Withdrawal chances and mounted units.

[WarKirby]

The withdrawal chance mechanic in civ, and by extension FFH, has always irked me a little.

Most of the withdrawal chances are quite low. 20% or so. But if you can get one unit with a really high withdrawal chance, it basically becomes invincible, as it can just keep running away.

I have some general thoughts on tweaking this system, mostly.

Firstly, I think withdrawal chances should be more useful in general. 20% withdrawal chance is a waste of a promotion, compared to 20% strength. I would suggest doubling the withdrawal chance bonuses from all sourced. eg, base chances, promotions, etc. Or maybe not quite that much, but a substantial boost instead.

Secondly, I'd suggest making high withdrawal chance less of an invincibility thing, by providing more ways to counter it.

1. Attacking across a river, should make withdrawing completely impossible. 0% chance, unless the attacker has amphibious. If there's a bridge, then just halve the withdrawal chance instead.

2. Attacking units in a forest or city, should incur some penaty to the withdrawal chance, given that there's less room to manouevre

3. Attacking uphill, should give a bonus to the withdrawal chance. Because if you turn and run from an uphill attack, you're now going downhill, ergo, faster.

4. Each archer in the defending stack, or each mounted unit with movement left, should reduce an attacker's withdrawal chance, as they can shoot at/run down fleeing enemies.

I'm also a little concerned about the strength of mounted units. They seem to be lacking in it. the most powerful mounted units still lose easily to the most powerful infantry. This doesn't seem right. Riding a horse is supposed to be an advantage in combat.

So I would propose a few things to adjust them

Firstly, just a higher attack strength (don't boost defence). The original horsemen that you get with horseback riding, are easily surpassed by axemen, on the attack or defence. Maybe boost horsemen to 5/4, and scale up appropriately with other units. At the top level, I think Knights (strongest mounted) should be at least equal with phalanxes (strongest melee)

I think cavalry should get a significant bonus for attacking downhill, say 25% strength or so, from charging.

I would also give them a bonus for attacking in open ground. ie, a flat tile with no forest. 25% or so also.

Given the lack of maneouvreing room, I think cavalry should have a city strength penalty. Similar to asassins. 25% or so. Horses really aren't made for urban combat.

Oh, and can we please have the Formation promotion at Combat I instead of II ? It just doesn't seem right tohave that harder to get.

Mounted units in FFH (and FF by extension) in general, feel underpowered.

 

[TimSLS]

On mounted strength - generally cavalry charging an infantry formation is suicide. Cavalry was used at the flanks of an army, to protect against being surrounded and also possibly outflanking the enemy. Hard to approximate that in civ, given that attacks aren't coordidnated across units (possibly the one interesting feature of civ's ugly cousin call to power)....

Currently, their use is somewhat analagous, using their mobility to hit the somewhat weeker units and the like, destroying enemy infrastructure. Though drifting overly into this is kind of role is a reason Gettysburg turned out the way it did (thankfully)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._E._B._Stuart#Gettysburg_Campaign

 

[Thunder_Gr]

On mounted strength - generally cavalry charging an infantry formation is suicide. Cavalry was used at the flanks of an army, to protect against being surrounded and also possibly outflanking the enemy. Hard to approximate that in civ, given that attacks aren't coordidnated across units (possibly the one interesting feature of civ's ugly cousin call to power)....

Currently, their use is somewhat analagous, using their mobility to hit the somewhat weeker units and the like, destroying enemy infrastructure. Though drifting overly into this is kind of role is a reason Gettysburg turned out the way it did (thankfully)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._E._B._Stuart#Gettysburg_Campaign

Of cource you are refering to light cavalry. Heavy cavalry has been used to shock and disorder any type of infantry except spearmen, with minimal losses.

Horse archers in the east nations, were used just like archers in order to thin the enemy lines, and disordering them, so that a subsequent infantry charge or a charge from the horse archers themselves would lead to routing or destroying the enemy infantry.

The tactical flexibility of containing all 3 types of cavalry(4 if you count the difference of sword-wielding cavalry and spear-wielding cavalry) is difficult to simulate in Civ4.

Your link shouldn't be relevant, since Gettysburg is not refering to a sword-spear-bow fighting scema, but in a Rifle-Artillery fighting scema, where cavalry was already starting to become obsolete, due to practically every unit having an effective spear(bayonet) and a bow(rifle), the flanking of troops was difficult, due to their higher mobility, and in the U.S.A's civil war, there was no heavy cavalry.

 

[Vehem]

Of cource you are refering to light cavalry. Heavy cavalry has been used to shock and disorder any type of infantry except spearmen, with minimal losses.

Horse archers in the east nations, were used just like archers in order to thin the enemy lines, and disordering them, so that a subsequent infantry charge or a charge from the horse archers themselves would lead to routing or destroying the enemy infantry.

The tactical flexibility of containing all 3 types of cavalry(4 if you count the difference of sword-wielding cavalry and spear-wielding cavalry) is difficult to simulate in Civ4.

That's reflected quite well - though there's currently only one type of each cavalry and it is assumed that each was developed later/was an improvement than the others. Horsemen are light cavalry, best suited for raiding and pillaging, Horse Archers are rapidly moving archer units (though are flexible enough to attack or pillage if needed), Knights are the heavy-cavalry and are a match for any Melee up until the Phalanx (which possibly represent the shield/spear formation that is very effective against cavalry anyway, even if that's not explicitly stated anywhere).

 

[HadesScorn]

Agree with Thunder_Gr on this one.

Historically, only units that were trained and disciplined were able to resist a cavalry charge, mainly because it looks absolutely terrifying to guy on the ground. As soon as you break formation, the cavalry can chop you up like mincemeat [I've always hated that redundant expression]. Fortunately, we *already have* a promotion that deals with this issue! +40% against mounted units fits flavor and balance wise. I remember when I first got my roommate playing FfH- his Khazad were getting wiped out by the Hippus until I told him to start taking that promo. Problem solved.

WK, not certain of your point here. First you complain that withdrawal makes cavalry units too good, then that they suck in general and need a boost?

-Your ideas aren't bad, they just aren't related to this type of game. I highly suggest Medieval: Total War and its sequels for exactly this kind of thing.
-Cavalry units are less strong because they are able to cover more ground. It's been laid out several times in other threads as a pure balance issue. You can reach Horsemen typically faster than you can reach bronze-supported axemen. That's why they lack weapons promos and base strength.
-Complicating withdrawal will simply create player frustration. It's pretty easy to remember the basic penalties associated with terrain, but if I have to learn a whole new set when I play with a Horse oriented civ?
-You sacrifice strength to create withdrawal odds. This makes it less likely to win your combat. This keeps them from being super units, and more Python-esque heroes.

Run away!

 

[TimSLS]

Right, only light cavalry or heavy cavalry against spear using units is what the post is discussing. Horsmen are light cavalry (note civilopedia description of uses) so its no problem they lose to infantry swordsmen and axemen. Only really heavy cavalry appears to be knights, and while they can take swordsmen, axemen, champions no problem, they lose the phalanxes (heavy infantry with polearms). Only possibile divergence is the fact that immortals and paladins are matching knights, though these units are imbued with some kind of magical power, so hard to complain too much.

The Jeb Stuart comment just meant turning your cavalry too much into a harras behind enemy lines role and depriving your attacking force of their support is harmful - something true regardless of the weapons used.

My fault for trying to post quickly, rather than fully explain my reasoning.

edit - posted too late, discussion passed me by...

 

[Thunder_Gr]

That's reflected quite well - though there's currently only one type of each cavalry and it is assumed that each was developed later/was an improvement than the others. Horsemen are light cavalry, best suited for raiding and pillaging, Horse Archers are rapidly moving archer units (though are flexible enough to attack or pillage if needed), Knights are the heavy-cavalry and are a match for any Melee up until the Phalanx (which possibly represent the shield/spear formation that is very effective against cavalry anyway, even if that's not explicitly stated anywhere).

Well, I think the tactical flexibility of containing all of them in your army cannot be represented in a Strategy game without any tactical simulation, simply for the fact that, if you happen to have all of them in a stack, you would propably lose against a Phalanx unit, while, in the tactical simulation, you would overwelm the (slow) Phalanx with your light cavalry(by flanking them) while at the same time your horse archers would rain arrows from behind the phalanxe's facing and the heavy cavalry would charge when the Phalanx formation would have become thin and the soldiers ready to flee.

Admitedly, however, FF does simulate the abilities as close as possible for this type of game.

 

[Vehem]

-Your ideas aren't bad, they just aren't related to this type of game. I highly suggest Medieval: Total War and its sequels for exactly this kind of thing.

That's where he's getting them from, according to the other post. That being said, the discussion that sprung up from that thread did result in some fairly interesting changes being made to archery units which I think work quite nicely now.

 

[ius_iurandi]

Just tossing this out there:

Cavalry based armies have often been high risk, high reward, especially with the development of heavy cavalry. Traditionally, it takes more training to learn how to fight from horseback, in addition to the upkeep cost of horses. Furthermore, the evolution of heavy cavalry added heavy armor to the equation. That said, a well placed cavalry charge is still the quickest way to make the best laid defenses of mice and the Iraqi Republican Guard go awry. With no knowledge of how to code this, and without realy considering the implications, I think a unique way to represent cavalry on the battlefield might be by making their combat more random.

e.g. - Give all cavalry units -1 base strength, and a promotion, Mounted, that gives them a 15%(?) chance to gain 3(?) attack strength and 2(?) defense strength (alternatively, 60%+ and 40%+) when they engage in combat. This represents the effect charging warhorses can have on even them most disciplined foes, while making for an intriguing game mechanic.

N.B. : That means the hippus would need to churn out even more units early on, but that by mid-game, they should have a few very lucky, very highly promoted units. Also, maybe strength should be reduced by 2 for horse archers and horsemen, the promotion "Mounted" should be percentile based, rather than a raw strength increase, and all mounted units should be able to gain appropriate weapons upgrades.

 

[Sarisin]

I've complained going back many versions of FFH that the stated and actual withdrawal rates of mounted units are not the same. I find that especially attacking mounted units withdraw at a much higher rate, even without the promotions.

Add to this the withdrawal promotions that the AI seems to favor big-time, and you have a Keystone Cops routine everytime you go to war with the likes of the Hippus, Sidar, Illians, etc.

While you can often kill the withdrawing units, sometimes they annoying bury themselves back in the stack, and unless you have an Assassin, they attack/pillage again and again ... and keep withdrawing.

When you can have a unit withdraw 3 times or more when you are attacking them with 3 different units, that is wrong IMO.

The other thing is that the unit that withdraws when attacking gets XP, but the defending unit doesn't get any. I don't understand that.

 

[WarKirby]

My point about withdrawal chances here, is that at low levels, it's not so useful at all. And at high levels, you become almost impossible to kill because you can run away from every battle.

I've tried to provide ideas on how to normalize this a bit, by making it more useful at the lower levels, and for attacking enemy armies on uncordinated flanks. But less useful at hitting and retreating from a defended position, and in general giving defenders more ways to nullify the tactic, more tactical options.

I find it really doesn't make much sense, for instance, for cavalry to charge up to a heavy archer emplacement, damage a few things, and then run away again.

My ideas aren't all based on other games. They're derived from logic, and historical examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_crecy

French knights charge an english archer position, they get cut down by hundreds of longbowmen. That's something I think should be reflected. Hence, penalties to withdrawal chance with other archers in the stack.

 

[Vehem]

I've complained going back many versions of FFH that the stated and actual withdrawal rates of mounted units are not the same. I find that especially attacking mounted units withdraw at a much higher rate, even without the promotions.

Complaining is good, but proving your case is much better.

I've just tested with 100 horsemen (25% withdrawal) against 100 Auric Ascended (as near to an impossible combat as I can create) and thrown the horsemen at the stack 3 times over (stack attack on for speed, though it still runs plenty slow).

Attack 1 - 20 Withdrew, 80 dead.
Attack 2 - 23 Withdrew, 77 dead.
Attack 3 - 22 Withdrew, 78 dead.

Based on those numbers, the rate seems as close to correct as the experiment can prove. They're a little low, but not unreasonably so.

 

[Sarisin]

Complaining is good, but proving your case is much better.

I've just tested with 100 horsemen (25% withdrawal) against 100 Auric Ascended (as near to an impossible combat as I can create) and thrown the horsemen at the stack 3 times over (stack attack on for speed, though it still runs plenty slow).

Attack 1 - 20 Withdrew, 80 dead.
Attack 2 - 23 Withdrew, 77 dead.
Attack 3 - 22 Withdrew, 78 dead.

Based on those numbers, the rate seems as close to correct as the experiment can prove. They're a little low, but not unreasonably so.

I did run similar tests from real game conditions charting the withdrawal of mostly barb units from attack and came up with closer to a 75% rate. That was some time ago, though, so I will defer to your testing and stop complaining.

 

[zup]

But when you have 85% withdrawal rate? 25% is useless, 85% is overpowered for cannon fodder. It takes a total of 10 xp...

 

[Vehem]

But when you have 85% withdrawal rate? 25% is useless, 85% is overpowered for cannon fodder. It takes a total of 10 xp...

I'd agree that high withdrawal is powerful - though my first concern was that it had been reported as buggy (doesn't appear to be). I'll wait for the discussion to progress before looking at the balance myself.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

I say leave the withdrawal as it is. If they manage to survive long enough to get that 85%, they should be rewarded for it. It is hard to keep a horse unit alive for that long... And even if they get, somehow, promoted to that from within safety, it is still unlikely they will manage to do any damage, since they won't have any combat promotions.

One thing, that could be done without reducing withdrawal rates, is to give them withdrawal penalties when badly wounded and being attacked.

But, I do not understand why would someone want cavalry to become even more worthless that it currently is?

 

[WarKirby]

It is hard to keep a horse unit alive for that long...

See, this is a problem I'm trying to solve here, too.

I believe, used tactically, horsemen shouldn't have a great deal of risk. For example, attacking an enemy in an open field, should make damaging and withdrawing easy. Hence, a strength bonus for the horseman.

To an extent, I'm trying to replace luck, with tactical choices here.

And even if they get, somehow, promoted to that from within safety, it is still unlikely they will manage to do any damage, since they won't have any combat promotions.

And this, I see as another problem. You end up with a unit that is extremely difficult to kill, but has equal difficulty killing anything. What use is that?

I have another thought. A "flanking" bonus (seperate from the flanking promotion) which would give an attacking horseman, a combat bonus if the defending unit has already moved the previous turn. Signifying that they're caught unprepared. Or perhaps in such cases, defending archers in the stack would not be able to assist in preventing withdrawal.

 

[Anathema]

I wonder if flanking promotions could be removed and, instead, withdrawal chance could be linked to unit health. Your horseman charges some infantry, starting the fight with 100% health, he has 100% withdraw chance if he isn't able to beat the infantry. Your horsemen gets hit by a defensive strike, starts the fight at 90% health, 90% withdraw chance (harder to get away alive when archers are supporting the unit you're attacking, after all). Next your unit withdraws successfully with 10% health, if he gets counterattacked and you fail to protect him with a different unit, he only has 10% withdraw chance (you'd expect a wounded and battle weary cavalry group to have more difficulty getting away alive). This makes it quite a bit more tactical and less random, you can rely upon your cavalry's withdrawal when they attack at full strength, although if archers are supporting your enemy you're in slightly more danger, and you have to protect your cavalry or move him safely away after the fight or he's easily finished off. It makes newly produced cavalry units that aren't able to get a bunch of flanking promotions more useful, and makes experienced cavalry units that can currently withdraw over and over less invincible.

 

[Hawkwood]

I find it really doesn't make much sense, for instance, for cavalry to charge up to a heavy archer emplacement, damage a few things, and then run away again.

My ideas aren't all based on other games. They're derived from logic, and historical examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_crecy

French knights charge an english archer position, they get cut down by hundreds of longbowmen. That's something I think should be reflected. Hence, penalties to withdrawal chance with other archers in the stack.

I would like if cavalry got a strength bonus in flat terrain.
For example, compare Crecy with Patay.

 

[odalrick]

I'd like it if the withdrawal chance was directly added to the victory chance. Id est, when a unit that has +20 withdrawal attacks (or defends) at 50% odds, it would have 70 % chance to survive. Maybe a cap at 95%.

Obviously this would require all promotions etcetera to be reviewed, and a change in the combat engine.

The main advantage is that the promotions would not lose value when you attack at good odds.