Something important I`ve always found where Civ misses the point...

One of the reasons I got into Civilisation was because of the mix of `What-if` possibilities. I always wondered what would happen if a main battle tank took on a bunch of elephants. Civ allowed this improbable, but now possible combinations.

However, the Civ series has never managed this combination with any realistic thought in my mind. You know something`s wrong when a WW2 bomber can get knocked down by Medieval Knights.

There are some cases where it has to be IMPOSSIBLE for a unit to beat another unit.

But there should also be areas where a low tech unit could use other means to FEASIBLY win against a high tech unit.

I just don`t think the Civ guys really sat down and made a mechanic where they thrashed out TRULY plausible situations of battle with extremely different era units. it`s just a bunch of ready numbers and `let`s hope that works`.

Yeah, but do they need it? Do we really need the game mechanics to work for "Knights against bombers"? If it does, then you know that the game is going crazy.

StrategyMaster4 said:

Yeah, but do they need it? Do we really need the game mechanics to work for "Knights against bombers"? If it does, then you know that the game is going crazy.

Click to expand...

Well of course they do and not just `knights versus bombers`, but whatever combo of units therof; even archers versus GDR.

The Civ game is all about different units of different ages that can bump into eachother. Either the Player plays so well that he ends up with modern versus medieval or vice versa.

That to me was the unique attraction of Civ games.

Maybe it's just luck or lack of attention, but it seems to me that damage air units take when not intercepted tends toward normal wear and tear rather than being attacked. I know the graphics show the attack, but it feels to me as if bombing a warrior and a battleship result in the same damage to my bomber.

For that to be changed, interception would have to come earlier, before flight, so it's not insta-win for the person who gets flight (and GW bombers) first, and the game is crazy enough with how some techs or units come before others illogically.

In every other situation, I could imagine a situation in which the lower tech unit could win, though it would be unlikely, and the fact that lower tech units often get totally crushed by higher tech units, with the higher tech units taking a few losses, does a good job of showing that.

See it as a gameplay purpose iff bombers didn't got damaged when they are atacking then it would make them overpowered just constantly range atack everyone

On the other hand it would make fighters stronger

Socratatus said:

But there should also be areas where a low tech unit could use other means to FEASIBLY win against a high tech unit.

Click to expand...

Such as?

I'm looking for documentation regarding the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. I've heard anecdotes of an Ethiopian spearman shooting down an Italian fighter by getting his spear into the plane's propellor. I've also heard of a spear being shoved into a tank driver's vision slit, killing him.

Yes, I am aware that the better-equipped troops of the Ethiopian army of 1935 had rifles, but some of their troops still used traditional weapons.

Rooftrellen said:

Maybe it's just luck or lack of attention, but it seems to me that damage air units take when not intercepted tends toward normal wear and tear rather than being attacked.

Click to expand...

I like this line of reasoning.

There are many other factors for military losses other than who had the least amount of firepower/armor, like disease and mechanical failure.


Similarly, I find these Spearman beats Tank arguments (or Knight beats Bomber in this case) to be silly because they focus on an outlier while completely ignoring the circumstances in which the kill was possible.

There is no way that a fresh Spearman by itself in Civilization V is going to kill a fresh Tank. Similarly, there is no way that a fresh Knight by itself in Civilization V is going to kill a fresh Bomber.

I have no experience with Gods and Kings, so I can't talk about how a fresh Great War Bomber would fare against a fresh Knight.

For vastly inferior units to beat superior units in Civilization V, it requires an extraordinary amount of supporting units and circumstances to happen, such as completely surrounding an isolated advanced unit. Similarly, wear and tear is a natural part of maintaining a combat unit. Things require maintenance, and maintenance is usually not possible to do in the middle of a combat mission.

These prerequisites are the key point that many people miss.

Is it technically possible for a Spearman to kill a Tank? Yes. Is it likely to happen every game? No. Is it likely to happen every five games? No. Is it likely to happen once in 100 games? That's hard for me to say, but I'll say no.

Similarly, chalk the damage sustained by a Bomber when attacking a Knight as wear and tear rather than from the weapons of the Knight. Perhaps the Bomber flew through a flock of birds when orienting itself to attack the Knight formation. Perhaps the weather was inclement on the attack run.

Pook said:

I'm looking for documentation regarding the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. I've heard anecdotes of an Ethiopian spearman shooting down an Italian fighter by getting his spear into the plane's propellor. I've also heard of a spear being shoved into a tank driver's vision slit, killing him.

Yes, I am aware that the better-equipped troops of the Ethiopian army of 1935 had rifles, but some of their troops still used traditional weapons.

Click to expand...

Fascinating. I can see the spear in the tank slits thing working if spearmen could trap the tank or attack it unawares, but the spear in the prop thing would probably be a one in a million event. For a start the aircraft would have to flying extremely low and get a lucky strike.

Interesting anyway.

I would like it if non-melee units such as artillery and ranged units be able to damage planes when attacked. It just doesn't make sense if a warrior can just knock down a plane somehow. But an archer could if the plane was so badly damaged anyway. Melee units after musketmen should be able to damage planes, though.

Clearly, what happened was the plane crashed due to poor weather and the knights killed the survivors of the wreckage!
Or at least thats what I tell myself when I see this stuff happen.

I also see it as normal operational damage, and with the G+K HP scaling the problem of vanilla civ5 when 10 warriors could kill a GDR is solved. Or almost, now it would require 100...

I imagine that if a nation have reached the modern era, there could be someone willing to sell small weapons, like SA-7, to those poor knight

And for those who hadn't seen it already, I'd suggest to watch Sengoku jieitai, it's a bit old, but has some nice action scene related to what if a small Japanese modern force was opposed to medieval era troops.

The Red Baron(greatest WWI ACE, ever?) was killed by small arms fire, correct?

HazyAK said:

The Red Baron(greatest WWI ACE, ever?) was killed by small arms fire, correct?

Click to expand...

And?

That`s not the same thing at all. Now if he had been killed by an arrow that would be something.

HazyAK said:

The Red Baron(greatest WWI ACE, ever?) was killed by small arms fire, correct?

Click to expand...

Browning Model 1919 machine gun aircraft version

History is full of examples of inferior combatants defeating a more modern military. The Zulu vs the British to cite one example off the top of my head. Civ implements this mechanic the only way it can. If these sorts of things did not happen, I would enjoy the game a great deal less. i think it adds air of caution to the game.

It does not matter if it was a rock, arrow, or piece of lint. The Red Baron still died. An infantryman still took out a plane.