Real men can handle getting their tanked smashed by a warrior

[Calorman]

Originally posted by redstar1
Wrong_shui:

I think you misunderstand my point. The attack points of a warrior do not increase just because we 'imagine' them to have light weapons and a knowledge of guerilla warfare. The point is to try and remove the absolutely ridiculous result of a man with a club or spear defeating a tank. Its obviously complete rubbish. However in the age of tanks, a 'spearman' unit isn't going to be carring a spear. That again is complete rubbish.

This is all of course up to the players imagination. I choose to think of it in this way, others may not. Maybe thats why it doesn't annoy me.....

Dave

You're right that people can interpret much of this as they see fit (such as saying that infantryman actually represents 1000 men for example). However, firaxis did put in the effort to upgrade the graphical appearance of settlers/workers as time dictates. If 'warriors' were somehow automatically upgraded with contemporary weapons as time went by then why haven't they represented this?
You see the intention is that warriors et al simply aren't upgraded. You build a warrior in 2001 he doesn't look like a scruffy goat herder with a kalashnikov slung over his back. He still looks like Conan the barbarian. This is the whole reason for having more than one type of troop in the game. If your reasoning was correct then why do we have so many different unit types? Why not just say that the warrior is armed with a stone axe in the ancient period, a longsword in the medieval period, flintlock pistols in the industrial period and an automatic rifle in the modern period and not bother having riflemen, infantry, musketeers etc?
I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make. You can continue to interpret it as you want of course, but the simple truth is that you're wrong. A warrior built in 4000 BC is the same as a warrior built in 2000 AD, flint axe, animal furs and all.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Calorman
You're right that people can interpret much of this as they see fit (such as saying that infantryman actually represents 1000 men for example). However, firaxis did put in the effort to upgrade the graphical appearance of settlers/workers as time dictates. If 'warriors' were somehow automatically upgraded with contemporary weapons as time went by then why haven't they represented this?
You see the intention is that warriors et al simply aren't upgraded. You build a warrior in 2001 he doesn't look like a scruffy goat herder with a kalashnikov slung over his back. He still looks like Conan the barbarian. This is the whole reason for having more than one type of troop in the game. If your reasoning was correct then why do we have so many different unit types? Why not just say that the warrior is armed with a stone axe in the ancient period, a longsword in the medieval period, flintlock pistols in the industrial period and an automatic rifle in the modern period and not bother having riflemen, infantry, musketeers etc?
I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make. You can continue to interpret it as you want of course, but the simple truth is that you're wrong. A warrior built in 4000 BC is the same as a warrior built in 2000 AD, flint axe, animal furs and all.

Life is full of compromises, and your "simple truth is that you're wrong" statement (last paragraph) is, uh, wrong! (OTH, your statement "You can continue to interpret it as you want of course" is totally correct and also applies to yourself).

Just as with Civ2, you cannot expect game producers to cover every little detail and realism aspect. They would have had to do a different graphic for each period, complete with animations, and then people would be complaining because the combat animations looked like people firing RPG's (anti-tank weapons) when it wasn't in combat with a tank.

It all boils down to your THINKING what serves you best. If it serves you better to get out your life's frustrations by criticizing, by all means continue to do so. But I hope you are also enjoying the game!

Oh, and by the way, Happy Holidays!

[Blackadar1]

I think Dissident is trying to get Firaxis to create a new position for him: Official Apologist.

[Calorman]

Originally posted by Jaybe

Life is full of compromises, and your "simple truth is that you're wrong" statement (last paragraph) is, uh, wrong! (OTH, your statement "You can continue to interpret it as you want of course" is totally correct and also applies to yourself).

Just as with Civ2, you cannot expect game producers to cover every little detail and realism aspect. They would have had to do a different graphic for each period, complete with animations, and then people would be complaining because the combat animations looked like people firing RPG's (anti-tank weapons) when it wasn't in combat with a tank.

It all boils down to your THINKING what serves you best. If it serves you better to get out your life's frustrations by criticizing, by all means continue to do so. But I hope you are also enjoying the game!

Oh, and by the way, Happy Holidays!

LOL. I knew when I typed that somebody would get hung up on that last statement. Yes it was a blunt thing to say but I think its fair considering the arguments I had put forward in my post. I still think you can interpret things as you wish but that doesn't mean you're correct about something. If the guy I was responding to was to put forward his own rebuttals and claim that I was simply wrong then that would be fair game.

As for your comments . . .
Like I said if you're prepared to go into the detail of at least changing some of the graphics as time goes by then why not all of them? Because of time contraints? Budget? I think we can safely agree that the reason they did not change the appearence of say, a warrior, as time goes by is because the warrior simply does not change. A warrior is the same whenever you build it. People are just touting out this rationalisation rubbish as a way of excusing inferior units frequently beating superior ones, instead of admitting that the combat system is simply poor.

And concerning your comments about what weapon he would use, that doesn't really make sense. I certainly don't expect them to manufacture graphics for several different attacks. As it is now I don't see tanks using their machine guns when engaging infantry, nor do I see my marines wipping out LAWs when taking out tanks. It doesn't bother me and since I haven't really heard much complaining about it I don't think it bothers many other people either.

[MORON]

Hey, what is wrong with spear man beating tanx?

3 Step way to kill tanks

1. jump on tanx
2. spear the hatch
3. spear the guy inside

[Blackadder667]

Originally posted by MORON
Hey, what is wrong with spear man beating tanx?

3 Step way to kill tanks

1. jump on tanx
2. spear the hatch
3. spear the guy inside

Naah even better.

1. Pick up rock
2. jump on tanx
3. put rock in hole (dat's barrel)
4. Tankx fire, kaboom tanx dead.

[Calorman]

Originally posted by MORON
Hey, what is wrong with spear man beating tanx?

3 Step way to kill tanks

1. jump on tanx
2. spear the hatch
3. spear the guy inside

That's very interesting. I think you should report these findings to the United States Defence Department. I'm sure they'll want to immediately replace their obsolete M1 battle tanks with these new top of the range foot soldiers wearing bronze armour and wielding AT stones and spears

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Calorman


That's very interesting. I think you should report these findings to the United States Defence Department. I'm sure they'll want to immediately replace their obsolete M1 battle tanks with these new top of the range foot soldiers wearing bronze armour and wielding AT stones and spears

Actually, the U.S. military is well aware of the advantages of combined arms. You will rarely see battle plans for solo tanks without infantry, artillery, air and where appropriate naval support. A tank wandering by itself through the jungle or down city streets is an invitation to disaster.

Even with combined arms and massive force, expect to take casualties. Be pleasantly surprised if you don't.

[Libertarian]

Don't forget sticky bombs.

[Blackadder667]

Originally posted by Zachriel



Actually, the U.S. military is well aware of the advantages of combined arms. You will rarely see battle plans for solo tanks without infantry, artillery, air and where appropriate naval support. A tank wandering by itself through the jungle or down city streets is an invitation to disaster.

Even with combined arms and massive force, expect to take casualties. Be pleasantly surprised if you don't.

Just as i said earlier

[s3d]

well, think as RPG player - imagine spearman as modern somalian spearman with spear _and_ RPG (not that RPG but RPG - 7). Perfectly able to take out tank and also proven to be able to take out marine detachment.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by MORON
Hey, what is wrong with spear man beating tanx?

3 Step way to kill tanks

1. jump on tanx
2. spear the hatch
3. spear the guy inside

Or my favorite,

1. elephant pit in road
2. gasoline in pit
3. match

[KrazyHorse]

*Thinks back to Guevara's "La Guerra de Guerrilla"*
*Smiles*