Modern Military is STILL unrealistic

[Soryn Arkayn]

Also as there is 3 rounds the odds for tank:archer are not 10:1
but 10 to the power of 3:1 to the power of 3
which comes to
1000:1

Which i think we can agree are a lot more reasonable odds.

What do you mean "3 rounds"?

 

[Lucadra]

I agree there is insane odds of a out dated unit defeating a modern weapon, but look and it like this a modern group of infantry is around 100 soldiers back then it was around a thousand, all the modern tech ain't going to help you if they have more men than you have bullets, as for the tanks,lots of things can go wrong with modern technology and human error. although i agree the chances are like 1000:1 it can still happen and you guys are just complaining cause you lost a precious tank or something

 

[Suki]

What do you mean "3 rounds"?

I'm not sure what he means by 3 rounds
the odds the game gives you before you attack is, with all bouns's included, the ratio of the strengths of the two units. so 3:1 means he has a 3/4 chance of winning, each round, and will do 3x as much damage, while the other will win 1/4 and do 1/3X damage. So if the combat goes for 4 rounds the 'tank' will have done, on average, 9 damage, while the 'artcher' does 1/3. See that's a 27:1 damage ratio, on average per round. so yeah the damage ratio is (power ratio)^3 so if it's 10:1 power -> 1000:1 damage per round.

I'm not sure what actual numbers the game uses but if a unit has 3Hp

and we go with my example from above with a 3:1 power ratio, the 3power unit will kill the other in one hit, the 1power unit will need 12 hits, he hits 1/4 -> so his chance to win should be (1/4)^12=1/16777216. it also means the average artcher should do 1/9 damage to the tank -> it will take about 27 artchers to take down the tank (if power doesn't change with hitpoints).

with that said, remember it's only a game, complaining that it doesn't work the way you think it should is not a strategy, adapt to what the numbers actually say, not to what you think they should be, use your troops properly, to daye I don't think anyone has lost a tank to an artcher in any battle that they should have been in the first place. If modern units were invincible, which they're not, even in the real world, this wouldn't be much of a strategy game now would it?

 

[lordqarlyn]

I have to ask some people, if you don't feel modern units should have any advantages, then why bother do research?

Don't mutter about "balance" and gameplay. The purpose of strategy is not to maintain balance, you must upset the balance in your favor.

Life is unfair, so make in unfair in your favor.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

I have to ask some people, if you don't feel modern units should have any advantages, then why bother do research?

Don't mutter about "balance" and gameplay. The purpose of strategy is not to maintain balance, you must upset the balance in your favor.

Life is unfair, so make in unfair in your favor.

What you obviously want is to be able to use tanks to simply steamroll over any obsolete unit in the game. That's unfair and unreasonable. As I mentioned above, the Soviets in WWII developed a desperate but effective to destroy German panzers; they mobbed them, poured gasoline inside, and torched the crews -- they didn't even need guns or explosives, just a jerry can of fuel and a match. So it could be argued that obsolete units develop similar tactics to destroy tanks, which is how they're able to defeat them in battle.

I really don't see how this is an issue because the only way a tank could be destroyed by a melee or archery unit is if it's already heavily damaged. If your tank is damaged, withdraw it to repair -- don't keep attacking and then b!tch when it's taken out by an obsolete unit, because a tank, especiall a damaged tank, isn't invincible.

 

[EdCase]

Its simply unbelievable how many times the same old arguments pop up...if it makes you feel better... replace the archer graphic with a guy holding a soda bottle filled with gasoline topped off with a flaming rag...
Code him with the same stats as an archer...call him "Molotov" and feel all warm and fuzzy about the tank being destroyed


@Undertaker798...Northamptom huh? I spent my first 30 years living in and around that area,mostly Rushden, till I moved to the States 10 years ago...how is the old neighborhood?

 

[Chopperhead]

this is argument is dumb the whole game is not realistic. Your leader cant live for 20 000 years or however long it is. It's not "Realistic" that a spearman can upgrade to an Infantry unit 5000 years after it was created It's not "realistic" that a war elefant can put bullet holes in my tanks either It's not "Realistic" for the Americans to be around in 4000 BC the point is the game is not supposed to be completly Realistic. It's about game play it's based on numbers not this is a tank ur archer cant beat it stop thinking off them as what they are in life. the game would be really boring if everything was realisitc. Anyway ya this thread is just ******** I dont mean to flame you guys but Im just tired of hearing about it GET OVER IT like come on it's not a big deal you guys are just complaining for the sake of complaining.

 

[Suki]

My A-bomb suggestion would be dropped by a heavy bomber plane as it was in WWII, and that aircraft could be shot down by fighters or AA defences. The Tactical Nuke shouldn't have a counter -- the SDI couldn't intercept it and it's mobile (unlike an ICBM) and therefore ellusive;

tactical nukes are counterable. SDI sattelites or interceptor rockets can't hit them but the air-born laser could, or any of those ground based laser-counter-artillery things that they're making a lot of progress on in the states. it's like having an umbrella over a couple of squares.

I say just have artillery, bombers and short & long range(intercontenental) missiles. Then make the nuclear warhead a seperate unit (coming in two sizes fission and H) that could be loaded into the other units, of course artillery could only use the small nukes. You could use any of the weapons as conventionally, it's just never worth it to launch a ICBM with a non-nuclear warhead, unless it's a Rod of God..

I have mentioned this that other thread:[URL="http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=131591] more nuclear units[/URL]

and nuclear bazoka's

 

[NightWanderer]

I wonder if anyone has contemplated the thought that in order to make the military aspects 'realistic' as possible, it's very probable that the development team would have to hire military consultants from around the globe and that probably would increase game production time and costs considerably. It might be more of a corporate decision making issue than a development issue.

 

[EdCase]

I wonder if anyone has contemplated the thought that in order to make the military aspects 'realistic' as possible, it's very probable that the development team would have to hire military consultants from around the globe and that probably would increase game production time and costs considerably. It might be more of a corporate decision making issue than a development issue.

And why would they need too? there appears to be an over abundant supply of armchair generals and munitions "experts" just in this thread ,never mind the whole set of forums

 

[killaman]

I completely agree with situations like WWII and the Russian response and the Afghani response. In each of those however those forces had modern weaponry. Afghans although less technically savvy they did have some modern armaments and what ever CIA provided. the Russians in WWII had gasoline and they attacked the tanks NOT in open spaces but rather in city setting were they could quickly mob a tank. If they tried that in an open field they would be toast.

So when I'm playing a battle in an open field and this has happened several times in a row in the same sequence of battle, I get upset. I had three tanks going against about 5 or 6 rifle man. Mind you I had the modern tank. basically what ended up happening is that two rifleman took out one tank. The tank was full health at the beginning of the battle. Now given that I agree even with such lesser technology the riflemen could have been resourceful and lucky and win ONE battle. But this is happening every time. Basically the formula amounts to two rifleman can take out a tank.

In the last two wars how many choppers did we lose to enemy fire? I think it was ONE or a handful. And they went up against pretty modern soldiers with machine guns and AA and so on. The Choppers in most cases took out the enemy from a mile away. But in CIV that balance is even worse than the balance for the tanks.

The ICBMs should be more powerful and I don't think its unreasonable for game play at all. I've modified my own settings and played it and it now is the real threat that it should be. Now you are scared when someone gets the ICBM and you try to work peace with them. Now it is realistic and makes diplomacy a lot more serious matter. The other way ICBMs got no respect and you could easily recover from them.

Anyhow I had wished that after ten years of complaining about this they would have fixed it OR even better provided us with an easier method of balancing out the unit strengths than going thru a file and manually manipulating entries.

 

[killaman]

And why would they need too? there appears to be an over abundant supply of armchair generals and munitions "experts" just in this thread ,never mind the whole set of forums

WRONG again. I have worked with game developers. Anyone heard of Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield2? Made by DICE. One of the key artist/programmers is my friend and the MAIN programmer that designed the whole engine is an acquaintance of mine, well probably more than an acquaintance since I bought him pizza several times, but that's another story.
As game developers you do your own research into these matters. It’s part of the process and outlined in the project plan. It is very standard procedure. There is plenty of documentation out there. And yes sometimes they do consult with a military guy for a very short term to fine-tune the balance. But that is all in the budget and when you got the best GOD game in the world paying $30,000 for a military consultant is nothing. Also sometimes they hire a military guy just for the hype.

Think about it guys. We just had a modern war. We fought agianst and army that had tanks and planes and artilary and so on. In the war how many units did we lose? What percentage was that? I don't konw the numbers myself but I'd bet it was around 1% or less. Now replace the Iraqi force with bunch of Musketmen and Archers and granadiers and suddenly our lose rate increase to 25% or more?
Anyhow back to playing my modified BETTER ballanced CIV game.

 

[lost_civantares]

Think about it guys. We just had a modern war. We fought agianst and army that had tanks and planes and artilary and so on. In the war how many units did we lose? What percentage was that? I don't konw the numbers myself but I'd bet it was around 1% or less. Now replace the Iraqi force with bunch of Musketmen and Archers and granadiers and suddenly our lose rate increase to 25% or more?

Actually, the US has lost zero tanks (if my memory serves me right), we have lost a bunch of half tracks, apcs and so on, but no tanks. As for the Russians, they actually weren't all that far behind, they just didn't have the right training and wern't ready, but that's for another day...

As for the odds, you got to have some possiblity for succes for the older units, but not let them be almost equal, and anyway, one or two units every so often isn't all that bad, you should be building more anyway.

And besides, "War is never fair".

 

[Shylock]

Why not simply make low tech units disband at the sight of higher tech units.

The "elite" Republican Guard in Iraq disbanded at the sight of US Tanks just a few years ago, why not some Archers?

Or you could add a flag (programming term, not a literal flag of course) that makes lower tech units attack and defence 0 when fighting anything say two tech levels ahead, or append them to techs and make them obsolete like Wonders.

It wouldnt be too hard with the system we have now unless its hard coded.

 

[EdCase]

WRONG again. I have worked with game developers. Anyone heard of Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield2? Made by DICE. One of the key artist/programmers is my friend and the MAIN programmer that designed the whole engine is an acquaintance of mine, well probably more than an acquaintance since I bought him pizza several times, but that's another story.
As game developers you do your own research into these matters. It’s part of the process and outlined in the project plan. It is very standard procedure. There is plenty of documentation out there. And yes sometimes they do consult with a military guy for a very short term to fine-tune the balance. But that is all in the budget and when you got the best GOD game in the world paying $30,000 for a military consultant is nothing. Also sometimes they hire a military guy just for the hype.

Think about it guys. We just had a modern war. We fought agianst and army that had tanks and planes and artilary and so on. In the war how many units did we lose? What percentage was that? I don't konw the numbers myself but I'd bet it was around 1% or less. Now replace the Iraqi force with bunch of Musketmen and Archers and granadiers and suddenly our lose rate increase to 25% or more?
Anyhow back to playing my modified BETTER ballanced CIV game.

Speaking as a former member of the military. I feel obliged to point out that neither BF1942 or BF2 are entirely realistic either......
I can honestly say that I have never seen, heard of or performed the action of detonating a satchel charge to make a Humvee "fly" or just to propel myself into the air.
This action and many other unrealistic "stunts" can be pulled off in-game, thats right I said game.
Both the aforementioned are indeed games as is Civ IV.
If its better for you to mod out any sembelance of a challenge or decision process and simply make it a game of "first one to modern weapons wins" thats your choice.
But to continuing to call it unrealistic is pretty pointless, of course its unrealistic..its a game

 

[lost_civantares]

Why not simply make low tech units disband at the sight of higher tech units.

The "elite" Republican Guard in Iraq disbanded at the sight of US Tanks just a few years ago, why not some Archers?

Or you could add a flag (programming term, not a literal flag of course) that makes lower tech units attack and defence 0 when fighting anything say two tech levels ahead, or append them to techs and make them obsolete like Wonders.

It wouldnt be too hard with the system we have now unless its hard coded.

That does not always happen. The afgan army sure didn't run when the russians came, the North Korean army didn't disband when the US atarted attacking, and yes they were supplied, but the US/USSR sure wasn't equal with them, they were ahead. Gamewise it also wouldn't work because what happens if you or the computer is not focusing in tech, or is just really doing bad? The entire empire would fold, and all the surronding empires would close in, but if that haddn't happened the empire might have made a glorious comeback. It really wouldn't make sense.

 

[admiral-bell]

wake me up when you are done

 

[Mujadaddy]

Really. WOW I didn't know there is numbers behind the combat. Cool thanks man for letting me know that. There is the odds tools tip too? Cool you're a lifesaver man. Thanks.
If you had bothered to read my first post carefully you would have noticed that I said I have been playing Civilization since Civilization which makes me a 10 year veteran of the game and one the original players of CIV, and perhaps in your feeble mind you could have thought that perhaps I already know the little bits of knowledge you are trying to bestow upon me.
Secondly if you had more than the comprehension level of a goat you would have understood that I was complaining about the game balance and that your solution of looking at the odds does not change anything. I'm well aware of the odds and the tips and the numbers. When the game balance is unfair and has been for over a decade, looking at tips does not change anything. THANK YOU. NO REALLY THANK YOU!!!
Now shut up and go play SIMS, fruitcake.

If you're complaining about something that's been in the game since Civ1, then maybe it's still there because the programmers like it?

 

[Shylock]

That does not always happen. The afgan army sure didn't run when the russians came, the North Korean army didn't disband when the US atarted attacking, and yes they were supplied, but the US/USSR sure wasn't equal with them, they were ahead. Gamewise it also wouldn't work because what happens if you or the computer is not focusing in tech, or is just really doing bad? The entire empire would fold, and all the surronding empires would close in, but if that haddn't happened the empire might have made a glorious comeback. It really wouldn't make sense.

The Afgans and NKs had weapons which were similar to the invaders, Im talking Spearmen v Tanks.

 

[-Sturmgewehr-]

I miss the mobile arty, now I just have to use tanks and give them the collateral damage bonus. Arty has and is a cornerstone for my armies in Civ. There also needs to be a modern infantry unit. Armies today are still not fully mechinized, even the US army. Footsoldiers still make up the bulks of armies and there should be a unit with about 28 strength or something like that.