Spearman Vs Tanks part 2: Longbowman vs Helicopter gunship

[angelickitty]

i dunno... i can definitly think of tactics that would allow spearmen taking out gunships.. of cource it takes EXTREMLY brilliant leaders fore the spearmen... and poor ones for the gunship commander... ie the pikemen hiding in caves/trees from the gunships, then during the night striking the pilots in their camp when they arent in the gunships when they /are/ vulnerable.. or other situations... likely no... but remotely possible.. people do get lucky and accomplish the impossible at times....

 

[Yoshua]

i dunno... i can definitly think of tactics that would allow spearmen taking out gunships.. of cource it takes EXTREMLY brilliant leaders fore the spearmen... and poor ones for the gunship commander... ie the pikemen hiding in caves/trees from the gunships, then during the night striking the pilots in their camp when they arent in the gunships when they /are/ vulnerable.. or other situations... likely no... but remotely possible.. people do get lucky and accomplish the impossible at times....

Too many "if's" to be an actual strategy. Besides, helicopter's don't just set down any old place when the pilots need rest, they land at pads which are guarded by that nation's army (course said pads may be little more than camps with a cleared area for the helicopters, but they are still guarded).

My main beef with this situation, and what many who seem ok with all this don't seem to grasp is the costs involved. A primitive unit is cheap to research and cheap to build. Modern units are much, much more expensive to research and build. How again is it fair that the cheaper unit can beat the more expensive one? It should never happen. I don't care about your absurd scenerio's that appear to make it possible, that just doesn't happen.

Oh, because some civ decided to neglect military entirely and never modernize his armies even with armies forming up at his borders, he deserves a break? Sorry, I don't think poor planning deserves a reward.

No it's not realistic to see modern equipment faced against primitive equipment. But then real world civs were smart enough to stay current with military technology and not neglect their armies for centuries so they could try and build a chapel or stack of blocks faster than their neighbor. But then in the real world, borders are defined and maintened by men with guns, not men with paint brushes.

 

[Dominico]

Did anyone actually read my post?

lol, tanks/helicopters are losing in city attacks, when the city has a defence bonus. Read my post for the reason this is happening.

Super tech doesnt mean you win automatically even in real life if you are a muppet. Sending an attack helicopter into an enemy city to try to kill the enemy before air strikes or any of the cities defences are damaged is suicide. As is sending in tanks into siege a city, its not done. You use footsoldiers (gunpowder units in game) or soften up defences first. They were never sent in first in real life, helos are for the field, like cavalry not city attacks. Untill the other troops make the city a bit safer for helicopters.

I cant believe no one can grasp this. And if anyone is losing to an archer with a helicopter in the field (eg the archers are not hidden and dug in) then they need to take their game back as they have a faulty copy. Likewise with spearmen against tanks.

 

[yoshi]

Partially agreed. While a late-game unit can lose to an early-game unit (1vs1), it does not happen regularly. Anyone that say it does either (a.) doesn't understand the definition of regularly, or (b.) enjoys making gross exaggerations.

I should have said 'repeatedly;' I understood that this happened twice in a row on various occasions.

In my experiences the only thing tedious about steamrolling a backwards civ is movement rate of units.

Yeah but it also means all that time you're wasting building way more units that you have to so that you don't have to wait for your units to heal before continuing the attack. That is, a few modern units should be able to roll over many early units without suffering to the point where they get held up to the point where you lose momentum.

And on a side note, here is a video of a few training runs of an attack helicopter. I somehow doubt that in real life a group of archers could beat several dozen of these

Holy-crappa-moly!!! Forget a group of archers, try a whole army of the medieval bastards!

 

[Piemaster]

I see a lot of people complaining about how vastly outdated units can beat technologically superior units but really it's not that difficult to believe.

Let's say you have a tank unit and a unit of musketmen, both well trained. If they stand there in an empty field firing at one another then of course the musketmen are going to get ripped to shreds. But Civ is supposed to reporesent the entire war experience, not units firing at eachother in an empty field.

What if the musketmen ambushed the tank unit in the night taking out the guards and then destroying the tanks?

What if the tanks unit attempted to kill the musketmen but suffered a technical failure allowing the musketmen to surround and destroy the unit?

What if the tanks tried to pursue the musketmen unit into some forest, not realising there was some impassable terrain there where the musketmen could set up an ambush?


Are any of the above scenraios likely? Not really, but then again I think you'll find that the chance of a tank losing a battle to a unit of musketmen is quite unlikely in Civ too, it's just if you play enough games you will see it happen quite often.

 

[yoshi]

Piemaster, Musketmen unit is a middle-game unit (i.e. gunpowder unit). We're talking about early-game units beating late-game units.

 

[Piemaster]

The same principle applies, that was just an example.

 

[ZombieEater]

what many who seem ok with all this don't seem to grasp is the costs involved. (...) How again is it fair that the cheaper unit can beat the more expensive one?

Well, hot-dang!! I guess somebody forgot to tell the Viet-Cong! Or what about some cheap P-O-S surplus Stinger missle taking down one of them Russian helicopters? Talk about cheap! You know what IED stands for?

of cource it takes EXTREMLY brilliant leaders fore the spearmen... and poor ones for the gunship commander

I guess that's all the reasoning you need for losing a high-tech Unit to a neanderthal.

I used to work with a guy who did part of the auto-flight system for the B2. The systems was supposed to help the pilot fly the plane and give warning in case of mistakes. It basically got so sophisticated that the guy said, "heck, let's just hook into the eject seat controls, and if the pilot screws up more than once, we eject him and the plane can fly itself back home"

I've lost a few veteran battleships myself trying to take out the settler on the mountain, so I feel your pain. Just remember there is no defense against bad luck.

 

[yoshi]

The same principle applies, that was just an example.

That was my point: the same does not apply.

The Musketmen unit represents major tech jump (sulfur-based explosives) whereas the Longbowmen is clearly a medieval unit.

The Musketmen unit is also resource-dependent, making it much more valuable.

That said, musket-firing infantry should really have next-to-no chance at winning versus a modern air unit; the tech gap is still too large (that video Bal Ur linked should be proof to that).

(And yes, a game that calls itself 'civilization' is epected to contain certain general properties of RL human tech development.)

 

[ZombieEater]

certain general properties of RL human tech development

Hmm, ok.

Every plane will have a 5% chance of crashing in peace times. 7% if the plane is flying, or you are at war. 10% if the plane is operating inside the enemy's borders.

If a unit attacks from a square that holds other military units it has a 5% chance of falling victim to friendly fire by getting shot in the back. Every gun-powder based unit has a 5% chance of taking 5 to 50% damage due to blowing itself up. Every modern explosives based unit has a 2% chance of taking 5 to 100% damage; all other units in the same army will suffer 5 to 50% damage, too.

Modify the percentages to your personal instance of RL.

 

[DaveDash]

It's not about realism.

It's not about gameplay.

It's about immersion.

It's hard to find a game immersive when a spearmen - through whatever kind of luck, beat's a tank.

I don't really care what tactics you come up with, a modern armour batallion is so advanced it's night on impossible for this to happen. They don't just have tanks you realize, they have support units and all sorts of other units attached.

This kind of thing completely ruins the immersion of the game.

 

[Yoshua]

Well, hot-dang!! I guess somebody forgot to tell the Viet-Cong! Or what about some cheap P-O-S surplus Stinger missle taking down one of them Russian helicopters? Talk about cheap! You know what IED stands for?

Don't even know why I bother replying to you when you clearly don't understand the point that was being made.

Vietnam: There wasn't a huge gap in technology, especially with the soviets and chinese supplying weapons and equipment to them. Hell, even with the modern equipment supplied to them, they couldn't hold the skies or the coasts and lost the bulk of the land battles. Not sure why you thought Vietnam was a good example.

Afghanistan: Russian helicopters were downed using US provided weapons. In game terms this would be the American player moving a bunch of SAM infantry to the Afghan's and gifting them to him. Again, there is no wide tech gap here.

In both cases, it reflects a game where a player or players had some kind of alliance with others who supplied them with military units in exchange for something else. No cost issue here because the cost is being paid for, and appropriate units are being fielded.

Care to try again?

 

[ZombieEater]

Don't even know why I bother replying to you when you clearly don't understand the point that was being made.

Yea, but I'll be nice and correct you anyway.

Apparently you didn't read what I was replying to, so stop beating up that poor strawman. Here, I'll quote again for you:

what many who seem ok with all this don't seem to grasp is the costs involved. (...) How again is it fair that the cheaper unit can beat the more expensive one?

The argument was made about huge cost differences. My counter was that cheap missiles routinely bring down expensive and fragile toys.

And now for the moving target...

I don't really care what tactics you come up with, a modern armour batallion is so advanced it's night on impossible for this to happen. They don't just have tanks you realize, they have support units and all sorts of other units attached.

First we talked gunships. Then tanks. Now tanks and support units. And I still see a nigh in there indicating that there is the remote possibility for this to happen.

But I guess all points have been made by now. I'm arguing the battle outcome is possible. And I guess you are arguing that's it's waaay too possible in Civ IV with the numbers they assigned the units. And I'll have to grant you that.

Longbowman - 6
Gunship - 20(?)
That would give the LB's about a 1 in 3 chance to win? I wouldn't put their odds that high!

Solution: bump up the combat values of the modern units. Maybe that can be accomplished with a +500% against Archer Units, dunno. Modders, into the trenches!

 

[snepp]

Longbowman - 6
Gunship - 20(?)
That would give the LB's about a 1 in 3 chance to win? I wouldn't put their odds that high!

It's probably closer to 1 in 50,000, but who's counting.

 

[PiTiFUL]

LOL You want realism, here you go. A helicopter, even a squadron of apaches could not kill a mob of old women with brooms, if they are fortified in a city. So if you want the game to be real then you should not be allowed to attack a city with a helo. Even an army of tanks, can not in reality, take a city. The one a only way to take control of a city is with infantry, this isnt a military sim. Here another little bit of reality for ya, US sends in an attack force to rescue the hostages in Tehran, ring a bell, they never even made it to the city, crashed and burned all by themselves. So they should add that into the game too, you are moving troops around and they are getting wasted by absolutely nothing

 

[KevinTMC]

"This is Apache 1. I've got a camp of what look like 200 guys with longbows showing up on IR, about half a mile ahead of me. Permission requested to engage with long range cannon fire."

"Permission denied Apache 1. Please close to within 100 yards, and engage with your sidearms by hanging out of the window.Wait for daylight."

This post was, far and away, the highlight of the thread.

Not just for the humor, but because it only took Rhandom ten words to settle the whole question (IMHO):

Game balance demands advanced units have a chance of losing.

Exactly.

I would add that my sense of fun demands that entertainingly quirky things have a chance of happening. Too much of life is as serious as a heart attack...it was a welcome respite when I attacked one of Genghis Khan's cities with a somewhat-damaged Panzer and one of his Longbowmen fired an arrow right into the seam between the turret and the body of the tank...and the tank exploded!

I got a good laugh out of it; and it served me right for getting cocky and trying to knock over an inferior civ's city with damaged units, and without first reducing the defenses.

-- Kevin​

 

[DaveDash]

Its not about realism, it's immersion.

Its all about immersion. Most of us like to roleplay, and pretend we're the great leader of a great civ. When an ancient unit - remember it represents an army/batallion/whatever, destroys a modern one, this completely destroys the immersion factor.

Immersion aside, mechanically it's silly.
Let's call Gunships Peas, and Longbowmen Bricks.

My peas are are the top of the tech tree, thousands of years more advanced than your bricks.

Yet, there is a chance, way too large, that your bricks can defeat my peas. Civ is possibly the only game in existance where one of the worse units in the game - through a bit luck and some bonuses - can defeat some of the best units in the game.

This is not like a Longbow vs Rifleman discussion, the degree of seperation is huge in scale.

Randomness can be fun - having the chance of failure ads to a game, but at this scale, at this level, it just makes it frustrating for many of us.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Its not about realism, it's immersion.

Its all about immersion. Most of us like to roleplay, and pretend we're the great leader of a great civ. When an ancient unit - remember it represents an army/batallion/whatever, destroys a modern one, this completely destroys the immersion factor.

Ok, then the argumentation has changed, because this thread started out about realism. I understand your immersion issue, but remember that it's highly subjective. Immersion is important for me too, but I always imagine that the ancient units are not really ancient, but rather backwards compared to my civ, in the sense that Afghanistan units were backwards compared to Soviet troops or Iraqi units were backwards compared to U.S. units.

If I should really think that I was fighting a world power fielding real longbowmen in the modern era, that would destroy my immersion factor, since that is something that's never happened, except for in cheap Science Fiction movies involving time machines. I don't understand how you can think your rival world powers are fielding ancient units vs your modern units without getting your immersion factor destroyed. But as I said, immersion is subjective.

Yet, there is a chance, way too large, that your bricks can defeat my peas. Civ is possibly the only game in existance where one of the worse units in the game - through a bit luck and some bonuses - can defeat some of the best units in the game.

I think you're wrong here. It's not a bit luck and some bonuses that defeats your units, but rather bad play and some bonuses. The ones who complain here, are the ones who attack directly with their modern unit, without using artillery to wear down defences first, or without using the correct units with correct upgrades for the job.

If you did your job as a decent general, then you would not suffer those losses, except maybe once in a hundred games. But if you forego all military strategic thinking, then yes, it will happen a bit more often, for a good reason.

Randomness can be fun - having the chance of failure ads to a game, but at this scale, at this level, it just makes it frustrating for many of us.

Then either learn a bit about military tactics, or mod your game. Just don't ask for the game to be simplified for all of us just because you don't want to be bothered with the need for being a decent general during war.

 

[zoommoom]

I agree that A longbowman should very rarely beat a helicopter ( in the game) but it seem to to often. I think this has less to do with modern vs ancient and its has to do with gunships being poorly balanced to begin with. I mean i have never had modern armour defeated by bowmen, only damaged to some degree. I feel that gunships should have strenghth rating of 28ish, with their vs armour reduced to +75% ( so they remain tank buster of sorts but not wipe the floor everytime, as 28 X 2 = 56, to high against armour.

Would probably have to increase the production cost as well. ( Real life US Apache's were said to have to kill 14 tanks to pay for themselves). Also the moverment should be adjusted somewhat as I often have ground forces leaving my helicopters behind. ( only F1 cars do that).

 

[yoshi]

Game balance:

There's a limit. You can't just attribute every absurd result to game balance; sometimes there are actually instances of default values being to modest. This is such a case.

That said, I hear a lot of trolling about people refering to 'realism' to back their arguments. The majority of civers apparently prefer to play in a total fantasy world. Fine. The majority of civers apparently prefer to delight in wasting many turns eliminating backward civs that well deserve to be toast in a turn. Fine.

The minority that don't like it, can mod it. (It's just a pain to have to re-balance a whole epic game--I personally hate that part of designing scens/mods.)