Archer Killed Modern Armor!!!?!?!

[CrONoS]

...

The tank group was a unit entirely composed of menstruating women....... Furiously fighting each other and when they kill someone, they go out of the tank and they cry like babiesm, they go in depression each time they kill someone.... And now the longbowmen appear and killed these poor women.

That's the way i see it. Furious women running tank like if it was a hummer, shooting everything, everyone, and their teammates and crying...

[vee4473]

BOOM!

[Shr3dZ]

Originally posted by Cataphract887


ive seen this a million times

bull. they are longbowmen because they fight with longbows. if they were gurrillas they should be named such

[/rant]

sorry that just annoys me every time

They dont fight with longbows in the 21st century, its just that the unit looks like it is. If they (devs) really wanted to avoid this lame-ass arguement all theyd hafta do is: once a unit becomes obsolete (cant build anymore) the old units get an updated model of militia or something, a group of guys with gun, but basically the unit would be of whatever strength the previous unit was.

So a warrior could get turned into a militia unit with 2 strength, or a longbowman could be one with 6.

But obviously its not that big a deal...

[ajbera]

1) I don't mind the once-in-a-blue-moon event of an archer taking out a tank. I'd curse up a storm when it happened to my tank, but I'd chalk it up to some bizarre confluence of events that allowed a company of archers to destroy a tank.

2) That said, aren't there categories of ground units - cavalry, siege, etc. Is there an armor category? If this really bothers people, can't they make some type of "-75% versus armor" flag, and flag every non-gunpowder unit with it? Still allows the extreme chance of it happening, but the already greater odds will be further diminished.

Sava: there is no way in gods green earth that a navy SEAL is going to ever lose to crossbowman...

never ever ever ever ever ever...

This is untrue. I can see this happening easily. The odds will still be much in favor of the Marine, but a Marine can readily be taken out by a crossbowman. Crossbows pack a wallop.

[weiming]

Its not entirely impossible for longbow to defeat tank in real life. You know theres a thing called fire arrows in ancient times. Combined with a city defense scene. the longbowmen could setup huge fire traps inside the city. And of course your tanks will be so arogant to think nothing can hurt them and walks right on to the fire trap without any precaution. then all it needed was 1 fire arrow and push down a few walls to slow the tank down. then its a barbecue party. of course to do this you need a pretty big fire trap, something like a quarter of the city, and the enemy tanks are all grouped tightly together. Like they say, there is nothing we humans can't do, there's only things we can't imagine.

[GodSpawn]

Perhaps they shot the driver when he got out to take a dump.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Mao
Also, you all do realize that there's an off-topic here, no?

Why do you think I said I was stopping?

Nonetheless. I rest my case. The next Civ had better...

1) Make ancient units beating modern units a near-impossibility or

2) They should automatically upgrade ancient units still somehow hanging around in the modern era to a weak, partisan-like counterpart.

Given that modern units (factoring in the cost of technology) is far more expensive than an ancient unit, option 1 would be a fairer solution from a logical and game balance perspective, but I can still live with the game if they give us option 2.

At the very least, it'll relieve us of the burden from making all sorts of wacky explanations how tanks were blown up by archers!

(Tanks getting taken out not by archers but a "poorly armed" guerilla unit using smuggled weapons, I can accept. All the other wacky explanations however... fire arrows? titanium arrows? Rambo? Amazon archers seducing tank men? Women tankers going crazy on each other? Come on, this is a strategy game community, not a brainstorming session for the next Austin Powers movie! >_<)

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Zinegata

Nonetheless. I rest my case. The next Civ had better...

1) Make ancient units beating modern units a near-impossibility or

2) They should automatically upgrade ancient units still somehow hanging around in the modern era to a weak, partisan-like counterpart.

Either that, or there should be a little animation of the driver getting out to take a dump and getting an arrow up his...

[Kc7mxo]

then they shouldn't be CALLED archers and should be called 1 strength unit. and they shouldn't come around with the inventchy of archery. . .

the game is supposed to be based in reality. or why else would we use real names for things?

[TheWalrus]

I would rather that ancient and medevial units be upgraded to milita units as they are made obsolete with the potential to upgrade them to say riflemen or musketeers once you have the technology. That is a more intelligent way of doing things.

The invention of the machine gun that made archers and cavalry obsolete and easily destroyable.

When Gatling invented the machine gun at the end of the American Civil War he created a weapon that enabled the European empires to conquer Africa against nations such as the Zulus.

With bolt action rifles the British couldn't take down the Zulu empire, their superior tactics, numbers and local knowledge outweighed the British technological advantage. However with 2 Gatling machine guns the entire Zulu army - formally a difficult and brutal foe - was wiped out in less than an hour. Each gun could fire as if they were hundreds of infantry thus allowing a few Europeans to control many thousands of colonial subjects.

Of course it wasn't long until Europeans were using the machine guns on each other. To counter the stalemate from machine guns, elite commando units and tanks were created.

It is highly unlikely that longbowman could defeat machinegunners and tanks on the field of battle.

[Arbarbonif]

I'd go with the 500 ordinary schmoes with Molatov Cocktails, each lead by a military trained longbowman. Per tank. With luck that could do it. Add in pit traps and other creative fortifications.

Granted I expect the next tank force wiped the place clean...

[gunnergoz]

But, IIRC, the original poster said that there were a number of longbowmen in the city; presumably, the city defenses were active also. We have also not mentioned the advantages in defense that high culture ratings give. So that longbowman in an advanced culture would represent educated citizens. Numbers of longbowmen units would mean masses of levied citizens. Citizens who could dig anti tank ditches and ambush tank commanders who stick their heads out of the hatch...when the TC is dead, the tank is very blind. Also, the poster seemed to send his tank unit unsupported by artillery and infantry...a cardinal sin in MOUT (mounted operations in urban terrain.) So this battalion of uber-tanks blunders into a city unsupported and is surpised when the citzens don't line up to be shot? Come on! History is replete with examples of technically superior forces being defeated by superior numbers, surprise, better tactics and smarter fighters. I'd say the game modeled this pretty well, to tell the truth...

[LordShiva]

Alright I now declare this thread to officially contain enough plausible justifications for why longbowmen can defeat tanks and as many plausible reasons for why they shouldn't be able to. So from now on, if you could be so kind as to pick whichever one out of either list that you like the most, that would rock.

[KiloAlpha4]

rofl

Well, I like that it's hard to take a half decently developed city in any civ game especially this one when it allows me more than a hour without a crash.

I personally use all the city defense options to increase my defensive score to my advantage. But when I'm 3 techs or ages whatever ahead I like that it takes me 10 minutes of air or arty attacks to knock down a enemy well defended city in order to roll in and kill them with my tank or mech inf. Usually i fighter attack/bomb the troops to heck from my carrier/carriers etc then defenses don't really matter much UNLESS the AI stacks defenders then this meth0d can take a LONG time which I still like as it shows some reality as to the somewhat relistic difficulty of taking a well defended city with many well entrenched defenders. Add the defensive bonus' like city +20% defence etc and stack up the defenders and good luck getting them out without any bombardment or air attack to soften them up first. I've seen the game AI stack a city with over 8 groups of defenders and this is a great challenge that's lots of fun. If ya want to roll over them easily then just have a nuke-a-thon . just my 2 cents

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Either that, or there should be a little animation of the driver getting out to take a dump and getting an arrow up his...

... And at this rate Civ V is doomed to become an Austin Powers game -_-;;;