1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Why did they nerf tanks??

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by The A.K.T, Jun 23, 2012.

  1. RazorChain

    RazorChain Naked Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Location:
    Drammen, Norway
    Tell that to the French high command and they'll believe you! Heinz Guderian proved that Armored divisions could work indepentantly and smash through infantry lines and utilize their mobility to flank enemy troops. When Germany invaded France they had 2.200 armored vehicles versus 4000 of the allies and the Allies tanks had better caliber cannons and thicker armor. The allies on the other hand belived that tanks should be spread among the infantry.

    Which tactic worked better?
     
  2. Ajuga

    Ajuga Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    303
    Tanks seem to be the late-game equivalent to mounted units.
    They get movement bonuses and should be slightly stronger than the regular units of that era.
    Likewise the anti-tank gun and chopper are the late-game equivalent to the spearmen and pikemen.

    I don't feel that the expansion portrays this very well and instead of better gameplay goes for a bit more realism.
     
  3. Harv72b

    Harv72b Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    552
    The Germans invented the blitzkrieg when other armies were still thinking in terms of WWI trench warfare. In the years since the German offenses at the start of WWII, infantry tactics have developed considerably.
     
  4. Frosty_AUT

    Frosty_AUT Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    85
    Tanks don't go into battle with just ONE ammo type. They typically have ammo to deal with both heavy armour and soft targets. Even so, tanks still have a coaxial machine gun that benefits from the same sophisticated optics, range finders and stabilization as the main gun. Charging infantry? They'd get mowed down from around a kilometre away.

    And all that is still ignoring the fact that tanks are not only heavily armed and armoured, but also MOBILE. Good luck charging something that's around 5 - 10 times faster than a human.
     
  5. Harv72b

    Harv72b Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    552
    That coaxial machine gun works beautifully if the enemy is nice enough to expose himself while directly in front of your main gun. Otherwise, in the time it takes you to traverse the turret to get sights on him, he's already fired his missile.

    HEAT rounds are called HEAT for a reason--the reason is that it's short for High Explosive Anti-Tank. The other munition typically carried is a SABOT round, which explodes on contact releasing a sub-projectile which is designed to penetrate tank armor. HEAT rounds are for soft targets, i.e. trucks and buildings. SABOT are for other tanks. None are for dismounted soldiers (unless you count the rounds for the mortar tubes the Israelis like to mount on their battle tanks).
     
  6. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    26,874
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
    You might want to read this to learn about tanks and tank ammo. What you have written is not entirely correct.

    HEAT and Sabot are both anti-tank rounds, one is chemical (HEAT) and the other is kinetic energy (SABOT). There are main gun rounds that serve anti-personnel requirements.

    Having said all that, this discussion really belongs in the History forum, not this forum.
     
  7. Harv72b

    Harv72b Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    552
    Flechette rounds, you are correct. Which again only work when you see the dismounts and can traverse turret to bear on them before they've taken cover and/or fired. ;)

    And you're also correct about the forum. I have other stuff I need to get done anyway.
     
  8. Frosty_AUT

    Frosty_AUT Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    85
    Which is exactly what he's doing when he's charging your tank.

    While a tank can engage infantry with its coaxial MG from something like 800 metres and more, the infantry using AT4s, Panzerfaust 3 or RPGs have a maximum range of 300 metres, even less when the target is moving.

    So no, unless the tank lets the infantry get really, really close, no missile will be fired. And if we're talking about open terrain, infantry will never ever get close to a fully operational tank unless it's a carefully set-up ambush - the polar opposite of a charge.

    HEAT is plenty effective against infantry, but it would be a waste to use it against infantry out in the open as the number of shells a tank can carry is rather limited, whereas machine gun ammo is less critical.

    That said:

    Charging at tanks in open terrain: Suicidal, hence air support is needed
    Driving tanks into a city: Suicidal, that's why infantry support is needed

    CiV5 vanilla models this beautifully whereas in GK, tanks just don't feel tanky at all.
     
  9. Harv72b

    Harv72b Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    552
    Wanting to drop this as it is very OT for this forum, but I just wanted to point out that I was the one saying that infantry wouldn't be charging a tank. :p
     
  10. Cyon

    Cyon Cosmonaut

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Messages:
    853
    Location:
    Sweden, Stockholm
    So maybe tanks should get a few promotions and penalties: start with chock II, -33% penality in forest, bonus against other tanks, ignores defensive bonuses from fortificated units, imedetly destroys enemy forts and citadels if defeat them.

    Not all of those of course...


    Or maybe they should also be able to make a range attack, how come that no unit in civ v can both range an melee attack?

    The panzer needs a buff as well +1 moment is not that impressive...
     
  11. blasto

    blasto Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    424
    To our deaths!
     
  12. Cyon

    Cyon Cosmonaut

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Messages:
    853
    Location:
    Sweden, Stockholm
    If they would buff the tanks could they also add a anti tank bonus promotion for infantry to chose (when they level up) in that way creating a unit class by only.adding a promotion...
     
  13. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,961
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Even with same combat strength, infantry is significantly weaker than tanks. If you don't understand why, I encourage you to try out some strategies that are different from "pound with artillery, step in with infantry".
     
  14. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Tanks can attack and retreat? ;)

    Also with the 100hp change, lines last longer and you want fast moving flankers to take out soft targets and exposed GGs in the back of the line and to outflank the AI as they are liable to hold back reserves and wait for you to move in range of their city before swarming your soft-targets (ranged and seige units).

    Tanks have their uses, but it's not a nerf insofar as they are way OP in previous games.

    In Civ3 for example people would go Cav > Tank route and there was a very clear path of progression from horse to tanks to modern armor as your 'attacking units' so players only build those and stuck to mass upgrading as a strategy.

    Not only did that severely cripple the AI, SoD or no, (AI always perform poorly with units with multiple moves as it never can get the right balance between taking the appropriate risks and retreating - See how AI use Keshik to see an example or how the AI uses tanks in Civ5 for that matter), it was a fairly boring and linear process of upgrading your attacking units in a straight path.

    I really enjoy the branching paths offered in Civ5, though (as an aside) I'm still puzzled why Machine gunners, a ranged unit, upgrades to Mech. Infantry. Looks like a unit for a future expansion or DLC. Perhaps for a made up unit like the TOW infantry.
     
  15. turkeypotpie

    turkeypotpie Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    14
    I think the last time 100 infantry would charge in like screaming maniacs was World War One (maybe WW2 if you count beach assaults). The machine guns would slaughter them.

    Most countries have learned the lesson, and infantry tactics have changed significantly. I don't need video games to teach me that.
     
  16. Siggy_23

    Siggy_23 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    I think an appropriate game balancing change which keeps with the theme of historical accuracy would be to change tank from WWII to a strength of 65 and start it off with accuracy I, also have it ignore other units' zones of control.

    These changes would put tanks into a role of flanking or using hit and run tactics against soft targets, and make them lethal on open ground but worse than infantry when assaulting cities or forested/hilly areas.

    Thoughts?
     
  17. Darac

    Darac Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    170
    Ignoring zone of control is an interesting benefit. I like that idea for a late game unit. Mixes things up a bit.
     
  18. StormEye

    StormEye Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    93
    Let me point out that there are variety of shells that a tank carries into combat. It isn't like in the video game where a tank only fires a certain type of shell, which most likely is either a HEAT or AP(FS)DS, but it carries anti-infantry rounds as well. Its also used for providing coverfire (or actually being a cover) for infantry advancing, which would translate to ranged combat (though, judging from some odd ranged combat logics in civs where machinegun shoots shorter range than a bow...).

    As you have mentioned, infantry are relying on ambush and set up fortification to fight against a tank. Former is usually done in close quarter situation, while the latter is obvious to the tanks so tanks would just use their natural ability to 'remove' the fortification from afar. Most armies do not let the tank go into combat without infantry support because of the ambush situation, especially when the close quarter combat is expected. And its not like tank cannot overwhelm infantry even in close quarters, when it comes to modern tanks. Usually the only downfall of tanks in modern close quarters (aka urban environment) is because most armies try to avoid too much damage to the city. If they don't care, they probably would not even send in tanks or infantry. They would just air / artillery strike it until it is no more (have no idea why we can't raze enemy cities this way in civ. LoL).

    Infantry is not relied upon to kill tanks. Tanks are supposed to kill tanks, and everything else when situation grants. Infantry are used to taking over key location and protecting the previously mentioned tank, and are given anti-tank weapons to protect infantry division in close proximity, not for going offensive against other tanks (and waiting for the tank to get closer is taking risks as well, as there is higher chance in that tank might just blast the said infantry position from miles away).

    Infantry fights in environments where tanks are not going to be much use, like in jungle, but we have evidence (through WWII and Vietnam) that tanks can still perform relatively well. Its just that infantry is better suited for non-open terrain combat when compared to tanks.

    As the tank in the game is designed as a melee unit, the actual logic in using tanks to gain a lockdown on a key location very fast and deterring enemies from approaching the said location against slower paced enemies from afar, is removed along with the fact that infantries should be providing barrier between the tank and approaching enemy infantry in close quarters situation. The only thing that the game sort of lets players/AIs to do is to use tanks as cover for infantries (which is a one of actual uses of tanks), but thats pretty much it, when it comes to infantry / tank combo tactics.
     
  19. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    25,061
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Actually, the whole point of the Panzer formations was that you would provide the tanks with mobile infantry and artillery, so that you could have an entire combined-arms formation with the mobility of the tanks.
     
  20. Siggy_23

    Siggy_23 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    Not that it matters at all for purposes of game balance, but in modern day warfare, tanks are all but useless against any power with contemporary technology.

    The age of the tank is over my friends. In the age where a jeep can fire a TOW missile for almost guaranteed destruction at > 3 km even on open ground tanks are going to have their hands full against infantry.
     

Share This Page