tanks vs. mech infantry

Joel Von Hall

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 18, 2003
Messages
39
Location
Fort Hood Texas
I was playing a game a couple of days ago and it's still bugging me: my opponet had just began to get tanks I had some modern armour but mostly mechanized infantry (upgraded units). His tanks came rolling over the border and immediately began tearing up my mech inf?? Im in the U.S. Army and I'll tell you rightnow that a Bradley fighting vehicle can take a cold-war era tank out in some situations, but a ww2 era sherman? It wouldn't even be a contest. Is it because most of them were upgraded for city defense rather than open warfare? What should I have trained them in to make them more effective against tanks?
 
obviously mech inf>tank in raw power
but 32/28 is only 1,14 = good odds, but not a sure thing.
(just watch out not to cross water while attacking)
with combat1, combat 2, ambush, you're in a much better position

and with gunships instead of mech inf, you're even better :lol:
 
If you're upgrading your mechs to city defense while your opponent upgrades his tanks to combat I or II (AIs usually do that), AND you're fighting in open ground, the odds are quite even or in favor of the tanks : 32 (mechs) vs 30,8 (combat I tanks) or 33,6 (combat II tanks). An Aggressive opponent running Vassality and Theocracy can even send you Combat III tanks, for a power of 36,4.

I've learned the hard way to promote some mechs with Combat I or II to protect the tiles against rampaging enemies, or to make some gunships if the enemy has mostly tanks. Otherwise you'll be stuck in your cities while the enemy ruins your improvements.

If you have enough XP, I think you can promote your mechs to Combat II then give them the promotion +25% against tanks. But gunships are cheaper and more effective. And they become Crickets of Doom once you're bringing the fight on enemy territory. Enough gunships with their rate-movement of 4 can bring back an entire empire to stone age in no time : move, pillage, move, pillage, pillage, pillage, pillage. Crickets of Doom I tell you. :goodjob:
 
Don't forget that MI are considered gunpowder units and it is easier for a tank to get the +% vs. gunpowder units than it is for the MI to get the + vs. armored units.
 
ChicagoCubs said:
Don't forget that MI are considered gunpowder units and it is easier for a tank to get the +% vs. gunpowder units than it is for the MI to get the + vs. armored units.

true!
if your not agressive (trait), you need 3 promotions to get ambush = barracks + westpoint+vassalage or theocracy.

gunship have naturally +100%!
 
I was also going to say, some people make the mistake of thinking tanks count as a gunpower unit, and expect to have a +25% bonus against them.
 
This is about as realistic as a prop fighter aircraft shooting down a stealth bomber, as happens to me all the time.
 
Ronin228 said:
This is about as realistic as a prop fighter aircraft shooting down a stealth bomber, as happens to me all the time.

Very true. I have had that happen too. I guess that I can overlook these small glitchs, it just pisses me off when I'm on the recieving end instead of the giving:)
 
Personaly i woulda left them in the city if they were garison trained and built up new units to take him on in the open feild. Make them play to your strenth till your ready to go on offense. Weakening their units and buildings with airstrikes Etc. Who are you and who is your oponent anyway?
 
Civ-Combat is not about realism, it is about math

on a site note, Im not military personal,

but do you think the small M6 Bradley 25mm Autogun (cant realy effectivly fire a Stinger on a Tank) could penetrate though 150mm Tank-Steel (as example Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II, not some Sherman), I hadly doupt

on the other side, a 88mm Tank-Gun could penetrate though 180mm tanksteel on a reasonable range

the M6 lacks some serious Anti-Tank weapons and its main usage is support for Tanks in order to combat drones, gunships and cruise missles, it is not designed to figth tanks. Mech. Inf. has a similar concept ingame

Im sure the M6 chance would be better just for the reasons of speed, posibility of faster maneuvers, communication and precision but I would not underestimate "old" things
If they are used from someone with several years Combat Expirience compared to a greenhorn thats just from military academy things change even more.

as I said, civ is not about realism, more about math ... but dont underestimate something just because its "old" and not high-tech

in fact a old Messerschmitt has a higher chance to combat a Stealthbomber then a modern Jet, as modern airplanes rely much on their electronical detection while those old planes were just used by looking for the enemy with your eyes (and its easier to see a Stealthbomber while it is aproaching the area (lets say factory) you protect, then detecting it with Radar)

same goes with AA, old Flak Guns have a better chance to destroy a Stealthbomber then a Radar-Guided-Missle (which cant detect, so it wont even fire) ... with a flak you just put out some curtain fire and you gain a chance to damage the attacker

things arent allways black & white ... alot of times its grey :)
 
Who cares what a Bradley fighting vehicle would do one on one against a Sherman? This is not a tactical game where a unit is supposed to be one vehicle, these are division or corps sized units. A modern US mechanized infantry division would most certainly be able to handle a WW2 infantry division.
 
as I said this is realy much game related

even if you think about division size combats I believe a WW2-Tank div. would still have a solid chance of beating a modern Mech. Inf. div. (I believe you meant tanks when you said WW2 Infantry)

the statement
It wouldn't even be a contest.
just isnt true in my opinion

as I said, dont underestimate weapons because their are old, real world history has shown us that technically advanced forces dont automatically receive a victory (it migth be easier to win though).

It dosnt need much to kill or destroy something and todays high tech weapons dont do THAT much more harm compared to WW2, they just risk less life. (unless you count nuclear weapon arsenal of course)
miniaturisation is just another way to risk less life because you need to send less forces

Example: in WW2 if you wanted to destroy a building you had to send in a huge amount of bombers because some could be shot down or would not hit the target. High tech weapons are more precise and faster executed and only need 1 plane (if at all) because its almost sure to hit its target

both would eventually destroy the target, older weapons just risk more life and materials

the same goes for modern tanks, the difference between them and ww2 tanks are speed, precision, armor and range, which all are mechanism to reduce the risk of life and material.
The weapons itself is mainly the same, a big cannon. even if the modern one migth be more armor piercing, both will have about the same effect on a armored vehicle like a M6
 
Ronin228 said:
This is about as realistic as a prop fighter aircraft shooting down a stealth bomber, as happens to me all the time.


B-2 bombers are pretty slow and not very maneuverable and could be intercepted by prop driven aircraft if detected.
 
A mechanized infantry division has plenty of anti-tank capabilities. Bradley IFVs have TOW missile launchers mounted on the turret, infantry units often carry MANPAT rockets.

That being said, Civ combat is not a wargame, it's a math game. Set up your promotions to suit the task at hand and give yourself the terrain advantage.
 
holodmer said:
It dosnt need much to kill or destroy something and todays high tech weapons dont do THAT much more harm compared to WW2, they just risk less life.

What's your source for that? According to everything I've read (such as the How to Make War books), modern munitions do far, far more damage than WW2-era munitions. And in more interesting ways, like artillery shells that instantly spread a minefield when they hit. An M1-A1 firing up-to-date (1994) armor piercing ammunition can penetrate an estimated 750mm of armor at 2000 meters, while the dreaded 88 of WW2 fame (used on the Tiger) could only penetrate around 168mm at 2000 meters. That's not some tiny improvement, that's almost a fivefold increase. And this isn't obscure info, I just did a quick web search and found http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm and http://www.lonesentry.com/new88mm/index.html where I grabbed those numbers.

both would eventually destroy the target, older weapons just risk more life and materials

If it takes my army one bomb to do the job it takes yours 1000 to do, my army is 1000 times as destructive as yours. If we fight with those bombs, you will have killed .1% of my unit in the time I've wiped yours out. Accuracy and range are simply not ignorable when looking at destructive power.

Plus for some reason you're acting like destroying IFVs will destroy a mechanized division, when the infantry in those IFVs actually provide most of it's strength. WW2 era tanks are extremely vulnerable to modern infantry, they have much worse ability to see (especially at night) and much less shielding of vital components, plus modern infantry carry weapons far more effective against tanks than WW2-era infantry.
 
Glancing back at the thread, I should clarify that I think the civ combat numbers are fine for the units; mech inf are better overall but plain armor have a good chance against them. Neither modern mech inf nor WW2 armored units are going to be virtually invulnerable to the other. I thnk the OP just had bad promotions for the situation (city defender infantry fighting outside of cities) and the tanks had a bit of luck or pinch promotions to make up for it, or he missed some terrain advantage.
 
It would be nice to see Civilization lV at least improve in the army section of the game. For example, i had a helicopter which was attacking a pikeman but the helicopter was destroyed. If you ask me, this is almost an impossible thing for a pikeman to do. They seriously should focus on it. Just by 2 cents :p
 
macguy said:
i had a helicopter which was attacking a pikeman but the helicopter was destroyed. If you ask me, this is almost an impossible thing for a pikeman to do.

It depends on the promotions the pikemen have. They could have been anti-aircraft specialists. :rolleyes:

I'm all for the random-strange-things-happen aspect. It's helped me a lot of times. But some things are just plain impossible.
 
macguy said:
For example, i had a helicopter which was attacking a pikeman but the helicopter was destroyed. I

Was it a full strength helicopter attacking a pikeman in the open, or was it an already-damaged helicopter trying to dig pikemen out of a city? In real life, helicoptors can't operate anywhere near continuously, they take a huge amount of maintenance to keep going, so if you try to just have them operate without a break they'll eventually run down.
 
Pantastic said:
Was it a full strength helicopter attacking a pikeman in the open, or was it an already-damaged helicopter trying to dig pikemen out of a city? In real life, helicoptors can't operate anywhere near continuously, they take a huge amount of maintenance to keep going, so if you try to just have them operate without a break they'll eventually run down.

Lol. I know that this one is a new helicopter. If i ever send a used helicopter back out, i always ensure that it's at full strength. Unless it's an emergency.

No i don't think they have a "anti-aircraft" for pikemen. Hope they don't cause there is basically no such thing.
 
Top Bottom