Modern Military is STILL unrealistic

[killaman]

I've been playing CIV since, well CIV. And after all the *****ing and crying, you guys still haven't balanced out the Modern Military and made it realistic. Lets look at some examples:
My MODERN Tank gets destroyed by some piss-ant Rifleman. What the hell is that? Just ONE freaking modern tank in an open field could easily take out two regiments of rifleman. If you guys weren’t sleep the last twenty years you would have noticed that there were two wars in the middle east which totally showed off how Modern Tanks could take on so many regular tanks, let alone two hundred year old rifleman and 3 hundred year old Grenadiers.
Oh yeah I also like how a Grenadiers /rifleman can take out my Chopper. Here is a hint, in battle the Chopper would have seen those guys from a mile away and taken them out from a mile away just as they did in a recent war called Desert Storm.
The Stealth bomber should be able to take out a unit of soldiers. We do have various types of bombs that would take out a large area and along with it any living thing minus roaches. Oh and the bombers are able to fly around the globe and hit any target and recon any area. They use what's called a mid are refueling. So the Bombers should not be limited in their scope of recon and bombing. The same goes for Jet fighters.
Last but not least my favorite, NUKES. It’s so realistic that it takes about 6 or more ICBMs to take out a city of size 12. Again if you guys were not so busy counting your money from the last CIV I bought, you would have noticed that we do have ICBMs with multiple extremely powerful warheads that would take out any city. In fact they have been designed to take out multiple cities. So why don't we say that one ICBM will take out any city size 10 or less and two will take out anything larger? And by Take Out I mean completely destroy, not accompany them to lunch or dinner.
In the last 20 years we have seen how modern warfare units kick ass over regular tanks and such so they should be a 1000 times stronger against old weaponry.
Please FIX THIS NOW or this will be the LAST CIV my friends and I will BUY.

 

[EdCase]

Might I suggest..you first remember its a game. Secondly release the onscreen units are NOT individual people or vehicles..but representations.
Thirdly if you cannot do any of the above...why play Civilization at all..?

 

[Panzer Ace]

I agree, just yesterday my PANZER unit was destroyed by an ARCHER...... I mean come on...How would an archer even compete with a WWI TANK, non the less a PANZER??? All the Panzer has to do is open up on its MG42(1200 rounds per min.)and mow down everything in front of it. The only way for a archer to kill ONE tank is to steal ANOTHER tank and shot it...I've never liked the way nukes are used in Civ. First thing, they're not little toys that nations lob at eachother that only do 25 or 50% damage to cities. Second, nuclear fallout can't be cleaned up PERIOD.Then the new 'bomb shelters' in Civ4 are funny.Yeah maybe if you were talking about 'dumb' bombs(ie the ones that just fall and go BOOM!), but NUKES come on.....Yeah it'd save a few people but BUILDINGS???Then when the people came out they'd die from radiation sickness. Unless you're talking about SUBTERRAINEAN cities it's not possible to protect bulidings from nuclear blasts.Now don't get me wrong, I like Civ. But there are a few things I don't like about it.

 

[evirus]

to summerize the whole topic "wah wah wah WAH!!!!!!"

comeon, as said, its a game, also theres numbers behind combat, health along with other varables, check the odds in the tool tip that appears when you hover "go-to" over an enemy unit

 

[killaman]

Might I suggest..you first remember its a game. Secondly release the onscreen units are NOT individual people or vehicles..but representations.
Thirdly if you cannot do any of the above...why play Civilization at all..?

YES it is a game, and what makes a games FUN is a fair ballance. Obviously when modern warfare barely beats and sometimes gets beat by archers and rifleman then there is something majorly wrong with the ballance and THEREFORE the FUN factor is reduced.
And I know that one unit does not represnt an individual. I've been playing CIV since 1995 I kinda figured that out when I first started to play over 10 years ago.

 

[killaman]

to summerize the whole topic "wah wah wah WAH!!!!!!"

comeon, as said, its a game, also theres numbers behind combat, health along with other varables, check the odds in the tool tip that appears when you hover "go-to" over an enemy unit

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.

 

[Tephra]

mmm yeah a few times I have had better odds but still got my unit killed.. (yes i know about defensive bonues and whatever)

so far the war is my least favourite aspect of Civ4.

PS i dont use CIV to mean Civ4, coz people get confused ...

 

[killaman]

mmm yeah a few times I have had better odds but still got my unit killed.. (yes i know about defensive bonues and whatever)

so far the war is my least favourite aspect of Civ4.

PS i dont use CIV to mean Civ4, coz people get confused ...

I like to play Civ to its fullest poteltial. Sometimes go for a Space Race, somtimes diplomacy and so on. Sid has made great strides in all the other areas of this game but the Warfare. The warfare has barely changed in over 10 years and 4 versions. It's like come on guys pull your head of your a$$ and get this fixed. Its not that freakin hard. Its the easiest thing to get right.
Only in movies were the villagers plan a great ambush would a Tank or a Chopper unit get killed by some archers or riflemen.

 

[alireza1354]

Just fix the damn balance

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

I agree and disagree with killaman.

Yes, I wish that they'd fix it so that melee and archery units couldn't defeat mechanized and helicopter units, it's extremely annoying. But... it's not impossible. On paper, a low-tech unit has no chance against a high-tech unit, but if necessity is the mother of invention than war is it's b@stard father. What I mean is, soldiers are forced to adapt in combat. For example, in WWII the Soviets developed a crude but effective way of taking out Germain tanks; they mobbed it with men, poured gasoline into it, and torched the crew. Those men didn't even need to be soldiers with guns -- just a person with a gas can and a match.

There are plenty of circumstances like this where outmatched soldiers beat a powerful enemy by adapting and outsmarting them. Therefore, it isn't inconceiveable that a Riflemen could take out a tank, especially if that tank was badly damaged, which I presume is the case.

Your point about aircraft is valid, but unreasonable. Sure, mid-air refueling is possible and very common for the modern military, but in terms of game balance it's unfair to permit any aircraft to strike anywhere on the map. For one, you'd need a base from which the refueling aircraft could launch from. For example, if you tried to launch a Stealth Bomber from one continent to another, you'd need either a city or an Aircraft Carrier on or off the coast of the continent for the refueling aircraft to be based on. That's REALISTIC. And Civ4 (and Civ3) reflected that because it allowed you to rebase any aircraft to any city, carrier, or airfield anywhere on the map one turn, then strike from that base the next. This is the equivalent of mid-air refueling in Civ4. Granted, it doesn't let you attack in the same turn, but as I mentioned, that would be unfair gameplay-wise.

As for nukes, again, your point is valid in terms of realism, but unreasonable in terms of gameplay. First, you shouldn't be so nuke happy. I used to be like that but it just became more hassle than it was worth. Instead of producing units to actually conquer I'd devote my city production to stockpiling nukes, and it took me at least twice as long than it would've taken to fight the war cleanly without nukes, and without the fallout. So making nukes more powerful isn't reasonable, and isn't a priority.

Personally, I'd prefer if instead of making bigger and more destructive nukes that the Devs worked on adding two early generation nukes to Civ4. I mentioned this weeks ago before the game was released. I'd like to see a first-generation Atomic Bomb like the one from the WWII Pacific scenario in Civ3: Conquests and a second-generation Tactical Nuke like the one in Civ3, which could be surface launched or submarine launched. And the yields for these two early generation nukes should be less than the ICBM so that they only damage one square -- the one that they impact. The two nukes from WWII weren't nearly as powerful as ICBMs and Tactical Nukes are purposely low-yield so they can be used in battle at a range of only a few miles (some tactical nukes are actually fired out of heavy artillery cannons, so they're not even rockets). Also, I think an important thing about nukes is how to counter them. ICBMs are countered by the SDI project and to a less extent by Bomb Shelters. 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; it could be moved around on the land or loaded onto a sub and lurk off the coastline. The Tact-Nuke would be the ultimate nuclear deterent because it'd be unlikely that an enemy could find and destroy them all before they're launched.

So that's how I'd change nukes. I wouldn't make them more powerful, I'd make them more realistic and more useful.

 

[chinesefireball]

mmm yeah a few times I have had better odds but still got my unit killed.. (yes i know about defensive bonues and whatever)

better odds does not equal winning - even ignoring defensive bonus. you may have a 3:1 chance of winning - in other words 75% chance of winning, but still a 25% chance of loosing, which can quite easily happen

 

[lost_civantares]

I totally agree that nukes are underpowered (how in the world can radiation be cleaned up in the course of a year? Don't think it happened in the former USSR). They really should be used to totally eliminate all but one pop point to be realistic, or totally destroy a tile and produce radioactive pollution to be reallistic. All they seem to be now (although I haven't played civ 4) is an expensive super bomb with diplomatic reprocussions.

The problem with your idea for tactitcal nukes though is that it would totally unbalence the game, mainly because they would be used so much. Most players at war really don't care about their reputation (think about ROP rapes in civ3), so that would not prevent them, tactical nukes are also cheap, so that wouldn't prevent them, so their really isn't any way to balance them with out some sort of reprocussion that wouldn't make them unused.

As for obsolete units taking out advanced ones, again I haven't played Civ 4, but it seems from what I've heard that the probability of that happening as often as it did with Civ3 is reduced, but as I have read reviews and other places (like Sullla's walkthrough) it still seems to somewhat often. My question to you (killaman) is to ask you if this happened to you multiple times during the game or just once. For a historical refrence think about the USSR's attack on Afganistan, they got nailed by (relivitly) backwards tribesmen, even though they were reviling NATO in tech.

 

[Mat777]

You guys are ******** , its not about realism , its about gameplay .

Its all fine if an archer destroy a tank . Its not about what the unit look like , its about what damage point he does .

 

[lost_civantares]

You guys are ******** , its not about realism , its about gameplay .

Its all fine if an archer destroy a tank . Its not about what the unit look like , its about what damage point he does .

Ummm, if it was all about gameplay than wouldn't an archer have 0% chance of destroying a tank? And if you want just gameplay then go play Doom 4, Civ, at least from what I think the developers are trying to do, is have a balence of gameplay vs realism, if they only went for one side it would massivly affect the game.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

My question to you (killaman) is to ask you if this happened to you multiple times during the game or just once. For a historical refrence think about the USSR's attack on Afganistan, they got nailed by (relivitly) backwards tribesmen, even though they were reviling NATO in tech.

To be accurate, lost_civantares, the Americans secretly supplied the Afghanies with weapons to use against the Soviets. The Soviets were such careless arms dealers that it was relatively easy for the Americans to acquire AK-47s and RPGs, which they gave to the Afghanies to use against the Soviets. The Afghanies had a distinct advantage owing to their country's impassable terrain, so they were able to catch Soviet soldiers and especially tanks in ambushes through mountain passes and other geological bottlenecks.

So calling the Afghanies "backwards tribesmen" isn't accurate. Sure, they might still ride horses and they don't have civil infrastructure such as running water and electricity, but they resisted the Soviets using automatic weapons and explosives -- it's not like they were using rocks and pointy sticks.

 

[lost_civantares]

To be accurate, lost_civantares, the Americans secretly supplied the Afghanies with weapons to use against the Soviets. The Soviets were such careless arms dealers that it was relatively easy for the Americans to acquire AK-47s and RPGs, which they gave to the Afghanies to use against the Soviets. The Afghanies had a distinct advantage owing to their country's impassable terrain, so they were able to catch Soviet soldiers and especially tanks in ambushes through mountain passes and other geological bottlenecks.

So calling the Afghanies "backwards tribesmen" isn't accurate. Sure, they might still ride horses and they don't have civil infrastructure such as running water and electricity, but they resisted the Soviets using automatic weapons and explosives -- it's not like they were using rocks and pointy sticks.

I never called them backwards tribesmen, thier lifestyle right now is of a tribealistic life and are realitivly backwards, not that they fight with sticks.

Anyway, as you said earlier, if you want to look at it one way, you could consider them ambusing the tank, or mobing the tank (in your example). And really, the correct answer to this disscussion changes from person to person, it really just depends on what you consider the game as, representaional or exacly as it is seen on the screen, just with the numbers of people multiplied a lot.

 

[Mat777]

Ummm, if it was all about gameplay than wouldn't an archer have 0% chance of destroying a tank? And if you want just gameplay then go play Doom 4, Civ, at least from what I think the developers are trying to do, is have a balence of gameplay vs realism, if they only went for one side it would massivly affect the game.

haha lol , no sorry . YOU GO PLAY ELSE WHERE because THEY made the game EXACLTY the way i think ITS BETTER . And they wont ever change it!

 

[I am the Future]

If you dont like it then just mail the game to me. PM me and I will even give you my address. To top it off I will be nice and send you $5. how does that sound.
Truth be told I dont care who beats who, it is gameplay, not realism.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Ummm, if it was all about gameplay than wouldn't an archer have 0% chance of destroying a tank?

Let me paint you people a scenario.

You have a Tank with 28 combat strength and a horde of Archers with 3 combat strength. Now that would mean that an Archer had approximately a 1/10 chance of defeating the tank. But if you had 10 Archers, the odds would be roughly even. However, some of us would ask, "How can Archers' wooden bows and arrows defeat an armoured tank?"

The answer is, don't think of how Archers could defeat the tank, rather how could the tank defeat all those archers? If you know anything about WWII you'd know that the Germans had constant supply problems with munitions and especially fuel. The German losses in Africa and in the Battle of the Bulge have been most directly attributed to the shortage of fuel.

So if a Tank unit was mobbed by 10 Archer units, it's entirely possible that the tanks would run out of ammunition and/or fuel and be rendered helpless.

That's how an Archer, or more accurately, a HORDE of Archers, can defeat a Tank.

In terms of gameplay, I can't conceive of a full-strength Tank being defeated by a full-strength Archer in a one-on-one battle, even with the Archer's defensive bonuses. It's likely that the tank was worn by a mob of enemy units. Personally, I think it would be MORE unfair if you could just roll a single Tank into a city defended by 10+ Archers and expect to slaughter them all.

So quit b!tching about your precious tanks being destroyed by Archers and Rifleman, because you're probably using them greedily anyway.

Do what I do. In my current campaign my Civ is the Romans and I'm fighting the French. I'm the most advanced Civ and the French are the least advanced; the only reason they've survived so long is that there were other Civs in my way and it was too inconvenient and logistically difficult to invade by sea. Now the French only had 5 cities left (at least five former-French cities had been conquered by other Civs before I conquered them) and all located along a narrow Northern stretch of my large continent. I had Tanks, Mech Infantry, Gunships, and Bombers, and a few turns into the war I had Modern Armour, whereas the French had mostly Lowbowmen, Pikemen, and Catapults. They had a few Musketeers, but -- unfortunately for them -- all became trapped in neutral pockets inside my territory after the influence around my recently captured Chinese cities re-expanded; so I opportunely gunned them down with Gunships. Anyway, despite the fact that they had low-tech units, their cities were defended by between 6-12 units each, so they still provided a challenge. After I the destroyed the Chinese, I could've immediately gone to war with the French, but I didn't. The reason was that I only had a handful of full-strength offensive units (Tanks & Gunships, not Mech Infantry), whereas most of my army needed healing. So ended up I waiting about 10 turns, not just for my units to heal, but to produce a new batch of units, and to quell the resistance in my newly captured cities, at which time I rush-constructed Hospitals to rapidly heal my casualties from the imminent war. When I was ready, I went after the French. And because I waited until I matched up 1:1 with France's defenders I easily destroyed them and only lost a few units in the process.

That's how you conduct a war. And I do mean conduct. Because any fool can fight a war; what I mean by conducting is controlling how the war is fought. This means attacking, outflanking, and suppressing the enemy so they can't launch a counter-offensive; they're forced to turtle inside their cities and wait until I come to knock down their walls and slaughter them.

If you people fought wars the right way, like I do, you'd rarely ever be frustrated by having Archers or Riflemen destroy your previous tanks.

 

[Undertaker798]

to summerize the whole topic "wah wah wah WAH!!!!!!"

I agree, wah wah wah!

Remember, nothing is impossible!