Flanking Bonus

[wrylachlan]

I just had a thought which I think would easily add a ton of military strategy for very little code.

Give a flanking bonus if you attack the same tile in the same turn from two different directions.

Have the bonus increase with the amount of flanking ie.
First Attack from South second from SE 5% bonus
S then E 10%
S then NE 15%
S then N 20%

I can't imagine this would be difficult to code. Every time an attack takes place the tile stores the location of where it was attacked from, the next time it is attacked it checks if it was from the same place and then assigns the bonus accordingly.

What do y'all think? Too complicated?

[dunk]

Far too easy since civ is a turn-based game. A real-time game could have flanking bonuses since you would have to set up the manuever with the enemy in motion.

Also, zone of control would definately have to be put back just like Civ I and II, where units cannot move past enemy units in the field.

Dunk no like. Bad medicine.

[Signa]

Well... I dont know... Is there a historical presidence here? (the Legions of Varus?)

[HazieDaVampire]

Dunk, explain ZOC to me please. Civ3 is my first ever turn based game, so i've never touched civ1 or 2!

[zulu9812]

zone of control - the unit takes a 'pot-shot' at enemy units moving into, out of, or through the 1-tile radius around the unit. Not quite sure what the ration for success is, since the 'pot-shot' doesn't always occur, particularly if lots of enemy units move through that radius in one turn.

[Panag]

Originally posted by zulu9812
zone of control - the unit takes a 'pot-shot' at enemy units moving into, out of, or through the 1-tile radius around the unit. Not quite sure what the ration for success is, since the 'pot-shot' doesn't always occur, particularly if lots of enemy units move through that radius in one turn.

hi ,

to aswer that , well lets say 20 infantry move true a territory , there is a meh infantry or modern armour standing still or better fortified , all the enemy units seem to slow down so that they can get the beating , ....

have a nice day

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by dunk999
Far too easy since civ is a turn-based game. A real-time game could have flanking bonuses since you would have to set up the manuever with the enemy in motion.

Also, zone of control would definately have to be put back just like Civ I and II, where units cannot move past enemy units in the field.

Dunk no like. Bad medicine.

IT would only be "too easy" if your enemy moved all his units as single stacks. But knowing that the bonus exists, the enemy would move in groups of stacks, each stack "Getting the other's back".

Though on second thought I would make the bonus only for attacks at 90 degrees or greater from the original attack, that way you wouldn't have wierd stuff where in two stack vs. two stack squares it would be advantageous to attack diagonally across instead of the one right in front of you.

Also, the exact percentages could be figured out in playtesting, so don't get hung up on the 20% bonus. I was just pulling that out of my butt.

[Swissy]

This a a strategic game, the scale of the game does not merit a tactical bonus. On a strategic level you win by combination of superior numbers and better weapons.

[Inverse Icarus]

flanking is in RON (Bryan Reynolds is the genius behind civ2 remember?)

you get bonus points if you hit from the side or back, so an all out "flanking" batallion would be quite effective.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Swissy
This a a strategic game, the scale of the game does not merit a tactical bonus. On a strategic level you win by combination of superior numbers and better weapons.

I disagree. There is already a system that leads to very specific tactitical battles: the land type defensive bonus. This causes you to think about where you want to attack, which is essentially a tactical decision. Artillery have bombard, so you try to bombard the enemy before attacking with ground troops, this is a tactical decision.

Now you may think that a flanking bonus is TOO TACTICAL, but to say that the game is set up so superior numbers and better weapons alone control the outcome of combat is just false.

[Inverse Icarus]

there should be an "attacking terrain" advantage, IMHO, especially if artillery are involved. artillety firing OFF a mountain should do better than those firing UP one.

[Panag]

Originally posted by UberKruX
there should be an "attacking terrain" advantage, IMHO, especially if artillery are involved. artillety firing OFF a mountain should do better than those firing UP one.

hi ,

, only for a cannon or so , ...
example ; a piece of artillery can fire both up- and down hill , for at least 50 years , without having any special needs , and when in the right hands it can fire lets say it's shell's with-in a 10 meter square , ....when the range is less then 15 kilometer's , ...

have a nice day

[ThePlagueRat]

Several older stategy games (turn based, of course) have actually implemented ZOC-rules with flanking bonuses!

i.e. The SSI-game Ardennes.
(A pure strategy game, but rather boring compared to civ)

There were additional bonuses for each and every unit surronding the target, and bombarding as well...
The target had defence bonuses from supporting units in the stack, generals in zone, terrain , and artillery support.
The bonuses were not high, but accumulated 5-10 units could make a real difference. So the whole strategic picture became very realistic. (You would want to form secure frontiers all the way)

NB: Such bonuses could ruin the game, if implemented wrong.

[Hohenzollern]

The man has a point, tactics should play a large role in this game if the military aspects are to awarded any sort of historical merit.

History has SHOWN, that tactics plays a part that can lead decisively an outcome of the battle or war, for that matter. Take the Dutch Revolt for example. Little tiny Netherlands beat out the Spanish, because their smaller, more efficient army, relying on tactical strikes and defensive postures were able to inflict defeats on the vastly financed and vastly larger Habsburg Army.
Flanking would be awesome, but here's my 2 cents on it :

CTP had a good thing going with that Flanking business, and since PTW says they'll implement stacked combat, flanking and other combat specialties should be awarded to units, like Marines being known for their amphibious ability. Units like Cavalry, or Armor, should have their unit catagorized as a 'Flanker', like in CTP. So any units in the battle give a flanking bonus unless the opposing enemy ALSO has flankers, then its decided on tech of unit and position in the unit (Are they on the sides?)
This is just my thoughts on all this.

[Andy91]

Flanking doesn't just work at a tactical level- a strategy which has been used over and over again in history is the use of pincer movements and three pronged attacks. Having an enemy surrounded - at any scale - is always an advantageous situation. This is definately a matter of strategy and by no means are such bonuses beneath the scope of this game

[Jon Shafer]

Flanking bonuses should be a lot greater. In a game I was working on a bit ago, I gave 50% bonus for rear-attack, and 25% from side-attacks. Getting around an enemy formation usually meant you could crush them fairly easily. How that might work well in Civ, who knows, but I'm sure something could be worked out.

[Oerdin]

How about classifying some units as "flankers", "frontline", or "ranged"? That way Civ3 could have a combined arms approach like CTP2 has...

[dunk]

ZOC ala Civ I and II. ZOC = zone of control.

Units are not allowed to move from one tile adjacent to an unfriendly unit to another tile adjacent to an unfriendly unit.

In Civ III, units with ZOC take a pot shot at units passing it, doing up to 1 HP of damage.

As Civ III stands, you could simply attack once, then move your next unit around to the side and attack for the bonus. The enemy doesn't have the oppurtunity to counteract your flanking.

[dunk]

Originally posted by UberKruX
flanking is in RON (Bryan Reynolds is the genius behind civ2 remember?)

you get bonus points if you hit from the side or back, so an all out "flanking" batallion would be quite effective.

RoN is a real-time game, so flanking bonuses are apropriate and add a bigger element of stategy both on the offensive and defensive.

Civ is a turn-based game. Far too easy to get the bonus in Civ since your enemy can't react to seeing you begin a flanking maneuver.

[campmajor!]

It would be great if civ3 would implement the ctp2 combat system with flankers and stacked units (into an army).

But I guess Activision would not allow them to copy that...

[Coracle]

Originally posted by dunk999
Far too easy since civ is a turn-based game. A real-time game could have flanking bonuses since you would have to set up the manuever with the enemy in motion.

Also, zone of control would definately have to be put back just like Civ I and II, where units cannot move past enemy units in the field.

Dunk no like. Bad medicine.

What we need for combat is STACK COMBAT - one STACK of units is combined and fights the other STACK.

If the STACK contains the right MIX of units it gets a COMBINED ARMS combat bonus.

A MILITARY LEADER unit could supply another percentage bonus.

NOTE: The combat itself could be REALTIME and allow us some tactical flexibility and options - as many other games have done - instead of the tedium of one individual unit attacking another individual unit as in Civ3.

STACK COMBAT and REALTIME TACTICAL OPTIONS could not only make for a quicker less tedious battle, but a lot more interesting action, and more of a challenge. In otherwords, Firaxis will never bother.

[Switch]

I doubt this would make it in as Firaxis said that they wish to make Civ less of a warmongering game and more a game of multiple strategic levels. Thus, culture.