Reality War MOD

[ShAtTeR DrEaMz]

I may be a few years late on this. Is there a mod with a tank(or any other higher tech. example marines will kill muskets etc.) that will defeat a musket man or a longbowman or a grenadier that throws a makeshift bomb and blows up a Sherman or a Panzer tank...I refuse to play with the madness anymore...Is there a mod were a reality is set in...and a tank can chew up almost anything it comes in contact with...i know personally...Any help out there fellas...


one tank could take out all the musketmen/machine gun men in the world...a group of marines can take out all the the catipaults or musket men in the world etc..do you get what im saying...i spell horrible sorry

 

[warpus]

one tank could take out all the musketmen/machine gun men in the world...

Uh huh

Which reality are you talking about here?

 

[Supr49er]

... one tank could take out all the musketmen/machine gun men in the world...

Just wait until you lose a tank to a spearman.


Any combat realism is coincidental. Civ is not a combat simulation game. I suppose you could create a combat mod that would do what you want.

Welcome to the Forums ShAtTeR DrEaMz.

 

[r_rolo1]

After seeing Apaches shot down by Iraqi farmers, and Sovietic foot soldiers disabling Panzers with socks filled with explosives, calling "Reality War" to

one tank could take out all the musketmen/machine gun men in the world...a group of marines can take out all the the catipaults or musket men in the world etc..

Is somewhat whacky IMHO ( Too much Rambo style for my book )

But the Mod would not be so dificult to make... give a look to the Creation and costumization forums here in CFC. I would not be surprised if there was already one Mod with that caractheristic

 

[ShAtTeR DrEaMz]

You show me...a machine gun or a musket that will peirce the armor of a tank....thats why i thought the anit tank unit in this game would be utilized...if 1 tank fought a group of rifle men...or machine gun men...its over..if anyone hasnt found out yet...the tank was created to combat infantry/tanks ...then the infantry had to find a way to combat this...with anti tank tactics...now...if your telling me a 18th century musketman can figure out how to beat a panzer tank....i guess WW2 was a big mistake for us (USA) we should have just called the damn longbow archers in WW2...and the 1 tank could take out a machinegun men comment...think about... i seen 1 tank waste a whole city of machinegun men gurellias...

 

[r_rolo1]

I said this a thousand times, but I'll say it again:

Civ Turns last atleast 6 months. They do not represent a battle in real life standarts... and a lot of things can happen in 6 months, even with far superior tech ( like waking up dead with the head smashed ). And even if they did the more advanced army does not always win ( I could quote lots of wars, but, as you're talking tanks: the Viet liberation war vs the French. The Viets didn't used a single tank and they won to a nuclear power ( with tanks and air support ) ). You are presuming that the rifle regiment would stand still in front of a tank batalion waiting to be killed as well....

P.S About longbows: Did you knew that Wellington asked to the british governement a company of longbowmen for the Penisular war, because they had a bigger precision and fire rate than the 1800 rifles? The problem was that there were not enough longbowmen at the time ...

 

[ShAtTeR DrEaMz]

liste to me rolo...im talking about physicaly impossible scenarios...an 18th century grenadier holding a wic lit greande cannot pierce the armour of a tank...a rifle company without a AT componet cannot piecre the armour of a tank....a archer has no chance against marines period...a b-2 bombing a frigate...dead...theres just a lot of impossible things that make my blood boil...i dont care how long the war is 5 months 10 years...a f----- defending grendier took out my sherman today again...and im like how?....he dosnet have anything to stop it...it cant happen...he was ment to attack groups of men...not 1 foot thick steal....im not trying to start a fight in here dosent anyone agree?

 

[r_rolo1]

Don't let the graphics elude you

 

[oranges]

I doubt you'll find anyone sympathizing with your cause. We might whine about losing five 95 percnet battles in a row, but few, if any, would change the system to tank alway wins over a machine gun or grenadier. It would turn CIV too much into one of gazillion RTS games. As for realism, in those six months r_rolo mentioned, a lot can happen, including all kinds of sabotage.

 

[ShAtTeR DrEaMz]

"The problem was that there were not enough longbowmen at the time ..."


I wonder why....

 

[Synobun]

"The problem was that there were not enough longbowmen at the time ..."


I wonder why....

Because they were converting to rifles, perhaps?

Think of the possibilities. A grenadier could get lucky and throw one of their grenades into the shaft of the tank, and once the tank fires... Along with that, the grenadiers can get up and close with the tank, and put the grenades in the tracts.

With archers and marines, think about guerrilla warfare. While there is an obvious advantage, the archers still have a chance. Marines usually have explosive materials on them, or at least some of them do, so if an archer gets lucky, his arrow can specifically hit that material and possibly ignite it, causing a wide explosion. The archers have more stealth capabilities due to the fact that they have less metallic items and such, meaning that they won't make as much noise.

Regarding the bombing of a frigate, anything is possible. If the frigate can successfully maneuver out of the way of the bombs, and if the people onboard can shoot the bomber successfully for several times in a row, eventually the bomber will fall. Not to mention that they probably have some way to deal with air units, considering how you already have aircraft.

 

[Nestorius]

Don't forget the importance of terrain. Tanks are fine and all when there is flat ground and the semblance of a road, but a musketeer on foot can hide and fight in places a tank can't and also ambush when the tank drivers are relaxed.

 

[r_rolo1]

"The problem was that there were not enough longbowmen at the time ..."


I wonder why....

That one is easy: lazyness

Mastering the use of a longbow takes a life, mastering the use of a rifle takes less than a year. It does not have anything to do with effectiveness on field of battle

 

[Shadowkx]

Tanks do not always win in reality...

Aside from the fact this would completely break the game....

 

[frekk]

How could a tank division be defeated by units centuries out of date?

Pretty simple, really. It is presumed (by the graphics, I guess) that it's some sort of head-on confrontation with grenadiers running out and throwing cherry bombs at tanks. No, that wouldn't work too well.

But I can imagine other things that might happen. Grenadiers get around to fuel and ammo supply depot and blow it up. Tanks are abandoned without fuel or ammo, crews killed off somewhere out there in the wilds when their (limited) small arms ammo runs out.

Or, native warriors lure tank unit deep into forest and set off a huge forest fire over many square miles, enough to burn off all the oxygen in the air, or divert a river. It's never been done to tanks specifically, but extremely primitive groups have done just this in the past, and it definately could work, especially against WW2 tanks and not modern MBTs.

Or, Grenadier unit is really just graphical; it's actually just representing insurgents fighting with the effectiveness of a 14 strength unit.

I saw this happen just once in civ 3 (and that was a redlined tank that was attacked by 20 units, archers, spearmen, chariots, etc - it finally died) and never in civ4. Methinks people just love to complain about this one, even though it's not really an issue at all.

 

[REDfeller]

My worst is a cannon in a hilltop,walled city moving out into the open field to attack the SoD all on his own instead of firing over/from the battlements, WHY?

 

[JujuLautre]

Have you ever considered that what you see is just fancy graphics? That turns *should* represent lots of time, squares *should* represent big places? That units are not said to represent one man only? That this action you do is just a game action to represent much more than just a battle of a cannon from a hilltop ? We're not playing a tactical battle on a field here, we're talking about wars during months or even years.

 

[Sultan_of_ATL]

or you could just look at what is happening in Iraq. Road side bombs, IED's etc. There is nothing man made that is impregnable.

 

[frekk]

My worst is a cannon in a hilltop,walled city moving out into the open field to attack the SoD all on his own instead of firing over/from the battlements, WHY?

Because a square is many miles and they'd have to be in the same square for the cannon to shoot. If they attack (ie enter the square the cannon is in), that's exactly what the cannon is doing.

If the cannon attacks, it is sallying from the city out into the field, down the road 10 or 50 or 100 miles (depends on map size and your interpretation of the scales, which are loose and inconsistent), to hit the enemy encampment and (hopefully) make away before a pursuit can be organized.

What's a little nutty is that cannons don't defend very well, they really should be pretty good at defence.

 

[Rusty Edge]

You show me...a machine gun or a musket that will peirce the armor of a tank....thats why i thought the anit tank unit in this game would be utilized...if 1 tank fought a group of rifle men...or machine gun men...its over..if anyone hasnt found out yet...the tank was created to combat infantry/tanks ...then the infantry had to find a way to combat this...with anti tank tactics...now...if your telling me a 18th century musketman can figure out how to beat a panzer tank....i guess WW2 was a big mistake for us (USA) we should have just called the damn longbow archers in WW2...and the 1 tank could take out a machinegun men comment...think about... i seen 1 tank waste a whole city of machinegun men gurellias...

I imagine the Germans thought much the same as you when they invaded Russia. A soldier doesn't have to pierce the armor of a tank to disable it, he just has to wait for the crew to open a hatch and/or come out. A tank needs, air, water, food, ammunition, fuel, lubricants, and spare parts to operate, and tanks are harder to keep running in the winter. Stop the supply of any of those and a soldier stops the tank. Think about it. It's not impossible, just unlikely.

I've seen film where a P-47 pilot claimed he could take out panzers traveling on paved roads by flying above the road and banking his bullets off of the road into the tank's underbelly. He said it was the only way ...couldn't be done on unpaved roads. Of course that's 8 .50 caliber machineguns firing at once. War is a laboratory of desperate experimentation.



When it becomes a matter of adapt or die, many soldiers will try to adapt. When they are in a position where they figure they are dead anyway, their thinking changes and they try to come up with ways to take their enemies with them to the afterlife, ways that the enemies often fail to anticipate.
Can it burn? Will it float? What happens when you drop a lot of lime on it?

I think the most dangerous weapon is the human brain.