Discussion in 'Civ4 - Realism Invictus' started by Houman, Sep 9, 2006.
Please discuss your ideas about Tank Units.
Tanks should get a free pillage, where once per turn they would destroy an improvement without losing movement to do so.
Realistically, a squadron of tanks can destroy a farm or small vilage simply by passing through. I think this should be relected.
They should lose 1 movement point, you either stay and pillage, or move on.
But why? Tanks are big and heavy enough to destroy small houses just by driving into (and through) them. Likewise they can fire the cannon on the move to take out targets that are out of ramming range.
Tank tracks will tear apart fields and pastures without the slightest hesitation.
A well aimed shot into a mine could cause a cave in. Workshops, windmills, watermills, wineries etc would be similarly inconsequential.
A squadron of tanks is representative of what, 5? 10? either way it's a few, and they are designed for sheer destruction.
Why should they be slowed down when they would not in real life?
If the attacker is another tank, or a unit that could concievably possess some level of anti-armor weapons, and attacks from the rear, they should recieve an attack bonus.
Great idea. In tank-tank battles the first shot often ends the battle. Getting that first shot is incredibly important.
It should be a fairly big bonus, like 40%.
As i had already say, i was a Tank Leader in the French army. On a open battlefield, the most dangerous foes of Tanks are Helicopters and "infantry" anti tank missiles, but not others tanks.
Most of modern tanks can shoot an other one at a range of 1,200 to 1,800 meters easilly, with a good training and quality ammos. Meanwhile, you are right: the first shot usually ends the battle. Even the strongest tanks (Leclerc, Challenger II, Abrams) can't resist a direct shoot. If the tank resist, usually the crew is either killed or deeply wounded or shocked (so unable to fight).
In the french army, we use platoons of 4 tanks, squadrons of 3 platoons (12 tanks), and regiments of 4 squadrons (48 tanks + 2 others for the Colonel and his "number two"). 50 modern Tanks is an awesome force, as you can imagine.
Your suggestion to a 40% bonus is good, IMO.
I would also give a big malus in cities. Tanks are not made to fight in narrow streets, closed battlefield,... They lose all their qualities in such a fight. A sigle man hidden in a rubble with a hand anti tank missile is enough to destroy a costly tank and its crew....
as to pilaging.. warkiby you are partly right about a tank destroying a field just by driving over it.. but fields take a large space if a tank was to destroy the whole field it should keep going back and forth and so on.. you can burn field much quicker.. same with vilages.. etc.. pilaging should be era dependent imo.. medevial and earlier eras it should use up all of the points, renesaince and post it should cost one movement point.
@Noid: If you read Hian's post, you will see that tanks do not operate alone. 50 tanks will quite readily destroy a field in a single pass.
Medieval and renaissance would not matter, because you cannot get tanks until late industrial era.
Or were you talking about non tank related pillaging, which doesn't belong in the tank topic?
i was talking bout non tank related pilaging..
50 tanks one pass ONE filed.. correct but one filed is nothing compared to space that fields realy occupy, and tanks travel in colums rather then tiraliers..
Tanks travel in whatever formation the tank commander deems necessary.
They don't need to tear up every inch to destroy the farm. A few shells here or there would make it practically impossible to plough. And just as much pillaging would be involved in murdering the farmer and his family, slaughtering all the livestock, and destroying all the tools and machinery.
A single shell to the farmhouse, and another to the toolshed should accomplish this, and leave the farm sufficiently ruined as to be virtually unproductive, and take months to rebuild.
Which is exactly what pillaging is.
Any other arguments against it?
there you go Warkiby :
farms are not sitauated one by one, close to each other.. single plot doesnt represent one farm.. and one tank unit doesnt represent one tank.. i know that, but what im trying to say is that when you want the tanks to pilage the whole plot you have to order them to do so, and it will take them some time to "destroy all the fileds, farms etc" its not accomplished just by "traveling" throu the plot, so it should use a point of movement.
so maybe you should make a suggestion for different formations to be implemented ? if not lets stick to the facts, when tanks "travel" (not when they go into combat) they use colums.
OK. I concede. It would take a while to destroy a farm. But it would apply quite logically to all other improvements, and I thik that it's still a valid idea.
Would it be possible to do this, but make farms exempt?
oil wells take up a a lot of space as well, workshops are only a representesion of a industrial area, mines are harder to reach for tanks, so are windmills (hills).. watermills, cottages, and maybe hamlets could be destroyed very quickly by tanks, but not towns (we had some examples of that here in poland during WW2).. i dont think that adding a feature like this would improve realism..
I was reading your posts and was laughing.
Tanks travel in column ONLY in lands free from ennemies or if protected by aircrafts or helicopters. I let you imagine what can happen if the first AND the last tank are destroyed or unable to move.... it usually create an awesome problem for the Tanks in the middle of the column.
In combat situation, it's very very different... Usually a first platoon as spearhead (to see, to engage the ennemy, to allow progression of the 3 others platoons,...), two platoons on each sides but slightly to the rear of the first (their roles is to watch possible ennemies that try to flank the whole group, other role is to flank the ennemy, last role is to protect a retreat) and to finish the last platoon as reserve (to be engaged in case of retreat, hard defense, success flanking,...). The Colonel and his second are usually with the fourth platoon, on the rear.
In fact, imagine a formation in diamond....
About the destruction of buildings. A Tank regiment can easilly destroy a small village, sure. But don't forget that most of tank ammos are no explosive one, as it was during WW II. Today, 70% at least of tank ammos are Uranium, SABOT,....so warheads to destroy other heavily armored vehicules.
Last but not least, modern buildings are mainly made of reinforced concrete. It would not collapse with a single shoot ! Only highly explosive shells can transform these buildings in rubble. That's why there is still powerfull artillery guns. France and USA for exemple use the same calibre: 155 mm !
To conclude, tanks should received a bonus against other tanks (usually the first who made a succesfull shoot is the winner, as in a western movie) and a malus in city fights.
thats what i meant, tanks travel in colums, when you are combat ready the formation changes.. as for tank ammo, you are right, it would be hard to destroy a wooden barn with uranium shells
has a some kind of a supply unit been discused earlier on ? what i mean is:
1.tanks, mobile infantry, mobile sam, armored car etc (all "mechanical land units") should have limited supplies (gas, ammo)
2. in friendly teritory (your own, or a nations witch you have a deffensive pact) it wouldnt matter
3.in enemy/neutral territory a "mechanical land unit" should be within the influence of the supply unit/supply base (witch could be constructed by this or some other unit) to be able to operate
4. should the range of the supply unit/base be wide (so that the units must stay within the range all the time) or whould the range be limited and mechanical land units would have to just spend one turn in its range for them to be fully operational for x turns
5. the idea could be expanded on planes (taking fuel in fligyt is a very common procedure nowadays), and sea units (there are fuel ships accompanig fleets)
this might not be be easy to implement..
what do you think ?
P.S. to go even further you could limit the number of those units by lets say how many Oil, Iron, whatever reasurces you have acces to. This might change the possition in witch a country witch has acces only to one oil reasurce hase xxx tanks, planes, ships.. witch ofcourse isnt very realistic :]
I think this is a great idea, probably a difficult one to implement and balance, but if units required X amount of a resource to build or run, and each resource would yield X amount per turn, you could really bring some dynamics to the game regarding resources.
I know this isn't tank related anymore, but this should be highlighted as the way to solve the problem of 1 oil resource supplying a whole army. Resources could have a total possible production and a yield per turn. Different resource deposits in dfferent areas could have different values for production and yield. This wouldn't apply to food or fiber type resources
Uh, and now back to Tanks.....
Why would I ask to impliment tank formations at all? That would be more pointless micromanagement and would probably cause other people to beg more features for infantry formations, etc etc etc. Half the fun in this game is the abstraction that cuts down micromanagement and lets you use your imagination as to what's really going on.
If you want a real-world supposition for why your standpoint is wrong:
As Hian, our resident R/L tank commander stated earlier: tanks travel in columns only when they feel "safe" ... seeing as it would make no sense to pillage your own improvements, then one would assume your tanks are in enemy territory. Being in enemy territory, I doubt they'd feel "safe" enough to travel in column formation except in the circumstances Hian pointed out; after all, the important part of an ambush is that the other side doesn't know it's coming.
As for the supply suggestion, that's something we've kicked around a bit and I've brought up similar ideas before. Haven't hit any response from the devs though.
Separate names with a comma.