I was playing a game a couple of days ago and it's still bugging me: my opponet had just began to get tanks I had some modern armour but mostly mechanized infantry (upgraded units). His tanks came rolling over the border and immediately began tearing up my mech inf?? Im in the U.S. Army and I'll tell you rightnow that a Bradley fighting vehicle can take a cold-war era tank out in some situations, but a ww2 era sherman? It wouldn't even be a contest. Is it because most of them were upgraded for city defense rather than open warfare? What should I have trained them in to make them more effective against tanks?

obviously mech inf>tank in raw power
but 32/28 is only 1,14 = good odds, but not a sure thing.
(just watch out not to cross water while attacking)
with combat1, combat 2, ambush, you're in a much better position

and with gunships instead of mech inf, you're even better :lol:

If you're upgrading your mechs to city defense while your opponent upgrades his tanks to combat I or II (AIs usually do that), AND you're fighting in open ground, the odds are quite even or in favor of the tanks : 32 (mechs) vs 30,8 (combat I tanks) or 33,6 (combat II tanks). An Aggressive opponent running Vassality and Theocracy can even send you Combat III tanks, for a power of 36,4.

I've learned the hard way to promote some mechs with Combat I or II to protect the tiles against rampaging enemies, or to make some gunships if the enemy has mostly tanks. Otherwise you'll be stuck in your cities while the enemy ruins your improvements.

If you have enough XP, I think you can promote your mechs to Combat II then give them the promotion +25% against tanks. But gunships are cheaper and more effective. And they become Crickets of Doom once you're bringing the fight on enemy territory. Enough gunships with their rate-movement of 4 can bring back an entire empire to stone age in no time : move, pillage, move, pillage, pillage, pillage, pillage. Crickets of Doom I tell you. :goodjob:

Don't forget that MI are considered gunpowder units and it is easier for a tank to get the +% vs. gunpowder units than it is for the MI to get the + vs. armored units.

Don't forget that MI are considered gunpowder units and it is easier for a tank to get the +% vs. gunpowder units than it is for the MI to get the + vs. armored units.

true!
if your not agressive (trait), you need 3 promotions to get ambush = barracks + westpoint+vassalage or theocracy.

gunship have naturally +100%!

I was also going to say, some people make the mistake of thinking tanks count as a gunpower unit, and expect to have a +25% bonus against them.

This is about as realistic as a prop fighter aircraft shooting down a stealth bomber, as happens to me all the time.

This is about as realistic as a prop fighter aircraft shooting down a stealth bomber, as happens to me all the time.

Very true. I have had that happen too. I guess that I can overlook these small glitchs, it just pisses me off when I'm on the recieving end instead of the giving:)

Personaly i woulda left them in the city if they were garison trained and built up new units to take him on in the open feild. Make them play to your strenth till your ready to go on offense. Weakening their units and buildings with airstrikes Etc. Who are you and who is your oponent anyway?

Civ-Combat is not about realism, it is about math

on a site note, Im not military personal,

but do you think the small M6 Bradley 25mm Autogun (cant realy effectivly fire a Stinger on a Tank) could penetrate though 150mm Tank-Steel (as example Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II, not some Sherman), I hadly doupt

on the other side, a 88mm Tank-Gun could penetrate though 180mm tanksteel on a reasonable range

the M6 lacks some serious Anti-Tank weapons and its main usage is support for Tanks in order to combat drones, gunships and cruise missles, it is not designed to figth tanks. Mech. Inf. has a similar concept ingame

Im sure the M6 chance would be better just for the reasons of speed, posibility of faster maneuvers, communication and precision but I would not underestimate "old" things
If they are used from someone with several years Combat Expirience compared to a greenhorn thats just from military academy things change even more.

as I said, civ is not about realism, more about math ... but dont underestimate something just because its "old" and not high-tech

in fact a old Messerschmitt has a higher chance to combat a Stealthbomber then a modern Jet, as modern airplanes rely much on their electronical detection while those old planes were just used by looking for the enemy with your eyes (and its easier to see a Stealthbomber while it is aproaching the area (lets say factory) you protect, then detecting it with Radar)

same goes with AA, old Flak Guns have a better chance to destroy a Stealthbomber then a Radar-Guided-Missle (which cant detect, so it wont even fire) ... with a flak you just put out some curtain fire and you gain a chance to damage the attacker

things arent allways black & white ... alot of times its grey :)

Who cares what a Bradley fighting vehicle would do one on one against a Sherman? This is not a tactical game where a unit is supposed to be one vehicle, these are division or corps sized units. A modern US mechanized infantry division would most certainly be able to handle a WW2 infantry division.

as I said this is realy much game related

even if you think about division size combats I believe a WW2-Tank div. would still have a solid chance of beating a modern Mech. Inf. div. (I believe you meant tanks when you said WW2 Infantry)

the statement It wouldn't even be a contest. just isnt true in my opinion

as I said, dont underestimate weapons because their are old, real world history has shown us that technically advanced forces dont automatically receive a victory (it migth be easier to win though).

It dosnt need much to kill or destroy something and todays high tech weapons dont do THAT much more harm compared to WW2, they just risk less life. (unless you count nuclear weapon arsenal of course)
miniaturisation is just another way to risk less life because you need to send less forces

Example: in WW2 if you wanted to destroy a building you had to send in a huge amount of bombers because some could be shot down or would not hit the target. High tech weapons are more precise and faster executed and only need 1 plane (if at all) because its almost sure to hit its target

both would eventually destroy the target, older weapons just risk more life and materials

the same goes for modern tanks, the difference between them and ww2 tanks are speed, precision, armor and range, which all are mechanism to reduce the risk of life and material.
The weapons itself is mainly the same, a big cannon. even if the modern one migth be more armor piercing, both will have about the same effect on a armored vehicle like a M6

This is about as realistic as a prop fighter aircraft shooting down a stealth bomber, as happens to me all the time.


B-2 bombers are pretty slow and not very maneuverable and could be intercepted by prop driven aircraft if detected.

A mechanized infantry division has plenty of anti-tank capabilities. Bradley IFVs have TOW missile launchers mounted on the turret, infantry units often carry MANPAT rockets.

That being said, Civ combat is not a wargame, it's a math game. Set up your promotions to suit the task at hand and give yourself the terrain advantage.

It dosnt need much to kill or destroy something and todays high tech weapons dont do THAT much more harm compared to WW2, they just risk less life.

What's your source for that? According to everything I've read (such as the How to Make War books), modern munitions do far, far more damage than WW2-era munitions. And in more interesting ways, like artillery shells that instantly spread a minefield when they hit. An M1-A1 firing up-to-date (1994) armor piercing ammunition can penetrate an estimated 750mm of armor at 2000 meters, while the dreaded 88 of WW2 fame (used on the Tiger) could only penetrate around 168mm at 2000 meters. That's not some tiny improvement, that's almost a fivefold increase. And this isn't obscure info, I just did a quick web search and found http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm and http://www.lonesentry.com/new88mm/index.html where I grabbed those numbers.

both would eventually destroy the target, older weapons just risk more life and materials

If it takes my army one bomb to do the job it takes yours 1000 to do, my army is 1000 times as destructive as yours. If we fight with those bombs, you will have killed .1% of my unit in the time I've wiped yours out. Accuracy and range are simply not ignorable when looking at destructive power.

Plus for some reason you're acting like destroying IFVs will destroy a mechanized division, when the infantry in those IFVs actually provide most of it's strength. WW2 era tanks are extremely vulnerable to modern infantry, they have much worse ability to see (especially at night) and much less shielding of vital components, plus modern infantry carry weapons far more effective against tanks than WW2-era infantry.

Glancing back at the thread, I should clarify that I think the civ combat numbers are fine for the units; mech inf are better overall but plain armor have a good chance against them. Neither modern mech inf nor WW2 armored units are going to be virtually invulnerable to the other. I thnk the OP just had bad promotions for the situation (city defender infantry fighting outside of cities) and the tanks had a bit of luck or pinch promotions to make up for it, or he missed some terrain advantage.

It would be nice to see Civilization lV at least improve in the army section of the game. For example, i had a helicopter which was attacking a pikeman but the helicopter was destroyed. If you ask me, this is almost an impossible thing for a pikeman to do. They seriously should focus on it. Just by 2 cents :p

i had a helicopter which was attacking a pikeman but the helicopter was destroyed. If you ask me, this is almost an impossible thing for a pikeman to do.

It depends on the promotions the pikemen have. They could have been anti-aircraft specialists. :rolleyes:

I'm all for the random-strange-things-happen aspect. It's helped me a lot of times. But some things are just plain impossible.

For example, i had a helicopter which was attacking a pikeman but the helicopter was destroyed. I

Was it a full strength helicopter attacking a pikeman in the open, or was it an already-damaged helicopter trying to dig pikemen out of a city? In real life, helicoptors can't operate anywhere near continuously, they take a huge amount of maintenance to keep going, so if you try to just have them operate without a break they'll eventually run down.

Was it a full strength helicopter attacking a pikeman in the open, or was it an already-damaged helicopter trying to dig pikemen out of a city? In real life, helicoptors can't operate anywhere near continuously, they take a huge amount of maintenance to keep going, so if you try to just have them operate without a break they'll eventually run down.

Lol. I know that this one is a new helicopter. If i ever send a used helicopter back out, i always ensure that it's at full strength. Unless it's an emergency.

No i don't think they have a "anti-aircraft" for pikemen. Hope they don't cause there is basically no such thing.

They just had really long pikes.

They just had really long pikes.

was going to say the same :lol:

in fact, helicopter can crash all by themselves.
They don't even need an opposing army.
I think there should be friendly fire damage in cIV (unique ability for the american army maybe?;) )

No i don't think they have a "anti-aircraft" for pikemen.
gunships are classified as land units in civ IV though.

In real life, helicoptors can't operate anywhere near continuously, they take a huge amount of maintenance to keep going, so if you try to just have them operate without a break they'll eventually run down.
the same can be said for spearmen, muskermen, infantry, workers, etc.

I think there should be friendly fire damage in cIV (unique ability for the american army maybe?;) )
I know you're just having fun, but that is certainly not unique to any country's armed forces.

B-2 bombers are pretty slow and not very maneuverable and could be intercepted by prop driven aircraft if detected.

lol, except for the fact that they fly at 50,000 feet and drop their bombs from there. No WW2 prop plan is going to reach those altitudes.

They just had really long pikes.

too heavy to carry... Anyways, it's stupid way to work the battle part of Civ 4.

lol, except for the fact that they fly at 50,000 feet and drop their bombs from there. No WW2 prop plan is going to reach those altitudes.

well, it's very much possible the pilot flyed too low, isn't it?
No military operation can be a "sure" thing.
The pilot can have a heart attack.
Some electronic device may be defective.

I like the fact that there are "spear defeats tank" odds. Low but not 0.

The key to effective combat in the modern period is combined arms. Tanks only can be chewed up by gunships. Infantry only are vulnerable to air units and tanks. SAM units only are vulnerable to everything except air units. But if you mix tanks with infantry with SAM units with gunships with mech infantry, then the AI will usually be deterred from attacking your stack in the open. When you arrive next to your target city, you bring out the artillery [and maybe bombers and fighters] to take down the cultural defense and then attack with your other units. The units you choose for the attack should be the appropriate counter to the units defending the city. If the AI has cleverly positioned a mixed force in the city [doesn't happen often], then you may need to soften up the defense with suicide artillery/cannon/catapult attacks before your other units attack.

Combined arms is the key to modern era combat. In this respect the Civ4 combat system is not as simplistic and unrealistic as it first seems.

well, it's very much possible the pilot flyed too low, isn't it?
No military operation can be a "sure" thing.
The pilot can have a heart attack.
Some electronic device may be defective.

I like the fact that there are "spear defeats tank" odds. Low but not 0.

There is no way for spearmen to defeat tanks in reality. Even if they managed to disable a tank, the crew is armed with rifles and submachine guns. Now they become an infantry force to deal with, and I dont think spears will hold up well against an M4 or an MP5.

There is no way for spearmen to defeat tanks in reality. Even if they managed to disable a tank, the crew is armed with rifles and submachine guns. Now they become an infantry force to deal with, and I dont think spears will hold up well against an M4 or an MP5.

Maybe the crew had bad hang-overs, and missed with there rifles and submachine guns, or worse... forgot to bring them.;)

In reality, guns are only deadly if the person or people using them have good aim, and hit the target. It's not gun against spear... it's man vs. man, and who happens to be more skilled with the weapon they are using. I would rather go against a man that is unskilled with a gun, than a man that is skilled with a knife.

Just my 2 cents...

When in the modern age, fighting against obsolete troops, I always just imagine that they've picked up things like pistols, weak arms that can be owned by your civilians and such, and have gotten off lucky shots with them. Even though the nation doesn't have the tech to produce your guns, I can see them being illegally smuggled into the backwards countries and sold for huge profit by your civilians, and I can then see those guns finding themselves in the hands of some of their troops, who have gotten lucky and gotten a good number on the RNG to beat you...

Just have a look at the situation in the real world. Are there any Spearmen Armies anymore? No! And the reason for this is proliferation of firearms such as M16, G3 and the AK47 of course. So even in poor countries without own development and construction capabilities, military has assault rifles, bazookas, light artillery, jet planes (some mig 21 sometimes) and so on. And in Vietnam and Somalia we all could see, that it is possible to beat a modern Army (USA). So what does this have to do with civ?

Civ is only a game. The player can feel some reality in it when he wants to, but that is all. So if you are creative enough, to find a reason, why a modern artillery would lose a fight against knights then its ok. If you cant imagine then dont complain, because it is a game only.

I would prefer to have two things added to the game:

1. Some kind of "rebel" unit for every type of unit. Rebel Aircraft, rebel artillery, rebel infantry, rebel jeeps(cavalry) and rebel boats. The stats of this units could be slightly lower then the respective modern/ww2 era units. And the rebel units cannot be regularly built.

2. A new modern world wonder, called "proliferation". It gives the owner some significant commerce bonus and enables every civ on the planet to cheaply upgrade their obsolete units to the new rebel types.

gunships are classified as land units in civ IV though.


Rofl...lets try this again folks..

Gunships are classified as Cavalry units which Pikemen are designed to defeat. Against this Gunship, a pikeman will have a base strength of 12 along with any terrain defences and promotions it received. So, if a green Gunship attacked a green (excluding promotions) pikeman fortified for 5 turns inside a city with a 85% bonus atop a hill, you could expect the pikeman's strength against the gunship to be roughly 20.5. But anyways, what game where you haven't already won would there be an AI sending pikeman against your gunships?

Back onto topic...

I really don't see the problem..units which have combat experience and are grizzled veterans of warfare or highly trained are always more deadly in combat than green units which are fresh off the line. Your mech. infantry may of had the advantage in technology, but, the natural counter that tanks apply towards them and their combat experience (as represented in their promotions) would naturally beat them in even a real-world situation where tactical and strategical superiority (as represented by Pinch or any other of the unit counters) can circumvent even the best technology.

Maybe the crew had bad hang-overs, and missed with there rifles and submachine guns, or worse... forgot to bring them.;)

In reality, guns are only deadly if the person or people using them have good aim, and hit the target. It's not gun against spear... it's man vs. man, and who happens to be more skilled with the weapon they are using. I would rather go against a man that is unskilled with a gun, than a man that is skilled with a knife.

Just my 2 cents...

I was an armor crewman in the army. I'm qualified expert with 9mm and .45 pistols, and sharpshooter with M16. Every tanker has to qualify with their personal weapon (pistol), and at least one person on the crew qualifies with the M16 as well.

The big gun on the front is not the only weapon on a modern tank (or even on older tanks). There is also a coaxial machine gun mounted next to the main gun which can fire where ever the main gun is pointed, a .50 caliber machine gun in front of the tank commander's cupula, and another machine gun in the loader's hatch, which can be swiveled to fire at various angles.

Trust me when I tell you, a bunch of spearmen wouldnt get close enough to even scratch the paint on a modern tank.

Trust me when I tell you, a bunch of spearmen wouldnt get close enough to even scratch the paint on a modern tank.
they could get close enough if they dropped from the trees, i still doubt they could actually manage to scratch the paint though.
yesterday, my catapults killed longbowmen at 6% and 1.8%, if i lose a panzer to a spearman, i can't complain.

Quechua>tank :lol:

Great talk about warfare tough, I remember attending a UN talk about US army using depleted uranium on their tank armor-piercing bullets. The heavier the bullet, the longer it can travel and the deeper it can hit into the enemy vehicle armor. Basically, the heavier, the deadlier.

You're talking about the APFSDS round, the Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilising Discarding-Sabot round that comes in either tungsten of depleted uranium flavours. It's not so much the weight though, it's the sheer velocity of such a round concentrated into a small area - kinda like a giant needle-gun

Trust me when I tell you, a bunch of spearmen wouldnt get close enough to even scratch the paint on a modern tank.

So you guys never slept, could never fall into any kind of pit trap, never threw a track, never took a day off over a months-long campaign, and did all this without ever pausing to rest and refit? Most of a tank unit will be out of service if you were to just try to drive straight across Europe with no opposition, fighting (even against primitives) over the same area, especially in nasty terrain, is going to wear your tanks down.

Civ combat is highly abstract and long-term, and people losing a tank to a spearman are either having a freak accident that doesn't occur even once per game or are actually losing because they ordered a partial strength tank unit with tanks in dire need of repair and tired crews to attack dug-in units in bad terrain with no air or artillery support and insufficient scouting.

i agree that the tank vs. spear argument is largely pointless because if you've got tanks and your neighbor has spears, you can lose that tank and still crush him. i also agree that a freak accident could allow a unit of spears to take out a tank. but a spear unit taking out an entire an armored division. no. just no. i like it in the game, but it just couldn't happen.

You're talking about the APFSDS round, the Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilising Discarding-Sabot round that comes in either tungsten of depleted uranium flavours. It's not so much the weight though, it's the sheer velocity of such a round concentrated into a small area - kinda like a giant needle-gun

opps, yea, it is the density that matters, depleted uranium is very dense.

Goes through armour-plating like a hot knife through butter, unless said armour happens to consist of depleted uranium itself.

BTW the spearman vs. tank debate has been done to death throughout Civilizations 1-4, and as long as there's a mathematical chance of the spearman beating the tank it will continue to rage. Firaxis have done a much better job of addressing the issue in Civilization 4, and if you still insist on ordering injured tanks into battle against weaker but full-health, dug-in units, I say you're asking to be taught a lesson in tactics.

Why can't there be technological age modifier incorporated in the battle engine. I'd envision it like this: X2 multiplier for the first age diference with plus one per each additional age of difference. Spearman (ancient age) vs. tank (industrial age) yields a net modoifer of X3.

An M1-A1 firing up-to-date (1994) armor piercing ammunition can penetrate an estimated 750mm of armor at 2000 meters, while the dreaded 88 of WW2 fame (used on the Tiger) could only penetrate around 168mm at 2000 meters.

I was away for a few days so I didnt see the reply.
The point I was trying to submit was, it dosnt matter if your todays gun can go though 750mm or 170mm ... both would destroy a armored vehicle

some analogy: its like throwing a 1000 and 10000 pound bomb on a VW Bettle, you could argue your 10000p bomb did more damage ... but in the end it dosnt matter :p


If it takes my army one bomb to do the job it takes yours 1000 to do, my army is 1000 times as destructive as yours. If we fight with those bombs, you will have killed .1% of my unit in the time I've wiped yours out. Accuracy and range are simply not ignorable when looking at destructive power..

yeah I can see my analogy wasnt chosen as I intended and I ofcourse agree that if you need x less attackers to win your army could be considered y times as powerful

Plus for some reason you're acting like destroying IFVs will destroy a mechanized division, when the infantry in those IFVs actually provide most of it's strength. WW2 era tanks are extremely vulnerable to modern infantry, they have much worse ability to see (especially at night) and much less shielding of vital components, plus modern infantry carry weapons far more effective against tanks than WW2-era infantry.

Of course if the chance of a modern mech Inf. higher to survive and win such a figth, I just didnt agree with the statement "it would even be a contest" for above given reasons.
After I got me some more Information on how modern mech inf works and I have to admit, I would consider their chance higher then before now, however that dosnt mean I would agree with given statement about them being cannon fodder.
About your argument about the Infantry without their vehicles, I would consider them highly immobile, so in a modern mobile war, you could almost call them a loss.

Anybody missing TOW infantry? Specialist anti-tank killers for a fraction of the price of Mech. Infantry.

Hey, we've got SAM dudes to knock air units out of the sky, I'd figure some TOW people wouldn't go amiss.

nice thread i must admit it....but what realy annoys me is that a warrior with copper axe can take on a modern tank regardless how beat up it is ... is strange. (happend to me this morning) ....

What realy puzzles me, why would a spearmen charge on to cullom of tanks? that are moving 40 miles an hour and crushing everything on there path ? who would be that crazy ? seriously who ?