on the other hand (to play devils advocate here) you could argue that seeing as how Germany had no chance of producing a superior QUANTITY of tanks with the US factories being basically invulnerable to German attacks and the soviets tank production in the Urals almost as invulnerable they had no way to outproduce the allies so therefore a focus on quality was the correct approach to take against the numerically superior allies. Of course following this logic they should have phased out the Panzer III/IV a lot earlier and focus on solving the mechanical problems of the Panther put it into production ASAP. really when you look at the economics of Germany the remarkable thing is not that they were beaten but that given the relative economic disparity between the axis and allies that they held out as long as they did.
Worst Civs to Play As?
- Thread starter bioelectricclam
- Start date
There are limits to how well that works. If you make something that's perfect, but you can only build a couple of them, you're still going to lose. Because you have to be in too many places at once.
And none of the German tanks were really all that good: They had good guns, better than the US tanks, but not great guns. They had gasoline engines instead of diesel. Some had armor that would stop anything to the chassis and turret, but the road wheels and tracks were vulnerable. They didn't have electric motors to turn very heavy turrets, so were slow to aim. In some battles American tanks would fire multiple times when the German tank had trouble firing once.
Germany had a general tendency to focus too much on new models with vastly greater capabilities rather than refine the exisiting ones. This might have been somewhat justified in the case of fighter planes (with the Bf-109, Germany had an adequate and competitive plane that was cheap and easy to produce. Working on something new and spectacular made sense if there was to be a research budget for fighter planes at all. On the other hand, funds blown on some of the more bizarre projects could have seen better use).
With tanks, however, this was a different matter. The 'bread-and-butter' PzKpfw 4 was more than adequate against anything on the western front, but the T-34 outperformed it and was fielded fielded in huge numbers. The Panther was possibly the best tank of WW2 after the reliability problems were reduced to a tolerable level but it never became the mainstay of the German tank forces. Tigers were inferior designs (mechanically demanding, expensive and underpowered) and rather heavier than needed with corresponding sacrifices in mobility.
I think many Americans overestimate the effectiveness of German tanks because, frankly, the US brought a dagger to a swordfight. American doctrine didn't call for tank-on-tank combat and the relatively light M4 was judged adequate for the roles required of it. Tank-on-tank combat, however, did happen.
Unless they significantly outnumbered German forces, the Shermans usually came off worse (on the other hand, later versions weren't the deathtraps that earned some very cynical nicknames).
All in all, I would rate the Soviet tank force above Germany's in most respects other than innovative tacts (and if we consider that... it could be argued that many of those can be traced to Charles de Gaulle), so having tanks as a German UU feels slightly off.
With tanks, however, this was a different matter. The 'bread-and-butter' PzKpfw 4 was more than adequate against anything on the western front, but the T-34 outperformed it and was fielded fielded in huge numbers. The Panther was possibly the best tank of WW2 after the reliability problems were reduced to a tolerable level but it never became the mainstay of the German tank forces. Tigers were inferior designs (mechanically demanding, expensive and underpowered) and rather heavier than needed with corresponding sacrifices in mobility.
I think many Americans overestimate the effectiveness of German tanks because, frankly, the US brought a dagger to a swordfight. American doctrine didn't call for tank-on-tank combat and the relatively light M4 was judged adequate for the roles required of it. Tank-on-tank combat, however, did happen.
Unless they significantly outnumbered German forces, the Shermans usually came off worse (on the other hand, later versions weren't the deathtraps that earned some very cynical nicknames).
All in all, I would rate the Soviet tank force above Germany's in most respects other than innovative tacts (and if we consider that... it could be argued that many of those can be traced to Charles de Gaulle), so having tanks as a German UU feels slightly off.
The_Reckoning
Prince
Ah, I have to disagree.
The Citadel's bonus to siege is massive. It means with Barracks and Theology or Vassalage, you're pumping out CRIII Trebs or Cats. If you beeline for engineering and put off economics, it stays around for plenty of time to be worth it. I held onto the bonus for at least 1000 years.
The Conquistador appears fairly useless at first, but the best thing about it isn't obvious: It gains defensive bonuses. Which means an excellent form of mechanized infantry. I was being attacked by two large stacks, and my massive stack of Conqs. moving between cities saved them, getting the full effect of the +125% to defense of Citadels and Walls. Holding forests outside enemy cities, being able to get there fast with the two moves.
Another thing, is now they upgrade from elephants, being after knights instead of replacing them. This was good because I had a few elephant stacks but only a few horse archers. That's a fairly conditional advantage though.
IagoAlberto
Warlord
Good points guys. As far as the old debate of quantity vs quality, the germans had a good mix of quality and enough simplicity (I know the Panther was far from a simple vehicle) in the Panther. They should have turned their attention to adapting it for mass production it as opposed to investing in new designs.
As far as tactical concerns go, the Sherman was a good infantry support tank, which was its design role. The problem was always that the doctrine that the Sherman was designed to fit in was poorly concieved. American planners should have realized that the most effective way to combat tanks, especially on the offensive, is other tanks. I think its remarkable that the sherman did as well as it did in tank on tank encounters and with upgrades to its main gun was reasonably effective for the duration of the war.
I would agree that the Soviet Tank force was the best by the end of the war. Soviet superiority was evident in training and experience at the end of the war. The Germans had lost almost all of their tank aces by the end of the war and most of their best generals had been sidelined due to conflicts with hitler. However, their usage of echelon attack tactics have always indicated to me that they sought to overcome lower quality both in terms of vehicles and training with quantity. Down to the end of the Cold War Soviet strategists always sought to employ greater numbers of easily produced tanks and equipment to overwhelm technically superior opponents. At many points the Soviets produced excellent tanks and could likely have produced even better ones if not for their prediliction towards 'quantity'. While these are certainly valid strategies and tactics they don't indicate great confidence on the part of Soviet Military planners in their own tanks and crews.
So bottom line the germans were not head and shoulders above their opponents in tank warfare. But early on, 1939-early 1943, they did were much better than their opponents at Tank warfare. So perhaps the Civ bonus of 50% against armoured units is reasonable. Although not wholly realistic since it doesn't allow other nations to learn from German vehicles and tactics to beat them at their own game.
As far as tactical concerns go, the Sherman was a good infantry support tank, which was its design role. The problem was always that the doctrine that the Sherman was designed to fit in was poorly concieved. American planners should have realized that the most effective way to combat tanks, especially on the offensive, is other tanks. I think its remarkable that the sherman did as well as it did in tank on tank encounters and with upgrades to its main gun was reasonably effective for the duration of the war.
I would agree that the Soviet Tank force was the best by the end of the war. Soviet superiority was evident in training and experience at the end of the war. The Germans had lost almost all of their tank aces by the end of the war and most of their best generals had been sidelined due to conflicts with hitler. However, their usage of echelon attack tactics have always indicated to me that they sought to overcome lower quality both in terms of vehicles and training with quantity. Down to the end of the Cold War Soviet strategists always sought to employ greater numbers of easily produced tanks and equipment to overwhelm technically superior opponents. At many points the Soviets produced excellent tanks and could likely have produced even better ones if not for their prediliction towards 'quantity'. While these are certainly valid strategies and tactics they don't indicate great confidence on the part of Soviet Military planners in their own tanks and crews.
So bottom line the germans were not head and shoulders above their opponents in tank warfare. But early on, 1939-early 1943, they did were much better than their opponents at Tank warfare. So perhaps the Civ bonus of 50% against armoured units is reasonable. Although not wholly realistic since it doesn't allow other nations to learn from German vehicles and tactics to beat them at their own game.
DilithiumDad
Warlord
I was interested in this thread because I have almost mastered Monarch level --I almost always win unless I have a bad start (tundra with no iron, for example). But before tackling Emperor, I'd like to try a couple games at Monarch with the worst possible leaders. Then I'll move to Emperor with the best possible leaders (which would be....a topic for another thread! 
).
Sounds like the "best handicap leader" would be Sitting Bull, followed by Mao Zedong, although I think only one person ranked him second worst.
).Sounds like the "best handicap leader" would be Sitting Bull, followed by Mao Zedong, although I think only one person ranked him second worst.
AfterShafter
Deity
DilithiumDad said:
Yikes, you're listing two guys who I've recently had some *very* successful Emperor games with. Sitting Bull is quite powerful - those mega archers + philosophical make for tremendous turtle ability, allowing for a very good great person farm. To boot, dog soldiers make an excellent "stasis rush" unit (check my earlier post in this thread).
And Mao... Well, cho-ko nu's rock, and protective/expansive is a very underrated combo, allowing for some serious REX'ing with easy defense.
They're both B to B+ Civs, in my book.
Really AfterShafter? I really don't have much trouble defending myself on Emperor, do you take advantage of protective in order to defend your cities better? Or do you actually do the "make them attack your cities to destroy their stacks and then crush them" plan?
AfterShafter
Deity
Oh, I defend myself well enough with non-protective Civs... Just takes fewer resources and focus on upgrades with a protective Civ. I have pretty small armies, but very effective, armies with my protective Civs (I play a few). Works great for running pacifism.
Also, I do a bit of both... Passive defence, and the "back units out two squares and lure them in" routine. I'm one of those people who loves protective. My favorite military tech. I know it doesn't work for everyone, but it works for me
szemek77
Prince
I didn't play a lot so far, but I can give some thoughts based on how the civs are doing when played by AI. Two games in a row I saw HRE doing really poor. I think I will try them soon, because their UB looks really strong if you consider expansion possibility... Ironically, during both games Charlemagne managed to build only few cities, and it was a piece of cake to conquer his "empire". I'm still not convinced if it is AI's fault or civs features?
The Khmer doesn't look good (in both meanings ) either. I was also surprised to see Carthagina doing really bad (technologically outdated as hell!). I read at the forum that players consider Carthagina as rather strong.
On the other side, I was really badly defeated when playing Americans (Washington). And in the next game (playing Celts) AI was doing really great playing Washington. It was the strongest country in that game.
The Khmer doesn't look good (in both meanings
) either. I was also surprised to see Carthagina doing really bad (technologically outdated as hell!). I read at the forum that players consider Carthagina as rather strong.On the other side, I was really badly defeated when playing Americans (Washington). And in the next game (playing Celts) AI was doing really great playing Washington. It was the strongest country in that game.
Dero Zero
Chieftain
I just don't like England. I don't know why.
needsomesleep
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 54
I find any civ with the "agressive" trait is a bad one for me to play with, because I usually don't lilke trying to conquor the entire map. It's just not my thing. I tried playing the celts, and like the civ, but because I don't play a warmonger well, I waste the trait. That makes any agressive leader bad for me.
