Two tanks, one musketmen, one knight?

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Rommel393



On the contrary Viking that would be almost impossible, unless the modern tank was caught completely offguard. In WW2, possibly the best and least known about tank was the Soviet Tiger. When these were first implemented against the Germans on their operation Barbarosa there were some amazing victories by the Tiger tanks. During a Soviet retreat, 15 Tigers were providing cover fire for the retreating soldiers and other tanks. By the end of the day about 40 German Panzers lie burning. No lie.

Now where I'm getting to is this: if a tank advanced during its time (ie, Tiger) can crush another tank of its time (ie, Panzer), then what about another tank with 60 years more technology and experience behind it? The Abrams uses potent, but nasty Uranium depleted shells (I could tell you how they work but it would take a while), has a much more powerful engine, uses chemical explosives instead of gunpowder, has much thinker composite armor, and a much long range (several miles compared to the Panzers couple thousand yards). A single Abrams tank could easily kill Panzers until it runs out of shells. Thats a lot of Panzers. The two tank units are entirely needed and are a great addition to the game. I suggest you spare yourself the embarrasment and not even compare modern tanks and "ancient" tanks.

to take tha analogy of the 5 wwii tanks not being able to defeat 1 modern tank, and the 50 spitfires failing against an F-16, I will bring up the point that probably 5 15th century musketmen WOULD Be able to defeat 1 19th century musketman, no matter what you say. The same is true for knights. Therfore, the new tanks and planes are more important.

[KrazyHorse]

Late 19th century rifleman with Lee-Enfield rifle: not a chance. Also, in a group, even early nineteenth century infantry would crush a group of sixteenth century infantry of 5 times their size, since they can concentrate a volume and accuracy of fire which the larger group couldn't.

[Mercator]

It looks to me like Civ3 is going to be focussed on modern times. Too bad, because there are so many people out there who just couldn´t care less about all those different types of tanks, fighters and what have you (e.g. me). I prefer ancient and medieval times.

But then again, if the turn system remains similar to Civ2, most of the game will be played in modern times, which kind of justifies the abundant modern units.

If only Civ3 had options of ending a game in different eras, e.g. let the discovery of a "New World" be the final objective instead of AC, with the tech tree and units adjusted accordingly.

[KrazyHorse]

That's what we call a "scenario" or "modpack", Mercator.

[Mercator]

Of course, of course... But having Firaxis do it for us, providing graphics and having a special AI model to deal with the different kinds of games, probably beats most mods I´ve ever seen.

[KrazyHorse]

Eh...

The only thing I'd like to see is one additional infantry unit between musketeers and riflemen. The rest of the game is fairly evenly distributed. Remember the ridiculously large number of mounted units in Civ 2? I'm glad they got rid of some of the dead weight.

[Mercator]

Oh, and I really don´t expect Firaxis to have a game completely unbiased towards modern times and western civilizations. They are still humans, with only a finite amount of time. I think I´ll be quite happy with Civ3 as it is.

It´s just that I´m rather a perfectionist. One of the many things that has kept me from creating lots of Civ2 scenarios is that I couldn´t find top-quality graphics. I just can´t help it!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Eh...

The only thing I'd like to see is one additional infantry unit between musketeers and riflemen. The rest of the game is fairly evenly distributed. Remember the ridiculously large number of mounted units in Civ 2? I'm glad they got rid of some of the dead weight.

What unit would you suggest? Historically, the musketeer of the Napoleanic wars develops into the rifleman of the American civil war.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by monkspider
Someone here thought the Tiger was Soviet??

As for the bloody Brits, speaking as an American no less, I would agree that Monty was a far more brilliant tactician than Patton, considering the limited supplies and manpower he had behind him, Monty got a miraculous ammont accomplished for the Allies, primarily in the North African campaign.

Yes he really showed that with Market Garden. The only reason Monty looked good at all in north africa was that was that the man he took over for was useless.
Monty only managed to beat Rommel in North Africa because Rommel (and a number of other generals) couldn't impress the importiance of the theater upon Hitler, who viewed it as a side-show. Montgomery was able to reinforce and build up an overwelming stockpile of fuel and materiel and the germans could not. Easy pickings.
Also good old Monty had a real bad habit of not following up opportunities.
Generals dont deal in tactics thats what the people under him do. Generals deal in getting the job done and thats where Monty was lacking.

[Kc7mxo]

I also feel premodern warfare to be more interesting. In many a game of civ2 i would simply cease playing civ 2 when tanks were developed. I can recall one deity game where i simply refused to reserach tem and wiped out another civ when it did.

Guess I feel the same way about modern weapons in civ2 as the knights did about crossbows. :-)

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
I also feel premodern warfare to be more interesting. In many a game of civ2 i would simply cease playing civ 2 when tanks were developed. I can recall one deity game where i simply refused to reserach tem and wiped out another civ when it did.

Guess I feel the same way about modern weapons in civ2 as the knights did about crossbows. :-)

I can imagine that feeling.
Somehow the end of Civ2 always ended up in some kind of tank rush. Of course one could decide to play a bit with the toys you got (bomb a bit, shoot a bit, poison a bit, etc.) but once you're really into it, it looks like nothing can stop it.

• Nothing left to discover,
  Nothing left to find,
  With cities just spitting out armors,
  One gets beaten any AI player blind.

Hmmm...

[Col Bigspear]

Sorry pressed Reply with Quote instead of Edit

[Col Bigspear]

Originally posted by Col Bigspear
Buy the game,
People who like modern era things play the whole thing, People who like Pre-Modern things, make a mod/scenario and edit the tech tree to have only pre-modern units in, and then you will have a game without tanks!. It should be easy with the editor included.

Shiva Quote.
The only reason Monty looked good at all in north africa was that was that the man he took over for was useless.
Monty only managed to beat Rommel in North Africa because Rommel (and a number of other generals) couldn't impress the importiance of the theater upon Hitler, who viewed it as a side-showdeitor that comes with it.

Ahem, I think the RAF/RN sinking most of Rommel's reinforcements sort of changed Hitlers mind. Would you like to send 40 brand spanking new Panzers to the desert, when you new that maybe 1/4 would get through!. Would they not be better on the Russian Front? 10 panzers in the desert or 40 on the Russian Front.
Rommel was by far the best Commander in the Desert, possibly of the whole Western area of operations, but Monty did have his moments. As for Op Market Garden It could have worked if not for the SS Panzer division stationed around Arnhem/Nijmagen sector (refiting for Patton's drive through Lorraine and across the Rhine.)That division took the British landing site, as a result no supplies got through to 1st Airborne or the Polish Airborne unit at Driel.(other side of Arnhem bridge).

Saving Private Ryan Quote
Ted Danson "How are things looking?"
Tom Hanks "well were still pushing up the Coentine(?) peninsular towards Cherbourg, Only problem is Monty's taking his time moving on cean"
Ted Danson "You gotta take cean to take St Lo"
Ton Hanks "'n' you gotta take St Lo to take Cherbourg"

WHAT.............. DOES THE 21st PANZER DIVISION STATIONED IN CEAN RING A BELL??????????? OR THE 12 SS PANZER DRIVING A WEDGE BETWEEN SWORD / GOLD BEACH AND JUNO BEACH ON THE FIRST DAY
2 PANZER divisions with might i add PANTHERS, TIGERS and Pz IV's.

Shermans
In the desert the germans called them tommy cookers and the Brits named then Silverstons or something like that, it was a name of a good cig lighter because it lit first time ah British Humor.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Col Bigspear
Ahem, I think the RAF/RN sinking most of Rommel's reinforcements sort of changed Hitlers mind. Would you like to send 40 brand spanking new Panzers to the desert, when you new that maybe 1/4 would get through!. Would they not be better on the Russian Front? 10 panzers in the desert or 40 on the Russian Front.
Rommel was by far the best Commander in the Desert, possibly of the whole Western area of operations, but Monty did have his moments. As for Op Market Garden It could have worked if not for the SS Panzer division stationed around Arnhem/Nijmagen sector (refiting for Patton's drive through Lorraine and across the Rhine.)That division took the British landing site, as a result no supplies got through to 1st Airborne or the Polish Airborne unit at Driel.(other side of Arnhem bridge).

Well you can think that somehow the british sinking of transports had something to do with it but you would be wrong. As I said before Hitler looked on the fighting down there as a sideshow. Italy dropping the ball there and in greece, and that sucked Germany into wasting resources that were needed for the big stage (russia). He didnt care what was going on down there otherwise he would have followed Keitel's recommendation and attacked Malta not Crete in '41. In any event Italy managed to delay Barbarossa a month and managed to seal the fate of Germany in the end.

You might want to take a good look at what went on in the Med in '41 and '42. Convoys did get by while there was an air corps in Sicily pounding Malta. It was enough for Rommel to go on the offense, take Tobruk and then try his drive on the nile.

As for Rommel he shot himself in the foot by getting operation hercules stopped. Instead of Malta being taken in '42 after being pounded into ineffectiveness it rebuilt itself and once again started strangling Rommels shipping. By that time a good chunk of air power had been sent to the east since that was the big show. Rommel was never good at seeing the big picture when it came to logistics. If Hitler had thought that the Med and Africa was important then Malta would have been taken and the Royal Navy would have taken a worse beating then they took at Crete and finally would have had to have withdrawn from the Med. RAF/RN indeed


Market Garden could have worked but it didnt and the plan went ahead because of Monty's wispering in Churchills ear (something he did quit alot) to get his way. Nevermind that Eisenhower didnt agree with it. The plan was foolish from the start. One road for the ground troops to advance on. Troops who couldnt be dropped near thier targets. Not enough air transport to droop all at once. And dutch report along with recon photos of the German troops in the area being quite ignored. With these just being the tip of the iceburg against the plan it was lucky to get as far as it did which is far more a testament to what a sorry state the german army was in then to any so called skill of Monty's.

[Shiva]

One more thing. The reason Britain carpet bombed at night was because of "Bomber" Harris and his idea that a nation would surrender just because air bombardment. Maybe he should have taken a good look at at how his country held up under it. Terror bombing never worked. Harris went after cities because he wanted to go after the cities not because of the lack of a bombsite (and that bombsite was wayyyyyyy overrated anyways).