The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Would make more sense to me, but I'd still be worried about it being overpowering. Playtesting is king, as they say.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
July 1914 : On the Eve of the Great War
- Thread starter Marla_Singer
- Start date
Gogf
Indescribable
I think machine gunners should have lethal bombard. I mean, they have a very high chance of a kill... but so does the Howitzer...
MarcusSaurono
Warlord
What are we doing about capture? I hate the idea of capturing a bunch of mgs and artillery every time I take a city. I would also like some form of dedicated defence unit.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Units can only be captured if they're available to the captors, that is, they have the relevant tech, and are checked on the "available to" list for the unit. Simply make an Entente and a Central Powers variant for each DF=0 unit that shouldn't be capturable.
Gogf
Indescribable
What's wrong with capturing a bunch of mgs and artillery? It's a really boost to your artillery force 
.
.MarcusSaurono
Warlord
Its not godd when I end up having more artillery from foreign powers than I do infantry.
well. thats why you SHOULD have the map have far more infantry on the map. an major offensive typically had 1,000-2,000 guns to bombard which is about... 6-8,000 troops compared with an assault force of mabye 100,000 or more. Why the hell do you have as much artillery as you do? Its inaccurate.
And dont debate on capturability, the MGs dont get captured as they typically were killed and the pillboxes were burned up, but AT units should be capturable.
And dont debate on capturability, the MGs dont get captured as they typically were killed and the pillboxes were burned up, but AT units should be capturable.
Originally posted by Gogf
What's wrong with capturing a bunch of mgs and artillery? It's a really boost to your artillery force
Its not accurate to take MG's but you can take AT easily. Is this really worthy of debate or are all these people just posting worthless posts that are better off in another thread... as usual.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
But all weapons are captureable! You can take the gun of a fallen enemy as well as a tank, MG or even a warship. Only likelyhood of such an event (in reality) is getting lesser the bigger the thing is which is captured.
In history many guns were captured and used or destroyed by the enemy side. Also MG. One example: Before the Battle of Tanga in 1914 German troops in East Africa had nearly no good rifles and only a few MG and even less guns. After this battle the Germans got many very good british rifles and MG to equip the soldiers. MGs are captureable.
Adler
In history many guns were captured and used or destroyed by the enemy side. Also MG. One example: Before the Battle of Tanga in 1914 German troops in East Africa had nearly no good rifles and only a few MG and even less guns. After this battle the Germans got many very good british rifles and MG to equip the soldiers. MGs are captureable.
Adler
Gogf
Indescribable
Exactly.
youre talking about von Lettow-Vorbeck I take it? the guerilla warfare guy in German East? Acceptable capturing those guns in colonial warfare as that is typically not as vicious as the main fronts where equipment was less likely to get wrecked in fighting. But I dont recall seeing German east on this map, this Idea is inaccurate for a Europe-only map.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
The question isn't whether the things are capturable in reality, but whether they in practice were captured with any frequency, and what effects capturability in the game has on game balance.
That MGs were captured in meaningful quantities at Tanga was an exception. Annoying as he is, Lynx is quite right they usually weren't during WWI.
That MGs were captured in meaningful quantities at Tanga was an exception. Annoying as he is, Lynx is quite right they usually weren't during WWI.
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
I can't believe the debate going on in this thread, and all of the inaccuracies being thrown around all over the place.
First, I want to start with Gogf's comment on the American Civil War. In order for an attacker to "win" in the American Civil War, he usually needed superiority of at least 2 to 1 (3 to 1 if assaulting a heavily fortified position). This increased later in the war as rifles became more accurate and rate of fire of said rifles increased.
To give a few examples:
The Battle of the Wilderness, fought in May, 1864, resulted in 17,000 Union casualties, compared to 8,000 for the Confederacy. Union Army was about 100,000, Confederate Army about 60,000.
Gettysburg, fought in July, 1864, resulted in 15,000 Union casualties, and 20,000 Confederate casualties. Union Army was about 90,000 (though outnumbered badly at times on first day and parts of the second), Confederate Army about 75,000. Confederates were the attackers here.
Fredericksburg, assault on Maryne Heights, resulted in over 12,000 Union casualties, and a couple thousand Confederate casualties. Union assault force was about 60,000, the defending Confederate Corps had about 30,000. The reason why Union casualties are VERY high here, is because they were assaulting Confederate positions which were heavily fortified, providing mutual fire support, and the Union was attacking across a river, and up a steep bank.
I've read over a dozen books on the American Civil War, have done alot of research for the ACW scenario, and have had such research backed up by the best historian on these boards (by far).
This is the war which made Cavalry pretty much obsolete. And, contrary to popular belief, Artillery is not what caused this (Artillery only caused 9% of military casualties during the American Civil War).
Saying the attacker won 50% of the time is completely wrong. Given equal numbers of troops, the attacker would usually lose unless they executed a daring plan which worked, or were going against a completely inept enemy commander (Chancellorsville is the best example of both).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machine Gun: Defensive unit, poor range, once gotten to was dead meat. It needs Infantry to survive and do its work. What I would do personally, is this:
Assault Infantry - 9/9 (A/D)
Machine Gun Infantry - 7/11 (A/D) (defensive bombard, no range, 1 rate of fire)
Personally I would adjust these slightly more in favor of the defense, while reducing Civ3's grossly inaccurate defensive modifiers (such as I did for ACW). But, this would be a good step in the right direction, and compromises the 2 conflicting views in the thread, while also preserving 1) gameplay, and 2) some historical realism.
You use the Assault Infantry on offense, the Machine Gun Infantry on defense.
I would not make Machine Guns lethal land bombard, their effectiveness is highly overrated. The next section on Artillery will state why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artillery. Artillery caused almost 1/2 of total casualties during World War I. It should KILL. Also, the quote by Lynx, that only 1,000 to 2,000 guns were used per assault is a bit inaccurate. World War I was an artillery war. Some assaults used over 10,000 massed guns over a small frontage, to try to achieve a breakthrough. However, as he also stated, these guns were used to support an assault by 100,000 men or more (1 or more Armies actually (average Division about 15,000, 2 to 3 Divisions in a Corps, 2 or 3 Corps in an Army so your average Army would be anywhere from 60,000 to 135,000 men, plus support troops, so he's correct essentially)).
Howitzers are high-trajectory guns used to bombard enemy positions from a moderate distance.
Field Guns are low-trajectory guns used to support an attack.
Mortars (haven't seen any debate on these) are VERY high trajectory guns (over 45 degrees).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/10 Civ3 Infantry. Its actually quite accurate if portraying WWI Infantry. However, its the excessive Civ3 defensive modifiers which make it useless on attack. And, the way Civ3 combat is calculated (it should be calculated for "stacks" of units, instead of just 1 unit vs. 1 unit).
Being in a large town (metropolis) did not instantly double a unit's defense. A hill did not instantly increase a unit's defense by 50%.
The other problem, as I touched upon a second ago, is the way combat is done in Civ3. It's done unit vs. unit. Its like saying, we're only going to attack you with 1 division, and you're only going to defend with your strongest division. When it should be, we're going to hit you with all of our divisions, and all of your divisions are going to have to prepare to meet it.
This would make the 2 to 1 numerical superiority a requirement for say American Civil War time period (think of 2 attacking Infantry units as 12 attack instead of 6, going against 1 defending with 10 defense, it starts to make sense), and this requirement should be higher for World War I, as most assaults (especially on the Western Front from 1915-1917) were against HEAVILY fortified positions.
Unfortunately, combat isn't resolved this way in Civ, so you have to make some compromises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynx, what does your comment about ACW deserving a title mean? Is it meant as a good thing or a bad thing? And what kind of title?
Quote: No im not saying you need EVERY one, (ACW probably would be the only one with that title) but a few good makers who have posted recently would disprove my idea. Good luck in doing so.
First, I want to start with Gogf's comment on the American Civil War. In order for an attacker to "win" in the American Civil War, he usually needed superiority of at least 2 to 1 (3 to 1 if assaulting a heavily fortified position). This increased later in the war as rifles became more accurate and rate of fire of said rifles increased.
To give a few examples:
The Battle of the Wilderness, fought in May, 1864, resulted in 17,000 Union casualties, compared to 8,000 for the Confederacy. Union Army was about 100,000, Confederate Army about 60,000.
Gettysburg, fought in July, 1864, resulted in 15,000 Union casualties, and 20,000 Confederate casualties. Union Army was about 90,000 (though outnumbered badly at times on first day and parts of the second), Confederate Army about 75,000. Confederates were the attackers here.
Fredericksburg, assault on Maryne Heights, resulted in over 12,000 Union casualties, and a couple thousand Confederate casualties. Union assault force was about 60,000, the defending Confederate Corps had about 30,000. The reason why Union casualties are VERY high here, is because they were assaulting Confederate positions which were heavily fortified, providing mutual fire support, and the Union was attacking across a river, and up a steep bank.
I've read over a dozen books on the American Civil War, have done alot of research for the ACW scenario, and have had such research backed up by the best historian on these boards (by far).
This is the war which made Cavalry pretty much obsolete. And, contrary to popular belief, Artillery is not what caused this (Artillery only caused 9% of military casualties during the American Civil War).
Saying the attacker won 50% of the time is completely wrong. Given equal numbers of troops, the attacker would usually lose unless they executed a daring plan which worked, or were going against a completely inept enemy commander (Chancellorsville is the best example of both).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machine Gun: Defensive unit, poor range, once gotten to was dead meat. It needs Infantry to survive and do its work. What I would do personally, is this:
Assault Infantry - 9/9 (A/D)
Machine Gun Infantry - 7/11 (A/D) (defensive bombard, no range, 1 rate of fire)
Personally I would adjust these slightly more in favor of the defense, while reducing Civ3's grossly inaccurate defensive modifiers (such as I did for ACW). But, this would be a good step in the right direction, and compromises the 2 conflicting views in the thread, while also preserving 1) gameplay, and 2) some historical realism.
You use the Assault Infantry on offense, the Machine Gun Infantry on defense.
I would not make Machine Guns lethal land bombard, their effectiveness is highly overrated. The next section on Artillery will state why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artillery. Artillery caused almost 1/2 of total casualties during World War I. It should KILL. Also, the quote by Lynx, that only 1,000 to 2,000 guns were used per assault is a bit inaccurate. World War I was an artillery war. Some assaults used over 10,000 massed guns over a small frontage, to try to achieve a breakthrough. However, as he also stated, these guns were used to support an assault by 100,000 men or more (1 or more Armies actually (average Division about 15,000, 2 to 3 Divisions in a Corps, 2 or 3 Corps in an Army so your average Army would be anywhere from 60,000 to 135,000 men, plus support troops, so he's correct essentially)).
Howitzers are high-trajectory guns used to bombard enemy positions from a moderate distance.
Field Guns are low-trajectory guns used to support an attack.
Mortars (haven't seen any debate on these) are VERY high trajectory guns (over 45 degrees).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/10 Civ3 Infantry. Its actually quite accurate if portraying WWI Infantry. However, its the excessive Civ3 defensive modifiers which make it useless on attack. And, the way Civ3 combat is calculated (it should be calculated for "stacks" of units, instead of just 1 unit vs. 1 unit).
Being in a large town (metropolis) did not instantly double a unit's defense. A hill did not instantly increase a unit's defense by 50%.
The other problem, as I touched upon a second ago, is the way combat is done in Civ3. It's done unit vs. unit. Its like saying, we're only going to attack you with 1 division, and you're only going to defend with your strongest division. When it should be, we're going to hit you with all of our divisions, and all of your divisions are going to have to prepare to meet it.
This would make the 2 to 1 numerical superiority a requirement for say American Civil War time period (think of 2 attacking Infantry units as 12 attack instead of 6, going against 1 defending with 10 defense, it starts to make sense), and this requirement should be higher for World War I, as most assaults (especially on the Western Front from 1915-1917) were against HEAVILY fortified positions.
Unfortunately, combat isn't resolved this way in Civ, so you have to make some compromises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynx, what does your comment about ACW deserving a title mean? Is it meant as a good thing or a bad thing? And what kind of title?
Quote: No im not saying you need EVERY one, (ACW probably would be the only one with that title) but a few good makers who have posted recently would disprove my idea. Good luck in doing so.
Gogf
Indescribable
Yes, but they did win about 50% of the time, even though they needed higher numbers. In Civ3, let's see you take out a Rifleman on offense with a Rifleman...
I don`t think howitzers should get lethal bombardement. In ww1 the effect of artillery bombardment were often suppression of the enemy. This is reflected in the scenario now as it is with non lethal bombardment. MG`s on the other hand were worse if you were caught flat footed in no mans land. One didn`t have much of a chance.
Regarding the stats of the MG`s I think it should be something like 4.6.1 with a high bombard value. Okay the stats are low, but this is to reflect there are very few MG soldiers in MG units compared to infantry units. They are rather useless on the offense and need infantry to stay alive while they give the infantry close range artillery support.
All along in C3 I`ve found the capture of artillery annoying. I think it`s highly unlikely that the artillery cannot be destroyed, but if it was like a 50 - 50 chance of capture it would be more realistic.
Regarding the stats of the MG`s I think it should be something like 4.6.1 with a high bombard value. Okay the stats are low, but this is to reflect there are very few MG soldiers in MG units compared to infantry units. They are rather useless on the offense and need infantry to stay alive while they give the infantry close range artillery support.
All along in C3 I`ve found the capture of artillery annoying. I think it`s highly unlikely that the artillery cannot be destroyed, but if it was like a 50 - 50 chance of capture it would be more realistic.
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
Rifleman would be another good example, its a 4/6 unit. If you were able to use 2 at once vs. 1 rifleman, it'd be 8 vs. 6 with no defense modifiers. You'd have good odds of winning in such a situation.
Unfortunately, Civ3 doesn't let you do this, so its 4 vs. 6 every time (higher when defensive modifiers kick in), and your chances of losing can get VERY VERY high.
Given equal numbers, and taking out the inept commander factor, the defense would win 90% of the time during the American Civil War.
With regard to Artillery capture, it didn't happen too often because most Artillery operators and their crews were specifically trained on how to "spike" their guns before being overrun by advancing infantry, which essentially made the artillery useless.
As I said, Artillery was the MAIN killer in World War I, not Machine Guns. Though, giving Machine Guns a relatively high defensive bombard is probably a good idea (12?).
Unfortunately, Civ3 doesn't let you do this, so its 4 vs. 6 every time (higher when defensive modifiers kick in), and your chances of losing can get VERY VERY high.
Given equal numbers, and taking out the inept commander factor, the defense would win 90% of the time during the American Civil War.
With regard to Artillery capture, it didn't happen too often because most Artillery operators and their crews were specifically trained on how to "spike" their guns before being overrun by advancing infantry, which essentially made the artillery useless.
As I said, Artillery was the MAIN killer in World War I, not Machine Guns. Though, giving Machine Guns a relatively high defensive bombard is probably a good idea (12?).
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
I have a comment on this. I think Lynx meant that 1000-2000 guns were used for assaults and preperation bombardments. Naturally there were more guns in armygroups and army's in general and many more guns were brought up for the main battle.German artillery in The Battle of Verdun had initially 542 guns, 13 Krupps (420mm) and 17 Skoda (305mm) guns with 2.5 million shells. Naturally in genral offensives you had more guns but for the opening bombardments there were around 500-3000 guns. An Idea of having 10,000 guns in an assault is heavily exaggerated.
Though it is true Artillery killed more in WW1 than any other weapon.
Though it is true Artillery killed more in WW1 than any other weapon.
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
I guess you have to look at it, Sarevok, on the scale of the Civ3 map. The "definition" of assault is certainly open to debate, but even on a very large map of Europe (which this is not), you're still looking at 20 to 30 miles of frontage per "square". The Battle of Verdun if I remember correctly was over a much smaller frontage.
When I mentioned 10,000 guns, I meant large-scale offensives over a decent amount of front (say 20 to 30 miles), not necessarily an assault on just a few positions (like Verdun).
When I mentioned 10,000 guns, I meant large-scale offensives over a decent amount of front (say 20 to 30 miles), not necessarily an assault on just a few positions (like Verdun).
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
well, if youre talking about taking a 50 mile front like the Kaiserschlacht offensives then to have a very lasting effect then 10,000 may seem probable but even then not likely that many. I will have no more comment on this as I do not wish to be drawn into the ridiculous debates of this thread.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
well, if youre talking about taking a 50 mile front like the Kaiserschlacht offensives then to have a very lasting effect then 10,000 may seem probable but even then not likely that many. I will have no more comment on this as I do not wish to be drawn into the ridiculous debates of this thread.
Similar threads
