Two tanks, one musketmen, one knight?

[Saint Marcus]

I don't understand why there are two seperate tanks (besides the CU) and only one musketmen/knight/etc. I mean, tanks from WW2 differ less from modern tanks than 15th century spanish musketmen differ from 19th century french musketmen. I really don't understand why Firaxis has chosen to put two seperate tanks in the game (history of only 80 years or so), but just one musketmen (history 400 years) and one knight (history 1500 years). I can understand why there are two different fighters though...modern Eagles are quite different from WW1 Fokkers...but Panzer tanks don't really differ that much at all from modern Leopards. Does someone knwo why this all is done?

[Sabre2th]

There is more than one musketeer unit. There is a basic unit and the French CSU. There are also mounted CSUs that go hand and hand with knights.

[Urban Ranger]

On the contrary, modern tanks are a marked improvement over their WWII counterparts.

[Fiil]

Don't forget the conscripts, I think they are ment to be a late version of the gun armed soldier, the musketman is the early.

But I do agree we could use another infantry unit in between the two!

IIRC we don't know if there aren't any more units. I don't remember all the units from the techtree screenshoots being indentified. There might very well be another infantry unit in the game!

About the knights:
To say knights have been around for 1500 years is a bit to much (actually a lot). The first true knights I believe are around the battles against the hungarians (933). (crusaders are out, so I refer to the all as knights - don't see the difference anyway!). Everything before that time fits well under horsemen. The power of knights declined as guns became better through the late medieval period. In the 30-years war (1618-48) there knights played no vital role anymore. Anything later were mounted musketeers or dragoons dependant on speed more than armour.

Besides I believe the modern tank differs nearly as much from the (early) ww2 tanks as modern jetfighters do old planes. A ww2 tanks would stand no chance against a modern tank.

[The Mad Viking]

Remarkably, armoured men on horseback predates the adoption of the stirrup. Even if you use the stirrup, armoured men on armoured horses has been around since 400 AD. On sideboards, even longer. Knights went into decline starting with the Battle of Agincourt, where the English Longbows proved to much for the french armour; muskets finished them off for good.

While modern armour is certainly far superior to WWII, I would suggest that 5 Panzers could knock out an one modern tank.

50 Spitfires would be unlikely to shoot down a single F-18.

Sopwith Camels, Fokker Triplanes and WWI tanks! Now there's fun!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
While modern armour is certainly far superior to WWII, I would suggest that 5 Panzers could knock out an one modern tank

Probably not. Armament's not even close to heavy enough, and the modern tank would probably "kill" all 5 enemy tanks before they even got within their firing range.

[tishco]

panzer is it think a german ICS so that doesnt count.
but there may be 2 typres of tank anyway.
i though it went pikemen muskets conscripts marines mech infantry

[Provost Harrison]

To be fair, military technology is a lot more fast moving in the modern era than it was in the past, so hence there are as many switches in 100 years of the modern era as in 500 of the medieval...

[Col Bigspear]

The German CSU, the panzer has a counter part(not in abilitaly), the Sherman(in the hills) from what I can tell from this picture (old pic, not very good pic of Sherman, too rounded). A modern tank, the Abrams and a Bradley AFV ( APC )* For people not familiar with Military abreveations APC= Armoured personnel Carrier Aka Mech Inf. are also present. Not pictured here are the other WW2 era equipment e.g the Spitfire is in the game!. Could be some very good Scenarios for WW2 emerging.

Ok so not many old units have multiples but the last centuary was a mile stone in technology. WW1 gave us fighter aircraft and the tank, Chemical warfare (Not in game, though in SMAC), the flame-thrower, submarine warfare etc.
WW2 gave us more modern fighters (Spitfire)and ultimately the Jet Fighter, RADAR, SONAR/ ASDIC, NUCLEAR WEAPONS ,Spec forces (SAS, OSS/Navy seals), Smart Weapons (V-1, V-2) V-1 modern=Cruise Missile ( Americans captured german ones and developed them into cruise Missiles).

What I am getting at is so much has come from the last centuary, it needs to be in there, like 5 panzers taking on a Abrams, a Spitfire taking on a MiG 27? or an F-16. A Knight represents a man on horse back (Armoured). A WW2 era tank highest calibre=88mm, A modern tank calibre= 105mm Av (I think) with better Armour (thicker and small packs on the outside that explode outwars when hit detonating the round before it penertrates the Armour) this is a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.
I don't recall a knight with a few cm or mm of Armour meeting a knight donning 3inch armour!

Old pic. http://www.civfanatics.com/cgi-bin/a...s/fpsunits.jpg

[Inverse Icarus]

there arent two tanks iirc, ones a tank and ones a mech inf.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by UberKruX
there arent two tanks iirc, ones a tank and ones a mech inf.

in that pic, there are four mobile units, one (2nd from top) is almost definetely mech. infantry. BUt the other three are tanks. I would guess that one's the Panzer (German special unit - KNOWN in game) and one's the regular tank (KLNOWN in game). My guess for the last is either a modern (abrahms) tank or a placeholder/alternate graphic. Also, this was one of the first screenshots, there are pribably all different graphics now.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13


in that pic, there are four mobile units, one (2nd from top) is almost definetely mech. infantry. BUt the other three are tanks. I would guess that one's the Panzer (German special unit - KNOWN in game) and one's the regular tank (KLNOWN in game). My guess for the last is either a modern (abrahms) tank or a placeholder/alternate graphic. Also, this was one of the first screenshots, there are pribably all different graphics now.

The tank closest to the top is the Panzer. The one that looks as if it belongs to the purple team... or has purple paint on it, anyways.

[Rommel393]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
While modern armour is certainly far superior to WWII, I would suggest that 5 Panzers could knock out an one modern tank.

On the contrary Viking that would be almost impossible, unless the modern tank was caught completely offguard. In WW2, possibly the best and least known about tank was the Soviet Tiger. When these were first implemented against the Germans on their operation Barbarosa there were some amazing victories by the Tiger tanks. During a Soviet retreat, 15 Tigers were providing cover fire for the retreating soldiers and other tanks. By the end of the day about 40 German Panzers lie burning. No lie.

Now where I'm getting to is this: if a tank advanced during its time (ie, Tiger) can crush another tank of its time (ie, Panzer), then what about another tank with 60 years more technology and experience behind it? The Abrams uses potent, but nasty Uranium depleted shells (I could tell you how they work but it would take a while), has a much more powerful engine, uses chemical explosives instead of gunpowder, has much thinker composite armor, and a much long range (several miles compared to the Panzers couple thousand yards). A single Abrams tank could easily kill Panzers until it runs out of shells. Thats a lot of Panzers. The two tank units are entirely needed and are a great addition to the game. I suggest you spare yourself the embarrasment and not even compare modern tanks and "ancient" tanks.

[Rommel393]

Check out these units I have never seen before. I think I saw what could be the Sioux (its not the sioux anymore is it?) special unit.

http://www.firaxis.com/games_civ3.cfm

All I can say is sweet. I like the stealth fighter.

P.S. Please tell me what the Native American civ is now.

[Executor]

Originally posted by Rommel393
On the contrary Viking that would be almost impossible, unless the modern tank was caught completely offguard. In WW2, possibly the best and least known about tank was the Soviet Tiger. When these were first implemented against the Germans on their operation Barbarosa there were some amazing victories by the Tiger tanks. During a Soviet retreat, 15 Tigers were providing cover fire for the retreating soldiers and other tanks. By the end of the day about 40 German Panzers lie burning. No lie.

Last I heard, the Tiger was a German tank. The Soviets, though, could have captured a few and used them against the Germans.

[Rommel393]

Sorry executor. The tiger was american designed and sent to the ussr shortly after the war began. Why the other allies didnt use it boggles my mind though.....

This is fact unless I've been grossly misinformed which I really dont think happened. I'm 98.634% positive the tiger was soviet.

[Rommel393]

if you have solid proof that im wrong, prove me wrong now so that i dont make a further fool of my self.

[Rommel393]

Look at what you've done... now you've undermined my confidence.

[Col Bigspear]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Rommel393



In WW2, possibly the best and least known about tank was the Soviet Tiger.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????

Rommel the Tiger was a PANZER mark VI, GERMAN!!
The PANZER mark V was the PANTHER

Jerrie Tanks
PZ mk I
Pz mk II
Pz mk III
Pz mk IV
Pz mk V (Panther)
Pz mk VI (Tiger) (Appeared before the Panther in 1942, Panther first used at Kursk 1943)

Soviet tanks

T-34, 1940-55 (near enough) (the one I assume u r talking about, Panther Copied from this (no-one dared tell Hitler)).
KV series, 1930s-45 (Big BAST*RDS)
JS series, 1944-45 (JS=Joseph Stalin, HUGE, 88mm+ gun LOTS OF ARMOUR)
thats of the top of my head
BTW, PANZER=German for tank!

[Executor]

Originally posted by Rommel393
if you have solid proof that im wrong, prove me wrong now so that i dont make a further fool of my self.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtiger.htm
http://www.archivebritain.com/tiger_...itish_view.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tigers.htm

[Col Bigspear]

Originally posted by UberKruX
there arent two tanks iirc, ones a tank and ones a mech inf.

Ah.. Uberkrux you are a firm believer in thouse tech tree pics with units etc.
What makes you think that Firaxis would release the whole thing before the release date?.Just because its not on there how can you be sure its not in Civ 3?

[Col Bigspear]

Originally posted by Rommel393
Sorry executor. The tiger was american designed and sent to the ussr shortly after the war began. Why the other allies didnt use it boggles my mind though.....

This is fact unless I've been grossly misinformed which I really dont think happened. I'm 98.634% positive the tiger was soviet.

American, AMERICAN, F***ING AMERICAN
Who told you this?
Give them a slap for me, tell them British Stef sez NO!

AMERICA Pisses me of CONSTANTLY.
e.g
Chuck Yeager? goes through the sound barrier, IN A BRITISH INVENTION!!!!!!!.
A picture from the 1930's showed a british plane with a one-piece rear wing, so that it would not get ripped of at high speed ( the airelon? moving down to raise the plane would be ripped off causing the plane to crash. A one-piece wing acts as the airelon, but much more airodynamic).
Anyway the Americans asked Britain for their research notes in exchange of theirs, we give em ours we get a telegram "The Chief of staff's believe that our research is too high a defence secret and cannot be shared" ? we're your F-ing Allies.

British scientists give america all our data on the Nuclear forces and how they can be developed in to a bomb ( ok these were notes from the mid 30's but still, we got f-all in return until the USSR developed the bomb then they decided to give us THE BOMB.

And the NORDAN bomb site, Britain was forced to Carpet bomb at night because we lacked a precition bombing site.

The list is endless.

Americans this is not aimed at you, more at you Governments and Generals. Patton, don't get me started.
Patton quote " British generals are well known to fight to the last Australian" And so they should but we has less men than he and the American army had, he could have ACCEPTABLE losses.

No Offence
Your with me arn't you brits

[monkspider]

Someone here thought the Tiger was Soviet??

The Tiger was the German Panzer V if I recall correctly, I suppose it's possible that the Soviets may have captured a few of them and re-used them, but it was most certainly a German vehicle.

As for the bloody Brits, speaking as an American no less, I would agree that Monty was a far more brilliant tactician than Patton, considering the limited supplies and manpower he had behind him, Monty got a miraculous ammont accomplished for the Allies, primarily in the North African campaign. I also agree that most Americans fail to give the Britsh their proper credit in all numbers of things. I have always found Britain to be one of the most courageous nations in world war II (only behind the Soviet Union).

[monkspider]

Also, hearing that the Tiger was an American designed tank is one of the funnier things i have read in a long time, being a WW II historian of sorts.
To read an accurate and well documented history of the Tiger I go here
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tigerp.htm

[Urban Ranger]

That image was too old. It never had any real units in it at any rate, it was supposed to be an artist's illustration of "what-if's."

Rommel393: The Tiger is definitely a German tank. The tanks the Soviets used early were probably KV-I's and KV-II's. They were far superior to what the Germans had at the time, unfortunately the Soviet commanders didn't know how to use them properly (massed charges supported by infantry).

[monkspider]

Exactly Urban, it's actually a little known fact that even the French had some superior tanks to that of the Germans during the Blitzkrieg campaign of 1940. The French had two awesome heavy tanks known as the Souma and the Char B1-Bis which were infinitely superior to the Panzer Is and IIs that the Germans used, and even far better than the limited number of Panzer IIIs and IVs. However, the French also took a World War I type perspective to armor useage and superior tactics won the day.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Rommel393

Sorry executor. The tiger was american designed and sent to the ussr shortly after the war began. Why the other allies didnt use it boggles my mind though.....

This is fact unless I've been grossly misinformed which I really dont think happened. I'm 98.634% positive the tiger was soviet.

if you have solid proof that im wrong, prove me wrong now so that i dont make a further fool of my self.

Kind of hard to prove that something does not exist.

The Americans did not designed a good tank until the very end of the war (the Pershing). The Sherman was too tall, lightly armoured and the gun was weak (except for the Brit modified Firefly with a 17-pounder). Also the Yank tanks were gas (aka petrol) fuelled which meant they had a common tendency of going up in a fireball when hit. Russian and German tanks used diesel which is less flamable.

The Russians really hated the American tanks which were far inferrior to the T-34.

I think you might be talking about the KV-1, heavily armoured and heavily armed at the time of the opening of the German invasion of Russia.

Monkspider wrote: "The Tiger was the German Panzer V if I recall correctly."

The Panzer V was the Panther, the Panzer VI was the Tiger.

The French tanks had better armour and guns, but were hampered by having one man turret. The commander had to load and fire the gun himself whereas other countries had two- or three-man turret crew.

Urban Ranger: The main problem with the Russian tanks was the lack of radio communications which hindered their tactics, but I agree with you that their tactics were not great at the beginning. That's a reflection of the pre-war purges of the Russian military.

[Saint Marcus]

A WW2 era tank highest calibre=88mm, A modern tank calibre= 105mm Av (I think) with better Armour (thicker and small packs on the outside that explode outwars when hit detonating the round before it penertrates the Armour) this is a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.
I don't recall a knight with a few cm or mm of Armour meeting a knight donning 3inch armour!

A 1st century AD cataphract is a knight in civ terms, but it is totally inferior to the knights fighting in the Battle of Poitiers or at the Great Siege of Malta.

A single regiment of Napoleon's infantry, which would be musketeers in civ terms, would totally wipe out a great number of musketeer regiments that fought in the Battle of Granada some 300 years earlier. The difference between them is much greater than the difference between a Tiger and a Leopard.

Spanish musketmen anno 1500:

* inaccurate, precision shooting wasn't possible with these weapons. Only usefull against a great number of enemies. In other words, when it's impossible to miss
* underpowered. The bullets would often not even reach their target or inflict serious damage.
* slow reloading. In those early days, soldiers would usually fire once and then use hand to hand combat because it would take forever to reload a weapon
* unreliable. The muskets would often not fire or worse, explode when fired.

French musketmen anno 1800

* far more accurate. "Sniping" was a real possibiliy with these muskets.
* far more powerful. The bullets could rip right trough it's targets, even if they have body armor.
* Reloading a lot faster. A weapon can be loaded and fired twice, or even thrice, in one minute. With the old spanish muskets it would take minutes to reload just once.
* Quite reliable. Of course, the weapon would still refuse to work sometimes (naturally) but far less often than in 1500. Exploding guns where also uncommon in these days.


And the Riflemen isn't a modern musketeer, because rilfemen where first used in the American Civil War, and not in the Napoleonic Wars.

All in all, it seems a bit silly to have two tanks and only one musketmen.

[Rhysie]

Originally posted by Mark L

All in all, it seems a bit silly to have two tanks and only one musketmen.

Your post produced evidence for at least two types of musketmen, but in a game like civ you have to generalise at some point. I'm sure someone could quite easily argue that there should be four tanks, one for ww1, one for start of ww2, one for end of ww2, and one for modern day... There may have been variation in musketmen, but there has been a wider range of variation of tanks.

[Tingkai]

Mark L: The muskets used during the Napoleanic wars were still not very accurate, hence the use of massed formations. The muskets were not really accurate enough for sniping. This job was left to soldiers with muzzle-loading rifles. Napoleanic muskets had a high rate of breakdown in battle conditions.

As for pitting a 16th century musket regiment against a 19th century musket regiment, yes the 19th C would likely win, but it would likely suffer damage. Napoleanic battles were usually fought at about 100 yards or less - about the same range (or a little bit more) as the 16th C musketeer.

Now compare a leopard to a tiger. The leopard can fire accurately on the move, the tiger could not. The leopard can fire accurately in pitch-black night, the tiger could not. The leopard's shell would rip through the tiger's armour, don't know whether the tiger could inflict damage, but probably not. Still, in a match up, the leopard is far more versatile and far more likely to inflict damage without being damaged itself.

But in the end, all of this is meaningless. The reason there are two tank units and only one musketeer is because that's what the designers decided.

Finally, maybe you will get your answer when we see the game in action, unless you already know the attack, defence and speed of the two tank units.