Unrealistic Combat: What side are you on?

[Generalisimo]

Originally posted by Targonis
What I am seeing are a lot of people who feel that every fight is a head to head fight, which isn't how things work in a city.

Think about it, the tank vs. spearman example that everyone complains about NEVER is an issue when the spearman is fighting on level ground. When you have trees on a hilltop, and a tank rolls in, foot units WOULD have plenty of room to hide and attack the weak spots on a tank. The tech available doesn't need to be high, sneak up and get some rocks into the wheels, and the tank is dead in the water. Cities are the same way.

Well, some people just consider spearmen stupid... but you are making it the other way around.
Unless the spears of the spearmen are some rocket launchers... there is no way they can win.
In your situation, you only need to get the tank commander out of the tank (look!! i am saying the tank commander, not the gunner or radio man, the tank commander! ) with his pistol to kill the spearmen-monkeys on the trees...
We are trying to justify that a spearmen division/batalion should have a posibility against a tank division/batalion... really, it doesn't have sense.
They should die.. heroically if you want... but they should DIE ... but first, in my opinion, they shouldn't be there (and that's what i will talk about later ).

Originally posted by Targonis
One thing that I feel would be nice is if city walls DID provide some defense against gun powder units, or at least a higher end version. A 20 foot thick wall will keep gunpowder units out, even a 10 foot thick wall will do it. Over time a gunpowder unit should be able to do damage to the walls if that's what they want to do though.

I do not see that as a real obstacle for gunpower units... they will have hundreds of ways to "eliminate the obstacle".


Going back to the spearmen-tank discussion... i think that the problem is that the AI leaves it old units on the map for the entire game.
It is not hard to see in the last parts of the game, the modern units of the AI on the advance and their cities full of archers and pikemen... that's the problem.
If the AI can make riflemen and tanks, it SHOULD upgrade all its units to those modern ones... but no, the AI preffers to build new ones instead of upgrading the old ones (i do not said that the AI doesn't do this seldom... but i haven't noticed that behavior ).
I have seen a lot of people suffering this and i suffered it myself too.
Also, let's not forget the naval combat...
It is far easy to loose your new modern units against galleys and galleons...
If the AI can make submarines, battleships and destroyers... why it keeps the galeons around the map???... maybe because it wasn't told to upgrade those units properly.

Of course, this applies to normal/hard difficulty levels... in the easiest one, you can have AI that can only build spearmen while you already have tanks (in my opinion, it should be a walk in the park for you anyway ).

[Generalisimo]

Originally posted by vulture
A spear works pretty well against a helicopter when you stick it through the pilot while he is outside the helicopter and on the ground. Likewise for tanks. Spearmen could also be capable of lighting fires to destroy fuel or ammo supplies.

Not really... the pilot can kill you with this pistol... or even a machine gun if he has one inside the chopper.

Originally posted by vulture
Civ combat is highly abstracted. What appears to be 'unit A attacks unit B on terrain X' is necessarily a vast simplification of all sorts of factors. It's fair to say that the spearmans 0.0000001% of victories against a tank come under extremely unusual circumstances. The ones where they conveniently form up as a phalanx and charge the massed tanks are the ones where the tank doesn't lose a single hp while wiping out the spearmen.

Yes, and that's what i do not like... but i can live with it (or mod it for my pleasure).

Originally posted by vulture
So I guess the important question is: is it fun? Which is going to be subjective, and no system is going to suit everyone. Some people genuinely thrive on difficulties, and having everything go wrong and adapting. Others only really enjoy games where everything goes according to their plan and is under their control. It's just different preferences for how to play things. And since game designers can't make all possible games at the same time, they make combinations of ones that they enjoy and what they think will be popular.

Exactly, and that's why they give us the power to mod it to make even more fun for your own pleasure.

Originally posted by vulture
Sometimes they compromise in favour of integrity - having 'fair' games (same combat odds for all civs). The cynic in me suspects that what a lot of people really want (whether they can admit it to themselves or not) is to win without too much trouble whilst the AI appears to be good but actually isn't. You could go some way to helping this illusion by changing the combat odds so that humans never lose battles where they are a clear favourite, but the AI does relatively often. I think that most people would find the results intuitively seemed 'fair' to them then, so they could dominate a weakened AI without ever knowing that it was weakened. I reckon it would improve opinions of the game all round, at the expense of upsetting a few hardcore 'challenge'-type players and the integrity of the programmers...

In this pharagraph, i think you missed the point... it is not a problem of human-tanks vs AI-spearmen... it is a problem of the abstraction used in the combat model to simulate the tanks vs spearmen battles.
I do not think anyone wants to see human units winning everytime.

[SpencerH]

IMO the defender choosing what unit fights is rather annoying (and incorrect). One of the advantages that the attacker has is choosing who and where to attack and that's especially true when the defender is fortified!

[spy14]

A flaw i'm seeing with the spearman putting rocks in a tanks tracks theory (and the various others) is realistically tanks going into urban terrain take infantry with them. Mr Spearman is not going to be able to put his rock in the tanks treads is he's got a load of M-16's pointed at him.

Bring in CTP style stacked combat!!

[Diadem]

You guys seem to overestimate the strength of tanks enormously.

Tanks are extremely vulnerable without support units. Imagine a primitive tank in a forest against a guy with a spear and a lot of intelligence. The spearman would have a very good chance. The tank can't do anything against him. You can't shoot musquitoes with a cannon.

In normal warfare, tanks never attack unsupported. Doing that would simply be utter suicide.

[eljeffe]

Oh lord how I hate this topic.

"A TANK SHOULD ALWAYS BEAT A SPEARMAN!"

Oh yeah? Prove it.

People who claim that "realism" is at stake are deluded by their jingoist History Channel understanding of military technology. People who believe with all their hearts that superior technology always wins out over primitive are the reason why every great power in history that begins to stake it's power solely on it's advanced technology ends up getting thrashed in a very embarrassing and often catastrophic way.

In Civ, the spearman beating the tank is simply the result of mathematical probability, but here's hoping you kids and those old enough to know better can understand that your problem with it signifies a larger issue with the hubris that comes with generations of unchallenged technological supremacy. If they had video games in the early 60s, before the conclusion of Vietnam, and some game depicted the unrivaled US getting beat in a jungle by a ragtag bunch of guerrillas in pajamas, all you whiners would be up in arms because "THAT CAN'T HAPPEN! IT'S NOT REALISTIC!" If they had video games in the 18th century and one of them dared to imply that the famed Redcoats might not be able to crush a rebellion by a bunch of drunken mountain folk and prissy plantation owning fops, you can be sure their water-wheel powered message boards would be lit up with complaints demanding some patch or mod to fix the apostasy.

Realistic? What do you all know about realistic? GI Joe was a cartoon. All those military hardware shows on cable are chest-pumping BS. Technology is not the end-all of warfare. If you think you can sit back, press some buttons, and win a war you will fail. To think otherwise is unrealistic.

[RGBVideo]

People who claim that "realism" is at stake are deluded by their jingoist History Channel understanding of military technology. People who believe with all their hearts that superior technology always wins out over primitive are the reason why every great power in history that begins to stake it's power solely on it's advanced technology ends up getting thrashed in a very embarrassing and often catastrophic way.

In Civ, the spearman beating the tank is simply the result of mathematical probability, but here's hoping you kids and those old enough to know better can understand that your problem with it signifies a larger issue with the hubris that comes with generations of unchallenged technological supremacy. If they had video games in the early 60s, before the conclusion of Vietnam, and some game depicted the unrivaled US getting beat in a jungle by a ragtag bunch of guerrillas in pajamas, all you whiners would be up in arms because "THAT CAN'T HAPPEN! IT'S NOT REALISTIC!" If they had video games in the 18th century and one of them dared to imply that the famed Redcoats might not be able to crush a rebellion by a bunch of drunken mountain folk and prissy plantation owning fops, you can be sure their water-wheel powered message boards would be lit up with complaints demanding some patch or mod to fix the apostasy.

Realistic? What do you all know about realistic? GI Joe was a cartoon. All those military hardware shows on cable are chest-pumping BS. Technology is not the end-all of warfare. If you think you can sit back, press some buttons, and win a war you will fail. To think otherwise is unrealistic.

You guys seem to overestimate the strength of tanks enormously.

Tanks are extremely vulnerable without support units. Imagine a primitive tank in a forest against a guy with a spear and a lot of intelligence. The spearman would have a very good chance. The tank can't do anything against him. You can't shoot musquitoes with a cannon.

No

My challenge from another thread is still valid: Take a spear. Take a shield. Now take out a T-72 tank. It doesn't have to be moving, it doesn't have to have any ammunition in it, it doesn't have to have even any people in it, just take a still tank out with pre-gunpowder equipment.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Diadem
Tanks are extremely vulnerable without support units. Imagine a primitive tank in a forest against a guy with a spear and a lot of intelligence. The spearman would have a very good chance. The tank can't do anything against him. You can't shoot musquitoes with a cannon.

Tanks are extremely vulnerable to infrantry with bazookas without support units. Potentially mines as well. Otherwise they are quite sturdy.

As for digging holes to trap tanks, tanks were made to handle such obstacles, it would be hard to trap a tank in a hole.

Anyhow, against spearmen the tank doesn't have to do much...just run over them. Save the ammunition for real threats. Also, tanks, especially modern ones, typically have machine guns on them too.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by eljeffe
Oh lord how I hate this topic.

"A TANK SHOULD ALWAYS BEAT A SPEARMAN!"

Oh yeah? Prove it.

People who claim that "realism" is at stake are deluded by their jingoist History Channel understanding of military technology. People who believe with all their hearts that superior technology always wins out over primitive are the reason why every great power in history that begins to stake it's power solely on it's advanced technology ends up getting thrashed in a very embarrassing and often catastrophic way.

This rarely every happens. Most of the time people overestimate their technology and underestimate the enemy. Then when it ends up the enemy has different, but roughly equal tech the person overestimating tends to end up in a bad spot.

Superior tech only loses when there are environmental conditions that counter the technology or the numbers are grossly unequal. The zulu were able to beat the british by essentially having more people than the british had bullets. Not efficient or pretty, but brute force can work if you are willing to the pay horrific costs. Even so, the larger the technologicaly difference the harder this is to do. If the british had tanks in that era and machine guns, then the Zulu would of had a much harder time. Tanks can run people over for one, so it would have to run out of fuel.

Originally posted by eljeffe
In Civ, the spearman beating the tank is simply the result of mathematical probability, but here's hoping you kids and those old enough to know better can understand that your problem with it signifies a larger issue with the hubris that comes with generations of unchallenged technological supremacy. If they had video games in the early 60s, before the conclusion of Vietnam, and some game depicted the unrivaled US getting beat in a jungle by a ragtag bunch of guerrillas in pajamas, all you whiners would be up in arms because "THAT CAN'T HAPPEN! IT'S NOT REALISTIC!"

*sigh* maybe you are forgetting the fact that the Vietnamese were being supplied with weapons by Russia. When a low tech group is given better tech by another major power you can expect a first world country to have problems. This is especially true if said first world country is not willing to do what it takes to win the war (we didn't want to start a more global conflict). Vietnam is a horrible comparison to the tank vs. spearmen debate.

-Drachasor

[Russian_King]

lol
heres my point:
a tank is infact very sturdy, and a spearman could not "pierce" a tank with his spear if he tried. or infact unscrew anything on it etc.
a thousand spearmen couldnt do **** to a tank! maybe a catapult! IF its accurate enough. now if the officers get out of the tank, they each have weaponery (handguns, etc) so the spearmen also have little chance there. also machine guns on top of a tank would cain spearmen
in forests, a tank can run over trees if it likes (if theyre thin enough to get crashed.
therefore 99% of all tank vs spearmen battles should result with the tank having 0%-5% damage.

however, there are thousands of spearmen and only a few tanks, because thats just how the ratios go.
assuming by some weird odds all 10 tanks are just watching out for the spearmen or having a break and the spearmen all flank them from a forest VERY VERY close by not tto give the crew enough time to gtet back in. theres a chance that the crew would not be able to kill all of the spearmen in time to escape.
however if even ONE tank gets its men inside, they can then drive away from the raging spearmen and shoot the machine gun bakwards. (ive done this in generals with overlords vs 5-6 tanks while the poor OL had no health)
spearmen couldnt throw spears at an escaping tank because they have less range going forward than backwards.
thats my 2 cents..

[Russian_King]

now guys i know this is sorta unrelated, but could anyone tell me in short how to read the health bar on top of the units? seems like the opaque bar is the unitsstrength, and the half transparent one is the added bonus, but what about when u have 3? (happens when the unit is damaged)

[Generalisimo]

Originally posted by eljeffe
Oh lord how I hate this topic.

"A TANK SHOULD ALWAYS BEAT A SPEARMAN!"

Oh yeah? Prove it.

People who claim that "realism" is at stake are deluded by their jingoist History Channel understanding of military technology. People who believe with all their hearts that superior technology always wins out over primitive are the reason why every great power in history that begins to stake it's power solely on it's advanced technology ends up getting thrashed in a very embarrassing and often catastrophic way.

In Civ, the spearman beating the tank is simply the result of mathematical probability, but here's hoping you kids and those old enough to know better can understand that your problem with it signifies a larger issue with the hubris that comes with generations of unchallenged technological supremacy. If they had video games in the early 60s, before the conclusion of Vietnam, and some game depicted the unrivaled US getting beat in a jungle by a ragtag bunch of guerrillas in pajamas, all you whiners would be up in arms because "THAT CAN'T HAPPEN! IT'S NOT REALISTIC!" If they had video games in the 18th century and one of them dared to imply that the famed Redcoats might not be able to crush a rebellion by a bunch of drunken mountain folk and prissy plantation owning fops, you can be sure their water-wheel powered message boards would be lit up with complaints demanding some patch or mod to fix the apostasy.

Realistic? What do you all know about realistic? GI Joe was a cartoon. All those military hardware shows on cable are chest-pumping BS. Technology is not the end-all of warfare. If you think you can sit back, press some buttons, and win a war you will fail. To think otherwise is unrealistic.

I think you are completelly missing the point.
Like someone said in here, take a shield and spear and try to destroy a Tiger or T-72... even without people in it...
We are talking about armies with a "big" technological gap between them.

[Generalisimo]

Originally posted by Diadem
You guys seem to overestimate the strength of tanks enormously.

Tanks are extremely vulnerable without support units. Imagine a primitive tank in a forest against a guy with a spear and a lot of intelligence. The spearman would have a very good chance. The tank can't do anything against him. You can't shoot musquitoes with a cannon.

Sure you cannot shoot mosquitoes with a cannon... but like I said, even the tank commander can get out of the tank and kill the spearmens with his pistol if he wants.
The huge tech gap between the 2 units give the edge to the tank.

Originally posted by Diadem
In normal warfare, tanks never attack unsupported. Doing that would simply be utter suicide.

Sure.

[eljeffe]

Originally posted by Drachasor This is especially true if said first world country is not willing to do what it takes to win the war (we didn't want to start a more global conflict). Vietnam is a horrible comparison to the tank vs. spearmen debate.

We could have won, but we didn't wanna.... Such a childish revision of a conflict. Sad that this thinking is so prevalent about all of the US's missteps. It's what makes it so easy to continue to misstep.

A spearman is really a just a man with a spear. Put the spear down and he is a man. Give him a bottle filled with kerosene, an oily rag and a zippo, plop him down in Stalingrad and suddenly he is a match for a Panzer. There is a reason why civ gives defense benefits to units in a city. They can hide. They can plan. They have friends. It is no longer about a "Spearman" and a "Tank" It is a tank trying to enter a city. This is difficult to represent in a game that boils it all down to unit vs. unit combat, so the game designers do what they can, which is a defense bonus.

Frankly, I'd feel robbed if modern units won over primitive all the time. There are all sorts of thing that go wrong in combat. Supply issues, mis-communications, mechanical failure, i could go on and on about this. Civ uses probabilities to represent all this. A tank cannot win every time, no matter how weak the defender.

Much of the whining that goes on with this topic is about people's inability to come up with a strategy. You all site realism? Give me an example in history where someone sent a tank unit into a city or a jungle or what have you, all by itself, no air support, no combined arms, and this unit was expected to weed out some defender. This doesn't happen. It is not sound strategy.

Civ3 was horrible in this respect. One modern armor unit could storm the globe if the enemy was technologically backward enough. I'm glad Civ4 has finally put some value on combined forces strategy. I regularly fight huge wars with modern armor taking cites from mechanized infantry, and I'll only lose a couple units because I have already made a point of gaining air superiority, I've bombed a cities defenses to 0%, and I've bombed it's defender as low as they get from collateral. Meanwhile, my gunships have been busy pillaging the roads and rails, severely inhibiting the counter attack and defense capability. I don't care what technology the enemy has, the combined forces strategy stays the same, only the relative numbers of each unit I devote to the task changes.

So, please, everyone just shut up about this and learn to play the game. Abandon your old civ3 modern armor exploits and get a strategy.

[Xerxes712]

Spearman can beat a Tank. He puts some stuff on the end of his spear and shoves it into the tank barrel.

Tank shoots the barrel at him and the shell explodes inside killing the tank.

I have heard where people hunting place there gun end into the ground getting dirt inside the barrel. It can cause a nasty back fire.

Serously, I like the system. It makes you think. It is a game. It is gameplay sake.

Nothing in life is guaranteed except death and taxes.

Wait...taxes still screw you even after you are dead...darn Necros....