Pantastic said:
It's simple, and several of us have already said it - what you want is absurdly unrealistic. Your main objection to the current way the game works seems to be that it's abstract. Fortification and terrain bonuses include setting up ambushes, traps (yes, including tank traps), concentration of force, shooting the crew when they get out to replace a thrown track, attacking weaker units like the supply trucks needed for tanks to run, etc. If you hate abstraction, a game covering 6000 years in a less than a day of game time is probably not the best choice for you.
As I pointed out before, Mussolini would have really liked for his tanks and planes to be able to destroy spearmen with no losses, but the real world doesn't work that way as he found out in Ethiopia. You apparently believe that tanks (especially WW2 era tanks, since you're not on modern armor) are completely invulnerable to molotov cocktails (or greek fire), never break down forcing the crew to get out and repair them, are supplied by trucks that are also completely invulnerable to any kind of attack, have crews that lead a monklike existence locked into the tanks, and always detect any traps set for them.
And yet you say that OTHER people haven't offered an argument that makes sense?
And you've misread and misstated my argument. Moreover, your own argument is internally inconsistent. You say that what I ask for is absurdly unrealistic and yet you make the argument that we are to imagine that tanks are breaking down, crews are being killed in their sleep, molotov cocktails are being thrown at tanks, defensive fortifications are destroying troops, ambushes are occurring, etc., etc., etc. when NONE of this is depicted or even SUGGESTED in the game.
You are, quite simply, grasping at straws to defend a flaw in the game. You'll note that I said a flaw IN the game, not that the game ITSELF is flawed beyond repair. I quite enjoy the game, even with what I perceive to be a rather glaring oversight. I enjoyed Civ 1 even though it was either a heads-or-tails victory-or-loss system with respect to combat. I enjoyed Civ 2 and Civ 3, even though you could apparently cruise around a continent indefinitely when railroads were in place, without regard to fuel. I still enjoy Civ 4 even though the old problem of "spearman vs. tank" exists.
But the game IS flawed in its depiction of combat between drastically differently powered units. It's a straight up numbers calculation that doesn't take into account this disparity between techs, nor does it take into account the type of specific unit in question (IE: soft target vs. hard target, flying target vs. grounded target, etc.).
You claim what I want is unrealistic. Do you mean unrealistic in terms of what the devs can code? If so, I disagree. Units and structures already can be immune to first strikes, vulnerable to gunpowder units, or given bonuses vs. certain types of units (archers, melee, gunpowder, etc.). Clearly, they CAN code in things like this. They just haven't.
If you're saying that the types of outcomes I'm looking for are unrealistic, again, I say you have either misread or misunderstood my argument, or simply focused on one particular aspect with which you disagreed while ignoring the rest of what I said.
Go back and re-read my posts if you're unclear.
You'll note that I said MULTIPLE TIMES that I've got no problem with abstraction for certain things. Obviously, I don't expect full, complex economic models, or the ability to control a battle in real-time. However, other things CAN be added to this game which would not make it unmanageably more concrete.
You want to be able to cut supply lines? Great! I think that'd be a lot of fun. It'd make warfare a lot harder than simply walking your army up to the enemy cities and attacking. It'd also allow you to use guerilla or raider units who cut off enemy supplies.
You want to say "Oh, it's the tank trap that got 'em"? Okey dokey, include an animation that shows the tank falling victim to the tank trap. Or allow cities to build generic "city defenses" in addition to the usual walls and castles, which maybe look like little dry moats around the city with big pointed timbers poking out of them or something.
You want to say "Ah, they got 'em with the molotov cocktail!" ok, fine. Give an early unit advancement of "fire unit" which permits a unit to attack another with fire as an additional first strike -- and then make a corresponding defense like "Fire resistance" as a promotion as well. You can add all sorts of things like that and make the game a bit more complex and interesting.
You want mechanical breakdowns? No problem. Include a random roll to check for a mechanical breakdown that lowers the unit's health each turn that it's in enemy territory. Or connect this with the supply lines system and have that breakdown chance increase the further your supply lines get stretched.
All of this stuff can be added and it sounds like your resistance to it is either just a knee-jerk "I don't like it because it's different" or "I don't like it because you're challenging the game I love" response, or that you think this would all be unmanageably more complex for players. If you're worried about increasing complexity, let me refer you back to Civ 1 and compare it to Civ 4. Players can deal with increased complexity. Some of them even >gasp!< LIKE it!
As I said, I'm fine with abstractions. I just don't see the need to totally exclude certain calculations when they CAN be added or at least sure seem like they can be added. I don't see that I'm asking for anything that's SO realistic as to make the game unmanageable to play, especially since it would make the whole "bad luck" roll where you DO get your tank taken out by a spearman a lot more palettable, since it wouldn't just seem like poorly considered number crunching and it wouldn't require people to make up excuses for why -- no no -- it really IS all realistic and makes sense, you just have to kinda squint hard and wave your hands and pretend it was all a dream or something.
Now as far as other folks making arguments, if there's something like "It can't be coded" or "it'd take way too much work to code" or "it'd totally unbalance the game in a way you haven't thought about", hey, I'm happy to listen. But most of the stuff I've heard is "I like it better this way" or "suck it up n00b" or "You just have to pretend." None of which seem to really defend the system itself.
