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

[Mannamagnus]

This game is unrealistic: the average life expectancy of a spearman is sixty to seventy years at best. But in one of my games there is a 3000 year old spearman! (true he doesn't move very fast but still)

[Zealot]

This game is unrealistic! My workers work for over 5000 years and never complain about a back ache! Like they were in DisneyLand or something!

[LordLynch64]

My 2 cents

This is for all the posters out there that start threads like this.

There is a very simple solution to your problem. You don't like the game don't play it and don't post here. So many times have I read a post and felt like the author of the post was turning bright red and screamming at his or her computer screen. So many times have I heard someone use profanity or insults to prove his or her point.

This isn't in response to any paticuler person it's to everyone who is taking this game and forum too seriously. Fact of the matter is (without diving into specifics) this game is not realistic if it were we as the players would avoid war at all costs cause it's ugly and terrefying. I am still relativly new to this site and the first couple of forums I read were positive and fun to read I always look for intelligent conversation on subjects I am interested in but infortunatly Threads like these are traps for the intelligent poster.

I also will not debate the difference between realism and having fun because realism is and should be thrown out of the window when booting up your computer. Because recreation is a way to escape from reality not to immitate it.

Thanks this is not a personal attack please don't veiw it as such.
B

[rid102]

I also will not debate the difference between realism and having fun because realism is and should be thrown out of the window when booting up your computer.

You use Windows too?

[Moraelin]

Re: My 2 cents

Originally posted by LordLynch64
I also will not debate the difference between realism and having fun because realism is and should be thrown out of the window when booting up your computer. Because recreation is a way to escape from reality not to immitate it.

To some extent, you're right. I'll aggree that you don't need to 100% copy reality, or at least not the parts that aren't fun. E.g., if it were 100% realistic, given the average life expectancy in ancient times and the years per turn in 4000 BC, you should be dead (and the game should be over) after two turns.

But again, the whole point of some games is to re-create history. E.g., Sid Meier's Gettysburg is, you know, about some historical thingie that happened at Gettysburg. You'd expect it to at least bear some vague resemblance to that moment in time, not to be a Jedi-vs-Sith battle with lightsabers. (And no, I'm not criticizing Gettysburg, since it really isn't about lightsabers anyway.) E.g., SSI's Panzer General games are about World War 2, and you expect to find units that more or less model the real units from that time. I think most fans would have been disappointed if they got wookies and x-wings in that game instead. (Luckily they didn't.)

Again, I'm not saying that ALL games should be historically accurate. There are tons of games which don't even try to be. They're that-a-way. E.g., try the Battle Isle games for something that doesn't try to resemble any Earth era. And noone complained that they should have done that instead.

But IF a game DOES claim to model history, I think it's fair game to discuss exactly how well did it succeed in that aspect. And if you don't like it, heck, don't read these realism threads.

[Mawrin]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
This game is unrealistic: the average life expectancy of a spearman is sixty to seventy years at best. But in one of my games there is a 3000 year old spearman! (true he doesn't move very fast but still)

What do you mean "he doesn't move very fast"? He's covering the same distance in 2000 AD as he was in 4000 BC but in 1/50th the time! Not bad for a 6000 year old guy whose been through 100 hip replacements.

[Raleigh]

Gepap, excellent points and well articulated.

Lordlynch, no personal attack taken,but the reason we all "whine" about the combat system is twofold: (1) encourage debate on the subject (2) to lobby for our position in CivIV, future patches, or 4X Kill & Conquer 12.

Let's face it. The Civ 3 designers completely sold out to what they believe are helpless newbies who will hate their game unless they have their hand held. Instead of helping newbies by, I dk, making Chieftan easier, they helped them by ruining a large aspect of the game for their hard core fans.

However, I will give Firaxis this, that b/c we are allowed to customize our own units, I can just increase all industrial and modern units by 4x to give them so resemblance of their appropriate powers. Then again, I am not sure if the computer AI will be able to compete b/c instead of programming it to upgrade its units, they programmed it to produce arches en masse along with mech infantry. This so called "combined arms strategy" works fine against me. After all, my tank is taken to within 1 hp and then 3 archers rush it, each with a 30% chance to kill it. Silly me, why should I expect it to survive?

As for other comments about debate of tanks v. guerrillas. The Hungarians, and Jewish uprisers in Poland, etc. were using modern tactics, not phalanx formations to defend themselves against tanks. They were dropping molotov cocktails from 6 story buildings, not standing on the field with pikes raised.

As for tanks taking cities, don't forget, a real tank division has quite a number of infantry in supporting roles (at least in WWII). With the Gulf War, maybe that changed, but older tanks rarely went into the breach without some support.

[AHO]

I couldn't agree with you more Raleigh. There are so many instances of realism being sacrificed for game-play that there are too many to count. My pet peeve is that when you capture an enemy city, because of 99% corruption and waste it takes them the equivalent of 1000 years to build a damn church because, apparently, every last library, church, temple, synagogue, pew, and crucifix was destroyed in the battle. Whatever, I just play on.

As for the spearman beating the tank, I know that everyone is coming up with historical instances in which pot lids beat tanks & stuff, but the way I look at this anomaly is through other, average examples. During the blitz, history recalls that the German panzers swept through Poland, defeating guys on horseback armed with muskets and pitchforks, without suffering so much as a hangnail. In reality, yes, while the battle was over quickly and the Germans suffered very few losses, they did suffer SOME losses. Many soldiers were killed, tanks were destroyed, and planes were lost. Sure, the losses were insignificant when compared to the gains, but there were SOME losses. We're expecting that if our tanks attack weaker units our army should escape completely unscathed. The occasional freakish result just represents the realities of armed conflict--and it really doesn't happen often enough to be such a big deal, at least IMHO.

BTW, it's after noon. Where the hell is the patch.

[Moraelin]

Time for a brief history lesson.

Actually, the Germans did not fight peasants with flintlock muskets on horseback in Poland, they fought against what was considered one of the finest armies in Europe at the time.

1) The Polish cavalry charges against tanks are a debatable myth. They were only reported by the Italians, and then echoed by the German propaganda. Same for the myth that the Polish aircraft were destroyed on the ground, and same for the myth that Polish armor didn't do any damage.

2) The Polish infantry was modern infantry, and at least as well armed (if not as well led, and using outdated tactics) as the Germans.

3) The Polish tanks were actually pretty darn good tanks for that era, and on the average they actually were better than the German tanks. The Germans actually had mostly Pz I and Pz 2 tanks in Poland, which were originally intended only as training tanks. (The Pzkfw II only had a non-repeating 20mm cannon, while the Pzkfw I only had two light machineguns on the turret.) The recently introduced Polish 7TP light tank was the first tank in the world with a Diesel engine, and generally was vastly superior to either of the German light tanks. They did some real damage to German armor divisions, when the two met. The only problem was that Poland had some 180 tanks total, to oppose to the 2600 German tanks, and they were not used in concentrated groups.

Fact: Some captured 7TP tanks were actually used by the Germans afterwards, as a part of their Panzer divisions. So they couldn't be that bad, by German standards.

4) The Polish designed anti-tank guns were actually some of the finest anti-tank guns at the time. Combined with the fact that the German tanks had 8 white crosses painted on them, which gave the Polish AT gun crews an excellent thing to aim at, they came to be feared by the Germans. And I mean feared enough to try to paint some yellow on top of that white cross insignia, and later redesign the army's insignia completely!

5) By the end of the war, Poland had inflicted massive losses to the Germans. In fact, more losses than the French and English combined would inflict in 1940. Germany had lost some 50,000 men (yes, FIFTY THOUSAND men), 697 planes (even though the Polish only had 420 planes total), and 993 tanks and armoured cars. (Yes, practically a THOUSAND! The Polish couldn't lose more than the 180 total they started with.)

6) Germany didn't win as much due to Blitzkrieg, as through sheer numbers. They had 2600 tanks against the 180 Polish tanks, and over 2000 aircraft against the 420 Polish aircraft. See the above count of German losses, and the fact that Poland had also to fight a Soviet invasion from the East at the same time, and I'd say Poland sure did very well. Furthermore, both England and France had promised Poland support (which they never delivered) and advised it NOT to mobilize for war. (Which they said would be construed as aggressive intentions on its part.) So Poland fought with ONE THIRD of its forces mobilized.

Either way, I think none of us has problem with losing modern units to modern units. Which is what really happened in Poland.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by 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

Hmm, ok, let's put your trusty tank in the street of a major city where you can't turn effectively and can be approached from any direction without the ability to see your enemy from more than 50 feet away.

Meanwhile I'll have a group of 100 civilians of so armed with molotav cocktails, and any weapons we could scrounge up.

We may win or may not but you can damn sure bet we'd put a serious hurting on your tank in one way or another. Hell it's not *that* hard to knock the track off a tank or sufficiently weaken the track so as to slow or disable the tank.

Too bad more people don't have more common sense about how good and bad tanks and other "modern" equipment are. I would bet that we'd here less of these "my tanks should win 100% of the time (screw game balance!)" arguments.

[AHO]

Oh.
Bad example.
But I'm sticking to my point anyway. No matter how overwhelming our forces may be, weird things can happen. Planes can have mechanical problems, tanks can suffer "friendly fire", peasants can get in a lucky shot with their spears. In fact, 26% of all casualties in Desert Storm were to friendly fire. Terrible, unexpected, awful things can happen, but I don't think that this happens enough in this game to warrant all the complaining. I stick to what I said:

"We're expecting that if our tanks attack weaker units our army should escape completely unscathed. The occasional freakish result just represents the realities of armed conflict--and it really doesn't happen often enough to be such a big deal, at least IMHO."

Anyway, the patch is out, so let's PLAY!

[Death's Toe]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Time for a brief history lesson...

Wow, someone with some decent knowledge of history. I suppose your next trick will be to de-bunk the myth that the Soviet's strategies relied on numbers instead of any decent tactical doctrines. Oh, yea, and that they machine gunned their own soldiers instead of the Germans. pshaa

[Moraelin]

Actually, I believe that in some of the winter fights, both the Soviets and the Germans must have lost quite a few men to friendly fire.

And I'm not going to claim that the Soviets didn't use "Mongolian Horde" tactics. They sure did use sheer numbers a lot.

They did however also have very modern equipment, not just peasants with pitchforks and flintlocks against tanks. (Especially later in the war. In the beginning, yes, they had lots of obsolete armour that never stood a chance.)

The T-34 was not only extremely well armoured, with its sloped front being just short of impenetrable to early German tank guns, it was also EXTREMELY fast, and packed a 76mm relatively high velocity gun that could defeat any German armour in the first years of the war. (Later models had a longer barrel, for even more penetration.) In fact, it could punch a hole into an early PzkfW 3 or 4 even with HE ammo. Which was just as well, since the early Soviet anti-tank rounds were of the APHE variant. (I.e., a piercing tip and an explosive charge in the back, supposed to detonate inside the enemy tank.) Only they never worked too well, and the Soviets were the last to realize that breaking at high velocity through a tank's steel shell produces more than enough shrapnel inside anyway. Also, to be entirely fair, the Soviet aiming mechanism was inferior to that of German tanks, so those T-34's weren't THAT good at long range.

The Soviets also had a mondo 76mm anti-tank gun at a time where most of the world relied on 37mm or 40mm anti-tank guns. The British 2 pounder guns were 40mm, for example. (The German modified 88mm FLAK gun was the only one which was even better in an AT role.) They also had lots of them. In fact, they had so many that the Germans produced whole series of anti-tank vehicles just with captured Soviet guns.

The KV-1 and KV-2 tanks were also extremely hard to defeat, and a single one of them could cause a battle that lasted for hours. (Ironically, the KV's had been designed largely against Stalin's direct orders, who wanted a multi-turret giant tank instead. He changed his mind later when he saw a demonstration of the two designs in action, side by side.)

The Soviet SMG's (burp guns) were also pretty darn good, some of them sporting over 1000 rounds per second ROF and a large magazine. They had a primitive compensator that helped reduce muzzle climb, so they could still be aimed. (By contrast, both the US and the Germans limited the rate of fire via the mechanism's weight, to make their SMG's manageable in full auto mode.) The TT 7.62x25mm cartridge was pretty powerful, and the SMG's had a decent range. (Early PPSh-41's had their sights adjustable up to 500m, which is over 1500 ft, but later ones had that reduced to a more realistic 200m maximum.) And they had LOTS of them. By 1945, over 5 million PPSh-41 SMG's had been produced. (And that's only one of the models.) Whole regiments were often armed with nothing else.

By comparison, the German MP-38 and MP-40 put together, only had some 1.2 million produced until the end of the war. They also had only 400-500 RPM cyclic rate of fire. They also had a shorter effective range than the Soviet burp guns. About half of it, in fact. (Though in all fairness, the Germans had a much better squad machinegun, with the rest of the squad being mostly support for it, a squad of Soviet burp guns could saturate the air with bullets much better than the German squad with its machinegun.)

Back to armour, later in the war the Soviets had such monstrosities as the ISU-152, which wasn't just a long barrelled 152mm hovitzer on threads, but perfectly able to destroy any German tank at great ranges. It had earned the nickname "animal killer", for the obvious reason. (That it had no problem killing a Tiger, Panther or Elephant.)

[Barnacle Bill]

On the scale of the Civ(1-3) world maps and by the number of units in play, it is not "a tank" and "a guy with a spear" (plus a pot lid & a bottle of gasoline). It is not 100 tanks and 100 guys with spears. It is an armored division and an equivalent-sized formation of guys with spears.

In WWII, leaving out "attached" units (which were mostly made organic shortly after the war because they were effectively permanently attached in practice during the war), a US Armored Division (1943 TO&E) consisted of:

3 Tank Battalions (about 60 tanks each)
3 Armored Infantry Battalions (about 1000 guys each)
3 Armored Artillery Battalions
1 Mechanized Cavalry Squadron (battalion)
A wad of assorted support troops.


A modern US Armored Division consists of:

6 Tank Battalions
4 Mechanized Infantry Battalions
4 SP Artillery Battalions
1 Mechanized Cavalry Squadron (battalion)
2 Attack Helicopter Battalions
A wad of assorted support troops.

For a modern US Mechanized Infantry Division, change the above to 5 each Tank & Mech Infantry Battalions.

About 1 guy in 4 in either the WWII or modern versions actually is an infantryman or in the crew of an AFV or artillery piece. The rest are support troops who do maintenance, clerical duties, and keep the logistics flowing - modern warfare consumes huge quantities of ammo, fuel & spare parts, plus the troops don't feed themselves by ripping off the local farmers as in spearman days (they might still do it to get fresh food, but they are supplied with those lovely MRE's).

Neither version is going to have any problem capturing a city and keeping the civilians in line (setting aside guerrilla warfare, which is not modelled in Civ).

Also, no problem taking out 5000 or 10000 spearmen, and giving the spearmen pot lids & bottles of gasoline isn't going to affect the outcome much.