What constitutes "flanking"?

[CaptainPatch]

I never understood how this worked in Civ 5 either. Given a hex-based grid and no rules considering unit facing, how do you define "flanking"? Flanking involves hitting a unit from the side or rear, but again, there is no unit facing. In Reality, a unit can be hit on the side or from the rear, and ONLY from those directions. But here I get the impression that "flanking" actually means "being attacked by more than one unit".

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Flanking=target enemy unit has multiple friendly (to you) units around it.

 

[Lucius_]

If a unit has more than 1 opposing unit in an adjacent hex, it is considered flanked.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Odd way of putting it. An enemy unit with six friendly units adjacent causes _all 6_ to be defined as flanking attackers = there is no "front" to the enemy unit.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Odd way of putting it. An enemy unit with six friendly units adjacent causes _all 6_ to be defined as flanking attackers = there is no "front" to the enemy unit.

And if a unit has 2 enemies adjacent, it is flanked by Both of them.

 

[Cannes]

Odd way of putting it. An enemy unit with six friendly units adjacent causes _all 6_ to be defined as flanking attackers = there is no "front" to the enemy unit.

Nothing odd about it. If a military unit finds itself even partly surrounded in a combat situation it will have to divert part of its resources and manpower to fight both fronts. I don't thin you're likely to find a (successfull) commander who will command his men to ignore one or more of the threats.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Nothing odd about it. If a military unit finds itself even partly surrounded in a combat situation it will have to divert part of its resources and manpower to fight both fronts. I don't thin you're likely to find a (successfull) commander who will command his men to ignore one or more of the threats.

Head-to-head battles are usually fought linearly, with the two opponents directly facing each other. If a defensive line is in danger of being flanked, the commander will either Refuse the Left or Refuse the Right. Attacks from the rear will have the unit's Reserve about-face and become a rear guard. That's SOP. The initial forward-facing deployment still is NOT being flanked by the unit it was facing all along. Flank attacks have improved odds, hence a flanking bonus, and that bonus will exceed whatever the unit attacking the front gets.

"Being flanked" usually involved surprise, catching a line unit with no portion set to Refuse. It was also more devastating because volleys fired from the flank would travel along the line of the unit, with a greater chance of inflicting casualties. This is why flanking has long been a prized maneuver. The flank attack was more devastating and tended to make positions untenable, causing a unit to rout.

However, if anything, combat in CBE would be NON-linear. Instead of lines of infantrymen, modern soldiers are deployed and operated as skirmishers, with no lines to be flanked. Modern units can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers, but they are seldom concentrated enough that attacking from the side gains any significant advantage. Loosely speaking, it's the difference of trying to flank a basketball team versus flanking a football line of scrimmage. Five flankers coming from courtside wouldn't be all that different than if they came from one end of the court or the other. Five flankers hitting the scrimmage line on a football field would very easily cause a domino effect upon contact.

In short, flanking really should be removed from the game entirely.

 

[BigBadB]

In short, flanking really should be removed from the game entirely.

With respect, I think you may be getting a little hung up on the terminology.

A unit that is 'flanked' (in the way the game defines the term) is one that's engaged against multiple units at the same time.

Basically, 'flanking' bonuses represent the advantage that can be gained from outnumbering and outmanoeuvring the enemy. These are very real factors in real combat, and I don't see why they should be removed.

 

[Ryoga]

"Being flanked" usually involved surprise

We may debate on the rest, but this, really... no.

Anyway the term "flanking" has been used for decades in D&D to indicate attacking a target from two opposite sides (regardless of the attacked facing), and nobody ever complained.

 

[Mysticforce]

In short, flanking really should be removed from the game entirely.

Your vision of the flanking maneuver is between two bronze or iron age armies facing off against each other - it is too limiting in both definition and scope.

Modern skirmishes often involve cover - which is reduced in effectiveness when the position has been flanked.

On a tactical map, if a commander is on the defensive and he notices that he is being attacked from two sides, then he will deploy his forces to meet both attacks or risk being outmaneuvered and have his path of retreat cut off.

On a strategic map, if a commander expects an enemy to attack from the side while an equal force faces him from the front, then he has to make a decision to abandon his now untenable situation and retreat, or get ready to fight off enemy encirclement.

In any of these cases, flanking is a viable threat, and should be reflected in game.

 

[poom3619]

If you replace in-game "being flanked" with real-life "being surrounded". It might make more sense .

 

[CaptainPatch]

On a strategic map, if a commander expects an enemy to attack from the side while an equal force faces him from the front, then he has to make a decision to abandon his now untenable situation and retreat, or get ready to fight off enemy encirclement.

One of the limitations of this approach is that combat is NOT simultaneous. Strategically on a hex-based map, it is distinctly possible to have the "Front" thoroughly interwoven, with numerous units placed between numerous opposing units. In a rare case, it would be possible that a unit surrounded on 5 sides could participate as a "flanker" against an enemy unit on the sixth side. It could be entirely surrounded and yet be a flanker against any of the surrounding units if any of those units are attacked. Does that make sense? Being that surrounded, and still pressing an attack rather than trying to get out of the pocket they're stuck in? And meanwhile none of the surrounding units do anything to stop the surrounded unit's attacks.

Physically speaking, a hex doesn't have any Side sides. It has 3 Front sides and 3 Rear sides. To take a unit in the flank, it would have to come through one of those Rear sides.

But in CBE, units don't have facings.

I readily acknowledge that confronting a modern unit with attackers coming in from different vectors WILL give the attackers a bonus. But it wouldn't be a uniform bonus. The more attacking vectors, the greater the bonus.

I see two possibilities that would seem to be more reasonable than a uniform flanking bonus:

A) The first unit to attack is straight up. The second unit to attack gets a 10% bonus. (Or whatever percentage seems reasonable.) The third gets a 20% bonus. And so on.

B) When a defending unit has enemy units on more than one hex-side, count the adjacent enemy units. Each of them has the potential to attack, so the defender must deploy some unit strength into defensive positions facing those threatened directions. So when the attack does come, the attacker is facing less resistance. That is, the _defender_ is weakened. Threatened on two sides? Defender's strength is reduced by 20% (or whatever seems reasonable). Threatened on four sides? Defender strength is reduced by 40%. Etc.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Combat in civ is not simultaneous... However it is Modeling simultaneous combat.

And as far as I know there is a greater bonus to the enemy the more sides they are flanked with
(So that surrounded unit can give a +10% to others attacking its surrounding captors... But the surrounding units get +50%)

 

[Fins]

Sorry for necroing this topic, but i searched and failed to find one thing: does flanking work against cities? Say, i put 4 redeemers near enemy city, each having a total of +50% flanking bonus, then each of them attack the city.

Everywhere i can see, including posts in this topic, flanking is discussed in terms of "units adjucent to enemy unit". Same thing in the pedia - "game concepts" > "combat rules" > "multiple units in combat". A city is not a unit, though. So would flanking work vs cities?

And while i'm here, one more question: would flanking bonus work for those redeemers (let's say they failed to take the city in one turn) _defensively_ against 1) enemy city attack and 2) enemy ranged unit (stationed in the city) attack?

Thank you very much.

 

[LORD ORION]

It's too bad they couldn't use the hex system from Military Madness / Nectaris.

In a nutshell
Any friendly unit adjacent to an enemy unit lends a % of its strength to an attacking unit. (Attacking 2 adjacent friendlies on 1 enemy or more gives stronger and stronger attacking bonuses)

Any enemy unit adjacent to an attacking enemy unit lends a % of its strength to the defending unit. (Attacking 1 unit adjacent to 2 or more enemy units is a terrible idea)

A unit that is surrounded by enemies loses 1/2 its strength defending.
(Defender has 2 enemy units on exact opposite sides when attacked)

 

[Fins]

Yep, nutshell i know, Lord Orion, but your post do not answer specific questions i ask in my previous post...

 

[Halbbruder]

Sorry for necroing this topic, but i searched and failed to find one thing: does flanking work against cities? Say, i put 4 redeemers near enemy city, each having a total of +50% flanking bonus, then each of them attack the city.

Everywhere i can see, including posts in this topic, flanking is discussed in terms of "units adjucent to enemy unit". Same thing in the pedia - "game concepts" > "combat rules" > "multiple units in combat". A city is not a unit, though. So would flanking work vs cities?

And while i'm here, one more question: would flanking bonus work for those redeemers (let's say they failed to take the city in one turn) _defensively_ against 1) enemy city attack and 2) enemy ranged unit (stationed in the city) attack?

Thank you very much.

Nope, flanking doesn't work against cities.

Come to think of it, it would be interesting if it did, especially for civ 5. But for CivBE, capturing cities would be way too easy.

 

[Fins]

True. But still, does flanking at least work when defending vs the unit stationed in "flanked" city?

 

[Tripas]

True. But still, does flanking at least work when defending vs the unit stationed in "flanked" city?

You're not attacking the unit, you're attacking the city. The unit stationed inside of it is just adding a bit of its Combat Strength to the city itself, not fighting you directly.

 

[NukeAJS]

True. But still, does flanking at least work when defending vs the unit stationed in "flanked" city?

The normal flanking rules apply to the defensive force regarding a unit placed in a city when the defensive force counter-attacks.

However, as noted before, the attacking force can't "flank" a city (even if there's a unit inside it) because cities are immune to flanking and the unit inside just adds some extra defense. It's one of the ways that the defenders have the advantage. If there are three defensive melee units in a line, with the center unit on the city square, any unit that enters the hex adjacent to all three defensive units will be vulnerable to a counter-attack/flank (and also a city-bombardment) when it's the defensive player's turn.