Dethrone Tanks and improve paratroopers

[Josh_38_80]

Whenever i play civ3 tilll the end of the tech tree it ends up a tank shootout. Not because i like it but because i have to play that way to win. Nothing can beat a tank apart from another tank (this includes a mech infantry) I find this really boring watch tank after tank move around. Foot soldier these days can take down tanks with rocket lanchers and grenades so they should either decrease the power of tanks or increase footsoldeirs stats or they could make new foot soldiers who can combat tanks like TOW infantry exept more powerful.

Also they should improve paratroopers for crying out loud!! I know there is another forum on it but this is a suguestion for Civ4. I find paratroopers useless. The idea for paratroopers is exellent but they are too weak. They should increase their attack so they can be used for offensive purposes. Giving them the ability to airdrop on enemies would aslo be cool. As well they should turn them in attacking units and lower their defence to stop people using paratroopers to defend cities which is stupid and unrealistic.

Give me your thoughts on this.

 

[Chauliodus]

Why not make it like in Civ2 where pikemen had x2 defense against mounted units. Make Tow infantry have 2x attack/defense against mechanized units.

 

[jimkirk]

how are tanks strong if pikemen can take one down <chuckle>

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I've seen spearmen and Legions take down tanks, but not modern armor... yet. I've also seen ww2 era prop planes take down f-15's... mind you the f15 can just fly out of gun range... who knows :: shrugs ::

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey Josh, if they implement the idea for operational ranges, then one of the great strengths of the paratroopers is that it would have a very high OR, and thus be able to operate DEEP behind enemy lines-sabotaging infrastructure and city improvements, and attacking enemy units (perhaps a light bombardment attack capability?) This would thus allow paratroopers to soften up an enemies rear-so to speak- and weaken the enemy in preperation for a forward assault by your main forces!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Longasc]

Chauliodus has a point, there was a concept of "HARD" and "SOFT" attack value in Panzer General.

Lets adapt this for Civ4, let TOW-Infantry be terribly effective against tanks, but let it lose badly against Infantry/Guerillas/Paras.

This would encourage modern day "combined arms" Warfare a bit.

 

[Philips beard]

Chauliodus has a point, there was a concept of "HARD" and "SOFT" attack value in Panzer General.

Lets adapt this for Civ4, let TOW-Infantry be terribly effective against tanks, but let it lose badly against Infantry/Guerillas/Paras.

This would encourage modern day "combined arms" Warfare a bit.

Oh yeah! This should be the most important changes in the combat system for Civ 4!!! It would really make combat interesting! Combine it with airunits being lethal vs. mech. units, but not vs foot based units, and give units bonus vs air bombardment while hiding in a forest or in a mountain!

I hope they can make an AI that can understand these changes. Thats the problem....

 

[Lennon]

I hope they can make an AI that can understand these changes. Thats the problem....

Very true. The biggest problem with changing around military units and rules isn't how to make it reasonable and balanced, but how to make the AI put it to good use. The AI already has major flaws when it comes to combat, like having no clue whatsoever that artillery pieces are essential when going on the offensive, or how to avoid keeping half of its army obsolete. Most of the time you do your AI enemy a favour by putting all his old spearmen and pikemen out of their misery so that he can replace them with mech infantry...

 

[Marx]

Why not make it like in Civ2 where pikemen had x2 defense against mounted units. Make Tow infantry have 2x attack/defense against mechanized units.

Cities that have been 15+ maybe should have a giant rate of civil disorder when they where conquered by another civilization.

A sort of a (local) civil war as we now see in Iraq.

 

[Josh_38_80]

Chauliodus thats a nice idea that will add a new dimension to combat

 

[Lennon]

Whenever i play civ3 tilll the end of the tech tree it ends up a tank shootout. Not because i like it but because i have to play that way to win. Nothing can beat a tank apart from another tank (this includes a mech infantry) I find this really boring watch tank after tank move around. Foot soldier these days can take down tanks with rocket lanchers and grenades so they should either decrease the power of tanks or increase footsoldeirs stats or they could make new foot soldiers who can combat tanks like TOW infantry exept more powerful.

Also they should improve paratroopers for crying out loud!! I know there is another forum on it but this is a suguestion for Civ4. I find paratroopers useless. The idea for paratroopers is exellent but they are too weak. They should increase their attack so they can be used for offensive purposes. Giving them the ability to airdrop on enemies would aslo be cool. As well they should turn them in attacking units and lower their defence to stop people using paratroopers to defend cities which is stupid and unrealistic.

Give me your thoughts on this.

In fact, I don't believe a tank unit is supposed to be made out of ONLY tanks, just a high concentration of 'em in a division (or whatever scale it's supposed to be). So tanks should be as strong as they are, they should even possibly have better defense value than infantry.

 

[kaoruchan]

In fact, I don't believe a tank unit is supposed to be made out of ONLY tanks, just a high concentration of 'em in a division (or whatever scale it's supposed to be). So tanks should be as strong as they are, they should even possibly have better defense value than infantry.

Then what would be the point of any unit but tanks? That would even eliminate mech infantry.

 

[Lennon]

Mech inf obviously has better def stats than tanks because they are specialized at defense, but I don't really see what you mean? Tanks are much more expensive than infantry.

 

[MeatWad]

Cursed History Channel! While watching last night (a show about WWI tech), it was demonstrated that tanks were primarily offensive units at their inception. I would recommend lowering their defense stat. Early tanks maxed out at around 6 miles per hour, but were virtually unstoppable in the days of trench warfare. However, not being very fast or mobile they were easy targets and as such were not used defensively at all. There needs to be yet another tech advance - Automic Weaponry. This was a key developement that funneled us into modern warfare. Machine gun nests could be the unit, and they would have a high defense and 1st attack ability when fortified. How do we go from Rifleman to Infantry without Auto-Weapons? Definately worth considering.

 

[The Omega]

Cursed History Channel! While watching last night (a show about WWI tech), it was demonstrated that tanks were primarily offensive units at their inception. I would recommend lowering their defense stat. Early tanks maxed out at around 6 miles per hour, but were virtually unstoppable in the days of trench warfare. However, not being very fast or mobile they were easy targets and as such were not used defensively at all. There needs to be yet another tech advance - Automic Weaponry. This was a key developement that funneled us into modern warfare. Machine gun nests could be the unit, and they would have a high defense and 1st attack ability when fortified. How do we go from Rifleman to Infantry without Auto-Weapons? Definately worth considering.

I also saw that show! I also agree with your ideas. MAybe they should have WWI tanks, with low defense, WWII tanks, more balanced attack and defense, and then modern armor, instead of just taks upgrading to modern armor.
Smilies!

 

[Lennon]

I also saw that show! I also agree with your ideas. MAybe they should have WWI tanks, with low defense, WWII tanks, more balanced attack and defense, and then modern armor, instead of just taks upgrading to modern armor.
Smilies!

Civ in general makes quite big jumps unit wise. WW1 tanks were primitive and never really made a big impact on the battlefield because of their low numbers and awkward design. That's probably why they go straight to WW2 tanks in Civ, because that's the first conflict where tanks played a major role and were used to their full potential.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

WW1 tanks were primitive and never really made a big impact on the battlefield because of their low numbers and awkward design.

I don not agree. WW1 tanks of low numbers??? E.g., in 1916 near Cambrai, 600 (six hundred) tanks were used to break the German defence. In fact, WWI tanks had a little role, because the lack of mobile infantry support.
But tanks and fighter planes should be divided to "Early Tank" and "Tank"; "Early Warplane" and "Fighter".

 

[Lennon]

I don not agree. WW1 tanks of low numbers??? E.g., in 1916 near Cambrai, 600 (six hundred) tanks were used to break the German defence. In fact, WWI tanks had a little role, because the lack of mobile infantry support.
But tanks and fighter planes should be divided to "Early Tank" and "Tank"; "Early Warplane" and "Fighter".

Mind you that those 600 tanks made up for a very large quantity of the total tank numbers in 1916. Germany barely had tanks at all for the most part of WW1. Compare to WW2 and you'll soon see that tanks played a very minor role in WW1. Russia had some 23000 tanks in 1941, although they were mostly obsolete T-26s and BTs by that time. 600 is nothing next to that amount. I don't say I wouldn't wanna see WW1 tanks, but in a game where smooth development of units is unheard of, all I'm saying is they aren't particularly missed.

 

[sir_schwick]

Points for this arguement:

Chauliodus has a point, there was a concept of "HARD" and "SOFT" attack value in Panzer General.

Lets adapt this for Civ4, let TOW-Infantry be terribly effective against tanks, but let it lose badly against Infantry/Guerillas/Paras.

This would encourage modern day "combined arms" Warfare a bit.

I would like to see a more tactically rich combat model too, but Soren specifically said he wants to avoid using a RPS model, which this would qualify as.

2) There seems to be an arguement between specific rather than general unit evolution. If you made divisions for WWI, WWII, and Cold War tanks then you would have to do the same for all units in civ. Knights in 600 AD were hardly as effective as those in 1400 AD.

3) Tanks have never been a defensive platform. They are designed as mobile shock troops, able to punch through defenses and enemy vehicles. Infantry have always been the endurance fighters, able to hold out much longer then tanks. Personally I think their defense value should be much much lower, maybe half of what it is now. Tanks are especially vulnerable to air power, anyone who plays BF1942 knows what I mean.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, at the risk of 'butting in' the ideas regarding tanks and planes are WELL within the capabilities of the Civ3 Editor, wheras I think we should keep our focus on how to create a situation, in Civ4, where one unit does NOT totally dominate a single era in history!! I also think that a combat model (not R/P/S) which encourages a combined arms approach to warfare should also be looked at seriously!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.