Defeating a tank with a spearman *is* realistic...

[Roxinante]

Huh. So this means that in my last game, where I was isolated on a continent without any means to contact other civs until optics, my slow tech rate wasnt merely because I couldnt trade techs, but because I didnt know anyone else.

Very nice. I approve.

 

[Eigenvector]

I know about nuclear weapons, but I don't know how to build one.

Still, I know how to defend against one. Hide under my desk, of course. (You've seen all those horrible movies they showed to kids in the 50's and 60's.)

Anyway, point is there's a world of difference between knowing about and knowing how to make (and having the resources and infrastructure to build) a weapon.

"Knowing about" implies "some ability to defend against" -- I think we would all agree with this.

I definitely disagree with your assertion that "knowing about" implies "capability to create".

Wodan

You still missed the point.

I think you're thinking too strictly here about the terms used. Researched != laboratory or secret research facility. Researched means I have seen them in action (either in the movies, first hand, books, or might have even toyed with the idea) so I have an inkling of what to do when faced with one. That implies you have some idea of what to do when faced with one. That doesn't mean you've got the capacity, knowledge, or materials to build one.

Look at it this way. A few beakers = idea is in science fiction books, movies, or you have seen idea in action in a different culture. Half the required beakers = have a working concept, maybe even an early prototype. Fully researched = have a final production design completed and have tested it in the field. A normal DoD contract takes approximately 10 to 20 years to fully complete from concept development to final design - depending upon the complexity of the object designed.

That is why the idea of a spearman vs. tank battle is so irritating to a lot of people. It implies that a culture that knows nothing about a technology can still overcome it. Accidents happen and every now and again having a tank lose to a spearman isn't a concern - but this isn't an odd occurance. I see this more frequently than should happen and in situations where it shouldn't happen - gunship vs. archer, elephant vs. machine gunner, artillery vs. catapult.

I still play the game all the time, I still think its fun, that's why I use this forum to discuss things that I feel could be improved upon.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, I thought of one possible scenario- a spearman regiment, when afced with an armoured tank company, desperately throw their spears at the tanks. Every spear manages to land inside a tank's gun, and, in accordance with the Looney Tunes laws of Physics, the tanks explode when they try to shoot.

 

[MRM]

That is why the idea of a spearman vs. tank battle is so irritating to a lot of people. It implies that a culture that knows nothing about a technology can still overcome it.

Hm - but how realistic is this assumption in the first place ? Show me one - only one country in our world where people don't know what tanks are ...

As soon as there are around for some time they are known even in countries that don't build any.

 

[Eigenvector]

Oh come on, please read the post for god's sake!!!

 

[Roxinante]

Well, read mine, for god's sake, yourself! A spearman v. tank will loose in a single battle, yes. We've all wrapped our heads around that concept. These 'battles' occure over turns - 5 years, 2 years, 1 year. And they do not occure between a guy with a spear, or a guy on horseback v. a single, individual tank. They occure as units - if they're morons, they'll march dead center up to the nearest group of tanks and toss their spears, to which the tank commander will crack the hatch and say 'please stop doing that, its really annoying.' If they're bright, they'll wait until the soft, fleshy tank crew is outside its protective shell, and kill them in the dead of the night. With pointed sticks. And why not? They have a whole year to kill off what? 500 men? a 1000? Just kill the NCOs and the officers will just run around like the Upper Class Twits of the Year that they are. "Ahh! Sarge dead! What me do? Make tank go there!" "Uh, sir? Thats a lake." "You got orders, you just enlisted! You no think good like me! Me got shinny things on collar! Make tank go there NOW!"

 

[CyberChrist]

Just give an automatic strength modifier of +25% pr. level of difference in Age - between the 2 units fighting - to the most modern of the 2 units. This bonus would be in addition to other modifiers and regardless of unit types involved.

By Age I mean the Age of the highest tech required to be able to build the unit.

Ie. this would give Modern Armor(Modern Age) +125% against Spearmen(Ancient Age), but only +25% against Infantry(Industrial Age) etc.


Also, it would have the added effect of increasing the value of upgrading older units instead of just sending them off for mass slaughter - as many people do atm.

 

[Analog Kid 1.0]

Screwtype said:
You don't need a high tech weapon to defeat a tank. All you need is a tank trap, a molotov cocktail, the right circumstances. The US has lost lots of AFV's in Iraq to folks armed with nothing but AK-47's and homemade bombs.

Yes on a Micro level/tactical level tanks can be defeated.
On the Macro level/strategic level, I belive that the US coaliton is still in Iraq.

If the game simulates 1-2 years for combat, medievel units just can't compete with modern ones.

Sounds like more micromanagment ...

would be easier ( IMO ) if the maintaince cost for units would be higher and therefore unit upgrade is automatic ( at much lower costs )

Because - why did this situation happens in the first place ? Most time you build those longbow archers in the medivian and later its to expensive to upgrade them all ( or sometimes you are to lazy )

That would not happen that way in the real world because here the units get better weapons as soon as they are available.

the discussion whether a spearman can beat a tank or not is artifical anyway - so if you want to make it more realistic in that way that an ancient unit can never beat a tank, than other things must changed too to make it more realistic and to balance the gameplay - what about weapon prolifiration ? Once a weapon is invented it will be traded ( legal and illegal ) to all civs that have contact between each other.- So your tank will never see a bronze age spearman ....

btw realism - each unit should cost population too - or are soldiers just robots ?

yea I like your ideas esp the population. I think you need a large population to support a large army.

 

[Roxinante]

Huh. So this means that in my last game, where I was isolated on a continent without any means to contact other civs until optics, my slow tech rate wasnt merely because I couldnt trade techs, but because I didnt know anyone else.

Very nice. I approve.

Hm and this also implies that if you're far and above the other civs,
a. Your rate of research is lowered and
b. You're excellerating your opponent civ's rate of research merely by being in contact with them.

Interesting dynamic....

 

[EdCase]

Tanks were actually mis-used in the early 19th century until generals figured out the proper tactics. At first, everyone (not just the generals) figured that a tank would be an awe-inspiring terror on the battlefield and it would take just a few to rout an enemy composed of footsoldier or traditional cavalry.

But they discovered that it was far to easy to swarm and disable the tanks. Heck, even a simple sledgehammer, applied at the right place on the tracks, would knock a tank out.

The best application of tank warfare they discovered was to attack en masse. 50, or 100, tanks lined up or in a "fighting wedge," in mutually supporting distance.

Wodan

ps Saw an hour-long documentary on the history of tanks on the History Channel (or was it the Military Channel).

Not to be pedantic...but surely you meant the 20th century?
Unless you were watching the Alternate History Channel?

 

[screwtype]

I'am not absolutly sure but I think there is already a bonus for techs that other civs, you are in contact with, have researched.

Yeah, I just think the bonus is not nearly big enough.

 

[screwtype]

Of course another reason for the shifting proportions between tanks and infantrywas, that the war took its toll on german weapons production, as more and more tank factories were being bombed and the influx of resoruces to build tanks was decreasing during the war (and especially the german tanks needed a long time and lots of resources for manufacturing, more than for example a sherman)

That is true of course, but it's also true that the Germans found a Panzer Division to be about as effective with one regiment of tanks and two of infantry than the other way around.

Also, as you rightly say, the proliferation of cheap and effective infantry antitank devices increasingly reduced the tank's effectiveness as the war went on.

 

[HounddogLGS]

To whoever actaully believes a spearman should be able to defeat a tank, pass me some of what your smokin'!!

 

[screwtype]

Yes, your Civ researches techs faster if you are in contact with other Civs that have them.

See this thread for a detailed account of how research works, including a discussion of how contact with other Civs affects your research:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146163

Yeah, that's the problem, you get a maximum of a pitiful 28% speed boost - and that's when 17 other civs already know the technology! The less civs that know it, the less your speed boost.

Honestly, for a pitiful boost like that, they might as well not have bothered.

 

[screwtype]

Just give an automatic strength modifier of +25% pr. level of difference in Age - between the 2 units fighting - to the most modern of the 2 units. This bonus would be in addition to other modifiers and regardless of unit types involved.

By Age I mean the Age of the highest tech required to be able to build the unit.

Ie. this would give Modern Armor(Modern Age) +125% against Spearmen(Ancient Age), but only +25% against Infantry(Industrial Age) etc.


Also, it would have the added effect of increasing the value of upgrading older units instead of just sending them off for mass slaughter - as many people do atm.

Not a bad idea CC. I wonder if that could be modded in?

 

[screwtype]

Yes on a Micro level/tactical level tanks can be defeated.
On the Macro level/strategic level, I belive that the US coaliton is still in Iraq.

If the game simulates 1-2 years for combat, medievel units just can't compete with modern ones.

No, they can't, but that doesn't mean the more advanced party won't take ANY losses.

However, I do agree that obsolete units are overpowered in the context of this game.

 

[Crdnl Richelieu]

Just to add to the debate, saw this on the BBC website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4144405.stm

The helicopter obviously withdrew from combat!

 

[Slimbo]

Yeah, that's the problem, you get a maximum of a pitiful 28% speed boost - and that's when 17 other civs already know the technology! The less civs that know it, the less your speed boost.

Honestly, for a pitiful boost like that, they might as well not have bothered.

Just consider this: China (the improved ceramics, were nowerdays even toilet sinks are made of - don't know another name in english but I don'T mean the country ) was known in middleage Europe by import. It was one of the most valuable import items even more valuable than pepper. Even though you could make a fortune when you figured out how to make it yourself it took until Renaissance when German potters first figured out how to produce it...

Japan needed 20 years of intense technology transfer to build up an own automitive industry... The Coreans needed another 10 years... A lot of countries worldwide still don't have an automotive industrie, sure they know the concept of a combustion engine but they would still need at least a decade to produce them on their own...

There are only 4 countries known to have a viable space industry worldwide (if you consider the members of ESA as one country) even though everybody knows about rockets and uses at least communication satellites....

I learned in High School physics the concept how to build a nuclear bomb, still Germany would need (its my guess) at least 5-10 years to build one on their own (and we already have nuclear power plants who produce enough plutonium for a bunch of them, whats the biggest issue for the wannahave countries like Iran)...

So I guess, 28% bonus is fairly good, because knowing about a tech and even using the products of a tech doesn't mean that you are instantly able to master this tech and implement it in your industry....

And to be back on topic: Spearman won't need a flint stone and dry wood to ignite a fire, if they have an invading industrial army in their country I am damned sure that they are able (over the period of a year) to get their hands on some lighters and enough fuel to build moltow cocktails even though they can't refine the fuel or build the lighter on their own...

 

[Roxinante]

Not to be pedantic...but surely you meant the 20th century?
Unless you were watching the Alternate History Channel?

"General Wellington! General Wellington!"
"Yes, what is it?"
"M'lord Duke, the French reinforcements have arrived!"
"Reinforcements? How can this be? Bonie's army is bottled up here in Waterloo and no one's seen hide nor hair of the little blighter the whole day! What 'reinforcements'?"
"From the south road, M'lord, message reads 'French have arived with mechanical cannons. Possition untenanble, retreating to ...' ah....bit of blood here, smeared the ink....next line says 'engines broke through barricade. Fuisilliers and grenadiers ineffective. Lord Argile severely wounded. Please advise. Lieutenant Briggs, acting commander.'"
"By God, that damned Corsican has done it again."

 

[Eigenvector]

What, did you think the Sherman tank was named AFTER General Sherman - no he was the first one to deploy it in combat... How do you think he razed all those Georgian cities?