Still no solution to spearman vs tank problem.

[player1]

Originally posted by Sava


That's the whole point. You have to make the game evolve more smoothly. You don't just discover Tank Warfare (or whatever) and boom you can churn out tanks in every city. There has to be a part of the game based on industrial infrastructure.

BTW, that's the way the real world works. He who gets the strongest military technology, wins. Although there are other factors, but I'm not going to teach you about warfare.

I guess we'll need to wait for Civ4 then.


P.S.
On the other hand, from gameplay perspective losing tank to spearmen once in 20 times is NO PROBLEM.

Is it really realistic?
No.

[Sava]

I'm not going to wait for CIV4... I'm already working on my own game.

I don't have too much of a problem with the tank vs spearmen because I usually only attack if I know I can win (after bombarding). But I am against it in principle.

[Zachriel]

Re: spearmen waste tanks

Originally posted by Sava


Yeah, but come on.... In the ME, for example, I haven't heard of any reports of Israel losing any tanks to the Palestinians. And they have AK-47's and other types of modern weapons. In the Gulf War, tank vs tank... the Coalition LOST ZERO to enemy fire.

Factual update:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1822000/1822307.stm

The Merkava 3 is "one of the most modern and heavily protected tanks in the world." This is real life equivalent of primitive warriors v. modern machines.

Concerning U.S. v. Iraq: Friendly fire is an inevitable result of combat with modern weapons. The units were still destroyed, the soldiers killed.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sava
My solution to this problem involves two steps.

1. Make combat outcomes more realistic (spearmen will never be tank)

BUT

2. Make evolution of technology more realistic so that one civ can climb up the tree while his neighbor sits idly by.

Weapons of warfare have not just developed in isolation. They have been battle tested and constantly improved upon. It's an arms race.

The problem has pretty much been solved with the addition of the hit point bonuses in the latest patch. If it bothers you that much, just go into the editor and play around with the the values. With a little tinkering, a Modern Era unit will never be able to be defeated by an Ancient unit.

Or if you like, add an era specific folder with some updated graphics for the units that you hate losing to. With these options, you should never have to complain about it ever again.

This whole argument has become redundant, and I really hope I don't have to read anyone's whines about again.

[steelehc]

NYE: Thanks for the save and screenshots. That does change my opinion that such an event is possible of happening, but I still have a hard time believing that it happens regularly. I am not asking for more screenshots or whatever as proof, but please don't expect me to freely accept 5 spearmen destroying 4 tanks, or any other scenario happening anything more then rarely.

Steele

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by steelehc
NYE: Thanks for the save and screenshots. That does change my opinion that such an event is possible of happening, but I still have a hard time believing that it happens regularly. I am not asking for more screenshots or whatever as proof, but please don't expect me to freely accept 5 spearmen destroying 4 tanks, or any other scenario happening anything more then rarely.

Steele

I think in the 600,000,000 year history of civilization (1000 players x 100 games each x 6000 years per game), almost anything is possible!

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Sava
BTW, that's the way the real world works. He who gets the strongest military technology, wins. Although there are other factors, but I'm not going to teach you about warfare.

Did Germany win WW2?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by steelehc
NYE: Thanks for the save and screenshots. That does change my opinion that such an event is possible of happening, but I still have a hard time believing that it happens regularly. I am not asking for more screenshots or whatever as proof, but please don't expect me to freely accept 5 spearmen destroying 4 tanks, or any other scenario happening anything more then rarely.

Steele

I think Grrr!! was pulling our chains and is now sitting back and laughing at how successfully he did it.

I have said it before. I have never lost a Tank to anything older than a Rifleman. I go to war a lot.

I use bombardment, especially if the foe occupies rough terrain. I do not attack with injured units. I never build anything but Vets. I always attack en mass. Silly me.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Hurricane


Did Germany win WW2?

Yeah, but the Germans were stupid. One of them other factors Sava was referring to.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Yeah, but the Germans were stupid. One of them other factors Sava was referring to.

It´s stupid to attack a fortified, undamaged, veteran Spearman in a Metropolis with a damaged Tank, too.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sava
BTW, that's the way the real world works. He who gets the strongest military technology, wins. Although there are other factors, but I'm not going to teach you about warfare.

That's why the world was conquered and unified in 4000bc with the discovery of organized warfare, or was it in 3000bc with the invention of iron weapons? or was the 2000bc with the advent of mounted units? I was never very good at history. Was the world unified with the invention of gunpowder or was it the development of airpower?

I better check my college textbook.

[bigvic]

Originally posted by Sava
In the real world, the Modern Armor defeats regular old tanks 100 percent of the time. Need proof? There was a little skirmish called the Gulf War. The coalition forces lost 0 tanks to enemy fire.... THATS A BIG O. They did lose tanks to friendly fire because they are stupid.

Of course spearmen are not going to even stand a chance against tanks. The combat system is flawed because its based on a probabilty scale. 100 to 1 chance is still too unrealistic.

In general I agree about wacky combat results, but...
1. Until we all have big blue computational access and "Matrix" like programs, nuthin's purfect. Suspend disbelief and use your imagination. You all do have imaginations, right? Cognitive dissonance?
2. I agree w/ notyoueither. I kind of think the whole spearman beating tank phenom is an elaborate joke/urban legend.
3. There was also a little skirmish called the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Strange results there. What about spearmen armed to the teeth with laws (light antitank weapons) or rpg's (Soviet man portable at weapons)?

[SpencerH]

Sure we can suspend disbelief. But for me the game will be better when there are some appropriate graphics that can be used in place of a guy with a longbow.

[Grumbold]

An armoured brigade/division has a lot more than just tanks and tank crews in it. Cut off its fuel supplies and a whole formation can be neutralised without anyone firing a shot. Combat results (especially for a "year" of fighting) represent a lot more than just tank A knocks out tank B. More losses occur from infection, disease, accident and general fatigue or wear and tear than from physical combat. Civ, like many other games, levies no cost on just putting the military units in the field and keeping them there. In the real world that cost is vast, which is why wars have typically been far more expensive to fight than they were worth, even for the "winner". The occasional loss of a superior unit helps make sure that the winner at least has to pause to weigh up the cost for a second before leaping to attack.

[PGM]

Originally posted by Sava
But I don't think that spearmen beating a tank is fun. It's stupid.

Combat can't always go your way. Stupidity, caos and the unexpected are an integrant part of war. Many battles in History were lost due to these aspects.
BTW, I've played well over 100 combats involving Modern Armors and Spearman/Pikemen and can't recall losing a single unit. But I've lost a Tank to a Spearman, and I liked it.