One suggestion: Create a default unit for each era as the 'lowest common denominator' (eg. Conscript, draft, reserve in Modern Area) but keep the units attack/defense numbers. This way a spearman would be represented by a very weak Draft person against a tank.
Spearman vs Tank Problem - Units by Era
- Thread starter drewgood
- Start date
Inspector Javert
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 510
Interesting idea, but I think that wouldn't solve the problem, I think it would be better to have a unit that is significantly more advanced (ie one or two eras ahead) simply kills the unit like it does a worker.
I'm very confused as to what you mean by 'keep the units attack/defense numbers', and about how a spearman related to a drafted unit.
As for spearman vs. tank being a problem, well, it isn't. There should always, always be a chance for one unit to kill another, although that chance should be very close to zero for some situations. Okay, perhaps there is a problem in that the chance may currently be too big, but the suggestion that you remove any chance all together is not the right one.
As for spearman vs. tank being a problem, well, it isn't. There should always, always be a chance for one unit to kill another, although that chance should be very close to zero for some situations. Okay, perhaps there is a problem in that the chance may currently be too big, but the suggestion that you remove any chance all together is not the right one.
The main thing to do is remove the incentive for spearmen to exist in the modern era, which I think is along the OP's idea. If by some coincidence/scenario there is supposed to a pre-medieval civ, with no more advanced, against industrial era civs then sure, let em fight. But what really needs to be done is make it utterly worthless for both humans and AI to keep an un-upgraded spearman around - like you say, make cheap/free upgrades to modern militia units, maybe increased unit cost/maintenance anyway so it doesn't pay for anyone to hoard tons of outdated units (again, mostly AI. Fixing the AI, and then not giving them the ability to pay upkeep for thousands of free units would pretty much cover all of this....)
Isn t the new resource system going to fix this as one iron ore mine ony let u build a finite number of iron based units. I do hope then that u get a little more of the strategic resources as since there are very few strategic resources per continent. Maybe they fix it so that each mountain gives u a very minor number of iron per square and a strategical iron deposit gives u a twentyfold bonus
Make the upgrade costs worth it.
Well Dennis Shirk (producer) said in an interview that he has been assured by Jon Shafer that it will be mathematically impossible for a spearman to beat a tank. I'm a little disappointed at the, honestly, although at least it indicates there will be some sort of maths involved, rather than an arbitrary 'this cannot happen' rule applied.
rickb
Warlord
This has been suggested many times, but I'd be happy with just the unit graphics and names for older era units being updated to a general "conscript unit" appropriate for the current era. Like once you reach the modern era, all those old spearman, warriors, etc, are just "guerilla fighters" or something. The unit stats could also be upped to some base level too, maybe, with the option to still upgrade the units to "real" era appropriate units.
Jury-6
Chieftain
Agreed. A spearman unit is more or less representative of a whole auxiliary force of spearmen. No matter how technologically outmatched, a hundred-odd men can always find a way to sabotage a tank or something, unlikely as it is. It's a little disappointing to me as well if this can't be reflected in civ5, but, eh, balancing issues.
I think the best thing to do would be to just make sure the chances are always very low, maybe by adding a penalty/bonus by unit era.
mariogreymist
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,201
I can't recall the battle, but I am pretty sure it was in the Korean conflict (might have been WWII):
A company of US Marines was caught without ammo for their rifles and anti-tank weaponry, and a tank column approaching. The commander's orders? Fix Bayonets! That's right...they charged a tank column with bayonets, an won. Yes, they had hand grenades, which they dropped into the tanks after immobilizing them with bayonets in the tank treads, but the point remains...tanks are not invincible against hand-to-hand weaponry wielded by sufficiently brave and/or crazy people. The chances of such a victory should be very small, but not altogether impossible.
A company of US Marines was caught without ammo for their rifles and anti-tank weaponry, and a tank column approaching. The commander's orders? Fix Bayonets! That's right...they charged a tank column with bayonets, an won. Yes, they had hand grenades, which they dropped into the tanks after immobilizing them with bayonets in the tank treads, but the point remains...tanks are not invincible against hand-to-hand weaponry wielded by sufficiently brave and/or crazy people. The chances of such a victory should be very small, but not altogether impossible.
azzaman333
meh
We can't obsolete this
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
WHAT spearman vs tank problem?
This is just a civ legend from days long gone. I've been playing civ since the first version (in which I once lost 2 battleships to the same worker, it surely had some problems!) and the last time I saw it happen was in civ2.
Of course, I could probably make it happen by taking 10 or 15 red-lined tanks and pitting them against several hundred spearmen. Eventually, one would probably get killed. But that's not a realistic situation that's going to happen in a game.
This is just a civ legend from days long gone. I've been playing civ since the first version (in which I once lost 2 battleships to the same worker, it surely had some problems!) and the last time I saw it happen was in civ2.
Of course, I could probably make it happen by taking 10 or 15 red-lined tanks and pitting them against several hundred spearmen. Eventually, one would probably get killed. But that's not a realistic situation that's going to happen in a game.
Why wouldn't it happen in a game? If your enemy has left antique units in its cities, and you have used up your tanks first move on killing off the mech. inf., then you might go for the spearmen with your red-lined tanks. And losing then would seem to be unrealistic.
The Cosmic Kid
Warlord
I think Hengoroth's on to something; resource limits would give you much more incentive to disband or upgrade primitive units.
Maybe instead of paying cold hard cash for upgrades, you redeem the unit's full production cost when you disband it in a city that's building its successor.
Civ4 handled it well, I think; the odds were negligible.
Maybe instead of paying cold hard cash for upgrades, you redeem the unit's full production cost when you disband it in a city that's building its successor.
I think the odds were best in Civ3, actually, and they were surprisingly good - like one in seven or something, if the spearman has terrain and fortification on his side.
Civ4 handled it well, I think; the odds were negligible.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Actually in 2, the odds could be as high as 1 in 3.
Spearman vs tank had been a big problem in civ1. In-game occurences of such things were frequent. The most powerful units were often defeated by militia or chariots or even workers. Civ2 attempted a fix by introducing hp and combat with multiple rounds. Under regular circumstances, a spearman now had to beat a tank consistently over a number of rounds of combat, so in-game occurences dropped drastically and have remained low ever since. However ... under specific circumstances (elite ie 5 hp spearman, in a walled city, on a hill vs 1 hp tank) the odds went way up, to as high as 1 in 3, because the spearman now had 5 chances to beat the tank.
Civ3 and 4 both introduced measures to drop the odds under these specific circumstances, and the odds have consistently dropped with every version of the game. 1 was worse than 2 was worse than 3 was worse than 4. But it's not until 3 that people really started to get up in arms about it.
The fan base was alot different in civ1 and civ2. This sort of thing was taken in stride, because computer strategy games were shiny and new. Many of the players were very used to incredibly complex but very realistic combat systems in war games, and they were tired of them. They weren't looking for that in civ. A bit of abstraction was taken in stride; civ had light, simple rules and its sometimes odd abstractions were forgiven, on two accounts. One, it was a computer game so you could play it alone. Two, it covered all of history instead of a single campaign, so some stretches were expected. Basically there was a lower bar for suspension of disbelief.
The spear vs tank thing really got people howling when civ3 arrived, though, because the novelty of computer games had pretty much worn off, and there were lots of games with good combat models. Also, the wargames industry had died (and Civilization itself played no small role - it was the lawsuit over the name that killed Avalon Hill) so people turned their attention to computer games for realistic strategy games. Civ3 had to deal with different expectations.
GhostWriter16
Deity
In one game of civ (Rhye's and Fall) I got bored for some reason (Wasn't doing well) in the medieval era, so I went into world builder and built Panzers. The first one lost to a longbowman in a city.
Couple of things. Yes, If a man is stabbed with a spear, he's dead. Jim Elliot had a gun, and was stabbed with a spear, but he died because he chose not to use the gun. 99.9% sure he could've fended off the Auca had that been what he decided to do.
That still being said, Knights, the darlings of Medeval warfare, were shot out of horse by untrained musketman. Gunpowder revolutionarized warfare. I am not saying that a musketman should never lose to a knight, but the musketman would probably have the advantage, and this is that x100.
Second of all, Tanks are armored. Would a spearman ever beat a helicopter, or a Jet Fighter? Get real. It wouldn't happen. What about a riflemen? 1 rifleman VS One spearman, both in perfect health, no. An injured rifleman? Possible.
So, what should we do about it. If you can make it mathematically impossible, good. If you can't, that's ok, but even when fortified in city, if the tank does not at least have a 95% chance to win, that is ridiculous. And longbows should lose their city bonuses vs Industrial and later units. I find it ridiculous a longbowman can be as strong as he is in cities.
As for the automatic kill, if you do three eras, that seems fair. Any pre gunpowder unit can beat any other, and no gunpowder unit could be auto killed. Beyond three eras, sounds good, I don't see even 100 warriors taking down one rifleman.
Couple of things. Yes, If a man is stabbed with a spear, he's dead. Jim Elliot had a gun, and was stabbed with a spear, but he died because he chose not to use the gun. 99.9% sure he could've fended off the Auca had that been what he decided to do.
That still being said, Knights, the darlings of Medeval warfare, were shot out of horse by untrained musketman. Gunpowder revolutionarized warfare. I am not saying that a musketman should never lose to a knight, but the musketman would probably have the advantage, and this is that x100.
Second of all, Tanks are armored. Would a spearman ever beat a helicopter, or a Jet Fighter? Get real. It wouldn't happen. What about a riflemen? 1 rifleman VS One spearman, both in perfect health, no. An injured rifleman? Possible.
So, what should we do about it. If you can make it mathematically impossible, good. If you can't, that's ok, but even when fortified in city, if the tank does not at least have a 95% chance to win, that is ridiculous. And longbows should lose their city bonuses vs Industrial and later units. I find it ridiculous a longbowman can be as strong as he is in cities.
As for the automatic kill, if you do three eras, that seems fair. Any pre gunpowder unit can beat any other, and no gunpowder unit could be auto killed. Beyond three eras, sounds good, I don't see even 100 warriors taking down one rifleman.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I find this whole issue and people's fixation on it bizarre.
The chance of a full health tank losing to a spearman is ridiculously low; its less than 0.1%. It just doesn't happen.
Heck, a 19th century rifle doesn't even have that much ammo.
The chance of a full health tank losing to a spearman is ridiculously low; its less than 0.1%. It just doesn't happen.
Really.... you think if you had a rifle you could kill 100 guys charging at you with clubs?
Heck, a 19th century rifle doesn't even have that much ammo.
Jayrad
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 136
But an assault rifle with a modified clip does and it technnicaly counts as a rifle
Similar threads
