Tank and Anti-Tank are backwards

[mkorin]

I was just ambushed in the open field by a Anti-Tank unit and I had a thought. Why would a civilization develop weapons specifically to kill something that doesn't exist. In theory at least one civilization should develop tanks before someone says, I invented a weapon to kill them.

Mike

[johnmcd]

When one person fights with a tank, everyone should get anti tank access. Same with SAM infantry, first aircraft raid, everyone gets it.

Anyone building the tank or plane units before they are used in combat should be able to build them too.

[Blaupanzer]

As portrayed, these are separate technologies. It is possible to have AT infantry and SAM infantry without anyone having planes or tanks. Flipping it over, nothing in designing a plane would give the developers a clue about SAM capabilities, as witnessed by real history. Likewise, in history, anti-tank weapons lagged behind tanks themselves. However, a major use for AT weaponary in WW II thru today is bunker busting, so it could have come first. Either way, the technology necessary for one is not related directly to the technology of the other in any way.

[mkorin]

Of course, you could develop a rocket launcher without tanks, but you wouldn't call it an Anti-Tank weapon. A society that has never seen or heard of a Tank would not have developed Anti-Tank weapons. They may have developed a bazooka type weapon for bunkers or walls, but they would never develop an Anti-Tank weapon. The point of my whimsical post is that the unit is misnamed, or the tecnologys needed are out of order.

Mike

[Blaupanzer]

Ah, a question of whimsy. Or special insight into the future.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
As portrayed, these are separate technologies. It is possible to have AT infantry and SAM infantry without anyone having planes or tanks. Flipping it over, nothing in designing a plane would give the developers a clue about SAM capabilities, as witnessed by real history. Likewise, in history, anti-tank weapons lagged behind tanks themselves. However, a major use for AT weaponary in WW II thru today is bunker busting, so it could have come first. Either way, the technology necessary for one is not related directly to the technology of the other in any way.

anti tank units as city raiders would be interesting

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by johnmcd
.... Same with SAM infantry, first aircraft raid, everyone gets it.

You do realise that this would stifle military aircraft in its infancy. Just imagine that I have developed, at great expense, my very first tiger moth and it flies across no-mans land only to be met with a surface to air missile!!!!

SAM really shouldn’t be properly available until some reasonably advanced rocketry technology has been developed.

[Jaybe]

I liked the way that BtS finally gave some AA capability to MG & AT. Striking/Bombing aircraft was too predictable, which it definitely should not be, particularly considering sheltering terrain, weather, etc.

Do I approve of AT becoming available with artillery? Yes
Do I approve of the model of the AT unit? NO. They should have been anti-tank GUNS (as in high-velocity guns), not panzerfaust/bazooka rocket-propelled grenades/shaped charges.
Defensive only!

I would make that modification myself, but I have my doubts regarding AI recognition of the change.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by couerdelion

SAM really shouldn’t be properly available until some reasonably advanced rocketry technology has been developed.

By "advanced rocketry" did you mean heat-seeking or radar guidance technology?

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by couerdelion


You do realise that this would stifle military aircraft in its infancy. Just imagine that I have developed, at great expense, my very first tiger moth and it flies across no-mans land only to be met with a surface to air missile!!!!

SAM really shouldn’t be properly available until some reasonably advanced rocketry technology has been developed.

My point is really that units which can attack with guarenteed impunity are dull. Airships in the current game are a total nucience.

You need to have to balance their use by changing some power ratings around.

[Cyrus The Mike]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon


By "advanced rocketry" did you mean heat-seeking or radar guidance technology?

That should be an actual tech though. I mean how many times have you hit an aircraft going at 200mph at 20,000ft without some help?

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Cyrus The Mike
That should be an actual tech though. I mean how many times have you hit an aircraft going at 200mph at 20,000ft without some help?

No one should answer this question! We'll have Federal Agents crawling all over us looking for terrorists!

The game allows for the fact that, in history, mankind could have developed rocketry entirely without aircraft. In fact, in the 20's, the US determined to focus on rotary engines instead of rockets, or it might have gone differently. The association of rockets with anti-aircraft was dependent on guidance technology, something not now included in the tech tree.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer

The game allows for the fact that, in history, mankind could have developed rocketry entirely without aircraft.

Which I believe it did. Rockets were used in military conflict as long ago as the 18th century. They just weren't very accurate.

Although there must have been some sharing of technology with aircraft, they were never really dependent since rocketry fundamentally only needs to have a basis of propulsion to be sent on its way. Aircraft need an understanding of aerodynamics.

[Blaupanzer]

From the start, aircraft development was considered only in a manned form. Rockets weren't manned among the Allies until the race for the moon. Both the Germans and the Japanese had forms of manned rocket-propelled vehicles in WW II, but the outcome of these flights was often fatal for the former and always fatal for the latter. (The original self-correcting guided missile had a man in it on a one-way ride.)

[Lord Avalon]

Remember the rocket chair on MythBusters (Ming Dynasty Astronaut, ep 24)?