When Combat Works

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Combat in Humankind has gotten a lot of flak. I too have my gripes from time to time including how the same set of units in my hands vs. the AI's can result in a massacre on either side. That said, sometimes battle on the tactical map provides just the "froth" needed for a story.

For example, last month or so, I played a game where rivalry with a neighbor across the sea culminated in a significant battle of covert forces. In the industrial era, I decided to gear up for an inevitable conflict but had little knowledge of their continent's land, so I dispatched several armies of partisans to scout. The two forward parties took a path up a bluff to survey the land. As the first came down, they got separated by an enemy force. Little did I know that once partisans are discovered, they are considered trespassing and suffer attrition. As the discovered culprits descended to return beneath the cliffs, they were ambushed by forces outside the capital.

The battle map was drawn with few favors. Although my partisans planted their flag in an outlying garrison, they were exposed on either side of the choke point. In the first couple rounds, the attackers slaughtered about half of my army. Holding the garrison just didn't seem enough when vastly outnumbered. As the battle continued, however, the attackers brought in their navy, expanding the battlefield to including two nearby armies. One descended to reinforce the flag; the other secured the cliffs above. While what followed obviously was a cleanup of AI forces, the turning point between being pinned down in a garrison and the arrival of relief forces was intensely immersive, all the more as the provocateur.

When has a battle taken on a larger than life quality in Humankind for you? Feel free to include screenshots, as I'll definitely keep that in mind next time the stakes rise in battle.

 

[Pfeffersack]

HKs combat system shines, when it happens that its a close encounter for both sides (and with close I mean close after taking in all factor like quantity, quality, terrain, starting position of the units...), as then the - IMO - biggest weakness is reduced as much as possible: Too lethal combat. Far too often battles feel like they are over before they have started, because units take too much damage. Rarely battles exceed the 3 turn limit prolonging them to the next turn - I think I haven't seen any going longer then four combat rounds yet at all. And if everything is killed within one or two rounds there is little strategy, as the sadly bringing your troops in good position *before* the battle is a game of luck, because of HK's feature that the AI can move its troops in your turn.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I hate how I'm able to wipe out whole armies, and vice versa, just because I'm the attacker.
I think attackers should be able to attack with no more than 3/4ths (or something like that) of their forces before the defender can at least do something in response.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Totally agree that Humankind's combat is most enjoyable when there is a close encounter, all the more when terrain plays a key role, and especially when there is no chance of immediate resolution. As I understand it, cleanup plays a role in warfare (as in catching the opponent out of place), but too much can lead to tedium.

Naval combat is frustrating in this regard, as the attacker gets such a privilege that one can easily get away with attacking superior forces. It amazes me when pre-industrial navies can eliminate modern navies by sheer numbers and the element of attack.

I am intrigued by a potential limit on attacking forces. Maybe even a reserves mechanism where each round only deploys a certain proportion of armies could be interesting.

 

[Forster]

I don't agree about combat being too short, I have had them go into the fourth turn. I do think if you are the attacker, the enemy should deploy first. You should have the advantage to determine how you will attack after seeing the enemy.

 

[Siptah]

I don't agree about combat being too short, I have had them go into the fourth turn. I do think if you are the attacker, the enemy should deploy first. You should have the advantage to determine how you will attack after seeing the enemy.

But the attacker's advantage is already decent (early game) to overwhelming (late game) to devastating (naval combat). Why would you want to increase this further?

 

[Jkchart]

I've definitely had one where I had to fight uphill with several armies against another city and their armies. It was fairly bloody and a Pyrrhic victory because the height advantage of the enemy was killer - In the end I won but lost maybe 1/2 to 60% of my forces so I could actually siege one small city, but their positioning was great. I've noticed that if terrain is in AI's favor and the tech spread is roughly equal battles can be fairly bloody and challenging, and those are the best ones.

 

[Forster]

I don't have a suggestion for naval battles. I would think you usually can see the opponent from several tiles. If you are out-matched, you should probably run. In reality, I think if ships close, they ought to each get to fire before any losses are taken for at least the first salvo. For land it is irritating that as soon as you reach the city you are in a fight. You really don't get to select positioning in relation to the city so you can't improve your chances.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

For naval battles, I agree that it's best to flee rather than lose to an opening salvo. When I have been whomped in a naval battle, it is almost exclusively an area of strategic oversight on my part (naively dispatching an exploratory fleet into cold war waters or disproportionately favoring land forces) but has never proven substantive. I don't really see the positioning issue with cities, as you can usually mouse over the walls from different angles to anticipate angle of assault. In practice, the problem is attacking the city before some hostile force engages one's siege party en route.

I've definitely had one where I had to fight uphill with several armies against another city and their armies. It was fairly bloody and a Pyrrhic victory because the height advantage of the enemy was killer - In the end I won but lost maybe 1/2 to 60% of my forces so I could actually siege one small city, but their positioning was great. I've noticed that if terrain is in AI's favor and the tech spread is roughly equal battles can be fairly bloody and challenging, and those are the best ones.

Agree, agree, agree. My greatest Pyrrhic victory came in a cultural and religious liberation campaign on a contentious, little Pangaea. I decided to target my at-par Haudenosaunee neighbor with a sizable army that came at considerable sacrifice to my production capacity and population. Due to poor scouting, I quickly found my adversary had cut off three highland routes with garrisons, filing my forces instead through a chokepoint valley descending into their capital. The fight for the high-ground was brutal. Even when I had that secured, industrial ranged attacks as I fought through the chokepoint necessitated total cycling of reserves. Luckily, it was a solid city to take, but the blunder nonetheless has helped me recognize such disastrous campaigns before they start.

I would like to see ranged units as the norm or at least mixed in for city defense from the get-go. It seems more logical to me that besieged peoples would tear apart edifices to fling at attackers before throwing themselves at the siege force in futile melee attacks. To this end, it might also be interesting to have a gate mechanic rather than just entering and exiting through any patch of fortification. As for siege, it gets significantly more costly when ranged conscripts start defending large cities.