Modern Military is STILL unrealistic

[Soryn Arkayn]

He never said that you could win the battle solely with aircraft or that other forces arnt needed he said that Airpower is the greatest asset in the Modern warfare of today which I would have to agree. if you controll the skys you control the battle. you can provide support for your ground forces and prevent the enemy from doing the same you can knock out enemy factorys and bases limiting their capabilitys making the ground invasion that much easier and ultimatley saving the lives of many soldiers. Not only that but it is also a deterent and a shock factor that can cause the enemy to simply surrender rather then face the awesome power of these weapons.

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

If you have adequate anti-air defence (like Mech or SAM Infantry) you can neutralize an enemy's air supremacy, just like the Egyptians and Syrians did to the Israeli Air Force in the Yom Kippur War. AA defence is just as much as a deterent as air supremacy.

And in response to...

The decisive weapon for the Israelis in both wars was air power, not tanks. And in case you've forgotten, the Israeli tank forces got creamed in their first attempted advance on the Egyptian frontline in the '73 war - by SAGGER wielding infantry.

That's untrue. In the Yom Kippur War, the Egyptian-Syrian invasion forces effectively neutralized Israeli air power with their new SAM weapons. It was only after the Israeli Army counter-attacked, retook the Suez Canal, and cut the Egyptian's supply lines -- so that the mobile SAM's couldn't rearm with missiles -- that the Israeli Air Force was able to achieve air supremacy and help destroy the invasion forces.

One of the leasons that the Israelis learned in the conflict was that its Air Force didn't make them invincible -- it could be countered.

That's why neutralizing enemy Anti-Air Defences is so vital in the most recent wars, like the Gulf Wars and war in the Balkans. The Iraqis supposedly had the same or better Soviet-made SAM weapons that the Egyptians and Syrians had in '73, but they weren't nearly as effective because the Coalition spent so much effort in neutralizing them in order to secure air supremacy in support of the ground war.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

WarX, this is NOT the question of REALISM. NO!
This is a question of GAME BALANCE!
Of course, we are just playing the game... But why do I need tank if it can be destroyed with an ancient arrow??? Because of this there is NO point in modern weapon... Just take a spear and it's done!

You're just repeating the same frustrated BS as the other players.

Look, there's no way that a Spearman can take out a Tank one-on-one, at full health, and without defensive bonuses. The only conceivable way a Spearman could take out a Tank if the tank was heavily damaged.

Despite what most people think, Tanks AREN'T INVINCIBLE!

In fact, in WWII Tanks were highly unreliable -- it was more likely a tank would be put out of action by mechanical failure than by an enemy's attack.

So if your Tank is already DAMAGED and happens to be destroyed by an enemy Spearman, you should interpret that defeat as a mechanical failure during combat, and the Spearman killed the crew when they abandoned the inoperable vehicle.

So just quit your b!tching!

 

[Rus guy]

Soryn Arkayn, ok! I'll give you a bow and an arrows and it'll be a wall between you and me (just like..mmm... a "city"). And I'll be sitting in an Abrams battle tank with SOME failures like... ok, something with antenna (strength 30\40)
HOW MANY CHANCES do you have against me? (don't fantasize about the ammunition, tanks don't have only 1 cannon, they have machine-guns... and also there is no "ammunition" in the game).

MODERN TANKS AREN'T INVINCIBLE AT ALL! BUT THE ARE FOR MAN WITH BOWS, SPEARS, SWORDS, EVEN ANCIENT RIFLES!

And also, since there is no armies in CIV4 - a 1 GROUP of tanks are against 1 GROUP of people (NOT an army)...

And WHAT defensive bonuses can have a man against MODERN tank (NOT WWII Tanks!!!!!) in a city even WITHOUT walls???

Please, don't mention WWII Tanks!! I'm only about MODERN tanks.

So just quit your b!tching! Face the truth, be a man and take a spear

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Soryn Arkayn, ok! I'll give you a bow and an arrows and it'll be a wall between you and me (just like..mmm... a "city"). And I'll be sitting in an Abrams battle tank with SOME failures like... ok, something with antenna (strength 30\40)
HOW MANY CHANCES do you have against me? (don't fantasize about the ammunition, tanks don't have only 1 cannon, they have machine-guns... and also there is no "ammunition" in the game).

MODERN TANKS AREN'T INVINCIBLE AT ALL! BUT THE ARE FOR MAN WITH BOWS, SPEARS, SWORDS, EVEN ANCIENT RIFLES!

And also, since there is no armies in CIV4 - a 1 GROUP of tanks are against 1 GROUP of people (NOT an army)...

And WHAT defensive bonuses can have a man against MODERN tank (NOT WWII Tanks!!!!!) in a city even WITHOUT walls???

Please, don't mention WWII Tanks!! I'm only about MODERN tanks.

So just quit your b!tching! Face the truth, be a man and take a spear

Your scenario is irrelevant, because I've already stated it's not possible for a 4/4 Spearman to defeat a 40/40 Modern Armour tank, regardless of promotions or defensive bonuses. You're scenario is simply proposterous and the fact that you'd even claim that it's plausible discredits your entire ridiculous argument.

Now, a possible Civ4 scenario would be a tank (it doesn't even matter if it's a Tank or Modern Armour) has been reduced to ~5 combat strength and attacks a fully fortified 4/4 Spearman (+25% defence) in a walled city (+50% defence) for a total +75% defence (not even counting possible City Garrison defence bonuses). In that scenario, it's possible for the Spearman to defeat the tank. But in that scenario, the player should order the tank to attack in the first place; the player should withdraw it or order an undamaged unit to attack. That's what a smart, rational player would do. A stupid, cowboy player would gamble losing a 240 PU (production unit/"hammer") Modern Tank to a 35 PU Spearman.

Another possibility is that a full-strength tank is mobbed by 10+ Spearman and is gradually worn down until it's destroyed.

Those are scenarios in Civ4 that a Spearman could defeat a tank. But your whiny@ss scenario of a single Spearman defeating a full-strength Tank is so unlikely, it borders on the impossible.

And your "Face the truth, be a man and take a spear " comment is just juvenile nonsense. So either go suck on your pacifier or grow up!

 

[Rus guy]

Soryn Arkayn, ok, ok, don't cry! There's nothing what deserves a tear of a child

Look, I'm for when 5\40 Modern Armour was defeated by 10\10 spearman (who's standing in his town with walls and a lot of bonuses...).
But I'm against those situations when my 30\40 Modern Armour was defeated by the same man in a town WITHOUT walls etc...

I'm really against invincibility, but not in THAT way.

Look at the sea battles!!! Take a Destroyer and destroy some Frigates... Destroyer will gain some damage, of course.. But SOME!!! No, really, I think, that the balance at the sea is ideal! And I want the same from tanks.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

If your 30/40 MA vs. Spearman scenario is true, it could just be a freak occurence -- the numbers just didn't roll in your favour. It's nothing to cry about.

Hell, on occassion I've had Gunships destroyed by Grenadiers... even though there's no rational reason why a chopper would fly low enough to be pegged by a 17th century hand grenade -- or how the grenade reached the chopper against the down-draft of the rotary blades. The defeat is unlikely -- nearly impossible -- but I don't b!tch about it. I accepted it and had my revenge the next turn when I crushed the city and its defenders using my bombers, artillery, and, finally, tanks. In a way, it was my fault for advancing my Gunship ahead of my army stacks, which left it open to attack from the city's garrison. I accepted responsibility for the loss -- I didn't blame the AI for being unfair.

 

[Rus guy]

Soryn Arkayn, it's true! And I don't b!tch about it. I just want Civ4 creators to p@tch it!
I'm really a great fan of all Civ series... So I want it to be even more better!

 

[Lord Shadow]

Rus guy, whether a city has walls or not is irrelevant, since they become useless as soon as gunpowder units arrive (same with castles). At any rate, you've to consider the 25% bonus of the spearman being fortified, and the bonus caused by high culture levels. I'm not aware of the probability of success of your attack, but I bet it's around 80-90%. That means you'd lose 1 or 2 times out of 10, and you happened to have bad luck. Bugger, live with it and don't conduct such reckless attacks next time.

 

[Rus guy]

Rus guy, whether a city has walls or not is irrelevant, since they become useless as soon as gunpowder units arrive (same with castles). At any rate, you've to consider the 25% bonus of the spearman being fortified, and the bonus caused by high culture levels. I'm not aware of the probability of success of your attack, but I bet it's around 80-90%. That means you'd lose 1 or 2 times out of 10, and you happened to have bad luck. Bugger, live with it and don't conduct such reckless attacks next time.

Those CIV had no gun powder, this research was to cool for them...

Just sitting and trying to imagine a group of people "fortified" against tanks with no walls around them...

 

[Lord Shadow]

No, what I mean is that walls and castles don't give defensive bonuses against gunpowder (and above) units.

Anyway, we've told you the truth. If you can't live with that and need the game tailored to your particular taste, do it yourself.

 

[snepp]

Keeps going, and going....

I just ran through 2 civs, both of which had mech and sam infantry as primary defenders. Final tally, 39 mech infantry, 21 sam infantry, and other various units killed. I lost a handful of aircraft, 2 artillery, and 2 modern armor. Wait, what's that? Is that the sound of the AI complaining on a forum that I need to be patched? Great, now I'm going to get nerfed.

/sarcasm

 

[GamesMan]

Simply put, IF they ever implimented the "tanks always beat archers" rule, then it's "End Game" for us all (pun intended). Anyone who saw an opponent had a higher tech military units, would just quit the game. Why bother even playing after that? And if YOU were a higher tech army, how incredibly borring it would be; just spending the other 50% of the game mopping up the AI (as no human would ever continue playing).

The current system means there is always hope to win: You may only have archers, but defences, alliences, and shrude strategy can still keep you in the game. And, it's quite possible someone with "just archers" has been trying to optain a diplmatic or Culture victory; giving those archers a chance to beat a higher tech opponent always means a sence of both hope, uncertainty, and tension, which is just the perfect feeling you want to convey in a game like this.

 

[Rus guy]

GamesMan, no, once again!
I'm really against invincibility! There should be NO invincible units!!!!!!

10\10 Archers should have some chances to DESTROY 5\40 tank.
But they should have NO chances to DESTROY 30\40 tank (only slightly DAMAGE it, for example to 25\40).

30\40 - is just TOO cool for them.

 

[Holywhippet]

There's an old saying: "High tech problems require a low tech solution". A bunch of archers could get the drop on some tanks if they could get close enough. Arrows wouldn't work but, if they got close enough, with enough numbers they could tip the tank over or stuff the turret with rocks. Tanks are dangerous at a distance but they aren't designed to fight an enemy who's right next to them. Even with their machine guns and shells, if infantry surrounded them and charged they'd bew hard pressed to hold them all off.

I finished playing Call of Duty 2 before I started Civ 4. Admittedly archers wouldn't have explosives but a single man can take down a tank with the right equipment.

The recent war in Iraq isn't a good indicator - the US had vastly superior numbers and technology. They pounded the hell out of the Iraq forces before moving in. On top of that, the US spent an absolute fortune on high tech weapons. The ground they took was paid for in dollars rather than lives.

 

[anton_z1]

Wait ppl. With all this tank against archer thing we forgot one important thing. The cost of a unit. The cost of a modern tank is something like 240 Production, while the cost of a swordsman is like 50. Does this mean it cost 5 times more ressources to make 1 tank then 1 swordsmen.(i would build tanks in my garage ) The second thing is that while it may take several years to make 1 tank, taking around 100 years to buid 1 swordsmen seems exagerrated ( take the time scale). If we consider that a tank take 100000 real ressources and a modern factory can make 1 a month, while it takes 1 ressource and 1 day to make 100 swordsmens, we get 12 tanks produced in 1 year, against around 100000 swordsmens. No offence, but if 10000 swordsmens would simply throw up their swords (no the bodies) around the tank, the tank would not been able to move. Finally, i doubt swordsmens with 2000 years of experience, would still use their swords in the same way as normal ppl do .

 

[Rus guy]

Holywhippet, with the RIGHT equipment - yes. With some arrows - no.

Arrows wouldn't work but, if they got close enough, with enough numbers they could tip the tank over or stuff the turret with rocks. Tanks are dangerous at a distance but they aren't designed to fight an enemy who's right next to them.

lol x 245435 times

You have forgotten about tank mashine-guns and of course, tank is not stupidly stands alone. It moves, crushing and killing everything.

Let's have an example of something... modern.

You have only arrwos... and rocks, remember?

Tank T-90
Weight - 45,6 tons (!!!)
Max. speed - 60 km\h
Fuel for 600 km (600 km in battle...)
1000 horse powers
It can even cross a river with a depth of 5 (!!!) meters (don't ask me how).
It can surmount small obstacles like

It can shoot while jumping...
It has a nightvision.

Now about the ammunition..
Main gun - 43 ammo
Mashine-gun - 2000 ammo
antiaircraft gun - 300 ammo

We have: for example, 1000 man only with arrows and... rocks, defending a city and 10-15 of T-90 tanks.

Who will be the winner???

 

[EdCase]

Keeps going, and going....

I just ran through 2 civs, both of which had mech and sam infantry as primary defenders. Final tally, 39 mech infantry, 21 sam infantry, and other various units killed. I lost a handful of aircraft, 2 artillery, and 2 modern armor. Wait, what's that? Is that the sound of the AI complaining on a forum that I need to be patched? Great, now I'm going to get nerfed.

/sarcasm

Nice..very nice.....

 

[ytsejam02]

WarX, this is NOT the question of REALISM. NO!
This is a question of GAME BALANCE!
Of course, we are just playing the game... But why do I need tank if it can be destroyed with an ancient arrow??? Because of this there is NO point in modern weapon... Just take a spear and it's done!

It's still making me laughing that you people complaining about this are always talking about BALANCE. As if a tank vs a spearman is a balanced fight! In fact, I think you deserve to lose, just for being so arrogant!

And again, the game is based on statistics, and no the programmer's are not going to outline a completely different set of battle rules for certain matches, just so you can be happy about some perceived sense of fairness.

With that said, a full strength modern tank can be defeated by a full strength spearman, but the statistical odds are extremely small.

 

[Suki]

It can even cross a river with a depth of 5 (!!!) meters (don't ask me how).

it has a snorkel that reaches up out of the water so the engine can get air while it drives along the bottom.

your best weapon iy you're low tech going against a tank is to get it stuck, think pit traps, big ones 'anti-tank ditches' still part of modern definsive tactics (although in modern times the goal is to be defensive as little as possible..), if he doesn't see it coming he might even get his barrel stuck in the ground..

 

[mayonaise]

what a ******** argument. i've played 2 epic and 1 normal game and have never had anything close to what you're complaining about happen. my guess would be that like suggested, you are using your units unwisely. if you drove a group of tanks unsupported and/or damaged into the middle of hostile country, even if they were backwards, you'd never see those tanks again. theres no arguing that.

you act like when you attack a "swordsman" in a city with a "tank" that its one tank driving up to a couple swordsmen standing behind a wall. each tile represents miles and miles of hostile territory. think guerilla warfare, think supply chains, think scorched earth. think about whats happening right now in iraq. they may be "archers" in game but if the era is that advanced they're obviously not going to be out there wearing chain mail and carrying a bow-- they just simply dont have modern technology so theyre going to use whats around them.

and saying that this "imbalance" makes modern weaponry worthless because u can "use a spear for teh same thing" thats just ridiculous. lets play mp and you stay in the stone ages and show me how great those spearmen are.

use your air to bomb the cities then move in and dominate with tech & numbers. you'll lose very few if any units and it actually appears MORE realistic and balanced as you are conducting a modern combined arms warfare.

for something that can't possibly happen more than once a game, unless you are playing so rashly that i can't even comprehend it, you sure do ***** a lot.

i personally find the combat system just fine the way it is