What's the meaning of this smiley? :spear:

I'm just wondering, because in a game of mine a few weeks ago I lost a Mechanized Infantry to a Spearman and found it quite bizarre...do Spearman have an advantage over tanks?

Civ III... spearman was the basic defensive unit for a long time if you lacked iron ( a thing that happened a lot... IMHO Civ III map generator was broken as hell ) and there was a lot of threads of the style "OMG ,a spearman beated my tank! ( much like we have in civ IV a lot of threads of " I lost my GG at 99% ods! " ). Someone decided to add that smiley as a symbol of a defeat by a considerably inferior unit.....

:lol: It was also a common occurrence in both C1 and C2. Each successive version of civ was supposed to have corrected that problem so that it could never happen again. :)

:lol: It was also a common occurrence in both C1 and C2. Each successive version of civ was supposed to have corrected that problem so that it could never happen again. :)

As long as something is mathematically possible (however unlikely) it can occur.

As I've said before, I would like to see units that gain invulnerabilities. For example, an armor unit would be immune to melee units and archer units.

To keep the game interesting, the "ambush" promotion (anti armor, right?) would allow an older unit to at least have a chance against armor, even if it was unlikely (ambush would add 25% against armor AND negate the invulnerability).

You could also limit the power of invulnerability. You could have the invulnerability only apply if the HP is above 50 or 75 percent. You could also have something like invulnerability is guaranteed to win, but that the unit can still take damage (I guess that's not invulnerability but maybe close enough).

I think there should be a few of these:

* Infantryman invulnerable to melee
* Armor invulnerable to melee and archer
* Modern Armor invulnerable to melee, archer, and gunpowder
* fighters/bombers invulnerable to airships
* ironclad, destroyers, battleships invulnerable to wood ships

* Modern Armor invulnerable to melee, archer, and gunpowder

How come invulnerable to archers? You have never seen RAMBO, do you?

@SJN

I think that your suggestion would be not only RL bad , but game wise bad ...It would make the game a pure tech race with people making a small army of, let's say, infantry and cut through older armies ... Now put yourself in the other side of the stick....

And as a side note: in WW II a big part of the Wermacht tanks destroyed in the Russian front was destroyed not by other tanks or dedicated anti tank weapons ,but by infantry that handheld mines ( or even crude "sticky bombs" : socks filled with explosives and covered by glue or resin ) below of the tanks.....

@SJN

I think that your suggestion would be not only RL bad , but game wise bad ...It would make the game a pure tech race with people making a small army of, let's say, infantry and cut through older armies ... Now put yourself in the other side of the stick....

And as a side note: in WW II a big part of the Wermacht tanks destroyed in the Russian front was destroyed not by other tanks or dedicated anti tank weapons ,but by infantry that handheld mines ( or even crude "sticky bombs" : socks filled with explosives and covered by glue or resin ) below of the tanks.....

And the Soviets got theirs too. Molotov Cocktails were originally anti-tank improvised weapons - and they worked very fine as such. Finnish soldiers threw the bottles over the air admittance hatches of Russian tanks so to set them on fire from inside.

Hello? Did you not see the part about the ambush promotion?

We could push the ambush promotion back down the tech tree, imho. I mean, you can destroy something before you can build it.

You guys love to use some examples but ignore others. Have you guys seen the WWII footage where the german tanks literally run down the polish calvary? It was all over before it got started.

What I'm saying is, an unpromoted spearman should not be able to defeat a tank at full HP period. Now, a spearman who has been trained to defeat tanks, should get a small chance.

Let's make the ambush promotion available sooner, and more important.

Now, a spearman who has been trained to defeat tanks, should get a small chance.

Let's make the ambush promotion available sooner, and more important.

You're an idiot. "a spearman who has been trained to defeat tanks." Say that to yourself out loud or say it to someone in the military and see what they say. I seriously hope you were joking.

Warned! - Flaming

Just a different theory of why a spearman can beat a tank. Consider that even though the basic unit is a left over from the ancient era, it hasn't been kept in cryogenic sleep. I would think the spearmen would have prepared themselves for the modern era by:

(a)training to fight tanks-maybe they're able to shove those spears in gun slots or pry open the hatches-- I hear targeting the tank tread is a great way to stop them "dead in their tracks"

(b) supplementing their standard spears with some form of extra firepower/explosives (sure, maybe they haven't discovered gunpowder and the like, but does anyone remember "burning pitch"),

(c) Maybe these units in modern times are made up of significantly more soldiers to make up for their lack of firepower (anyone remember Rorke's Drift).

In other words, sure it's an abstraction, and sure it's maybe not the most believable thing, but it's a game, so have fun with it.

It's fun, but only because it's hilarious how stupid is. Yea a whole tribe of zulus could stop one tank. I am sure.

AI Spearman facts:

*AI Spearman can destroy a tank or mech infantry by turning the vehicle upside down with his spear and menacing the pilots through the peekhole until they die of pure awe;
*AI Sperman can destroy armored helicopters by making a mega-jump and putting his spear through the air blades;
*AI Spearman can kill machine guns by deflecting the bullets with his spear tip and fling them back at the gunners at hypersonic speed;
*AI Spearman can kill mobile artillery by digging a hole with his spear and reaching them by bellow;
*AI Spearman does not jump, it's the Earth that's pushed by its feet;
*AI Spearman can kill Chuck Norris out of fear, by letting him glance at his devilish eyes by tipping the bronze helmet;

Wow. this thread has gotten really personal. I'm an idiot huh? do you often win debates by just reducing it to name calling? Try and stick to the problem and leave my IQ out of it, thank you very much.

so here's the deal. When I say a spearman trained to defeat a tank, I am picturing something like this. The spearman know that they cannot defeat the enemy directly. They aren't going to line up and throw spears at the tank. The name of the promotion is "ambush". I'm imagining that they have learned how to disassemble some critical piece, or have some method for disabling it (like flipping it over). In a city they may have hidden traps in the rubble. In a field they may have built and hidden a tank trap. In a forest, they may have configured booby traps.

I'm not saying they have good odds. What is the strength of a spearman? 4? Even with "ambush" that would be an 8, right? Going up against a full HP unpromoted tank is 8 to 28. They're not going to win very often.

But I do believe that without ambush, they shouldn't win at all. Ever.

-- SJN

I think you under estimate the power of human thinking, where there is a will there's a way, or they could end up in a million pieces! :)

there is nothing a few guys with spears can do to a tank. Tanks can go through a house. There will be more damage on wear and tear than you will ever get from spearmen. I am sorry to bring your IQ into this, but I just wonder sometimes.

"Ambushing tanks with spearmen."

Let's stop all personal insults and stick to the discussion.

In the 90's I was in the army as a tanker. I was both a driver and gunner on the M1A1 (that's a tank). In my opinion a spearmen could "disable" a tank, which in a way is killing it. It is possible.

I know this is a little off topic, but during WWII, the Russians trained dogs (who had been outfitted with explosives) to search for food underneath tanks. I am sure you can figure out the rest of the "tactic"

With that said. I am sure a couple hundred spearmen could eventually take out 1 tank. I mean Indiana Jones took out 1 take and all he had was a Rock, Horse and a Revolver. :)

Also for what its worth, When I see a spearman/archer/etc.. in the modern age I usually dont "think" of them as such, to me they are just ill equip militia types (you know equip with random guns, poorly trained, etc..

I went and calculated the odds of a tank (unpromoted) against a spearman with ambush. The odds are 99.9+% in favor of the tank.

I think my proposal to have tanks invulnerable to melee, except with the ambush promotion makes sense.

A unit without any training or experience with tanks is just toast. A unit with some training *could* figure out a way to disable it, but it is really unlikely.

-- SJN

I went and calculated the odds of a tank (unpromoted) against a spearman with ambush. The odds are 99.9+% in favor of the tank.

I think my proposal to have tanks invulnerable to melee, except with the ambush promotion makes sense.

A unit without any training or experience with tanks is just toast. A unit with some training *could* figure out a way to disable it, but it is really unlikely.

-- SJN

Sticky Bombs?

I know this is a little off topic, but during WWII, the Russians trained dogs (who had been outfitted with explosives) to search for food underneath tanks. I am sure you can figure out the rest of the "tactic"

With that said. I am sure a couple hundred spearmen could eventually take out 1 tank. I mean Indiana Jones took out 1 take and all he had was a Rock, Horse and a Revolver. :)

Also for what its worth, When I see a spearman/archer/etc.. in the modern age I usually dont "think" of them as such, to me they are just ill equip militia types (you know equip with random guns, poorly trained, etc..

Actually, this is a nice idea for a small tweak. Once you've reached, say, rifling, all archer and melee animations would turn into a generic militia, preserving their original power. Militias would be age-specific, so an infantry-day militia would look different from a Civil War era one.

On invulnerabilities + ambush: I agree, but instead of troop types it should be "ages ago".

I think two ages ago would be fine - if you're two ages behind in tech, you're not going to win the war anyway. If you're two ages ahead, you're going to win with basically zero casualties anyway.

On ancient units killing tanks: even though this is going to sound like I'm contradicting what I just said, I don't know that the invulnerability is necessary. A tiny chance is probably *less* realistic than a larger chance for an infantry unit to wipe out some tanks, even with nothing but melee weaponry.

Let's keep in mind a number of points:

1. The most trivial way to disable a tank is to mess up the treads. The treads mess themselves up really, really often - a little encouragement wouldn't take much. Without the maintenance crew, a tank is just a pillbox, until it runs out of ammo - then it's a bunker. A crappy bunker.

2. Infantry omgwtf pwns tanks. Unlike most video games, tanks SUCK against infantry if they are unsupported. Send a unit of tanks unsupported into an infantry line, and the tanks will die (if the infantry doesn't break out of fear).

3. It's easy as hell to sneak up on a tank. The guys inside can't hear you yelling at the top of your lungs from 20' away, and they can't see very well, either.

4. Tanks are crewed by men. Get to the squishy insides, and the hard outside doesn't matter. A pile of burning pine needles at the air intakes can incapacitate a crew. Bolt-cutters can remove a hatch. A rock in a barrel will cause a cannon to mess itself up when fired. Hell, a nice bottle of hootch poured into an opening and lit on fire will get the fellas out in a hurry.

5. Men don't live in tanks. Given that the shortest turn in the game on Epic lasts 6 months, we can assume that the crew men get out to pee at some point during that time. Really-sneaky guys with spears could probably kill them by jamming said spears into the crews' soft parts.

Now, the reason I don't think I've negated my first part is because it is probably unrealistic to think of a tank as just a tank. It's a chunk of an army primarily consisting of tanks but with support elements (fuel trucks, infantry, engineers, repairmen, backup crew, ammo depots). That being the case, I'm fine with Stealth Bombers being immune to WWI planes, Infantry being immune to knights, and the like. But I'm also fine with things the way they are.

So... in response to this:

It's fun, but only because it's hilarious how stupid is. Yea a whole tribe of zulus could stop one tank. I am sure.

Comes this: it is obvious you've never spent any significant amount of time around tanks.

1. The most trivial way to disable a tank is to mess up the treads. The treads mess themselves up really, really often - a little encouragement wouldn't take much.

Agree

Without the maintenance crew, a tank is just a pillbox, until it runs out of ammo - then it's a bunker. A crappy bunker.

We were trained to fix the tread, so here I disagree with you. Granted, you now have the "squishies" outside of the tank, which is just as effective.

2. Infantry omgwtf pwns tanks. Unlike most video games, tanks SUCK against infantry if they are unsupported. Send a unit of tanks unsupported into an infantry line, and the tanks will die (if the infantry doesn't break out of fear).

Disagree, though it also depends on what weapons they are carrying. The only time we had a problem was when we were at Fort Polk on maneuvers. We weren't allowed to harm any of the trees, meaning we spent so much time being careful about the trees the infantry was able to take us out. Granted, they had armored vehicles with them, they were not just on foot.

3. It's easy as hell to sneak up on a tank. The guys inside can't hear you yelling at the top of your lungs from 20' away, and they can't see very well, either.

There are other ways to see. Plus I'd like to see you sneak up to a tank safely. With pivot steering capability, they can be extremely dangerous to everyone, including their own crew.

A pile of burning pine needles at the air intakes can incapacitate a crew. Bolt-cutters can remove a hatch. A rock in a barrel will cause a cannon to mess itself up when fired. Hell, a nice bottle of hootch poured into an opening and lit on fire will get the fellas out in a hurry.

Apparently you don't know as much as about tanks as you thought. As I said before, I was in the army as a tanker from 95 until 98. I can't (or won't) go into the specifics due that funny training that still seems to be stuck with me.

we can assume that the crew men get out to pee at some point during that time.

I kept an empty bottle with me just in case. We also kept food with us and I can remember being in the tank for a large part of the day, doing absolutely nothing or waiting to move out.

it is obvious you've never spent any significant amount of time around tanks.

No offense, but I could say the same about you. Some of what you said is accurate, but some isn't, at least not without a ton of luck or having the crew inside be entirely asleep when your attempting the above.

I never been in a tank crew ( so take my words with as much salt you want ), but I wanted to put some words on this:

- Tanks are pretty much catraphacts with cannons on diesel .... armoured dudes with big guns, and tto say the truth , most of the classic usages of tanks are pretty much a copy of the old cavalry charges ( German Blitzkrieg is the most proeminent example )
Said this , a lot of the weakeness of the tanks show: they weren't made ( and don't explore their full potential ) in confined enviroments fights ,like cities, forests or cliffy areas.... Not saying that a phalanx formation would cope a Tiger VI or a M1Abrahams armoured division, but melee units with crude "homemade" explosive weapons ( like land mines ,sticky bombs or even grenade launchers... I'm not even talking about the russian RPG ) could sometimes win the day

- Civ turns occupy atleast 6 months... and a tank crew can't hold inside the tanks for 6 months, and the tank itself lack autonomy for that... that opens path to all kind of low tech ambushes or sabotage... I'm pretty sure that a spear division could easily murder a lot of tank crews if they could get unnoticed ito their HQs.....

I think there should be a few of these:

* Infantryman invulnerable to melee


Battle of Isandlwana, anyone? A flanked British position by Zulu impi, and jamming rifles/insufficient flow of ammunition to the British front lines led to a Zulu victory. A case where infantrymen would be vulnerable to melee soldiers.

Yeah... there's a reason why rifles still have bayonets, and it's not for aesthetic purposes.

Battle of Isandlwana, anyone? A flanked British position by Zulu impi, and jamming rifles/insufficient flow of ammunition to the British front lines led to a Zulu victory. A case where infantrymen would be vulnerable to melee soldiers.

Those were Riflemen with Martini-Henry rifles though.. I think he was refering to the Infantry unit in Civ4. :)

And how much training did lightly armed Russian partisans have in WWII? Gasoline siphoned from disabled vehicles + empty bottles: tank killer. Farmers did it.

I have said it before you can come up with any scenario that something will happen.

I could show how a spearman could kill a gunship. It is so unlikely as it shouldn't be represented in the game as combat but as random events.

I'd be fine with losing units to bad weather or random sabatoge. However the rate that you lose to spearmen and other ridiculous match ups is quite aggravating.

HerrDoktor, you is funny.

Battle of Isandlwana, anyone? A flanked British position by Zulu impi, and jamming rifles/insufficient flow of ammunition to the British front lines led to a Zulu victory. A case where infantrymen would be vulnerable to melee soldiers.

The battle of Roarke's drift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorke%27s_Drift


Listen, I am not RULING OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ONE IN A MILLION chance of taking out a tank. My point is, you are saying a entire tank division was taken out by spearmen. Tanks are equipped with machine guns specifically to keep people away. Furthermore tanks in formation can protect each other far better than a single tank.

It is really just silly to keep defending this considering how often the tanks lose to units that can't win. If it was so easy the polish would have attacked with the calvary, citizens, dogs, snowmen, waterballoons and everything else you people hae suggested. It has never happened and never will happen. A division of tanks will not get taken out by Spartans.

My whole point was to make the game a bit more competitive by forcing people to upgrade units to something close so they can't exploit the game by throwing 4-5 horrible units at a clearly superior unit to weaken it and hope to take it out. Don't worry in CIV revolutions once the odds get above 7:1 you will win automatically.

I think it's fine the way it is. As stated earlier, the shortest time frame we're looking at is a 6 month period (maybe even less if the tank wins and goes all blitz on us) and the odds (even with ambush) are 99.9%+

Thus, it could very well be POSSIBLE (1 in a 1000 chance at best, resembled by game mechanics) that a tank could be rendered inoperable by a group of spearmen. Perhaps the spearmen were smart and lured the tank through a bog of pitch and lit the pitch (or just lured it into a bog, having scouted out the terrain beforehand); or maybe they lured it across a bridge and somehow got the bridge to collapse...And so forth...come on people, be creative :P

A little way to cheat/exploit the game seed (i've only really used it within the first 10 turns if a computer spawned really close to me), is to save before committing your forces, play the battles out, and if you do lose a unit, re-load the game, wait a turn then save and attack again (it's the game seed isn't it?).

But cheating is bad m'kay? :P

An italian armored division has once been defeated by a tribe of natives wielding spears. They were jumping onto the tanks, killing off the machinegunners. When the drivers tried to get them off by opening the hatch and shooting with a gun, they killed them with spears.

It has happened once in real life. Once. I think there should be a chance for the spearmen to succeed for as long as the spearmen are not the attackers.

An Italian armored division has once been defeated by a tribe of natives wielding spears. They were jumping onto the tanks, killing off the machine gunners. When the drivers tried to get them off by opening the hatch and shooting with a gun, they killed them with spears.

It has happened once in real life. Once. I think there should be a chance for the spearmen to succeed for as long as the spearmen are not the attackers.

Do you have a reference for this? If it did happen I'd like to see the citation. Then again the Italians weren't very good at using tanks. They did invade Ethiopia and got defeated.

I think the point that has been lost in all of this is the time frame. The majority of the tanks vs. spearmen events as played in this game take place over a one year period. Could a tank division in a one hour battle in the open field kill off a division of spearmen? Sure could.
Could a division of spearmen over the course of a year render a tank division inoperable through a combonation of isolating small units, interfering with lines of supply, and avoiding commiting all their forces to open battle in unfavorable circumstances? Sure could.
It is not very likely-hence the 99.9% against. But it has been done. Heck, in Iraq the terrorist forces have destroyed twenty Bradleys (Modern Armor, even a tougher target), with antequated weapons and improvised devices. Again, a group could acquire explosives from an invading tank division over time (unexploded ordanance, spoils from small unit wins) and use the charges against the tanks.

"Realism" vs. Gameplay. To quote every athlete, "It is what it is". A touch of uncertainty is good IMO.

Just a few random notes:

1) The "Molotov cocktail" is named for none other than Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, Soviet foreign minister under Stalin. It was coined by the Finns during the Winter War, when the tankless Finns used it to good effect against Soviet armor.

2) Regardless of how advanced weaponry and equipment may be on one side, it is never literally IMPOSSIBLE for the under-equipped to win the fight. That's not the way to bet, but it does happen. I think the game balance between advanced and obsolete troops is fine the way it is. It's historically accurate, and gives a solid advantage to the more advanced troops, without neglecting such factors as morale and experience (represented by promotions) and luck (represented by the RNG).

3) In guerrilla situations, particularly, advanced equipment is less powerful. The U.S. clearly had a technical advantage of huge proportions versus North Vietnam, and we have an even bigger one against the Iraqi insurgents, but we lost the Vietnam war and we're losing the Iraq war, too, for the same reason: our technical lead is mainly applicable on the conventional battlefield. Hence we made short work of Saddam's army, but the insurgents are giving us fits. This is less than perfectly represented in the game, though.

4) The Bradley fighting vehicle should be categorized as Mechanized Infantry, not Modern Armor.

When the natives jumped on the tanks, they must have been able to "ambush" them, I imagine. I don't know the historical account you're referring to, but I can't imagine they would have done much against the machine guns at even 20 paces unless they vastly outnumbered them.

Also, the examples you are using about the Finn's and the insurgents defeating tanks are all examples of under-advanced units with specialized training to make up for the difference in technology.

I also request that we leave politics off the board, as we all have different views on what is and is not a "lost" war, and the causes of said loss.

Just a few random notes:

1) The "Molotov cocktail" is named for none other than Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, Soviet foreign minister under Stalin. It was coined by the Finns during the Winter War, when the tankless Finns used it to good effect against Soviet armor.

2) Regardless of how advanced weaponry and equipment may be on one side, it is never literally IMPOSSIBLE for the under-equipped to win the fight. That's not the way to bet, but it does happen. I think the game balance between advanced and obsolete troops is fine the way it is. It's historically accurate, and gives a solid advantage to the more advanced troops, without neglecting such factors as morale and experience (represented by promotions) and luck (represented by the RNG).

3) In guerrilla situations, particularly, advanced equipment is less powerful. The U.S. clearly had a technical advantage of huge proportions versus North Vietnam, and we have an even bigger one against the Iraqi insurgents, but we lost the Vietnam war and we're losing the Iraq war, too, for the same reason: our technical lead is mainly applicable on the conventional battlefield. Hence we made short work of Saddam's army, but the insurgents are giving us fits. This is less than perfectly represented in the game, though.

4) The Bradley fighting vehicle should be categorized as Mechanized Infantry, not Modern Armor.



Just FYI America did not lose in Vietnam. The US won nearly every battle, killed so many of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong it wasn't funny. The point of that war wasn't to unite North and South Vietnam or really even win. It was to stop the spread of communism by contesting every place the Russians and the Chinese had influence. Fighting in Vietnam and Korea was better than fighting in Cuba, Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras which were the similar countries for us.

Rebels and guerrillas surely will take casualties, but the rate at which they die is astronomical to the rate that soldiers die. There are roughly 140,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan. About 5000 have died in seven years. As far wars go that's a great ratio to invade a country. I deem this sort of action much like civil revolt. This can be put down by the military. The United States has put down insurrections many times, just check with the Indians, Filipinos, Japanese, Germans, and the Spanish (Cuba), and Greneda. The United States has millions to bring to wars, insurrectionists are always barely hanging on.

So with C4 and other explosives and the brilliant AK-47, the rebels have managed to kill about 5000 of our soldiers. They are losing people far faster than the US is, and on top of that they are killing many innocents.

A spearman doesn't get C4 or ak-47's, he gets a spear. He can't do anything to a armoured tank division as a whole, he might get lucky and disable one or two but thirty?

Just FYI America did not lose in Vietnam. The US won nearly every battle, killed so many of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong it wasn't funny. The point of that war wasn't to unite North and South Vietnam or really even win. It was to stop the spread of communism by contesting every place the Russians and the Chinese had influence. Fighting in Vietnam and Korea was better than fighting in Cuba, Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras which were the similar countries for us.

Rebels and guerrillas surely will take casualties, but the rate at which they die is astronomical to the rate that soldiers die. There are roughly 140,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan. About 5000 have died in seven years. As far wars go that's a great ratio to invade a country. I deem this sort of action much like civil revolt. This can be put down by the military.

So with C4 and other explosives and the brilliant AK-47, the rebels have managed to kill about 5000 of our soldiers. They are losing people far faster than the US is, and on top of that they are killing many innocents.

A spearman doesn't get C4 or ak-47's, he gets a spear. He can't do anything to a armoured tank division as a whole, he might get lucky and disable one or two but thirty?

Be ready for the storm. ;)

I think the argument of "specialized training" is captured in the game. After all, it is once a unit survives a battle that it gets enough experience points to gain a new level of competence.
I think the idea of units learning how to cope with an unanticipated enemy is realistic, and the reward for improvising to survive is an increased skill set. Or, in our case, more experience points.
I will agree with you both on your views re: American post-Korea conflicts, and agree this thread is not the proper home for detailed comments.

As someone has already said, let's try and keep politics out of it. When the discussion starts moving towards politics and more serious debates (i.e. Vietnam and Iraq war) the "discussion" tends to become more aggressive.

Well, the Vietcongs and the Iraqi insurgents can be classified as Infantry, can't they?

I'll repeat my idea for you to evaluate. WHAT IF we just make very obsolete units look like a sort of broken gunpowder unit (Guerrilla from CIV III?), PRESERVING their original stats until upgraded? You would be battling a spearman, archer or warrior, still, but it wouldn't look that awkward. They could fight with molotovs, bayonets, hunting shotguns or any other low-tech improvised weapons.

Sticky Bombs?

It was an adhesive grenade on a stick that could be thrown at a tank, or even slapped against it.

I

THE STICKY BOMB

The sticky bomb was developed secretly in 1940 as an anti-tank grenade. It consisted of a glass ball filled with nitro-glycerine attached to a handle containing a five second delay and a safety pin. The ball was sheathed in coarse cloth covered in a powerful adhesive and this surface was protected by being enclosed in two tin hemispheres clipped to the handle which prevented the grenade sticking to everything it touched whilst being carried. When ready to use, the thrower pulled the pin which released the protecting covers, then pulled the safety pin. It was then ready to be thrown at the enemy tank. As it left his hand, the 'delay' would begin burning and after striking the tank and adhering to it the nitro-glycerine in the 'sticky bomb' would detonate.

It was an adhesive grenade on a stick that could be thrown at a tank, or even slapped against it.

I

THE STICKY BOMB

The sticky bomb was developed secretly in 1940 as an anti-tank grenade. It consisted of a glass ball filled with nitro-glycerine attached to a handle containing a five second delay and a safety pin. The ball was sheathed in coarse cloth covered in a powerful adhesive and this surface was protected by being enclosed in two tin hemispheres clipped to the handle which prevented the grenade sticking to everything it touched whilst being carried. When ready to use, the thrower pulled the pin which released the protecting covers, then pulled the safety pin. It was then ready to be thrown at the enemy tank. As it left his hand, the 'delay' would begin burning and after striking the tank and adhering to it the nitro-glycerine in the 'sticky bomb' would detonate.

I got it from Saving Private Ryan, and was suggesting maybe the denigrated spearmen used them when they defeated a tank. :)

The sticky bomb was never very popular tough. You can figure out what happened when you swung your arm back and it touched the uniform of your fellow private behind you...

I'm sure Ive said it somewhere else on this forum, but just as an example of how a tank can be 'immobilised' by a cunning trick...

Tank has 2 tracks, both need traction to go forward. Throw milk bottle full of dish washing detergent under one track, whilst tank is moving uphill. Tank spins off side of road. (best if front half of tank smashes into brick house)

Now that its immobilised, yove got alot more room to use other tricks, like paint in the crew air inductors or engine air intake. - or these days, down the shell ejection slot to the chamber, if your brave enough to climb on the tuuret.

The point (apparently, according to the story teller, someone who had served in ireland) isnt to blow up a tank with a spearman, its to get the crew out of the tank so you can throw a spear at them (or use your mate up the road with a hunting rifle).

Yes, that's exactly right.

I think the conceptual problem people are having with spearmen defeating tanks is in imagining a guy with a spear standing in a field, right out in the open, spear leveled and charging at the tank. What happens? Assuming the tankers can act for laughing, they machine-gun the poor fool down, of course.

The important part in the spearman unit, though, isn't the spear, it's the man. With a brain inside. If he can get on top of the tank and open the hatch, he can spear the crew; if he can disable the treads, the crew may come out to fix it leaving them vulnerable to spears. There are a number of ways a spearman can beat a tank.

Are they easy? No. Are they safe? No. Who's really likely to win that fight? The tank. It just isn't a completely foregone conclusion, that's all.

The important part in the spearman unit, though, isn't the spear, it's the man. With a brain inside. If he can get on top of the tank and open the hatch, he can spear the crew; if he can disable the treads, the crew may come out to fix it leaving them vulnerable to spears. There are a number of ways a spearman can beat a tank.

Are they easy? No. Are they safe? No. Who's really likely to win that fight? The tank. It just isn't a completely foregone conclusion, that's all.

I agree. When it comes down to it, where there's a will there's a way, no matter how slim the odds are.

One thing everyone is forgetting is that the spearman unit is probably over 4,000 years old! The guys in the tanks are what, in their 20's or 30's? These spearman have amassed a large amount of knowledge, and probably have tapped areas of the brain a mere 40 year old could not conceive! The spearman could have developed some sort of telepathy or telekenisis <sp?> over their many years of being alive and thus render the tanks useless. :)

Disagree, though it also depends on what weapons they are carrying. The only time we had a problem was when we were at Fort Polk on maneuvers. We weren't allowed to harm any of the trees, meaning we spent so much time being careful about the trees the infantry was able to take us out. Granted, they had armored vehicles with them, they were not just on foot.

{Assorted other agreements and disagreements}

I should have clarified that I was speaking much more about WWI through pre-modern style tanks than I was modern battle tanks. Many things that would be effective against an unsupported Panzer IV or even a T-72 would not be anywhere near as useful against an M1A1.

Re-read my post considering WWI or WWII tanks and I think you'll agree with me more and think me an ig'nant fool less.

Another point I didn't make before - I think a line of Panzer IVs would easily overrun a bunch of bronze-age spearmen. I think they would have a MUCH harder time against the exact same number of men with the exact same gear if those men were modern-men (say... an historical traditional unit) who knew about tanks and firearms.

I'd still bet on the panzers to win the day, but they'd have a much, much harder time.

One thing everyone is forgetting is that the spearman unit is probably over 4,000 years old! The guys in the tanks are what, in their 20's or 30's? These spearman have amassed a large amount of knowledge, and probably have tapped areas of the brain a mere 40 year old could not conceive! The spearman could have developed some sort of telepathy or telekenisis <sp?> over their many years of being alive and thus render the tanks useless. :)

LOL finally someone comes to my point of understanding those battles! The archer detroying my gunship can will that arrow to go directly into my heart. Bullet proof glass is no match for the human spirit!

Im reminded of some footage I saw of the British army in Iraq.

They had moved what i think was a skorpion (fast moving lightly armoured tank) to try to quell an Iraqi riot, well more watch the situation than do anything since the British army has to fight with both hands tied behind its back over there. The situation being what it was they were not allowed to fire or do much else other than let the angry Iraqis throw bricks at them.

Hunkered down inside they seemed safe enough until one angry Iraqi threw a molotov at the tanker. Within a few minutes the crew poured out from smoke inhalation and one of the crew was even on fire.

So, even though its not a fair representation, since the crew were not allowed to fire, imagine 100's of angry spearmen against this tank. Yes, he would have taken out a fair few, maybe even all of them, but one in every 100 examples the tank would lose.

To demand the tank wins automatically every time shows to me you just cant cope with losing and cant understand reality.

Finally, i can never really understand these arguments because i have never seen it happen. But then again i play on a challenging difficulty when the enemy has more developed weaponry then spears when i have tanks... The very rare occasions they dont have, its only after several attacks by spearmen that my tank could lose. Eg after the tank unit has taken on litterally 10,000s of men.

This argument comes down to those with imagination who can reason why it happens, and those who just look at the image of one man with a spear taking on one tank and get confused.

They are losing people far faster than the US is, and on top of that they are killing many innocents.
Yep that's where America is famous for killing civilians.

Yesterday I lost a 98% combat, i should happen once every 50 battles but it's
a bummer every time it occurs. Older version of Civilization where much worse.

Warned! - Trolling

Yep that's where America is famous for killing civilians.

Yesterday I lost a 98% combat, i should happen once every 50 battles but it's
a bummer every time it occurs. Older version of Civilization where much worse.

I don't think Americans are famous for killing civilians, I was speaking of the terrorists detonating bombs in markets. For a vastly superior power I think the U.S. is fairly nice compared to Spainards, British, Romans and Ottomans during there Empire days.


I just wanted to stay on topic and say "Wow you can throw a milk bottle and disable one tank" You act as if there aren't 5 other tanks watching you do this. One ore two tanks could be disabled, but there is no way you'll do that to 50 tanks before they wipe out the spear man and the city. '

The units in civ represent a large group not a single tank.

I just wanted to stay on topic and say "Wow you can throw a milk bottle and disable one tank" You act as if there aren't 5 other tanks watching you do this. One ore two tanks could be disabled, but there is no way you'll do that to 50 tanks before they wipe out the spear man and the city. '

The units in civ represent a large group not a single tank.
:confused:

I'm a little lost in here.... first you say " a spearman ( singular ) " and then you talk "Tanks (plural )". ....

I'm pretty sure that a 1 spearman can't kill 50 tanks unless something very fuzzy happens, but as you said " The units in civ represent a large group".... and I can imagine easily 50 tanks being ambushed by 50 spearmen and a big part of them being destroyed ....

:confused:

I'm a little lost in here.... first you say " a spearman ( singular ) " and then you talk "Tanks (plural )". ....

I'm pretty sure that a 1 spearman can't kill 50 tanks unless something very fuzzy happens, but as you said " The units in civ represent a large group".... and I can imagine easily 50 tanks being ambushed by 50 spearmen and a big part of them being destroyed ....

Like I said I can see a single guy ambushing a tank, but 50 spearmen aren't going to get the jump on 50 tanks.

OK, first - /salute to Methos. I was a tanker driver, too, but the air force version, which has MUCH different connotations... :)

Now, on topic - similar to the "battleship vs frigate" topic running right now, remember folks it's a game, not a simulation, and that reality has to take a back seat to game balance. I think for game balance you can never have a 100% chance win in combat odds, and if you don't have 100% odds wacky things will happen occasionally, if you play long enough. That's OK, because it's a game. :)

Like I said I can see a single guy ambushing a tank, but 50 spearmen aren't going to get the jump on 50 tanks.

Not that hard... just imagine tanks travelling in collumn in a somewhat confined area ( cliffs ,forests ,even urban landscape )

EDIT : And I was being kind for the tanks side... as every tank has atleast a 3 men crew, we should be speaking about atleast 150 spearmen ( 200 would be more realistical ) vs 50 tanks

I should have clarified that I was speaking much more about WWI through pre-modern style tanks than I was modern battle tanks.

My mistake. I misunderstood. My knowledge of tanks of that era is extremely limited.

I am sorry to say that I have no reference to the episode, but I am sure that it has happened. Besides that, I am very frustrated with the reply of one of the posters claiming that in CivRev all combats at odds 7:1 or more is autowon. Is this true? It'd be a huge downer, since 7:1 is just around 14,3 %, more than enough to do a difference gameplay-wise. Also, what about those (I admit), rather desperate flanking of siege weapons, not to destroy them but simply get some damage through so that they wont attack the city?

I always rationalized the "against the odds" wins as being a result of "partial upgrading."


I just didn't believe that a spearman unit who had been guarding some city for 2000 years was still using the same weapons and tactics that he was originally commissioned with. I figured he had gotten basic upgrades - not enough to actually upgrade the value of his unit, but enough so that his 3 strength WAS viable against a 20 strength unit, even if at 1st glance it seems the attacker should be invulnerable.

I am sorry to say that I have no reference to the episode, but I am sure that it has happened. Besides that, I am very frustrated with the reply of one of the posters claiming that in CivRev all combats at odds 7:1 or more is autowon. Is this true? It'd be a huge downer, since 7:1 is just around 14,3 %, more than enough to do a difference gameplay-wise. Also, what about those (I admit), rather desperate flanking of siege weapons, not to destroy them but simply get some damage through so that they wont attack the city?

I think it means something more the like Rifleman vs Warrior: 14 vs 2, so 7:1. I think.

I am sorry to say that I have no reference to the episode, but I am sure that it has happened. Besides that, I am very frustrated with the reply of one of the posters claiming that in CivRev all combats at odds 7:1 or more is autowon. Is this true? It'd be a huge downer, since 7:1 is just around 14,3 %, more than enough to do a difference gameplay-wise. Also, what about those (I admit), rather desperate flanking of siege weapons, not to destroy them but simply get some damage through so that they wont attack the city?

The main armoured vehicles employed by the Italians in the Abyssinian Conflict was the CV33 tankete. Not really a tank per se rather more like the British Universal or Bren Gun Carrier although it was fully enclosed. The Ethiopians while not equipped to the standard of the day were not spear weilding primitives. Its unlikely that an entire Italian Armounred division would have been committed enmass in any other conflict in Africa (apart from WW2 in the North of course)


As for the respective units. I've been investigating the "size" of Civ4 units recently as I'd like to pare them them down somewhat from the current divisional level to more battalion or brigade size for jungle war fighting of WWII. It seems an early melee type unit is counted by the game as 3-5000 men with modern units being much larger eg Infantry 18000, Tank 25000.

Dan

* Modern Armor invulnerable to melee, archer, and gunpowder


Unfortunately melee, archers and gunpowder units get Molotov cocktails. One of those tossed in a hatch makes a big mess. Seriously though, IRL Modern armor can and does get knocked out by simple things like that.

As I've said before, I would like to see units that gain invulnerabilities. For example, an armor unit would be immune to melee units and archer units.

To keep the game interesting, the "ambush" promotion (anti armor, right?) would allow an older unit to at least have a chance against armor, even if it was unlikely (ambush would add 25% against armor AND negate the invulnerability).

You could also limit the power of invulnerability. You could have the invulnerability only apply if the HP is above 50 or 75 percent. You could also have something like invulnerability is guaranteed to win, but that the unit can still take damage (I guess that's not invulnerability but maybe close enough).

I think there should be a few of these:

* Infantryman invulnerable to melee
* Armor invulnerable to melee and archer
* Modern Armor invulnerable to melee, archer, and gunpowder
* fighters/bombers invulnerable to airships
* ironclad, destroyers, battleships invulnerable to wood ships

Infantry invulnerable to melee?? You obviously don't know much about Shaka, do you?

Infantry invulnerable to melee?? You obviously don't know much about Shaka, do you?

Well I've always considered that Civ4 infantry implies at least early 1900's with repeating rifles, and machine guns. I'm afraid that in a stand up fight Shaka's impi's would be mown down. That is not to say that interdiction of supply lines, local ambushes etc could not defeat an expeditionary force deep in enemy territory. Supply is one of Civ's biggest weaknesses IMO. The ability to send a column great distances and have it fight without any loss of capability regardless of what forces are astride it lines of supply and communication is regrettable.

Dan

anyway, I don't notice a problem with this. As someone said, a tank has a 99.9% chance of beating a spearman. If you're crying about that, why the heck is your war so close against spearmen that losing one tank makes a difference? I have seen outdated units beat more modern ones in the game, in fact I have done that myself a few times. I was using cataphracts to kill riflemen in one game, as they were extremely promoted, like combat 4 and pinch, and I outnumbered my enemy, and it was a defensive war in my territory, so I managed to hold of an infantry advance with cataphracts, maces, etc, but only because I had about twice as many troops who were very highly upgraded and had the home turf advantage. It was certainly not easy, in fact, probably one of the most difficult wars I've ever fought in Civ. So the mechanics work fine for me. Also, if you want to talk realism, the Anglo-Zulu war in Civ terms would be like a war of riflemen and cannons vs. warriors and impis. Keep in mind that the British actually lost over a thousand men in that war. Even the Roman legions would have outlcassed the Zulu Impis...so the fact that they killed over a thousand redcoats is something to think about.

Well I've always considered that Civ4 infantry implies at least early 1900's with repeating rifles, and machine guns. I'm afraid that in a stand up fight Shaka's impi's would be mown down. That is not to say that interdiction of supply lines, local ambushes etc could not defeat an expeditionary force deep in enemy territory. Supply is one of Civ's biggest weaknesses IMO. The ability to send a column great distances and have it fight without any loss of capability regardless of what forces are astride it lines of supply and communication is regrettable.

Dan

oops, I was thinking of riflemen. Actually, the real point of confusion here is that the more modern units represent a significant span of time. Take the tank and modern armour, for example. The first Persian Gulf War showed that the Iraqi T72's, which were only outdated by about 20 years at the time, were almost useless against the american tanks. A tank built in the 90s was almost invincible to one built in the 70s. The older tank's round couldn't penetrate the armour. So if you wanted to be picky, rather than have the tank upgrade to modern armour, you'd need like 50 units in between. that would ruin the fun of the game, however.

If a tank is invulnerable to gunpowder, that means Mech Infantry cannot destroy them...

Mech infantry are Gunpowder Units

If a tank is invulnerable to gunpowder, that means Mech Infantry cannot destroy them...

Mech infantry are Gunpowder Units

IFVs are fitted with some rockets for that purpose and often the troops they carry also have some anti-tank tools. Actually, Mech Infantry is poorly represented - an IFV consists in a vehicle that carries normal soldiers and is capable to fight itself supported by its own troops - so it doesn't fight like a tank. I mean the animation should show the soldiers leaving the IFV and fighting alongside it, not inside it as if it was a tank.

I think such an animation was dropped due to the complexity, Doktor... which would also explain why the French dragoon unit isn't shown on horseback normally and on the ground with fighting.

Just imagine the Mech Infantry as a huge division of IFVs and soldiers. Also, there are a few tank divisions in that

The Modern Armour would also have a few IFV and infantry divisions as well.

I once saw in a Genetic Age Mod (for Warlords) a uni in between Mech Infantry and Infantry. I forgot what you could build it with (I think it was industrialism) but the soldiers wore green, consisted of 4 units and it had two green Mech infantry with it (but smaller due to the scale model thing)
It then got upgraded to Mech Infantry, which had just the one IFV.

What a Mech Infantry perhaps should consist of is 2 IFV tanks, with two Infantry models in front of it in same colour clothing as the IFVs, so it looks like an infantry division. Perhaps someone can mod that

I know this is a little off topic, but during WWII, the Russians trained dogs (who had been outfitted with explosives) to search for food underneath tanks. I am sure you can figure out the rest of the "tactic"

You forgot the rest of the story.

The dogs had been trained to crawl under tanks, true, but they obviously prefered crawling under the russian tanks instead of the panzers. As a result, they were quickly taken out of commision.

As an ironic reverse, I captured a city and left a Spearman there for defense because the only troop I was worried about was mounted. The AI came up with a Warrior and destroyed my Spearman. :lol:

I think such an animation was dropped due to the complexity, Doktor... which would also explain why the French dragoon unit isn't shown on horseback normally and on the ground with fighting.

Yes, it seems to me that this was the question, but lots of people may think that Mech Inf is a kind of robot tank, as you need Robotics (?) to access it.

I think having two Infantry models next to it or in front of it would show it's a Mech Infantry.
You just need robotics to build the thing and operate the computer. Perhaps an auto-drive system. We don't have robot tanks or good ones yet...

I like to play expansive. I will have my capital pump out my highest military units which escort a settler and worker to a new tile. I can usually manage to keep peace until I'm done expanding. I also hate wasting good land, so my cities tend to be a little tighter packed than most screenshots I've seen. By the time I have rifles, any neighbor would have to move through at least 3 or 4 cities to reach my capital, which probably still has just a couple archers (just to keep the population from whining about not being "protected"). Plenty of time to pump out new units and upgrade old ones, if need be. These archers though, I've never seen as necessarily using bows and arrows. They are simply as effective as archers would have been, due to improper maintenance and upgrading of equipment, training, etc.

LM

Yes, it seems to me that this was the question, but lots of people may think that Mech Inf is a kind of robot tank, as you need Robotics (?) to access it.

What are you suggesting that many folks around here are ignorant of basic military concepts? :lol:

Dan

Maybe the spearmen bribe some of the tanker crew. Maybe there's an outbreak of the plague among the soliders on the tankers' side. Maybe the spearmen's army manages to poison the food supply of the tankers' army. A lot can happen in six months.

I admit I'm not well up on military matters, but very very few things in life are 100%, absolutely-can't-fail guarantees, and from what I've heard, this is even more true in warfare than in civilian life.

Finnish soldiers used wood to disable russian tanks in the winter war.


See, even warrior could do it!

This thread has been interesting to read:lol:

All I have to say is anything is possible(don't try and prove me wrong since I know many people can... I even could). The spearmen could ambush and disable tanks like said above but would need to be in certain conditions and would require a great deal of luck as shown by the 99.9>% chance. It is possible but unlikely.