Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tank and Anti-Tank are backwards

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tank and Anti-Tank are backwards

    I was just ambushed in the open field by a Anti-Tank unit and I had a thought. Why would a civilization develop weapons specifically to kill something that doesn't exist. In theory at least one civilization should develop tanks before someone says, I invented a weapon to kill them.

    Mike

  • #2
    When one person fights with a tank, everyone should get anti tank access. Same with SAM infantry, first aircraft raid, everyone gets it.

    Anyone building the tank or plane units before they are used in combat should be able to build them too.
    www.neo-geo.com

    Comment


    • #3
      As portrayed, these are separate technologies. It is possible to have AT infantry and SAM infantry without anyone having planes or tanks. Flipping it over, nothing in designing a plane would give the developers a clue about SAM capabilities, as witnessed by real history. Likewise, in history, anti-tank weapons lagged behind tanks themselves. However, a major use for AT weaponary in WW II thru today is bunker busting, so it could have come first. Either way, the technology necessary for one is not related directly to the technology of the other in any way.
      No matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
      "I played it [Civilization] for three months and then realised I hadn't done any work. In the end, I had to delete all the saved files and smash the CD." Iain Banks, author

      Comment


      • #4
        Of course, you could develop a rocket launcher without tanks, but you wouldn't call it an Anti-Tank weapon. A society that has never seen or heard of a Tank would not have developed Anti-Tank weapons. They may have developed a bazooka type weapon for bunkers or walls, but they would never develop an Anti-Tank weapon. The point of my whimsical post is that the unit is misnamed, or the tecnologys needed are out of order.

        Mike

        Comment


        • #5
          Ah, a question of whimsy. Or special insight into the future.
          No matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
          "I played it [Civilization] for three months and then realised I hadn't done any work. In the end, I had to delete all the saved files and smash the CD." Iain Banks, author

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Blaupanzer
            As portrayed, these are separate technologies. It is possible to have AT infantry and SAM infantry without anyone having planes or tanks. Flipping it over, nothing in designing a plane would give the developers a clue about SAM capabilities, as witnessed by real history. Likewise, in history, anti-tank weapons lagged behind tanks themselves. However, a major use for AT weaponary in WW II thru today is bunker busting, so it could have come first. Either way, the technology necessary for one is not related directly to the technology of the other in any way.
            anti tank units as city raiders would be interesting
            www.neo-geo.com

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by johnmcd
              .... Same with SAM infantry, first aircraft raid, everyone gets it.
              You do realise that this would stifle military aircraft in its infancy. Just imagine that I have developed, at great expense, my very first tiger moth and it flies across no-mans land only to be met with a surface to air missile!!!!

              SAM really shouldn’t be properly available until some reasonably advanced rocketry technology has been developed.

              Comment


              • #8
                I liked the way that BtS finally gave some AA capability to MG & AT. Striking/Bombing aircraft was too predictable, which it definitely should not be, particularly considering sheltering terrain, weather, etc.

                Do I approve of AT becoming available with artillery? Yes
                Do I approve of the model of the AT unit? NO. They should have been anti-tank GUNS (as in high-velocity guns), not panzerfaust/bazooka rocket-propelled grenades/shaped charges.
                Defensive only!

                I would make that modification myself, but I have my doubts regarding AI recognition of the change.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by couerdelion

                  SAM really shouldn’t be properly available until some reasonably advanced rocketry technology has been developed.
                  By "advanced rocketry" did you mean heat-seeking or radar guidance technology?
                  Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
                  Iain Banks missed deadline due to Civ | The eyes are the groin of the head. - Dwight Schrute.
                  One more turn .... One more turn .... | WWTSD

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by couerdelion


                    You do realise that this would stifle military aircraft in its infancy. Just imagine that I have developed, at great expense, my very first tiger moth and it flies across no-mans land only to be met with a surface to air missile!!!!

                    SAM really shouldn’t be properly available until some reasonably advanced rocketry technology has been developed.
                    My point is really that units which can attack with guarenteed impunity are dull. Airships in the current game are a total nucience.

                    You need to have to balance their use by changing some power ratings around.
                    www.neo-geo.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Lord Avalon


                      By "advanced rocketry" did you mean heat-seeking or radar guidance technology?
                      That should be an actual tech though. I mean how many times have you hit an aircraft going at 200mph at 20,000ft without some help?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cyrus The Mike
                        That should be an actual tech though. I mean how many times have you hit an aircraft going at 200mph at 20,000ft without some help?
                        No one should answer this question! We'll have Federal Agents crawling all over us looking for terrorists!

                        The game allows for the fact that, in history, mankind could have developed rocketry entirely without aircraft. In fact, in the 20's, the US determined to focus on rotary engines instead of rockets, or it might have gone differently. The association of rockets with anti-aircraft was dependent on guidance technology, something not now included in the tech tree.
                        No matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
                        "I played it [Civilization] for three months and then realised I hadn't done any work. In the end, I had to delete all the saved files and smash the CD." Iain Banks, author

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Blaupanzer

                          The game allows for the fact that, in history, mankind could have developed rocketry entirely without aircraft.
                          Which I believe it did. Rockets were used in military conflict as long ago as the 18th century. They just weren't very accurate.

                          Although there must have been some sharing of technology with aircraft, they were never really dependent since rocketry fundamentally only needs to have a basis of propulsion to be sent on its way. Aircraft need an understanding of aerodynamics.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            From the start, aircraft development was considered only in a manned form. Rockets weren't manned among the Allies until the race for the moon. Both the Germans and the Japanese had forms of manned rocket-propelled vehicles in WW II, but the outcome of these flights was often fatal for the former and always fatal for the latter. (The original self-correcting guided missile had a man in it on a one-way ride.)
                            No matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
                            "I played it [Civilization] for three months and then realised I hadn't done any work. In the end, I had to delete all the saved files and smash the CD." Iain Banks, author

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Remember the rocket chair on MythBusters (Ming Dynasty Astronaut, ep 24)?
                              Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
                              Iain Banks missed deadline due to Civ | The eyes are the groin of the head. - Dwight Schrute.
                              One more turn .... One more turn .... | WWTSD

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X