Ranged combat? WTH?! Can someone please explain...

[_hero_]

Yes but why did they program it that way? Guess it's the same old story of Spear vs Tanks




Well lots of people ask for a bit more realism in each edtion of Civ, so you would think after 20 years (is it been 20 years now for Civ?) and the 5th incarnation of Civ, the makers, and Sid himself would know how to add some more realism a bit more in Civ now. Again as above, I think most people are getting upset with the Spear vs Tank scenario and this problem would have been eliminated by now.

Actually, I saw an interview with Sid earlier this year where he said one of the biggest lessons he learned in all his years is that making games more realistic at the expense of gameplay is a horrible idea. He said even though people may ask for realism, when they actually play the game they don't like it.

Lets be honest here, if there were a perfectly realistic game out there it would be exactly like real life. If we found real life all that fun why would we be playing a game?

 

[the Intricacy]

If you want 100% realism, join the Army....

Ha! Kudos to you or whomever you copied it from!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually, I saw an interview with Sid earlier this year where he said one of the biggest lessons he learned in all his years is that making games more realistic at the expense of gameplay is a horrible idea. He said even though people may ask for realism, when they actually play the game they don't like it.

The issue is things that are bad for gameplay (Spear v. Tank... Melee Rifle v. Ranged Archer) even though they may be realistic. (spear v. Tank is definitely Realistic... there is a tiny chance the spears could win)

 

[Ahriman]

Still not at all convinced that melee rifle vs ranged archer is bad for gameplay. I would be amazed if an army of rifles couldn't churn through heavily obsolete units, even with archers, with no great difficulty.

 

[deanej]

The issue is things that are bad for gameplay (Spear v. Tank... Melee Rifle v. Ranged Archer) even though they may be realistic. (spear v. Tank is definitely Realistic... there is a tiny chance the spears could win)

Like I said, you have a better chance of walking through a wall. The tank commander would have to be such an idiot that he would belong in a mental institution. Honestly, all the tanks need to do to win against the spearmen is keep shooting until they're all dead. No need to even move.

 

[Oishi]

@Ahriman

They can. Search "Magoichi Saika moveset".

 

[Ahriman]

@Ahriman

They can.

I meant; in Civ5.

 

[JacktheBodiless]

Sorry if this has already been suggested, but why not just automatically upgrade "obsolete" units to some kind of generic Partisan/Guerrilla unit to represent the spontaneous arming of the public against invasion by a technologically superior force, kind of an extension of the way partisans are already auto-generated by the game. That would save the painful anachronism of Spear v Tank.

Even if this is not the perfect way to model it, I don't mind there being some mismatches in the game. There are numerous historical examples of "technologically inferior" forces offering significant resistance against more heavily armed invaders.

I guess overall I will just be glad if there is a reasonably balanced combat system, whatever they decide to do. There are already so many parameters being modeled, and this is after all supposed to be a game of strategy (the scale at which the difference in range among various individual weapons becomes insignificant, someone famous said that I think) rather than tactics. Why get hung up on something like Tank v Spear? I don't ask that rhetorically: maybe there is a good reason to get hung up on it that I am not seeing.

 

[KMRblue1027]

I think standard riflemen/infantry shouldn't be able to bombard but they could easily add snipers with longer range and more power then any longbowmen unit could hope to match. Snipers could be very dangerous to infantry but not against tanks; and artillery/ howitzers could have a bonus against armored units.

 

[Schuesseled]

I think standard riflemen/infantry shouldn't be able to bombard but they could easily add snipers with longer range and more power then any longbowmen unit could hope to match. Snipers could be very dangerous to infantry but not against tanks; and artillery/ howitzers could have a bonus against armored units.

personally i would quite like to see a sniper unit.

 

[PeterWimsey]

Snipers aren't *nearly* as powerful in real life as they are in video games.

Of course, neither are infantry - the machine guns make everyone put their heads down, and then you drop artillery on that position for six hours. Which is why 80% of the casualties in WWII were caused by artillery...

Surprisingly few people were actually *shot.*

 

[Wezqu]

I don't really see what the problem is. If we think back on the early gunpower units they weren't even used the same way as archers. Arhers were like cannons waiting in the back line raining arrows over enemies and after that the infantry units went to battle. Archers aren't close combat units but ranged combat units. Early gunpower units were more of a frontline units than ranged combat units as they weren't that accurate. I would understand if for example Infantry would have long range combat ability but not if some musketman has it. Still they most likely wont be as not even tanks have ranged attack and I would still prefer it that way otherwise all the fighting would be just ranged warfare.

 

[Sueff]

I'm with Wezqu, since when are tanks or riflemen bombarding units, that's what artillery and mortars are for. How stupid would it look in the game if your rifles shot over your knights or through your knights to hit some archers?

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Deanej, look up the second Italio-Abyssinian war.

The tank commander doesn't have to be an idiot, he just has to be Italian. I, mean seriously? Learn to fight.

Specifically this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Christmas_Offensive

 

[Schuesseled]

I think its important to remember that any civ that could be threat to you, is likely going to be on your heels technologically, so this problem if it is one is only gonna last a handful of turns. And for those civs that are way behind, what does it matter if there archers are magic, chances are you could squash them flat like that!

 

[deanej]

Deanej, look up the second Italio-Abyssinian war.

The tank commander doesn't have to be an idiot, he just has to be Italian. I, mean seriously? Learn to fight.

Specifically this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Christmas_Offensive

I'm betting the Ethiopians were more advanced than the civ4 spearman. And the Italian tanks look less advanced than a civ4 tank. So the technological difference isn't as extreme.

 

[Aramel]

I never got why spearman vs. tank was supposedly a gameplay problem. I mean, worst case scenario: you are down one tank. However, you are still the one with the tanks, and your opponent is still the one with the spearmen. You are going to win that war.

There are far more important things for the designers to worry about than that issue.

 

[Schuesseled]

I never got why spearman vs. tank was supposedly a gameplay problem. I mean, worst case scenario: you are down one tank. However, you are still the one with the tanks, and your opponent is still the one with the spearmen. You are going to win that war.

There are far more important things for the designers to worry about than that issue.

because you can lose your best tank, and with units limited in theis game by resources, it just makes it that more irritating.

 

[JollyRoger]

because you can lose your best tank, and with units limited in theis game by resources, it just makes it that more irritating.

The unit limitation works both ways. Spearman vs. tank was possible because the tank had already taken damage from the rest of a stack. With one unit per tile, spearmen supported by archers will not take out a tank.

 

[Ahriman]

because you can lose your best tank, and with units limited in theis game by resources, it just makes it that more irritating.

This is a bizarre argument. In Civ4, you have tons of tanks, and they weren't limited by resources. In Civ5, the spearman vs tank situation won't occur, because full health units don't die from a single combat.