i feel like im taking CRAZY pills

[Boris Godunov]

Generally, if your opponent is still using spearmen and you have tanks, rarely losing an occasional tank isn't ultimately going to slow down your war machine or save their neck. So it really doesn't effect gameplay overall.

[GreenReaper]

i think the problem with cavalry is they are just way overrated, (15) and no modern units have any bonuses against mounted units. so if you have a cav with a bonus against gunpowder units it'll easily defeat an MG in a straight fight, and it'll stay competitive with just about any modern infantry unit.

which is just plain stupid.

and the AI (in my experience) whores cavalry like its going out of style. it seemed to do that in civ 3 also...

whats hilarious, is that i had better odds in one fight with a PIKEMAN than modern infantry.

[Urban Ranger]

Hm, is your infantry a) dug-in b) on good defensive terrain and c) has good experience?

[Sloth_DC]

Originally posted by GreenReaper
i think the problem with cavalry is they are just way overrated, (15) and no modern units have any bonuses against mounted units. so if you have a cav with a bonus against gunpowder units it'll easily defeat an MG in a straight fight, and it'll stay competitive with just about any modern infantry unit.

which is just plain stupid.

Why is it stupid? Cavalry were what was used to overrun machine guns during the War Between the States. No major power phased cavalry out until the 40s - and before you make any Poland jokes, the two countries with the highest percentage of cavalry in 1939 were Germany and the US.

[GreenReaper]

dude im not saying cav should be worthless, im just saying against MGs they should get a penalty. MG's should be way more powerful against all regular troops IMO.

cavalry ceased being a "frontline" unit in WW1. those who refused to accept that lost their cavalry.

for a certain period, the MG was the ultimate weapon. they had to invent new ways to get around them, not charge them with cavalry. thats why i say the MG obsoleted cavalry. cavalry's are incredibally expensive to train and maintain and getting them all shot to hell on 1 attack is enough to make you try something else. tanks and jeeps came along shortly and the cavalry was basically useless and expensive.

Hm, is your infantry a) dug-in b) on good defensive terrain and c) has good experience?

HA! you shouldve seen it. i had a line of MGs, 5 total. all with 1st bonus, (+10), terrain ranging from forrest to hills to plains with a fort on it. they come at me with cavalry, i didnt win 1 fight. NOT ONE! they plowed 3 of the mgs over on the first attack, and ignored the rest.


so i entered the worldbuilder, gave myself 500 nukes, and blew the crap out of every dam one of their cities... MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

then i reloaded an autosave and rethought my strategy, and now im ZE ULTIMATE.

[inca911]

And if Machine Guns were highly potent vs. Cav, there'd be threads on here complaining that you can't invade because MGs are too powerful.

[gdijedi7]

yes, cheating does offer a kind of revenge...sigh

[Brutus66]

Ah, the latest variation on the spearman/tank thing

[LzPrst]

machine guns should kick the snot out of cavalry.
the reason ww1 was such a stalemate was because there was no real weapon to counter machine guns. cavalry was useless because once MG's were entrenched there was no way for the cav to close the distance, and infantry didnt work any better either.

the tide of the battle only turned when the brits threw tanks into the equation around 1917.

to quote Blackadder, this whole war would be a lot tidier if we just stayed at home and shot 50 000 of our own men each week...

if cavalry could take machine gun positions, why did ww1 turn out to be trench warfare with fortified machine gun positions? simple; they couldnt. neither could infantry. only tanks could break through defensive lines such as the french trenches.

[JakeCourtney]

Check out the Realism and Extended Gameplay mod over at the Completed Modpacks section of the www.civfanatics.com.

[LzPrst]

OTOH an unfortified MG in the open would be fairly easy pickings for a mounted unit.

maybe MG's should get additional defence bonus on entrenchment. instead of gaining 5% every turn until 25% def bonus theyd gain 8% for a total of 40% bonus?

good? bad? banana? anyone wanna mod and see how it goes?

[Brutus66]

Originally posted by LzPrst
OTOH an unfortified MG in the open would be fairly easy pickings for a mounted unit.

maybe MG's should get additional defence bonus on entrenchment. instead of gaining 5% every turn until 25% def bonus theyd gain 8% for a total of 40% bonus?

good? bad? banana? anyone wanna mod and see how it goes?

It seems to me that Civ is more a strategic game rather than tactical.
I see where you're coming from, but it would be hard to put the time it takes to dig a foxhole into the game's scope.

[Kinjiru]

Originally posted by LzPrst

to quote Blackadder, this whole war would be a lot tidier if we just stayed at home and shot 50 000 of our own men each week...

BlackAdder...

"I have a cunning plan..."

[Sloth_DC]

Originally posted by LzPrst
machine guns should kick the snot out of cavalry.

See my note above - cavalry was used extensively to overrun machine guns during the War Between the States, the Italian Unification, and the Franco-Prussian War. Cavalry _can_ run over unprotected MG.

The reason ww1 was such a stalemate was because there was no real weapon to counter machine guns.

The real reason WWI was such a stalemate was bad generalship based on faulty notions of the superiority of elan and the frontal assault - and note that it was most certainly not a static stalemate in the East, only the West. The Germans actually figured out how to break the trench stalemate with storm-trooper assaults, but they were outmassed enough by that point that it was too late to turn the war.

the tide of the battle only turned when the brits threw tanks into the equation around 1917.

Honestly, tanks had a limited effect on the war, again mainly due to bad generalship.

if cavalry could take machine gun positions, why did ww1 turn out to be trench warfare with fortified machine gun positions? simple; they couldnt. neither could infantry. only tanks could break through defensive lines such as the french trenches.

See notes above - I think I've addressed this in enough detail. Cavalry _can_ and _should_ overrun unprotected MG. MG _can_ and _should_ stand against Cavalry when properly screened with infantry in a good defensive position.

[Jaybe]

The Cavalry vs. MachineGun dilemma is because
1) Cavalry have a bonus against Seige units [EDIT: NOT ], and
2) Surprise: Machine Guns are Seige units!!!

Perhaps a Machine Gun bonus particularly against Cavalry is in order. Until then, promote them with Formation (25% vs. mounted) ASAP until armor or marines is more of a threat.

EDIT: Or is the Cavalry bonus only vs. Cannon??? I am at work, not with the game.
At any rate, if Cavalry were to have Charge (anti-seige) promotion, it could be ugly vs. MGs.

YA EDIT: I have confirmed in the XML that the Cavalry bonus is confined to Cannon, not seige units in general as I had MIS-remembered.

Dearmad, if you mod MG units so they are not seige just because it seems strange, you'll be messing with their promotion relationships. Would you WANT just any Pinch-promoted unit to have advantages over MGs??