Flanking? Encirclement?

[BlackwatchGuards]

I'm not sure if this has already been implemented or if Firaxis is planning on putting it in the game, but I have an idea that I have always craved for combat. The thing that I believe Civ combat has always lacked is bonuses or advantages for units that are attacking the side or back of another unit. Say for instance, you have some spear men, suddenly, some hose archers appear behind them. Normally the spear men will probably kill the horse archers, but since there back is turned, the horse archers get a bonus and kill the spear men. The same deal with flanking.

[Timferius]

I was going to say this wouldn't really work well, but then thinking about it it might. The trick is how to determine facing. I figure most armies facing would be the direction they're heading, unless they are adjacent to an enemy in which case they face the enemy. And perhaps fortifying would negate any flanking bonuses, as they're all over prepared, or else you can pick the facing direction while fortifying.

[BlackwatchGuards]

The fortification thing might be a good idea, or maybe the only way to flank someone is with a unit that can travel more then two hexes per turn, but I don't like that idea more. I would really love this to be implemented though, I think it would make combat a it more interesting. You would have a chance to dislodge an enemy that was entrenched on a hilly forest without throwing 10 units at it.

[kingdmen]

Considering the amount of years that progress in one turn and the size of the hex relative to the entire world, I think this suggestion would be too micro to be implemented. Flanking can be achieved better through unit promotion. I believe in Civ4, "flanking" promotion gave better retreat odds. If there is any changes to be made to accommodate this issue, it would be in modifying this promotion.

King

[BlackwatchGuards]

Considering the amount of years that progress in one turn and the size of the hex relative to the entire world, I think this suggestion would be too micro to be implemented. Flanking can be achieved better through unit promotion. I believe in Civ4, "flanking" promotion gave better retreat odds. If there is any changes to be made to accommodate this issue, it would be in modifying this promotion.

King

The flanking promotion is pretty much useless in the fact that it doesn't really make sense. Flanking is an offensive manoeuvre. There would be no point in flanking someone, only to run away. It might be a lot to manage, but I would still love it if they put it in.

[damien007]

Perhaps they should change the flanking promotion so that instead of increasing retreat odds it negates a certain % of the targets defensive bonuses (similar to the way bombarding negated defensive bonuses on a certain tile in civ 4 ?)

[BlackwatchGuards]

Perhaps they should change the flanking promotion so that instead of increasing retreat odds it negates a certain % of the targets defensive bonuses (similar to the way bombarding negated defensive bonuses on a certain tile in civ 4 ?)

That's basically the same thing I suggested, just the other way around. I suggested adding attack power to the aggressor, and you suggest taking away defensive power from the defender. Basically the same thing. It makes sense to me that flanking someone would take away some defences.

[damien007]

That's basically the same thing I suggested, just the other way around. I suggested adding attack power to the aggressor, and you suggest taking away defensive power from the defender. Basically the same thing. It makes sense to me that flanking someone would take away some defences.

I don't quite understand , could you please elaborate on how you reckon they should change the promotion. aren't there already promotions that increase a units attack power.

[BlackwatchGuards]

I don't quite understand , could you please elaborate on how you reckon they should change the promotion. aren't there already promotions that increase a units attack power.

Everyone knows about flanking right? Your opponent is facing one way, you march around the side and boom! you attack. Your enemy is surprised, disoriented and you overall have the advantage. I'm talking about putting this is Civ5. Any unit that attacks an opposing unit from the side or rear (we just have to figure out how to tell what way the unit is facing) gets an attacking bonus. I'm not talking about changing the old flanking promotion from Civ4, instead adding in a whole new bonus.

[San Martin]

Everyone knows about flanking right? Your opponent is facing one way, you march around the side and boom! you attack. Your enemy is surprised, disoriented and you overall have the advantage. I'm talking about putting this is Civ5. Any unit that attacks an opposing unit from the side or rear (we just have to figure out how to tell what way the unit is facing) gets an attacking bonus. I'm not talking about changing the old flanking promotion from Civ4, instead adding in a whole new bonus.

You could instrument flank-encirclement attack like this: whenever you attack a unit in combination with a (e.g.) cavalry attack from the rear or the flank this adds damage to the attacking unit, this way the obvious "face" of the defender should be the main attacking unit, and cavalry, in this case, is the supporting attacker. ¿what do you think?.

[JaFO]

Do we really need to consider the facing of a unit this in Civ 5 ? It will complicate the move-command as you'll have to turn the unit to face the proper direction.

Consider that we will have a 1 unit / hex limit.

All you'd really need is to make flanking work perfectly is to lower the defensive rating of units already engaged in combat during that turn.

A second unit attacking that same unit will (due to the nature of the 1 unit/hex limit) be attacking from a 'flanking position' ... and thus receive better odds.

It also will eliminate the ridiculous situation where an opponent who isn't engaged in combat can get flanked by multiple units. Considering the scale of the hexes/turns that would be very weird indeed.

[Andrej]

I'm not sure if this has already been implemented or if Firaxis is planning on putting it in the game, but I have an idea that I have always craved for combat. The thing that I believe Civ combat has always lacked is bonuses or advantages for units that are attacking the side or back of another unit. Say for instance, you have some spear men, suddenly, some hose archers appear behind them. Normally the spear men will probably kill the horse archers, but since there back is turned, the horse archers get a bonus and kill the spear men. The same deal with flanking.

I think bonuses for flanking is good idea for strategy game focused on combat but for universal strategy like Civ it would be too complicated. In Panzer General (the source of inspiration for combat system in Civ5) there was a very simple concept called "rugged defence". If attacker surprisingly met defending unit on a hex he supposed to be free, defender got huge bonus and attacking unit despite being superior was badly beaten. Another concept in PG wan entrenchment: Longer your unit stays at one hex, stronger defensive bonus she gets. These two concepts worked automatically and very well adding more depth to game.

[Walderschmidt]

At risk of hijacking this thread, I present my idea which originated from my dissatisifaction with the current CiV 4 combat.

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.

[wandmdave]

flanking could definately be done better now that its 1 unit per tile. If you attack or bombard an enemy for the first time they should turn and face that unit but they only get to turn and face one time during your turn (higher ranks could turn and face more than once but still have a limit) Then you could move your cavalry (or any ) in from one of the 3 hexs it isnt facing and get a flank bonus on your attack.

Would provide a nice incentive to keeping your flanks protected. I would be a little worried about it becoming too much of a chess game on combat moves.

[BlackwatchGuards]

I agree with basically everything Walderschmidt said. The only thing I would change would do be to reduce the disadvantage a bit if theres going to be advantages for the attacker. Flanking attacks to do not always work, and I think a 30%-50% disadvantage to defenders AND a bonus for attackers would make it almost a sure fire win for attackers.

[Walderschmidt]

Perhaps the penalties for being flanked on the side should be less, but my point still stands. At least, let the penalty for being attacked from the rear still be harsh. There's no excuse for that.

Some may contest that this would make combat more micro-intensive than it needs to be, it would make combat too complex. I maintain that combat in CiV is not complex in any except for managing the economic machine to crank out my soldiers than the opposing side. I believe that these combat mechanics would make combat more interesting and in depth, giving a fighting chance to players who have less resources to fight a war with.

In the end, overwhelming superiority (stacks of doom) win above all else, but where's the fun in that?

Wald

On second thought; I think I made it unclear what should happen. I only meant when flanking another unit on its side, it would grant the attack 30-50% better chance to win the battle outright. I included the rest of what I put to justify why I thought that the attacker (flanker) should recieve such a hefty bonus for good soldiering.

[josasa]

I had always thought of this idea as well, and I had actually talked about it back on some other forum that was discussing the 'wants' of a Civilization V game. But here is the way I thought of it.

I always thought that it would be a good idea that when units moved in to enemy territory, that they could literally conquer it and convert it to that nations territory. Originally I had thought of this with the Civ IV engine, which would cause more people to spread out their units rather than having these massive stacks of units, although now that Civ V has cut it down to only one military unit per hex, this system makes more sense. Now people will really be fighting for land, as it is all the more precious. Every hex lost is the enemy moving closer to your cities, and nations will be fighting tooth and nail to keep their grip on their territory.

This conquered territory could then be put to use in the empire and conquered resources would effectively be cut off from the enemy empire. There could be some penalties from owning enemy territory like reduced productivity etc. But there could also be an option in the diplomacy menu that allows for the conquered territory to be officially turned over to the conquering nation. That way nations could go to war and actually gain something without having to conquer enemy cities.

But as for the original point of this thread, encircling and flanking, here is how 'my' system would work out. Basically, if your unit has a connection to a city through your own borders it would be considered 'supplied'. But, if that unit was cut off and completely surrounded by enemy units/territory, there would be a severe defensive penalty and it would be much easier to wipe out units completely cut off from their supply lines. So the general idea would be to flank enemy units and cut them off from supplies to easily take them out later on.

Plus, I always thought that it made sense to have culture determine the original borders of a civilization at the beginning of a game, but as borders met between different civilizations, it never made sense to me that one civilization could 'conquer' territory from another because they had better music. How would one civilization give up territory to another because of this without going to war? The revolution and city flipping made sense to me though, something that I still think should be implemented in Civilization V.

[mickleroi]

Flanking would have been very difficult to implement in the earlier civ games, but with the new hex grid and the unit animations we are seeing in screenshots it would seem that civ 5 is set up perfectly for it. Simply giving a unit bonuses for attacking from any of the 3 rear sides of the hex would be a great way to represent flanking. It would add tactical options that could never have been dreamed of in civ 4. Positioning of units on the battlefield would actually mean something!

I really hope the developers get wind of this idea and implement it if they haven't done so already!