Impossible is possible

[Vietcong]

hears what i did
for the muscketman i added plus 1 atack and 1 defens
for calvery i added plus 1 to atack and defens
for rifleman i added plus 1 to atack and defens (even tho the odds are long its still posible for thes units such as the rifle man to lose to spears or atlest take alot of damage, look at the zulu wars for ex.)
for all land units after the rifle man i added plus 10 atack and defens, so a tank (atack 16 defens 8) becomes 26 18, and infrantye (6 10) become 16 20

for the fist naval unit (that transport, what ever its called) i added 1 atack and denfens going all the way up to the iron clad, all other naval units after the iron clad had plus 10 atack and 10 defens (unist such as the carier and transport whear not atacking units, ther atack has stayed at 1).
stelth bomber and stelth figher atacks have been lowered to 0, and defens lowered to 1, this is becus thay praticly have no air to air defens at all, and rely on the stelth abiltys only.

i forgot to say, for aaa units (flak gun and sam site) i addad only plus 10 defens, and kept atack at 1..

 

[Vietcong]

allso, what ppl dont seem to realize is a single unit in the game dosent represent a single unit, so a gally may represent 20 or 30 and a friget my represent 20 or 30 of that unit.
ther is no way 20 gallys can sink all 20 frigets, thay may get one or 2, but all 20, no way!!

 

[general_kill]

also ironclads those get some damage from galleons firgates etc. and yet a real ironclad was practicaluly indesturctiable to all wooden ships.

maybe the game is punishing the fools who uses ironclads

Especially in C3C, if you go out of your way to research a dead end tech just to build ironclads, your ironclads deserves to be sunk

 

[alamo]

The gold that supports the unit goes towards the latest technology in materials.

Haven't you seen those knights with the depleted uranium poles? They go right through tank armor.

But seriously, the game is mostly about fighting already. If units became completely useless in a matter of a few turns then the whole game would be nothing but an arms race.

 

[HalfBadger]

Making it too real is like my argument with Tanks, if I come across a non-mounted unit and try to move through the square they take up, shouldn't they just go splat! and not fight back? Similar with my Battleship sailing through a square with a galley, the galley should be crushed and my Battleship shoulnd't be affected. Heck just the waves of my Battleship should be enough to damage and destroy most wooden ships, shouldn't need my cannons etc.

 

[Tomoyo]

Making it too real is like my argument with Tanks, if I come across a non-mounted unit and try to move through the square they take up, shouldn't they just go splat! and not fight back? Similar with my Battleship sailing through a square with a galley, the galley should be crushed and my Battleship shoulnd't be affected. Heck just the waves of my Battleship should be enough to damage and destroy most wooden ships, shouldn't need my cannons etc.

There's a new tactic called "dodging"

 

[Colonel]

has anyone notice they dont have a rocket lanucher unit not even MRLS that would be an effective defense against tanks

 

[LOVE_Magiska]

allso, what ppl dont seem to realize is a single unit in the game dosent represent a single unit, so a gally may represent 20 or 30 and a friget my represent 20 or 30 of that unit.
ther is no way 20 gallys can sink all 20 frigets, thay may get one or 2, but all 20, no way!!

This is true of land and air units, but not when it comes to naval units.
I mean common, hundreds of frigates? Even 50 of them is highly unrealistic.

 

[alamo]

In reality tanks are designed to fight other tanks and have heavy armor just on the front. They are vulnerable to something as small as a RPG in the rear or bottom. Infantry escorts are usually required to keep enemies away.

 

[Tomoyo]

"Infantry" includes everything in question.

 

[general_kill]

In reality tanks are designed to fight other tanks and have heavy armor just on the front. They are vulnerable to something as small as a RPG in the rear or bottom. Infantry escorts are usually required to keep enemies away.

lmao!! if tanks are only designed to fight other tanks, why does anyone build these expensive things?

The truth is, before the battle of the bulge in WW2, tanks roamed free on the battle field, there was non or very little and ineffective anti-tank weapons for an ordinary infantry other than to climb ontop of the tank and throw a nade down the hatch.

Tanks could roll over infantries literally and there was nothing that could stop them except for other tanks.

 

[Tomoyo]

Tanks could roll over infantries literally and there was nothing that could stop them except for other tanks.

And water... and spearmen... and running out of supplies... and they're not very fast.

 

[Padma]

lmao!! if tanks are only designed to fight other tanks, why does anyone build these expensive things?

The truth is, before the battle of the bulge in WW2, tanks roamed free on the battle field, there was non or very little and ineffective anti-tank weapons for an ordinary infantry other than to climb ontop of the tank and throw a nade down the hatch.

Tanks could roll over infantries literally and there was nothing that could stop them except for other tanks.

Hmmm, you really need to study your military history.

Even in WWI, when tanks were first introduced, they were soon found to have vulnerabilities It is actually STILL very easy for infantry/partisans/whatever-you-want-to-call-footsloggers to put a tank out of action if it has no infantry cover with it. And you don't need fancy anti-tank weapons to do it. Ask any soldier.

Historically, tanks were often stopped by infantry on the ground - that is why the concept of "Combined Arms" was started - the Germans used it from Day One during WW2; they KNEW they were vulnerable without the Infantry alongside them....

 

[Pook]

Hmmm, you really need to study your military history.
Even in WWI, when tanks were first introduced, they were soon found to have vulnerabilities It is actually STILL very easy for infantry/partisans/whatever-you-want-to-call-footsloggers to put a tank out of action if it has no infantry cover with it. And you don't need fancy anti-tank weapons to do it. Ask any soldier.
Historically, tanks were often stopped by infantry on the ground - that is why the concept of "Combined Arms" was started - the Germans used it from Day One during WW2; they KNEW they were vulnerable without the Infantry alongside them....

Darn Padma, you got to this one before I could, so I'll add a naval slant. Most battleships were unable to depress their guns, so any ship that got really close to them couldn't be hit by the big guns. The Germans used this tactic to great effect with their E-boats.
Commander, USN (Active)

 

[erickcid]

The valid range for the units main combat values are from 0 to 1000. When you consider that, a couple of point difference is not so great, despite the obvious difference between the unit types. I suppose this was to allow civ's that fell way behind in tech to have a chance at defending themselves.

 

[Padma]

erickcid, you hit the nail on the head!

(And it's especially important when it's YOU that has fallen way behind... )

 

[nmcul]

Usually, though, when human players fall that far behind, they'll just face the music and give up. Let's be realistic, the difference betweem Bronze Working and Motorized Transportation is NOT "a few turns." Unless you're playing on chieftan, you can't hope to recover from being an age behind, unless the AI civs nuke each other back to the stone age or something.

And perhaps it should be this way. Now, I'm sorry about your backwards little country and all, but the global game of civilization that we've been playing since the first fields were sown up to today is NOT fair. And Civ (the computer game, that is) is supposed to be a simulation of that larger game, is it not? So when you fall, say, two ages behind, as in the Spears vs. Tanks example, you do not DESERVE to survive. Not fair? Play at a lower difficulty level. Was it fair when you, minding your own business in some European village, were suddenly attacked by these guys who forced you to live in cities and speak latin? Was it fair when you, farming your mesoamerican crops, found yourself being run down by these crazy guys and their monsters who "ride for the King of Spain"? Was it fair when you, seemingly safe inside your feudal society that had existed for millenae, suddenly had your precious bubble of Isolationism burst by some upstart prick of a nation steaming these steam frigates into your harbor? Of course not. But in the real game of civilization, one resounding theme has been "keep up, or perish." Sure, you can point out isolated cases in which a battle was won or the process was otherwise delayed, but you cannot find cases in which the WAR was won by the Spearmen. So if your Knights are being killed by Bombers? Well, try harder next time. You should go down in flames.

 

[Colonel]

ok i got to ask who were talking to???

if it was me then you should read my first post more carefully as i said that it was my enemy that had spearman as i had kicked the sh*t out of them and they had some spearman in there cities

 

[Tomoyo]

Usually, though, when human players fall that far behind, they'll just face the music and give up. Let's be realistic, the difference betweem Bronze Working and Motorized Transportation is NOT "a few turns." Unless you're playing on chieftan, you can't hope to recover from being an age behind, unless the AI civs nuke each other back to the stone age or something.

And perhaps it should be this way. Now, I'm sorry about your backwards little country and all, but the global game of civilization that we've been playing since the first fields were sown up to today is NOT fair. And Civ (the computer game, that is) is supposed to be a simulation of that larger game, is it not? So when you fall, say, two ages behind, as in the Spears vs. Tanks example, you do not DESERVE to survive. Not fair? Play at a lower difficulty level. Was it fair when you, minding your own business in some European village, were suddenly attacked by these guys who forced you to live in cities and speak latin? Was it fair when you, farming your mesoamerican crops, found yourself being run down by these crazy guys and their monsters who "ride for the King of Spain"? Was it fair when you, seemingly safe inside your feudal society that had existed for millenae, suddenly had your precious bubble of Isolationism burst by some upstart prick of a nation steaming these steam frigates into your harbor? Of course not. But in the real game of civilization, one resounding theme has been "keep up, or perish." Sure, you can point out isolated cases in which a battle was won or the process was otherwise delayed, but you cannot find cases in which the WAR was won by the Spearmen. So if your Knights are being killed by Bombers? Well, try harder next time. You should go down in flames.

The objective of a war does not have to be to actually "win" it. And I have come back from 1.5 ages back to win a game. Also, I believe Russia was able to defeat Germany in WW2...

I have also won wars with Infantry versus Modern Armor in the afformentioned game... If you have enough of something, anything is possible, unless you have enough possibilties, because then you can't choose.

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

I don't mind the fact that a pikeman can concievably win against a cavalry now and then. What I feel it reflects is the sometimes random nature of real life. I'm quite sure these things have happened on more than one occasion throughout history. I also feel that just because you have a superior unit you shouldn't be automatically guaranateed victory.