Gap between Cavalry and tanks

[Parmenion]

Posted by Cavalry:

4. Mech infantry is fine in the game(don't change it), however in real life it is bull****. There is no such unit as this "thing". Appranetly it is some sort of tank? It looks more like a tank than a TANK does lol!
I think mech infantry in Real Life is either a jeep kinda thing *or* some sort of well armed APC.


Reply:

Mechanised Infantry describes the sort of Infantry that is carried around in APC's like the one shown in the graphic (Bradley I think). Believe it or not there is such a thing, and they were used quite a bit in the Gulf. I actually have served with US troops who used such vehicles as their main battlefield transportation, so they do exist. Infantry using jeeps are generally used for reconnaisance - they wouldn't be much use on a modern battlefield as they are unarmoured.

 

[Selous]

in civ3 the infantry suck, in real life the infantry are a VERY valuable unit to attack with, and in close country are much much more useful than any armoured unit. with the advent of modern weapons and on the modern battlefeild has reduced the effectivness of armoured units to a minor role ... to a supporting role ... and as Reichsmarshal pointed out the infantry unit/role will never become outdated or obsolete and that is why every infantry unit in the world (some more than others) still train for bayonet assult ... there is only 1 unit type in the world that can take ground, and it isnt armour and it isnt mechinized infantry

in the modern battlefeild in civ3 there is 1 unit missing, the dedicated infantry, tanks are a replacement for the cavalry, mech infintry are an upgraded cav (not that u can, but in real life that is what they are) and in civ3 the marines and the paratroopers just plain old bite (they have a neich role rather than in real like that is so varied and flexable) ... i have had a few thoughts on the subject ... to create a light infantry and a heavy infantry for the modern age, with the light infantry having "move on all terrain as roads", "amphibious" and "para" ability with a high defencive stat and heavey infantry with high attack and defence with a low bombard ability

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal
When infantry began to use assault rifles and light machine guns they were able to attack places not just defend. So why is there no attack infantry in the modern age?

That correct !!

The gapp may and must be filled with some assault unit - somekind of infantery with attack 10 or even 12, but low defence.

And probably when attacking cities this units should be more effective than tanks or mechanized infantery !!

Regards,

 

[FenrysWulf]

In response to the original question, during the Civil War and especially World War I, an infantry assault would be preceded by days of artillery bombardment to soften up the defensive fortifications. When the men attacked, their only hope was to get across no-man's land (the space between the two lines) before the enemy recovered from the artillery barrage and fired back. This is why artillery has to be used to defeat infanty entrenched in cities. As someone else pointed out, Cavalry was not a main assault force; it was used to cut supply lines and to outflank the enemy. Besides the battles on the plains against the Indians, Cavalry was never really used successfully as an independent fighting force. So it is realistic that Cavalry doesn't defeat infantry. A few machine guns would mow them down.

If you don't like this, however, like I don't, you can remind yourself that it's just a game and doesn't have to be realistic. Then you can go into the editor and change the defense of the Infantry. Don't make it too easy, but a little more manageable. This way you still suffer losses when you attack, but it is still doable. Maybe it's a cheat, but it's just a game, so do what makes it fun for you.

 

[SirPleb]

I like the way the game has phases which swing between the most powerful unit available being offensive or defensive at different stages. Working with this flow back and forth in your overall strategy adds a lot of interest to the game.

In reply to the original second question "what do you usually do during that gap? use that period to develop your cities?":

Yes, that's what I try for. I try to end a warfare phase around when infantry become possible, timing some MPPs/alliances to expire when I'll want to go into builder mode, and leaving a number of rival Civs still duking it out ineffectively for a bit longer.

At deity level with 1.17 I'm also finding that this same time period, between infantry and tanks, can be the crucial moment where you can seize control of tech, and of the whole game. You need to get tech parity somehow (another story but it can be done) by the time Scientific Method is discovered, and save a leader from your last Cavalry based offensives. Build Theory of Evolution, get two techs ahead, sell them a few turns apart and get a pile of cash. Use the cash to build factories and generally help your quiet time builder phase. And also to set your research to 100%! This way you actually reach tanks first (by only a slight margin probably, but enough ) and then start the next stage (tanks and new offsensives) on more of an even footing with the AIs.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Two aspects here :

1. Most of the battle of Napoleonian Wars was is "open field" - so the defender hadn't enough time to build massive fortifications.
In the siege of Accra - Napoleon was defeat - because after many weeks of siege the fort doesn't surrender !!

2. Until massive usage of railroads and mechanised transport one major sources of casualites for a army was the marches - ussualy 25-30% of an army effective was loose before a major fight - some of them was ill or injured, some of them remain to defend the supply lines, some of them deserted !!

And also the modern medicine had a great impact on battelfield - WWI was the first war in which many soldier was 2 or 3 times wounded, after this well-treated and enlisted again and so on !!

Usually before this times only few army had a really functional medical units for most of soldiers - Romans, Macedonian, Bysantine army are some of rarely cases ...

 

[Zachriel]

I like the way the game has phases which swing between the most powerful unit available being offensive or defensive at different stages. Working with this flow back and forth in your overall strategy adds a lot of interest to the game.

Yes, the change through the ages from defensive to offensive war and back is great for the game.

Most of the battle of Napoleonian Wars was is "open field" - so the defender hadn't enough time to build massive fortifications.

That's right. Also, Napoleon used his cannon to great effect in order to disrupt the enemy plans. Still, the carnage was great.

an infantry assault would be preceded by days of artillery bombardment to soften up the defensive fortifications.

That is correct.

BTW, I was in a war with the Russians and Kiev was the key to their defeat. They had riflemen defending the city and cossacks. The cossacks kept destroying my cavalry, so I created an army of rifle and cannon. If took a while, but I put my army of 20 cannon and 30 rifle on a mountain overlooking the enemy city. Just then, they upgraded to infantry. AAAARGH! Anyway, it was too far to walk back, so I started my bombardment. It took a while, but finally the city was reduced to rubble and the infantry were redlined. I started my assault. Many of my riflemen died that day, but we took the city and so defeated the Russian menace and their bloody cossacks. PS. Don't try this at home, but it does indicate an ability to win battles against a determined resistance. A lot of my men got medals that day -- posthumously, of course.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Good points Selous and Mîtiu Ioan

The consensus is that there should be an attack infantry. The 1st one would be like 12/8 or something like that and would come very shortly after infantry. That type of combat would be incredibly interesting to use.

Then in the modern point there should be an infantry with 2 movement (2 movement would be very balanced, much more than 1) and would have like 18 attack 13 defense. The unit would be cheaper than modern armor and need only rubber.


The precendent for infantry having 2 movement is the fact that the Zulu unique unit does. Plus it is way more balanced and playable than 1 movement. Rember that modern armor has 3.

Adding APCs would also help make infantry units better.

 

[Selous]

i just think adding 2 movment points to infantry would make it so no unit ever retreats if every unit has multiple movment points ... rather than treat terrain as roads ability ... and would make infantry much more effective in dence terrain such as forrest, jungle and mountainous terrain

the trouble with APC transport units is it would add so much micro management ... and i really hate that stuff .... rather than J at the moment ....

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal
The consensus is that there should be an attack infantry.

I'm certainly not against modifications to the game, especially through the editor but keep in mind that infantry has always been defensive in nature, more so with increasing firepower, as the toughness of human flesh has remained about the same over the same period.

BRITANNICA
infantry, no longer able to survive the storm of steel sweeping the open terrain, was forced to seek refuge underground. The ineffectiveness of charging cavalry was proved by the immense losses it took during the Crimean and Franco-German wars: unable to follow foot soldiers into underground shelters, it languished and finally disappeared altogether. The tactical defense, rendered invisible by the substitution of smokeless powder for black powder, became much stronger than the offense. This development, the first signs of which could already be seen in the 1850s, dominated the South African War (1899–1902) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05)—although most European commanders refused to look facts in the face until the butchery of World War I.

 

[napoleon526]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan

2. Until massive usage of railroads and mechanised transport one major sources of casualites for a army was the marches - ussualy 25-30% of an army effective was loose before a major fight - some of them was ill or injured, some of them remain to defend the supply lines, some of them deserted !!

I believe this is called 'strategic consumption', and it was a major problem for most armies up until the 20th century. Illness and exhaustion led to an army's strength being reduced, so officers almost never knew exactly how many men they had under their command. And don't forget those folks who, gosh darn, just don't feel like getting killed!

 

[Fossil]

So...what is modern warfare? Hmmm....

Gunning down peasants? Yes

Hiring mercenaries? Yes

Using poisons on civilians? Yes

Genocide? Yes

Using your youths for suicide attacks? Yes

Using nukes "tactically" instead of MAD (mutually assured destruction)? Apparently, coming soon.

Oh, and let's not forget that the Taliban pillaged the lands they captured to be sure the land would be worthless if the enemy recaptured it. Nice strategy .

Good luck to all!

 

[The Art of War]

<<As the Americans proved in the Gulf War Even the most sophisticated Tank(Modern Armour) is a useless deathtrap(against Smart weapons)Ask an Iraqi Tank man if you can find one. >>

The Iraqi's tanks were anything but the most sophisticated, they were T-81s from the old Soviet Union. Now, us Americans use the Abrams M1/A1 or -A2, which is the pinnacle of all tanks. That thing is soooooooooo awsome. It is what the "Modern Armour" is modeled after.

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal


Mech "infantry" can't even really attack. There should be a real modern infantry. Not just a fighting vehicle.



jaja ur wrong reichmarshall mech infantry can attack too... i use the mech infantry as anti tank destroyers... yea they r really good against tanks..."not modern tanks" but the first tanks... just try to use the mech infantry as an offensive and u will see..

mech infantry are good in offensive against anything but the mech infantry and the modern tank.

 

[simwiz2]

why make all these attack infantries when you can just bump up the attack value of normal infantry? Muskets, with defense of 4, should have about 3-4 attack. Rifles should get about 5, and infantry maybe 7, but not too much because of trench warfare. mech inf (18 def?) should probably have about 16 att and MA def should be reduced. This makes the game more fun, and is one of the principles of my combat mod. Units should not be divided by attack or defense units, there should instead be infantry-type, the slow units capable of good defense and moderate attack, and strike-type units, the fast ones like cavalry that are good on attack but bad on defense.

 

[Selous]

Originally posted by Zachriel


I'm certainly not against modifications to the game, especially through the editor but keep in mind that infantry has always been defensive in nature, more so with increasing firepower, as the toughness of human flesh has remained about the same over the same period.
[/i]

what is it with the assumption in real life that infantry is a poor attacking unit? ... infantry is used in EVERY attack ever made, still used and will continue to be used forever more, yet in civ3 the only unit u ever need is tanks or modern tanks, yet in civ3 the only places u need infantry are in mountainous areas without any roads .... civ3 seems to think that roads make it all great for tanks and it makes the use of infantry obsolete .... where as in the real world the infantry make up the major force in EVERY army today .... in combat there is only 1 unit ever used to attack and that is the infantry ... EVERY other unit in the army is there to support the infantry ... the infantry is the only unit in the army that doesnt have the word support in their role ... in the real world there are 4 combat units ... armour, artillary, engineers and the infantry .... EVERY one of those units exept the infantry are supporting units, yet in civ3 tanks are the premier assulting unit when in real life highly trained proffessional soldiers of various infantry corps are the main assult force supported by armour, artillary, air support and engeneering corps ... yet civ3 and some people here only regard the infanrty as defending units to be kept behind the lines and brought up to hold an enemy city from counter attack

 

[Cavalry]

Reply: Mechanised Infantry describes the sort of Infantry that is carried around in APC's like the one shown in the graphic (Bradley I think). Believe it or not there is such a thing, and they were used quite a bit in the Gulf. I actually have served with US troops who used such vehicles as their main battlefield transportation, so they do exist. Infantry using jeeps are generally used for reconnaisance - they wouldn't be much use on a modern battlefield as they are unarmoured.

I used to think that until I actually saw mech infantry. Then I noticed they attack with.... the tank cannon/sabot/heat round!! Hmmm. The unit would be fine if they attacked with guns. This seems to be the leading theory. Apprently it was some mistake that it attacks with a cannon instead of guns, since in Civ 2 you could hear gun shots when mech infantry fought.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Selous
what is it with the assumption in real life that infantry is a poor attacking unit? ... infantry is used in EVERY attack ever made,

You are right infantry is used in just about every real world attack. Nevertheless, infantry is much better on defense than offense (see Britannica quote above). Infantry is normally combined with other unit types to provide the attacking power necessary to break enemy positions.

The "classical" position is two infantry lines facing one another. Armor and/or bombard is concentrated in one point, punching a hole in the opposing infantry, while friendly infantry follows up and fills the hole. Repeat as required to form the "classic" bulge, eventually to the point of actually breaking the enemy line, allowing armor units to sweep behind and disrupt the enemy supply lines.

When armor is inappropriate, such as in a beachhead invasion, then infantry (marines) must bear the brunt of the attack. Massive bombardment, followed by possibly massive infantry losses is the norm.

I use infantry as an integral part of most any attack.

http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/infantry.htm

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Selous
what is it with the assumption in real life that infantry is a poor attacking unit? ... infantry is used in EVERY attack ever made, still used and will continue to be used forever more,

You are right that Civ3 does not depict the infantry very well. For instance, infantry lines rarely form naturally.

(Before the industrial era the lines were too small to be depicted in a strategy game, so the stack is the appropriate simulation, but once the industrial age begins, then infantry lines spanning continents should natually begin to form. One way to fix this would be to make the infantry much more powerful, but also not stackable with other infantry. Then lines would form naturally, and the "trick" would be to use armor to run around or punch holes in the infantry line.)

Also, unsupported armor is the norm in Civ3, but certainly not in real life. Armor cannot hold ground like infantry can, and is next to useless without it. Making armor weaker on defense would help with this, and would represent the vulnerability of the armor supply lines, which must be protected with infantry.

Of course, this would no doubt upset our blitzing and razing brothers who continue to assert that armor alone is capable of conquering the entire globe, and that if only Hitler had turned left at Stalingrad instead of right, the fascists would have won the war.

 

[etj4Eagle]

The real problem here is not the AD values of infantry but the entire combat model. Since attacking is the best attacker verse the best defender, there is no use for infantry in an attack (other than to protect your tanks against a countre attack).

To really see the value of infantry in attack, you a group attack model. While Axis and Allies has a fairly simplistic combat model as well, it does do this better. Both sides will have massive amounts of infantry, representing the lines, and then armor and planes to provide the offensive punch.

With the current system for combat, I don't see how you can really improve the use of infantry in attacks with out creating a single "super" unit or making an irrelevent unit.