On the one hand we have a Flanking ability that's inherent to some, but not all, mounted units (Cataphract, Horse Archer, Keshik, Knight, Numidian Cavalry all vs. Cat/Treb and Cavalry/Cossack vs. Cat/Treb/Cannon). On the other hand we have a Flanking promotion that increases the chance of successfully withdrawing from combat rather than losing the unit (I think it's +10% at I and +20% at II, but don't hold me to those numbers).

It's the ability that I don't have a firm grip on since I haven't played with it much. My impression is that the ability makes the unit a SoD buster. I think it allows the unit to attack the siege unit directly without having to knock down the better defenders in the stack in order to get to it. The promotion, though, makes for a good harrassing unit since it may weaken the enemy unit while giving a decent chance of preserving your unit to harrass again.

Edit: Obviously I still don't have a firm grip on the Flanking ability. Just got done with a short war as JC. Stack with 3 Praetorians and 2 Knights vs city with 2 Axemen (not completely fortified - Lincoln cracked the whip pretty hard to get 'em) and a Catapult. Knights have Flanking vs. Catapults, but still had to wade through the Axemen to get at the Cats.

More or less on track? Edit: NOT!!!

 

[madscientist]

Another question about the flanking ability and flanking promotion, plus the withdrawl ability.

Do you need a movement point left to execute??? I seam to remember War elephants never surviving even with flanking promotion and I assumed this was due to their limited movement even though they are considered mounted. This is also one of the strengthes of Keshiks.

 

[marstinson]

My experience says no. As long as you have the movement to initiate the attack, you'll just withdraw to your intial position if you a) lose the combat and b) make the roll for successful withdrawal.

 

[Welnic]

You don't have to have two movement points for the flanking promotion to work. But it does make it more useful as after you have attacked you can run away if you are still alive, where an elephant is just left sitting there 90% dead. Elephants also don't get the Flanking Ability.

Withdrawal is definitely capped at 90%. Attack submarines with a GG are easy to get to 100%, but it doesn't happen.

 

[UncleJJ]

Do you need a movement point left to execute??? I seam to remember War elephants never surviving even with flanking promotion and I assumed this was due to their limited movement even though they are considered mounted. This is also one of the strengthes of Keshiks.

No, you do not need a spare movement point to make a withdrawal. A mounted unit like a HA can move a tile (through enemy culture) and then attack and still withdraw. The War Elephant can withdraw with flanking promotions, although since it has no inherent capability with flanking 2 it will only have a 30% chance and thats why you've not seen it happen. Firstly it's rare for a WE to lose a combat and then say you attacked with a 70% chance of a win you'd only have a 30% chance of losing and then a 30% chance of a withdrawal which is approximately 9%

But as I don't give a WE the flanking promotion I've never seen a WE withdraw It is not as effective as the combat promotion for a heavy slow unit. For me the WE seems like a cross between a maceman and a pikeman that gets the benefit of being built with a stables and I use it in my SoD in that dual role. Also a WE is often a stack defender against mounted attackers and flanking doesn't help it on defence (except the immunity to FS) whereas combat does help.

 

[Desert-Fox]

Flanking I+II, Tactics, Submarine gives you 110% withdrawal?

 

[Polobo]

The promotion (especially Flanking II) is good to knock some health off of the top defenders in a city/stack. Since those defenders usually have large bonuses as well as first strikes being able to negate the first strikes and then possibly survive a battle that is likely hopelessly lost otherwise is of tremendous benefit. Plus, those you do lose are more easily replaced since mounted units move a base 2 tiles/turn.

The ability is great and really is best used in conjunction with the promotions since survival is key; it doesn't matter how they survived. It is only good for attacking SoDs since fort/city stacks cannot be flanked. The biggest problem is if you are counting on retreat then you need 1/retreat% * (4-ish?) units to ensure that you actually take out the siege.

Does anyone have a table on how many successful attacks are required to take out various siege units with various mounted units?

Also, does the ability of a siege engine to inflict collateral damage vary depending upon its health (does being weaker cause it to inflict less damage)?

Depending on the answers to the above questions the number of units needed before attempting take out siege via flanking would vary, as would the risk/reward trade-off.

 

[CivCorpse]

The promotion (especially Flanking II) is good to knock some health off of the top defenders in a city/stack. Since those defenders usually have large bonuses as well as first strikes being able to negate the first strikes and then possibly survive a battle that is likely hopelessly lost otherwise is of tremendous benefit. Plus, those you do lose are more easily replaced since mounted units move a base 2 tiles/turn.

The ability is great and really is best used in conjunction with the promotions since survival is key; it doesn't matter how they survived. It is only good for attacking SoDs since fort/city stacks cannot be flanked. The biggest problem is if you are counting on retreat then you need 1/retreat% * (4-ish?) units to ensure that you actually take out the siege.

Does anyone have a table on how many successful attacks are required to take out various siege units with various mounted units?

Also, does the ability of a siege engine to inflict collateral damage vary depending upon its health (does being weaker cause it to inflict less damage)?

Depending on the answers to the above questions the number of units needed before attempting take out siege via flanking would vary, as would the risk/reward trade-off.

I have found 6HA's to be the number needed against cats. Stronger units vs weaker siege may require less.
RE Siege: The collateral damage is a seperate amount not affected by the siege units health. a redline catapult does the same bombard and collateral damage that a fully healthy one does.

 

[bjam]

Flanking I+II, Tactics, Submarine gives you 110% withdrawal?

Just a few post above...

I thinked that as well until recently, when ori pointed me that the game has a lock on withdrawn chances in the XML and that is set on 90%. if you have a promo that would boost you for more than 90% chances of withdraw, it will simply not be accessible in the promo screen. So , no Flanking I +II + tactics

 

[r_rolo1]

You can WB it ( and add guerrilla III for more 50% withdraw , leading to 160% retreat possibility ), but it is not acessible in game unless you change the quoted limit.

 

[Polobo]

I have found 6HA's to be the number needed against cats. Stronger units vs weaker siege may require less.
RE Siege: The collateral damage is a seperate amount not affected by the siege units health. a redline catapult does the same bombard and collateral damage that a fully healthy one does.

Therefore, unless your assault actually kills the siege it effectively fails and you've wasted your units (aside from the probably minimal damage done to the spears/pikes that won't help you during the assault). Which means you needs lots of them to ensure that does not happen (10-20 or so at least, unless you get lucky)

 

[CivCorpse]

Therefore, unless your assault actually kills the siege it effectively fails and you've wasted your units (aside from the probably minimal damage done to the spears/pikes that won't help you during the assault). Which means you needs lots of them to ensure that does not happen (10-20 or so at least, unless you get lucky)

Softening up the stack with a couple siege attacks greatly increases the odds of eliminating the siege.
Also you can retreat back and heal in a city while the cats are healing salower in enemy territory, then hit them again when they're still damaged.

 

[MyOtherName]

However, flanking on a chariot, knight or curassier is a waste, you're better off going along the combat line due to the lack of base withdrawl.

If you're looking to minimize losses against tough defenders, then no, you're not.

 

[azzaman333]

If you're looking to minimize losses against tough defenders, then no, you're not.

That's what seige weapons and collateral damage are for.

 

[oyzar]

That's what seige weapons and collateral damage are for.

Seige weapons are worse at this against a few number of though defenders though... And they are not avilable when you have chariots most of the time...

 

[azzaman333]

Seige weapons are worse at this against a few number of though defenders though...

Horse Archers are better for that job than chariots or knights.

And they are not avilable when you have chariots most of the time...

Chariot rushes won't face strong enough resistance in cities to justify flanking.

 

[oyzar]

Protective archers on hill doesn't justify flanking?(any protective or hill archers is enough though...).

 

[azzaman333]

Protective archers on hill doesn't justify flanking?(any protective or hill archers is enough though...).

I wouldn't be rushing a civ which has its capital on a hill, or is protective in the first place.

 

[Polobo]

Horse Archers are better for that job than chariots or knights.

Chariot rushes won't face strong enough resistance in cities to justify flanking.

With HAs you may very well retreat but if you haven't done any damage to the fortified longbow it doesn't do you any good. With a Knight you are likely to actually deal damage but the trade-off is a reduced chance to retreat.

I do find I'll promote fewer chariots with flanking compared to horse archers and knights. The is mostly due to the fact that the supplemental attackers are often weaker so it is more important that I do more damage even if I lose the chariot so I have better odds with my city busters. Later on, my city busters have better promotions and thus need less help.

Basically, I prefer to risk using 2 units to weaken a defender (and possibly die) because I generally have some spare capacity to produce flanking/siege units since my city busters and cleanup crew are already built and are unlikely to die in significant numbers. Hopefully the first unit does enough damage that a second attack is unnecessary and I have a better chance to survive the attack.

 

[marstinson]

I'm still stuck on the Flanking ability. It appears to be a way to do damage to weaker units in a stack, since the AI appears to get to defend with its best unit against that particular type of attack. But whether that damage actually happens is not as certain as, say, collateral damage from a siege unit. But since siege units are generally immune to collateral damage (I'm sure there are exceptions to that), flanking seems to be the only way to get to those units without having to whittle down the better defenders. Is that more or less the case?