Modern Military is STILL unrealistic

[jaimehlers]

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.

You know why your tank was destroyed? Because the enemy got lucky. Your tank had some damage - probably damaged treads and a few chinks in the armor, but nothing serious. Well, one of the spearmen, charging from inside a building (so the tank couldn't just mow him down from a distance), managed to wedge his spear into the tank treads, and when the tank continued moving forward, the spear ripped the tank tread in half, thus immobilizing the tank. After that, it would have been an easy matter for the rest of the lucky spearman's unit to close in from all sides so that the tank couldn't take them out, and then play "magic box" with their spears to kill the tank crew.

Congratulations, you just got unlucky. **** happens, and you can either whine about it or suck it up and keep on going. It's pointless to whine because you lost a unit, just keep moving and kill them with the next.

Oh, yes, and a real spearmen unit would have hundreds, if not thousands, of spearmen in it, while a modern tank unit might have 10-15 tanks. So it's not like one spearman beating a tank, it's like a bunch of spearmen - from behind cover, no less - managing to luckily take out a group of tanks that drove into the city. So quit your whining.

 

[Rus guy]

wedge his spear into the tank treads, and when the tank continued moving forward, the spear ripped the tank tread in half, thus immobilizing the tank.

Wooden spear? That's unreal. I don't know about your tanks but our MODERN tanks will manage with this ****. Rocks may stop it... But with a great luck.

 

[willgamer]

The griping on this subject will never end....

So how about some brainstorming for solutions?

Here's mine:

How about if there exists a 2 or greater difference in Era's, then the ancient unit is disallowed from killing the last strength point of the modern unit. The modern unit will always win, but at a variable cost. Couple this with disallowing any unit to attack if its strength falls below some minimum, say 2 points or 33%, whichever is greater.

There it is; what's your idea?

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Wooden spear? That's unreal. I don't know about your tanks but our MODERN tanks will manage with this ****. Rocks may stop it... But with a great luck.

I agree that a spear isn't likely to break a tank's tracks (BTW the spearhead would likely be made of metal or stone), but it's more likely that the tank would break down due to mechanical failure or depleted ammo or fuel.

For some reason, Rus guy, you're obsessed with Modern Armour, but if you're losing MA's to Spearmen as frequently as you claim to than you're obviously using your tanks in a profoundly reckless way. So instead of complaining how unfair it is to lose your precious tanks to archaic melee units, why don't you try using them properly like the rest of us.

I mean, in my current game I have Cavalry and the rival Civ that I'm conquering mostly has Pikemen and Longbowmen, but you don't hear me b!tching about how unrealistic it is that ranged cavalry could be killed by melee infantry. Instead, I adapt my strategy -- whereas you futilely blame the game for not letting you win as easily as you'd like.

After all, if there's no challenge to the game, what's the point in playing at all?

 

[niklas627]

Yeas. I also think that is odd that infantry units with axes can destroy a tank

My suggestion to this problem is to do like as SSI did in PanzerGenerall series
They did create different 3 attack and 3 defend values: one soft, one hard, and one air.
This attack/defend system I do really miss in the Civ series.

Cheer /
niklas

 

[screwtype]

Oops multiple post, sorry.

 

[screwtype]

and again...

 

[screwtype]

That's untrue. In the Yom Kippur War, the Egyptian-Syrian invasion forces effectively neutralized Israeli air power with their SAM's. 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.

It was perhaps wrong of me to state that air power was the decisive arm in '73. You are quite correct that the IAF was severely hampered in its ops early in the campaign because of the deep network of Egyptian SAM's that prevented them from attacking.

What then transpired is that Sadat overplayed his hand. The initial plan called for no more than an advance over the Suez to win a symbolic victory. However, when the Syrians called for Egypt to exert more pressure to take the heat off them, Sadat was tempted to drive further into the Sinai. The problem with that, as his generals tried to warn him, is that the Egyptian ground forces would then have moved beyond the cover of their vital SAM network. Sadat was not to be dissuaded however, he advanced further into the Sinai and the Israeli air force pounced.

That's how I remember it anyhow. But it's a long while since I read a history of the conflict.

 

[screwtype]

and again...

 

[nojoke37]

what fun would it be if one civilization was able to make a modern tank, and then wiped out the entire world because everyone else only had archers?

I also think some people need to calm down ... everyone just wants this game to improve - no reason to get snotty.

 

[Chayton]

Tanks are ineffective and obsilate, they have their greatest time already behind them (WW2), i read somewhere once that a tanks lifetime on a battlefield are aprox. 4 seconds.

Not too long ago Isreals new "undestroy able" tank, was destroyed by Palestine peoples and i dont think anyone thinks that Palestine has a military, also that putting a burning cloth in a alcohol bottle is a "modern weapon"

Further people should not forget that modern doesnt always mean better. It was mentioned Rifleman cant beat a tank. If you take a WW2 Soldier compared to a soldier of these days then you will actually see that the "old technoligy" guy deals more damage, since back then it was a world war and things where build to kill, back then most weapons used 7,62mm bullet while todays weapons have a goal to reduce logistic, be lighter etc. why basicly all new weapons use 5,56mm bullets. The damage that is dealed by a 7,62mm bullet is far greater than of a 5,56mm bullet which means a shot of a WW2 soldier that kills you had from a modern soldier only left you wounded. Since that has droped also the armor of Tanks/APCs has dropped, take the new Austrian/Spain APC Ulan for example, it can withstand a 7,62mm bullet. If you had build that in WW2 you had been in serious troubles because back then this was mostly the minimum on weapons while today it represents mostly the maximum. Today this APC has only to fear the Heavy Machine Gunners (even Machine Guns get now converted to 5,56mm bullets) while in the past it had needed to fear normal rifleman.

 

[Penitent]

For every archer unit that has killed a tank of mine, the tank has the killed the archer dozens times more. etc

Most of the time the tank wins, but occasionally an upset happens, representing brilliant tactics on the part of the obsolete unit I assume.

So lets by clear on this, the tank normally wins the majority of the time.


You have to use your units properly too, you don't just send a tank driving into a city without softening it up. Realistically I don't believe a few dozen tanks are going survive for very long against hundreds/thousands of well dug-in infantry who have probably set up tank traps and equipped themselves with RPGs or similar equipment.

I have an idea though, bring back the Guerilla unit as an upgrade. Once the modern tech has been researched let people upgrade their old archers etc to a more modern looking Guerilla fighters armed with AKs for dirt cheap price (representing the black market), they will still be crap in comparison, but at least they will look the part. Or perhaps make a new national wonder thats automatically upgrades obsolete units to guerillas. Depending on the country these guerillas represent conscripts, outdated soldiers equipped from the lowest bidder or an armed populace.

 

[niklas627]

It is almost impossibly for an infantry solder to take out a tank with out antitank weapons!

A tank is the best land weapon you can have. Tanks have the movement, protection and the fire power that no infantry has got. If the ammo runs out you can drive over infantry solders.

The weak points of tanks is in the rear and on the top.

I did my duty in the Swedish army in 1994. I was in an infantry unit which was equipped with antitank guided missile. The AT-weapon that we have did have in 1994 was blowing thru 1m steel. This is not enough to blow out a tank, if you shouting in the front.
Modern tanks has also got a nasty defence system against anti tank guided missiles (ATGM).


cheers/
niklas

 

[Spatzimaus]

Well, one of the spearmen, charging from inside a building (so the tank couldn't just mow him down from a distance), managed to wedge his spear into the tank treads, and when the tank continued moving forward, the spear ripped the tank tread in half, thus immobilizing the tank. After that, it would have been an easy matter for the rest of the lucky spearman's unit to close in from all sides so that the tank couldn't take them out, and then play "magic box" with their spears to kill the tank crew.

Or, to paraphrase with a more famous example for those people claiming how this isn't possible:

"Well, one of the snowspeeders, coming in low and fast (so the AT-AT couldn't just mow him down from a distance), managed to use its tow cable to tie up the legs, and when the walker continued moving forward, it tripped and fell, thus immobilizing it. After that, it would have been an easy matter for the rest of the lucky speeder's unit to close in from above so that the walker couldn't take them out, and then shoot into its vulnerable spots."

So there, a clear historical example of how a unit whose weapons are almost totally ineffective against an armored unit can still manage to win a fight through creativity and skill. Yes, the Rebels lost that battle in the end, but I'd argue that in Civ context the Empire actually brought multiple AT-AT units, and only the first one was defeated.

Wait, what do you mean that wasn't a documentary?

 

[JadeDragon87]

lol, nice one Spatzimaus.

I like the idea of building querilla warriors. They could be crap, but could have a chance not to be detected. It would be used in mass attacks when the player really need something to hold of the enemy untill a better unit can be produced.
Or they should raise the maintenance costs of units and the guerilla would be free of maintenance.

 

[BirraImperial]

I'm sorry i just have to laugh everytime my hellicopter gets "mobbed" by a bunch of bowmen, i mean c'mon how is that possible?? I know the Vietnamiese won their war against the Americans using guerrilla tactics, but this is ridicuolous!

 

[niklas627]

Bowmen take out attack helicopters
There should be no chance fore a bowmen or a sword men to take out a heli.

The only units that should be able to take out helicopters and aircraft units are anti aircraft and SAM units. Other units as infantry, machineguns and tanks should be able to defend against aircraft units, but not attack air/helis.

This is why I do believe that there should be 3 different attack and defend values, like SSI did in the PanzerGeneral games.
The 3 values is:
Soft: Against inf and “soft skinned” units
Hard: Against units like tanks, armoured personal carriers (APC),
Air: Against air units.

Maybe we could se that in civ-5 ore in an expansion pack to civ-4

cheers/
niklas

 

[Chayton]

A tank is the best land weapon you can have. Tanks have the movement, protection and the fire power that no infantry has got. If the ammo runs out you can drive over infantry solders.

Not true, the best land weapon you can have and why its used already for centuries is the normal soldier/infantrymen. Despide that its very cheap, the soldier has one plus point that no other weapon be it in air, sea, or on land can do and thats being able to change to situations. For example they only fight other soldiers, suddenly a tank comes along then the soldier (not like some seem to want from Civ4 when they say be more realistic, that he stays around and shoots with his rifle on the Tank until he blows up) will go hiding and try to find something or build something that is explosive with what he can take out the tank. If you take a Aircraft that only has air to air missles and a tank shows up all it can do is return to base and get air to ground weapons.
Same works if two tanks hit each other, if one tank runs out of ammo, then the tank can do nothing anymore, only the drivers can get out and try to find something to blow up the tank, but if they do that they become again a Soldier. So far nothing is better than soldiers and you will not win a war without them, even if you totaly dominate the air, you can not win the war if you have nothing on the ground. That probably will only change once the "Terminators" show up.

 

[niklas627]

I’m not trying to be rude, but I don’t believe that you know what you are talking about and what a tank is, if you think that infantry is the greatest.

A modern tank weighs around 65ton and has a speed over 70km/h. Western (NATO) tanks are normally armed with one 120mm main gun and 2 machineguns.

There is lots of documentation what is happening when tanks totally runs over enemies whit out firepower enough to take out them.

One is from the WW2 when the Russians get the T34.
A T34 tank was actually running over the Germans. The only thing that stopped the T34 was when the Germans were lucky to direct hit it with a 105mm howitzer.
After the Russian did introduce the T34 in to the war was the Germans in need to added a unit of the fames 88mm guns in to every infantry brigade, which was the only gun that was able to take out them before the Germans get the longer 75mm gun added to the Panzer-4 tank.

The only weapon that the British infantry did have in the Falkland war that was able to take out the Argentinean armoured vehicles was the Swedish anti tank weapon Carl Gustaf (the weapon that they are shouting after in the movie War of the Worlds). The British infantry was letting the vehicles to pas them and shooting them in there rear.

The company Bofors Deafens System did test with howitzers and armoured vehicles. They wear shooting 155cm howitzers on the old British Centurion tank and on an armoured personal carrier.
The damages on the tank were only on antennas and periscope, and the APC did overturn.

The weapon that the rebels are using in Iraq to take out American armoured vehicles is AT-mines and the Russian RPG-7.

Get some thing that takes out a tank is not so easy to find, if you don’t have it already.
We could just take a lock at the tank main gun development from WW2 until today, just fore get some feeling how much firepower it’s needed to take one out.
In the beginning of the WW2 was a 37mm gun good enough to take out a tank. Thickens of the armour on tanks was incise rapidly, and the main gun did increase up to 75mm and above.
In the Could War was the gun going from 75mm up to 105mm, and later on to the size that the gun has got to day (120mm).
The increasing of the gun was needed to get a reasonable change to survive the battle against other tanks.
A 120mm gun shooting high explosive ammo has got effective diameter of 25m, and the penetration of antitank ammo is above 1,2 meter.

Cheers/
niklas