Why spearmen can kill tanks

[Gallagher]

Civ 3 is obviously designed to be much more realistic than civ2. So what about a spearman killing a tank?

Realistically, a spearman in the modern age is NOT the same thing as a spearman in earlier ages. It's not like an ancient tribe took a time machine to the 20th Century! In real life terms, it's either 1) a unit from a primitive tribe within a third world nation, which means it's officers are better educated and trained, or 2) a very lightly armed civillian population.

The Italian invasion of Ethiopia in the 1930's represents the first instance. Italy encountered significant opposition, and did take losses. Without sufficient numbers (i.e. if they'd only attacked with a single unit) they would have been defeated.

The Hungarian revolt against the USSR in '56 (correct date?) represents the second example from above. Almost unarmed students and workers did put up resistance against Russian tanks (as inadequate as it might have been). They did take out tanks, with homemade explosives and captured weapons.

[n.c.]

Re: Why spearmen can kill tanks

Originally posted by Gallagher
[Hungarians] did take out tanks, with homemade explosives and captured weapons.

True, but they did not use spears. One of the continuing failures of Civ III is that ancient units are allowed to exist in modern civs (let alone win battles). Show me a phalanx unit currently operated by a NATO military.

[yavoon]

if we had to list all the unrealistic things about civ3 we'd never get around to playing it, as the list would be pages and pages and pages. I really don't understand this gripe its a gameplay feature. if u made tanks have 98 attack and legionares .5 defense, as might be the realistic split, it'd be ridiculous for gameplay. yet ppl just can't stand a 12 defense unit having a chance to lose to an army of 3 attack units, I don't get it. I really don't

[n.c.]

Originally posted by yavoon
the list [of unrealistic things] would be pages and pages and pages. I really don't understand this gripe

There are degrees of unreality and degrees of difficulty in fixing them. Ancient units in modern time is at the very high end of un-realism, and I would think at the low end of difficulty to fix. Therefore why not do it?

Besides, it also rates very high on the annoying scale for some of us.

[Sarxis]

Spearmen can kill tanks: just look at the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

I don't think I have ever had a spearman kill one of my tanks. But since this is a game, and for game purposes, it really doesn't bother me that a CIV spearman is more likely to kill a CIV tank that a real spearman killing a real tank.

[yavoon]

planes having 2 years of fuel, or leaders being immortal is more realistic? a buncha spearchuckers finding a way to light up a tank is actually tame. ur just use to all the other features.

and besides, I think ur just annoyed yer pretty tanks died, cuz u spent all game getting to them, like in civ2.

[Andrew_Jay]

But having ancient units existing in modern times is more or less fixed. Now with Civ3 it's very easy to upgrade your units, it may take a little while to raise the cash, but you can do it. I've even seen the computer doing it in my warlord level game. I can see them moving their units, and since they have had the gunpowder technology, all I've seen are musketmen, no more spearmen, etc.

[n.c.]

AJ- That is an improvement, but it is still possible to have tiremes fighting next to your nuke subs.

Originally posted by yavoon
planes having 2 years of fuel, or leaders being immortal is more realistic?

They are essential for gameplay. Do you need me to explain why?

-"a buncha spearchuckers"
Excellent choice of words there.

-"I think ur just annoyed yer pretty tanks died"
Seeing as how I can't stand this crap game long enough to get to that point, I'd say you are wrong. You people who don't frequent the Off-Topic sound quite pitiful when trying to flame. Keep it up though, because it's also funny.

[yavoon]

having lower attack/defense units be capable of beating stronger attack/defense units as is consistent w/ the game's combat engine, regardless of age they're in, is important for gameplay, do u need me to explain why?

and wow, I musta hit a nerve, ur talking down to me arleady, gj.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by yavoon
do u need me to explain why?

You need to explain why your rambling is at all responsive to my point. Do you need me to explain the necessity of leader longevity or not?

-"ur talking down to me arleady"
The 1st non-polite comment was yours.

Man you on-topic guys suck at this.

[yavoon]

is that wut u plan on doing? making half assed digs at me? gj sparky, I hope ur inflated superiority complex is enuff to blind u from ur blatant inability to carry on any meaningful points.

[n.c.]

Again, you made the the 1st dig and are yet to make a point.

[orange]

Re: Re: Why spearmen can kill tanks

Originally posted by n.c.
Show me a phalanx unit currently operated by a NATO military.

MITROVICA, Kosovo, Feb. 21 -- Thousands of ethnic Albanians from throughout Kosovo marched on this divided city today and clashed with a phalanx of NATO-led troops, who used tear gas and fists to keep them from reaching the Serbian district.

Full Story

[yavoon]

just saying "ur yet to make a point" doesn't mean I haven't made them. I am sincerely sorry u can't see my points, they are quite clear, as my posts are neither long nor convoluted. but u seem happy in ur lil area now, not having to discuss the topic, just making unfounded assertions and insults. ur at home.

[[LordLMP]]

Yes, those kind of people are quite annoying and pathetic. Reminds of the other day, where i go to a message board to give my points and counter-points over something. Some did try to counter my points, but the majority just went on to insult me instead of countering my point. If they think i am wrong, then insulting me won't prove it.

-LMP