Walls and castles defend vs tanks and cavalry???

[Handel]

Originally posted by 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).

This may be true, but it is said quite the opposte in the civilopedia and in the online description. Besides even the mechanized infantry counts as a "gunpowder unit", so there is no such thing as "post-gunpowder" units.

[padillah]

Originally posted by 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).

I can't look it up but I thought walls and castles gave bonuses until the DEVELOPMENT of Gunpowder, not the unit specifically.

Any unit based on a tech AFTER the development of Gunpowder gain the bonus. Right?

Tom P.

[Solver]

This may be true, but it is said quite the opposte in the civilopedia and in the online description. Besides even the mechanized infantry counts as a "gunpowder unit", so there is no such thing as "post-gunpowder" units.

The civilopedia doesn't mean that the Gunpowder category of units ignores walls, but that all gunpowder units (which includes Cavalry and Tanks) do.

I can't look it up but I thought walls and castles gave bonuses until the DEVELOPMENT of Gunpowder, not the unit specifically.

Any unit based on a tech AFTER the development of Gunpowder gain the bonus. Right?

No, Swordsmen will not ignore walls even after Gunpowder.

[Handel]

[SIZE=1]

The civilopedia doesn't mean that the Gunpowder category of units ignores walls, but that all gunpowder units (which includes Cavalry and Tanks) do.

I thought it must be so too. Lest hope it is really true.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Solver

I can't look it up but I thought walls and castles gave bonuses until the DEVELOPMENT of Gunpowder, not the unit specifically.

Any unit based on a tech AFTER the development of Gunpowder gain the bonus. Right?

No, Swordsmen will not ignore walls even after Gunpowder.

Not any unit built after Gunpowder is discovered... Any unit based on a tech on or after Gunpowder.

Like I said, I don't have a tech tree so I'm pulling this from memory but... Swordsmen depend on the Iron Working tech (which comes before Gunpowder) whereas tanks depend on the Armor tech (which comes after Gunpowder).

Does that sound right?
Tom P.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Perhaps this will make it more clear - try building cavalry without researching Gunpowder. Try building Rifles without researching Gunpowder. You'll discover that you can't, even with the Military Tradition or Rifling technologies in your bag. Thus, every unit requiring Gunpowder to be researched (which is those two and every one after by virtue of required research for the more advanced tech - Industrialism, etc.) Every unit after Gunpowder is a Gunpowder unit by that reasoning.

[Mayfield]

Originally posted by Handel


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?

Good point! You would think the bullets would just fly off the walls anyway. So basically they figured units with gunpowder would have cannons, which is hysterical because you don't get cannons at gunpowder! This must have been some issue where they put the emphasis on "balance" over "realism".

A nice mod would be to add cannons at gunpowder then to give all units after gunpowder the ability to ignore walls/castles. Or convince Fixaris to add it

[Orcrist]

Originally posted by Mayfield
Good point! You would think the bullets would just fly off the walls anyway.

I think some of you are missing the point of the logic why gunpowder-based (I mean in non-game terms, whatever the game terms may be ) weapons/units wouldn't be affected by walls, and it's not to a great degree anything to do with whether the bullets can fly through the walls.

The point is that gunpowder-based weapons fire their projectiles much faster. With older weapons the separation afforded the defenders by the walls served as a barrier which had to be surmounted by melee troops, and which provided cover against 'projectile' troops. True, it also provides cover against gunpowder-based weapons but the difference is that a defender can duck out of cover fire his own arrow and back behind cover faster than most archers could take the opportunity to return fire, especially when firing up to a height, whereas an attacker with guns has it much easier simply because bullets are faster, and travel straighter.

With arrows, defenders on the wall even have a fighting chance to see an oncoming one and dodge. Can you see that with even Muskets?

Though now that I think about it, walls would provide an advantage for gunpowder defenders against gunpowder attackers. hmmmm....

I think that would be my vote for how it should be:
Walls help gunpowder defenders against everyone and pre-gunpowder defenders against pre-gunpowder attackers

[Mayfield]

I also had another thought: Gunpowder = big kegs of nasty explosive black powder. I am sure a few of these would take care of those walls.

[Arkalius]

You guys got to realize something... the game doesn't know anything about how effective pikes will be in defeating mounted riflemen (cavalry). The game sees every unit as a bunch of numbers. It doesn't take into account the era of the unit or what kind of weapons it's using or how it gets around. All it knows is how "strong" it is. If you begin to think of every unit in the game as a walking strength number, then the absurdity of a spearman beating a tank no longer applies. Combat in the game is based on an abstraction of numbers. If every unit was just identified by it's strength instead of some kind of name like pikeman etc, then this wouldn't be such a big topic of discussion. However, it would kind of take something away from the game if you were building "some 8's and a couple of 15's" instead of macemen and cavalry. The names and graphics add flavor to the experience, but they have no meaning to the actual gameplay.

[Byelotsar]

Originally posted by Arkalius
The names and graphics add flavor to the experience, but they have no meaning to the actual gameplay.

No, they don't make a difference to the game's calculations - but they do have a great deal of meaning to what those abstracted numbers are meant to represent. If we were playing an exciting game of "Sid Meier's Statistical Calculation Medley", then your point would be quite correct. And to be sure, there are exceptions which have to be made for the sake of game balance and interest.

But what we are in fact playing is "Sid Meier's Civilization 4", wherein those numbers are meant to represent some facet of history. Pikemen were effective against mounted forces. They would be less effective against (read: "turned into bloody smears by") tanks. The numbers should reflect that. Civ 1's numbers did... sort of. Civ 2's numbers did quite well. Civ 3's numbers did... again, more or less. And then Civ 4, where the numbers seem to play out correct again.

Whether we're talking about cavalry versus medieval walls or pikemen versus tanks, for people to get frustrated by such unlikely outcomes as the pikemen destroying the tank is quite justifiable. Sure, I can think of a small number of situations where the Pointiness Brigade would be able to overcome a few tanks. But they're rare and unlikely, and the game, if it's to have much basis in the history it purports to reflect, should demonstrate that.

If the game doesn't know how effective pikes are against cavalry, we'd better teach it. That's something it needs to take into account.