Modern armour slaughtered by infantry?

[prisoner of hss]

my modern armors keep being slaughtered by infantry. i dont get it, cause the whole point of them is to kill a few weak units in one shot.

 

[Sybot]

It depends, if the infantry is fortified, on a hill/forest/mountain, in a city, across a river (any combination of the above). It actually has some chance to take down a Modern Armour. Try weakening them with artillery first.

 

[Tomoyo]

Or try using artillery to redline the infantry, then use bombers to kill them, and waltz in with a cavalry (though it would be cooler with a conquistador).

Okay, I don't do that, but it would solve your problem. (And the whole point of Modern Armour is to kill units and take cities. How well they do that depends on a lot of things)

 

[prisoner of hss]

my friend says my games bugged or something i try artillery but the stupid things fail same with bombers. sometimes i lose to rifleman or even get redlined by spearman its ****in gay

 

[prisoner of hss]

It depends, if the infantry is fortified, on a hill/forest/mountain, in a city, across a river (any combination of the above). It actually has some chance to take down a Modern Armour. Try weakening them with artillery first.

yea i abuse right of passage or somethin but its not like that. its like more than half the time i lose even if its elite vs regular, and sometimes i do only one damage or even sometimes nothing. its ****ed up

 

[Proletariat]

What he means is that certain squares give the defender a bonus to his defense, so that they have a much better chance of winning than they would otherwise. For example, hills give +50% IIRC, and Metros (cities with 12+ pop) give a whopping +100%, so a spearman in a Metro on a Hill will get a defensive value of 5 instead of the usual 2.

Other than that, sometimes you just get really bad luck, and this game tends to be pretty unforgiving when it comes to that. You either suck it up and keep playing, quit and go play something else for a while, or h4X0r the game with the editor to make it less random.

... and I'm not trying to be glib - I'm seriously considering giving some units a boost and doubling every unit's hp for the next time I play. I've also quit a game on more than one occasion, in part because the combat is just so god-awful.

 

[Tomoyo]

and I'm not trying to be glib

God, I wonder how many people thought "Great Library" when they saw that.

 

[wilbill]

my friend says my games bugged or something i try artillery but the stupid things fail same with bombers. sometimes i lose to rifleman or even get redlined by spearman its ****in gay

An elite, undamaged MA attacking unfortified infantry on grassland will win over 90% of the time. A regular MA attacking fortified infantry in a metropolis across a river on a hill will win a whole lot less. If you MA has lost a hitpoint or two the odds go down even more. Civ combat isn't about "strong units beating weak units" - it's about the calculated odds of attack vs. defense factors.

The way to get the full benefit of artillery or bombers is with mass quantities. Players have been known to use stacks of 100 artillery. Two or three won't do much on a consistant basis.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: prisoner of hss - warned for langauge. We don't appreciate that kind of language here. Even if the autocensor catches it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Padma]

Modern Armor losing to Infantry? Nothing strange about that. Not even in the real world. *Especially* if the Infantry is in a porstion to get any kind of defensive bonus(es).

Heck, Spearmen have been known to beat Tanks!

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

yea i had a medival infantry army in the high yellows attacking a spearman the spearman won. (i then reloaded and won the battle )

 

[Proletariat]

> Modern Armor losing to Infantry? Nothing strange about that. Not even in the real world.

Really? Could you cite some cases where something comparable to modern tanks have lost to infantry units with WWII-era weaponry (which seems to be what the Civ3 units are based on)? Not to doubt you, I'd just be interested to know.

 

[smeggo]

> Modern Armor losing to Infantry? Nothing strange about that. Not even in the real world.

Really? Could you cite some cases where something comparable to modern tanks have lost to infantry units with WWII-era weaponry (which seems to be what the Civ3 units are based on)? Not to doubt you, I'd just be interested to know.

Try present day Iraq.
Not quite using a Lee Enfield rifle I'll admit but an RPG up the back of an Abrams.
Or an hand grenade/exposive device dropped off a bridge into a turret.

 

[prisoner of hss]

rpg is far different from regular infantry. those look like world war one guys. and the modern armor would realistically also have a machine gun.

anyway, im gonna try cruise missiles.

 

[Proletariat]

> Try present day Iraq.
Not quite using a Lee Enfield rifle I'll admit but an RPG up the back of an Abrams.
Or an hand grenade/exposive device dropped off a bridge into a turret.

Err... source? As far as I know, most if not all cases where Abrams have been destroyed or damaged beyond repaired have been due to IEDs, anti-tank mines, and the like. A quick search turns up one instance where one was disabled by a RPG-7 in an ambush, but that's not really the same thing.

 

[smeggo]

> Err... source? As far as I know, most if not all cases where Abrams have been destroyed or damaged beyond repaired have been due to IEDs, anti-tank mines, and the like. A quick search turns up one instance where one was disabled by a RPG-7 in an ambush, but that's not really the same thing.

"Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire." Janes.
Admittedly about as common an occurence as spearmen knocking over MI but it does happen.

 

[Proletariat]

Hmm, fair enough. Though I'm not sure whether or not any of that is relevant since we're talking about guerilla-style attacks by irregular forces in urban areas where tanks are much more vulnerable to close-range weapons like the RPG, and not a full-scale engagement between tanks and regular infantry forces. But I suppose with enough guys running around with RPGs, anything is possible. Heh.

Thanks for the info.

 

[FinnMcCool]

I wish I could remember the names, but there's a story about a Polish or Russian town (??) facing an advance of German tanks in WWI. The only weaponry in town was crossbows. However, there was a brilliant metalsmith in town who suggested they use their crossbows, and coat the tips of their crossbows with pitch. At his suggestion, they ground their quarrels to a blunt tip, and coated them with pitch. Turns out, this was just what was necessary to pierce the armor of WWI tanks. The pitch causes the kinetic energy of the quarrel's impact to concentrate, instead of spread around and slide...

 

[prisoner of hss]

actually, rpg troopers and stuff are usually refered to as "mech infantry" in other games, such as advance war. but in civ 3 for some reason they made it a humvee

 

[Jazzmail]

Don't underestimate infantry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail

The name "Molotov cocktail" is derived from Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, a Soviet politician who was the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs (Foreign Minister) of the Soviet Union. During the buildup to World War II, when Finland refused to allow Stalin to establish military bases on Finnish soil, the Soviets invaded. The poorly-equipped and heavily-outnumbered Finnish Army, facing Red Army tanks in what came to be known as the Winter War, borrowing an improvised incendiary device from the Moors figthing for Axis-backed Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War used against Soviet T-26 tanks backing Spanish Republican in October 29th 1936, in the failed Soviet blitzkrieg experiment in Seseña (Toledo), 30 km. from Madrid [1]. When Molotov claimed in radio broadcasts that the Soviet Union was not dropping bombs, but rather delivering food to the starving Finns, the Finns responded by saluting the advancing tanks with "Molotov cocktails". At first the term was used to describe only the burning mixture itself but in practical use the term was soon applied to the combination of both bottle and fillings. This Finnish use of the hand- or sling-thrown explosive against Soviet tanks was repeated in the subsequent Continuation War. Molotov cocktails were eventually mass-produced by the Finnish military, bundled with matches to light them.

These weapons saw widespread use by all sides in World War II. They were very effective against light tanks, and very bad for enemy morale. The following is a first-hand description of their effects, written during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943:

The well-aimed bottles hit the tank. The flames spread quickly. The blast of the explosion is heard. The machine stands motionless. The crew is burned alive. The other two tanks turn around and withdraw. The Germans who took cover behind them withdraw in panic. We take leave of them with a few well-aimed shots and grenades.