Still no solution to spearman vs tank problem.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Random Passerby
This is ridiculous. The people on one side of the debate say "This can't happen because the probability is just too low" so they complain about the combat system, and the people on the other side say "That can't happen because the probability is just too low" and so they demand to see proof that of these 'miracle spearman' who can somehow magically obtain results in strict accordance with the laws of probability.

I'm so confused!

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by steelehc
Still no-one has posted a save or screenshot or whatever. I am not attacking those who have seen this, but I am attacking this events existence, and will do so until I see proof of some kind. Or if it happens to me.

Steele

Don't breathe then - after all you can't see the air, but its there...

[Ethelred]

Come over to the Information thread in the OT area and we will REALLY confuse you.



I am pretty sure it was the paragraph that was confused not you.

Some of the words needed to changed here and there and then it might actually make some sense.

How about I try it.
-------------------------------------------------
This is ridiculous. The people on one side of the debate say "This SHOULDN'T EVER happen because the probability is just too low" so they complain about the combat system, and the people on the other side say "That can't happen because the probability is just too low" and so they demand to see proof that of these 'miracle spearman' who can somehow magically obtain results THAT ARE NOT in strict accordance with the laws of probability.
------------------------------------------------------

I think thats what he meant. Its still not an accurate restatement of the thread. Since few think it can't happen. I simply haven't seen it myself.

The odds are REAL low for a tank attacking a spearman on grass. Something like 99.5 to one. However the spearman's odds of survival impove a lot if it is in a city of greater than 13 population and on a hill. Even then the tank will win the vast majority of the battles.

Some of the people (Coracle) wouldn't be satisied with the Civ II combat system. Even there a speaman had a tiny chance of winning. They don't want the spearman to ever win under any conditions. They want it treated as a special case I guess.

IF attacker is TANK
AND defender is SPEARMAN
THEN piss on the odds tables and decapitate the SPEARMAN no matter what.

THEN PLAYER RANTS that the TANK has smeared blood on its tracks.

[steelehc]

Now people are attacking me because I don't believe in their story.

I can't see the air, but I can tell its there. I would know if it weren't.

In any case it seems like no-one is going to be able to provide proof of this seemingly commonplace event. If it is so common, show me something. If it isn't so common, why are you b1tching?

Steele

[Denday]

spearmen waste tanks

I once played a cheiften game a long, long time ago
and i took over 50 tanks to fight a country and came back with 39 I razed all the cities and they had just discovered gunpowder and I lost 11 tanks.
it seems when I play a game even on monarch i will lose at least one tank to a musktmen or phlanex.

Hi Pieter

[notyoueither]

AhHa!

Here you go Steele. I knew I'd seen it out there somewhere.

BTW. It won't work anymore due to the random seed being reset when you load old saves with 1.21. If you are that determined to witness it yourself, you'll have to reinstall and patch to 1.17.

Look at this thread at cfc . Now everyone can leave you alone.

[Grumbold]

Re: spearmen waste tanks

Originally posted by Denday
I once played a cheiften game a long, long time ago
and i took over 50 tanks to fight a country and came back with 39 I razed all the cities and they had just discovered gunpowder and I lost 11 tanks.
it seems when I play a game even on monarch i will lose at least one tank to a musktmen or phlanex.

Hi Pieter

If the nation had 11+ cities then I would say that you got value for money. You lost a few hundred production points and eradicated an entire nation. Unless you lose a unit or two in attacking the cost of a war is absolutely zero, which imo would be more of a problem than the occasional run of bad luck.

[SpencerH]

There may be a graphical fix for the spearman vs tank problem. Its in this thread

spearman vs tank fix

[PGM]

I still don't understand what the "spearman vs tank problem" is. I don't see it as a problem, and would never want it fixed.
The game would be incredibly dull if combat results were always as predictable as many people in this thread wanted it to be.
Tank charges in and stops, the soldiers inside get out for a smoke, spearmen ambush them. Spearman 1, Tank 0. Just take it as fun. It IS a game...

[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.

[Sava]

Originally posted by PGM
I still don't understand what the "spearman vs tank problem" is. I don't see it as a problem, and would never want it fixed.
The game would be incredibly dull if combat results were always as predictable as many people in this thread wanted it to be.
Tank charges in and stops, the soldiers inside get out for a smoke, spearmen ambush them. Spearman 1, Tank 0. Just take it as fun. It IS a game...

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

[Sava]

Re: Re: spearmen waste tanks

Originally posted by Grumbold


If the nation had 11+ cities then I would say that you got value for money. You lost a few hundred production points and eradicated an entire nation. Unless you lose a unit or two in attacking the cost of a war is absolutely zero, which imo would be more of a problem than the occasional run of bad luck.

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.

[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.

[player1]

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

But not losing Tank to some other units, makes game pointless and less fun.

Who gets tanks, WINS.

What would be point of bombers, artillery and infantry if you could win any battle with several tanks.

[Sava]

Originally posted by player1


But not losing Tank to some other units, makes game pointless and less fun.

Who gets tanks, WINS.

What would be point of bombers, artillery and infantry if you could win any battle with several tanks.

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.