Two tanks, one musketmen, one knight?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Red Khan
The bottom line. My idea is that the concept is important. Sure, a modern tank can decimate a bunch of WWII ones, but it still uses the same idea/concept with them. A concept of an armored vehicle with a gun. As same as that scythian horse archers of 1000 B.C. would probably loose to Mongols, because the later had better armor, bows, arrows and horses, but they still use the same concept.

If you just want to talk about concept, then tank warfare is based on the same concept of mounted archers: mobile warfare, but at different speeds and with different weapons.

The original post for this thread basically asked why are there two tanks, one musketmen, one knight?

The answer is: because that's what the designers picked. Can their choice be justified? Yes. Can other options be justified? Yes. What's the solution that will please everyone? The ability to make modified units, something that Civ allows.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Col Bigspear
T'was me who said 88mm. I was just taking numbers off the top of my head, I knew the Panther and Tiger had 88mm's so I just said that.

Panther had a 75mm.

[Shiva]

Well if there was more units that they could add it would make more sense to add them 1890's and before. Since then if you look around at the units things havnt really changed all that much without the the other side staying somewhere close. But in earlier times inovations caused one side to have a marked advatage for a fair amount of time.