I'm kinda bummed here. There a Uber strong dragon, and when you do happen to kill it.. You don't get anything. What gives!! I mean That's one heck of a feat to actually be able to defeat it. And then, I got this big empty feeling when i accomplished it and nothing special happened. :confused: :sad:

A barbarion red dragon? If you defeat it with an inquisitor there is a change it will be yours. If you 'just' defeat it, you can takethe city with the dragon hoard, that gives you 1 iron, 1 mithril, 1 gems, loads of culture and happines. if you dont want the city raze it and you can take the dragon with you to a city of your own. But watch the rivals, a dragonhoard is something everyone wants.

But i agree, there are not enough ways of capturing that dragon.


Sorry just saw it was in the age of ice forum, dont know that. wait for other comments

Yeah. It's ok. The Red Dragon is nothing compared to the Dragon in the AOI. 80 STR!!

Using barrage or what ever it is called, I killed him losing only 2 archers. Course I built my 2nd and 3rd cities on the hills blocking the area in so I had cultural defense, city defender etc bonus and hill bonuses. TBH it seemed kinda easy to kill the dragon considering how many bonuses you get for defense and how much you could weaken him with the barrage ability.

You're not actually meant to kill the dragon, that's why it's so powerful and there is no 'reward' for killing it.

However, if you must kill it, use barrage as mentioned above, perhaps some catapults, and send in an assassin or two to finish the job.

I killed it ussing three assasins with shock II that had 10XP at thier build time due to civic choice. The Blue Dragon is way to easy.

The problem is that it is a melee unit (I'm not sure why, but I guess that Kael didn't want to implement the Beast and Arcane unit classes if they would each contain only one unit)

The point of the dragon is really to put the pressure on to find and kill Mulcarn so you don't have to fight her at all.

The "problem", if you will, is that the combat system of Civ4 favours neither quantity nor quality, but a balance. Fighting the dragon is like the spear-tank problem, not a "problem", but a statistical inevitability from the damage system. Before someone cries "nerf", I really hope someone has the programming knowledge and CPU processing power to process combat odds between stacks.

I never really saw a problem with the spearman thing. The spearman somehow manages to hop on the tank, open the hatch, and stab around the hole with his long pointy stick. When the crew is dead, no more tank.

I never really saw a problem with the spearman thing. The spearman somehow manages to hop on the tank, open the hatch, and stab around the hole with his long pointy stick. When the crew is dead, no more tank.

the thing is, a spearman is not equipped to survive a machinegun fire from a tank :) otherwise you always would have to see it as a kind of surprise guerilla attack, where the tank didnt know about the spearmen. but then, a normal tank goes not alone, but has recon units with him. but whatever :)

It could be a parachute spearman. Or lots and lots and lots of them. One is bound to make it.

Spear-tank is a term specific to the Civ series, don't go arguing whether that should happen in real life or not. I'm using the term to describe the strength relationship between the dragon and units you can build.

I'm really not sure why the mod made the dragon kill-able, rather than simply making it indestructable, or 999 strength. Likewise, why give Mulcarn 5 strength at all? The player could "beat" the game and then lose the final battle easily, as 15 versus 5 is no sure thing. Which I'm sure was not intended.

It could be a parachute spearman. Or lots and lots and lots of them. One is bound to make it.

Like monkeys working as typewriters? One will eventually write a publishable novel?
In real life the results are mainly ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss or broken keyboards

No, but seriously. If you have enough guys running at a tank, the tank couldn't possibly take them all down. And if one (or a few) did make, they could, in theory, kill the crew, i.e. kill the tank.

I know it's really a Civ (1 and 2) specific term, but it is an interesting idea.

As for your second point, Sylvan, I'm fairly sure there was a design reason, but I cannot remember what it was right now. Long time and all that:D

But the units resemble groups of tanks also. If they go to a hedgehog formation their machine guns can cover all terrain around them with their fire so no spearman of tens or thousands can make it to the tanks.

i think thats the point, a spearman should not get a "bonus" against a tank :)

Well, if the spearman is fortified, that implies he has had time to dig a trench, lay traps and all that jazz. And generally, a spearman won't beat a tank unless it is VERY wounded already, or is busy attacking a large stack of fortified units.

Umm Try A Single Tank Miraculously Low And Bullets, Shells, And Gas.....and Like 8000 Fearless Spartans With Long Sticks.

That would mean that the tank has 0.0001 hp left
What if the crew locks the hatches so they can't get them, as spears are useless against the heavy armour?

Round here, we have a plenty of WW2 partisan stories, how they charged on tanks and covered them with blankets(!) So they couldn't aim. :p

if the tank can not aim it does not mean that the tank is defeated, just stalled. The question remains how a bunch of spearman can open a steel tank door and get inside to overcome the crew in melee. The question remains also how only 1 spearman even when he opens the entry can kill a 4 man crew.Numbers dont matter as only one man fits into the door at a time.

No, the heroic partisans of WW2 all used grenades and mines to stop the advancing tanks, but not bronze spears ...

if the tank can not aim it does not mean that the tank is defeated, just stalled. The question remains how a bunch of spearman can open a steel tank door and get inside to overcome the crew in melee. The question remains also how only 1 spearman even when he opens the entry can kill a 4 man crew.Numbers dont matter as only one man fits into the door at a time.

If the tank can't aim, spears can surround the tank and wait a quite short time (several hours is enough) for the crew to come out. What would the crew eat inside the tank, grenades?

If the tank can't aim, spears can surround the tank and wait a quite short time (several hours is enough) for the crew to come out. What would the crew eat inside the tank, grenades?
They could start the engine and drive away and/or run over the Spearmen (surely some of the would be sleeping at some point)?

Or just sit tight and wait for some more allied troops with fresh ammunition supplies to arrive and make short work of the Spearmen. Spearman can only carry so many Blankets around - so the reinforcements should be safe. ;)

Btw, if the Spearmen are as clever as suggested then wouldn't they start a fire under the tank (or something) rather than just waiting around? :mischief:

...

Anyway, you could no doubt come up with an endless number of far out 'what if's, but in reality then the core of the problem is that the chance of something like that resulting in the inferior part comming out on top is a LOT higher in Civ than it ought to be.

I for one wouldn't mind a revamp of the combat mechanics to at least reduce the more ridiculous combat outcomes.

One way to accomplish this might be to add a minimum damage stat to each unit, so that if a unit doesn't deal an amount of dmg pr round that at least match the minimum damage stat of the opposing unit then it will do no dmg at all that round.

Of course, a mechanisms to emulate fattigue would probably need to be added as well to allow hordes of inferior units to take down a strong one ... eventually.
Ie. for each combat a unit had been in each turn (attack or defense) the minimum damage of that unit would reduce slightly only to restore fully - or partially - on the next turn(or by means of other restoring effects ... spells, skills etc.).

...

Thanks for this thread (even if it was hijacked) - it has been a while since I last engaged in a debate on this subject :)

if the tank can not aim it does not mean that the tank is defeated, just stalled. The question remains how a bunch of spearman can open a steel tank door and get inside to overcome the crew in melee. The question remains also how only 1 spearman even when he opens the entry can kill a 4 man crew.Numbers dont matter as only one man fits into the door at a time.

No, the heroic partisans of WW2 all used grenades and mines to stop the advancing tanks, but not bronze spears ...

But those 'spearmen' in modern times clearly have mines and grenades.

Each unit, even a spearman, has a maintenance cost, usually one/turn. Even if it is being paid by a city and not the national treasury, it is being paid.

There is no way that the spears are costing 1/turn. I view them as poorly trained and armed troops, but at a cost of 1/turn, they can easily afford basic modern weapons.

Best wishes,

Breunor

Tanks have machine guns, try out waiting them.

But those 'spearmen' in modern times clearly have mines and grenades.

Each unit, even a spearman, has a maintenance cost, usually one/turn. Even if it is being paid by a city and not the national treasury, it is being paid.

There is no way that the spears are costing 1/turn. I view them as poorly trained and armed troops, but at a cost of 1/turn, they can easily afford basic modern weapons.

Best wishes,

Breunor

I always hated this argument.

Now look, if they are using anything but Spears then they are clearly an upgraded unit and would be called something other than Spearmen - and have different strengths as well (Partisans or whatever).

Oh and btw, the 1 gold cost pr turn is of course not for the weapons they are wielding - be it clubs, swords, spears, pikes, muskets, rifles etc. - it is to pay the men that are wielding those weapons.

I always hated this argument.

Now look, if they are using anything but Spears then they are clearly an upgraded unit and would be called something other than Spearmen - and have different strengths as well (Partisans or whatever).

Oh and btw, the 1 gold cost pr turn is of course not for the weapons they are wielding - be it clubs, swords, spears, pikes, muskets, rifles etc. - it is to pay the men that are wielding those weapons.



I don't see what's so bad about the arguement. Especially in more modern times, there are always troops that aren't quite "up to standard" as the field line troops that the nation employs. Going to the WW2 example, the Volksturrm (sp?) militias were nowhere near as good as the regular German troops, even though they had the same sort of equiptment. The Soviet army, at that point, also had wildly differing levels of quality for their new trainees, likely stemming from a large number of local factors.

Bottom line, is that once more advanced weapons like guns come out, nobody really uses swords in serious battle anymore, however, there are many instances of "second line" or "garrison" troops existing, sometimes existing in very large numbers, and not having the same effectiveness as the "new" army regulars. It strikes me as very clean and neat that that would be the Civ system of handling old units that never got upgraded.

I always hated this argument.

Now look, if they are using anything but Spears then they are clearly an upgraded unit and would be called something other than Spearmen - and have different strengths as well (Partisans or whatever).

Oh and btw, the 1 gold cost pr turn is of course not for the weapons they are wielding - be it clubs, swords, spears, pikes, muskets, rifles etc. - it is to pay the men that are wielding those weapons.

A government would NOT pay 1 Gp for the men to wield clubs and spears. Yes, I feel that they are upgraded units, the paying of the 1 GP turn turns them into upgraded units regardless of the icon. I view that they aren't spearmen regardless of the name in the title bar.

As you say, if the money is being paid to the soldiers in the unit, why not then at least buy simple weapons that are very cheap but still effective? So, you think it is more logical that a modern government is spending that kind of money on the soldiers and then outfit them with totally obsolete weapons, when they can afford to outfit them with very simple explosives for the same kind of money once they have paid for the troops anyway?

So, the Finns invented 'Molotov Cocktails' to take out Soviet tanks, mostly with explosives that are available very inexpensively. They needed to pay for the troops (in this case the funds were barely available, but you know what I mean), the soldiers themselves scraped together reasonably effective weapons.

Does it really matter that the ICON of the unit looks like a spearman? I've always viewed Civ as a game where the idea was use of resources. If you are going to pay money to outfit an army, then that army will get better weaponry as it becomes available. Remember that these clearly aren't the same people who wielded the spears when the unit was build 3000 years ago.

Sure, it may be better if they changed the icons and all old spearmen become modern third rate troops, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the logic of resource payment merely because of the icon on the unit. They also should change their unit type affiliation. However, I also recognize also that in game designer land, it may not be worth the trouble of building the new icons and rules to support it. You just have to imagine that the units are different, just like you have to recognize that spearmen do not live for 3000 years.

Obviously, if they are really using spears, they are totally useless, and they should be useless for all purposes. They then shouldn't count for happiness in a city, since many of the citizens have handguns anyway. Therefore, the only option for 'Real' spearman is to disband them because no government will pay that much money to field a spearman. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this interpretation, except that it isn't what happens in the game. If the unit is really armed with bronze armor and spears, why do they count for happiness -- they would be useless even next to a second rate police force?

I think we give the designers the benefit of the doubt. The units aren't useless in the game, so the most logical explanation is that they represent something that is not useless. They are weak, so they represent something that is weak. They cost money, so they represent a government making logical expenditures for that money, not that a government in 1945 is paying 1 GP/turn for soldiers to be in the army wielding spears, and then we say the game is wrong because the stupid government that does pay the 1 gp/turn should get useless troops for it.

If the designers said that the strength of these units were effectively 0, they did not count for happiness or any other effective total, I would agree that they really are armed with spears, and then players would simply disband them (why not?). Since this isn't the case, I don't find the argument compelling regardless of the icon placed on the unit or its name in the title bar.

Best wishes,

Breunor

The Vatican guards are still being paid despite only wielding Renaissance type weapons (just to name one extreme example).

I might be fine with Spearmen wielding Molotov Cocktails that give them a chance against Tanks (or whatever) ... as long as they in fact have the Molotov Cocktail promotion. :p

No I am sorry, nothing new has been argued here and there is simply no logic in any of these aging arguments. Believeable fiction is all about Suspension of Disbelief and Spearmen beating Tanks simply doesn't accomplish that.

Do the Vatican guards

a. Fight?


b. keep order in their section of Rome?

Since I am reasonably sure that the answer to both of those questions is "no" then they would not really count as an actual military/police unit. Indeed, more than anything else they would probably be represented by a part of the culture in Rome.

And I want to focus on that word "represent". Civ is an abstraction of history, it isn't meant to amagalmate all of human history in a totall realistic manner. Otherwise, I could ask a whole slew of completely unanswerable questions, like "If it's 2000 BC, and each turn is about 20-40 years, how do I have trade when it would take my warriors a century to go from A to B?" Indeed, all of war is really an abstraction if you view it like that. I challenge you to find one siege that lasted 100 years, which is not at all that uncommon for my civ games.

Compared to these, it is very easy to believe, and to assume, that an old unit of spearmen still runing around in the 20th century is representing some backwards militia somewhere, and if it beat an armored unit well..... you've seen enough movies about backwards militias prevailing against ridiculous odds. It's somewhat believeable.

Do the Vatican guards

a. Fight?


b. keep order in their section of Rome?
Completely besides the point (and you know it). They are still being paid.


Compared to these, it is very easy to believe, and to assume, that an old unit of spearmen still runing around in the 20th century is representing some backwards militia somewhere, and if it beat an armored unit well..... you've seen enough movies about backwards militias prevailing against ridiculous odds. It's somewhat believeable.
So if you invade the Incas with tanks in 2000th century and they are still only up to having Spearman (being backwards) then you find it perfectly believeable that they magically get equipped with rocketlaunchers and molotov cokctails and defeat your tanks even if they don't have any such tech ( I am expecting you to reply that they stole it from you - including the manualos telling them how to operate such 'magic ... and a tutor to help them read it).

A unit in Civ never represented the same people living for 100s or 1000s of years, but a regiment that of course are getting troops renewed periodically (which also explains 'healing' to an acceptable degree).

Regiments of Spearmen still running around in an empire when the empire clearly have technology to support superior troops is a sign of poor leadership. It certainly shouldn't be rewarded to display such poor leadership by assuming that these regiments are now also making use of any improved weaponry that the feeble ruler have failed to officially equip them with.

Completely besides the point (and you know it). They are still being paid.



I fail to see how...... Cities cost maintenance, and part of that is the public maintaining of museums, old traditions, archaic structures, and the like. Paying a bunch of people to stand around and show off how things were in the olden days, would fit right into it, along with the real world expense of cleaning all those ancient roman buildings.



So if you invade the Incas with tanks in 2000th century and they are still only up to having Spearman (being backwards) then you find it perfectly believeable that they magically get equipped with rocketlaunchers and molotov cokctails and defeat your tanks even if they don't have any such tech ( I am expecting you to reply that they stole it from you - including the manualos telling them how to operate such 'magic ... and a tutor to help them read it).





I have yet to *Ever* see this happen in Civ. I doubt it ever will either, outside of using the worldbuilder. And it's off the topic anyway, since we're discussing what a troop that was not upgraded qhen the technology was available represented. As for the hypothetical victory, say a unit of Panzer V's (Panther tanks from WW2) which were notorious for breaking down on their own, just happened to fall apart on their own. It's about as likely as a person never having gotten past hunting and Bronze working by the twentieth century.


A unit in Civ never represented the same people living for 100s or 1000s of years, but a regiment that of course are getting troops renewed periodically (which also explains 'healing' to an acceptable degree).


Yes, because they are still renewing regiments from my army that has been besieging their city for the past 100 years. Real wars never last that long. And if they really are beign replaced *every* single turn, as they would have to be in the early part of the game where a turn is 20 years, then one would think that they would get better stuff before heading out. Besides, real advances on the front take in the time frame of days/weeks/months. Even the 1 year a turn by the latest parts of the game exhibits some weirdness. How exactly does WW2 work then? The Axis advance grabbed almost all of europe in 3 turns, only to have it all reversed in 3 more?


Regiments of Spearmen still running around in an empire when the empire clearly have technology to support superior troops is a sign of poor leadership. It certainly shouldn't be rewarded to display such poor leadership by assuming that these regiments are now also making use of any improved weaponry that the feeble ruler have failed to officially equip them with.


Is a completely irrelevant statement if you follow my line of reasoning. Once again, I maintain that these old spearmen and swordsmen and the like represent garrison and second line troops, who, while having more modern equiptment, are not equipped or trained up to the same capacity of front line troops. Civilization is *not* a wargame, and it's inclusion of everything else about human society is what makes it so great. But with breadth, one must sacrifice some depth, or else the game becomes insanely complex and simply a re-iteration of history. Warfare is only supposed to abstract a microcosm, granted a fairly important one, of human politics. There are many other, much more glaring instances where they skip over historical subtleties in order to present a playable game. This is one of them.

I fail to see how...... Cities cost maintenance, and part of that is the public maintaining of museums, old traditions, archaic structures, and the like. Paying a bunch of people to stand around and show off how things were in the olden days, would fit right into it, along with the real world expense of cleaning all those ancient roman buildings.
...

I have yet to *Ever* see this happen in Civ. I doubt it ever will either, outside of using the worldbuilder. And it's off the topic anyway, since we're discussing what a troop that was not upgraded qhen the technology was available represented. As for the hypothetical victory, say a unit of Panzer V's (Panther tanks from WW2) which were notorious for breaking down on their own, just happened to fall apart on their own. It's about as likely as a person never having gotten past hunting and Bronze working by the twentieth century.
Well, I have - but then I play a mod that allows for situations like that (no, it isn't forced backwardedness or unfair dis-/advantages)

There are still tribes using Stone Age technology left in the real world you know. Very few admitedly, but still.

Anyway, you were the one talking about Spearmen suddenly being equipped with Molotov Cocktails - you don't get to wiggle your way out that one so easily :p


Yes, because they are still renewing regiments from my army that has been besieging their city for the past 100 years. Real wars never last that long. And if they really are beign replaced *every* single turn, as they would have to be in the early part of the game where a turn is 20 years, then one would think that they would get better stuff before heading out. Besides, real advances on the front take in the time frame of days/weeks/months. Even the 1 year a turn by the latest parts of the game exhibits some weirdness. How exactly does WW2 work then? The Axis advance grabbed almost all of europe in 3 turns, only to have it all reversed in 3 more?
Well, you are talking out of the limitations of the game genre(which my mod reduces also btw), but it still doesn't justify spears beating tanks.

Is a completely irrelevant statement if you follow my line of reasoning. Once again, I maintain that these old spearmen and swordsmen and the like represent garrison and second line troops, who, while having more modern equiptment, are not equipped or trained up to the same capacity of front line troops. Civilization is *not* a wargame, and it's inclusion of everything else about human society is what makes it so great. But with breadth, one must sacrifice some depth, or else the game becomes insanely complex and simply a re-iteration of history. Warfare is only supposed to abstract a microcosm, granted a fairly important one, of human politics. There are many other, much more glaring instances where they skip over historical subtleties in order to present a playable game. This is one of them.
So your ancient swordmen that are by your words using modern equipment are no better than the Incas spanking new swordsmen using regular old style swords?

---

You guys keep capitulating to the status quo rather than looking ahead and thinking up better ways to do things. Of course this debate always ended like this, but I think this is my last post in this 'trench war' for now.

Btw, the thread was originally about feeble fantasy units beating a mega strong dragon - did they suddenly have molotov cocktails also? :lol:

[QUOTE=CyberChrist;6448342]Completely besides the point (and you know it). They are still being paid.



Still being paid? The cost of the Vatican Guard is NOTHING like a real military unit. It is a police force at best, I doubt it even costs what the police cost in any major city. The military units in CIV do NOT represent the cost of the police which are clearly in the cost of city maintenance.

Do you think the Vatican outfits and pays for the Vatican guards with the weapons it does and the uniforms it has for military reasons? They are a police force.

My assumption is that when a power in CIV is paying 1 GP/turn, it is using the most 'efficient' (efficient in the grand scale, including the inherant inefficiency in any government systems) that it can. This unit would have FAR more efficiency than spearmen and since the game represents this power, don't you think this is what the designers meant?

I'm pretty sure I read that the US navy technically still had the 18th century Constitution commissioned recently -- do you think it did so for military efficiency?

As far as spearmen against dragons, here people can pretty much assume anything, since there is no data one way or the other.

Best wishes,

Breunor

Lets start with the end first, as it pertains to the original subject of the thread


...

Btw, the thread was originally about feeble fantasy units beating a mega strong dragon - did they suddenly have molotov cocktails also? :lol:

Bard The bowman.........


There are still tribes using Stone Age technology left in the real world you know. Very few admitedly, but still.




Yes, and when one of them supports a standing army that defeats a modern one in the field, the example will be relevant.



Well, you are talking out of the limitations of the game genre(which my mod reduces also btw), but it still doesn't justify spears beating tanks.


Because for the last time, I am *not* saying that spears beat tanks......


So your ancient swordmen that are by your words using modern equipment are no better than the Incas spanking new swordsmen using regular old style swords?


Maybe not completely even, since the held over unit would likely have a few upgrades, but I think that a backwards, gun toting militia made with antique (relative to what the "real army" has, and composed of whatever the home guards are usually made of (old men, young boys, people who were unfit for military service due to physical infirmity) weilding guns, but without much in the way of marksmanship or tactical sense would *not* beat an ancient army 100% of the time

You guys keep capitulating to the status quo rather than looking ahead and thinking up better ways to do things. Of course this debate always ended like this, but I think this is my last post in this 'trench war' for now.


Which of course, is why we make suggestions in *other* threads as to how to make Civ more realistic.....

As far as spearmen against dragons, here people can pretty much assume anything, since there is no data one way or the other.
No I disagree, that is why we have Lore. I for one want believe in the battles between believeable units (believeable within the framework of the world they exist in) and I will never surrender to 'dude, it is just numbers vs numbers' ideology/point of view.

Regading the Vatican guard then you are both clearly determined to not want to see my point. Oh well.

Regading the Vatican guard then you are both clearly determined to not want to see my point. Oh well.



What point? They are a ceremonial piece of fluff. They serve no military or police value. (although after 1981 they were issued handguns following the assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II) Their entire existance as a "unit" is as a monument to ye oldene days. They are simply part of the city maintenance, which would, according to all common sense, cover such things.

Their maintenance isn't that much anyhoo, considering there are all of 134 of them. You have cited not a shred of evidence that they appear in any role other than a ceremonial one, and have not offered *any* reason, aside from that they are an organized group of people with weapons, that they should be considered a military unit and not part of the city's culture production, and thus subject to city maintenance like everything else.

Bard The bowman.........
Sigh! Yes, I understand how it was done, but that was not the point (are you missing them deliberately?). The question was SHOULD they even be able to kill that dragon in the first place like that?

Yes, and when one of them supports a standing army that defeats a modern one in the field, the example will be relevant.
Heh, well that is just my point ... it will never happen! ... and not just because there are few of them left, but because they simply doesn't have the tools to do it with.

Because for the last time, I am *not* saying that spears beat tanks......
Not sure why you are arguing against my points then.

Maybe not completely even, since the held over unit would likely have a few upgrades, but I think that a backwards, gun toting militia made with antique (relative to what the "real army" has, and composed of whatever the home guards are usually made of (old men, young boys, people who were unfit for military service due to physical infirmity) weilding guns, but without much in the way of marksmanship or tactical sense would *not* beat an ancient army 100% of the time
Were did the militia come from? We were talking about Swordmen :p

A <enter unit name> is a <enter same unit name> until upgraded to a more advanced unit - even if this is merely a graphical and name change from Era advancement it HAS to change to make sense about any change in tactics/equipments used. Failing that and it is no more believeable than an actor that plays the kings fool in act 1, a gardener in act 2 and a general in act3 - but never changing his outfit from act 1 along the way.

No I disagree, that is why we have Lore. I for one want believe in the battles between believeable units (believeable within the framework of the world they exist in) and I will never surrender to 'dude, it is just numbers vs numbers' ideology/point of view.

Regarding the Vatican guard then you are both clearly determined to not want to see my point. Oh well.

As far as dragons and spearmen, fine, I'm not arguing and never intended to argue this point, I only want what makes the best game.



But as far as the Vatican Guard, saying that I don't see your point is probably true. I think the Vatican guard has little to do with the argument. Here is what I see.

You said you HATE my argument about what a spearman represents in modern times.

You said you HATED the argument that a unit that is represented by a spearman can kill a tank. I pointed out why it can happen and the realistic reasons it can be justified. I pointed out that my argument was consistent with the game and may well represent the ideas of the game designer, and that if a logical argument can back the game the designer should be given the benefit of the doubt. My argument is that a country trying to field a real military paying 1 bp/turn and desiring to field such a unit would have real combat power, and I think the game's representation is reasonable.

The fact that one nation pays a ceremonial guard does not change that, nor does the fact that civil war reenact ors pay a lot of money for 19th century equipment, or that the SCA buys obsolete weapons for entertainment that aren't meant to be used for modern warfare. The argument you HATE has nothing to do with one country paying for ceremonial arms.

When I have a country in 1945 in Civ, and I pay 1 bp/turn to field it, I think it is REALISTIC that the unit can kill a tank under suitable circumstances and that the game is more realistic that it can. I think this is true for just about any other country paying that cost. Obviously, spearmen cannot, so I view the unit as not wielding spears but used the organization of the older unit which has been given some cheap modern arms worth the cost.

So, should the design of the game for paying 1 bp/turn be based on what that can buy, or should it be based on a ceremonial unit that is not intended to ever have any purpose but ceremony and possibly minor police duty in one place in the world? That they represent the Vatican guard and not the Volkstrum or similar such units, the Home Guard organized in the UK in WWII? I think that game design should be based on what people do use with that kind of money and they would, indeed, do what the Germans did with the Volkstrum or the UK did with the Home Guard, the South Vienamese fielded in the 70's.

In your first post, I thought we were on the same page. You said that if they fielded modern weapons they weren't spearman, they are partisans or the like. I agree. I thought the difference was that I didn't worry about what they are CALLED or what their ICON is, I worry about what is the effectiveness of the expenditure on the unit and what is realistic. You said you HATED this. I agreed that ideally they should change the name and icon, but I don't think that is important. So I thought we were in virtual agreement. But when you bring up this stuff about the Vatican Guard, I really don't get it. Its not that I'm determined not to get it, I don't think it makes any sense for Civ to be based on this instead of real life military units that have been fielded in times of real conflict.


Best wishes,

Breunor

Spearmen in the Modern Era = Vatican guards in the real world. They should be useless for anything but ceremonial duty unless properly upgraded - at the very least with heavy MODERN promotions. However, ceremonial or not they are STILL getting paid and any debate about where this expense should be placed in the budget is totally besides the point.

I am sorry that you can't comprehend why it is illogical that a Speaman(ie.) from a backwards and techonologically inferior civilization is JUST as effective/ineffective at defending against a Tank(ie.) as a Spearman(ie.) from technoloigcally superior civilization .... UNLESS we accept the fact that a Spearman(ie.) is JUST a Spearman(ie.) and NOTHING else.

Spearmen in the Modern Era = Vatican guards in the real world. They should be useless for anything but ceremonial duty unless properly upgraded - at the very least with heavy MODERN promotions. However, ceremonial or not they are STILL getting paid and any debate about where this expense should be placed in the budget is totally besides the point.

I am sorry that you can't comprehend why it is illogical that a Speaman(ie.) from a backwards and techonologically inferior civilization is JUST as effective/ineffective at defending against a Tank(ie.) as a Spearman(ie.) from technoloigcally superior civilization .... UNLESS we accept the fact that a Spearman(ie.) is JUST a Spearman(ie.) and NOTHING else.

I'd also note that part of the unit maintenance cost would be feeding and supplying said troops. There are more costs to fielding an army than just paying them after all and many of those costs still apply in garrison. It's called logistics and every military has a dedicated arm just for that purpose. Also, for he who thinks military units get paid significantly more than Vatican Guards/police, you are very wrong my friend. Police officers make more at entry level than many soldiers with years of experience. My friend just joined a local department and he is making significantly more now at entry level than when I got out of the military after 5 years of service.

I also believe that no matter how you cut it, a spearmen is just a spearmen with no extras. That's exactly what upgrading the unit represents. Until the game has a mechanic to have units automatically upgrade themselves based on your available technologies, we are stuck with having to pay for each upgrade, which represents purchasing weapons and equipment and supplying them to that unit only. If you can't afford to upgrade your other units, then they still have what they always had and I simply refuse to assume they happened to get better equipment just because another unit has it. For the record, the United States is constantly upgrading it's military, and it takes quite a long time for the newest equipment to reach it's troops stationed overseas in Germany for example. In fact, I trained on weapons that my unit in Germany didn't receive until shortly before I was discharged from active duty. That took years my friend. Your theory that because those weapons exist and are available to a nation so all of their units should have them simply doesn't hold water in real life nor in game terms where this is represented by upgrading the units.

I'd also like to ask how many of you served in armor units in any military branch and worked with tanks? I have, for several years, and not just tanks but other armored vehicles as well. I'm very familiar with their strengths and weaknesses, and I'd even challenge you to gather up all your buddies and show up at a local national guard unit and demonstrate how you and your spears could defeat a tank crew. At worst, you'd probably have a fun day and get an education.

There really is no way short of digging a GIANT hole in the ground and hoping that vehicle drives into it for any primitive people/unit to defeat one of these things. Beyond that it's simply not possible. I refuse to accept that they are using modern tools/weaponry in game terms because that's what upgrading represents.

You can't get into one when they lock you out. You can't starve them out when they have rations inside unless the tank is incapable of moving. Blankets will only slow them down. You're also assuming someone could get on the tank in the first place to place said blankets over ALL the places you can see out of one, which though possible, isn't likely for primitive people who do not have tanks themselves and don't understand how they work. You're also assuming said people got on the tank unnoticed, and that the gunner didn't swivel the turret, which is standard procedure in the occurence that someone got on it. You're also assuming the driver didn't run them down, the gunner didn't blast them with the big gun and machine guns, and the tank commander didn't use their machine gun.

Like I said, the only feasible way for a primitive people to defeat one is to dig a GIANT hole with no slopes so the tank couldn't get out. Even then, this example accounts for only one tank and not the tank unit which is intended to be represented. This implies advanced warning also. How many bronze age peoples would know of an impending invasion by a modern nation with enough advance warning to prepare such defenses. Those holes won't dig themselves after all.

So, sure, it's feasible ONE single tank could be disabled by primitive peoples IF they thought to dig this hole, or managed to get the tanks to drive somewhere detrimental. Collapsing a bridge comes to mind, but I don't know of any primitive peoples with the technology to take down a bridge capable of supporting a 60 ton vehicle. I'd even venture to say they might get a few if they were obscenely lucky, but defeating an entire tank unit is simply an impossiblity.

More on topic, I really don't think that dragon is meant to be killed. I agree with the person who said it's meant to be incentive for you to hurry up and get to Mulcarn. If you can kill it, great. If not, you better find his boss. :P

Well, this is obviously getting us nowhere.

I'm going to stick with a 'spearman' in a modern army being a third rate unit NOT armed with spears but with a few obsolete arms, recoiless rifles, mines, and other second tier weapons, since I feel this is the only logical expenditure a country buying a military would make. There are lots of militia type troops like these in many real armies and they seem to me to cost roughly what third tier units do indeed cost in the game. There are no spearmen in modern armies, so I'm going to continue to look at a spearman unti in Civ for my modern army as a third rate unit with poor arms and training.

I also don't think that the spearman unit in a modern army represents the Vatican guards because this also isn't logical to me that an army preparing for war would outfit a unit like the Vatican guards. It looks like the Vatican Guards number 134 people (this may not be 100% up to date but I'm sure it is around this amount) and DO have rifles and are proud of their marksmenship. So I don't think that the spearmen and the axemen representing about 5% of my military strength in the 1940's are these units either. They make up probably 10's of thousands of troops. I also suspect that since the Vatican Guards practice marksmenship maybe they would also carry mines and grenades in times of real war?

Firaxis appears to agree with me, since the units in the game do indeed cost and have the combat effectiveness of militia type units, not untis armed with spears.

I'm sorry you hate me over this. I think the the game is right, you think its wrong. Fine, I'm not going to convince you, you aren't going to convince me. I'm going to continue to say that they game handling is logical and well designed and that Firaxis shouldn't change it. You can argue the opposite.

If you think I'm stupid, as you pretty much said said in your last post, that is also you're right. I obviously don't think I am.

Best wishes,

Breunor

Well, this is obviously getting us nowhere.

I'm going to stick with a 'spearman' in a modern army being a third rate unit NOT armed with spears but with a few obsolete arms, recoiless rifles, mines, and other second tier weapons, since I feel this is the only logical expenditure a country buying a military would make. There are lots of militia type troops like these in many real armies and they seem to me to cost roughly what third tier units do indeed cost in the game. There are no spearmen in modern armies, so I'm going to continue to look at a spearman unti in Civ for my modern army as a third rate unit with poor arms and training.

I also don't think that the spearman unit in a modern army represents the Vatican guards because this also isn't logical to me that an army preparing for war would outfit a unit like the Vatican guards. It looks like the Vatican Guards number 134 people (this may not be 100% up to date but I'm sure it is around this amount) and DO have rifles and are proud of their marksmenship. So I don't think that the spearmen and the axemen representing about 5% of my military strength in the 1940's are these units either. They make up probably 10's of thousands of troops. I also suspect that since the Vatican Guards practice marksmenship maybe they would also carry mines and grenades in times of real war?

Firaxis appears to agree with me, since the units in the game do indeed cost and have the combat effectiveness of militia type units, not untis armed with spears.

I'm sorry you hate me over this. I think the the game is right, you think its wrong. Fine, I'm not going to convince you, you aren't going to convince me. I'm going to continue to say that they game handling is logical and well designed and that Firaxis shouldn't change it. You can argue the opposite.

If you think I'm stupid, as you pretty much said said in your last post, that is also you're right. I obviously don't think I am.

Best wishes,

Breunor

You're right about the Vatican Guards not being a good example of a spearman unit because in fact, all ceremonial units in my experience do have armories with modern equipment and as they are still soldiers could be called to war so they have to maintain a certain level of preparedness.

In my examples, I refer only to technologically primitive peoples like some of the tribes we still have today in the world. Those to me, are the only true spearmen left in the world.

In game terms, I'd say that a technologically modern civ who still has spearmen is simply poor and has yet to afford the things that unit needed, or failed to disband it in favor of training a new unit. In reality disbanding units happens all the time, and it's only in games like Civilization where people cling desperately to those outdated units. Yes, I'm guilty as charged... :P

It appears that much of this debate revolves around what actually constitutes a spearman unit, and in this case many of us will simply have to agree to disagree. I suppose it can be whatever you want it to be in your own game, and there's nothing wrong with that. We should all remember it's a game we are talking about after all and we are entitled to our own imaginings in our own little worlds. :)

I don't have a problem with assuming a unit gains automatic upgrades as the owner progress in technology, but I do have a problem if that unit at the end of the day is no stronger/different than the same unit of a technologically backwards civilization.

The only way to represent this difference is to have the units of the technologically superior civilization upgrade in name, appearance and strength (regular way or automatically) to effectively become a different unit - assumptions alone just doesn't cut it to achieve Suspension of Disbelief.

I'm sorry you hate me over this.
I never said that - I don't hate you.

What I did say was that I hated the argument ...
/rant on
... because it is based on assumptions that represents a fundamental lack of understanding about the way things work in the real world. And some people cling to it religiously, brushing aside/ignoring any logical arguments and examples - or even worse fabricate unrealistic and/or irrelevant setups/references in an attempt to 'prove' the flawed argument correct.
/rant off

The argument is simply pure nonsense and nothing in this (or previous) debate(s) has convinced me otherwise.

What if the crew locks the hatches so they can't get them, as spears are useless against the heavy armour?
They have holes in the armor =)
(low str means damage)
So the spearmen could pick them like fish from a can and eat raw meat =).

...

I rest my case.

I may understand this wrong... But is it for my words or in general?
By the way, nice "DRAGON" thread -.- .