The UU-A-Day Countdown

[Louis XXIV]

We don't need to get bogged down in Tank minutiae I think the Civilopedia implies that the Panzer in the game is the Panther, fyi.

Anyway, I think the unit is good. It does what it should for a unit this late, it gives unquestioned superiority over its peers. It's downside is that, by that point, the game is often won or lost. By comparison to the Companion cavalry, which gives similar bonuses (less, but to both speed and strength) much, much earlier. It's use will always be limited by that. That being said, if you do need a late game push (either to win or to prevent another civ from getting a space race), it does the job well. I wonder if it has any "Blitz" ability like previous Civ games (attacking 5 times in a row would be quite cool).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

One point, it is possible those Don't come cheap, are we sure a normal tank costs 450 hammers as well (panzers may be expensive)

 

[Schuesseled]

UU's generally speaking aren't more expensive than thier counter parts.

 

[Ahriman]

I think its more useful to think about this as "+25% strength" rather than +10 strength.

There are other UUs which have similar strength advantages over their normal counterparts.
Musketeers and musketmen, for example?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yep, although the Panzer gets the +25%, plus speed. It's two eras above Muskets, though, so this makes sense.

 

[Ahriman]

My point is: 10 extra strength on a strength 40 unit is the same as 4 extra strength on a strength 16 unit, or 2 extra strength on a strength 8 unit.

Its not about era, its that combat calculations in Civ have always been based on ratios, not absolute difference.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that, even with ratios, the Panzer has greater bonuses than the Musketeer because it also has movement. The strength bonus is comparable, but that's not all it gets.

 

[TM Moot]

One point, it is possible those Don't come cheap, are we sure a normal tank costs 450 hammers as well (panzers may be expensive)

to be honest, if we want historical accuracy, it would make sense to make the Panzer(Panther?) more expensive...

 

[Ahriman]

The Panzer isn't trying to represent any single tank.
Its trying to represent the general German tactical and strategic superiority in using armored divisions - in particular the effective doctrinal choice of massing them in armored spearheads rather than spreading them widely as infantry support.

I wish people would stop trying to interpret them as just being a particular historic vehicle.
There was never a Panzer division made up entirely of Panthers, and the performance of a military unit is so much more than just the physical mechanical specifications.

 

[Tibblers]

We also don't know if Musketeers get any additional bonus other than strength. However, the achievements list suggests that musketeers get some sort of flanking bonus (The Three Musketeers). That may just be an opportunity to make a silly joke but I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

 

[MisterBarca]

The T-34 was in every way worse than the German tanks, with only exception: it could be built faster. The loss of Germany was surely in no way decided by better technique of the Russians.

"I believe that 'Panzer' is just a German word for 'tank', rather then a specific vehicle type."

You are right.

He's right. T-34 won because it was mass-produced at an astonishing rate--and to some extent, better adapted to the conditions in the Russian front--not because it was technically superior.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

We also don't know if Musketeers get any additional bonus other than strength. However, the achievements list suggests that musketeers get some sort of flanking bonus (The Three Musketeers). That may just be an opportunity to make a silly joke but I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

All units get flanking bonuses

 

[Tibblers]

All units get flanking bonuses

Well, obviously, I meant higher flanking bonuses. Like 25% as opposed to the standard 15% or something to that effect.

 

[krunsh]

UU's generally speaking aren't more expensive than thier counter parts.

I could be wrong, but I beleibe teh samurai is a replacement for Swordsman, and in the 2 hour game with greg. I said multiple time (and did it while playing the game to) that nuilding a swordsman at a lesser cost in hammer was a good strategy when you have a lot of gold to use.

So you get the unit out quicker, and then use your gold to upgrade the units.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I could be wrong, but I beleibe teh samurai is a replacement for Swordsman, and in the 2 hour game with greg. I said multiple time (and did it while playing the game to) that nuilding a swordsman at a lesser cost in hammer was a good strategy when you have a lot of gold to use.

So you get the unit out quicker, and then use your gold to upgrade the units.

Samurai (Japan) Replaces the Longsword (everyone else)

the Samurai/Longsword is an higher tech upgrade of the Swordsman

 

[Schuesseled]

the samurai replaces the longswordsmen.

He was building swordsmen and upgrading them to samurai (longswordsmen).

Which saved him some hammers, but cost him some gold.

(The longswordsman is a medieval unit, the swordsman is a classical unit, i would have though it would have been obseleted by the smaurai but apparently not.)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

the samurai replaces the longswordsmen.

He was building swordsmen and upgrading them to samurai (longswordsmen).

Which saved him some hammers, but cost him some gold.

(The longswordsman is a medieval unit, the swordsman is a classical unit, i would have though it would have been obseleted by the smaurai but apparently not.)

I think they may have changed the obsoleting method to allow that (units only getting obsoleted once the thing they upgrade to can get upgraded)

 

[Wuddel]

The Panzer isn't trying to represent any single tank.
Its trying to represent the general German tactical and strategic superiority in using armored divisions - in particular the effective doctrinal choice of massing them in armored spearheads rather than spreading them widely as infantry support.

I wish people would stop trying to interpret them as just being a particular historic vehicle.
There was never a Panzer division made up entirely of Panthers, and the performance of a military unit is so much more than just the physical mechanical specifications.

This and 1000 times this.

 

[chaotoroboto]

But we're agreed on strategy for the Panzer then? When we see a Panzer, we ride our horses at their treads!

 

[Volar]

If you look at the art, the 'Panzer' appears to be a Tiger. Which makes more sense if you want a superior unit. Tiger was a great tank, one of the first true heavy tanks.

Now, with my own favorite civ nation, Russia. It appears all tank art will be that of the T-34. The T-34 outclassed the Panzers. Eventually the Germans upgraded the Panzer IV witha 75mm long gun that could actually touch it. And the Tiger certainly could. Most of their AT guns early on were completely incapable of penetrating the T-34's sloped armor. I recall a story of a T-34 bursting 9 miles through German lines all by itself, just because they didn't have anything to knock it out with. Eventually a 105mm howitzer got it at short range, direct fire. Impressive vehicle, but after Stalin's officer purges the Soviet military was tactically inept to an extreme.

There are other factors to. The Soviets wouldn't make any improvements that required any real slow down in production. The T-34 had problems, it wasn't super reliable out of the gate. And the situation for the Soviets was, it was easier for them to build more tanks, than to setup a proper logistical train for repairs and service. So since the tank had major engine and transmission problems, they'd generally just strap a spare transmission on the rear and if the tank got knocked out, they weren't all that interested in much but salvaging. So they basically passed on any real improvements until the T-34-85. Interesting philosophy. Guess it works.