Battles you have trouble stomaching
- Thread starter DarkSchneider
- Start date
Dairuka
Prince
He did in that one episode where he was chasing down the military pedophile clown.
Hellfire
Prince
The important thing about the realism debate is that I don't think everyone is thinking outside the box. The anecdote about the apaches taken down by several dozen AK-47 wielding defenders is the kind of thing that happens in warefare in all ages. You come up with creative solutions for overwhelming problems. This is why terrorists are (unfortunately) successful, they think outside the box.
A spearman taking out a tank isn't an example of a spearman launching a phalanx like assault on a tank. The spearman could be using a sock bomb and got lucky (take some explosive, wrap it in a sock, dip it in tar or something equally sticky, pull the pin on the timing device you have for the explosive, and throw it against the side of a tank and wait for it to blow). Perhaps the spearman set up a trap to trap the tank in a bog or pit. And a spearman fortified behind a huge modern concrete bunker or entrenched in a city has more options open to them than your average spearman in an open field.
It's not supposed to happen that often, but it CAN happen! The next tank should learn from that mistake and wipe the spearman out.
And what really annoys people is that they never have enough patience to see what happens when they throw 200 archers at a tank and see if it kills it because we are too smart to let that happen, but those are the kind of tactics the computer has available to it and it has infinite patience to wait for probabilities to catch up to it.
A spearman taking out a tank isn't an example of a spearman launching a phalanx like assault on a tank. The spearman could be using a sock bomb and got lucky (take some explosive, wrap it in a sock, dip it in tar or something equally sticky, pull the pin on the timing device you have for the explosive, and throw it against the side of a tank and wait for it to blow). Perhaps the spearman set up a trap to trap the tank in a bog or pit. And a spearman fortified behind a huge modern concrete bunker or entrenched in a city has more options open to them than your average spearman in an open field.
It's not supposed to happen that often, but it CAN happen! The next tank should learn from that mistake and wipe the spearman out.
And what really annoys people is that they never have enough patience to see what happens when they throw 200 archers at a tank and see if it kills it because we are too smart to let that happen, but those are the kind of tactics the computer has available to it and it has infinite patience to wait for probabilities to catch up to it.
Jedoc
Warlord
Most of the battles I don't have a problem with. In WWII, the North African theatre proved that even a modern tank division is no match for a liberal application of equal parts Ethiopian warriors--armed mostly with swords, flintlocks, and an intimate knowledge of the terrain--and kerosene. Tanks are mostly fireproof, but they get really UNPLEASANT to be in when they're covered in burning fuel.
Sure, a tank is much, much more likely to take down a tribesman, or a whole slew of tribesmen. But does that mean the opposite is not true? Absolutely not.
The gunship/knight matchups do present a bit of a problem, even for those of us with rich imaginations. Great mental images, though. "Come down here and fight, you cowardly dastard!"
For me, the best WTH moment came when I used the worldbuilder to station a few stealth fighters in enemy territory so I could keep an eye on their early development through air recon. Turns out they function pretty well without a host city...until a club-wielding barbarian comes across them. Try it. I guarantee a few chuckles from seeing the pinnacle of air superiority technology having twelve kinds of hell beaten out of it with a stout stick.
Sure, a tank is much, much more likely to take down a tribesman, or a whole slew of tribesmen. But does that mean the opposite is not true? Absolutely not.
The gunship/knight matchups do present a bit of a problem, even for those of us with rich imaginations. Great mental images, though. "Come down here and fight, you cowardly dastard!"
For me, the best WTH moment came when I used the worldbuilder to station a few stealth fighters in enemy territory so I could keep an eye on their early development through air recon. Turns out they function pretty well without a host city...until a club-wielding barbarian comes across them. Try it. I guarantee a few chuckles from seeing the pinnacle of air superiority technology having twelve kinds of hell beaten out of it with a stout stick.
Uberslacker
Tilda Junkie
(Caveat: I'm not especially bothered by spearmen beating gunships, but the problem is interesting as an intellectual excercise to me.)
I've been thinking about the spearmen (or any other melee-type unit) vs aircraft debate and I *may* have a solution. For those to whom antiquity units beating modern aircraft is a serious game-breaker; can penalties vs certain unit types be added to unit stats?
eg: Spearmen get -100% vs gunpowder, armour etc
If this could be implemented successfully, terrain bonuses and such will still kick in, but it (should) make it virtually impossible for a gunship to be attacked successfully by a pre-gunpowder unit.
Ideally the goal would be to take away the possibility of a non-zero chance of victory from the spearman. Maybe -200% or -300% would work. Unless the game throws a fit at negative strengths.
There may be other, more elegant ways to solve the problem, but my point is that the tools to introduce new variables into the combat system are there. The combat *system* itself does not need to be changed at all.
I've been thinking about the spearmen (or any other melee-type unit) vs aircraft debate and I *may* have a solution. For those to whom antiquity units beating modern aircraft is a serious game-breaker; can penalties vs certain unit types be added to unit stats?
eg: Spearmen get -100% vs gunpowder, armour etc
If this could be implemented successfully, terrain bonuses and such will still kick in, but it (should) make it virtually impossible for a gunship to be attacked successfully by a pre-gunpowder unit.
Ideally the goal would be to take away the possibility of a non-zero chance of victory from the spearman. Maybe -200% or -300% would work. Unless the game throws a fit at negative strengths.
There may be other, more elegant ways to solve the problem, but my point is that the tools to introduce new variables into the combat system are there. The combat *system* itself does not need to be changed at all.
snepp
King
Uberslacker said:
I don't see why not, bombers have a -50% vs all naval based units.
Just tested, works fine.
Cosmic_Fist
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2003
- Messages
- 36
I quite like gunships, I try to get them to combat lvl3 and then get the upgrade that lets you attack multiple times in one turn. Since it has no penalty for moving over terrain, it can really make the difference when using it combined with tanks or modern armour. I played a game where I would have spent 2 to 3 more turns to take each city if it wasn't for the gunships.
I only play on noble difficulty for now, so maybe that's why they work for me, but I really reccomend you trying to upgrade one so it can attack multiple times pr turn.
I only play on noble difficulty for now, so maybe that's why they work for me, but I really reccomend you trying to upgrade one so it can attack multiple times pr turn.
Uberslacker
Tilda Junkie
I said
>>>I've been thinking about the spearmen (or any other melee-type unit) vs aircraft debate and I *may* have a solution. For those to whom antiquity units beating modern aircraft is a serious game-breaker; can penalties vs certain unit types be added to unit stats?
eg: Spearmen get -100% vs gunpowder, armour etc<<<
Than snepp said
>>>I don't see why not, bombers have a -50% vs all naval based units.
Just tested, works fine.<<<
Excellent!
See, I have this idea for an assassin-type unit in a hypothetical (meaning I'll never actually get around to it) mod based on the Earthdawn role-playing game. The unit has a fairly low strength, but all non-magical units would get -100% versus it because they can't detect invisible units. (The Thief Adept for those who have any familiarity with ED)
My next question, to all and sundry:
Is there a limit to how many unit types you can have? (Unit types obviously being melee unit, archery unit etc)
>>>I've been thinking about the spearmen (or any other melee-type unit) vs aircraft debate and I *may* have a solution. For those to whom antiquity units beating modern aircraft is a serious game-breaker; can penalties vs certain unit types be added to unit stats?
eg: Spearmen get -100% vs gunpowder, armour etc<<<
Than snepp said
>>>I don't see why not, bombers have a -50% vs all naval based units.
Just tested, works fine.<<<
Excellent!
See, I have this idea for an assassin-type unit in a hypothetical (meaning I'll never actually get around to it) mod based on the Earthdawn role-playing game. The unit has a fairly low strength, but all non-magical units would get -100% versus it because they can't detect invisible units. (The Thief Adept for those who have any familiarity with ED)
My next question, to all and sundry:
Is there a limit to how many unit types you can have? (Unit types obviously being melee unit, archery unit etc)
Think of it this way. If a tank were driving through a town leaking gas and oil all over the place from being in a previous battle, and an archer were to light his arrows and shoot the tank, it is very possible that the tank would catch on fire and at least be inoperable. Maybe the other units snuck on the tank and set it on fire. There could be many possible explanations. Even in ancient history there were stories of people who were drastically outnumbered and "outgunned" that won over incredible odds. It wasn't "common" but it did happen from time to time.
I had a knight kill a gunship once. The only thing I could guess was that it was flying way to low from being heavily damaged
.
I had a knight kill a gunship once. The only thing I could guess was that it was flying way to low from being heavily damaged
.
Ravellion
Prince
"navigator? Do you see those idiots with a spears, taunting us to attack?"
"Yes captain, but we got hit pretty bad in that last combat sir. I think we may be leaking fuel, and I don't think we'll be able to make it back to base."
"Aw come, on, we just need two, three, passes at most"
"Yes captain, but we got hit pretty bad in that last combat sir. I think we may be leaking fuel, and I don't think we'll be able to make it back to base."
"Aw come, on, we just need two, three, passes at most"
I will ignore the image of different units and consider them just as icons with different abilities and names to tell apart.
No one complains when a pawn would beat your queen and whine on forums over that since the queen is superior. Your pawns can revive the queen and people don't complain about that being overpowered.
No one complains when a pawn would beat your queen and whine on forums over that since the queen is superior. Your pawns can revive the queen and people don't complain about that being overpowered.
Zombie69
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,902
weimingshi said:
Canadian navy helicopters fall on their own all the time. You hear about it once or twice per year. It's a running gag by now. Actually, one fell into the water while trying to take off just about 2 weeks ago (fortunately everyone was rescued). Old and badly maintained means you don't even need to shoot it to defeat it.
Yzen Danek
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 182
I think you just need to realize what 'badly damaged' means.
A badly damaged gunship could be just sitting on the ground awaiting repairs. A badly damaged tank could have no weapons online, or its tracks are broken.
Basically, badly damaged modern units are just the people of the battalion fighting hand to hand with whoever is attacking them.
A badly damaged gunship could be just sitting on the ground awaiting repairs. A badly damaged tank could have no weapons online, or its tracks are broken.
Basically, badly damaged modern units are just the people of the battalion fighting hand to hand with whoever is attacking them.
Xenocrates
Deity
Quote: 'Maybe it's not the game itself; but the fact that Gunships suck.'
Pah! Russians will have 50 exp Cossacks to upgrade to gunships. That's if they can be bothered to ahem 'upgrade' them! More vodka comrade?
The main problem I see with air units is that catapaults still cause collateral damage against them. I guess they could be flying very close to each other but still.....
Pah! Russians will have 50 exp Cossacks to upgrade to gunships. That's if they can be bothered to ahem 'upgrade' them! More vodka comrade?
The main problem I see with air units is that catapaults still cause collateral damage against them. I guess they could be flying very close to each other but still.....
the gunship is a quirky unit as it is essentially a mounted unit, except of course, it flies, so it creates some realism problems. AK's downing a helicopter isn't unrealistic, even a spear tossed from a roof as a copter is low down could theoretically take it down, knights though... anybody else think cavalry should upgrade to tanks? it wouldn't fix the gunships, but it would give the ruskies stacks of 50exp tanks and modern armor.
To the "gunships suck" crowd, you're forgetting a key element: deploy your forces in combined-arms stacks.
I've observed several times where the AI relentlessly attacks my stacks of modern armor and mech-infantry invaders repeatedly with artillery and SAM Infantry, eventually grinding down the stack until it was no longer a viable fighting force. When I add a few gunships to each stack as they move through enemy territory, the AI suddenly huddles in its cities waiting for my air force to soften them up until the death stacks reach their objectives.
(And yes, I know from personal experience that helicopters do crash. If God intended for us to fly in helicopters, birds would look a lot different than they do today.)
I've observed several times where the AI relentlessly attacks my stacks of modern armor and mech-infantry invaders repeatedly with artillery and SAM Infantry, eventually grinding down the stack until it was no longer a viable fighting force. When I add a few gunships to each stack as they move through enemy territory, the AI suddenly huddles in its cities waiting for my air force to soften them up until the death stacks reach their objectives.
(And yes, I know from personal experience that helicopters do crash. If God intended for us to fly in helicopters, birds would look a lot different than they do today.)
