Tank craziness

[Pie-es-Tasty]

Endureth beat me too it. He said pretty much what I was going to say.

Everything in this game is an abstraction. Culture is an abstraction, combat is an abstraction, the whole game is an abstraction of human civilization.

 

[Eyes Of Night]

The problem is this: Even though a tank has a tank graphic, once its strength value goes down it is not longer that unit anymore. It may have a tank graphic, but once it hits say 6 strength, it is really a longbow with tank upgrades for all intents and purposes. Why after already ****ing up one combat system in civ3 do they still not figure out why the civ2 system worked so well? I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with that Brian Reynolds created it so it is off limits. Either way it is totally ridiculous the way it is set up. The system works when the units are the same technology level or similiar strength levels, but when you are talking about helicopters being damaged by warriors on a forest by 4 points at one time...something is wrong. There needs to be some sort of tech bonus or tech leads are going to be completely useless. Why build helicopters when 6 warriors can get the job done? I can't imagine any game developer today using such a random system, but I guess I'm not surprised when it is Firaxis.

 

[Runriot]

The problem is this: Even though a tank has a tank graphic, once its strength value goes down it is not longer that unit anymore. It may have a tank graphic, but once it hits say 6 strength, it is really a longbow with tank upgrades for all intents and purposes. Why after already ****ing up one combat system in civ3 do they still not figure out why the civ2 system worked so well? I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with that Brian Reynolds created it so it is off limits. Either way it is totally ridiculous the way it is set up. The system works when the units are the same technology level or similiar strength levels, but when you are talking about helicopters being damaged by warriors on a forest by 4 points at one time...something is wrong. There needs to be some sort of tech bonus or tech leads are going to be completely useless. Why build helicopters when 6 warriors can get the job done? I can't imagine any game developer today using such a random system, but I guess I'm not surprised when it is Firaxis.

What makes you think its "such a random system?"

Granted there are what ammounts to dice roles, a random number generator, but that is the smallest component of the combat system, and allows for small variation as opposed to X unit ALWAYS beats Y unit.

What really counts in this system is the totally controllable bonus system. Defense, fortification, terrain, and unit experience ALL combine to give a satistically weaker unit an ability to win, if only X% of the time agaisnt a stronger foe.

This new system requires strategy, and a knowledge of the system, units, and options availible. It forces you to think, to plan, and to execute the attack. It provides you options if you deam to risk too high, and has all the tools built in to know what is and isnt too risky.

No longer can you SoD and expect to win. No longer will beelining certian techs assure victory. No longer is there an almost invincible uber unit. Instead, a deep and rich system with combined arms, defensive use of terrain, and combat options, balanced and counter balanced during months of beta testing, has been presented to us... all we need to do is embrace its distinct changes from previous civ games.

Again, my opinion, but in civ IV I actually feel more like a general than any other civ game. I can faint, and lure, bombard and starve out the enemy. I no longer feel the tedious pump out 20 of X unit to steamroll is the ONLY viable way, and thats a good feeling

 

[Ogrelord]

when a modern armor unit dies to a spearman, i think of those Ewoks at the Battle of Endor in Return of the Jedi. Those poor At-STs had no chance against a bunch of logs.

 

[ajil]

if people would right click and hover above the unit they are about to attack, it shows the combat odds right there. You should have had some kind of idea your tank was going to lose after 6 fights or so, it was probably dinged up pretty badly.

 

[Endureth]

Endureth beat me too it. He said pretty much what I was going to say.

Woot! I win!

-E

 

[KAuss]

You know, this thread talks about the tank fighting results to be a bit less "realistic..." However, the battles are the most "fantastic" part about it...

Tanks vs. Archer?

Seriously, can someone dig up the info historically the last time that happened? Cause iirc I think the archer won...

j/k

Seriously though, the tank in the game is just an icon... They could of named it jeep or something... So is the archer, they could of named the archer Kung Fu Master...

Don't take the "name" of a unit too seriously... Just read the str numbers and know them as (str # unit) instead of (tank)...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The problem is this: Even though a tank has a tank graphic, once its strength value goes down it is not longer that unit anymore. It may have a tank graphic, but once it hits say 6 strength, it is really a longbow with tank upgrades for all intents and purposes.

Actually a Tank with Strength 6 is Worse than a longbowman because the tank is at fewer hitpoints, so it will hit just as often as the LB, and do just as much damage, but it can take less damage... the longbow is 100 hp a strength 6 tank is 6/28*100=~21 hp... the archer could kill it in 2-20 point hits


The reason you buld a helicopter instead of 6 Warriors is because after the helicopter survives a close battle it just needs to spend some time healing... the warriors 1 needs to heal and you need to rebuild 5 warriors. not to mention that helicopter moves 4 times faster in enemy territory (and you can fit more 1-helicopters than 6-warriors on a transport). The fact is to avoid spearman v tank issue you must ALWAYS heal your units before using them. Because if a unit is 1/2 damaged, it is 1/16 as combat worthy as it would be otherwise.

 

[karadoc]

Tanks aren't invincible. To me the game seems completely fair in that regard. How about you just let your tanks heal a little bit every couple of kills, then they will be able to take out any number of low-tech military units.

 

[njoel]

he did not mean to be mean

Problem is that you can not just steamroll. A tank is obviously not unbeatable. Imagine a Tank trying to conquer a fortified city that is defended by Archers. If the tank is almost dead he has not much power left.
In reality it would be the same if a tank batalion is reduced to a single tank trying to destroy 300 archers who are entrenched in a city. The tank could lose because archers can still build barricades and use other devices than just bow and arrow.
pictographic talking: I would lwin against Mohamed Ali, if he had not the chance to sleep 3 days... Eventhough I am way weaker

Sorry, I just don't buy this argument, even a battered tank is still a tank, I mean this is armor, steel. An arrow doesn't stand a chance of penitrating that unless those archers got some dynamite tied to their arrows their midevil butts should be grass I mean hey come on this is a sad sight -----> Unless that guy is Mel Gibson yelling FREEDOOOM from Braveheart like no way

 

[Sybot]

The reason why these people can't get their tanks to beat archers is a lack of planning. At the moment I have Tanks going up against Infantry, I have not lost a single tank yet. The reason, I've made sure to completly smash the defenses and strength of the enemy units with Bombers before. I've even only lost a handful of the left-over Cavalry I was using, which are very outdated in this situation.

I always make sure to heal my units between attacks, so they're going slower and not steamrollering the enemy, but they are at least surviving.

 

[Dominico]

Also i would like to add you are attacking cities with defence bonus.

So if it has cultural defence the very millions of people in the city are defending, also there are tank holes (Ditches dug and covered to trap and disable a tank) primitive tank defences and other things.

Its very likely you send a tank into a city which is hostile and well dug in, you will lose the tank. Same with a helo ect.

Thats the reason modern armies soften the cities up with air power, or dont bother entering the cities at all. You too can do the same things in game, use the tools dont be a numpty!

 

[stormuzo]

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.

Had me burstin out in laughter due to this little comment of Draaxes! Cookie on backorder, lol. Just get this mental immage of Palantir30 checking his post in a few weeks only to find a small oatmeal cookie nicely wrapped up with a bow amongst his letters.. lol.

 

[TheNiceOne]

The problem is this: Even though a tank has a tank graphic, once its strength value goes down it is not longer that unit anymore. It may have a tank graphic, but once it hits say 6 strength, it is really a longbow with tank upgrades for all intents and purposes. Why after already ****ing up one combat system in civ3 do they still not figure out why the civ2 system worked so well?

The only way the civ2 system worked so well, was by letting the player with a tech lead, win the war by building a SoD consisting of one type of unit, and attacking without any tactical planning or skill.

but when you are talking about helicopters being damaged by warriors on a forest by 4 points at one time...something is wrong. There needs to be some sort of tech bonus or tech leads are going to be completely useless.

So having a tech lead that makes you win 80% of the time without using any skills, and 99% of the time if you care to play well by using the right equipment for the right job is completely useless. Oh well...

Why build helicopters when 6 warriors can get the job done? I can't imagine any game developer today using such a random system, but I guess I'm not surprised when it is Firaxis.

Which job can 6 warriors do as well as a helicopter? The only possibility I can think of, is the defence against someone who hasn't bothered to learn any skills in cIV combat...

 

[jajohns8]

Somehow the image of "under-equipped" Somalis chanting over the hulk of a downed US Special Operations Blackhawk helicopter in October 1993 comes to mind here.

(Also the image of a downed Apache helicopter surrounded, in a field with old men with bolt action rifles during the invasion of Iraq....)

In reality, it does happen. Sometimes "under-equipped" and "backwards" elements can take down your best stuff......

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Somehow the image of "under-equipped" Somalis chanting over the hulk of a downed US Special Operations Blackhawk helicopter in October 1993 comes to mind here.

(Also the image of a downed Apache helicopter surrounded, in a field with old men with bolt action rifles during the invasion of Iraq....)

In reality, it does happen. Sometimes "under-equipped" and "backwards" elements can take down your best stuff......

That's not a very apt comparison because the Somalis had RPGs, not bows-&-arrows. An RPG isn't ideal for taking out a chopper, but in that scenario -- wherein the choppers are flying slow and low -- they did succeed in downing a couple.

Those Somalis would be the equivalent of really, really poor-quality SAM Infantry.

The problem is that there aren't many contemporary examples of primitives defeating a technologically sophisticated army. Even the Soviets' war vs. Afghanistan in the '80s doesn't really compare, because the Afghanis were secretly armed with AK-47s and RPGs by the Americans. And an Afghani insurgent armed with an RPG is a helluvalot more capable of destroying a tank than a spearman.

I think a better example of a primitive taking out a tank would be if they set a trap, like digging a covered pit and having the tank fall into it. That would be a trick that an obsolete "spearman" unit could use in the modern day to disable a tank. That "spearman" wouldn't even need any special tools or equipment to pull that off -- just a shovel.

 

[Panda]

The spearman won against the tank because he was hiding among some rubble, created by enemy artillery fire, and torched the AFV with a molotov cocktail. Had the general believed his troops and sent in specially trained infantry (City Raider upgrade ) instead of tanks, this would have been avoided.

That's why the tank got destroyed. That, and because he failed his die roll.

 

[jajohns8]

That's not a very apt comparison because the Somalis had RPGs, not bows-&-arrows. An RPG isn't ideal for taking out a chopper, but in that scenario -- wherein the choppers are flying slow and low -- they did succeed in downing a couple.

Those Somalis would be the equivalent of really, really poor-quality SAM Infantry.

The problem is that there aren't many contemporary examples of primitives defeating a technologically sophisticated army. Even the Soviets' war vs. Afghanistan in the '80s doesn't really compare, because the Afghanis were secretly armed with AK-47s and RPGs by the Americans. And an Afghani insurgent armed with an RPG is a helluvalot more capable of destroying a tank than a spearman.

I think a better example of a primitive taking out a tank would be if they set a trap, like digging a covered pit and having the tank fall into it. That would be a trick that an obsolete "spearman" unit could use in the modern day to disable a tank. That "spearman" wouldn't even need any special tools or equipment to pull that off -- just a shovel.

Point well taken.

I suppose I was meaning the overall general feeling that anything is possible and sometimes inferior units CAN win given cerain conditions.

(How do we know the CIA didnt supply those spearmen with RPGs?)

 

[Wlauzon]

I thought we had gotten away from the phalanx unit killing a battleship or a warrior managing to kill a tank!

They have Depleted Uranium tipped spears.

 

[Wlauzon]

The problem is this: Even though a tank has a tank graphic, once its strength value goes down it is not longer that unit anymore. It may have a tank graphic, but once it hits say 6 strength, i

That makes no sense though. How could it ever GET down to 6 strenght against bronze age weapons?

A modern tank could take like 50000000 arrow hits and not be phased. 6"+ hardened steel is not something you chop through with a bronze axe.

There should have been a wider spread on the stats, like 0 to 100. Then Modern Armor could be 100, spearmen at 4 would be much more realistic.