A reason for advanced armour

[Tingkai]

I’ve been thinking about why advanced armour is being added to Civ3. The question has come up in another thread. I think the reason relates to game play rather than a desire to add a cool unit.

One problem/blessing in Civ2 was that in the late modern era, the howitzer is the ultimate attack weapon. Once you have the howitzer, you can cut through the other civs like a knife through butter. The AI rarely ever manages to stop a massed assault of howitzers Tanks become effective obsolete because there is no reason to build these units for offensive reasons, at least not on the scale of howitzers. Defence is left to mech infantry.

In Civ 3, the howitzer is apparently going to become even more powerful with the added ability of bombardment. That could unbalance the game play if left unchecked.

Adding a new advanced armour unit will put the game back on an even keel. The adv. armour will likely have attack strength equal to a howitzer, defence equal to or stronger than mech inf, movement of three or four, but it will be more expensive to build. My bet is that the advanced armour will be a 12-6-3 unit.

Making the attack strength equal to howitzer would match existing model where the ordinary tank has an attack of 10, the same as artillery. Matching the defence of the mech infantry would ensure that mech inf remain useful. The Mech infantry’s cheaper price would still keep it as a viable unit.

The howitzer would still be useful since the cost of building it would be lower than building an advanced armour. And of course there is the benefit of being able to bombard.

So the question then becomes, assuming adv. armour is a 12-6-3 unit, is this a good thing? Would you prefer to keep the howitzer strong so that you can easily cut through other civs, or do you want the howitzer’s role diminished?

[Martinus]

You have to remember though Howitzer (and Catapults and Cannons) will be more like artillery in SMAC - i.e. they won't be able to attack other units directly, just bombard them. So still, you won't be able to capture a defended city if you only have Howitzers - you will need tanks for that.

[dainbramaged13]

how do you know that it wont be like in ctp, where a unit that has bombardment capability has 2 attack numbers, one for bombarding, one for attacking... maybe it can do both.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
how do you know that it wont be like in ctp, where a unit that has bombardment capability has 2 attack numbers, one for bombarding, one for attacking... maybe it can do both.

Could be, but the howitzer is still too strong.

[Grim Legacy]

Though I like the idea of advanced armour, I do think it is not right to have it as the pinnacle together with the howitzer. In modern days, warfare is dominated by small-scale bushfighting, with individual soldiers becoming a valuable asset (valuable in the sense that they are no longer so very expandable anymore).

Strong, pesky, hard to rout guerilla's should emerge at a certain point, making conquest tougher. Hey! Wait a minute...I'm thinking of ways to make it more difficult for myself! I must be losing sanity.

[mactbone]

But any major war in this era would be fought mainly with tanks, making their creation in the game a must.

[Sandman]

Advanced armor should be able to bombard as well as attack.

Modern tanks have very long ranges.

[korn469]

well if you look at the screen shots a catapult has the following stats 0(4).0.1 so catapults cannot attack or defend by themselves but they an bombard, most likely howitzers will follow the same pattern

another thing to think about is the number of mounted units in civ3 has been decreased so the early armor unit fills a needed slot

[Bleyn]

I would say the best reason is the same one as for advanced fighters, bombers, and cruisers. All of these are vehicles/vessels where the capabilities of the modern version far outstripe the versions of 100, 75, or even 50 years ago. They are of the same lineage, but they just aren't the same in so many respects where it really counts.

[Urban Ranger]

Modern armour doesn't have the range of artillery. I don't think you can use it to bombard anyway the tanks aren't designed for that.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Modern armour doesn't have the range of artillery. I don't think you can use it to bombard anyway the tanks aren't designed for that.

I agree. Correct me if I'm wrong. The modern artillery range is between 20 and 40 km (12 - 25 miles). Range of modern tanks at maximum is only roughly half of the artillery range.

[faded glory]

It depends what Kind of tanks. The Russians/Arabs use there T-72's because they are smooth bore and when propped up on a hill, have the ability to lob a shell 10-15 miles.

[tishco]

the howitzers unless on a mountain were good when used with mech inf. stacks cos their defnce was badish so tanks could kill them
there is about 3 tanks, one a special unit for the germans (panzer) i think

[SerapisIV]

I really like the idea that the artillery (long-range) concept from SMAC is returning in Civ3. My one question though is how artillery will be used in armies? Ar armies to only consist of direct-attack (infantry, tanks, mech inf, etc) units? Or can combining artillery and tank units yield extra attack bonuses?

[SerapisIV]

Oh yeah, I like the advanced armor idea, as the modern units need extra gameplay options, although I hope that that the advanced tanks don't make normal tanks obsolete, just outclassed, but much cheaper, such that wars with WWII Panzer vs Sherman tanks can happen as the Shermans were hopelessly outclassed, but were victorious out of shear numbers (aka Hive or Believer strategies in SMAC)

[Leonidas]

In most realistic wargames or equipment files, artillery should cause "suppression" (a units' fighting strength is diminished, morale is lowered, disruption occurs), rather than destroying a unit completely. Other units, such as armour and infantry can then swiftly move in and overrun the position by destroying the unit.

Having artillery be the major offensive weapon is ahistorical in reality and it is not found in the better wargames.

Armour and airpower are still the main powers on the battlefield. . .

[jdd2007]

artillery should cause "suppression" (a units' fighting strength is diminished, morale is lowered, disruption occurs), rather than destroying a unit completely.

this is already taken into account-in civ3, artillery does damage, not death

[TCO]

The howitzer from civ2 was way too strong. It should have the following changes.

-remove ignore city walls flag
-change movement to 1

[SerapisIV]

it's already being said by Firaxis that howitzer like units will not act as direct-attack units. Instead they'll be artillery units, like in SMAC. The only question now is whether the advanced armor units take the place of over-strengthened attack unit

[Cyclotron]

Creating a "big defense" unit in the first place is a bad idea. Strategy should and does depend on mobility and the ability to respond to attacks. In all strategy games worthy of the title, you can't win or even save yourself will a so-called static defense. You need to have an attack force of your own, even if it is only used defensively, to fight off invading troops. Any player can sit on their big fat *** and pump out units all day, and Civ3 should not reward players for doing this by giving them an ultimate defense unit. A good player uses real tactics, not just constant fortification in one spot.

[faded glory]

Cyclotron I totally disagree.......


Say you have just been attacked bye a larger human controlled state. Your borders are collapsing, small towns are being overrun.. Trade routes being pirated. Strategic Resouces lost... Most of your modern army and Tank forces were defeated. Its time to mobilize the 'cheap defender tactic'. And start building tons of Cheap Marines/cheap defenders to protect your core cities.

what the hell is wrong with this? It is most likely a scenario I will one day have to deal with, whil playing PBEM in the future

[aneeshm]

This concept applies not only to armor but to marines as well .IMHO , marines should have better abilites in civ 3 . Today , marines are not used exclusively ofr amphibious attack & defense . they are also an important part of almost all military campaigns , even non-sea ones . The cities in Afghanistan are land-locked , but the U.S. is still using marines . They are not used only for naval assualt, but are also an elite branch of the army . They should , i think , have better ADM ratings & higher ZOC's .

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by faded glory
Say you have just been attacked bye a larger human controlled state. Your borders are collapsing, small towns are being overrun.. Trade routes being pirated. Strategic Resouces lost...

Without going any further, I would say you would deserve to die and realistically you probably would be conquered. Give me one good reason why Firaxis should throw in a cheap lifeline just so players can save themselves when they are losing.

Most of your modern army and Tank forces were defeated. Its time to mobilize the 'cheap defender tactic'. And start building tons of Cheap Marines/cheap defenders to protect your core cities.

BS. If you think for one moment that only losing players would utilize this cheap defender tactic, you are dead wrong. Every player would always stock up his cities with such a unit, and you would see only static defense. That's right! Why maneuver to defeat the enemy when you can sit there doing nothing and still win the war? Do you remember the Maginot Line in WW2? Anybody who sits and builds up, counting on static, unpenetrable defense like the French did will be crushed.

what the hell is wrong with this? It is most likely a scenario I will one day have to deal with, whil playing PBEM in the future

Be my guest. But I don't want a cheap "save your ass" unit in Civ3. I want strategy.

[faded glory]

Historical "Cheap save your ass units"

Russian Conscripts in WW2
Iranian human Waves during the Iran Iraq war
Vulkstorm


I could go on. But I understand what you are saying...But at the same time, I believe the cheap defender is neccessary to stiffle over-aggressive neighbors. The CTP equivlant in the machine Gunner. Even tho they are cheap, easy to build. I only have 1 or 2 in each of my citys.Not enough to significantly stop an invading human player. Civ3 players wont be able to churn out that many of these guys as you think.

[Col Bigspear]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


BS. If you think for one moment that only losing players would utilize this cheap defender tactic, you are dead wrong. Every player would always stock up his cities with such a unit, and you would see only static defense. That's right! Why maneuver to defeat the enemy when you can sit there doing nothing and still win the war? Do you remember the Maginot Line in WW2? Anybody who sits and builds up, counting on static, unpenetrable defense like the French did will be crushed.



Be my guest. But I don't want a cheap "save your ass" unit in Civ3. I want strategy.

The new trade and resource model should not allow this anyway. You cannot sit still otherwise the enemy will occupy roads cutting trade and occupy resource squares, denying you that resource. So I think alot of people will have to adapt to survive in Civ 3

[faded glory]

Civ3 combat is the same as CTP. Once your main armys have been defeated, its all down hill from there. The lack of 'suicidal cheap units' is why I have lost a pbem. Machine gunners are good, only 800 production to build. Marines are ok, 1200. Musketeers-600. Once your main tank armys and border units are overwhelmed its impossible to replace them quickly. Thus is why civ 3 needs a cheap defender to slow down an invading force.

[korn469]

faded glory

remember there is also a war/peace economy settings available in civ3 once you have discovered Nationalism, one rumor is that units cost half as much to build (or half as much to support, or both) when you are in a war economy so this could help

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by faded glory
Historical "Cheap save your ass units"

Russian Conscripts in WW2
Iranian human Waves during the Iran Iraq war
Vulkstorm

I could go on. But I understand what you are saying...But at the same time, I believe the cheap defender is neccessary to stiffle over-aggressive neighbors. The CTP equivlant in the machine Gunner. Even tho they are cheap, easy to build. I only have 1 or 2 in each of my citys.Not enough to significantly stop an invading human player. Civ3 players wont be able to churn out that many of these guys as you think.

faded glory, I think you miss the point of this topic. The author wanted an expensive, very strong defense unit to counteract howitzers. You seem to be arguing for weak, cheap, cannon fodder. I agree that a good cheap unit would be a good addition, but all my arguments thus far have been on the original topic of this post, a strong and expensive defensive unit. Perhaps that is the source of some disagreement?

Bigspear: An excellent point, but fortresses can easily be built in this same circumstance. You are correct however that mobility may be a bit more vital than in Civ2, which is a great thing.

[TCO]

Originally posted by faded glory
I could go on. But I understand what you are saying...But at the same time, I believe the cheap defender is neccessary to stiffle over-aggressive neighbors. The CTP equivlant in the machine Gunner. Even tho they are cheap, easy to build. I only have 1 or 2 in each of my citys.Not enough to significantly stop an invading human player. Civ3 players wont be able to churn out that many of these guys as you think.

Maybe if we restrict it to the AI. to make the game more challenging. But humans should not get to use it. The game is already to tilted to the defense anyway. Only a wuss would want this, Saddam...

[TCO]

Originally posted by faded glory
Civ3 combat is the same as CTP. Once your main armys have been defeated, its all down hill from there. The lack of 'suicidal cheap units' is why I have lost a pbem. Machine gunners are good, only 800 production to build. Marines are ok, 1200. Musketeers-600. Once your main tank armys and border units are overwhelmed its impossible to replace them quickly. Thus is why civ 3 needs a cheap defender to slow down an invading force.

Actually you lost the PBEM because the other player beat you. Deal with it. And quit being such a wussy. "Waah waah! I lost because there was no cheap defender unit!"