Panda
Metal head
ainwood said:
yes they did
Panzers killed by Cavalry ???
- Thread starter reemul99
- Start date
yes they did
GunnerGoz,
Thanks for the spell check
I understand your point, however there is one key issue here:
The root of many problems is unmet expectations
In this case I expected to see the Panzers roll over my 'somewhat' backward neighbor.
This expectation was further set even higher when I created my first Panzer and saw the pop-up that told me this was the most powerful unit in the game and that I should use it to decimate my enemy (or something to that effect).
Imagine my disbelief when my full health Panzer was damaged and killed by a Cavalry unit.
About realism:
I think that there is a certain amount of abstraction in Civ4, but I think the developers put ALOT of time into making this game relistic. Why drop the ball on the combat system?
As far as the Panzerbüchsen argument, I understand that, but its not represented in the model of the unit. So, should it be a factor in Combat?
The Axeman has an Ax, (nothing else) and his damage is represented properly.
The Warrior has a club, same.
The Archer has a Bow, Arrow, and Knife. All represented, and understandable.
At no point during combat did the Cav unit take out a Rocket (Panzerbüchsen) and fire it at the Tank.
So, many units have accurate and believable attacks, damage, and counters - but It seems that when we get to the Modern era, someone took the model for damage/combat and missed something.
Thanks for the spell check
I understand your point, however there is one key issue here:
The root of many problems is unmet expectations
In this case I expected to see the Panzers roll over my 'somewhat' backward neighbor.
This expectation was further set even higher when I created my first Panzer and saw the pop-up that told me this was the most powerful unit in the game and that I should use it to decimate my enemy (or something to that effect).
Imagine my disbelief when my full health Panzer was damaged and killed by a Cavalry unit.
About realism:
I think that there is a certain amount of abstraction in Civ4, but I think the developers put ALOT of time into making this game relistic. Why drop the ball on the combat system?
As far as the Panzerbüchsen argument, I understand that, but its not represented in the model of the unit. So, should it be a factor in Combat?
The Axeman has an Ax, (nothing else) and his damage is represented properly.
The Warrior has a club, same.
The Archer has a Bow, Arrow, and Knife. All represented, and understandable.
At no point during combat did the Cav unit take out a Rocket (Panzerbüchsen) and fire it at the Tank.
So, many units have accurate and believable attacks, damage, and counters - but It seems that when we get to the Modern era, someone took the model for damage/combat and missed something.
You may have built Panzers, but did you research the required tech APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilizing Discarding Sabot)? If not, then your tank won't have any ammo!
I made that mistake myself and suffered dearly for it when I came across a group of landlocked ironclads in a one-hex lake.
I made that mistake myself and suffered dearly for it when I came across a group of landlocked ironclads in a one-hex lake.
Well, the point of CIV IV is that you get to rewrite history. It seems that in your alternate universe horsemen and calvary are just more powerful than tanks. It really sucks when that happens.
Remember, the opening statements in all of these 'I dont like the CIV IV combat model' are, "When I playCIV IV..." with the operative word being play.
I would agree with the complaints more if this thread was titled, "When I'm rolling my surplus purchased M-60 Patton through my neighbors horse corral it's a real ***** when a horse gets stuck in my track and the attack stalls..."
Try not to let your fantasy and reality overlap so much or you may have trouble separating them!
Remember, the opening statements in all of these 'I dont like the CIV IV combat model' are, "When I playCIV IV..." with the operative word being play.
I would agree with the complaints more if this thread was titled, "When I'm rolling my surplus purchased M-60 Patton through my neighbors horse corral it's a real ***** when a horse gets stuck in my track and the attack stalls..."
Try not to let your fantasy and reality overlap so much or you may have trouble separating them!
EdwardTking
Deity
Three points:
(1) The brave Poles who, as someone remarked lasted longer
that the French, were also attacked in the rear by the Soviets.
(2) When the Germans invaded the Caucuses, the Soviets
deployed cavalry on their East flank to the West of the
Caspian sea cavalry to raid the supply lines of the Panzers
and created difficulties.
(3) When the oil runs out, the horsemen will return and reign.
(1) The brave Poles who, as someone remarked lasted longer
that the French, were also attacked in the rear by the Soviets.
(2) When the Germans invaded the Caucuses, the Soviets
deployed cavalry on their East flank to the West of the
Caspian sea cavalry to raid the supply lines of the Panzers
and created difficulties.
(3) When the oil runs out, the horsemen will return and reign.
reemul99 said:
I have no doubt that a healthy panzer would beat a health calvalry 99.99% of the time. Read my last post again and you will see that I was not saying it wouldn't.
When I get home tonight I will test this out. Take, say, 200 panzers and 200 calvalry on plains with no promotions. Have the first 100 pazers attack and then have the remaining 100 cavalry attack and see how often the cavalry win.
I will be surprised if more the 2 cavalry remain.
Zhahz
PC Gamer
Brain cells killed by dead horse flogging.
It's a game. If you only want to ever win with ease reload every thing that goes wrong and/or use the world builder. Otherwise learn how to minimize failures. Anyone can lose a tank to an inferior unit if they attack foolishly - beyond that it'd have to be incredible bad luck.
It's a game. If you only want to ever win with ease reload every thing that goes wrong and/or use the world builder. Otherwise learn how to minimize failures. Anyone can lose a tank to an inferior unit if they attack foolishly - beyond that it'd have to be incredible bad luck.
ajcardall
Chieftain
And what about when Russian militia armed with pitchforks as there was only one rifle for every three men managed to fight off the German army?
These things happen.
These things happen.
Proteus
King
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Messages
- 714
reemul99 said:GunnerGoz,
Thanks for the spell check
I understand your point, however there is one key issue here:
The root of many problems is unmet expectations
In this case I expected to see the Panzers roll over my 'somewhat' backward neighbor.
This expectation was further set even higher when I created my first Panzer and saw the pop-up that told me this was the most powerful unit in the game and that I should use it to decimate my enemy (or something to that effect).
Imagine my disbelief when my full health Panzer was damaged and killed by a Cavalry unit.
About realism:
I think that there is a certain amount of abstraction in Civ4, but I think the developers put ALOT of time into making this game relistic. Why drop the ball on the combat system?
As far as the Panzerbüchsen argument, I understand that, but its not represented in the model of the unit. So, should it be a factor in Combat?
The Axeman has an Ax, (nothing else) and his damage is represented properly.
The Warrior has a club, same.
The Archer has a Bow, Arrow, and Knife. All represented, and understandable.
At no point during combat did the Cav unit take out a Rocket (Panzerbüchsen) and fire it at the Tank.
So, many units have accurate and believable attacks, damage, and counters - but It seems that when we get to the Modern era, someone took the model for damage/combat and missed something.
Hm,
the Panzerbüchse was no rocket launcher (which is the Panzerfaust),
it is a rifle, but a very large one (with a recoil that could break your shoulder bones if you were unlucky).
It was developed during and after WW1 to give the individual soldiers some means to defeat tanks.
Nearly all armys (including the polish, british and russian armies) during the beginning of WW2 had them and the german army used them during the first half of WW2 (until the time the armor of the enemy allied tanks became too thick to be penetrated by any kind of rifle).
So, as the model of the Cavalry AFAIK uses a rifle, the use of the Panzerbüchse would be represented in the unit model.
As for Civ IV and realism.
Well, for this reason (realism) I´d like to see combat like in CtP2 implemented into Civ IV, as this IMHO is the most realistic combat model of all Civ games.
Maybe the best thing would even be to be able to choose a carrier system (i.e. foot soldier, mounted, tank etc.) and then choose the weapons and armor for the unit (dependand on the techs you´ve researched).
Similar to building your units in SMAC
And of course you would be able to upgrade your units with new weapons/armor accordingly.
So it would be possible to better model military units of different time periods and their capabilities.
reemul99 said:
Units FYI represent whole divisions of a particular unit type... It is assumed that a city of 10 million people isnt going to go into the production of a pair of tanks at a time... thus a tank unit represents an entire armored platoon...
Calvarly, Axemen, Warriors all represent divisions of individual soldiers. (you can verify this by going into stats and seeing your soldier numbers... when you have 3.5 million soldiers you think they are jammed into a couple dozen tank?)
In battle chaos reigns supreme and thus once in a blue moon calvalry will with luck beat an armored platoon. factors such as cities and hillsides can put "luck" into one person's favor.
Also it is about balence, if tanks killed calvalry 100% of the time that represents GROSS if not EXTREMELY gross imbalence, after all what makes that tank invincible anyway? does it still always win even when damaged? how is the tank even damaged if it has a 100% win ratio? You present no logic and are therefore speaking out of your bum.
I think reemul you need to see that your argument is pretty silly and bizarre... I guess an analogy would be you wishing that you could be endowed with a magic win button for the game...
imho cease the argument, you are only making yourself appear strange and illogical.
Dale said:
And let's not forget Iraq today. They don't even have horses!
And don't forget, all French units get a -30% strength modifier when under 'attack'. This applies toward tanks as well. There's also a -5% modifier for every winery in French territory.
They also don't get to initiate combat (similar to scouts)
They also get promotions toward 100% withdrawl instead of any 'first strike' promotions.
Any attack on a French unit may trigger an immediate surrender and request for 10 year peace treaty.
So, when playing the French, don't burn any resources building an 'army'.
Moderator Action: Trolling - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
They also don't get to initiate combat (similar to scouts)
They also get promotions toward 100% withdrawl instead of any 'first strike' promotions.
Any attack on a French unit may trigger an immediate surrender and request for 10 year peace treaty.
So, when playing the French, don't burn any resources building an 'army'.
Moderator Action: Trolling - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
When Hitler invaded Poland, they engaged two Polish Cavalry divisions. You need to re-read your history.
Yes, He was ultimately successful, however his tank divisions *did* suffer some casualties. Had you brought in more tanks you would have been victorious.
Don't overestimate your superiority of technology, the fighting spirit is not something to be taken lightly.
)
Billy Rubin
breakdown product of HB
Might be a little bit off topic, but what are your definitions of tanks and panzers?
I'm just wondering because being german myself I never understood why the word made it into the english language at all since the word panzer is just the german translation of tank without being related to certain types, nationalities or eras (e.g. an US M1A Abrams is still referred to as a panzer in todays german.).
On topic: I guess it's just a balance issue - making them invulnerable wouldn't have been hard, but would make the game too unbalanced by the time some civs have them and others don't.
Just imagine the cavalry to be equipped with panzerfausts, magnetic mines etc...
I'm just wondering because being german myself I never understood why the word made it into the english language at all since the word panzer is just the german translation of tank without being related to certain types, nationalities or eras (e.g. an US M1A Abrams is still referred to as a panzer in todays german.).
On topic: I guess it's just a balance issue - making them invulnerable wouldn't have been hard, but would make the game too unbalanced by the time some civs have them and others don't.
Just imagine the cavalry to be equipped with panzerfausts, magnetic mines etc...
Similar threads
