What Civ IV was Missing: Flanking

[Walderschmidt]

Flanking


For context, history has shown us time and time again that frontal attacks are the least effective tactic. Commanders who were able to make attacks from the enemy’s rear, or the sides, have always been the most successful commanders. Commanders known for this are Hannibal Barca, Scipio Africanus, Erwin Rommel, General Douglas MacArthur, and many more.


Most games in Civ IV favor the defenders through lots of defense bonuses, and the most reliable way of negating these defender advantages is through buying artillery, air planes, and to some extent even battleships, all due to bombardment and such. Therefore, offense is not only coerced into frontal assaults by game mechanics (speed of overall attack, movement paths), but by lack of other options. Thus, all combat in Civ IV is less realistic and not as much fun in the long run. One can only fight war on a strategic scale. Winning the war depends on who the attacking side is, who the defending side is, and who has the most amount of units. In theory, to win against a defender, an aggressor must have combined arms.

In theory, in order to win against a defender, an aggressor must have combined arms. He must have enough planes and artillery to reduce enemy defences and strength, enough tanks to finish off the enemies stacks of forces, and enemy infantry to occupy captured cities against counterattack. In short, the attack should have a numerical advantage over his opponent in numbers of 3 to 1.


So, my proposal to improve realism, challenge and fun is to give each unit a “facing”. That is, each unit would have four directional stances in relation to the map (which is already graphically represented when a unit moves). There would be four directions a unit would face: up, down, left or right (in relation to the map. You would be able to choose a facing at the end of the movement.

This would significantly influence combat outcomes depending on which face a unit gets attacked on. For explanation purposes, I'll list the scenarios as frontal attacks, side attacks (left or right), and rear attacks.
Scenarios:


1. For combat in which a frontal assault occurs, I would leave it to normal Civ devices.


2. If unit X was attacked on the side (flanked) by unit Y, it would suffer penalties ranging from -30 to -50% loss of strength. The reason behind this is that flanking attacks are demoralizing and unexpected. Therefore, a flanked unit cannot fight to its full ability. Second, when a unit is being flanked, it is not facing the attack (initially) and thus can bear the full weight of its firepower.

Whereas the flanked unit recieves penalties, the flanking unit recieves benefits. Flanking a unit is psychologially easier to do than attacking it head on. Ifyou were a common grunt, I'd imagine that you'd rather flank a machine gun than attack it head on. Second, when flanking an enemy, the attack is able to bring is full firepower to bear, in addition to the bonuses of the surprise (attacking from an unexpected direction).


3. If unit X was attacked from the rear by unit Y, the results would be disasterous for it. This attack would either result in complete destruction of unit X or it being captured by team Y (the choice would be made by the attacker).


If captured, unit X could be:


-ransomed back to its home country
-executed for a morale boostin country Y (but relations between countries would take a hit)
-made to work in a gulag (slave labour)
-freed
-converted to team Y
-sent back as spies


The possibilities are endless really.


I know that some people will say that these consequences are really harsh, but they should be. Being hit at your rear is an intensely negative psychological hit. When an army is attacked head-on it can fall back to its defenses, resources, or to relative safety of a nearby friendly army. When hit in the rear, the army has nowhere to fall back to except to the bayonets of its enemy. This causes panic to the point where either the army ceases to be an army (through disorganization) or through total destruction.

In terms of gameplay, this mechanic rewards daring and thoughful commanders who focus on whats important in combat as opposed to mindlessly throwing armed men at their foes. Secondly, it punishes an incompetant commander who fails to moves his forces accordingly. Combat is about skill not about who has the most forces (though numbers help). It realy isn't that hard to backpedal your armed forces to prevent rear attacks.

Some people may counter this saying that the latest press releases state that military units are no longer completely destroyed in a battle (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=355156). Despite this, I still maintain that this mechanic can still fit, if it is one of the only ways to completely neutralise a unit (besides encirclement).


Other Gameplay Affects:

Some people in this forum have stated their desire for a more diverse selection of military units to choose from. If flanking is implemented, then the number of military units available can increased at least two fold. For example, when it comes to cavalry, one could have light cavalry and heavy calvalry. Heavy calvary could be used to smash units head on, or protect against other types of calvary, whereas light cavalry could be used to flank the more dangerous units.

The same could go for various infantry, tanks, ships, and even airplanes!

Also, a new set of promotions could be available pertaining to increasing the effects of flanking and decreasing the effects of being flanked. This would make flanking actually useful, and would make more sense than the current bonus the promotion grants (15-25% to retreat!?)


In conclusion, I believe that flanking will help make combat more interesting and intuitive, as well as adding more to the game itself. While adding this feature won't make combat perfect, it definitely is a step in the right direction.

 

[chongli]

Just a quick comment here.

Since Civ 5 is using hexes, shouldn't the units have 6 facing directions?

 

[bonafide11]

Just a quick comment here.

Since Civ 5 is using hexes, shouldn't the units have 6 facing directions?

I was just about the post the same thing. Stopped reading after I saw the "units face four directions" part though because the post is way too long. I'll let someone else digest it and comment on it.

 

[Ahriman]

I vote hell no to introducing unit facing, its very frustrating to control in a game where movement points are about moving into tiles. Adding a requirement to choose facing after you move literally doubles the micromanagement requirement of movnig your units around.
(Also: why *4* directions in a game with hexes?)

A less intrusive means is to give bonuses based on the number of friendly units surround the tile you're attacking, vs the number of hostile units that surround the tile.
Though even that gets into micromanagement annoyance and exploits in a turn-based game, because you move your units to maximize coverage, then attack with one of them, then move some more to maximize on another tile and attack that one, then repeat.
For example you could have a cavalry unit riding along behind a row of units giving a flanking bonus to attacking multiple units in the same turn.

But you don't even need to do that. As demonstrated by games like like Battle for Wesnoth, you already have penalties for being surrounded and letting mulitple units attack you on the same turn, because it significantly increases the chance that your unit will be eliminated entirely (lose all its hitpoints) rather than be damaged and have a chance to retreat and heal.

So with multiple combats needed to eliminate a unit entirely, you already have an intrinsic system that encourages flanking and envelopment.

 

[moscaverde]

Not only unit facing could be tedious, but it's too tactical too civ scale. There could be flanking by giving units bonuses against some other units (horses against archers etc).

 

[Chalks]

Since a unit represents hundreds of individuals and a turn represents a very long period of time, it seems a bit unlikely that you could "sneak up behind" anything on such a scale.

 

[weakciv]

Maybe make a random "Flanking Bonus" with a base % of occurrance. Each different type of unit has some stat that raises/decreases this % when they are the attacker/defender. Terrain attack from/to maybe affect that % as well.

But there I go again, being too complicated ...

 

[eleazzaar]

I agree that having "facings" is too detailed for a broad focus game like Civ.

However you can get some flanking-like action from the 1UPT setup that they have explained. You just have to think on a scale greater than a single hex. Archers as described will generally be behind the protection of more robust melee units. A unit that bypasses the melee unit and strikes the archer directly is in essence "flanking". There's a lot of richness added to combat simply from 1UPT without necessarily adding any new rules.


As to units getting destroyed: They haven't said units never get destroyed, just that they don't always get destroyed. In the example of what happens to your iron-based units when you loose your iron, a dev said you get to keep them, but can't replace them if one dies.

Unit death: possible = Confirmed

 

[Walderschmidt]

Since a unit represents hundreds of individuals and a turn represents a very long period of time, it seems a bit unlikely that you could "sneak up behind" anything on such a scale.

The premise is not to sneak up on regiments, but to outmaneuver them and attack them where they are weak. If I attack one regiment's rear, then it will be because I outmaneuvered it or its commander wasn't paying attention. Although it has been confirmed that units can hide and heal in forests making for the actual possibility of ambushes.

The 4 directional facings is to make the flanking thing less complicated. Otherwise we'd have to make more specific bonuses for flanking on certain sides with the distinction between flanking from the rear, an 4 different angles of flanking on the sides and what not.

It wouldn't be too hard I don't think as it would be easy to represent graphically. If you didn't want to use this feature, then you could have it how it is now (as an option) where units facing the direction they are moving in.

As to units getting destroyed: They haven't said units never get destroyed, just that they don't always get destroyed. In the example of what happens to your iron-based units when you loose your iron, a dev said you get to keep them, but can't replace them if one dies.

Unit death: possible = Confirmed

I understand that units do die, but it is written in some articles that units will retreat a hex when they lose a battle instead of being destroyed outright. If attacked in the rear, where would a unit fall back to except to the bayonets of my forces? If they retreated forwards, then they essentially lose structure as an organized combat unit, and turn into a mob of panicked soldiers. I.E. they would no longer be able to serve the purpose of being a functional unit for the enemy.

Does anybody else have any comments besides the number of facings or how micro intensive this would be?

 

[Set]

It wouldn't make sense because battle in civ is on such a large scale for instance a battle the size of the battle of gettysburg would mybe take up 6-8 hexes in civ5 3 soldiers on each side and 2 artillery but most if not all the flanking in that battle took place on a smaller scale than civ deals with. lee did not send his entire army around to take out the union. it would be to easy to redeploy the union troops to attack his falnks while he is moving. in short you do not command the flanking in these battles you tell your generals where to go and they fight the battle flanking with smaller amounts of units than you personally control.

 

[Gliese 581]

There will be flanking of a sorts in this game without unit facing taken into account. Just play PG and you'll see.

 

[Ahriman]

The 4 directional facings is to make the flanking thing less complicated. Otherwise we'd have to make more specific bonuses for flanking on certain sides with the distinction between flanking from the rear, an 4 different angles of flanking on the sides and what not.

4 facings is by no means less complex than 6 in a hex system.

If you have facings in a hex system, then you have a facing side, two "side" directions, and 3 "rear" directions. Or just 1 "front" direction, and 5 "non-front" directions.
I have no clue how a "4 direction" system would work in a hex system, because the system isn't invariant to 90 degree rotations. You'd somehow have facings that weren't facing tiles if they were looking NS, but facings that were facing tiles if they faced EW. Horribly confusing.

but it is written in some articles that units will retreat a hex when they lose a battle instead of being destroyed outright

Its said that units won't die outright. I've not seen it anywhere that in Civ5 (as opposed to in PG) that units will retreat when they lose a battle.

Does anybody else have any comments besides the number of facings or how micro intensive this would be?

Yeah, that you don't need a flanking system or facing in order to have an advantage from having multiple units surrounding a tile.

There will be flanking of a sorts in this game without unit facing taken into account.

Precisely.

I'd also worry about how this works in a turn-based game, where the "active" player has all the initiative. It can be too easy to have every unit attack the enemy on a non-faced tile, which isn't really what should be happening. IRL, you flank effectively you often have to "pin" them first with a frontal attack to stop them from changing direction to cope with the flank. But in a turn-based system, there's no need to do this, because they caren't change direction during the active player's turn anyway.

And I'd also worry somewhat about the AI's ability to handle facings. The more complexities you add to the combat system, the worse the AI will be at it, and the more you'll have to make it "cheat" with production bonuses and the like in order to make it a serious competitor.

 

[chongli]

With the ability to attack at range for many units (archers, musketmen, riflemen etc.) flanking can be achieved simply with no change to the system. Just maneuver your units into a superior position that allows you to concentrate your fire onto a single target.

As far as cavalry goes? Simply run around the spearmen to attack the archers in behind. It's really not that complicated and does not need to be.

If you want flanking and all that, just play the Total War series. Plenty of enfilade fire to be had in those games.

 

[Craxymaxy]

I don't think a flanking system is entirely necessary but the best flanking system i know of off hand would be the DnD one where you aren't facing a direction until you are attacked from that direction and if you get attacked on your flank the attacker gets a 50% bonus or something

If you have facings in a hex system, then you have a facing side, two "side" directions, and 3 "rear" directions. Or just 1 "front" direction, and 5 "non-front" directions.

Wouldn't it be easier to have 3 front directions and three flanking directions (that rear thing is a game breaker)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, CivIV did have flanking. Fast moving units (like cavalry) could inflict collateral damage on units in a stack when they attacked a stack (IIRC). I've little doubt that flanking will be in CiV without the need for unit facing. It will probably be a "support" ability for certain fast-moving units if they're adjacent to melee units. So, as I see it, if you have a knight adjacent to a maceman, & they get attacked by an enemy maceman, the knights have a chance to do a "flanking" maneuver against the enemy either before-or after-the primary attack.

Hope that makes sense.

Aussie.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Unit facing is more tactical than I normally want civ to be, but extra movement opens the door for that kind of gameplay. Pirates! has unit facing, battles are time consuming. The A.I. never uses it's movement to flank before attacking, it always comes straight at you from wherever it happens to be, except for impasible terrain.

 

[Jawa'sRevenge]

This isn't dungeons and dragons its Civ

 

[chongli]

Actually, CivIV did have flanking. Fast moving units (like cavalry) could inflict collateral damage on units in a stack when they attacked a stack (IIRC). I've little doubt that flanking will be in CiV without the need for unit facing. It will probably be a "support" ability for certain fast-moving units if they're adjacent to melee units. So, as I see it, if you have a knight adjacent to a maceman, & they get attacked by an enemy maceman, the knights have a chance to do a "flanking" maneuver against the enemy either before-or after-the primary attack.

Hope that makes sense.

Aussie.

Flanking in Civ 4 is a promotion that gives you a withdrawal chance. Mounted units had no ability to do collateral damage.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

That's technically true, Chongli, but in BtS they also introduced Flank Attacks to counter bombardment units (Catapults, Cannon, Trebuchet etc). Mounted Units could conduct Flanking attacks which could cause the equivalent of collateral damage to any siege units in a stack.

Aussie.

 

[morss_4]

Yeah, that you don't need a flanking system or facing in order to have an advantage from having multiple units surrounding a tile.

This.

There will be an advantage in Civ V of attacking your opponents rear or flanks without facing. By attacking on the flanks you can easily outnumber your opponent at the point of attack, and if you get to the rear you can pick off his squishy artillery units. No need for facing.

Precisely.

I'd also worry about how this works in a turn-based game, where the "active" player has all the initiative. It can be too easy to have every unit attack the enemy on a non-faced tile, which isn't really what should be happening. IRL, you flank effectively you often have to "pin" them first with a frontal attack to stop them from changing direction to cope with the flank. But in a turn-based system, there's no need to do this, because they caren't change direction during the active player's turn anyway.

Also this.

I've played TBS games with facing before. It never really worked. First of all you had to manage the facings, which added more mouse/controller clicks (the first objective of user interface design is to minimize mouse clicks in my opinion) and in the end, it never mattered which facing you picked, because the enemy would just attack from some other direction.