Walls and castles defend vs tanks and cavalry???

[Handel]

Now the description of the walls and castles says they add XX% defence except vs gunpowder units. But only 10 units are listed as "gunpowder" and neither the tanks or cavalry are "gunpowder". Although it is obvious they ARE gunpowder and you cannot build tanks without rifling. So there is something extremely stupid - if you attack with a common musketeer, you actually get better chances then if attacking with tanks and cavalry. Well, tanks are not good in city attacks indeed, but how the hell the city walls will stop tanks shells, but will not stop musketeer bullets? And yes, cavalry will have hard times attacking walls, but nevertheless they shoot with rifles which are a way better then muskets!
This is the most stupid thing I've ever heard!

[alva]

IIRC anything that fires a bullet falls under the gunpowder category when it comes to walls and castles.
Not a hundred percent sure but I belief that's the way it's handled in game.

[Handel]

In the civilopedia is a topic "unit categores". There are 10 units listed as "gunpowder. Tanks are not "gunpowder", neither cavalry. Actually cavalry is listed as mounted, and the pikemen have 100% bonus agains them. But how the pikemen which don't have any missile attack can defeat a rifle cavalry is beyond my comprehension. The only way this to happem is the cavalrymen to die from laugh...

[binTravkin]

But how the pikemen which don't have any missile attack can defeat a rifle cavalry is beyond my comprehension. The only way this to happem is the cavalrymen to die from laugh...

There should be cathegory switch for cavalry upon upgrading to rifled calvalry, if there is not, it's stupid and Firaxis should be ashamed of it (but I hope it's not so)!
Also, look up for the tanks, maybe they fit in other cathegory which has some boni against castles and walls.
Normally a medium WW2 tank can devastate a medieval wall with a couple of shots, while a heavy one can just batter it to ruin (imagine 75t + 30mph impact).

[Handel]

Unfortunately there is no such switch. And on my observations the pikemen defending cities practicaly always defeat the rifle cavalry. Actually in my experiences a single pikemen unit (with a city bonuses) easily defeats up to 3 attacking (rifle) cavalries.
Tanks falls in separate "armored" category and there is nothing said about "armored" in the description of walls and castles; only for gunpowder units. And it seems absolutely sure the cavalry is not treated as a gunpowder unit because the defending pikemen receive the walls/castle bonus vs them.

[binTravkin]

Damn.

[Arrian]

Game balance (rock/paper/scissors - combined arms work best) trumped "realism." Besides, I can imagine how rifle-armed Cavalry would have difficulty capturing a fortified city with pikemen in it. Out in the open, I agree that the realism just isn't there, but in the siege context, it makes enough sense that it doesn't bother me at all (actually, I just plain doesn't bother me. Build some macemen or other units that get combat bonuses vs. melee units).

-Arrian

[binTravkin]

Rifle armed cavalry barely expierences any problems fighting pikemen as one of the main differences between the non-gunned cavalry and rifle armed historically is the dismount training doctrine, which encourages using the mount only as logistics asset, not combat tool.
Rifle armed cavalry have been mostly fighting dismounted since WW2 and I am not even talking about city assaults.

It should lose some firepower as per loss of 'shock' and mobility elements when dismounted, but other than that it should fight almost as well as rifle infantry against pikemen.

[Handel]

rock/paper/scissors is good thing, but not when my pikemen destroyed you bomber. And not when the city walls are not a "walls" against musketmen, but can stop the tanks. This is not rock/paper/scissors, but stupidity. I don't remember in the WWII anyone using pikemen to fight tanks.

[Mayfield]

Walls against Cavalry: Yes that should work. How many Cavalry units in the 1800's do you think could have taken out a stone wall? They did not have the equipment to do so.

But a Tank?? Tanks should ignore all walls and castles they would just blow the crap out of them.

[binTravkin]

I don't remember in the WWII anyone using pikemen to fight tanks.

Japanese had pikemen squads by the end of war, but they never get to fighting and would likely just be slaughtered anyway..

[Fried-Psitalon]

Tanks DO ignore walls. You can check it by clicking on a tank and watching the defense value of a town that has walls and no culture.

[binTravkin]

Tanks DO ignore walls. You can check it by clicking on a tank and watching the defense value of a town that has walls and no culture.

As I said, check out for any special features of the group where tanks are.

Thanks, Psitalon!

[Solver]

Yeah, post-gunpowder units doesn't mean Gunpowder units. All Gunpowder units ignore walls, as well as other post-Gunpowder units - Cavalry (Mounted), Tanks (Armored), Gunships (Helicopter).

[Handel]

Originally posted by Mayfield
Walls against Cavalry: Yes that should work. How many Cavalry units in the 1800's do you think could have taken out a stone wall? They did not have the equipment to do so.

How many 1800's cavalry had WWII rifles? Those are not lancers or such. We are talking about cavalry, which existed even in the WWII years. And besides, even if the cavalry rifles cannot ignore walls, how then the much older muskets DO ignore walls?