Thread Tools
Old November 22, 2001, 10:41   #1
halley
Settler
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 13
Mobile Units: Too Good?
Yes, this is a rant about combat imbalance, but it has nothing to do with the ongoing debate about "Tank killed by Spearman" scenario.

As you all know, units with mobility greater than 1 can retreat when they are fighting slow units with only 1 mobility if they are losing. The problem this creates is that it is almost impossible for a slow unit to kill a fast one. For example, Horseman Vs Spearman fortified in a city. While it is unlikely for the Horseman to defeat the Spearman, it is also extremely unlikely for the Horseman to be lost in the attack. What will usually happen is that the Horseman will damage the Spearman, then retreat when its HP gets too low.

In games I play I don't even bother building Swordsmen or Archers anymore. Horsemen, Knights and Cavalry are simply superior. In my experience, when I attack a fortified town with slow units, I inevitably lose some in the attack. In contrast, I almost never lose fast, mobile units when attacking a town, even when the odds are against me. I have successfully taken cities with Knights, cities that were defended by RIFLEMEN, and not lose a single Knight. Each attacking Knight managed to weaken the Riflemen a little, then retreating, until my last Knight delivered the killing blow. My group of Knights essentially behaved like an ARMY, even though they were not.

This is also not a freak case, unlike the "Tank killed by Spearman" debate. I have perfected my game to the point where I can build a dozen mobile units, blitz a city, wait a few turns to heal, then blitz the next city. Usually my casualty is minimal, even when the enemy has well fortified defenders. I am afraid that this game will degenerate into a mobile unit rush.

I would suggest that the combat rules be changed so that the retreat ability of mobile units be less powerful. Perhaps make it such that units can only retreat if they have at least 2 movement remaining. This will make Horsemen and Knights have to wait a turn outside enemy city before attacking, or lose their retreat ability.

I realize that this change will actually INCREASE the chances that a Tank will be killed by a Spearman, but who cares about that, right?
halley is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 11:05   #2
General Ludd
NationStates
Emperor
 
General Ludd's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Minion of the Dominion
Posts: 4,607
Just exactly how do you suggest that a spearman would kill a horseman in retreat? That is the entire point of mobility in warfare.
General Ludd is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 11:28   #3
Sabre2th
King
 
Sabre2th's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,691
To a degree, this is the entire point of mobility. The defender should be building his own horsemen, etc. to counter the attacker.
Sabre2th is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 12:01   #4
mtgillespie
Civilization III Democracy Game
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 136
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i was under the impression that even if the defending unit has 1MP, as long as there is a mobile unit stacked with it, the attacking mobile unit can't retreat. Can anyone confirm this?
mtgillespie is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 13:16   #5
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
Just exactly how do you suggest that a spearman would kill a horseman in retreat? That is the entire point of mobility in warfare.
ARRGGGHHH!!! The entire point of mobility in warfare is NOT to enable retreat. Units have retreated from combat HELL AND GONE before the advent of mobile units. Does it HELP to be able to break contact in retreat? Sure. But the advent of mobility in warfare was NOT to produce the tactical advantage of getting your ass kicked and running away...

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 13:51   #6
CyberGnu
King
 
CyberGnu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of the Virtual Serengeti
Posts: 1,826
Venger:
Quote:
ARRGGGHHH!!! The entire point of mobility in warfare is NOT to enable retreat. Units have retreated from combat HELL AND GONE before the advent of mobile units. Does it HELP to be able to break contact in retreat? Sure. But the advent of mobility in warfare was NOT to produce the tactical advantage of getting your ass kicked and running away...
I really really hate to disagree with you, Venger, but the Mongols built an entire empire on this technique...

Likewise with the Mameluks, I believe...
__________________
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the Machine
CyberGnu is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 13:55   #7
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Venger:

I really really hate to disagree with you, Venger, but the Mongols built an entire empire on this technique...

Likewise with the Mameluks, I believe...
They built an entire empire on retreating? Or did they build an empire on winning?

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 13:58   #8
Long Happy Man
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 40
yeah fast units have that great advantage, but the hit and run tactic could be easily countered by artys. Before attacking fast units, softened them up with artys till they have 1 hp left.
From my experience, any fast units which have 1hp left engaged in combat NEVER retreats, even attacked by slower units.
__________________
If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
Long Happy Man is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 14:40   #9
General Ludd
NationStates
Emperor
 
General Ludd's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Minion of the Dominion
Posts: 4,607
Quote:
Originally posted by Venger


ARRGGGHHH!!! The entire point of mobility in warfare is NOT to enable retreat. Units have retreated from combat HELL AND GONE before the advent of mobile units. Does it HELP to be able to break contact in retreat? Sure. But the advent of mobility in warfare was NOT to produce the tactical advantage of getting your ass kicked and running away...

Venger
Retreating does not equal losing (as you can see by looking at mobile units in civ3). The point of horsemen is to be able to move faster then standard infantry - horsemen can move faster then spearmen, which gives the horsemen the ability to decide where to fight - or if to fight.
General Ludd is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 14:42   #10
Wulfram
Chieftain
 
Wulfram's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 54
I agree with both sides an this issue, some mobile units would use something like this (Horse Archers) though they didn't actually engage in combat to do this, they just shot at them then ran away, a very succesful tactic used by the Muslims during the Crusades. However Knights shouldn't do this, as they were generally stupidly brave maniacs who liked charging madly at people and weren't very adept at using their brains. Also withdrawing from battle effectively, even with a movement advantage requires good, well lead troops, not just everyone on a horse can do it.

Edit: In reply to the person who posted above me, the point of cavalry is more importantly to add weight to a charge, grant you a height bonus and enamble you to flank enemy units. Retreating is useful, but most often not used as it leads to the infantry being left behind
Wulfram is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 14:42   #11
Sabre2th
King
 
Sabre2th's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,691
Quote:
Originally posted by Osweld

Retreating does not equal losing (as you can see by looking at mobile units in civ3). The point of horsemen is to be able to move faster then standard infantry - horsemen can move faster then spearmen, which gives the horsemen the ability to decide where to fight - or if to fight.
Exactly
Sabre2th is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 15:25   #12
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
Retreating does not equal losing (as you can see by looking at mobile units in civ3). The point of horsemen is to be able to move faster then standard infantry - horsemen can move faster then spearmen, which gives the horsemen the ability to decide where to fight - or if to fight.
Don't get me wrong - it makes TOTAL AND COMPLETE SENSE that a unit with more than one move point left would leave a fight rather than perish. And it IS an advantage for mobile units. And I LIKE how it's used in Civ3.

But to say that the ability to retreat from a fight is "the entire point of mobility in warfare" is grievously understated to the point of being just plain wrong.

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 16:19   #13
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
Back on point, people
The pertinent point of this thread is, how can we as gamers, or the A.I. as gamer stop halley's strategy, espeically if the whole attack happens in one turn, thus not giving the defender the chance to counterattack- since we would have to wait for their turn and they will probalbly be dead. Arty is not the solution until later in the game, so the question is, can i trap those fast bastards in my city. (let me add here that generally, relisticly speaking, using mobile units to storm cities is a dumb thing to do since in narrow streets mobility is negated. I can't think of any real battle [movies don't count] in which mounted kngihts stormed a citadel- they did it on foot. SMAC did this whole thing better, giving inf bonuses over mobile in attacking cities). Impis can, since they move 2 also, and i gues protecting your city with fast units (stupid since much lower def), so again, can anyone think of how my inf or riflemen owuld be able to 'trap' the enemy and counter halley's strategy?
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 16:29   #14
General Ludd
NationStates
Emperor
 
General Ludd's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Minion of the Dominion
Posts: 4,607
Re: Back on point, people
Fight mobility with mobilty. Use strong garrisons with defensive units aswell as offensive units to counter attack any incoming enemies - if you are on the defense, you can use rails and roads to your advantage, aswell.
General Ludd is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 16:31   #15
Boracks
Warlord
 
Boracks's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fort Erie, Ontario
Posts: 254

Question: if you have a stack (more than one) of units in a city that includes at least one fast unit, can this tactic be used? If you have (example) pike and horse in a city, will the pike defend and the horse prevent enemy horse from withdrawing?
Boracks is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 16:32   #16
General Ludd
NationStates
Emperor
 
General Ludd's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Minion of the Dominion
Posts: 4,607
Quote:
Originally posted by Boracks

Question: if you have a stack (more than one) of units in a city that includes at least one fast unit, can this tactic be used? If you have (example) pike and horse in a city, will the pike defend and the horse prevent enemy horse from withdrawing?
No - maybe if they where a part of an army though, but I have't tried that.
General Ludd is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 16:35   #17
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Well, if you are being bum rushed, you must have either a strongpoint or a staged defense.

In my one game (yes, STILL playing it), the Axtecs attacked my northern fortification with TWENTY FOUR cavalry in one turn. Yep, one turn. I had 5 infantry fortified in it. I lost all but 1. But he lost like 4 in the attack, and he had to pull those units back to just over the border and leave them unprotected. I savaged those units with my counterattack. Because they retreated with one hit point, normal movement units could kill them without them running off. It was a slaughter.

The key is to make them fight just inside YOUR border, otherwise they can retreat on their road system (roads should be accessible by all, that's just stupid). That way they burn a full move to get in, attack, and burn their other move to get out, leaving them just over the border.

They attacked me with 12 cavalry on another turn, same results, I slaughtered them. I broke the back of his army this way.

You must be able to survive and launch a counterattack. There is no solution to a blitzkrieg other than to either a) give ground and then counter attack or b) hold and counterattack. Depends entirely on your map and situation...

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 17:19   #18
CyberGnu
King
 
CyberGnu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of the Virtual Serengeti
Posts: 1,826
Venger, IIRC, the mongols would send in a fraction of their cavalry towards the enemy and fake an attack. When repulsed, they would retreat in feigned panic. The defenders would then pursue the retreat, running right into the rest of the mongol army, preferably already set up to encircle the pursuers before initiating contact.

It worked remarkably well... And it all hinged on the ability for light cavalry to break out of conflict whenever they wanted, followed by more light cavalry to encircle the slower defendors.
__________________
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the Machine
CyberGnu is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 18:03   #19
narmox
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Canada
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Venger, IIRC, the mongols would send in a fraction of their cavalry towards the enemy and fake an attack. When repulsed, they would retreat in feigned panic. The defenders would then pursue the retreat, running right into the rest of the mongol army, preferably already set up to encircle the pursuers before initiating contact.

It worked remarkably well... And it all hinged on the ability for light cavalry to break out of conflict whenever they wanted, followed by more light cavalry to encircle the slower defendors.
oh, and anohter tactic they used.. just in front of their army they put a bunch of men and women they had captured from other cities and forced them to advance on their own countrymen (or be killed from behind), to force the defenders from killing their own people before being killed by mongols

when they finally captured some catapults, they threw bodiless heads full of diseases over the walls to scare the people and spread some diseases

and lastly, they didn't destroy a city's culture when they captured it! (this should be an _option_ in civ3, not something that just happens), hence the people were less mad after a while, and actually enjoyed life under their rule...
narmox is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 18:29   #20
Grunthex
Warlord
 
Local Time: 10:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally posted by Boracks

Question: if you have a stack (more than one) of units in a city that includes at least one fast unit, can this tactic be used? If you have (example) pike and horse in a city, will the pike defend and the horse prevent enemy horse from withdrawing?
I think so. My towns are almost always defended by 2 standard defenders, and 1 mobile unit, and I very rarely see enemies disengage.
Grunthex is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 18:46   #21
sgrig
Warlord
 
sgrig's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Isaac Newton's College
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally posted by narmox

and lastly, they didn't destroy a city's culture when they captured it! (this should be an _option_ in civ3, not something that just happens), hence the people were less mad after a while, and actually enjoyed life under their rule...
Hello? What's all this about?! Who ever enjoyed life under the Mongols?! And narmox, you probably don't know the history of Russia very well since many of the Russian cities were razed or partially destroyed by the Mongols, causing cities to be deserted- hence destroying culture! What the Mongols did they destroyed what they did not see as important such as arts and culture, but preserved engineers, craftsmen who could build better weapons - so they did not destroy technology but they did destroy culture!
sgrig is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 22:05   #22
johnny faustus
Settler
 
Local Time: 11:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: urbana, illinois
Posts: 4
sgrig:

From what I remember of Chinese history, the Mongol rule of China (right before the Ming) was characterized by their embrace of Chinese culture. They found that their "barbarian" tactics weren't going over well with the Chinese and so they developed a governmental system similar to earlier Chinese systems and even reinstituted a sort of Confucian cult. This is actually the whole history of China (barbarians take over land, become Sinitcized) to a certain extent. Also, I thought Alexander the Great was also known for his mild domestic policies in his conquered territories. I don't quite remember, but I thought he let the people keep their religions and instituted relatively (RELATIVELY) benign governments to keep the people happy. That's why he was able to consolidate so much territory so quickly.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (anyone).
johnny faustus is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 22:57   #23
sachmo71
Warlord
 
Local Time: 11:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: de Tejas
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Venger, IIRC, the mongols would send in a fraction of their cavalry towards the enemy and fake an attack. When repulsed, they would retreat in feigned panic. The defenders would then pursue the retreat, running right into the rest of the mongol army, preferably already set up to encircle the pursuers before initiating contact.

It worked remarkably well... And it all hinged on the ability for light cavalry to break out of conflict whenever they wanted, followed by more light cavalry to encircle the slower defendors.
Also, in the african theater in WWII, the Germans would feign an armor attack, flee in the face of superior British numbers and lead them unsuspecting into a nest of 88s. That will ruin your whole day! Simple but brilliant.
sachmo71 is offline  
Old November 22, 2001, 23:45   #24
halley
Settler
 
Local Time: 17:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 13
To clarify my strategy, once I successfully take a city all the roads around it becomes MINE. As a result, counterattacking my stack of weakened mobile units becomes very difficult. Slow infantry almost never touch my Horsemen or Cavalry because it would take all their movement just to reach me. Most of the units I lose are due to enemy mobile units' counter-attack. This can be reduced by moving defensive units in after the city's been captured, easy since the roads are now mine. The computer never counter-attacks with more than a handful of mobile units anyway.

I do think that mobile units should be better than slow units, but in Civ 3 they are so good that it's becoming "I have more Horses than you so I win" situation. It makes sense that mobile units have an advantage vs slow units in open terrain due to flanking tactics, maneuvrability etc. However they shouldn't get such advantage in difficult terrain. I mean, how successful is Cavalry vs men in a jungle or mountain?

GePap had a good suggestion in reference to SMAC. In SMAC slow infantry units had a bonus when attacking city, which made it actually worthwhile to use infantry in an attack. Furthermore, you could build units with a special ability that gave it a defensive bonus vs mobile units. Speaking of that, shouldn't the Pikeman get a bonus vs mobile units? That's what it says in the Civilopedia, and Civ 2 Pikeman had this bonus. Yet I still see my Knights slaughter Pikemen wholesale, often without losing a single HP. Is this a bug?

My point of this discussion is that there needs to be some nerf of mobile units in Civ 3. Either make it such that the retreat ability is more limited (e.g. cannot be used in difficult terrain, need 2 movements left) or give defenders in a city bonus vs mobile units. Like GePap said, how silly is it to use Cavalry to storm a CITY, which in most probability has walls and everything? It just doesn't make sense.
halley is offline  
Old November 23, 2001, 01:55   #25
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
You know I once used a wagon to hold a door open. I did not conclude that a wagon was a doorstop however.

This thread is getting tired, but I'll close my arguement that of all the advantages mobility gives, retreating is not the greatest. An advantage? Sure. The advantage? No. And no apocryphal stories of retreating success will overcome common sense examination of mobile combat.

Venger
Venger is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:19.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team