Combat

[ItsCultural]

I was under the impression the helicopters were air cavalry. And as far as I know, aircav uses helicopters to transport soldiers- who then get off the helicopters and fight, and can hence be killed by knights.

And even if this isn't the specific instance that Sid and co imagined, you could developed a plausible explanation using half the effort it takes to complain about it. You're all picking some worthwile stuff to nitpick over.

[Grumbold]

Helicopter gunships have to get very close to the ground to be effective. If (as in this case) the helicopter brigade is already down to its last couple of birds, a storm of medieval weaponry - heck, even civilians thowing rocks - could finish it off. In every war, "police action" and civil riot since Vietnam its been glaringly obvious that being high tech does not guarantee a win if the opposition is intelligent or overwhelming in numbers.

[inca911]

I saw the whole thing. The helicopter was so damaged that it had to land occasionally for the rotors to cool. Looked like it had a coolant leak when I pulled the damaged helicopter image from the art file. The knight took it out when it was on the ground.

The units are simply pictures and names to fit empirical attack/defense values. It was't really a knight vs. a helicopter, it was an X strength unit vs. a Y strength unit with ability to move large distances. I think some of the arguments in this post are to the point that this actually needs to be pointed out. Some of you are scary....

[lard]

Originally posted by VJ

Yes it is. There's no way in hell any person is going to throw a lance of any weight >50 m (what kind of range does a gunship demand for a kill, anyway? They could easily take a horse out from 800m) directly upwards.


I've been serious about this since civ2 came out: what on earth is the point of building expensive helicopters if they have no bonus whatsoever against land-based units? They've probably ducked the question again by giving choppers artificially high attack values

There's a problem with these arguments. That is, the alternative is to have a single helo unit be able to waltz into an under-developed nation and take out every knight unit there without fear of losing a single battle. Surely that would be wrong.

For instance, for arguments sake, assume a helo unit in the game represents 3 or 4 actual machines piloted by 2 or so men, making around 10 human beings. Each knight unit will probably represent around 15 to 20 men with horses and their 'hangers on'. So if you were to kill 50 knight units with 1 helo (as you're suggesting should be possible) then it corresponds to (roughly) 10 men in flying machines having killed something like 750-1000 human beings.

In reality this JUST WOULND'T HAPPEN. The sheer difference in numbers of human beings would give the knights every chance of taking down a single helo unit, by whatever underhanded or fortunate means. Just by guile or trickery or something similar. So, your suggestion would create situations that are more unrealistic than you think.

Anyway, sure you've heard it all before

[lard]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Helicopter gunships have to get very close to the ground to be effective. If (as in this case) the helicopter brigade is already down to its last couple of birds, a storm of medieval weaponry - heck, even civilians thowing rocks - could finish it off. In every war, "police action" and civil riot since Vietnam its been glaringly obvious that being high tech does not guarantee a win if the opposition is intelligent or overwhelming in numbers.

[Navyman]

Actually, a gunship doesn't have to be low to the ground to be effective. The reason why it usually is low is because it's trying to evade radar. Gunships usually have a nasty little triple-barreled gattling gun in front which can kill armored vehicles from quite a distance, let alone a horse and rider.

And yes, a few gunships can kill 1000+ people over a period of few years if the opposition only horses to throw at the helos.

[korn469]

Well if you look at Somalia about 150 Soldiers (Rangers/Delta Force) with light helicopter gunship support fought maybe up 10,000 militia armed with ak-47's and RPGs to a bloody standstill. US forces lost 18 soldiers, hundreds possibily even 1,000 Somalis could have died. So even if 20,000 knights came charging out of the Middle Ages against modern troops, unless they used guerilla tactics then it would be a lopsided slaughter. I'd say 20,000 knights killed, with maybe 10 or fewer modern soldiers lost.

[ayronis]

Combat in Civ is an abstraction of reality. You can invent a thousand plausible reasons why your unit was rendered ineffective after a particular engagement. Helicopters, in particular, are delicate machines and after extensive use are liable to being taken out by mundane weaponry and even the elements themselves. A "Knight" represents an approximate (tech) level of fighting potential that could resist a helicopter unit over enough time and under certain conditions (especially since these engagements are drawn out over a period of at least a year.) You can rationalize this however you want. Think Iran Hostage “Rescue”, Black Hawk Down, fighting in Afghanistan……

I hate that article because it makes it sound like a single helicopter lost to a single knight. It was a severely damaged helicopter unit and I'm sure the player didn't check the combat odds before he attacked.

Combat in Civ IV is the most balanced I have ever seen in a Civ game. It may not be perfect but it is vastly superior to the combat format in any previous Civ game. “Spearman/Tank” issues are dead. I hope people will just let it go.

[lard]

I thought that was the point! In Mogadishu, a far larger force of less well armed militia brought a helo down. BHD and all that...

[lard]

Hahaha! That's TWICE now I've been beaten to the punch by someone who wrote a far better response than me. I'm retiring

[korn469]

lard,

The Somalis shot down two US helicopters, but when you say less well armed you still have to keep in mind that they had automatics weapons and rocket propelled grenades. Both of those weapons are very modern, and for light infantry about the only two weapons the militia needed were portible sams like the US stinger or Soviet/Russian SA-7 and its varients, and real antiarmor missiles like the tow or javelin or RPG-23 (iirc), that could blow up tanks.

The main differences between Somali and US forces that day weren't so much their weapons, but more the organization and training. Somalis were a loosely organized light infantry unit, while the US was special forces backed up with air support.

[korn469]

It's fine to have knights beat helicopters or spearmen beat tanks for the sake of balance. However, in reality tiny amounts of modern troops would overwhelm extremely large amounts of ancient or medieval troops. It happened numerous times in the colonial period (late 1400's-early 1900's), and the results would have been even more onesided with truly modern weapons.

[Grumbold]

That's where MarkG's preview comes in. A fully fresh tank vs a fully fresh spearman won 15,000 out of 15,000 battles. Exactly the same would happen if you tried a fresh heli vs a fresh knight. Its only a beaten up unit that is now comparable or inferior in strength to its opponent that is going to lose.

In this case its clearly overconfidence on the part of a novice player. He killed tons of stuff until his chopper unit was little more than a few pilots with pistols and threw them into the fray regardless. As the germans found out, an armoured division with no tanks or supplies isn't up to much.

I'm sure someone can come up with a "Wait! You are being an idiot, read your screen properly" mod for people who don't watch their strength.

[ayronis]

... my point exactly. You can justify this however you wish... the balance is appropriate, which is the important issue.