Something important is missing: Flanking

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Something important is missing: Flanking

      Hi all once again,

      There is a very important element missing in the overall strategy game, the role of flanking (attacking from different directions), surrounding the enemy and similar such positional advantages.

      I would suggest the following model be implemented:

      1) When different army groups of one country attack from different provinces an army group belonging to an enemy country, the first group to make contact with the enemy is the primary group. The defender gets the current standard defense points against that primary group. When the defenders, being already engaged with one army group, are attacked from another army group coming from a differerent province, they should incur a 50% penalty to their defense rating against that second group. If attacked again by a third army group, a full 100% penalty should obtain against that army group.

      a. If attacked simultaneously by N groups, the strongest group of N becomes the primary as above. As ntoed above, otherwise timing controls the designation (primary, secondary, tertiary). Maximum bonus I suggest is 100% if attacked by 3 or more army from different provinces.

      2) This can also easily apply in naval battles -- flanking an enemy fleet should be advantageous.
    • Well, the forces don't really have directions. A Destroyer is a fleet of Destroyers, not just one, a Infantry unit is 1500 soldiers and so on, so flanking will probably not be possible if you imagine they are in some sort of defensive patrol pattern / convoy.

      Also I think it would be game changing.. So I just attack with 3 tanks, then move in 10 tanks with 10 sec delay from other direction and 10 more tanks from the third direction with 15 seconds delay... You see my point? Would be too easy to manipulate/take advantage of.
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem

    • kyrie626 wrote:

      Hi all once again,

      There is a very important element missing in the overall strategy game, the role of flanking (attacking from different directions), surrounding the enemy and similar such positional advantages.

      I would suggest the following model be implemented:

      1) When different army groups of one country attack from different provinces an army group belonging to an enemy country, the first group to make contact with the enemy is the primary group. The defender gets the current standard defense points against that primary group. When the defenders, being already engaged with one army group, are attacked from another army group coming from a differerent province, they should incur a 50% penalty to their defense rating against that second group. If attacked again by a third army group, a full 100% penalty should obtain against that army group.

      a. If attacked simultaneously by N groups, the strongest group of N becomes the primary as above. As ntoed above, otherwise timing controls the designation (primary, secondary, tertiary). Maximum bonus I suggest is 100% if attacked by 3 or more army from different provinces.

      2) This can also easily apply in naval battles -- flanking an enemy fleet should be advantageous.
      Flanking is possible to a certain extent on land and at sea. In the air there is no need. At land, that extent is defined by provinces: making a way for individual armies to flank around others would be enormously complex because of the existing road to city system. At sea, a 'directory point' (which is what I call it) on a sea tile is smaller than a province, so flanking isn't that hard to get, say, a convoy where you need it to go.

      I do, however, feel that there should be a penalty for having units and provinces totally cut off from the rest of the country via an enemy province or army. Shouldn't supply lines be cut off? What's the dealio?
      follow me on instagram @coopswithdahoops

      add me on snapchat @coopswitdahoops

      follow me on twitter @realCooperDavis

      yeahhhhhh
    • The naval example gets complicated, but the following situation might work:
      1) When combat begins, the first fleet to engage the enemy is the primary one.
      2) When combat begins, that initial contact point becomes the frame of reference for determining directions.
      3) If, subsequently, a new fleet engages the same enemy fleet, flanking occurs.

      For land, its easier:

      1) Each path represents a direction. When combat begins, this is the frame of reference.
      2) If attacked from a different path, flanking occurs.
    • kyrie626 wrote:

      The naval example gets complicated, but the following situation might work:
      1) When combat begins, the first fleet to engage the enemy is the primary one.
      2) When combat begins, that initial contact point becomes the frame of reference for determining directions.
      3) If, subsequently, a new fleet engages the same enemy fleet, flanking occurs.

      For land, its easier:

      1) Each path represents a direction. When combat begins, this is the frame of reference.
      2) If attacked from a different path, flanking occurs.
      I suppose so.
      follow me on instagram @coopswithdahoops

      add me on snapchat @coopswitdahoops

      follow me on twitter @realCooperDavis

      yeahhhhhh
    • wildL wrote:

      Still as I said, it is simply too gamechanging what's stopping me from flanking with delay... Just send one troop/few troops to get the desired direction, then flank with 10 sec delay with the main stacks..

      would make it too easy on inactive stacks and AI
      That is actually the point of the change. ;) The first issue is that it makes stacking all at center point a riskier proposition, you would need to consider blocking the paths the enemy can attack instead of waiting passively in the center. Secondly, it makes having one uber-stack a generally losing proposition both on attack as well as defense; this is something that is sorely needed.
    • I don't think so, you can already flank as it is now.. Just use DMS, once you've penetrated front line you will be in a position to outflank your enemy.



      CzarHellios wrote:

      I have as of this date participated in over eighteen games and perhaps by now, more. Only one of which have I lost, and said loss was due to a serious game bug. Furthermore, I have studied this game for the past couple of months, fought many battles, and with my present knowledge, have developed and advocate Depth-Maneuvering-Shock Doctrine. (D.M.S.)

      Depth: One must penetrate past the enemy front lines to cause disruption to enemy resource production, enemy unit production, and to divert enemy units and cause the opposing player to panic.
      Maneuvering: The player must out-maneuver the opposing player, destroying his armies either before they have consolidated, in one general decisive victory.
      Shock: Apply as much force as much force in a few key consolidated areas to achieve a general breakthrough at a decisive point.

      The forces of the state should obtain victory through maneuvering ones main army in mass at a consolidated point (The Focus Point), concentrating all mass at said point to achieve a breakthrough.
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem

    • That is simply penetrating a static front-line and is not actually flanking; what the author you quote is referring to is strategic victory.

      Flanking is a tactic whereby an advantage is gained within the same battle, what is described in your quote is how you win the war.

      What I am referring to is gaining an advantage in the battle-rolls for a given battle being fought based on positional advantages such as surrounding the defenders in an extreme case, or at least approaching the target from different directions.
    • kyrie626 wrote:

      That is simply penetrating a static front-line and is not actually flanking; what the author you quote is referring to is strategic victory.

      Flanking is a tactic whereby an advantage is gained within the same battle, what is described in your quote is how you win the war.

      What I am referring to is gaining an advantage in the battle-rolls for a given battle being fought based on positional advantages such as surrounding the defenders in an extreme case, or at least approaching the target from different directions.
      After you use Depth routine you should be flanking your enemy at every position?
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem

    • The uber-stacking is already a lossing strategy. No need for flanking to fight your enemy. Most people focus their attention for 100% on fihgting that stack and screw up.

      The suggestions for flanking you wrote in the beginning of this toppic are not very clear to me. You want to lower the defense stats of the flanked party vs the flankers. There are 2 defense stats; hitpoints and damage dealth to the attackers. YDo you want to lower both or only one of those?
    • In many situations a limited front of contact against an enemy can happen in which the large overstack is, in the current mechanics, a winning move.

      In general terms my objection is to the fact that for any force of size N, the correct defensive disposition of that force is in the center of a given town X, taking no care of the roads leading into the center. This is the ill I wish to cure -- forcing defenders to consider not just having forces to defend the center, but to block the potential for flanks to handle the battle for that town.

      As to how the effect the actual flanked penalty, I am not certain what is the best approach... that would require some math modeling and game design brainstorming. I just want there to be a very significant penalty for stacking in the center of the town without taking concern for the potential to being flanked in that town; not just the grand-strategy maneuver to attack behind a town that is possible at present.

      Edit: Put another way, I want the roads that exist in a town to matter, and to matter a lot. :)