Tanks + collateral, yes or no? Vote!

[Sinapus]

I voted yes, but I would like to note that the damage rate should still be lower than their era equivalent.

 

[IagoAlberto]

I voted yes, just because I'm lazy and having CRII Barrage I tanks is tremendous amounts of fun. These tanks just annialate heavily defended cities. Whether Barrage is left in or not I will still use tanks as part of a combined arms team. One stack of tanks with bombers to take down defenses and paratroopers to hold ground and another stack of infantry, artillery and a couple tanks to be the main attack.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

My question is, if the original version of Civ 4 didn't have barrage for tanks, would anyone be saying it should have it now? Would the idea ever cross someones mind?

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

I dont think pre 3.17 baragge tanks were either unrealistic or unbalanced. But since there wasnt an option for both I picked the second since realism should never be an issue if it conflicts with game play and 3.13. But honestly barage tanks did niether. If you thought they were unrealistic or bad to choose in game you never had to choose that prmotion so neither your gameplay or realism would be affected.

And now the game play of anyone who had fun wiith barage tanks is VERY affected and their choices are very limited.

And just saying "dont like it then go mod it yourself" isnt the issue or point and not very helpful.

Kaytie

 

[Jimmyballz]

My question is, if the original version of Civ 4 didn't have barrage for tanks, would anyone be saying it should have it now? Would the idea ever cross someones mind?

It woud probably cross a lot of people's minds. But yes, we were all very spoiled in the past

 

[King Flevance]

The one with the tanks was in fact not thought-out at all; it was a screw-up and removing barrage as an option just seemed the easiest solution.

Don't you know by now this is Firaxis's solution to any problem with a mechanic in their game. "Rather than fix it, just remove it."

I agree though, I voted yes. Seemed balanced. So, why nerf it?

 

[Scotsh]

Voted no/unbalanced.
It always felt cheap conquering whole emipres with only one type of unit, i am truely happy about this change, makes modern era wars far more interesting.

 

[oranges]

Voted no/unbalanced.
It always felt cheap conquering whole emipres with only one type of unit, i am truely happy about this change, makes modern era wars far more interesting.

How, because now I'll have one more slow unit to coordinate, sending it ahead in several directions. Really my idea of fun, yippee. (Needless to say, conquering with only tanks was not really an option anyway, if it is you're so far ahead you can conquer with anything you send)

Thank god there is the option to either stick to 3.13 + Bhruic or 3.17+Solver's patch+simple tweak, but as for the change as it was made in the patch

 

[Kiwi Tyrant]

Another sticky plaster patch required?

 

[JTMacc99]

My vote is on "no", because it should - at least in theory - promote the usage of combined arms.

That is EXACTLY my reason for the same vote. The only time I've ever built a Mobile Artilery was by accident. Barrage tanks, on the other hand, were plentiful.

 

[DanF5771]

That is EXACTLY my reason for the same vote. The only time I've ever built a Mobile Artilery was by accident. Barrage tanks, on the other hand, were plentiful.

When one has the option to build both units then neglecting MobileArty and promoting Tanks along the Barrage line is IMHO a waste of XPs.

The above example for Tanks / MobileArty vs stack of Infantry:

Level3, Barrage2:
Tank 5*5 = 25 HPs; MobileArty 8*16 = 128 HPs

Level4, Barrage3:
Tank 5*11 = 55 HPs; MobileArty 8*22 = 176 HPs

Plus, in many cases MobileArty has better combat odds than the Tank due to its iCombatLimit=85.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

IMO, if you are able to obliterate nations with tanks only and you can do it in most if not all games, then it's time to move up on the difficulty slider. If you're tank rushing, the AI should have anti-tanks and/or enough cultural defense/infantry to lose only a few cities. If you have bombers, they should have rocketry => SAM Infantry.

When I play on Warlord, I can steamroll the enemy with only tanks, but when I move up to Noble, they are able to hold my tanks off. I have to go in with artillery, bombers, attack infantry/marines/paratroopers, and then tanks too. Never hurts to have a few gunships as well as a medic.

 

[Jimmyballz]

Even on Noble the other Civ's get crushed by tanks. The most advanced AI doesn't seem to come out w anti-tanks until after I get a chance to steamroll a civ or two. By that time, lots of battleships, bombers, etc. are up and running, & they'd be lucky to get the SS off the ground. Good point about the anti-tanks.

 

[Wodan]

When one has the option to build both units then neglecting MobileArty and promoting Tanks along the Barrage line is IMHO a waste of XPs.

Before we can even begin to evaluate the conclusion, the assumption is questionable. Mobile Artillery comes much too late to be useful in almost all games.

Wodan

 

[mynystry]

well, i will miss those barrage tanks... but maybe it's for the best... to be honest since i get barrage tanks i barely think about getting artillery units.

 

[Plinko16]

I actually think of this quite differently.

I think tanks ought to get collateral damage, but why do they get city raider?

I don't agree with the combined-arms theory way of looking at it. Tanks with barrage still didn't get defensive bonuses and can't bring down city defenses. You either also need Infantry/Marines and Bombers/Artillery/Cannon take on big stacks of city-defenders and hold unless you're way ahead in tech as it was. If you're running over longbows or muskets, what difference does barrage make? If you're using tanks instead of arty, what are you bringing city defenses down with?

Maybe it would be better to allow Marines to have City Raider and Tanks only combat/barrage lines. . . it would make it so tanks aren't so dominant but still give access to a modern-era city-raider unit.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^ ^ ^ Agree agree agree. It isn't the barrage that gives tanks their superiority, it's the +75% from CRI, CRII, and CRIII ! While it is much more realistic to allow tanks collateral damage, it is unrealistic to allow them CR (as said above). Tanks cannot maneuver well in small spaces IE city streets. And don't tall buildings give them extremely limited range of weapons and sight? The CR promotion seems to be the overpowering element here as well as the unrealistic element.

Also, I still need bombers when tank rushing ;-)

 

[The Snug]

^ ^ ^ Agree agree agree. It isn't the barrage that gives tanks their superiority, it's the +75% from CRI, CRII, and CRIII ! While it is much more realistic to allow tanks collateral damage, it is unrealistic to allow them CR (as said above). Tanks cannot maneuver well in small spaces IE city streets. And don't tall buildings give them extremely limited range of weapons and sight? The CR promotion seems to be the overpowering element here as well as the unrealistic element.

Also, I still need bombers when tank rushing ;-)

QFT. Tanks weren't developed for taking out cities. They were developed to win battles in the field (ending trench warfare). Inside ciities they were ineffective at attacking units, its main function seemed to be to destroy buildings where anti-tank units might be hiding.

Remove the CR promotions, that's what unbalances the game and makes them too overpowered and unstoppable.

 

[Wodan]

I guess we need a new poll with an option to remove BOTH barrage and city raider.

 

[DanF5771]

But we all know that a Tank's true (over?)power comes from its Blitz ability!