Tanks + collateral, yes or no? Vote!

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! I were actually preparing the poll but you were too fast for me.

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

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. Thank you.

Refar said:

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

Click to expand...

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).

Evil Ernst said:

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

Click to expand...

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).

EweezE said:

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).

Click to expand...

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'...

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 ). 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?

!
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.