Defeating a tank with a spearman *is* realistic...
- Thread starter logical_psycho
- Start date
Captain2 said:
Read something relevant, please, then rant. You obviously know very little. Countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia were betrayed in Munich by their western allies who refused to honor the alliance and did not come to help as they promised. It was a cowardly and shameful act.
I think it's pretty obvious that spearmen could beat tanks in the right conditions.
Damn, we're talking about a damaged tank unit vs a full heal spearman unit. Just make something up about what's wrong with the damaged tank unit.
Imagine that there's only one tank left, and somehow it's gun jams and blows the thing up.
Imagine that the tanks are out of ammo, out of fuel, and have the door parts smashed in.
Imagine a big chunk of the city walls fell on their last tank.
Imagine that the spearmen set up some sort of elaborate trap involving a large pit, or falling boulders or something like that. I'm sure that if we use our imaginations, any one of us could come up with a story of how a spearman unit could beat a tank unit. Obviously, the tank will usually win; but it is not impossible for the spearman to win. That's all that counts.
Damn, we're talking about a damaged tank unit vs a full heal spearman unit. Just make something up about what's wrong with the damaged tank unit.
Imagine that there's only one tank left, and somehow it's gun jams and blows the thing up.
Imagine that the tanks are out of ammo, out of fuel, and have the door parts smashed in.
Imagine a big chunk of the city walls fell on their last tank.
Imagine that the spearmen set up some sort of elaborate trap involving a large pit, or falling boulders or something like that. I'm sure that if we use our imaginations, any one of us could come up with a story of how a spearman unit could beat a tank unit. Obviously, the tank will usually win; but it is not impossible for the spearman to win. That's all that counts.
I can't believe this debate is still going on 
The way I see it is if a spearman even has a .0000000000001% chance of beating my tank, it will. I am the un-luckiest person I know so I can count on bad things happening, so when it does, not a big deal I am used to it. I just know that, in Civ 4 I have to bring a lot more guys for an attack then I think I will ever need, if I am lucky it will be enough, if not oh well I lose. After all I am not like the AI, I have some intelligence, well ok guys a little anyway, and I can ADAPT to the game mechanics.
The way I see it is if a spearman even has a .0000000000001% chance of beating my tank, it will. I am the un-luckiest person I know so I can count on bad things happening, so when it does, not a big deal I am used to it. I just know that, in Civ 4 I have to bring a lot more guys for an attack then I think I will ever need, if I am lucky it will be enough, if not oh well I lose. After all I am not like the AI, I have some intelligence, well ok guys a little anyway, and I can ADAPT to the game mechanics.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
meisen said:
Really? I would recommend that you read the following:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry#Cavalry_charges_and_Nazi_propaganda
Not only were most of the Polish cavalry charges against German forces during WW2 successful...
...they were also never used to charge tanks
Isn't education fun?
Eigenvector
Molekh has nothing on me!
I read about those incidents along with a few others as well, I forget the sources but it was a few books I picked up in the library.
People tend to rely on Wikipedia like its the gospel, unaware that often times articles are written by people who are simply passing along information that they heard somewhere else. I've read several articles on historical military weapons which are simply untrue (or overly simplistic). The material obviously written by someone who was probably regurgitating sales brochure information from the importers.
The web is nice for finding information - but for information dealing with WWII and other historical events of that nature go to the library for god's sake!
People tend to rely on Wikipedia like its the gospel, unaware that often times articles are written by people who are simply passing along information that they heard somewhere else. I've read several articles on historical military weapons which are simply untrue (or overly simplistic). The material obviously written by someone who was probably regurgitating sales brochure information from the importers.
The web is nice for finding information - but for information dealing with WWII and other historical events of that nature go to the library for god's sake!
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
meisen said:
The thing about the wikipedia community is that they try as hard as possible to present a neutral point of view (NPOV). It is one of the main principles of the project. Nationalist, racist, and ignorant points of view are not welcome. I am sure that they make it into some articles from time to time, but that would be the exception rather than the rule.
Full article here: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/NEWS06/512180410/1012
I don't accept Wikipedia as gospel and neither should anyone else. Having said that, NOTHING is gospel, and Wikipedia is a good of a source as any, if not better.
What are you talking about? What's 'just not true'? I put forward a list of situations for which a spearman unit might beat a tank unit; what about it is 'just not true'? I bet you were just dieing to use my own line back at me that you put it out there without even thinking.meisen said:
As for the AI cheating the odds in combat, they don't. It has been said officially that they don't; and rigorous testing will show you that they don't. It's just paranoid to think that the AI is always getting better luck that you are.
Polopapolo
click, psht, Whoop ass !!
Realistic?
Rambo could take out helicopters! (Archer vs gunship)
Seriously: how many tanks are we seeing IN Baghdad? Urban warfare is close quarters. I'd give good odds on a spearman in those conditions. There are plenty of ways to trap tanks: concrete spikes to break threads, pits and chutes, incendiary devices... heck, drop a building on them!
If we wanted Civ IV combat to be realistic, there would need to be a lot more "retreat" from battle. Mounted units should get 100% chance retreat from armored.
Rambo could take out helicopters! (Archer vs gunship)
Seriously: how many tanks are we seeing IN Baghdad? Urban warfare is close quarters. I'd give good odds on a spearman in those conditions. There are plenty of ways to trap tanks: concrete spikes to break threads, pits and chutes, incendiary devices... heck, drop a building on them!
If we wanted Civ IV combat to be realistic, there would need to be a lot more "retreat" from battle. Mounted units should get 100% chance retreat from armored.
...Enough with the history lessons already!!!
Where Civ is concerned, history is a general guideline, not a rule. It is true that somethings in Civ4--like the way artillery works--seems to have come right out of the blue but the only reason to ***** about it is that one can't change it.
In the case of this thread's topic, I can't understand what the huge deal is when you can change the units stats. If you want to debate the vanilla game, fine but it's absurd to claim that this is inherent to the game even when it's been proven that this is not so.
If you don't want Spearmen to beat Tanks then increase the strength of Tanks and >pouf!< you're done.
Sure, you may get an occasional unlikely result but that's acceptable. For the most part, Tanks will always beat Spearmen in combat.
The issue with the vanilla game is that there is not enough difference between strength values of early and late units. But again, that can be easily modded (yes I know that's a taboo term around here but there it is).
You could argue that to increase the values to much between tech levels is to risk a "whoever develops gunpowder first wins" problem but that too can be changed by adding in a few more levels in-between.
(I personally, don't particularly like the system of completely open odds but I can more than live with it.)
Where Civ is concerned, history is a general guideline, not a rule. It is true that somethings in Civ4--like the way artillery works--seems to have come right out of the blue but the only reason to ***** about it is that one can't change it.
In the case of this thread's topic, I can't understand what the huge deal is when you can change the units stats. If you want to debate the vanilla game, fine but it's absurd to claim that this is inherent to the game even when it's been proven that this is not so.
If you don't want Spearmen to beat Tanks then increase the strength of Tanks and >pouf!< you're done.
Sure, you may get an occasional unlikely result but that's acceptable. For the most part, Tanks will always beat Spearmen in combat.
The issue with the vanilla game is that there is not enough difference between strength values of early and late units. But again, that can be easily modded (yes I know that's a taboo term around here but there it is).
You could argue that to increase the values to much between tech levels is to risk a "whoever develops gunpowder first wins" problem but that too can be changed by adding in a few more levels in-between.
(I personally, don't particularly like the system of completely open odds but I can more than live with it.)
yoshi said:
I agree. Especially since I am unaware of a single historical instance of an army of spearmen attacking an army of tanks. And part of the fun of Civ is its ahistorical outcomes (like spaceship victories in the 1500-1600s or world domination in the 1200s).
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
meisen said:
Any sort of research should involve multiple sources, be it science, history, anthropology, or psychology. Sources are bound to be biased, even if they're reputable encyclopedias. This is why it's never a good idea to rely on just one source.
Having said that, I'm sure you'll agree that in this case Wikipedia was helpful in clearing up the misconceptions regarding Polish cavalry use in WW2.
*sigh*
Pretty long discussion lol. Well guess what, I believe Firaxis is finally going to obey in the next patch! A battle will now no longer be based on current strength alone, but also on the maximum strength. Now, all we have to do, is wait.
Pretty long discussion lol. Well guess what, I believe Firaxis is finally going to obey in the next patch! A battle will now no longer be based on current strength alone, but also on the maximum strength. Now, all we have to do, is wait.
the only reason its possibly is for gamepaly or whatever reasons. So stop trying to find realism behind all of this coz a band of those ancient spearman cant take on a company of tanks, simple as that.
All this "the gun jammed" "he threw his spear in the shaft" and that kinda junk, nonsense. First the spearman had large spears, way to heavy to throw. Look at them Phalanxes.
Second, even in Civ Morale effect is present if you look at the units. Musketeer more Str then Longbowman? If it was realism and all about really killing your oponent longbow is beter. Muskets are inaccurate, slow and short ranged. Longbows can easily get at the same range, fire upto 6-10x faster depending on the experience and are just as lethal. So why muskets? Because all those loud bangs are bad for morale. Same reason they all worn fancy clothes you'd see from miles away, coz otherwise camoflage was smarter. So with morale intigrated in the whole Str, then what do you think those ancient spearman, proud on there discovery of the wheel will do when facing a Steel monster, that seems to roar from where they can abrely see it and the ground rips open, it makes a rattling sound and whole rows of men go down. I'd bet you everything i had those spearman would be fleeing for there lives in no time flat.
And this "tank has been disabled" Tank crews still for the top .50 cal or whatever they mount now a days wich doesnt depend on the tanks engine or something. And they also have rifles and pistols wich can easily penetrate the flimsy shields and armours.
Maybe, if by any weird fluke chance a band of spearman takes down a tank company, badly dmg, outnumbered whatever. This is a 1 to a million chance, and by far not as frequent as it happens in game.
All this "the gun jammed" "he threw his spear in the shaft" and that kinda junk, nonsense. First the spearman had large spears, way to heavy to throw. Look at them Phalanxes.
Second, even in Civ Morale effect is present if you look at the units. Musketeer more Str then Longbowman? If it was realism and all about really killing your oponent longbow is beter. Muskets are inaccurate, slow and short ranged. Longbows can easily get at the same range, fire upto 6-10x faster depending on the experience and are just as lethal. So why muskets? Because all those loud bangs are bad for morale. Same reason they all worn fancy clothes you'd see from miles away, coz otherwise camoflage was smarter. So with morale intigrated in the whole Str, then what do you think those ancient spearman, proud on there discovery of the wheel will do when facing a Steel monster, that seems to roar from where they can abrely see it and the ground rips open, it makes a rattling sound and whole rows of men go down. I'd bet you everything i had those spearman would be fleeing for there lives in no time flat.
And this "tank has been disabled" Tank crews still for the top .50 cal or whatever they mount now a days wich doesnt depend on the tanks engine or something. And they also have rifles and pistols wich can easily penetrate the flimsy shields and armours.
Maybe, if by any weird fluke chance a band of spearman takes down a tank company, badly dmg, outnumbered whatever. This is a 1 to a million chance, and by far not as frequent as it happens in game.
Praetorian
I came I bought I played!
Hey guys its just a game!
Correct it p#@ses me off that some primitive dude with a piece of would with a bit of stone or bronze tied to it can destroy a rampaging panzer.
BUT!!!
A musketman shooting down a gunship!??!
Correct it p#@ses me off that some primitive dude with a piece of would with a bit of stone or bronze tied to it can destroy a rampaging panzer.
BUT!!!
A musketman shooting down a gunship!??!
Again, the next patch will fix the issue by making battles based not only on current strength, but also on max strength.
This means that the chances of a spearman killing a damaged tank will be much lower, but a damaged musketman with same strength as a full spearman will have higher chance to kill the tank than the spearman.
This means that the chances of a spearman killing a damaged tank will be much lower, but a damaged musketman with same strength as a full spearman will have higher chance to kill the tank than the spearman.
Similar threads
