Hi everyone!

I have followed the debates about the tanks and if they should be able to inflict collateral damage or not since the 3.17 patch got released.

I haven't seen a poll on this somewhere but if someone already have done this. I then apologise for repeating it though.

So, what do you all think?
Shall tanks and Armors be able to inflict collateral damage and still have access to the barrage promotions?
Or is too overpowering and what not and it should be left for the siege units and bombers etc.?

In a "Vote"-theread a poll might be a good idea ;)

My vote is on "no", because it should - at least in theory - promote the usage of combined arms.

Refar: Thank you for your tip! :mischief: I were actually preparing the poll but you were too fast for me. :lol:

I see about your opinion in this question, please vote also though. :smoke:

Not realistical, but needed in terms of balance... that is my opinion about cutting barrage from tanks

r_rolo1: Since you seem to have a firm opinion about this subject, please put your vote in the poll above then. :p Thank you.

My vote is on "no", because it should - at least in theory - promote the usage of combined arms.

I agree with Refar, it encourages the use of combined arms which spices things up.

I voted no. But I think that the Modern Armor should cause a reduced amount of collateral damage compared to Artillery (who's main purpose is collateral damage/bombardment). As for the sherman tanks (Industialism) I say no. Modern Armor = yes (reduced amount).

r_rolo1: Since you seem to have a firm opinion about this subject, please put your vote in the poll above then. :p Thank you.
None of the options match my opinion.... :(

I think it is realistic that armor don't get intrinsic barrage but they should be able to get the promotions. And those promotions should have some effect.

Realistically, you could easily argue that all units should do collateral damage.

Balancewise, I think removing it from tanks was the right decision.

Agreed, realistic, but promotes the use of siege (though I would still stick with bombers for most of it, and ships for bombardment).

I voted no. But I think that the Modern Armor should cause a reduced amount of collateral damage compared to Artillery (who's main purpose is collateral damage/bombardment). As for the sherman tanks (Industialism) I say no. Modern Armor = yes (reduced amount).

I agree with all of this :), and voted no/unbalanced.

Tanks generally don't barrage positions with an area effect; leave that to the specialist units that have their limitations. Otherwise tanks are too all-round powerful. Thus, don't give them siege promotions, so they can focus on blitz-style promotions etc.

For the sake combined warfare and longevity of Civ, I voted 'no'...:goodjob:

I refuse to play with tanks not having access to barrage. What exactly do you guys find so unbalancing? You need to spend a promotion to do any collateral at all and it will still be lower than artillery with no barrage promo, but I find it worthwhile because I don't want to lug around the slow arty. I find it both realistic and balanced that tanks can do collateral with appropriate promotions.

Removing that option will not suddenly make me use artillery on the offensive, it will just make me pissed at the poorly thought-out changes to units made in practically every patch (at least it provides a good place for my favorite emoticon :gripe: ). The one with the tanks was in fact not thought-out at all; it was a screw-up and removing barrage as an option just seemed the easiest solution. And here we are now with at least five different threads whether this is a good move or not. Was there ever such a discussion before the patch? Anyone ever considered tanks overpowered due to having barrage before?

:agree: !
Especially since the amount of collateral damage done by Tanks with Barrage1 and Barrage2 is significantly lower now than in 3.13 due to the changed formula.

Examples:
Tank (Barrage1, Barrage2, Barrage3) vs Infantry:
3.13: 5/8/11 HPs
3.17: 2/5/11 HPs

Overpowered?

Tank (Barrage1, Barrage2, Barrage3) vs Longbow:
3.13: 9/15/19 HPs
3.17: 3/9/19 HPs


So Barrage1+2 on Tanks got nerfed in relation to 3.13 which makes uber Tanks like CR3 B2 less attractive/op but the collateral damage ability of "true" Barrage Tanks with Barrage3 is retained.

I'm at a loss to why there are changes to seige (no combat) and armour (no barrage). It wasn't broke in 3.13 so why the fix?

So if you upgrade some tanks to barrage upgrades, and other tanks to normal blitz style upgrades, do you bother taking those limited, cumbersome artillery then? Combined arms gone, bar special situations....

A Kiwi Tyrant! Nice to know I'm not the only civ addicted Aucklander. What lousy weather we're having!
Anyway onto the subject. Barrage or no barrage on tanks would never deter me in using combined arms. I know realism in this game is already a bit far fetched, putting it mildly, and there is a need for balancing some issues with certain units for a fairer playing field. I don't believe changing promotion rules is the the way to fix anything. Hell I could still take a city with 10 CRIII tanks as opposed to 8 Barrage II tanks; whats a couple more tanks in the equation for disabling Barrage promotions going to achieve? In the field of battle, having the freedom to wisely choose promotions on units is all part of the fun - I say leave it as it is.

Level3 Tank vs Level3 Artillery, both promoted to Barrage2 (+50% Collateral Damage):

Tank: Cost = 180 Hammers, CollateralDamageLimit = 60, MaxNrofUnits = 5
Artillery: Cost = 150 Hammers, CollateralDamageLimit = 70, MaxNrofUnits = 8

When both splash a stack of Infantry the Tank will inflict a maximum of 5*5 = 25 HPs, Artillery 8*13 = 104 HPs!

--> I will certainly not neglect Artillery. I want to be able to choose the right unit for the right situation.

Barrage on Tanks, and especially on Modern Armor, discourages use of artillery. Though artillery does more collateral damage (patched or not), it is less likely to survive. Give artillery city raider, so it is more survivable, and compare that to tanks with barrage. The tank's higher base attack makes it more survivable, and doing some collateral damage adds to that.

The effect is more pronounced with big stacks. What I'd do with tanks is support them with bombers, whose collateral damage would be enough to let the tanks finish the job. A few city raiders to pick off the toughest defenders, then barrage tanks to chew up the rest. Overall, this strategy allows for victory with low losses, and tough surviving units. A quick delay to heal, and off to the next city.

Without the barrage tanks, I'd have to use artillery, or more bombers, and it is hard to base that many bombers within range. Artillery, though doing more collateral damage, tends to die more often as well. This makes resupply of units more critical than a barrage tank centered strategy.

In the open country, barrage tanks are also generally better at surviving than artillery. The higher base attack makes up for the lower collateral damage.

From a realism standpoint, tanks, while being able to fire explosive shells, only do so in direct fire, not indirect. They can't shoot things they can't see, and can't shell an area. Strategically, they are never a substitute for artillery. While it was fun to be able to do so in the game, it doesn't mean that it was right.


If you don't like it, it is trivial to mod it back. Solver's patch allows for either option.

I voted yes, but I would like to note that the damage rate should still be lower than their era equivalent.

I voted yes, just because I'm lazy and having CRII Barrage I tanks is tremendous amounts of fun. These tanks just annialate heavily defended cities. Whether Barrage is left in or not I will still use tanks as part of a combined arms team. One stack of tanks with bombers to take down defenses and paratroopers to hold ground and another stack of infantry, artillery and a couple tanks to be the main attack.

My question is, if the original version of Civ 4 didn't have barrage for tanks, would anyone be saying it should have it now? Would the idea ever cross someones mind?

Hi

I dont think pre 3.17 baragge tanks were either unrealistic or unbalanced. But since there wasnt an option for both I picked the second since realism should never be an issue if it conflicts with game play and 3.13. But honestly barage tanks did niether. If you thought they were unrealistic or bad to choose in game you never had to choose that prmotion so neither your gameplay or realism would be affected.

And now the game play of anyone who had fun wiith barage tanks is VERY affected and their choices are very limited.

And just saying "dont like it then go mod it yourself" isnt the issue or point and not very helpful.

Kaytie

My question is, if the original version of Civ 4 didn't have barrage for tanks, would anyone be saying it should have it now? Would the idea ever cross someones mind?

It woud probably cross a lot of people's minds. But yes, we were all very spoiled in the past:lol:

The one with the tanks was in fact not thought-out at all; it was a screw-up and removing barrage as an option just seemed the easiest solution.

Don't you know by now this is Firaxis's solution to any problem with a mechanic in their game. "Rather than fix it, just remove it."

I agree though, I voted yes. Seemed balanced. So, why nerf it?

Voted no/unbalanced.
It always felt cheap conquering whole emipres with only one type of unit, i am truely happy about this change, makes modern era wars far more interesting.

Voted no/unbalanced.
It always felt cheap conquering whole emipres with only one type of unit, i am truely happy about this change, makes modern era wars far more interesting.

How, because now I'll have one more slow unit to coordinate, sending it ahead in several directions. Really my idea of fun, yippee. (Needless to say, conquering with only tanks was not really an option anyway, if it is you're so far ahead you can conquer with anything you send)

Thank god there is the option to either stick to 3.13 + Bhruic or 3.17+Solver's patch+simple tweak, but as for the change as it was made in the patch :shake:

Another sticky plaster patch required? :lol:

My vote is on "no", because it should - at least in theory - promote the usage of combined arms.That is EXACTLY my reason for the same vote. The only time I've ever built a Mobile Artilery was by accident. Barrage tanks, on the other hand, were plentiful.

That is EXACTLY my reason for the same vote. The only time I've ever built a Mobile Artilery was by accident. Barrage tanks, on the other hand, were plentiful.

When one has the option to build both units then neglecting MobileArty and promoting Tanks along the Barrage line is IMHO a waste of XPs.

The above example for Tanks / MobileArty vs stack of Infantry:

Level3, Barrage2:
Tank 5*5 = 25 HPs; MobileArty 8*16 = 128 HPs

Level4, Barrage3:
Tank 5*11 = 55 HPs; MobileArty 8*22 = 176 HPs

Plus, in many cases MobileArty has better combat odds than the Tank due to its iCombatLimit=85.

IMO, if you are able to obliterate nations with tanks only and you can do it in most if not all games, then it's time to move up on the difficulty slider. If you're tank rushing, the AI should have anti-tanks and/or enough cultural defense/infantry to lose only a few cities. If you have bombers, they should have rocketry => SAM Infantry.

When I play on Warlord, I can steamroll the enemy with only tanks, but when I move up to Noble, they are able to hold my tanks off. I have to go in with artillery, bombers, attack infantry/marines/paratroopers, and then tanks too. Never hurts to have a few gunships as well as a medic.

Even on Noble the other Civ's get crushed by tanks. The most advanced AI doesn't seem to come out w anti-tanks until after I get a chance to steamroll a civ or two. By that time, lots of battleships, bombers, etc. are up and running, & they'd be lucky to get the SS off the ground:mwaha:. Good point about the anti-tanks.

When one has the option to build both units then neglecting MobileArty and promoting Tanks along the Barrage line is IMHO a waste of XPs.
Before we can even begin to evaluate the conclusion, the assumption is questionable. Mobile Artillery comes much too late to be useful in almost all games.

Wodan

well, i will miss those barrage tanks... but maybe it's for the best... to be honest since i get barrage tanks i barely think about getting artillery units.

I actually think of this quite differently.

I think tanks ought to get collateral damage, but why do they get city raider?

I don't agree with the combined-arms theory way of looking at it. Tanks with barrage still didn't get defensive bonuses and can't bring down city defenses. You either also need Infantry/Marines and Bombers/Artillery/Cannon take on big stacks of city-defenders and hold unless you're way ahead in tech as it was. If you're running over longbows or muskets, what difference does barrage make? If you're using tanks instead of arty, what are you bringing city defenses down with?

Maybe it would be better to allow Marines to have City Raider and Tanks only combat/barrage lines. . . it would make it so tanks aren't so dominant but still give access to a modern-era city-raider unit.

^ ^ ^ Agree agree agree. It isn't the barrage that gives tanks their superiority, it's the +75% from CRI, CRII, and CRIII ! While it is much more realistic to allow tanks collateral damage, it is unrealistic to allow them CR (as said above). Tanks cannot maneuver well in small spaces IE city streets. And don't tall buildings give them extremely limited range of weapons and sight? The CR promotion seems to be the overpowering element here as well as the unrealistic element.

Also, I still need bombers when tank rushing ;-)

^ ^ ^ Agree agree agree. It isn't the barrage that gives tanks their superiority, it's the +75% from CRI, CRII, and CRIII ! While it is much more realistic to allow tanks collateral damage, it is unrealistic to allow them CR (as said above). Tanks cannot maneuver well in small spaces IE city streets. And don't tall buildings give them extremely limited range of weapons and sight? The CR promotion seems to be the overpowering element here as well as the unrealistic element.

Also, I still need bombers when tank rushing ;-)

QFT. Tanks weren't developed for taking out cities. They were developed to win battles in the field (ending trench warfare). Inside ciities they were ineffective at attacking units, its main function seemed to be to destroy buildings where anti-tank units might be hiding.

Remove the CR promotions, that's what unbalances the game and makes them too overpowered and unstoppable.

I guess we need a new poll with an option to remove BOTH barrage and city raider. ;)

But we all know that a Tank's true (over?)power comes from its Blitz ability!

They should add an Assault Gun unit, as I've said before.

However, in my opinion, taking away CR from tanks is a stupid idea. Yes, tanks were designed to win battles in the field, but in Civ IV gameplay, most if not all of the important battles take place in cities. Tanks without CR would have little or no impact on gameplay, because they would be practically useless at taking out entrenched infantry.

I guess we need a new poll with an option to remove BOTH barrage and city raider. ;)

Woah, seriously? How bout we nerf them to a 1 str, and only allow them the Cg and drill promotions. That should stop people from wanting to use them. :p

I do like the idea of removing CR line though. I may have to change that real quick.


EDIT: Does 3.17 + Solver's patch retain all of 3.13 + Bhruics?

They should add an Assault Gun unit, as I've said before.

However, in my opinion, taking away CR from tanks is a stupid idea. Yes, tanks were designed to win battles in the field, but in Civ IV gameplay, most if not all of the important battles take place in cities. Tanks without CR would have little or no impact on gameplay, because they would be practically useless at taking out entrenched infantry.

That's what artillery is for. Tanks have strength 28 so with 3 combat promos (or 2 and a pinch) along with dealing collateral damage with your arty, you should have very few losses of tanks.

But we all know that a Tank's true (over?)power comes from its Blitz ability!

I have much more fun with my Blitz'ing GunShips than Tanks :-)


Artillery: Max splash: 8 Units, 85% Damage.
Tanks: Max splash: 5 Units, 60% Damage.

I'd be more apt to give Artillery an increased Withdrawal after a certain Tech, and give Artillery +1 Move after a Tech advancement.

I haven't perused thru where the bonuses would best fit, but it would enable Artillery to keep up with Tanks - or even just give us freaking Transport Trucks (2MV) that can carry Infantry et al + Artillery.

This whole Artillery/Tank issue is a lark, game balance is not THAT important to tick off your customers. When we used to do MUD coding, the objectives were almost always to improve things that were weaker than the "best" than just take the easy route and nerf the "bogus thing".

Firaxis could have easily added Transport Trucks, or given some type of improvement to Artillery. Instead Artillery was nerfed for Naval Assaults, and tanks were nerfed for Barrage. Extremely poor management of the design team.

Tanks with collateral damage is overpowered on small maps but arguably needed on large maps. The problem is time limit. If you want to win a conquest victory on a large map it can be difficult to conqure it all before the time limit runs out, even on marathon speed. Especially if you have been putting off much of the neccessary warfare till the later part of the game. And especially if the enemy is located overseas.




My solution is: Allow tanks to receive only barrage I. Prohibit them from receiving barrage II and III.

I have much more fun with my Blitz'ing GunShips than Tanks :-)


Artillery: Max splash: 8 Units, 85% Damage.
Tanks: Max splash: 5 Units, 60% Damage.

I'd be more apt to give Artillery an increased Withdrawal after a certain Tech, and give Artillery +1 Move after a Tech advancement.

I haven't perused thru where the bonuses would best fit, but it would enable Artillery to keep up with Tanks - or even just give us freaking Transport Trucks (2MV) that can carry Infantry et al + Artillery.

This whole Artillery/Tank issue is a lark, game balance is not THAT important to tick off your customers. When we used to do MUD coding, the objectives were almost always to improve things that were weaker than the "best" than just take the easy route and nerf the "bogus thing".

Firaxis could have easily added Transport Trucks, or given some type of improvement to Artillery. Instead Artillery was nerfed for Naval Assaults, and tanks were nerfed for Barrage. Extremely poor management of the design team.

Nice post.

I am sure someone has a transport truck unit floating around somewhere on this forum. I have seriously given this some thought of adding in to my own mod. What do you think carrying capacity should be, Balder? I am thinking of unlocking them one at combustion with carrying capacity of 3, then another at maybe radio with capacity of 6.

When I mull it over in my head, I'd prefer to go the full out route and assign a Size rating to Units; Carrying Capacity to "Transports".

Human Type, Size: 15, Machines (Artillery): 20; Tanks: 20

Carrying Capacity of Transports Truck: 60 (can't go over).
= 4 Infantry | 3 Artillery | 2 INF+1 ART | 1 INF+2 ART

Perhaps too much work for the sake of a 1 unit difference. So if not that, I agree, general capacity of 3.

If I did get the Size/Capacity working, would likely give Transport (Boats): 60, and GunShips 30-35, and limit the gunship in 2 ways.
-> If it Unloads, it cannot attack - even if it has Blitz.
-> If it Attacks, it cannot unload - even if it has Blitz.

Though I prefer the progression of ~4 Unit Capacity to ~6 Unit Capacity, 50% Increase instead of 100% 3/6; so would go 3/5 not 3/6.

I dunno if I would go too too far with it... but its hard to NOT envision a small army of GunShips with Paratroopers dropping out of them hehehe.

I dunno if I would go too too far with it... but its hard to NOT envision a small army of GunShips with Paratroopers dropping out of them hehehe.

Yeah, I mean it's only the modern America gunships like apaches that don't carry passengers. The older ones (hueys) and most of the russian ones carry passengers.

The problem is time limit. If you want to win a conquest victory on a large map it can be difficult to conqure it all before the time limit runs out, even on marathon speed.

I don't understand at all how the time limit is at all affected by the barrage promotion for tanks? I mean, you don't have to attack with fewer units, you can get away with weaker units to clean up the collaterally-damaged. . . I guess maybe you lose fewer units?

I voted no because of realism. It may have a gun barrel on it but it really isn't meant for multiple targets at once. I do like the CD to soften up enemies. Modern Armors are sometimes more effective when attacking another continent then marines...

Plinko16 Posted: I don't understand at all how the time limit is at all affected by the barrage promotion for tanks? I mean, you don't have to attack with fewer units, you can get away with weaker units to clean up the collaterally-damaged. . . I guess maybe you lose fewer units?



A unit that can do collateral damage is more powerful. More power = faster conquest.









Alright here is another solution.



Armored units get barrage I but not II and III.



Armored units lose access to flanking 2.






This results in Drill promoted gunpowder units being a effective counter to barrage I promoted tanks.



This results in gameplay balance. Maybe.