Anybody else find combat a little unrealistic?

[garetjaxusmc]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Yes, the montagnards as a group generally fought with the americans. That doesnt contradict what I wrote.

Wasn't meant to contradict what you wrote, merely a clarifying of fact.

[archermoo]

Originally posted by TheWalrus


There is a historical basis for the argument that riflemen are vunerable to such attacks, but not any unit carrying any sort of automatic arms such as a machine gunner or a tank.

The British didn't have the numbers to combat the Zulus. Yes they had rifles but a couple of hundred rifleman is eventually going to be worn down and destroyed by a foe using even ancient or medieval weapons. Thats what happened at Isandlwana.

In a cIV game the Battle of Isandlwana can be compared to two English rifleman units versus a half dozen Zulu spearman, longbowman and knights. One spearman unit lures away one rifleman unit and the rest of the Zulu units attack the rifleman. Lots of Zulus die, but the rifleman is destroyed.

Longbowman/Knights etc should therefore have a theoretical chance to destroy a Rifleman unit. Its been historically proven.

This all changed when Gatling invented the machine gun at the close of the American civil war. He foolishly believed at first that it would mean less men had to fight and die on the battlefield - but of course he was wrong.

When the British brought two Gatling machine guns along to the next battle against the Zulus the same number of men wiped out thousands of Zulu warriors in open battle effectively ending the Zulu nation as a entity in a matter of hours. Think a cIV machine gun unit versus a half dozen Zulu spearman, longbowman and knights.

European nations then used Gatling's gun to conquer the African hinterland (they had never had the numbers to penetrate inland before), which far from a barbarian land was civilised in much the same way as South America prior to the Spanish invasion.

With a handful of men and there new machine guns, the Europeans conquered Africa in a matter of decades.

The Americans used Gatling's new gun to wipe out what remained of native resistance.

You can therefore argue that anything from machine gunner up should give medieval and ancient units next to no chance based on established historical facts.

PS Don't count the Ethiopian defeat of the Italians in 1895 as an ancient army defeating a modern one. The Ethipian leader, Menelik had very wisely spent much of the previous four years building up a supply of modern weapons and ammunition.

You are confusing things that have not happened with things that cannot happen. History can prove the former, but not the latter. I brought up historical context to show that there are instances where a low tech force has beaten a high tech force. You don't need to bring up historical evidence to show that high tech forces usually beat low tech ones. That's a given, you don't need to prove it. And showing that that is the usual outcome doesn't prove that no other outcome is possible, just that it is the most likely outcome.

As the tech gets more and more disparate, the chances of the lower tech defeating the higher tech get smaller and smaller. Which is exactly what happens in the game. However if you then give the higher tech a massive disadvantage like taking it into a combat with a large amount of damage on it, or give the lower tech a massive advantage like letting it keep its city based defensive bonuses, that ratchets the odds back in the favour of the low tech unit. It stays highly unlikely that an upset will happen, but it makes it more likely that an occasional one will occur. Which I think reflects reality quite well.

Again, I'm not arguing probabilities here. I agree that it is unlikely that any sword, spear, or bow wielding force could take out a unit of tanks. I just don't agree that there are no circumstances under which it could happen.

[archermoo]

Originally posted by Zinegata

No you don't, but when you have Ak-47s in large numbers, why bother using a longbow? I've heard of arrow booby traps and decoy rockets used in Vietnam. But longbows? And against helicopters? This is frankly something out of Apocalypse Now!

Actually, it would've been much more likely to have been small composite recurves rather than longbows. And yes, the actual army units generally had plenty of modern weapons, though they had supply problems just like we did. And they even frequently armed the populace with modern weapons. But not always.

And just because something happened in a poorly researched movie doesn't mean that it didn't also happen in reality. I don't know about the movie, as I've never seen it. However I do know about what people I trust have told me.

Originally posted by Zinegata I think you may have misheard from your teachers then (besides which, portable SAMs are sometimes code-named as "arrows"). The Vietcong employed plenty of booby traps, and they were effective against infantry. They weren't crazy or stupid enough to use arrows on helicopters however. Why use an arrow when you have AK-47 rifles in large numbers?

Besides, just the downdraft from the helicopter's main rotor is going to blow away arrows before it even gets close =P.

Firing arrows in the vain hope it gets sucked into the helicopter's engine exhaust (like what happened to the Concorde) is just plain silly. Helicopters rarely suffer from this problem anyway since their engines generally don't suck in air at the same rate as a jet engine does. Debris (commonly birds like pigeons) going into engines is a problem for many jet aircraft, but not for helicopters.

The Vietcong knew this and thus weren't stupid enough to try and fire arrows at helicopters. They had rifles. Rifles can sometimes punch through a helo's armor and thus shoot it down. Saying they fired arrows in the vain hope of the arrow getting sucked into the engine exhaust (assuming it got pass the downdraft in the first place) is even sillier than the Rambo explanations we sometimes get -_-

You can assume whatever you want, but that won't make it the case. The discussion came up because we were talking about archery, not because we were talking about the Vietnam war. I'm guessing next you'll say they were lying to me, or were pulling my leg.

I'm not quite sure how much clearer I can make this. You seem to be confusing "possible" with "probable". I've never claimed that it is probable that an arrow could take out or even seriously damage a helo. Just that it is possible for it to do so. Just like it is possible for me to take three 10 sided dice and roll '10' on each of them. It is possible, but not probable. However if I roll the dice 1000 times, there is a good chance that it'll come up.

If you think that the possibility is too remote for it to be realistic to keep it in the game, by all means mod it out. Personally I'm quite happy with it the way it is.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by archermoo
Actually, it would've been much more likely to have been small composite recurves rather than longbows. And yes, the actual army units generally had plenty of modern weapons, though they had supply problems just like we did. And they even frequently armed the populace with modern weapons. But not always.

And just because something happened in a poorly researched movie doesn't mean that it didn't also happen in reality. I don't know about the movie, as I've never seen it. However I do know about what people I trust have told me.

Changing the subject again You DO rememer you posted this, yes?

"I'll also point out that it wasn't uncommon for helos in Vietnam to have arrows shot at them. A great example of a high tech army attacking an army with mixed low and higher tech weaponry at their disposal. Who won that one again?"

And now, your changing the argument into something resembling the African Swallow argument in Monty Phyton

Look, just admit it. Claiming that the Vietcong commonly used arrows on helicopters (your words, not mine) was a silly thing to do =).

You can assume whatever you want, but that won't make it the case. The discussion came up because we were talking about archery, not because we were talking about the Vietnam war. I'm guessing next you'll say they were lying to me, or were pulling my leg.

Uh, you now deny that the discussion was about the Vietnam war when your first post was all about the Vietname war?

I'm not quite sure how much clearer I can make this. You seem to be confusing "possible" with "probable". I've never claimed that it is probable that an arrow could take out or even seriously damage a helo. Just that it is possible for it to do so. Just like it is possible for me to take three 10 sided dice and roll '10' on each of them. It is possible, but not probable. However if I roll the dice 1000 times, there is a good chance that it'll come up.

... Hey, I'm not the one who said it "wasn't uncommon" for the Vietcong to shoot arrows at helicopters. "Wasn't uncommon" is synonymous with "common", meaning it happened on a regular basis, right?

If you think that the possibility is too remote for it to be realistic to keep it in the game, by all means mod it out. Personally I'm quite happy with it the way it is.

Modding breeds lazy gaming developers, so I'd rather not =).

Damaging helos with ancient units? Fine. Demolishing full strength ones however? Come on!

I'll stop now, as this is turning into the situation my friend always warned me about:

"Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

[archermoo]

Originally posted by Zinegata


Changing the subject again You DO rememer you posted this, yes?



And now, your changing the argument into something resembling the African Swallow argument in Monty Phyton

Look, just admit it. Claiming that the Vietcong commonly used arrows on helicopters (your words, not mine) was a silly thing to do =).

No, I indeed said that it wasn't uncommon for arrows to be shot at helos. I didn't say that it was common for them to sucessfully shoot them down. And in what way did I change the subject? You commented about longbows, I mentioned that they would've been using a different type of bow. Other people brought up Apocolypse Now, I just mentioned that I'd not seen it. What part of that was me changing the subject? I was simply responding to your statments.

All I said was that it wasn't uncommon for helos in Vietnam to have arrows shot at them. Not that that was a common way that the Vietcong attacked helos, but that it iwasn't an uncommon occurance for a helo to have an arrow shot at it. I stand by that statement.

Originally posted by Zinegata Uh, you now deny that the discussion was about the Vietnam war when your first post was all about the Vietname war?

Sigh. I guess I need to be a bit more clear. The discussion with my teachers in which the concept of it not being uncommon for a helo to come back from a mission on which arrows were shot at it began as a disussion of archery with them. You claimed I misheard my teachers, I replied with the context that the subject came up regarding.

Originally posted by Zinegata ... Hey, I'm not the one who said it "wasn't uncommon" for the Vietcong to shoot arrows at helicopters. "Wasn't uncommon" is synonymous with "common", meaning it happened on a regular basis?

Actually "wasn't uncommon" isn't synonymous with "common". And just because it wasn't uncommon for arrows to be shot at helos doesn't mean that it was necessarily a common tactic used by the Vietcong. It was much more common for helos to come back with bullet holes in them.

Personally, if during a conflict that was using high tech weapons and vehicles, helocopters came back after every 10th mission having been shot at by arrows, I'd say that wasn't an uncommon occurance. It wouldn't mean that it was more common than being shot at with guns or missiles or anything else. Just that it wasn't uncommon.

Originally posted by Zinegata Modding breeds lazy gaming developers, so I'd rather not =).

Damaging helos with ancient units? Fine. Demolishing full strength ones however? Come on!

I'll stop now, as this is turning into the situation my friend always warned me about:

"Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

It is only being lazy if you assume that all games should be tailor made for you. I don't have that level of conceit. Obviously you don't feel so constrained.

And as to your parting shot, this type of ad hominem attack is pretty common from those who are unable to adequately defend their position any other way.

[StarLightDeath]

The game is fundamentally flawed. I can make a musketman beat a navy seal every single time fairly early in the game with very little effort at all. Now imagine trying to take a city like that with units that are the same technology level...yeah, not going to happen.

*Nerdy voice* "Well you just don't understand the genius that is Civilization 4. If you were smart you would use cannons on the city. You are just stupid."

Yes, walk up to me with cannons while I build my own cannons and get them to my city faster than you get them to my city and while you spend all your time bombarding my defenses down I'll go ahead and start attacking and obliterate your stack. That's strategy though... Face it, this game is a shadow of its former self and it isn't really civ anymore. Tanks lose to Longbows not because strength levels aren't high enough, but because the game has been geared to the beginning player by making attacking impossible...along with just about everything else in the game like expansion and a zillion other things. The graphics sure are pretty though! How can this game be bad when it has the best grahpics of all the civilization games?

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by archermoo And as to your parting shot, this type of ad hominem attack is pretty common from those who are unable to adequately defend their position any other way.

Pithy. Use of an uncommon term to imply one's own greater intellect, while at the same time claiming that the other's position had been indefensible so as to mask the truth. Not bad at all! =)

Still...

"I'll also point out that it wasn't uncommon for helos in Vietnam to have arrows shot at them. A great example of a high tech army attacking an army with mixed low and higher tech weaponry at their disposal. Who won that one again?"

Who said this again? ^_^

[kaigun]

Dont particulary find results annoying...just predictable as someone said look at the odds use the correct mix and combat is easy..

What do find annoying is the card like quality of battles which tend to be City based mostly..wear down stack then one on one ..
Totally bizarre representation more akin to paper rock scissors than combat..to argue the historicity of results in such a system i also find hard to follow too.

Its not a war game i know and accept but to balance simplicity and feel fromm other Civ games..Magic nopes nice system but a bit too long or complicated ..though personally id like it not so much for realism but feel.

But for ease looks speed the best Civ game combat in my usually wrong opinion was the quick easy but had the right feel system on CTP 2..which made balance and combined arms so important...also resulted in stack limits and all units one type was a far from good idea....

Ah CTP combat mod dont think possible but nice...

[Fidel]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
The game is fundamentally flawed. I can make a musketman beat a navy seal every single time fairly early in the game with very little effort at all.

your post is fundamentally flawed. post a savegame and instructions to teach us how musketmen beat seals every time. i expect you do not use cannons and bombers you despise so much. of course, we do expect navy seals to appear 'early in the game', preferrably before rennaisance.

now seriously:
one should distinguish between:
a) people with spearman fetish. its a part of civ mythology, and every report that (this and that old unit) managed to beat (this and that modern unit) is welcomed as the sign of developers inability to adress The Biggest Problem Ever To Plague Civ
b) and then there's Starlightwhatever, The Best Player Ever. good thing about his posts are that they are never cocky, and always very insightful. there is 'horses in capital' unbeatable strategy and there is, as we learn now , invincible musketman. Starlight announced his retirement from civ (see Reviews thread), but i guess community should ask him not to. we need someone to open our eyes, explain that all these beta testers are 'nerds' and, basically, 'halfwits' and that the game itself is broken. time and again, until that 'horse in capital' is kicked for umpteenth time.

[StarLightDeath]

Yeah...so uhhhhh...where was I wrong? Are you saying that I'm wrong? By all means prove me wrong.

[Fidel]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=4127468#post4127468