[no players] We like to lurk lurkers lurking.

[Bobchillingworth]

Flanking was implemented originally to remove the 95% catapult stacks that occurred in MP games, where players would build minimal cover units and then just mass catapults. Catapults don't receive collateral damage, so at the time the thoughts from teh majority were that there was no cost efficient way to counter that tactic. So the Devs in BtS introduced Flanking which is basically a method of applying collateral damage to a specific type of unit, and added to the HA because at the time the HA was thought to suck. As it turned out both of these thoughts were basically wrong, one specific counter to the massed cat stack was to mass swords, strength 6 units that cost the same and moved just as fast became an immoveable object and slaughtered cats that wandered into your culture. HA we a close second but better the longer the game went on due to the extra movement, but they cost 50 hammers compared to the 40 hammers of the cat (cost was increased in BtS).

Interesting, thanks for the backstory. I guess they really had it out for Catapults, since they also made it so they can't kill, and do fuck-all when bombarding. I miss Classic Siege

[Krill]

I think the list of changes that occurred were:

• Cost increased from 40 to 50 hammers
  
• Could no longer kill
  
• Gained retreat chance
  
• Could not take the combat line of promotions
  
• Flanking was introduced
  
• Charge (Anti-Siege) promotion requires C1, not C2
  
• Collateral damage would not automatically hit potential targets; targets selected randomly and those that could not receive the damage due to unit type or current HP did not take damage.

Basically, they only needed to do the cost increase, change the Charge promotion requirements and arguably the collateral targeting bit. Flanking wasn't even necessary.

That said, I'd have implemented Warlords combat if it didn't mean basically rebuilding everything.

[WilliamLP]

I don't think those numbers are representative of either normal tech paths, stack compositions, or a sane overarching game strategy.

Definitely not. I was just exploring the game mechanic, not presenting a likely scenario. Yet, it's still interesting (perhaps?) to know how many hits it will take to start killing x cats when the odds against the top defender are near y.

I'd also point out the more cats there are the more likely it is to actually hit one with Flanking damage so I don't think the amount of HA needed increases proportionally.

Interestingly, the chance of killing a particular cat with n victories or retreats is exactly the same for a number of cats anywhere from 1 to 6. (With six cats you have better chances to kill at least 1, because you have 6 chances to do so.)

I think the sweet spot (just speaking of proportions) will be when you start hitting 6 (nearly) every time, and this depends on the attacker odds and also the withdrawal chance. WIth 50%-ish odds, this spot will be at 9-12 cats in the stack. It doesn't take much more to kill that many than it would to kill 6.

So from 1-6, the number of HAs to get kills with flanking doesn't change at all. From 6 to 12 or so, it changes less than proportionally. From that point on, it is more proportional again.

None of that requires civ knowledge, it's just math with the formulas in the game code.

the total number of actual defenders is (almost) irrelevant. I think Jowy has, what, 6 cats? Don't need that many HA to flank those off. Need like 4 good retreats and they all die.

He needs about 8-10 wins + retreats vs spears to kill any cats, and more like 15 to kill all six. (I believe in Bob's test it took 16 HA attacks to kill all cats with flanking.)

One relevant question is whether flanking is a factor in this particular game scenario. I'm guessing, like Bob, probably not, but maybe I'm wrong. Neither player is reporting well enough to see exact stack counts.

EDIT: Nevermind...

I am moving the following troops in position:
12 spears
9 axes
5 archers
2 horse archers

Whatever "enough" is, and whether it's typical to have it at this point in the game, 2 ain't it.

Agreed, enough HAs can kill any number of cats. And maybe it's a bad mechanic in the first place because attacking with 1-movers is hard enough anyway, so essentially making it even less relevant could be good? Serious question, has anyone ever killed a siege unit with flanking starting from full health in an RBMod game, in a battle that wasn't a wipe-out victory anyway?

This entire debate started from when Bob stated that HA don't obsolete cats. The counter point was specifically that enough cats do, and honestly, 20 HA by T130 is a minimum that you will see. Jowy has 27 here for instance. In fact I even agree with you that with small stacks Flanking doesn't do much at all, I don't think I've ever disagreed with that. And as to why it got nerfed in RB mod, I'll just point at PBEM13. Those numbers where you talk about the minimum are easy to reach and make it too prohibitive to attack into through numbers.

Incidentally I'm fairly fresh from re-reading your PB5 report, which was in my memory as the quintessential HA bullying game where military advantage overcomes a (temporarily) stagnant economy. And what struck me is how different some of the specifics actually are to what I remember, e.g. getting Alphabet before HBR, and on T136 your HA count was:

12

[Krill]

Definitely not. I was just exploring the game mechanic, not presenting a likely scenario. Yet, it's still interesting (perhaps?) to know how many hits it will take to start killing x cats when the odds against the top defender are near y.

Yeah, it can be an interesting discussion to have.

Incidentally I'm fairly fresh from re-reading your PB5 report, which was in my memory as the quintessential HA bullying game where military advantage overcomes a (temporarily) stagnant economy. And what struck me is how different some of the specifics actually are to what I remember, e.g. getting Alphabet before HBR, and on T136 your HA count was:

Actually that was one instance where I was specifically talking about a base BtS game: Slavery@30 hammers/pop means more HA because I think a player is generally hammer limited in getting the HA out by T130, and that mod makes hammers scarcer.

I'm not sure that PB5 is actually that good a game to show bullying, because of the map lay out. If you look at that map in novice's map balancing tool you realise that the Aztecs had to extend so far before it was even possible to threaten cities. PB15 isn't much better but that at least does show bullying. It's so tight that it's not representative of more maps...not due to the number of land tiles (which frankly isn't that fair from normal) but the lack of water placed the starts much closer than normal.

One major point to recall is that in both those games the use of HA was molded around going to Music, using a GA to help with the bullying and getting the HE down to reduce the early HA numbers but give more in the long term. Basically sacrificing short term power to give longer term ability to control the map through numbers. If I were going to simply bully with no finesse or longer term thoughts, I'd have had the extra, what, 6HA from the HE and SoZ. The GL would have been a further 3 HA. So that minimum is not exactly an unreasonable statement as a basic rule of thumb.

Agreed, enough HAs can kill any number of cats. And maybe it's a bad mechanic in the first place because attacking with 1-movers is hard enough anyway, so essentially making it even less relevant could be good? Serious question, has anyone ever killed a siege unit with flanking starting from full health in an RBMod game, in a battle that wasn't a wipe-out victory anyway?

I don't think so? PB5, PB8, PB13, PB15, PB18...I can't recall any such situations occurring there. I'm not sure about the PBEMs though. But yes, that is one of the upsides, in making 1 mover stacks more feasible. It did happen in PBEM13 though, in the battle of Britannia, and it was relevant due to the numbers involved (basically it enabled more kills on a given turn). But frankly it wasn't relevant in a strategic sense there because novice and spaceman were going to win that game regardless of the outcome of the battle.

He needs about 8-10 wins + retreats vs spears to kill any cats, and more like 15 to kill all six. (I believe in Bob's test it took 16 HA attacks to kill all cats with flanking.)

I stand corrected. But against C2 HA (assuming C2 HA) I think it's more like 5 hits to kill, which would lower the numbers slightly. But at the same time it's a straight exchange of HA.

[spacetyrantxenu]

Interesting conversation, a shame it's buried in this subforum where most people are likely to never find it.

[Krill]

Well there is a continuation of the discussion, about how best to defend at tech and hammer parity, at hammer parity but tech disadvantage, and at both a tech and hammer disadvantage. In this scenario, you'd think that Catwalk has a tech advantage but really he is at tech parity if he has Construction, and really at a tech disadvantage if he doesn't. Machinery and drafted maces would be a tech advantage, but the ability to draft axes means fuck all, really.

On the face of it catwalk has a hammer disadvantage compared to Jowy. Jowy has, what 27 HA which is 1350 hammers, plus a few cats, so easily over 1500 hammers invested. catwalk has...maybe 800? On top of that no cats. How best to deal with that many HA? Honestly, the only way I know of is numbers: You have to kill them, or at least threaten to kill them, and spears don't do that. HA just run past the city and pillage roads and go raze a bunch of core cities.

[spacetyrantxenu]

[spacetyrantxenu]

[spacetyrantxenu]

[spacetyrantxenu]

Hey Xenu, it's your favourite transgressor!

No problem yet, but it could get ugly in our race for Taj Mahal. We can both whip it (me 2 pop, him 6 pop) to completion this turn (else I'll complete it next turn and he'll complete it in 2 turns), and I suspect we're both waiting to go last and whip it without the other being able to respond. I know how far along he is, he doesn't know how far along I am but he knows when I got Nationalism so he should have a good guess. I'm not planning on using pauses to ensure I play last, but I worry that he is. Do you have any suggestions on how I should proceed, from a fair play perspective?

Cheers,
Catwalk