Phalanx vs tank solved

[Andre]

A suggestion I already made in the CTP forum.

To avoide having a phalanx killing a tank there is a simple solution.

First of all you might give the tank a defense value incredibly high. This makes balanceing quite complicated.

I prefer another thought to solve this. The only problem behind the whole thing is, that the two units are fromdifferent tech levels. A stack of eight phalanx is not able to do any damage to a tank. At that time of technology they hardly knew a screwdriver.

So any unit should receive a tech level. If units of different tech levels fight each other, the unit with the higher tech level receives a malus on it's attack value. A malus is the opposite of a bonus. While 50% bonus means "add the half", 50% malus means "substract the half".

The more the two tech levels differ the progressively higher the malus on the attack value.

Guess the folowing figures:

Phalanx Attack 1, Defense 2, Tech level 1
Musketeer Attack 3, Defense 3, Tech Level 4
WWII Tank Attack 10, Defense 10, Tech level 5

Note that I speak of a WWII tank. It has no radar, no advanced communication etc. Therefore it only has a +1 higher tech level than the musketeer.

But between Phalanx and musketeer there is +3 difference, because between spear and rifle (fine mechanism and explosives) are 2 thousand years of development. Actually it is not about the distance of time. Development speeds up every day with additional knowledge of man.

In the implemented version it should be the following way:
If the maximum tech level is 6, the maximum tech level gap between two units is 5.
If the tech level gap between two units is X it should receive a Y% malus on it's attack value:
tech level gap malus
1 10%
2 20%
3 35%
4 55%
5 85%
Note the progressive way the malus gains.

If musketeer attacks tank, the musketeer should receive 10% malus on its attack value. The rifle is just not the effective against the more modern armor of the tank.

But if phalanx attacks tank, the phalanx will receive a 55% malus on it's attack value making it impossible to cause any damage. Tank defense will remain 10 but phalanx attack will decrease to 0.45.

Of course balancing has to be done, but:
In the old fashioned way, it was harder to do.

[Paul Crocker]

The only radar I remember on my M1A1 tank was my 19-year old eyes straining to see enemy aircraft Seriously, though, you've brought up a point that has seriously irked me with civ/civII. I can see some musketeers damaging a tank unit a little (FE Afghani rebels with ancient rifles throwing Molotov cocktails on the back decks of the tanks), but that would rarely succeed and would cost the attackers dearly as well. Your solution seems pretty sound. How would this be for another option that may be a little simpler but still uses your Malus concept?

Units that are 2 or more tech levels below the enemy would automatically get a really low attack/defense value. This could be set as a constant to get the best playability out of it. Say, using your example, set it at 0.45 whenever a huge tech difference exists. Any thoughts?

[Lord God Jinnai]

Ok your point is true that both muskets and even more so phalanxs couldn't hurt a tank... However it could still come to a stalemate...tanks aren't perfect and they could get caught in a narrow pass where it can't manuver and the other guys can get away.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Um actually i think it might be able to have a phalanx do damage to a tank, if its already damaged, the tank that is. If the tank were damaged, esp a whole lot parts of its armor could be missing and exposing vital parts and a lucky spear throw could hit one and damage it thus making the tank inoperable. Note this is a long shot, but i think it could be possible.

[Paul Crocker]

LGJ: I was a tanker for several years, and I really doubt that a phalanx could do much damage to an armor unit (as opposed to a single tank). The "vital parts" of a tank are usually the crew or other components that are pretty tough to get at without outright destruction of the tank. (Pieces of armor are seldom "missing", but are more often penetrated by enemy rounds, and therefore don't really expose vital components to damage after the initial impact of the round that created the hole.) In any case, while an individual tank might be immobilized or destroyed by guys with spears, it's such a long shot as to be nearly impossible.

Your point that they can get away in certain terrain is completely valid, however. They just couldn't do much damage to the armor unit. There should be a chance that the attacking armor might "miss" the phalanx.

Unarmed troops could actually slow or stop an armor unit temporarily by using obstacles or, in the case of lightly armed troops, harassing fire in an urban setting.

The bottom line, though, is that an unarmed or lightly armed (ancient firearms or spears) unit would be entirely ineffectual offensively against a modern armored unit. They might fair slightly better on the defense, but would eventually be crushed as well if they didn't get any help from more "modern" weaponry. A good example of this is the Ethiopians vs. the Italians in the 1930's. They were utterly crushed by the modern Italian units, despite the fact that the Italians were using equipment considered obsolete even for that era.

[This message has been edited by Paul Crocker (edited October 13, 1999).]

[Mark_Everson]

Andre:

We don't Have any problems with stacks of phalanxes vs modern armor. That's all due to the bizarre way Civ-like games handle combat power.

You'd get further if you'd do a little reading first...

In the Clash Status thread (referred to in my post @ CTP) is a list of all the major game models. Under the military area you would have found my suggestion for how to handle different tech levels of units in the thread Military/Combat System - Whatcha Think?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on my proposed solution, which involves unit dispersion and weapon leathality over history. It is somewhat similar to yours .

[Andre]

Mark,

I'll check it, but the thread is quit loooong