How do you drive a tank unit through a forest or jungle without roads anyways? Maybe your tank regimen got stuck and the longbowmen just starved them out of the tanks. I also always think tanks would have a rather difficult time accessing an ancient city without modern infrastructure... People never take into account that there's more to every battle than "Tank vs. Longbowman" -- its not happening in a vacuum.
Things that bug me about Civ 4 warfare.
- Thread starter Troymk1
- Start date
How do you drive a tank unit through a forest or jungle without roads anyways? Maybe your tank regimen got stuck and the longbowmen just starved them out of the tanks. I also always think tanks would have a rather difficult time accessing an ancient city without modern infrastructure... People never take into account that there's more to every battle than "Tank vs. Longbowman" -- its not happening in a vacuum.
Lurking Liu
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 344
Why would Riflemen be any less effective against Cuirassiers than against Cavalry? That doesn't make any sense. "The enemy is of lower quality than what we're used to fighting, how do we beat it? Oh! Right! THE EXACT SAME WAY WE NORMALLY DO."
Also, wouldn't Alpine Troops simply be Infantry with Guerilla I, II, and III promotions?
SomeoneElse said:
Machine Guns were incredibly strong, yes, but they weren't unbeatable. You said that they couldn't be beaten with a wave of troops... But wasn't that exactly what WWI was all about? The Germans built all of ~20 tanks during the entire war, but got within shelling distance of Paris twice despite the French having fortified, entrenched machine guns. How'd they do that? World Builder?
EDIT: As shown by the guy who posted above me, I think a lot of people have trouble realizing that a lot of this game consists of abstractions. Those Longbowmen weren't necessarily standing in a clearing and letting loose with arrows at the steel tanks. Couldn't they have been lurking in the woods and crept into the coupolas as the tanks advanced? Couldn't they be using molotovs? Same thing with Riflemen. They aren't necessarily in close order drill blocks such as in the Napoleonic and American Civil Wars. WWI soldiers were armed with rifles, and they weren't as advanced as the WWII units that are represented by Infantry.
Units advance beyond their sprite. A Trebuchet built just after you get Engineering may have the same stats as one built just before you get Steel, but it isn't necessarily the same weapon. It could easily be an early Mortar...
Swein Forkbeard
Nintendo Fan
Why would Riflemen be any less effective against Cuirassiers than against Cavalry? That doesn't make any sense. "The enemy is of lower quality than what we're used to fighting, how do we beat it? Oh! Right! THE EXACT SAME WAY WE NORMALLY DO."
Also, wouldn't Alpine Troops simply be Infantry with Guerilla I, II, and III promotions?
Cuirassiers should also have a +50% bonus against gunpowder; this is the way it was in Empire Earth.
Everybody misses Civ2's Alpine Troops, so I thought I would give them a thumb's up.
Swordsmen (as well as Sword UUs) should have -25% against Mounted units. Or the horse archer should have +50% vs. Melee units, but suffer a -50% penalty vs. Archery units. One spearman beating 2 horse archers makes no sense.
Totally right, Horse Archers would murder Spearmen. They should have just made them "Horsemen" or something... shooting a bow off of a horse should be the Mongols UU and it should replace knight and own.
Boom22
I kill VIRTUAL Spanish!
It's a game it's not meant to be perfect.
Soneji
Prince and Great Steward
What do you mean its only a game?
Its my life!
Its my life!
LemonJello
Warlord
What is this concept of "game" that you speak of? There is nothing, I mean NOTHING outside of what Sid has created and handed down to us from on high!
I'm still loving this game, bugs, crashes, jacked up units and all!
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
As much as I love the historic back and forth and much knowledge-based banter, these debates get tired real quickly.
ON TOPIC: the OP has a couple good points (IE the horse archer argument and supply lines), however, in the interest of gameplay, supply lines should continue to be left out.
Machine guns already rock the house against all gunpowder but heavily promoted marines and mech infantry. So that point isn't really all that well defended.
All the historic banter has no place really when discussing game play issues. Not to mention the fact that it seems some people take posts about history a little too seriously. Consider the fact that, unless you've read all books ever written on a specific subject, any knowledge gained is half-truth and biased in some way. IE the way we Americans learn about the conclusion to European Theatre in WWII differs greatly from the conclusion taught in Russia.
Also, I would imagine that the Japanese teach the end of WWII slightly differently than Americans do.
In other words, game on!
ON TOPIC: the OP has a couple good points (IE the horse archer argument and supply lines), however, in the interest of gameplay, supply lines should continue to be left out.
Machine guns already rock the house against all gunpowder but heavily promoted marines and mech infantry. So that point isn't really all that well defended.
All the historic banter has no place really when discussing game play issues. Not to mention the fact that it seems some people take posts about history a little too seriously. Consider the fact that, unless you've read all books ever written on a specific subject, any knowledge gained is half-truth and biased in some way. IE the way we Americans learn about the conclusion to European Theatre in WWII differs greatly from the conclusion taught in Russia.
Also, I would imagine that the Japanese teach the end of WWII slightly differently than Americans do.
In other words, game on!
Good call Liu. If spearmen did find themselves facing tanks, but had access to other technologies... isn't it probable that they would realize they can't destroy the tanks with spears and then try something else?
Just like you said -- If the Zulu had developed Chemistry but had neglected to upgrade a spearman unit, why would said spearman unit be incapable of deploying nerve gas or something like that instead of trying to attack tanks with a spear?
Somebody else mentioned something about upgrading the graphics for far obsolete units. I think that's a great idea, but for now I'll use my imagination.
For all you supply lines nay sayers: you suck. 
Current gameplay mechanics demand a more tactical approach to warfare! It's not just because of historical reasons. In civ games (as well as irl) you almost invariably need to back what you say with armies ALWAYS. So it turns out that you often need to go to war to win the game.
Now, after you play civ for a little while you start to realize how BORING warfare is in the game. And this is a predominant aspect of Civilization! Without implementation for basic concepts such as supply lines, flanks and troop morale, battles become really boring and ridiculous. What good is it to have a World War scenario if it is impossible for me to attempt to execute a proper Schlieffen Plan or a Blitzkrieg? If my goal is solely to destroy a stack, what good is it to split my forces up and attempt a pinch maneuver?
There is very little fighting occurring in the field. Current warfare in the game is 90% just besieging cities and moving on to the next ones, and this formula gets old really fast, something that should not be considering how often one is warring in a game.
Current gameplay mechanics demand a more tactical approach to warfare! It's not just because of historical reasons. In civ games (as well as irl) you almost invariably need to back what you say with armies ALWAYS. So it turns out that you often need to go to war to win the game.
Now, after you play civ for a little while you start to realize how BORING warfare is in the game. And this is a predominant aspect of Civilization! Without implementation for basic concepts such as supply lines, flanks and troop morale, battles become really boring and ridiculous. What good is it to have a World War scenario if it is impossible for me to attempt to execute a proper Schlieffen Plan or a Blitzkrieg? If my goal is solely to destroy a stack, what good is it to split my forces up and attempt a pinch maneuver?
There is very little fighting occurring in the field. Current warfare in the game is 90% just besieging cities and moving on to the next ones, and this formula gets old really fast, something that should not be considering how often one is warring in a game.
Marshall Thomas
King
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 700
deathrOw makes an excellent point. Of course, Civ 4 is an abstarction and a game of great scope -but warfare is one of the most important aspects of the game in all eras. There should be a use for pincer moves against salients, at least in more modern eras. Cutting off an ememy army from supply and the rest of his forces, should be a usefull tactic. Perhaps these tactics are somehow represented abstractly in Civ 4 as it is now. I wish someone would please show how they are, if anyone believes this to be the chase. Thanks in advance
Similar threads
