Why is everyone complaining about spearman killign tanks is unrealistic but no one...

[Auren]

Why is everyone complaining about spearmen killing tanks is unrealistic but no one complains about following unrealistic things:

1) Tanks being able to capture cities. Modern tanks work VERY badly in cities. It is very easy in city for defenders to use anti-tank weapons. Just try to imagine 100 tanks (No idea how many tanks one modern armor unit in civ3 is suuposed to present but I bet it is less than 100.) trying to invade New York and force it to produce more tanks, money and science for invaders.

2) Units not being able to shoot back at airplanes. No modern army moves without anti aircraft weapons.

3) Killing of fortified defenders is way too easy. It should require about 3 times more power to succesfully attack to fortified position. So you would need at least 3 warriors to kill single warrior defending city or 3 archers/horsemen to kill one spearman defending city.

4) Upgrading of spearmen to mech. infantry. (Or almost any steps between.) There is no similarity at all between mech. infantry and spearmen. How can exteremely good spear user (elite spearman) be cahnged to extremely good mechanized infantry (elite unit) instantly by just giving them money to buy new weapons and vehicles?

5) ...

And so one... I could go on forever...


These unrealistic aspects work in favour of player. Spearmen killing tanks is 99% times your tank and computers spearman. So people complain about that single unrealistic thing.

[TechWins]

Why is everyone complaining about spearmen killing tanks is unrealistic but no one complains about following unrealistic things:

Well, the reason why nobody complains those other 'unrealistic' features is because at some point in time the game has to sacrifice realism for fun. Now with warriors killing tanks it is both sacrificing realism and fun. Enough said.

[Auren]

Originally posted by TechWins
Well, the reason why nobody complains those other 'unrealistic' features is because at some point in time the game has to sacrifice realism for fun. Now with warriors killing tanks it is both sacrificing realism and fun. Enough said.

So you complain about it because it is no fun. Please say so then and don't use this old "it is unrealistic argument". It being unrealistic has nothign to do with reason you want it changed. You want it to be changed to get game better. That is good reason.

Give people reasons why you think it is no fun and why it would be better with that fixed and they might listen. But if you just say "it is unrealistic" no one listens you since there is 100 000 other things in this game that are as unrealisatic.


(I just realized I should have made this post to one of the complaining threads and not make new thread for this once again. Sorry for all who are bored to death about this.)

[N. Machiavelli]

Re: Why is everyone complaining about spearman killign tanks is unrealistic but no one...

Originally posted by Auren
Why is everyone complaining about spearmen killing tanks is unrealistic but no one complains about following unrealistic things:

1) Tanks being able to capture cities. Modern tanks work VERY badly in cities. It is very easy in city for defenders to use anti-tank weapons. Just try to imagine 100 tanks (No idea how many tanks one modern armor unit in civ3 is suuposed to present but I bet it is less than 100.) trying to invade New York and force it to produce more tanks, money and science for invaders.

As opposed to 100 infantry soldiers taking over an entire city of hundreds of thousands? Or perhaps 100 cavemen successfully destroy 3 battleships in harbor and massacre all the crew? Both of these have been complained about before.

2) Units not being able to shoot back at airplanes. No modern army moves without anti aircraft weapons.

I agree. Fighters, at least, should be attack units, not bombard units. Infantry are able to fire back at P-51's, but not B-52's.

3) Killing of fortified defenders is way too easy. It should require about 3 times more power to succesfully attack to fortified position. So you would need at least 3 warriors to kill single warrior defending city or 3 archers/horsemen to kill one spearman defending city.

Usually you do need 3 Units to kill that 1 Spearman. That is, unless, the 'loaded', psuedo-random-number-generator accidently gave you the funky advantage instead of the AI.

4) Upgrading of spearmen to mech. infantry. (Or almost any steps between.) There is no similarity at all between mech. infantry and spearmen. How can exteremely good spear user (elite spearman) be cahnged to extremely good mechanized infantry (elite unit) instantly by just giving them money to buy new weapons and vehicles?

Funny thing is that you don't seem to need to upgrade. The AI holds onto it's spearmen well into the Space-Race. We silly humans are the only ones who make the illogical assumption that Mechanical Infantry are somehow superior to Spearmen...go figure.

5) ...

And so one... I could go on forever...

Why not, we do.

These unrealistic aspects work in favour of player. Spearmen killing tanks is 99% times your tank and computers spearman. So people complain about that single unrealistic thing.

[GePap]

Why its no fun

In a game like civ, we all have expectations (as we do in life) and we base our deciisons, our actions, and our strategies, based on those expectations. Since we all know that a tank, or any modern mechanized veicle it is mean to represent, is caapable of defeating a person equiped with bronze shields and wooden spears, we make our strategy accordingly. What this game does all too often, is for no basic gaming reasons, overthrow those expectations with random results, which leads to lots of frustration. The only difference between those that 'whine' and 'fanboys' is how many and which of these expectations they are willing to suspend and how many they are not. For example, what if Bill Clinton was the leader of the Egyptians? How many people would complain (But How!!!) and how many would say, heck, its funny, and who cares, its a game, or, well, its cool and enhances gameplay...? I don't know, but I can say that it would not fall into the same camps as now. Heck, personally, I would be surprised at first, but perhaps warm up to Clintunatmen.
This is also why we are willing to scream realism for one option, but not others- we expect a certain level of clarity, sanity, or if you want to say, connection, to the real world when combat is involved, but don't care that mcuh about the funky economic model. The final point of this long post (my style) is that there is also a certain amount of abstraction that must be done, otherwise this game would be 40gigs and require 500mb RAM. All the examples you gave are certain abstractions I am willing to accept or rationalize away.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

I disagree...

Virtually the ONLY time you'll see a Phalanx killing a tank if you play on a harder level wherein the computer gets an inherent combat advantage. If you don't want this combat advantage going to the computer, than I suggest you play on an easier level.. This combat advnatage is built in to give expert players a challenge -- realism schmealism.

[Nadexander]

Re: I disagree...

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
Virtually the ONLY time you'll see a Phalanx killing a tank if you play on a harder level wherein the computer gets an inherent combat advantage. If you don't want this combat advantage going to the computer, than I suggest you play on an easier level.. This combat advnatage is built in to give expert players a challenge -- realism schmealism.

The computer doesnt get combat bonuses at any level. Soren Johnson has repeated as much several times

[Falconius]

You want realism?

Hungarian Civilians in the 1956 Uprising used the following household items to destroy Russian tanks:

Pot Lids
Glass bottle
dish rag
water
gasoline

To get a tank to stop, they would place pot lids (with the handles knocked off) in the road. TanK crews would think these were mines and would halt. The Hungarians would then rush out of nearby buildings with Molotov Cocktails (bottles filled with a gasoline/water combination using the dishrag, soaked with the same combination, as a fuse). They would aim for openings in the tank (such as machine gun slits) and smash the bottles on them, sending flames into the tank.

Of course, the Hungarians eventually lost to overwhelming Soviet numbers, but they took out quite a few tanks.

Source: "The Bridge at Andau" by James Michener

So a pikeman taking out a tank isn't that far-fetched. For reality's sake, I simply imagine them with access to the above materiels (as well as their trusty spear!)

[Venger]

So how did that all turn out for the Hungarians?

Or we could update the test, you take a pot lid and a can of gas, and I'll take the tank...

Venger

[Smash]

hehehe...I'd like to place wager on that...

Its just stupid.Why should I upgrade anything?Why do I go thru the hassle of securing rubber and oil?Building superior units that are not superior at all.Its not just tanks vs spearmen btw.

I guess if you don't get it,there is no way to possibly explain it.
I'm sorry I can"t think of any fancy arguments right now.To me,its a no brainer.

If I ever get the ability,the first thing I am gonna do is make the pot lid anti tank unit

[Zylka]

This is constructive criticism

Number 1, is a very good point I can agree with. More realism please, tanks should play an attacking role more than anything else. Their ability to capture cities should be disabled, and their oppressive force to quell citizens lowered.

Number 2 is semi valid. The modern infantry AA weapon (ie. stinger) can usually only fire to an altitude of 10, 000 feet - making it a deterrant to attack helicopters more than anything else.

Number 3 is valid for the modern era, but has little or no merit in the rest of the game. Either way, I always bombard the **** out of the opposition before attacking in the modern era, whatever.

Number 4, the spearman being upgraded to a tank unit is fine. As long as the men are an institutionalized fighting force, they can and will be trained for different level of combats, and there is no reason why a man who kills with a spear can not be taught to kill with a tank. The excessive cost of this upgrade suggests the training of the men (half subsidized with previous instituional molding), and the purchase of new equipment, ie.) tanks. Fair enough?

[Moraelin]

First of all, while indeed, I think most people complain because it's no fun, rather than just not realistic, I also think that realism has its place.

We're talking Earth history, not "Alien Civilizations 3 -- the history of planet Baluba Prime, and its 8 armed inhabitants who discovered deodorant 5000 years before discovering the fire." If it was a battle between, say, Khrak'znak Riders and Buuzdruk Wielders on the alien planet of Baluba Prime, I think most of us would have less problems accepting it. We'd probably just go "ugh... I have no idea what a Khrak'znak is, but I guess you don't stop it that easily with a Buuzdruk. Whatever THAT is."

But since we're talking _Earth_, you expect that your obvious common sense assumptions will work that way. E.g., you expect that if I have 100 Longbowmen in on the city walls, and I'm attacked by 100 Longbowmen from outside, my unit will win 9 times out of 10. I have the high ground and I have the cover, and realistically I should be able to hold off 10 times more attackers in a straight assault. That's why there siege warfare was invented, instead of straight rushing the walls. But in Civ 3, the attacking Longbowmen will win 4 times out of 5, realism and common sense be damned.

That said, about your points:

1) I'd say tanks should be able to capture a town. If you see 100 tanks on the streets AND you have no soldiers of your own to oppose them... I don't know about you, but I'd consider I'm captured all right.

HOWEVER, I think tanks should have a massive disadvantage at fighting in towns or even in mountains. The Germans discovered the hard way in Russia that tanks in cities tend to get destroyed rather quickly by the defenders. Among the many other problems with fighting in a town, even a plain old anti-tank rifle shot from above tended to go through any tank's armour. This has eventually led to the proliferation of heavy artillery vehicles as the Brumbar, or even such monstrosities as the Sturmtiger which could collapse any building in one single shot. But it was already too late.

I.e., while tanks should IMHO continue to be able to conquer cities, they should have a harder time defeating the defenders of those cities. Tanks should also be far more vulnerable to dive bombing or missiles from airplanes.

2) Depends on the airplane type and stuff, but basically you're right. Last I've heard, a whole one third of the airplanes shot down in WW2 in Europe, were lost to infantry weapons.

3) Yep, I do find city walls to be a bit weak, too.

4) Can't see any real problems there. A tank crew isn't born with the innate knowledge of how to operate a tank, and spearmen aren't really born with an instinct to do phalanx tactics. Both took some months of military training, and as such, you can train them again to use the new weapons.

That said, IMHO the upgrade should probably require the city to build it, just like you build a new unit. Sure, you could rush the upgrade just like you can rush a new unit, but it would be more expensive than it is now and you couldn't do more than a rushed upgrade per turn. Definitely not just right-click and upgrade 12 units in one turn, in a town which doesn't even have the industry to build ONE tank unit in less than 80 turns or so. Or worse yet, I can upgrade stuff during Anarchy or in rebellious towns, where I can't rush anything else.

[Libertarian]

There is no similarity at all between mech. infantry and spearmen.

Very little as well between a mouse and a man.

And yet, somehow...

[Zylka]

Sturmtiger... 380mm cannon of fury

I still have a Tamiya model of that monstrosity waiting to be built

[Moraelin]

If my memory doesn't fail me, the 380mm monstrosity on a Sturmtiger wasn't as much a cannon, as a modified depth charge launcher. The massive 761 lbs rocket, was in fact more depth charge than rocket, and almost all its weight was the explosive. You can guess what it did to a building when it exploded. (Allegedly that thing had 40 tons of recoil force when it shot, so it must have been not much fun to be inside it when it happenned)

There was an allied version, too, with only a 290mm mortar. Still it was deadly enough to any building or fortification to warrant a kill-on-sight order for the German troops.

And let's not forget the Soviet ISU-152 which could fire a 96 bls HE shell to around 9km range, or a 107 lbs armour-piercing round. Both were perfectly capable to destroy a Tiger, Panther, Elephant (or any other German tank for that matter), hence the vehicle's nickname "Animal Killer".

Oh well. It would probably be a bit TOO much to track these kind of details in Civ 3, though. I mean, think of how many tank models happened in the short time of WWII. At 1 year per turn, you'd have to upgrade your units every single turn.