Intellectus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2009
- Messages
- 29
I think that a totally outclassed unit should either fight to the death or be scared enough by the might of technology that they surrender and become workers.
Spearman vs. Tank alive and well!
- Thread starter Bibor
- Start date
jprc
My dog is smarter than me
R_rolo1, obviously you saw threads for Civ1, civ 2, civ 3, civ 4... and I guess it was repetitive...
But is not it the 1st thread about spear/tank for Civ 5 ?
Without such a thread, something would be missing.
Hum... for my part, I would love to have battles done in different interface, style Total War, or Sudden Strike : exact specifications would then be required, with the angle of shot, the velocity of the shell, its type... and the quality of steel used for armors! among many others...
but the ramming command would be nice.
What is the cinetic energy developped by a 40.000 tonnes ship at 40 km/h versus a 850 tonnes frigate at 15 km/h?
can't recall... do we use the formula x=1/2gt(2)+v(0)t+x(0) ?
But is not it the 1st thread about spear/tank for Civ 5 ?
Without such a thread, something would be missing.
Hum... for my part, I would love to have battles done in different interface, style Total War, or Sudden Strike : exact specifications would then be required, with the angle of shot, the velocity of the shell, its type... and the quality of steel used for armors! among many others...
but the ramming command would be nice.
What is the cinetic energy developped by a 40.000 tonnes ship at 40 km/h versus a 850 tonnes frigate at 15 km/h?
can't recall... do we use the formula x=1/2gt(2)+v(0)t+x(0) ?
True Story. I was in afghanistan (US Army) I was the gunner in a armored personel carrier and we had a guy come out of an alley and try to stab a tire with a long stick, a spear if you will, but he didnt win, I threw a rock at him and we moved on but...SPEARS VS TANKS can happen in IRL.
hewhoknowsall
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 294
One of the main justifications for this is for game balance and "oh but then whoever gets tanks first wins!", but this is not right. If you get tanks other powerful civs are probably close to gettin tanks and still have artillery and infantry to counter you. He point is that if a civ still mainly uses xbows, then yes a tank would steamroll them irl and should in the game too, but they don't
bryanw1995
Emperor
longswordsmen are very powerful, in between musketmen and riflemen and you can get them extremely early. think of it as the longswordsmen rebels got a few AA guns from the pakistani secret service to fight off the american invaders or the mujahideen supplied with AA weapons by the americans to fight off the russians.
bryanw1995
Emperor
just move any naval unit over an embarked unit as you would if trying to melee him, embarked unit (no matter how powerful) is automatically destroyed.
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
Age of sail and earlier ships should not even be able to fight modern ships, WWI-WWII, those guns would kill them long before they were in range, post war ships, they wouldn't even SEE the ship; and they would have no ASW capability.
Spearmen have beaten tanks but that was nothing on the scale of a civ unit, and besides the tanks were crewed by Italians under Mussolini.
Spearmen have beaten tanks but that was nothing on the scale of a civ unit, and besides the tanks were crewed by Italians under Mussolini.
beancounter
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 29
The naval battles are a little off. Battleships should 1 hit most wooden ships, but it takes a couple of shots to kill a frigate.
I did lose an Mech Infantry to a Trieme! Stupid embarked units. To add insult to injury you can not even stack a Destroyer on top an embarked units for protection. Nothing like having a fast moving caravel come out of the fog of war to kill some advanced units.
I did lose an Mech Infantry to a Trieme! Stupid embarked units. To add insult to injury you can not even stack a Destroyer on top an embarked units for protection. Nothing like having a fast moving caravel come out of the fog of war to kill some advanced units.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Not g, because the boat is not in free fall
And that formula can only give the energy if you integrate it ( yuck ) Better use the ol' Ec = 1/2*m*v^2Ramming is a awfully inneficient way of dealing with naval warfare for a lot of reasons, being the major one the dificulty of correcting course by the ramming ship. It only works decently in ships in close range and with dificulty of manouver ( the good ol'Greco-Roman ships for a example ) . A battleship ramming a frigate would most likely end with the frigate making a last second manouver ( barring no wind , ofc ) and seeing the battleship passing 10-20 meters to the side.
About shootups ... well the battleship would probably win ... unless it was in the wrong side of the equator ( see the Battle of the Falkland Islands , where both sides had to make last hour corrections to the guns aim because it was calibrated for the Northern hemisphere , making that the shots suposedely aimed with precision were more that 100 m to the side
), where probably the frigate would be in advantage just because smaller range fire equals smaller need for correction 
hewhoknowsall
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 294
Not g, because the boat is not in free fall
Ramming is a awfully inneficient way of dealing with naval warfare for a lot of reasons, being the major one the dificulty of correcting course by the ramming ship. It only works decently in ships in close range and with dificulty of manouver ( the good ol'Greco-Roman ships for a example ) . A battleship ramming a frigate would most likely end with the frigate making a last second manouver ( barring no wind , ofc ) and seeing the battleship passing 10-20 meters to the side.
About shootups ... well the battleship would probably win ... unless it was in the wrong side of the equator ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands , where both sides had to make last hour corrections to the guns aim because it was calibrated for the Northern hemisphere , making that the shots suposedely aimed with precision were more that 100 m to the side
Would Renaissance era cannons even dent a battleship though?
r_rolo1
King of myself
Who knows? 
Bismark ended with HMS Hood with basically one shot that got lucky and entered in a badly armored but vital spot ... I'm pretty sure that a XVIII century cannon could do the exact same prowess ( with the same ammount of "lucky shot" added , OFC )
Bismark ended with HMS Hood with basically one shot that got lucky and entered in a badly armored but vital spot ... I'm pretty sure that a XVIII century cannon could do the exact same prowess ( with the same ammount of "lucky shot" added , OFC )
Masquerouge
Deity
I think you should actually have lost the fight to claim spearman vs tank syndrome
As is, looks like the stronger unit won the fight, as expected...
But wouldn't the new retreat mechanism pretty much guarantee a full health, more advanced unit will never lose a fight against a spearman?
Has anyone considered that this is not really about spearman beating tanks, which most people are fine with if it is possible but very rare, only happening in extreme conditions?
That what happened is that bombardment by air units trigger retaliation by units with no way to possibly fight back.
Now, we didn't have this in civ iv or civ iii, for that matter, since air units can't be hit by ground units, unless there was a flak. And there should be the same thing in civ v, where a flak could have a zoc, in which it would retaliate.
We are going back to civ i here, not so much spears vs tanks, but stealth bombers vs. pikemen, or fighter vs. diplomat. This is a trample on logic.
That what happened is that bombardment by air units trigger retaliation by units with no way to possibly fight back.
Now, we didn't have this in civ iv or civ iii, for that matter, since air units can't be hit by ground units, unless there was a flak. And there should be the same thing in civ v, where a flak could have a zoc, in which it would retaliate.
We are going back to civ i here, not so much spears vs tanks, but stealth bombers vs. pikemen, or fighter vs. diplomat. This is a trample on logic.
Wombleburger
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2004
- Messages
- 67
Last game, my (admittedly highly-promoted) crossbowman (who I kept around despite having the ability to upgrade him to a rifleman because his ranged attacks were so damned useful) was able to deal significant damage to helicopter gunships. I just imagined they adapted their crossbows to fire explosive-tipped bolts.
On a separate note, it bugs me a little that non-ranged units perform what looks like a ranged attack against cities. It just looks weird to me to see swordsmen throwing weird magical fire at a city, rather than attempting to rush into it and fight.
On a separate note, it bugs me a little that non-ranged units perform what looks like a ranged attack against cities. It just looks weird to me to see swordsmen throwing weird magical fire at a city, rather than attempting to rush into it and fight.
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
That's assuming they even get in range. The cannonballs might scratch the paint a bit, but one 16" shell would decimate it. They don't even have to fire their bug guns, they can use their smaller 5" or so.
Spearmen vs tanks is bad enough, but naval combat is 100% out of whack, and has been, not just in Civ 5. In Civ 5 it's way worse...archers sink destroyer?
Civ has always needed a new value for modern units, namely tanks, mech infantry and steel naval units above ironclads, that gives them immunity to pre-infantry units.
Yeah it would suck for you if you were that behind in tech and getting attacked by them, but in reality it would suck just as much if your army consisted of 18th century riflemen vs enemy WW2 tanks, or you had sailing ships vs WW2 destroyers, subs and battleships.
There's times when I'd rather sacrifice gameplay for reality, when gameplay's depiction of reality is ridiculous. Problem is Civ units aren't what they actually are ingame. Call them all "Wuzzers" from warriors to modern tanks, all with the same graphic but with different values and abilities. That's what they're treated like ingame. A 1 strength wuzzer from turn 1 has a very slight chance of killing a 40 strength wuzzer.
Craftsman
Chieftain
LOL!
Exactly! That kind of immunity would be awesome in any version of Civ. It's so lame that a player (human or AI) would rely only on pre-infantry units to defend its territory and cities against steel-armored units armed with high explosive weaponry.
Also, it's plain ridiculous that this out-dated units would do significative damage to modern units (A Longswordsman damaging a fighter? Come on!). This old units would just have three choices: to die, to defect (to be upgraded later by our great empire) or to surrender (and disappear).
It would be really like: "Resistance is futile."
Gath
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 221
Civ 2's firepower and HP system pretty much made this a virtual impossibility. Best combat stat system they've ever had imo.
I also agree that ground units shouldn't be able to hurt aircraft, and modern ship stats are too low.
spicytimothy
Warlord
Yup, same problem here. Greek Pikeman/Spearman (I forgot which exactly) vs my tank. I still have to retreat and heal. This is level 3 I think...
I always saw it as the game allowing for "Acts of God" or "Acts of Dumbass".
Like a fighter being downed by an archer. The archer didn't actually down the fighter, the pilot got distracted by an arrow bouncing off the cockpit window and crashes. Unlikely, I know, but always an imperical possiblility.
Or a fighter being taken down by a melee unit. The melee unit didn't take out the fighter, the fighter pilot mis-judged the height on a dive and crashed, or a wing clipped a tree on the way up, etc.
Spearmen taking out a tank is entirely possible, however unlikely and insane to try to do. Once you get past the tank's range, it's easy for the spearmen to mount the tank and shove their spears into the windows. Modern tanks might be a little harder to explain, with everything done on computer monitors and such, but still possible.
Like a fighter being downed by an archer. The archer didn't actually down the fighter, the pilot got distracted by an arrow bouncing off the cockpit window and crashes. Unlikely, I know, but always an imperical possiblility.
Or a fighter being taken down by a melee unit. The melee unit didn't take out the fighter, the fighter pilot mis-judged the height on a dive and crashed, or a wing clipped a tree on the way up, etc.
Spearmen taking out a tank is entirely possible, however unlikely and insane to try to do. Once you get past the tank's range, it's easy for the spearmen to mount the tank and shove their spears into the windows. Modern tanks might be a little harder to explain, with everything done on computer monitors and such, but still possible.
