Ship of the Line

[Jaybe]

I'm in the legion/brigade/division camp. But more than sneaky/crafty "wrong" wins, I would classify them more with brilliance and idiocy on the part of commanders.

[Quillan]

I would say the number of troops that make up a "unit" probably does stay consistent throughout the scope of the game. Personally, I'd say the Battle of Isandlwana didn't represent 1 unit of Impis defeating one unit of Redcoats; I'd say it was more like 3-4 Redcoats getting swarmed by 20+ Impis, which is always an option in Civ IV. You can overwhelm them with large numbers of inferior units.

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by wodan11
Does a unit of infantry represent a brigade or division? We would all probably have a different answer. Me, I would probably say a company is closer. So, could a company of longbowmen wipe out a company of infantry? Sure.

Wodan

But a company is a tactical unit. So if you want to be consistent, you can't say tactical units are fighting strategically. Really, to me, I don't worry about it, I realize it has to be that way for the game to work. So if this vision works for you, I certainly don't want to upset it.

[wodan11]

A company is a tactical unit in real life.

The question is how many physical people does a unit in CIV represent?

It seems like nobody disagrees that tactical combat (as considered IRL) does not exist in CIV. So, we should not export RL definitions (of terms such as company) to CIV.

Anyway. Basically, the question is can YOU imagine X spearchuckers sneaking up on guys with rifles, especially if they had an idiot commander (a "ivory tower" nobleman or whatever), plus if they happened to be asleep at the time?

Me, I absolutely can.

Bottom line, how often does this happen in CIV, and does that correspond with the actual possibility that it could happen IRL? Hmm, yep, I think it does.

Anyway my point is that people who complain that a spearman killed their tank don't think about RL, about tactics, and about surprise. Well, honestly. That's about exactly the attitude that an ivory tower commander would have before he got pwned.

Anyone read David Weber?

Wodan

[nbarclay]

Texas won its war for independence from Mexico in the Battle of San Jacinto when its forces caught the Mexican army napping. That wasn't a case with a major disparity in technology, but it shows what can happen if an army is caught sufficiently by surprise.

By the way, I'm definitely a David Weber fan.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Lancer
The beauty of wooden ships in the age of sail gave way to black smoke belching metal horrors that could sail against wind and tide. So far about 170 years since machine driven ships took to sea. Their time has been short.

The time of the trireme lasted about 2500ish years, yes? What about sail? 350-400 years.

So you're saying that because machine driven ships had such a short time span that their effect on a game that spans many thousands of years should be minimal? That we are machine centric because this just happens to be the time in which we live? Interesting viewpoint, I agree...

[Theben]

And you probably would, considering you wrote it. Or are you 'fishing' for discussion?

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by wodan11
A company is a tactical unit in real life.

The question is how many physical people does a unit in CIV represent?

It seems like nobody disagrees that tactical combat (as considered IRL) does not exist in CIV. So, we should not export RL definitions (of terms such as company) to CIV.

Anyway. Basically, the question is can YOU imagine X spearchuckers sneaking up on guys with rifles, especially if they had an idiot commander (a "ivory tower" nobleman or whatever), plus if they happened to be asleep at the time?

Me, I absolutely can.

Bottom line, how often does this happen in CIV, and does that correspond with the actual possibility that it could happen IRL? Hmm, yep, I think it does.

Anyway my point is that people who complain that a spearman killed their tank don't think about RL, about tactics, and about surprise. Well, honestly. That's about exactly the attitude that an ivory tower commander would have before he got pwned.

Anyone read David Weber?

Wodan

I don't think you can (if being logical) pick and choose what aspects to carry from RL to the game. So if a unit is a company, to you, then it follows that it is a tactical unit. Again, though, easy for me to suspend disbelief (or ignore illogic) in the interests of fun.

You are right, the game is not a tactical representation. Not even conducted at the operational level, IMHO.

Now the catch here is that sure, some spearmen could surprise and destroy some riflemen. At a moderately small unit level, say company or battalion (maybe). But could a "brigade" of spearmen overthrow, even with surprise, a brigade of riflemen? I'd say not. And even if you say yes, what about at the division level? Anyway, I think I mentioned gameplay does, and should, win.

Weber is good. Not especially hard to predict the story after chapter 2, but a nice quick, fun read.

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by wodan11

Anyway. Basically, the question is can YOU imagine X spearchuckers sneaking up on guys with rifles, especially if they had an idiot commander (a "ivory tower" nobleman or whatever), plus if they happened to be asleep at the time?

Oh... that's why we have sergeants (and chiefs for the Navy), to prevent this from happening

[Asmodeous]

Whenever I see a tank lose to spearmen or whatever I always invision Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade. -.-;;

Dum de-dum-daaaaa.... dum de-duuuuum...

Me.

[wodan11]

Anyway I guess we're all agreeing that surprise and idiotic/overconfident commanders definitely have an impact and certainly would vastly improve the odds for a weaker unit to kill a stonger one.

Since the CIV in-game combat calculator does not take surprise and dumb commanders into account, then there we go.

Wodan

[Petrus2]

The promotions in the game represent unit experience in combat, thus would include commanders getting better. The random factor of combat can be assumed to include mistakes, less-than-genius commanders, ambushes, etc.

[wodan11]

Some promotions would represent or include commanders getting better. However, I don't think that the simple fact of a promoion means that the commander definitely got better and is less of a nincompoop (if he was one in the first place). i.e., X -> Y but not vice versa.

Wodan

[gdijedi7]

The problem with Weber is that he Godmods. Manticore consistantly gets astronomical technological advancements (In Civ terms going from say, caravels to ironclads and then to battleships- quite a goody hut grab if you ask me) and then Harrington is consistantly able to figgure out the exact most wonderful tactic (that nobody else ever thought of for some reason) and just happens to always be put in exactly the right situation to make it work perfectly. Godmod.

And I have problems with the "commander theorey." (I see ground units as divisions by the way, with air units being wings or squadrons, and ships being single ships) One turn, your unit is being led by Grant, and the next turn, it seems that McClellan is in charge.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by gdijedi7
The problem with Weber is that he Godmods. Manticore consistantly gets astronomical technological advancements (In Civ terms going from say, caravels to ironclads and then to battleships- quite a goody hut grab if you ask me) and then Harrington is consistantly able to figgure out the exact most wonderful tactic (that nobody else ever thought of for some reason) and just happens to always be put in exactly the right situation to make it work perfectly. Godmod.

Yes but it's still entertaining. In any event, the "bad guys" have their share of innovations. It makes sense for Manticore to be an innovative leader because its educational and R&D establishment is simply better than anyone else's. And definitely Harrington isn't able to figure out the exact most wonderful tactic, and other people knew about them too. Harrington just picks a tactic and most of the time it worked pretty well. Weber even wrote in a subplot in one of the novels where some dissatisfied members of her crew bemoan about how many of her previous crews were killed in action.

And I have problems with the "commander theorey." (I see ground units as divisions by the way, with air units being wings or squadrons, and ships being single ships) One turn, your unit is being led by Grant, and the next turn, it seems that McClellan is in charge.

Well, since the next turn could be 20 or 100 years later, that's probably exactly what happened.

Wodan