Panzer Movement

Dwarf Lord · November 24, 2001, 16:20

According to the official web site, the civilopedia and the Unit Info Screen itself, the German "Panzer" should have movement rate of three.
However, whenver I used these units on roads, they would't enjoy the movement bonus.
In other words: The panzers do move normally on unimproved terrain on the one side (3moves) but on roads they are as fast as a stinky infantry unit on the other; at least in my current game.

What the hell is this? A Bug? Has anyone else experienced this problem? And do the normal industrial tanks (18/6/2) also move like this?
I really don't see why the german tanks should be slower than cavalry on the standard roads.

Regards,
Dwarf Lords

tomcat ha · November 24, 2001, 16:26

i think that the UU shoud be heavy panzer (tiger

)
and thus shoud have higher defensive rating ,attack and movement at a high cost in shields.

GePap · November 24, 2001, 16:37

I believe, but am not totally sure, that mechanized units suffer penalties of movement trying to croos certain terrain, even with roads, such as jungles or mountains- since I have also noticed movement disparities, but only through rough terrain. I agree that cavalry should not have an easier time of it, but it does, so you could always use them to carry out raids behind enemies where tanks don't go.

Deathray · November 24, 2001, 16:38

I've used panzers fine on roads and railroads, they act like all the other units do. Maybe you're trying to move your units through the territory of another civ whom you don't have a right of passage agreement with?

Dwarf Lord · November 24, 2001, 16:49

@ tom cat: I agree. The unit should be named Tiger or Königstiger (which was an improved version of the tiger, propably the best tank of hist time.)

Nope I also noticed the problem on normal plains, the panzers would only move three times, although there were roads on the terrain.
Yes, I'am using them on the territory of another civ. For attack purposes, of course...

Libertarian · November 24, 2001, 16:53

You don't get movement credits from roads and railroads in other people's territory. Only in your own.

Dwarf Lord · November 24, 2001, 18:08

Ah...thanks for the advice. I just wonder why I didn't notice that earlier, when invading the Egyptian territory.
Forgive the question, it is my second game (I gave up the first quite early due to the bad situation I was in) and I'm still used to Civ2.

It is a pity that you can't use the roads, however. The conquering process is slowed down quite much and I don't think there is a logical explanation for that. Why on earth should your troops not use roads in hostile territory?
On the other hand, I see a point in the decision. I guess the game would become unbalanced if you could actually travel across the rail system of your foes.

Wrong_shui · November 24, 2001, 18:14

no more blitzing

Deathray · November 24, 2001, 19:05

I think its to simulate guerillas, roadblocks, refugees blocking the road, mines, barricades all that sort of stuff.

jbavon · November 24, 2001, 20:30

I can understand why you cant use the rails of another civ, i cant understand why you cant use the roads.

But i am actually quite pleased with the feature, cause its a nice addition. Its better than being able to use both roads and rail.

FrankBullit · November 24, 2001, 21:28

The German Panzer IV was the best tank of its time, right up until the Russians countered with the T-34. Both the Tiger and Konigstiger (King Tiger) were bigger with larger guns, and both had problems that crippled them horribly when compared to the Mark IV. The Tigers, particularly the King Tiger, created tremendous strain on maintainance crews and fuel requirements. The immense size and relative underpowered motors made large, slow-moving and frequently broken-down targets. Anyone who would prefer either Tigers as more representative of Panzers than the Mark IV should read a history book and get over their fixation that 'bigger is always better'. Not so.

Akaoz · November 24, 2001, 21:46

Also the Panther (MkVI) was probably a better tank strategically (Because of it's improved speed over the V), where it not for the many problems with the engine and drive-train. The Tiger was to slow for the rapid defensive actions the Germans where forced into at that stage of the war. It also o had some out-dated features like 'flat' armor ans such. The Panther had time to incorporate more features from the T-32. To bad they could never match the Russians in terms of numbers. (Thank God.)

The MkIV and the Stug's where the real workhorses of the whermacht. Not the fancy MkV-VI or the Me-262 for that matter.

The 'Panzer' UU is fine the way it is.

Slightly OT: I think it should be possible to 'clear out' the cultural zones in some way...

-Alech

dannyevilcat · November 24, 2001, 22:33

Quote:

i think that the UU shoud be heavy panzer (tiger )

Quote:

@ tom cat: I agree. The unit should be named Tiger or Königstiger (which was an improved version of the tiger, propably the best tank of hist time.)

I think some of you misunderstand what the whole point of the panzer unit is. It's not supposed to be any tank in particular, not a MkIV or panther ot tiger of king tiger... just a tank that emphasizes how German tactics revolutionized mobile armoured warfare.