{The List-} Movement, supply, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by polypheus
I know its been said before but to repeat, I'd wish that Civ4 would elimininate the Road and RR sprawl. The only reason for this sprawl is due to bonuses. If roads/railroads had, say, upkeep, and/or bonuses were curtailed, then we wouldn't see this ugly sprawl.

Wrong. Only if the resource bonuses are removed completely will you eliminate RR sprawl

If RR's give any sort of resource bonus, it becomes economic suicide not to RR every tile.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by skywalker
Wrong. Only if the resource bonuses are removed completely will you eliminate RR sprawl

If RR's give any sort of resource bonus, it becomes economic suicide not to RR every tile.

That's only if the bonus is linear with the amount of tiles covered. If there was a constant upkeep with a decreasing per tile bonus, you could reward the player for building a few RR and penalize them if they build a sprawl.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by hexagonian Then all you need to do is impliment a penalty that would nullify your flanking bonus based on the terrain type (possibly including the surrounding terrain and the terrain that you attacked from) Again, this does not hinder using your premise in s CTP stacked format.

Then you're dealing with the complexity of certain terrain having both a movement cost, and a "flanking bonus penalty". Is the penalty of forests as much as the penalty for mountains? What about rivers?

I think this is much less intuitive than simply to ask the player to move the unit to do the flanking. If I have to move the horse, and I know the horse is incapable of crossing the river with enough movement points left to get around into a flanking position, I'd know that I can't flank on that side. If I knew that the mountains on either side use up so many movement points that I can't get to the enemy in time to do any damage, I'd know I can't flank in the valley. This seems a much more natural and fluid way of viewing the battlefield than having to deal with remembering that in certain situations I get a penalty to my bonus...

It just makes more sense to me to put some of the tactical decisions on the main map.

Just out of curiousity, what besides flanking does CTP's mini-map combat model factor in that you couldn't factor in on the main map?

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I think this is much less intuitive than simply to ask the player to move the unit to do the flanking. If I have to move the horse, and I know the horse is incapable of crossing the river with enough movement points left to get around into a flanking position, I'd know that I can't flank on that side. If I knew that the mountains on either side use up so many movement points that I can't get to the enemy in time to do any damage, I'd know I can't flank in the valley. This seems a much more natural and fluid way of viewing the battlefield than having to deal with remembering that in certain situations I get a penalty to my bonus...

Your scenario is based solely on the use of strategic movement points, something that is exactly the same for both setups. Terrain such as mountains will limit movement.

If what you want is some kind of combat bonus if a unit is able to use its movement points to move into position and attack a defensive unit from a side tile or from the back instead of the front, then I see this type of bonus as somewhat unwieldly to figure out because you have to specify exactly what is the front of a unit - given that it's entirely possible that there will be units on multiple tiles surrounding the targeted tile.

Or maybe, I'm missing the direction of your post... Do you want to set up combat in such a way that you give orders from multiple unit/stacks to target an enemy force? Say you have a stack of 5 horse and 4 swords. You order the 5 horse on a flanking manuver (and it gets a bonus for flanking) and then order your 4 swords on a frontal assault.

What I'd like to see (in a stacked-combat format) is the ability to send eveything at once - combat resolution would be simultaneous too. If you send in the units in a massed format (rather than one at a time) you will get some kind of 'coordination of forces' bonus.

Originally posted by wrylachlan
Just out of curiousity, what besides flanking does CTP's mini-map combat model factor in that you couldn't factor in on the main map?

Mid-ranged units (archers, etc.) Cannon/Artillery can work as a mid-ranged or a bombard unit.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by hexagonian

Your scenario is based solely on the use of strategic movement points, something that is exactly the same for both setups. Terrain such as mountains will limit movement.

If what you want is some kind of combat bonus if a unit is able to use its movement points to move into position and attack a defensive unit from a side tile or from the back instead of the front, then I see this type of bonus as somewhat unwieldly to figure out because you have to specify exactly what is the front of a unit - given that it's entirely possible that there will be units on multiple tiles surrounding the targeted tile.

Or maybe, I'm missing the direction of your post... Do you want to set up combat in such a way that you give orders from multiple unit/stacks to target an enemy force? Say you have a stack of 5 horse and 4 swords. You order the 5 horse on a flanking manuver (and it gets a bonus for flanking) and then order your 4 swords on a frontal assault.

Not quite. I'm saying that flanking can be represented by a percentage bonus for a "flanking attack" which would be any attack after the first from a different direction (lets just say over 90 degrees) So if you have the tiles:
ABC
DEF
GHI

And E is the defender, If I send my main force to attack from tile H, and another force to attack from tile F, the units attacking from tile F get a bonus. Its simple, it makes it so that faster units are better able to flank without having to assign specific flanking bonuses to specific units, and the same game mechanism can do double duty to allow for a "pincer" or "strategic flanking" bonus. And it does it all without having to assign a new set of stats to every type of tile, nor necessitating a mini-map.

Mid-ranged units (archers, etc.) Cannon/Artillery can work as a mid-ranged or a bombard unit.

This can be simply modelled by the mechanism I proposed in the Combat thread. Its a little long, but the jist of it is that when a "melee" unit is in the same tile as a "ranged" unit, the counterattack which the defender gets is directed at the melee unit instead of the ranged attacker. This models "lines" without necessitating CTP style stacked combat.

[ThePlagueRat]

Ok, so what if the "front" is diagonal... C,E,G, or B,E,D, a "spearhead" ?


They you should have units on both two opposite sides regarding E, when attacking from H, in order to get the flanking bonus, because the defender E would then be in a broken front. However, the defender should get a front bonus when it has two or more adjacent units on either sides.

In the B,E,D, "spearhead" situation both bonuses could apply, and that would be more balanced. Do you see it?



Answer:
.G dna C htiw I morf kcattA

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
So if you have the tiles:
ABC
DEF
GHI

And E is the defender, If I send my main force to attack from tile H, and another force to attack from tile F, the units attacking from tile F get a bonus. Its simple, it makes it so that faster units are better able to flank without having to assign specific flanking bonuses to specific units, and the same game mechanism can do double duty to allow for a "pincer" or "strategic flanking" bonus.

That is what I thought your setup was trying to accomplish with the third paragraph of my post - the flanking manuver was to come from the horses with their ability to move multiple tiles and thus attack the defenders from a tile from the side of the defenders, rather than from the front.

Several questions...
So if the units on tile 'F' are infantry/archer-type, do they also get a flanking bonus because they are coming in from the flank position? Or is the flanking bonus only applied to mounted units?

Since combat in the current civ3 setup is unit-by-unit, will you have to send in a unit from the front and then from the flank (repeating the sequence of front/flank) to continue getting a flank bonus for that turn?

It seems to me that in your setup, it would be rather easy to get a flanking bonus, since all a player will have to do is delay his attack for a single turn until he gets units in position to get that bonus. In fact, if I had to subdivide my stacks to establish a two-tile flank setup, I would make sure all of my heavy offensive units were coming from the flank tile to get the maximum benefit. I would also only need to establish strength on a second tile, since the flank bonus only needs a second tile that is more than 90 degrees to establish the bonus.

The main question is whether the AI will recognize the importance of flanking, not only from a attacking standpoint, (something that may not be hard to get the AI to handle) but also from a preventative defensive standpoint. (something that may be hard to get the AI to handle)

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Several questions...
So if the units on tile 'F' are infantry/archer-type, do they also get a flanking bonus because they are coming in from the flank position? Or is the flanking bonus only applied to mounted units?

The flanking bonus applies to everyone. In real life the reason horses are used in flanking is their movement speed, but if you're dumn enough to let a bunch of slow moving swordsmen get around and flank you, you're equally screwed.

Since combat in the current civ3 setup is unit-by-unit, will you have to send in a unit from the front and then from the flank (repeating the sequence of front/flank) to continue getting a flank bonus for that turn?

In my mind flanking means "getting into the backfield" so I think that in order to get a flanking bonus you would need to have all the defenders "commit" to the front first. So if there are 5 pikemen in a tile, you need to attack the tile 5 times before you can flank. The nature of the flanking bonus is that it forces the worst defender to defend against you. Example:
Defender has 5 spearmen, 2 archers, 1 catapult
Attacker has 5 Javelin Thowers and 2 Ancient Cav.

Attacker attacks with 5 Javelin Throwers. Spearmen Defend.

If the 2 Ancient Cav attack straight on, the remaining spearmen get to defend against them, and on their next turn the catapult and archers will probably get off a shot.

Instead, the Ancient Cav flank, which allows them to attack the worst defender first - the catapult, then the next worst defender - the archer.

It seems to me that in your setup, it would be rather easy to get a flanking bonus, since all a player will have to do is delay his attack for a single turn until he gets units in position to get that bonus. In fact, if I had to subdivide my stacks to establish a two-tile flank setup, I would make sure all of my heavy offensive units were coming from the flank tile to get the maximum benefit. I would also only need to establish strength on a second tile, since the flank bonus only needs a second tile that is more than 90 degrees to establish the bonus.

The balance to that is the way ZOC would work. Essentially it needs to be balanced such that the ranged defenders get a pot shot every time you move in the ZOC. Therefore, for fast moving units, the flanking bonus outweighs the downside of getting shot at, since you move through it so quickly. Slower units would be hit multiple times.

Another possibility would be to make mounted units the only ones who can make the diagonal move into flanking position. All others must make the L.

The main question is whether the AI will recognize the importance of flanking, not only from a attacking standpoint, (something that may not be hard to get the AI to handle) but also from a preventative defensive standpoint. (something that may be hard to get the AI to handle)

I don't disagree with you that the AI might have a hard time with this, but by the time Civ4 comes out I'll have a PowerMac G7

[ThePlagueRat]

I do not like the ZOC pot shot system they use in Civ3. The ZOCs should work differently, and there should be a different stack system, so that it would be advisable to make up a frontline!

If not using CTP-style armies (which are the better, but without frontline benefits), bonuses for defence and attack on units adjacent could be the solution...

More importantly, artillery units should play a more active role supporting their stack's attack or defence by granting bonuses to units in it's ZOC, or even getting more shots vs. units not supported by artillery, instead of being infrastructure disrupters which is kinda unrealistic, since that's the job of engineers and agents.

[Kuciwalker]

I like wrylachlan's solution to flanking

I also think that some units (like Riflemen) should be able to "Entrench" in a certain direction. The unit gets a defense bonus greater than the normal fortification bonus in that direction (and the two adjacent directions), no bonus from the sides, and a penalty in the other directions. You then get trench warfare - the goal is to achieve a breakthrough (which is very difficult) but if you do it you can cause serious damage to enemy forces.

[ThePlagueRat]

Perhaps you guys didn't know it was not possible to flank a front line? wrylachlan's suggestion is a nice one, but I noticed some flaws, as I said. This flanking system would only be realistic if there are two units on each opposite sides from the defeder...

[Kuciwalker]

Huh?

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Perhaps you guys didn't know it was not possible to flank a front line? wrylachlan's suggestion is a nice one, but I noticed some flaws, as I said. This flanking system would only be realistic if there are two units on each opposite sides from the defeder...

erm... double huh?

ABC
DEF
GHI

If E is the defender and H the attacker, the front line is the line between E and H. The mounted unit moving from H to F is moving around the edge of the front line. The attack from F to E is the flanking attack around the edge of the front line. Where's the issue?

P.S. Apparently porcine aviation is in vogue again as skywalker and I agree on something else...

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by skywalker
I also think that some units (like Riflemen) should be able to "Entrench" in a certain direction. The unit gets a defense bonus greater than the normal fortification bonus in that direction (and the two adjacent directions), no bonus from the sides, and a penalty in the other directions. You then get trench warfare - the goal is to achieve a breakthrough (which is very difficult) but if you do it you can cause serious damage to enemy forces.

Sounds like a lot of additional micromanagement to me...and what you are proposing is basically the same idea as a mini tactical screen.

For instance, if there are several surrounding tiles with enemy units next to your stack, you will have to indicate the orientation of the 'front'. And given that the front often can and will change on a turn-by-turn basis, you will have to reorient that front on a turn-by-turn basis.

And if you have 30 units on a tile, will you have the freedom to select different orientations for units within that stack? Logically, you should have that option to deploy your forces against multiple threats based on direction - especially since those attacking forces will be visibly deployed on tiles as an indication of their attacking direction.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by hexagonian Sounds like a lot of additional micromanagement to me...and what you are proposing is basically the same idea as a mini tactical screen.

I don't particularly like the idea of an entrenchment bonus. But I would like to point out that your comment above kind of indicates to me that you don't really understand what my, and other peoples beef is with the tactical mini-game. The entrenchment idea that skywalker put forward is very much NOT the same as a mini-tactical screen because the decision making is done on the main map If I'm on a tile with mountains on either side I'll entrench all my units forward. If I'm surrounded by plains it would be in my best interest to entrench some units straight ahead, and a few to the sides to prevent flanking.

What I, and I assume others, have against the tactical mini-game is not that it incorporates things like flanking, combined arms, etc. I, in fact, would like all those elements incorporated. What I dislike is the way it incorporates them in a seperate screen.