This cannot be right

[Michelangelo]

I think that there simply must be more difference between unit's strengths, and maybe more intermediate units.

So you are suggesting to broaden the gap between units, so a tank would be much stronger compared to a spear. But than you again fill it up with intermediate units, so the power-difference is the same again

Somewhere in this reasoning you have to make up your mind what you want

I think the power distribution is about right. In CIV4 and C4W the cavalry was a bit overpowered but that has been fixed with a intermediate unit (cuirassier). If there are to big power jumps, the first to get there will win, always. That would make for the single path to victory problem and would kill the fun of Civ. The way it is now there is still an advantage to have a stronger unit, but all is not lost (except if you happen to be an AI )

 

[I_M_Weasel]

I suppose there are two choices -

Civ as it is now, where you roll the dice.
Or a more rigid ruled Civ where the biggest unit always wins.

I don't think I'd enjoy the second choice. (maybe initially, but that would ware off)

 

[killmeplease]

So you are suggesting to broaden the gap between units, so a tank would be much stronger compared to a spear. But than you again fill it up with intermediate units, so the power-difference is the same again

power difference is same for units that stands closer on a tech tree. i.e. spearmen have some chance to beat 25 str MArk-V tank, but WII tank is almost invincible to them (i.e. 40-50 str).

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

You know machine guns and tanks jam frequently in a real fight right? Now imagine if you're moving into a dense jungle, your gun jams, and a clubman leaps down from the tree. Where's the tech advantage now?

 

[Genv [FP]]

You know machine guns and tanks jam frequently in a real fight right? Now imagine if you're moving into a dense jungle, your gun jams, and a clubman leaps down from the tree. Where's the tech advantage now?

A Tank is basically a horsehockey bunker when disabled - Plus, Most tanks have machine guns at the top ( They had this in WWII, but didn't really use them )

 

[Dagta]

The bowmen had hot naked women run out in front of the tanks to distract the drivers while the bowmen came up behind the tanks.

 

[alamo]

There are plenty of opportunities for this kind of upset. Even modern armour does not take out defenders in the hilltop fortress cities.

Longbows get a garrison bonus, and if they are promoted with additional garrisons they can be +100%, and +25% more on a hill. Add in the city defence of 50% and you get a strength of 6*(1+1+0.25+0.5) = 16.5, which is 59% of the tank's strength of 28. That longbow has a chance.

You can see the odds before you attack, and you can check the combat log to see just how unlucky you were.

As for a plausible explanation, suppose you are a defender and a single tank rolls up to the gate. Do you run out and start shooting arrows, or do you sneak up close and attack the weak spots?

In the real world tanks are only good against other ground vehicles, and must be accompanied by infantry to protect them. The back and the bottom are not heavily armoured. There are many examples where guerilla troops have disabled tanks. An artillery piece would be more useful for the occasional situation when you want to bombard. For control of a battlefield, tanks are no match for airborne units.

 

[I_M_Weasel]

Well when I was in Basra the tanks did just fine on there own, even after having large amounts (50+) of RPG 7's fired at them.

What exactly would a guy with a stick jumping out of a tree do to a tank? Break his stick?

You could fire longbows all day, wont hurt the tank, and if we assume there carrying other weapons, then there not longbow men, they're modern day guerilla's and should require other techs.

There can always be one offs where a tank losses to some one poorly equipped.

But as a tank represents a tank battalion (at least) its not realistic to loose a battalion to a one off event. That said the games about fun not realism.

 

[r_rolo1]

^^ some things:

Your tanks in Basra were OK, I suppose... not tanks with half of the armor pierced ( like half dead Civ tanks graphs ).

Civ turns last 6 months at least.... 6 months != normal RL combat lenght . No longbowmen would be stupid enough to shoot arrows on a tank ( unless his name is Jonh Rambo ), but they would be very effective shooting arrows to the tanks crews when they started looking for the hookers or something that forced them out of the tank. And I suppose that a tank authonomy on food and water doesn't last 6 months

 

[leroy_1964]

Well when I was in Basra the tanks did just fine on there own, even after having large amounts (50+) of RPG 7's fired at them.

What exactly would a guy with a stick jumping out of a tree do to a tank? Break his stick?

You could fire longbows all day, wont hurt the tank, and if we assume there carrying other weapons, then there not longbow men, they're modern day guerilla's and should require other techs.

There can always be one offs where a tank losses to some one poorly equipped.

But as a tank represents a tank battalion (at least) its not realistic to loose a battalion to a one off event. That said the games about fun not realism.


Some agrees with what I am saying, I didn't mention my Army days but (and I know it is just a game) but tanks would not get beaten by any bows arrows spears, even rounds (some) I have seen tanks in action and well, they scared the . .. .. .. . out of me, fast, tough, and pack a punch.

Not that I will beat this drum much longer, but I feel if someone gets the tech and can make tanks in game well "all's fair in love and war"

Cheers and thanks for the on going support, all comments are excellent but this reply hit the nail right on the head.