Gunships vs. Mech infantry

[Strong Reaction]

Relatively new to Civ 4, had just never played it much. So if the conversations been had, that's the reason. However, its new to me. I am playing Warlords so it may be different in BTS.

I just don't get the reasoning why an armor killing unit (Gunship) doesn't have a marked advantage against mech inf. In fact mech inf have a chance of intercepting air attacks also. Does modern Mech inf really have significant anti-air capability, other than in specialized units i.e. units designed for that particular purpose ex. AA vehicle?

I think its overpowered. Common sense say they are just as vulnerable to helicopter AT weapons as tanks are and probably even more so than regular armor since they have less armored protection.

I get that they come after tanks, (a reason to make them more powerful i.e. advanced tech etc.) but to give them more firepower than tanks doesn't make sense to me either. Even in the unit description it explains how they started out as "follow up and consolidate" units playing a support role to armor. They did not spearhead armored assaults. Good defense yes, but a better attack value I don't get. Not game breaking not really a big game killer, but I think they erred in balancing the unit to replicate its true attributes, good defensive unit used to consolidate armored gains.

Just scratching my head about it, that's all.

 

[elitetroops]

I get that they come after tanks, (a reason to make them more powerful i.e. advanced tech etc.) but to give them more firepower than tanks doesn't make sense to me either.

You are comparing the wrong units. Tanks come with Industrialism. They are basically the tanks of the first half of the 20th century. Mech Infantry is a modern unit with way more advanced weapons systems. The modern tank is represented by Modern Armor, which has more fire power than Mech Infantry.

 

[Strong Reaction]

You are comparing the wrong units. Tanks come with Industrialism. They are basically the tanks of the first half of the 20th century. Mech Infantry is a modern unit with way more advanced weapons systems. The modern tank is represented by Modern Armor, which has more fire power than Mech Infantry.

I get that the mechanized version comes after the tank. I get that it is a more advanced unit. I can even make the stretch that, because of modern weaponry it can provide some good/better firepower.

I guess I drifted away from the main idea, I don't get that a mech inf unit has an advantage over a gunship, for all the reasons stated above. That's the main point.

 

[MyOtherName]

First and foremost, it's an issue of gameplay -- tank/gunship/infantry is the late game incarnation of the rock-paper-scissors design that permeates the game, and provides an upgrade path to the obsolete cavalry.

As for rationalizing the balance... given that you're willing to grant them the role of supporting a modern armor advance, they actually need to be able to provide that support, which means being able to protect a MA stack from bombardment and gunship counterattacks.

 

[Lexicus]

But then why are SAM units in the game? I would say the gunship should get +100% attack against mech infantry and armored units (right now it's just +100% combat vs armored units), that would force people to bring some SAM units as stack defenders in modern war, which would be good.

 

[rah]

Yeah, what ^(myothername) said.

 

[MyOtherName]

But then why are SAM units in the game? I would say the gunship should get +100% attack against mech infantry and armored units (right now it's just +100% combat vs armored units), that would force people to bring some SAM units as stack defenders in modern war, which would be good.

Mobile SAM do a much better job at intercepting aircraft. And they are even slightly better at attacking gunships or defending against them in open terrain. And they come with the same technology as Mobile Artillery, which is probably something you need if the enemy has air control.

(I actually forgot about Mobile SAM, because when I'm in a late game war I usually have the air advantage, so I don't consider Laser as a military tech)

Let me turn your question around: if both gunships and modern armor beat mechanized infantry, then what's the point of building mechanized infantry? I suppose they'd do a decent job as homeland city garrisons (although marines or even ordinary infantry, much better defense against gunships if the gunships don't have +100% against them too), but they'd be basically useless in the field.

And someone without oil would be completely screwed, rather than merely in a disadvantageous position (especially if you take away the intercept chance too).

 

[Lexicus]

Good point, I guess. I don't know, I never thought of mech infantry as primarily defending against gunships - in my games the AIs rarely build all that many. Of course, by the time of the modern era warfare I usually have enough artillery that stack composition hardly matters anymore.

(I actually forgot about Mobile SAM, because when I'm in a late game war I usually have the air advantage, so I don't consider Laser as a military tech)

Interesting, I typically rush to Laser ASAP because mobile artillery are very strong. I have the air advantage almost always, at least after the first few turns of the AI suiciding its bombers against my fighters, but I find relying on air support for my ground advances isn't good enough because the AI almost always has too many units to soften with air attacks alone, not to mention they seem to get absurdly lucky on intercept chances (if I had a dollar for every time my Stealth Bomber had been intercepted by a machine gun I would have like 30 dollars).

 

[Strong Reaction]

Let me turn your question around: if both gunships and modern armor beat mechanized infantry, then what's the point of building mechanized infantry? I suppose they'd do a decent job as homeland city garrisons (although marines or even ordinary infantry, much better defense against gunships if the gunships don't have +100% against them too), but they'd be basically useless in the field.

And someone without oil would be completely screwed, rather than merely in a disadvantageous position (especially if you take away the intercept chance too).

That is where the problem lay, the rock, paper, scissor system. In order to make them fit in that scheme they have benefits that are incongruous with their true attributes.

side note: In earlier civ iterations, civ 2 for sure, they used that system and I didn't like it. Seems like for civ 4 they brought back some old ideas i.e. rock paper scissor and. catapults, artillery that have assault (act like infantry or other attack units) capability.

That always struck me as strange. Instead of the charge of the light brigade it is the charge of the artillery brigade or trebuchet brigade!

side note 2: They are, mech inf, not as tough as I assumed. I was able to take them out with plain tanks after softening them up with air attacks and even gunship attacks.

 

[s.bernbaum]

……. catapults, artillery that have assault (act like infantry or other attack units) capability.

That always struck me as strange. Instead of the charge of the light brigade it is the charge of the artillery brigade or trebuchet brigade!

I realize that you are playing Warlords but you might like that in BTS they got rid of the "assault" catapult, artillery, etc. They can only do damage down to a certain percentage by bombarding, they can't kill any units on the attack. Unfortunately, the programmers forgot to let the AI "know" about the change, so you still get a stack of AI catapults (or later replacements) trying to attack on their own.

 

[Strong Reaction]

I realize that you are playing Warlords but you might like that in BTS they got rid of the "assault" catapult, artillery, etc. They can only do damage down to a certain percentage by bombarding, they can't kill any units on the attack. Unfortunately, the programmers forgot to let the AI "know" about the change, so you still get a stack of AI catapults (or later replacements) trying to attack on their own.

Yeah, I wasn't sure, but suspected the two renditions had some differences (someone also pointed out a list of the differences in the two). For some reason, arbitrary, I feel the need to at least win a game of Warlords before moving onto BtS. I am sure some would go straight to BtS, but its just the way I do things.

I am playing on Prince and getting my ass handed to me. Its fine though I like the challenge.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I think that the theory is that:


A mechanised infantry unit can readily disperse.

I.e. Its soldiers can jump out of their personnel carrier with
their weapons and take cover in foxholes. If a helicopter gunship
stops to successively identify and target each foxhole; there is
likely time for one of the dispersed grunts to shoot it down.


A single tank can not disperse.

While its men can run away, they then have no weapons other
than pistols, of no use against armoured gunships. And if they stay
with the tank, it can be destroyed with one shot and they are killed.
Even if they survive the first shot, the tank's weapons are of little
use against a helicopter gunship which can attack them repeatedly.


A tank crew without their tank are merely survivors, but a
mechanised infantry crew without their carrier are combatants.

 

[Strong Reaction]

The situation you propose is a literal one v one scenario. Which is good for an example, but I am not sure if it is a good example for combat in civ.

What I mean is the unit in civ, I am assuming is a division, battalion, or regiment sized. Honestly I am really not sure what scale the units are meant to be, but It must be more than one vehicle if it takes years to produce.

Although a rationalization could be made on a macro level, meaning a large force of mech inf is likely to have AA in its ranks and therefore have an anti-air defensive value. In the American army there are specialized Bradley Fighting Vehicles that have SAM missiles in lieu of TOW missiles so maybe that's the reasoning. However, in a regular platoon of BFV's they have no AA capability as far as I can discern dismounted infantry included.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-71/fig1-1.gif

I know this though, I certainly wouldn't want to be a crew-member of a regular Bradley, driver or gunner, if an Attack Helicopter was in the vicinity.

 

[Jivilov]

Presuming that combat results in Civ--or just about any other wargame, grandly strategic or otherwise--reflect reality is an exercise in self-delusion. Mech Infantry in real life has hardly (if at all?) greater anti-air capability than pure armor, so the OP points out an incongruity which interferes with the suspension of disbelief required to play the game. Better not go there too much.

BTW love the Castaneda quote. Here's a couple more: "It is up to us as single individuals to oppose the forces of our lives," and "Think about it: what weakens us is feeling offended by the deeds and misdeeds of our fellow men. Our self-importance requires that we spend most of our lives offended by someone.”

 

[Strong Reaction]

Your right, Civ is, however you look at it, more "gamey" than some of the more sophisticated grand strategy games (ex.Hearts of Iron), so that has to be factored into the equation.

Its not a knock on Civ since it is a very fun, addicting game. Also, nice quotes, its been a while since I read Castaneda... need the reminders.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I really don't get what the fuzz is about. Of course an APC filled with infantry with various weapons has a better chance of shooting back at a helicopter than a main battle tank would have. Of all the faults this game has (suicide archers and siege, crossing a river not taking any extra effort, people being able to to move twice as fast through forests or hilly terrain than flat ground) you go and make a problem of something that's perfectly realistic?

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah chances are there's a guy with a handheld SAM missile in the combat vehicle.

 

[6K Man]

There's a mod for that.

 

[Strong Reaction]

I really don't get what the fuzz is about. Of course an APC filled with infantry with various weapons has a better chance of shooting back at a helicopter than a main battle tank would have.

They don't have any chance... at least according to the pic I posted: they have smg, rifles, grenade launchers & laser rangefinders... look at the chart. There is no mention of a SAM. * This is for an American Bradley.

"depicts the BFV-equipped mechanized infantry rifle platoon organization"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-71/ch1.htm#fig1-1

However, not so much a fuss just a conversation.Finally, ahh the longbowman shooting down a Attack helicopter is always fun, maybe someone dropped a SAM and they picked it up.



Jivilov said it best

"...so the OP points out an incongruity which interferes with the suspension of disbelief required to play the game. Better not go there too much."

ps. I am just a nerd with too much time on my hands.

 

[MyOtherName]

That unit isn't equipped with ground to air missiles because it's equipped with ground to ground missiles and intended to operate in the presence of close air support, helicopters, and air defense.