Tank craziness

[Blazer6]

I think alot of people are hung up on the unit graphic. We all know that the combat engine is just a number cruncher, and doesnt care what the unit is beyond the can this units category attack that units category? The engine detremines that a melee unit cannot attack an aircraft or a naval unit, but another melee, armor, or gunpowder unit? Sure! Its just X stregth + bonuses vs Y strength. The graphic itself doesnt matter.

Sure, it looks strange, but its all satisical and should be veiwed as: Str X vs Y, not archer vs tank

my 2cents

QFT
Bonuses aside, that tank is just an archer with higher strength in this comparison.

 

[Palantir30]

I think alot of people are hung up on the unit graphic. We all know that the combat engine is just a number cruncher, and doesnt care what the unit is beyond the can this units category attack that units category? The engine detremines that a melee unit cannot attack an aircraft or a naval unit, but another melee, armor, or gunpowder unit? Sure! Its just X stregth + bonuses vs Y strength. The graphic itself doesnt matter.

Sure, it looks strange, but its all satisical and should be veiwed as: Str X vs Y, not archer vs tank

my 2cents

And I think a lot of people are hung up on the mathematics. "It's not a spearman, it's a number, and this happens to that number".

The "number" is applied to the unit with the graphics in order for that unit with the graphics to fuction in a balanced way relative to what that unit is representing should function. If a spearman (or flint-tipped archer) kills a tank outside of really strange circumstances, then the numbers are wrong, period.

A good friend of mine is a Lt Colonel who was in the vanguard of an armored division taking Baghdad airport. The people at the airport werent prepared for armored assault, they only had AAA guns. Well, like your archers, they did what they could, pointed the AAA guns at the tanks and tried their best. The tankers just closed the hatches and idled the engines and waited for the AAA guns to run out of ammunition, because the rounds being fired simply could not damage the tank armor. That's a far shorter span of unit-mismatch than a flint-tipped arrow against tanks also.

Yes, yes, I know the next objection: but it'll ruin gameplay if newer units cant be beaten by older ones. Well, doesnt it ruin gameplay if newer units have to pussyfoot around stone-age units? Kinda reduces the value of the entire lenght of time you spent earning a tech advantage.....which is the whole length of the game.

The combat engine is not nearly deep enough. There are too many inconsistencies and abberant behavior in it. The developers stated "smaller differences matter more now", but they dont matter enough. Further tuning is needed.

 

[Palantir30]

I think alot of people are hung up on the unit graphic. We all know that the combat engine is just a number cruncher, and doesnt care what the unit is beyond the can this units category attack that units category? The engine detremines that a melee unit cannot attack an aircraft or a naval unit, but another melee, armor, or gunpowder unit? Sure! Its just X stregth + bonuses vs Y strength. The graphic itself doesnt matter.

Sure, it looks strange, but its all satisical and should be veiwed as: Str X vs Y, not archer vs tank

my 2cents

And I think a lot of people are hung up on the mathematics. "It's not a spearman, it's a number, and this happens to that number".

The "number" is applied to the unit with the graphics in order for that unit with the graphics to fuction in a balanced way relative to how that unit is representing should function. If a spearman (or flint-tipped archer) kills a tank outside of really strange circumstances, then the numbers are wrong, period.

A good friend of mine is a Lt Colonel who was in the vanguard of an armored division taking Baghdad airport. The people at the airport werent prepared for armored assault, they only had AAA guns. Well, like your archers, they did what they could, pointed the AAA guns at the tanks and tried their best. The tankers just closed the hatches and idled the engines and waited for the AAA guns to run out of ammunition, because the rounds being fired simply could not damage the tank armor. That's a far shorter span of unit-mismatch than a flint-tipped arrow against tanks also.

Yes, yes, I know the next objection: but it'll ruin gameplay if newer units cant be beaten by older ones. Well, doesnt it ruin gameplay if newer units have to pussyfoot around stone-age units? Kinda reduces the value of the entire lenght of time you spent earning a tech advantage.....which is the whole length of the game.

The combat engine is not nearly deep enough. There are too many inconsistencies and abberant behavior in it. The developers stated "smaller differences matter more now", but they dont matter enough. Further tuning is needed.

 

[Palantir30]

double post- sorry.

 

[weimingshi]

Has there been a change to the combat system?

I thought that in Civ3 you kept your initial combat values but lost "hit points"
- and it appears now that you actually lose combat strength.

Or am I off beam here?

If this is true it's a backward step. Even a crippled tank still has a big gun.

A damaged tank has the same combat strength of a full health tank, thats unrealistic. The new combat engine is a step forward not backward.

As for your statement crippled tank still has a big gun. What if the big gun is damaged?

 

[Dragonlor]

It was an act of the Civ gods. Your civ chose the wrong religion and the gods are now imbuing the Archers with superhuman strength in order to defeat your tanks.

 

[narmox]

Half a division of tanks has less power than a full division simply on account that there's fewer tanks.

 

[weimingshi]

Has there been a change to the combat system?

I thought that in Civ3 you kept your initial combat values but lost "hit points"
- and it appears now that you actually lose combat strength.

Or am I off beam here?

If this is true it's a backward step. Even a crippled tank still has a big gun.

A damaged tank has the same combat strength of a full health tank, thats unrealistic. The new combat engine is a step forward not backward.

As for your statement crippled tank still has a big gun. What if the big gun is damaged?

 

[oldStatesman]

A damaged tank has the same combat strength of a full health tank, thats unrealistic. The new combat engine is a step forward not backward.

No, I don't think it does..it is weaker. That's why longbowmen can take out damaged Choppers, for instance.

I will wait for the mathemetical guru's to start the debate on whether the combat system is better or worse, I just don't have enough facts right now on the actual mechanics...I can't wait to see a full blown discussion and article in the War Acadmy. Seriously!

For example. I love the geeky stuff in corruption arguments in Civ 3 - even though I don't understand all of it, I understood enough that it made corruption easier to handle - I believe the combat system needs the same type analysis/debate in Civ 4.

 

[NKVD]

pictographic talking: I would lwin against Mohamed Ali, if he had not the chance to sleep 3 days... Eventhough I am way weaker

I think I could beat it even If i was the one who didnt sleep for 3 days...his parkinson really didnt help his reflexes...

 

[Draax]

Heh NKVD that old man can still nail a heavybag. Saw him on some show a couple of years ago. He keeps himself in reasonable shape and still hits like a truck.

Anyway, as far as the thread goes:
Paraphrased from the March Upcountry series of books by David Weber and John Ringo.*

A captain and a general were talking about invading a place recently scouted. The scout had reported that the natives threw spears at his helicopter. The captain laughed and said, "How can those natives possibly defeat a chopper with only spears?" The general replied, "How can you defeat a people willing to attack a chopper with only spears?"

No disparity of armor, firepower, etc. could ever be completely proof against Man's ingenuity. Especially when that man is fighting for his home. Little Big Horn. Custer's last stand. The American Revolution. Endor. Sorry, couldn't resist the last.

I like the battle system as it is. To me, saying that a tank will always beat a spearman just because it's made of metal is what's unrealistic, not the other way around.

*Warning: soapboxy/advertisey from here on out.
March Upcountry can be downloaded for free from the free library at http://www.baen.com. Terrific website if you like scifi and fantasy. The ebooks are dirt cheap too, like 5 or 6 bucks each. The cool part is that the author probably receives as much money from a 5 dollar ebook as he does from a 25 dollar hardcover. Ironically, if I'd never been introduced to those authors because of the free digital books from that site, I'd have never spent the hundreds of dollars that I have on their books, both printed and digital. Free digital media encourages consumers to buy art. It just doesn't encourage them to support obsolete ways of distributing that art. Write that on your hand. Oh, and yes I pirated Civ4. I don't believe in demos that are usually the equivalent of test driving a car in the dealership parking lot. However, having illegally downloaded Civ4 and seeing what a beautiful game it is, I ordered the special edition from Amazon. Should be here any day now. The game is a work of art and Firaxis deserves my money. Most games are usually about 2 or 3 days worth of eye candy before they get boring. They get uninstalled and deleted quickly and as such their company does not deserve my money.

You get a cookie if you read this far.

 

[narmox]

You get a cookie if you read this far.

expect my address to be PMed to you shortly!

no.. really!

 

[KniteFlux]

I've had slightly different results than my tanks dieing off so quickly against weak units like longbowman. When I threw my tanks at longbows in cities with good defenses, the longbows had an effective defense of, what, approximately 20 in a city with a cultural defensive bonus and 1 promotion. Sure, at full strength the tanks ran over the first longbow every time, but after that they would be damaged.

In a similar situation, if I knocked down the defenses of the city before attacking with my tanks, I often had my tanks come out of battle with zero damage.

Old units with strong city cultural bonuses or several strategic promotions can pose a threat to newer units, even if by more than one generation of technology. Sure these old units cannot take down a tank in one battle, but given quantity, quality can be destroyed.

Taking this into account, the old Civ3 strategy of being the first to tanks and simply overrunning an enemy with nothing but tanks is no longer the best strategy.

Despite this situation with tanks, I am completely upset on how Gunships are handled in Civ4. A Flying unit (opposed to a flight based unit like a plane) should be handled much differently. For instance, non-range capable units (warriors, spearman, etc) should have no ability to defend themselves verse a Gunship regardless of promotions. With proper fortification, I could see a withdrawl chance for melee units attacked by a gunship (the abilty to seek cover from a unit that flies). Flying units need desperate work, especially if people are to implement them in mods. This will be especially tricky, especially when fantasy mod developers wants to make flying melee units! MAybe we need mutliple categories or options for flying units to fix this problem.

 

[Palantir30]

"How can you defeat a people willing to attack a chopper with only spears?"

This is a completely separate argument. The metaphor here would be that after your tanks creamed my spearmen, the cities you're occupying would never, ever, ever stop revolting.

I want my cookie too, btw.

 

[Draax]

Ok maybe the quote wasn't 100% relevant. Still a cool anecdote though, and I stand by my lack of relevance with dignity and pride.


On the cookies... Well uh I kinda erm didn't expect anyone to actually read my semipolitical ramblings so current cookie demand vastly exceeds supply. Your cookie is now on backorder status and will be shipped to you as soon as possible.

 

[Frewfrux]

This is a completely separate argument. The metaphor here would be that after your tanks creamed my spearmen, the cities you're occupying would never, ever, ever stop revolting.

It's not a completely seperate argument...I think of this as a cities cultural bonus for defense. How willing are your citizens to die for their empire? If you throw a few bodies in the treads of a tank you should stop it eventually. Especially if those bodies are wearing any kind of armour.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Mister, I wasn't complaining about it happening, rather that I think it's silly for a tank just to have just 6 attacks against archers or axers before dying.

I don't believe it should be unstoppable by low tech armies. But certainly the randomness nees to be much higher. Maybe one in ever 20 or 25 attacks it is killed.

And now, I don't see how it's misuse at all. A tank should be able to beat a great number of archers. How exactly will they destory the tank except by running away till it runs our of petrol?

Please don't be mean to me over this. I've played a great number of dice etc games based on luck and I was just thinking it's not quite balanced here. No need to get mean!

You mentioned the possibility of the tank running out of fuel yourself. Well, there's also running out of ammo to consider, as well as mechanical failure. So perhaps you should consider the unit's combat strength a sumation of its fuel and ammo. As it fights units, its CS is sapped as it depletes its fuel and ammo until it reaches zero and can't fight anymore. So a mob of Archers could easily deplete the tank's fuel and ammo, at which point it's helpless. The Archers might not be able to break into the tank with their primitive weapons, but I suppose they could just wait out the crew, because they'd have to leave for food and water eventually, at which point the archers could easily kill them.

I really wish lame-players would stop complaining about this. Civ4 definitely corrected this problem so that it's impossible to lose a full-strength tank to a single low-tech unit, but they also made it fair by not permitting tanks to just steamroll over low-tech units either.

 

[Endureth]

OMG, give it up people.

If the year of the game is, let us say, 1980 and you're rolling a tank up on a city defended by a spearman it's not exactly a feather-dressed unit of half-naked guys running around with ancient spears anymore.

The actual spearman unit is just a representation of modern day defenders with an equal relative strength to that of a spearman. i.e. strength of 4. They're probably carrying relatively weak weapons against a tank such as molatov cocktails, tomatoe cans full of gunpowder as grenades, etc. It's NOT ACTUALLY a spearman, it's just a representation.

It is possible for your tank to lose.

Some of you really need to use a little more of your imagination, it is a game after all. I mean when you were a kid and started playing chess you might have said, how the hell does the rook move, it's just a castle and why doesn't the knight kill everything along it's "L" shaped path, it is a bunch of charging horses after all, why is that pawn still alive. The answer is the pieces are just representatives of units with certain abilities that aid the game in playing out in a way invisioned by the designer.

You could just call all spearmen Unit 4 and all tanks Unit 7 and then when Unit 4 beat Unit 7 all you would say was, "wow, the odds beat me on that one" and you'd move on with your lives.



Don't think to much about it, just play the game.

Your cookie is now on backorder status and will be shipped to you as soon as possible.

And you, get back in the kitchen.

-E

 

[JakeCourtney]

Tanks without foot soldier support is like sending a mouse in with a bunch of lions.

 

[tianxia]

Does anyone with military experience ever complain about the spearman vs. tank phenomenon?

There are a whole host of ways that a technologically inferior army can win. They can be smart and use the terrain to their advantage. What's a tank without infantry support going to do in a narrow mountain pass?

When Cortes took Tenochtitlan, the Aztec forces were already using hastily improvised tactics like charging in a zig-zag pattern. Just because they're primitive doesn't mean they're stupid!

Anyone who's ever been on a field of battle knows all of the things that can go wrong, especially against a numerically superior force that knows the lay of the land.