Strange english in Civ4

[Palantir30]

Ran across one of these in the patch thread, when somebody suggested that the patch server ought to have "flanking" abilities so it could retreat from combat that it was losing, instead of going down alltogether.

Unlike the game, "Flanking" is an attack tactic, not a retreat tactic. "Flanking" is attacking a target from an angle other than the one it is already engaged from, thus decreasing the amount of damage that the target can possibly deal to the flanking attacker. It is not, as the game says, an ability to flee from a losing battle.

Also, "Colateral damage" is not "damaging multiple enemy targets" as it is in Civ 4. "Colateral damage" is damaging friendly targets at the same time as damaging enemy targets. So you would never want to give your artillery "colateral damage" promotions, because it is not a good thing.

What other misnamed abilities have people seen out there?

 

[Meffy]

Those two have been bugging me a bit below the level of annoyance for a while. :-D There are other examples but none come to mind ATM.

 

[Luv_Muffin]

"Colateral damage" This does not mean injuring friendlies like you suggest. Not at all. You may be listening to the spin doctors on network news, or from the pentagon, in reference to friendly fire from the war(s) in Iraq, and other modern battlefields. Just because they santized this phrase, doesn't mean that they are right. (Just like "friendly fire", not too friendly btw)

Basically, Collateral damage is when you intend to destroy a target, but other things get harmed as well. Like civilians, property etc... WWII carpet bombing caused an insane amount of collateral damage, so this phrase is hardly new. However, in this game, when you attack one unit, and it is grouped with other units, collateral damage makes sense. It would not make sense if your catapult, while attacking the enemy, accidentally droped projectiles on your own troops.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Many of the promotion names are pretty opaque.

 

[Palantir30]

"Colateral damage"
Basically, Collateral damage is when you intend to destroy a target, but other things get harmed as well. Like civilians, property etc... WWII carpet bombing caused an insane amount of collateral damage, so this phrase is hardly new. However, in this game, when you attack one unit, and it is grouped with other units, collateral damage makes sense. It would not make sense if your catapult, while attacking the enemy, accidentally droped projectiles on your own troops.

Co-lateral. Multi-sided. So yes, my speaking only of damaging friendlies was more constricted than strictly correct. It would be damaging thing-you-dont-want-to-hit at the same time as thing-you-want-to-hit. So damaging extra enemies would not be colateral damage, it would just be extra damage. Damaging enemies and [pick any of: (your troops, third party troops, civilians, infrastructure, ect.)] would be co-lateral damage.

 

[Syagrius]

Co-lateral. Multi-sided. So yes, my speaking only of damaging friendlies was more constricted than strictly correct. It would be damaging thing-you-dont-want-to-hit at the same time as thing-you-want-to-hit. So damaging extra enemies would not be colateral damage, it would just be extra damage. Damaging enemies and [pick any of: (your troops, third party troops, civilians, infrastructure, ect.)] would be co-lateral damage.

Are some kind of language teacher? Who cares!

 

[Bard]

About flanking...
I think, historically, the flanking tactic is really two things.
Most importantly its a major attack bonus like you said.
And also, its the ability to flee from combat if thinks go badly. The attacking cavalry, or whatever, is probably on high speed as they attack from the sides and have therefore a greater change to retreat, unlike the troops in the front line.
So, you have to choose. Do you put a increases retreat ability or an attack bonus on the promotion (cant really put both) and there are plenty of attack promotions.
And the flanking tactic is so important in warfare history that you cant really leave it out.
I think, in game terms, its all very logical.

 

[AlazkanAssassin]

Palantir30, I think colateral means more like damaging thing-you-are-not-aiming-at at the same time as thing-you-are-aiming-at.

thing-you-are-aiming-at = the ONE enemy unit you are fighting with
thing-you-are-not-aiming-at = anything else near it. What is nearest it? other enemy units!

So it is a perfectly good word for this use.

Flanking however, I agree is misused.

 

[The Last Conformist]

"Col-" does not mean "multi-" ...

 

[Eigenvector]

Both terms are misused. Strictly speaking collateral damage means damage that occurs in addition to what you meant to deal out. Normally that is not a good thing in war as that typically results in hindering your own forward advance. The bombed out cities of WWII are good examples of collateral damage.

Flanking mean the side. A flanking manuver is a manuver that comes from the side. It doesn't have to be an attack, it can be a retreat, although I'd be hard pressed to think of a good reason to flank in retreat. People flank in battle so as to avoid the defenders strong point - typically in the front of a formation. So for instance during classical war the foot soldiers would advance toward each other and then the fast troops would charge in from the side - catching the opposing force off guard and (hopefully) forcing a route.

I don't think the developers did a good job using those two terms - although there is nothing really *wrong* with them per se.

 

[Meffy]

"Co-" means "together" or "along with."

 

[JadeDragon87]

Even if English isn't my mother language, I am pretty sure that flanking has nothing to do with retreating.
when I hear about flanking an enemy (most of the time with mobile units such as cavalry, tanks,...) in games, they mean to attack the enemy, but not frontal. So it is an attack from behind or from the sides (flanks). An example would be: I see spearmen, so I sent some foot warriors to attack them. And I send my cavalry to attack those spearmen from behind, when they don't expect it / when they are defendless.
And colateral damage is casualties/damages you didn't expect. Like in Iraq, they fired some tomahawk missiles to bunkers. Even if the accuracy was pretty high, some missed their target and killed some civilians. Those civilians were colateral dammage.

 

[Vaiks]

Man,

Those issues doesn´t bother me at all! I just like to play the game and have a good time doing it.

It´s not worth the anoyance!

My 2 cents...

 

[Japanrocks12]

Collateral damage means dealing damage to targets which are not intended to receive damage. With this said, I completely agree with Palantir30. If you want to attack something, you want to make sure that no interference can impede your progress of attacking that thing.

About flanking, I think there is a bit of a misconception here. What the developers probably implied is that flanking positions an unit such that it can retreat easier. Although this is not the complete intention of flanking, it can be understood. I can see why there is controversy here.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's only really a problem the first few times, though, and then you figure it out. It seemed really important the first time I made such a mistake (and I swore and swore), but now I just deal with it ...

 

[Rayanth]

Co-lateral. Multi-sided. So yes, my speaking only of damaging friendlies was more constricted than strictly correct. It would be damaging thing-you-dont-want-to-hit at the same time as thing-you-want-to-hit. So damaging extra enemies would not be colateral damage, it would just be extra damage. Damaging enemies and [pick any of: (your troops, third party troops, civilians, infrastructure, ect.)] would be co-lateral damage.

The industry standard term for what Civ4 calls Collateral Damage is "Splash Damage" -- which can be friendly or non-friendly fire, but deals damage to enemies in a radius around the source of the damage.

In the case of artillery this makes perfect sense, as artillery rounds do not deal damage to just one pinpoint area... they can bounce, explode, etc...

 

[warpstorm]

Basically, Collateral damage is when you intend to destroy a target, but other things get harmed as well. Like civilians, property etc... WWII carpet bombing caused an insane amount of collateral damage, so this phrase is hardly new.

Thank you. I've argued this point (to no avail) for years with the Firaxians. The actual term we used in the military for what they implemented was Additional Damage not Collateral Damage. In the military, Collateral Damage is usually considered a bad thing.

 

[Dominico]

Collateral means "additional (damage) but subordinate" (oxford dictionary) if you want to be really anal about it.

So hitting other enemies you were not primarily trying to kill is collateral damage. The game is right.

Flanking means attacking an enemy in the flanks or outmanouvering to his flanks. So again it could be used non offensively. But in game again there is nothing wrong with the skill.

You can flank an enemy, position yourself in a threatening position, this could cause him to have to manouver to face your new attack and you could press home the advantage attack and then escape any strong return fire, which is what the skill does.

Even against larger enemies you could use the flank attack to hit them and escape without annihilation.

The idea as people said is that it is just to show super manouverable units.

They have the skills to flank enemies, making the enemy seem like lumbering units they move so fast. So could likewise easily attack the flanks, then race off away from the enemy before they can return good fire which is what they do in game.

 

[syneris]

Like many have said, Flanking is attacking from the side or at weak spot. When flanking, the group(s) sent to flank do not always just rush in from the side trying to take advantage of it's position. Flanking units would sometimes be held in position waiting for a signal. Depending on the situation, Flanking units could withdraw and change tactics prior to engaging the target. Flanking units that do engage in combat also have a better chance to withdraw if the situation is unfavorable. If the defender (whoever recieved the flank assault, not always the group "defending" as you can flank an attacking army) chased the units retreating that would draw forces away from the front lines giving an advantage to the flankers. Also, an ambush could be waiting for anyone chasing the retreating flankers. Since flanking is usually done with a much smaller force than at the front lines, they are often tacticly planned to strike from locations that offer good cover and are easy to withdraw to.
The withdraw bonus given by flanking makes sense or rather naming the promotion that increases your chance to withdraw from a losing attack as flanking is appropriate. When developing, they didn't think ok flanking does this, but rather what should we call this promotion. Can you think of a better name for an attack with increased chance to retreat if losing?

 

[BigBirdZ28]

"Delete" rather than disband or scuttle is out of place.