Thread Tools
Old June 14, 2002, 08:28   #1
wrylachlan
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:32
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 333
Flanking Bonus
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?
wrylachlan is offline  
Old June 14, 2002, 08:54   #2
dunk
Prince
 
dunk's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 978
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.
dunk is offline  
Old June 14, 2002, 12:19   #3
Signa
Warlord
 
Signa's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: IA, USA
Posts: 156
Well... I dont know... Is there a historical presidence here? (the Legions of Varus?)
__________________
"War does not determine who is right, it determines who is left."
Signa is offline  
Old June 14, 2002, 12:31   #4
HazieDaVampire
King
 
HazieDaVampire's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:32
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The British Empire
Posts: 1,105
Dunk, explain ZOC to me please. Civ3 is my first ever turn based game, so i've never touched civ1 or 2!
HazieDaVampire is offline  
Old June 14, 2002, 12:59   #5
zulu9812
King
 
zulu9812's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:32
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: of Scotland
Posts: 1,383
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.
__________________
Up the Irons!
Rogue CivIII FAQ!
Odysseus and the March of Time
I think holding hands can be more erotic than 'slamming it in the ass' - Pekka, thinking that he's messed up
zulu9812 is offline  
Old June 14, 2002, 16:08   #6
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:32
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
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
Panag is offline  
Old June 14, 2002, 19:46   #7
wrylachlan
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:32
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 333
Quote:
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.
wrylachlan is offline  
Old June 14, 2002, 21:49   #8
Swissy
Civilization III MultiplayerTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersCivilization III PBEMRise of Nations MultiplayerIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerBtS Tri-League
 
Swissy's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,436
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.
__________________
"The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved - loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves."--Victor Hugo
Swissy is offline  
Old June 14, 2002, 23:18   #9
Inverse Icarus
Emperor
 
Inverse Icarus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: flying too low to the ground
Posts: 4,625
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.
__________________
"I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
- Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
Inverse Icarus is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 09:18   #10
wrylachlan
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:32
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 333
Quote:
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.
wrylachlan is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 13:20   #11
Inverse Icarus
Emperor
 
Inverse Icarus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: flying too low to the ground
Posts: 4,625
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.
__________________
"I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
- Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
Inverse Icarus is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 13:54   #12
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:32
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
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
Panag is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 20:47   #13
ThePlagueRat
PtWDG RoleplayCTP2 Source Code ProjectACDG Peace
King
 
ThePlagueRat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:32
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Insert banana to play...
Posts: 1,661
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.
__________________
My words are backed with hard coconuts.
ThePlagueRat is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 23:50   #14
Hohenzollern
Settler
 
Hohenzollern's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 21
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.
__________________
Civ Fanatic
aka "Shadow Soldier"
Hohenzollern is offline  
Old June 16, 2002, 00:44   #15
Andy91
Settler
 
Andy91's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 11
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
Andy91 is offline  
Old June 16, 2002, 00:53   #16
Jon Shafer
PtWDG RoleplayPtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG Neu DemogypticaInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG LegolandPtWDG Vox ControliPtWDG Glory of WarPtWDG2 SunshineApolyton UniversityC3CDG Desolation RowApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG SarantiumApolyCon 06 ParticipantsPtWDG Lux Invicta
Firaxis Games Programmer/Designer
 
Local Time: 22:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,567
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.
Jon Shafer is offline  
Old June 16, 2002, 14:47   #17
Oerdin
Deity
 
Oerdin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In a bamboo forest hiding from Dale.
Posts: 17,436
How about classifying some units as "flankers", "frontline", or "ranged"? That way Civ3 could have a combined arms approach like CTP2 has...
__________________
Christianity is the belief in a cosmic Jewish zombie who can give us eternal life if we symbolically eat his flesh and blood and telepathically tell him that we accept him as our lord and master so he can remove an evil force present in all humanity because a woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from an apple tree.
Oerdin is offline  
Old June 18, 2002, 15:15   #18
dunk
Prince
 
dunk's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 978
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 is offline  
Old June 18, 2002, 15:22   #19
dunk
Prince
 
dunk's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 978
Quote:
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.
dunk is offline  
Old June 19, 2002, 07:17   #20
campmajor!
Prince
 
campmajor!'s Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:32
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
Posts: 306
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...
campmajor! is offline  
Old June 20, 2002, 20:16   #21
Coracle
Prince
 
Coracle's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 915
Quote:
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.
Coracle is offline  
Old June 20, 2002, 21:41   #22
Switch
Prince
 
Switch's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:32
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Posts: 687
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.
__________________
I AM.CHRISTIAN
Switch 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 22:32.


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