What's missing in the combat realism debate

[n.c.]

Ever see the Saturday Night Live sketches of the big fat Chicago guys? They sit around and discuss things like whether or not Mike Ditka could beat up Geoge Washington.

Imagine it was not a sketch, but instead you were observing such a discussion in a bar. The participants were actively engaged, all totally serious. The sentences were not conditional- they really were making a comparison. What would you think? A) Mike for sure. B) Geoge all the way. C) How preposterous- Washington has been dead for ~200 years!

In observing debates over the realism of frigates sinking carriers and spearmen killing modern tanks, I feel like the guy in our hypothetical bar: who cares what would happen, the event itself is impossible!

In other words, it's not just that the result of ancient beating modern is unrealistic, the two types never existed simultaneously. Note exactly what I'm saying when you give examples attempting to disprove this statement: that which did not happen, did not happen. Tough position to counter.

The observant among you will note that this is not a Civ III issue, but dates to II and I (which should mollify the less virulent anti-"whiners"). Also, the solutions are easy- either make the unit disappear over time, change its name, icon & characteristics, or both. (I know it's possible to upgrade, but in reality doing so is not an option; you either upgrade or retire the unit.)

Closely related to this is the notion of technology flow: civs will eventually absorb the technologies of those around them. Perhaps a discussion for another thread.

Anyway, its late and I'm turning in. See you this weekend.

[Capt Dizle]

That was an intelligent post! Are you sure you are from North Carolina?

[IamJordan1]

well spearmen killing tanks i wouldnt believe, but anykind of armed infantry can take out a tank easily. even a a couple of neighborhood dudes can take out a tank. consider a tanks cannon is so slow to twist around, and inaccurate at close range, a couple of neighborhood thugs armed with hand guns can run around, while the cannon is turning side to side. then thugs get close enough to the tank and open up the hatch, drops a grenade, or just plain sprays all his bullets in the hatch. boom bye bye tank. what i liek to note in civ 3 is that

technological superiority is an advantage
but numbers matter more! numbers always matter more in real life. ok i am done with my *****ing, my tanks just got creamed with a couple of musketmen and archers. next time i will bring 2x that many tanks.

[Bubba_B]

It is what it is

Put a bullet in this one......

The combat system, whether you are against it, for it, or indiffrent is the combat system in Civ III

It frustrated me at first too, but I developed other stratagies (used editor too) and moved on.

Oh well thats my two cents.

[Venger]

Originally posted by IamJordan1
well spearmen killing tanks i wouldnt believe, but anykind of armed infantry can take out a tank easily. even a a couple of neighborhood dudes can take out a tank. consider a tanks cannon is so slow to twist around, and inaccurate at close range, a couple of neighborhood thugs armed with hand guns can run around, while the cannon is turning side to side. then thugs get close enough to the tank and open up the hatch, drops a grenade, or just plain sprays all his bullets in the hatch. boom bye bye tank.

Apparently you didn't notice ma deuce hanging on the tank turret, a .50 caliber can of whoopass which can reach out an touch someone a mile away. Every tank made has anti-infantry weaponry, in fact most WW2 era tanks had 2 if not 3 machine guns of the .30 cal to .50 cal variety.

I tell you what. You and some of your neighborhood buds go attack a tank and tell us how it went. Wait - just tell us when you are leaving, you won't be back...

what i liek to note in civ 3 is that
technological superiority is an advantage
but numbers matter more! numbers always matter more in real life.

Actually, numbers DON'T matter in Civ, because every combat action is one unit versus one unit. CTP had stacked combat which made numbers truly matter.

ok i am done with my *****ing, my tanks just got creamed with a couple of musketmen and archers. next time i will bring 2x that many tanks.

I hope that part about the archers is a joke.

Venger

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Venger


Apparently you didn't notice ma deuce hanging on the tank turret, a .50 caliber can of whoopass which can reach out an touch someone a mile away. Every tank made has anti-infantry weaponry, in fact most WW2 era tanks had 2 if not 3 machine guns of the .30 cal to .50 cal variety.

I tell you what. You and some of your neighborhood buds go attack a tank and tell us how it went. Wait - just tell us when you are leaving, you won't be back...

Venger

I always love people who think that tanks are an end all, be all weapon system. Hate to break it to you Venger but in the right set of circumstances a few men can easily dispatch a tank. There are reasons tanks dont go into cities and need infantry support in most terrain.

As for IamJordan1's "open up the hatch, drops a grenade, or just plain sprays all his bullets in the hatch", it might look nice in the movies but those hatches in real life lock from the inside He is right about getting so close to a tank where it cant use its weapons against you, be it too slow or unable to depress to target.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Shiva



I always love people who think that tanks are an end all, be all weapon system. Hate to break it to you Venger but in the right set of circumstances a few men can easily dispatch a tank.

Watch the Dirty Dozen one too many times? The "right circumstances" you mention are an unsupported buttoned tank attacked by what, three guys with a panzerfaust? Or do they have phasers? Or an antimatter bomb? What are the right circumstances? I can take out an F15 with a bag of marbles if I can somehow get it into the intake, so does that make the plane vulnerable to me in the right circumstances?

There are reasons tanks dont go into cities and need infantry support in most terrain.

I don't cut my steak with a chainsaw either. But then again I make the pretense it's the right tool for it. Who mentioned sending tanks into no mans land without infantry support? The brain trust who thinks and his homeys from the hood can dispatch a tank because "the turret goes so slow" got the information he clearly lacks, that the tank has massive anti-infantry weaponry, and while the main gun does fire HE rounds the "slow turret" isn't used for point defense. The .30 cal in the tank body and the .50 on the parapet will lay it down when this dip$hit takes his homemade grenade and tries to run a circle around the tank...

Note to tank assaulter - try plopping a grenade in it while it's driving at 25 miles an hour...

right about getting so close to a tank where it cant use its weapons against you, be it too slow or unable to depress to target.

Ugh... dude, the gunner isn't spinning the main gun to take out three spares and a grenade, the whole tank rotates to bring the point defense machine guns to spray .30 cal in a 360 degree arc. Infantry is effective against tanks only when concealed from fire during the tanks approach and when they can attack in number with effective weaponry. Note - this does indeed happen. But not with three high schoolers and a homemade Molotov...

Venger

[Sniffer]

In the open field when the other side does not have artillery or air support, tanks Are the end all be all. Fifty tanks under such conditions would be able to commit atrocities that would sicken the stomachs of any general. You would run out of ammo before the enemies could do anything right. Spearmen, archers, knight, civil war cavalry, and the few guys from the hood could group together all still lose against tanks without AT weaponry. Tanks are destroyed with mines, high explosive rockets (hopefully a lot more than one), and good luck. Even a direct hit from a rocket doesn't give you a 100% chance for a kill.

Of course, we are talking about modern American and western European battle tanks. I wish that technology would minitaurize as it did in Master of Orion 2. Early tanks should smoothly progress into more powerful tanks a certain number of turns after you have them, and the process should continue from there. To say that there have only been 2 ages of planes and tanks is a folly.

Anyway, it is late and I am babbling. Tanks should never lose to anything short of infantry in Civ 3. Period. How many Zulu spearmen would it take to even drive back a tank division?

[Badtz Maru]

People seem to forget the scale of the game when it comes to units, which leads to misunderstandings about game balance. A tank unit does not represent a single tank, it represents hundreds of tanks, as well as support vehicles of various kinds. Likewise, a frigate does not represent a single frigate, but probably a fleet of frigates, as well as smaller vessels, the fighting men on board the ships, etc. Yes, a single guy can't take on a tank. Ten guys probably couldn't take a tank, but if a hundred rushed one from various directions, you can bet some would get close enough to do some serious damage without being mowed down by the machine guns. They would also be able to attack the supply trucks that brought along the fuel and ammunition that the tanks brought along, and incapacitating those who supply and maintain the tanks effectively eliminates the tanks when you look at the game on the scale that it is intended to cover.

I also agree that a spearman in modern times is not the same thing as a spearman in ancient times. A spearman is a large group of men on foot who cost about the same to train and equip as a large group of trained spearmen did in ancient times. The government could not afford to provide every man with a weapon, it would be a 'bring your own gun' militia with very limited support, that was capable of being mustered quickly by any large city. For those of you who saw it, think about the movie 'Enemy at the Gates'. The German soldiers were the equivalent of infantry in Civ3 - a well-equipped early 20th century fighting force, complete with support vehicles like APCs, jeeps, and possibly a few tanks. The Russian soldiers were significantly less equipped - every other man was given a rifle and a few rounds, with the other man given the standing order to follow a guy with the gun and pick it up if he gets killed. They had significantly less combat experience and therefore less discipline, and were clearly inferior in combat efficiency than the Germans, but the Russians were able to produce them with a lot less resources than German was using to create and supply it's armies. There is no 'Poorly Supplied Infantry' unit in Civ3, so you would have to think of the Russian soldiers defending the city as an inferior unit that were all the Russians were able to produce in time in that city, equivelant to Riflemen or perhaps even Musketmen.

Take the privateers as another example. They are significantly weaker than any of their contemporary naval units, which fits in with history - there was no way a fleet of privateers could stand up to an attack by the fleets of a major nation at the time. What they could do, and what they were paid to do, was to disrupt the shipping of opposing powers without having to move the fleets from the Old World and declare an open war. There were many luxury items and vital resources that were being shipped back to Europe from the Carribean colonies and stopping that flow was able to weaken the sponsors of said colonies, cutting into their profits and making luxury items like spices and tobacco more expensive and therefore less available to the masses. How is this modeled in the game? Take your privateers and blockade the opponent's cities that are only connected to the rest of their empire via their harbors. You can also use them to attack some of the smaller military forces in that region (which would be represented in-game by more outdate naval units). Why do they cost so much when they aren't the equivalent of a fleet? Well, part of it IS balance (if they were too cheap you would constantly be having to fight pirates around every one of your ports), and part of it can be explained by the fact that when a nation's navy captured enemy ships, those ships and all their cargo belonged to the nation that took them. Privateers only had to pay a relatively small percentage of their take to the nation that was sponsoring them.

Just remember that the game HAS to be abstract, a game that tried to realistically portray combat and trade on the scale of this game would be several orders of magnitude more complicated, harder to play, require a much more advanced AI to be challenging (possibly more advanced than is currently possible with home computers), and probably take 8 hours to play a turn.

What matters is how things play out in the long run, if large-scale strategies used by real-life civilizations (as opposed to tactics) reproduce realistic-seeming results. It seems to be doing a pretty good job to me.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Sniffer
Of course, we are talking about modern American and western European battle tanks. I wish that technology would minitaurize as it did in Master of Orion 2. Early tanks should smoothly progress into more powerful tanks a certain number of turns after you have them, and the process should continue from there. To say that there have only been 2 ages of planes and tanks is a folly.

In Civ2 I modified the tank unit to be a hair weaker (10/5 with three HP down to 8/5) and created a Main Battle Tank unit that required Advanced Metallurgy and was rated (10/6 with three HP and two FP). This allowed you to have different levels of tanks over time. It worked great...

Venger

[Bubba_B]

*BANG* *BANG*

D*** combat thread wont die!!!



Oh well.......

Have fun guys

[Venger]

Aww who asked ya...

Originally posted by Bubba_B
*BANG* *BANG*

D*** combat thread wont die!!!



Oh well.......

Have fun guys

Civ2 patches modified some combat values.

Why not assume this at the minimum is going to be possible in the Civ3 patch? Making changes to the hit point system should take just very few changes and yet make a world of difference to the game.

Venger

[Bubba_B]

Re: Aww who asked ya...

Why not assume this at the minimum is going to be possible in the Civ3 patch? Making changes to the hit point system should take just very few changes and yet make a world of difference to the game.

Venger

Well maybe so, but if Fraxis hasn't got the idea by now they never will. I guess what is funny about these kind of threads is the "What if" senarios being bantered about. I think Fraxis would pay more attetion to a thread thats sticks more to the point of actuall game play changes that need to be made.

I think the rants just confuse things.

Just a thought

P.S. Just having fun too

And I like the funny faces

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Venger


Watch the Dirty Dozen one too many times?

No child, just some years in the infantry and working close with armor.

As I said the "right circumstances" so please dont try and distract the point with silly statements about phasers and such.

Killing a tank isnt as hard as laymen like to think. You talked about the m2hb on the tank as if its some magic ward against infantry up to a mile away which it isnt. Might be nice in the desert but in most places people can easily find cover from it and once your close enough its useless which is the point. The same goes for the main gun and any hull gun. At least thats the way its worked on the tanks i've been around.

Originally posted by Venger
Who mentioned sending tanks into no mans land without infantry support?

No one, doesnt make the fact that a few people could kill said tank any less valid does it? I guess that would be one of those "right cirumstances" and you wouldnt need a a phaser

Originally posted by Venger
The brain trust who thinks and his homeys from the hood can dispatch a tank because "the turret goes so slow" got the information he clearly lacks, that the tank has massive anti-infantry weaponry, and while the main gun does fire HE rounds the "slow turret" isn't used for point defense. The .30 cal in the tank body and the .50 on the parapet will lay it down when this dip$hit takes his homemade grenade and tries to run a circle around the tank...

No ,your the one lacking the facts. If your cant bring those a-p weapons to bear then your not going to kill anyone, no matter how many ar mounted on a vehicle or how far they can reach. Also heres a little fact for you. A few years back someone took an M-60 for a little joyride (most people have seen the video of what happened). The driver was killed by a police officer putting his pistol in a vision slot and firing. The rounds bouncing around inside killed the man so I would guess that a guy with a pistol can kill off a tank.

Originally posted by Venger
Note to tank assaulter - try plopping a grenade in it while it's driving at 25 miles an hour...

Who mentioned a tank driving around at 25 miles an hour?

Originally posted by Venger
Ugh... dude, the gunner isn't spinning the main gun to take out three spares and a grenade, the whole tank rotates to bring the point defense machine guns to spray .30 cal in a 360 degree arc.

Ugh, no. No tank driver worth his salt is going to spin around in circles playing tag with people outside their tank. Another little fact is the turret can turn far far faster than you can spin the tank around if your dumb enough to try and out pivot a moving man. Also your hull mounted gun has the same type ofproblems with limited arc and depression as the turret weapons. Useless at close range.

Originally posted by Venger
But not with three high schoolers and a homemade Molotov...

Tell it to the russian tankers killed by teenagers armed with molotovs in Finland or the Germans tankers who got the same in Russia by "high schoolers". I bet if you look around you'll see a lot of this over the past 60 or so years in many many different places.

As I said the tank is far from the end all be all you make it out to be and its mg's are far from the magic charms against people on foot you wish them to be.

[Felch]

There is no 'Poorly Supplied Infantry' unit in Civ3

After Nationalism you can draft infantry in your cities. Only conscripts, so this is similar to the Enemy at the Gates scenario.

In terms of modern weapons never being used against primitive weapons . . . haven't any of you heard of the Age of Imperialism? Do you think Europe was able to carve up Africa like a cake without comparatively advanced weapons? In almost every engagement Europeans easily dominated their African opponents. Islandhwana and Khartoum were exceptions, but in both cases European firepower and technology eventually gained the upper hand.