Why is everyone complaining about spearman killign tanks is unrealistic but no one...

[Auren]

Why is everyone complaining about spearmen killing tanks is unrealistic but no one complains about following unrealistic things:

1) Tanks being able to capture cities. Modern tanks work VERY badly in cities. It is very easy in city for defenders to use anti-tank weapons. Just try to imagine 100 tanks (No idea how many tanks one modern armor unit in civ3 is suuposed to present but I bet it is less than 100.) trying to invade New York and force it to produce more tanks, money and science for invaders.

2) Units not being able to shoot back at airplanes. No modern army moves without anti aircraft weapons.

3) Killing of fortified defenders is way too easy. It should require about 3 times more power to succesfully attack to fortified position. So you would need at least 3 warriors to kill single warrior defending city or 3 archers/horsemen to kill one spearman defending city.

4) Upgrading of spearmen to mech. infantry. (Or almost any steps between.) There is no similarity at all between mech. infantry and spearmen. How can exteremely good spear user (elite spearman) be cahnged to extremely good mechanized infantry (elite unit) instantly by just giving them money to buy new weapons and vehicles?

5) ...

And so one... I could go on forever...


These unrealistic aspects work in favour of player. Spearmen killing tanks is 99% times your tank and computers spearman. So people complain about that single unrealistic thing.

[TechWins]

Why is everyone complaining about spearmen killing tanks is unrealistic but no one complains about following unrealistic things:

Well, the reason why nobody complains those other 'unrealistic' features is because at some point in time the game has to sacrifice realism for fun. Now with warriors killing tanks it is both sacrificing realism and fun. Enough said.

[Auren]

Originally posted by TechWins
Well, the reason why nobody complains those other 'unrealistic' features is because at some point in time the game has to sacrifice realism for fun. Now with warriors killing tanks it is both sacrificing realism and fun. Enough said.

So you complain about it because it is no fun. Please say so then and don't use this old "it is unrealistic argument". It being unrealistic has nothign to do with reason you want it changed. You want it to be changed to get game better. That is good reason.

Give people reasons why you think it is no fun and why it would be better with that fixed and they might listen. But if you just say "it is unrealistic" no one listens you since there is 100 000 other things in this game that are as unrealisatic.


(I just realized I should have made this post to one of the complaining threads and not make new thread for this once again. Sorry for all who are bored to death about this.)

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Auren
Why is everyone complaining about spearmen killing tanks is unrealistic but no one complains about following unrealistic things:

1) Tanks being able to capture cities. Modern tanks work VERY badly in cities. It is very easy in city for defenders to use anti-tank weapons. Just try to imagine 100 tanks (No idea how many tanks one modern armor unit in civ3 is suuposed to present but I bet it is less than 100.) trying to invade New York and force it to produce more tanks, money and science for invaders.

As opposed to 100 infantry soldiers taking over an entire city of hundreds of thousands? Or perhaps 100 cavemen successfully destroy 3 battleships in harbor and massacre all the crew? Both of these have been complained about before.

2) Units not being able to shoot back at airplanes. No modern army moves without anti aircraft weapons.

I agree. Fighters, at least, should be attack units, not bombard units. Infantry are able to fire back at P-51's, but not B-52's.

3) Killing of fortified defenders is way too easy. It should require about 3 times more power to succesfully attack to fortified position. So you would need at least 3 warriors to kill single warrior defending city or 3 archers/horsemen to kill one spearman defending city.

Usually you do need 3 Units to kill that 1 Spearman. That is, unless, the 'loaded', psuedo-random-number-generator accidently gave you the funky advantage instead of the AI.

4) Upgrading of spearmen to mech. infantry. (Or almost any steps between.) There is no similarity at all between mech. infantry and spearmen. How can exteremely good spear user (elite spearman) be cahnged to extremely good mechanized infantry (elite unit) instantly by just giving them money to buy new weapons and vehicles?

Funny thing is that you don't seem to need to upgrade. The AI holds onto it's spearmen well into the Space-Race. We silly humans are the only ones who make the illogical assumption that Mechanical Infantry are somehow superior to Spearmen...go figure.

5) ...

And so one... I could go on forever...

Why not, we do.

These unrealistic aspects work in favour of player. Spearmen killing tanks is 99% times your tank and computers spearman. So people complain about that single unrealistic thing.

[GePap]

In a game like civ, we all have expectations (as we do in life) and we base our deciisons, our actions, and our strategies, based on those expectations. Since we all know that a tank, or any modern mechanized veicle it is mean to represent, is caapable of defeating a person equiped with bronze shields and wooden spears, we make our strategy accordingly. What this game does all too often, is for no basic gaming reasons, overthrow those expectations with random results, which leads to lots of frustration. The only difference between those that 'whine' and 'fanboys' is how many and which of these expectations they are willing to suspend and how many they are not. For example, what if Bill Clinton was the leader of the Egyptians? How many people would complain (But How!!!) and how many would say, heck, its funny, and who cares, its a game, or, well, its cool and enhances gameplay...? I don't know, but I can say that it would not fall into the same camps as now. Heck, personally, I would be surprised at first, but perhaps warm up to Clintunatmen.
This is also why we are willing to scream realism for one option, but not others- we expect a certain level of clarity, sanity, or if you want to say, connection, to the real world when combat is involved, but don't care that mcuh about the funky economic model. The final point of this long post (my style) is that there is also a certain amount of abstraction that must be done, otherwise this game would be 40gigs and require 500mb RAM. All the examples you gave are certain abstractions I am willing to accept or rationalize away.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Virtually the ONLY time you'll see a Phalanx killing a tank if you play on a harder level wherein the computer gets an inherent combat advantage. If you don't want this combat advantage going to the computer, than I suggest you play on an easier level.. This combat advnatage is built in to give expert players a challenge -- realism schmealism.

[Nadexander]

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
Virtually the ONLY time you'll see a Phalanx killing a tank if you play on a harder level wherein the computer gets an inherent combat advantage. If you don't want this combat advantage going to the computer, than I suggest you play on an easier level.. This combat advnatage is built in to give expert players a challenge -- realism schmealism.

The computer doesnt get combat bonuses at any level. Soren Johnson has repeated as much several times

[Falconius]

You want realism?

Hungarian Civilians in the 1956 Uprising used the following household items to destroy Russian tanks:

Pot Lids
Glass bottle
dish rag
water
gasoline

To get a tank to stop, they would place pot lids (with the handles knocked off) in the road. TanK crews would think these were mines and would halt. The Hungarians would then rush out of nearby buildings with Molotov Cocktails (bottles filled with a gasoline/water combination using the dishrag, soaked with the same combination, as a fuse). They would aim for openings in the tank (such as machine gun slits) and smash the bottles on them, sending flames into the tank.

Of course, the Hungarians eventually lost to overwhelming Soviet numbers, but they took out quite a few tanks.

Source: "The Bridge at Andau" by James Michener

So a pikeman taking out a tank isn't that far-fetched. For reality's sake, I simply imagine them with access to the above materiels (as well as their trusty spear!)

[Venger]

So how did that all turn out for the Hungarians?

Or we could update the test, you take a pot lid and a can of gas, and I'll take the tank...

Venger

[Smash]

hehehe...I'd like to place wager on that...

Its just stupid.Why should I upgrade anything?Why do I go thru the hassle of securing rubber and oil?Building superior units that are not superior at all.Its not just tanks vs spearmen btw.

I guess if you don't get it,there is no way to possibly explain it.
I'm sorry I can"t think of any fancy arguments right now.To me,its a no brainer.

If I ever get the ability,the first thing I am gonna do is make the pot lid anti tank unit

[Zylka]

This is constructive criticism

Number 1, is a very good point I can agree with. More realism please, tanks should play an attacking role more than anything else. Their ability to capture cities should be disabled, and their oppressive force to quell citizens lowered.

Number 2 is semi valid. The modern infantry AA weapon (ie. stinger) can usually only fire to an altitude of 10, 000 feet - making it a deterrant to attack helicopters more than anything else.

Number 3 is valid for the modern era, but has little or no merit in the rest of the game. Either way, I always bombard the **** out of the opposition before attacking in the modern era, whatever.

Number 4, the spearman being upgraded to a tank unit is fine. As long as the men are an institutionalized fighting force, they can and will be trained for different level of combats, and there is no reason why a man who kills with a spear can not be taught to kill with a tank. The excessive cost of this upgrade suggests the training of the men (half subsidized with previous instituional molding), and the purchase of new equipment, ie.) tanks. Fair enough?

[Moraelin]

First of all, while indeed, I think most people complain because it's no fun, rather than just not realistic, I also think that realism has its place.

We're talking Earth history, not "Alien Civilizations 3 -- the history of planet Baluba Prime, and its 8 armed inhabitants who discovered deodorant 5000 years before discovering the fire." If it was a battle between, say, Khrak'znak Riders and Buuzdruk Wielders on the alien planet of Baluba Prime, I think most of us would have less problems accepting it. We'd probably just go "ugh... I have no idea what a Khrak'znak is, but I guess you don't stop it that easily with a Buuzdruk. Whatever THAT is."

But since we're talking _Earth_, you expect that your obvious common sense assumptions will work that way. E.g., you expect that if I have 100 Longbowmen in on the city walls, and I'm attacked by 100 Longbowmen from outside, my unit will win 9 times out of 10. I have the high ground and I have the cover, and realistically I should be able to hold off 10 times more attackers in a straight assault. That's why there siege warfare was invented, instead of straight rushing the walls. But in Civ 3, the attacking Longbowmen will win 4 times out of 5, realism and common sense be damned.

That said, about your points:

1) I'd say tanks should be able to capture a town. If you see 100 tanks on the streets AND you have no soldiers of your own to oppose them... I don't know about you, but I'd consider I'm captured all right.

HOWEVER, I think tanks should have a massive disadvantage at fighting in towns or even in mountains. The Germans discovered the hard way in Russia that tanks in cities tend to get destroyed rather quickly by the defenders. Among the many other problems with fighting in a town, even a plain old anti-tank rifle shot from above tended to go through any tank's armour. This has eventually led to the proliferation of heavy artillery vehicles as the Brumbar, or even such monstrosities as the Sturmtiger which could collapse any building in one single shot. But it was already too late.

I.e., while tanks should IMHO continue to be able to conquer cities, they should have a harder time defeating the defenders of those cities. Tanks should also be far more vulnerable to dive bombing or missiles from airplanes.

2) Depends on the airplane type and stuff, but basically you're right. Last I've heard, a whole one third of the airplanes shot down in WW2 in Europe, were lost to infantry weapons.

3) Yep, I do find city walls to be a bit weak, too.

4) Can't see any real problems there. A tank crew isn't born with the innate knowledge of how to operate a tank, and spearmen aren't really born with an instinct to do phalanx tactics. Both took some months of military training, and as such, you can train them again to use the new weapons.

That said, IMHO the upgrade should probably require the city to build it, just like you build a new unit. Sure, you could rush the upgrade just like you can rush a new unit, but it would be more expensive than it is now and you couldn't do more than a rushed upgrade per turn. Definitely not just right-click and upgrade 12 units in one turn, in a town which doesn't even have the industry to build ONE tank unit in less than 80 turns or so. Or worse yet, I can upgrade stuff during Anarchy or in rebellious towns, where I can't rush anything else.

[Libertarian]

There is no similarity at all between mech. infantry and spearmen.

Very little as well between a mouse and a man.

And yet, somehow...

[Zylka]

Sturmtiger... 380mm cannon of fury

I still have a Tamiya model of that monstrosity waiting to be built

[Moraelin]

If my memory doesn't fail me, the 380mm monstrosity on a Sturmtiger wasn't as much a cannon, as a modified depth charge launcher. The massive 761 lbs rocket, was in fact more depth charge than rocket, and almost all its weight was the explosive. You can guess what it did to a building when it exploded. (Allegedly that thing had 40 tons of recoil force when it shot, so it must have been not much fun to be inside it when it happenned)

There was an allied version, too, with only a 290mm mortar. Still it was deadly enough to any building or fortification to warrant a kill-on-sight order for the German troops.

And let's not forget the Soviet ISU-152 which could fire a 96 bls HE shell to around 9km range, or a 107 lbs armour-piercing round. Both were perfectly capable to destroy a Tiger, Panther, Elephant (or any other German tank for that matter), hence the vehicle's nickname "Animal Killer".

Oh well. It would probably be a bit TOO much to track these kind of details in Civ 3, though. I mean, think of how many tank models happened in the short time of WWII. At 1 year per turn, you'd have to upgrade your units every single turn.

[Mannamagnus]

This game is unrealistic: the average life expectancy of a spearman is sixty to seventy years at best. But in one of my games there is a 3000 year old spearman! (true he doesn't move very fast but still)

[Zealot]

This game is unrealistic! My workers work for over 5000 years and never complain about a back ache! Like they were in DisneyLand or something!

[LordLynch64]

This is for all the posters out there that start threads like this.

There is a very simple solution to your problem. You don't like the game don't play it and don't post here. So many times have I read a post and felt like the author of the post was turning bright red and screamming at his or her computer screen. So many times have I heard someone use profanity or insults to prove his or her point.

This isn't in response to any paticuler person it's to everyone who is taking this game and forum too seriously. Fact of the matter is (without diving into specifics) this game is not realistic if it were we as the players would avoid war at all costs cause it's ugly and terrefying. I am still relativly new to this site and the first couple of forums I read were positive and fun to read I always look for intelligent conversation on subjects I am interested in but infortunatly Threads like these are traps for the intelligent poster.

I also will not debate the difference between realism and having fun because realism is and should be thrown out of the window when booting up your computer. Because recreation is a way to escape from reality not to immitate it.

Thanks this is not a personal attack please don't veiw it as such.
B

[rid102]

I also will not debate the difference between realism and having fun because realism is and should be thrown out of the window when booting up your computer.

You use Windows too?

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by LordLynch64
I also will not debate the difference between realism and having fun because realism is and should be thrown out of the window when booting up your computer. Because recreation is a way to escape from reality not to immitate it.

To some extent, you're right. I'll aggree that you don't need to 100% copy reality, or at least not the parts that aren't fun. E.g., if it were 100% realistic, given the average life expectancy in ancient times and the years per turn in 4000 BC, you should be dead (and the game should be over) after two turns.

But again, the whole point of some games is to re-create history. E.g., Sid Meier's Gettysburg is, you know, about some historical thingie that happened at Gettysburg. You'd expect it to at least bear some vague resemblance to that moment in time, not to be a Jedi-vs-Sith battle with lightsabers. (And no, I'm not criticizing Gettysburg, since it really isn't about lightsabers anyway.) E.g., SSI's Panzer General games are about World War 2, and you expect to find units that more or less model the real units from that time. I think most fans would have been disappointed if they got wookies and x-wings in that game instead. (Luckily they didn't.)

Again, I'm not saying that ALL games should be historically accurate. There are tons of games which don't even try to be. They're that-a-way. E.g., try the Battle Isle games for something that doesn't try to resemble any Earth era. And noone complained that they should have done that instead.

But IF a game DOES claim to model history, I think it's fair game to discuss exactly how well did it succeed in that aspect. And if you don't like it, heck, don't read these realism threads.

[Mawrin]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
This game is unrealistic: the average life expectancy of a spearman is sixty to seventy years at best. But in one of my games there is a 3000 year old spearman! (true he doesn't move very fast but still)

What do you mean "he doesn't move very fast"? He's covering the same distance in 2000 AD as he was in 4000 BC but in 1/50th the time! Not bad for a 6000 year old guy whose been through 100 hip replacements.

[Raleigh]

Gepap, excellent points and well articulated.

Lordlynch, no personal attack taken,but the reason we all "whine" about the combat system is twofold: (1) encourage debate on the subject (2) to lobby for our position in CivIV, future patches, or 4X Kill & Conquer 12.

Let's face it. The Civ 3 designers completely sold out to what they believe are helpless newbies who will hate their game unless they have their hand held. Instead of helping newbies by, I dk, making Chieftan easier, they helped them by ruining a large aspect of the game for their hard core fans.

However, I will give Firaxis this, that b/c we are allowed to customize our own units, I can just increase all industrial and modern units by 4x to give them so resemblance of their appropriate powers. Then again, I am not sure if the computer AI will be able to compete b/c instead of programming it to upgrade its units, they programmed it to produce arches en masse along with mech infantry. This so called "combined arms strategy" works fine against me. After all, my tank is taken to within 1 hp and then 3 archers rush it, each with a 30% chance to kill it. Silly me, why should I expect it to survive?

As for other comments about debate of tanks v. guerrillas. The Hungarians, and Jewish uprisers in Poland, etc. were using modern tactics, not phalanx formations to defend themselves against tanks. They were dropping molotov cocktails from 6 story buildings, not standing on the field with pikes raised.

As for tanks taking cities, don't forget, a real tank division has quite a number of infantry in supporting roles (at least in WWII). With the Gulf War, maybe that changed, but older tanks rarely went into the breach without some support.

[AHO]

I couldn't agree with you more Raleigh. There are so many instances of realism being sacrificed for game-play that there are too many to count. My pet peeve is that when you capture an enemy city, because of 99% corruption and waste it takes them the equivalent of 1000 years to build a damn church because, apparently, every last library, church, temple, synagogue, pew, and crucifix was destroyed in the battle. Whatever, I just play on.

As for the spearman beating the tank, I know that everyone is coming up with historical instances in which pot lids beat tanks & stuff, but the way I look at this anomaly is through other, average examples. During the blitz, history recalls that the German panzers swept through Poland, defeating guys on horseback armed with muskets and pitchforks, without suffering so much as a hangnail. In reality, yes, while the battle was over quickly and the Germans suffered very few losses, they did suffer SOME losses. Many soldiers were killed, tanks were destroyed, and planes were lost. Sure, the losses were insignificant when compared to the gains, but there were SOME losses. We're expecting that if our tanks attack weaker units our army should escape completely unscathed. The occasional freakish result just represents the realities of armed conflict--and it really doesn't happen often enough to be such a big deal, at least IMHO.

BTW, it's after noon. Where the hell is the patch.

[Moraelin]

Time for a brief history lesson.

Actually, the Germans did not fight peasants with flintlock muskets on horseback in Poland, they fought against what was considered one of the finest armies in Europe at the time.

1) The Polish cavalry charges against tanks are a debatable myth. They were only reported by the Italians, and then echoed by the German propaganda. Same for the myth that the Polish aircraft were destroyed on the ground, and same for the myth that Polish armor didn't do any damage.

2) The Polish infantry was modern infantry, and at least as well armed (if not as well led, and using outdated tactics) as the Germans.

3) The Polish tanks were actually pretty darn good tanks for that era, and on the average they actually were better than the German tanks. The Germans actually had mostly Pz I and Pz 2 tanks in Poland, which were originally intended only as training tanks. (The Pzkfw II only had a non-repeating 20mm cannon, while the Pzkfw I only had two light machineguns on the turret.) The recently introduced Polish 7TP light tank was the first tank in the world with a Diesel engine, and generally was vastly superior to either of the German light tanks. They did some real damage to German armor divisions, when the two met. The only problem was that Poland had some 180 tanks total, to oppose to the 2600 German tanks, and they were not used in concentrated groups.

Fact: Some captured 7TP tanks were actually used by the Germans afterwards, as a part of their Panzer divisions. So they couldn't be that bad, by German standards.

4) The Polish designed anti-tank guns were actually some of the finest anti-tank guns at the time. Combined with the fact that the German tanks had 8 white crosses painted on them, which gave the Polish AT gun crews an excellent thing to aim at, they came to be feared by the Germans. And I mean feared enough to try to paint some yellow on top of that white cross insignia, and later redesign the army's insignia completely!

5) By the end of the war, Poland had inflicted massive losses to the Germans. In fact, more losses than the French and English combined would inflict in 1940. Germany had lost some 50,000 men (yes, FIFTY THOUSAND men), 697 planes (even though the Polish only had 420 planes total), and 993 tanks and armoured cars. (Yes, practically a THOUSAND! The Polish couldn't lose more than the 180 total they started with.)

6) Germany didn't win as much due to Blitzkrieg, as through sheer numbers. They had 2600 tanks against the 180 Polish tanks, and over 2000 aircraft against the 420 Polish aircraft. See the above count of German losses, and the fact that Poland had also to fight a Soviet invasion from the East at the same time, and I'd say Poland sure did very well. Furthermore, both England and France had promised Poland support (which they never delivered) and advised it NOT to mobilize for war. (Which they said would be construed as aggressive intentions on its part.) So Poland fought with ONE THIRD of its forces mobilized.

Either way, I think none of us has problem with losing modern units to modern units. Which is what really happened in Poland.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Venger
So how did that all turn out for the Hungarians?

Or we could update the test, you take a pot lid and a can of gas, and I'll take the tank...

Venger

Hmm, ok, let's put your trusty tank in the street of a major city where you can't turn effectively and can be approached from any direction without the ability to see your enemy from more than 50 feet away.

Meanwhile I'll have a group of 100 civilians of so armed with molotav cocktails, and any weapons we could scrounge up.

We may win or may not but you can damn sure bet we'd put a serious hurting on your tank in one way or another. Hell it's not *that* hard to knock the track off a tank or sufficiently weaken the track so as to slow or disable the tank.

Too bad more people don't have more common sense about how good and bad tanks and other "modern" equipment are. I would bet that we'd here less of these "my tanks should win 100% of the time (screw game balance!)" arguments.

[AHO]

Oh.
Bad example.
But I'm sticking to my point anyway. No matter how overwhelming our forces may be, weird things can happen. Planes can have mechanical problems, tanks can suffer "friendly fire", peasants can get in a lucky shot with their spears. In fact, 26% of all casualties in Desert Storm were to friendly fire. Terrible, unexpected, awful things can happen, but I don't think that this happens enough in this game to warrant all the complaining. I stick to what I said:

"We're expecting that if our tanks attack weaker units our army should escape completely unscathed. The occasional freakish result just represents the realities of armed conflict--and it really doesn't happen often enough to be such a big deal, at least IMHO."

Anyway, the patch is out, so let's PLAY!

[Death's Toe]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Time for a brief history lesson...

Wow, someone with some decent knowledge of history. I suppose your next trick will be to de-bunk the myth that the Soviet's strategies relied on numbers instead of any decent tactical doctrines. Oh, yea, and that they machine gunned their own soldiers instead of the Germans. pshaa

[Moraelin]

Actually, I believe that in some of the winter fights, both the Soviets and the Germans must have lost quite a few men to friendly fire.

And I'm not going to claim that the Soviets didn't use "Mongolian Horde" tactics. They sure did use sheer numbers a lot.

They did however also have very modern equipment, not just peasants with pitchforks and flintlocks against tanks. (Especially later in the war. In the beginning, yes, they had lots of obsolete armour that never stood a chance.)

The T-34 was not only extremely well armoured, with its sloped front being just short of impenetrable to early German tank guns, it was also EXTREMELY fast, and packed a 76mm relatively high velocity gun that could defeat any German armour in the first years of the war. (Later models had a longer barrel, for even more penetration.) In fact, it could punch a hole into an early PzkfW 3 or 4 even with HE ammo. Which was just as well, since the early Soviet anti-tank rounds were of the APHE variant. (I.e., a piercing tip and an explosive charge in the back, supposed to detonate inside the enemy tank.) Only they never worked too well, and the Soviets were the last to realize that breaking at high velocity through a tank's steel shell produces more than enough shrapnel inside anyway. Also, to be entirely fair, the Soviet aiming mechanism was inferior to that of German tanks, so those T-34's weren't THAT good at long range.

The Soviets also had a mondo 76mm anti-tank gun at a time where most of the world relied on 37mm or 40mm anti-tank guns. The British 2 pounder guns were 40mm, for example. (The German modified 88mm FLAK gun was the only one which was even better in an AT role.) They also had lots of them. In fact, they had so many that the Germans produced whole series of anti-tank vehicles just with captured Soviet guns.

The KV-1 and KV-2 tanks were also extremely hard to defeat, and a single one of them could cause a battle that lasted for hours. (Ironically, the KV's had been designed largely against Stalin's direct orders, who wanted a multi-turret giant tank instead. He changed his mind later when he saw a demonstration of the two designs in action, side by side.)

The Soviet SMG's (burp guns) were also pretty darn good, some of them sporting over 1000 rounds per second ROF and a large magazine. They had a primitive compensator that helped reduce muzzle climb, so they could still be aimed. (By contrast, both the US and the Germans limited the rate of fire via the mechanism's weight, to make their SMG's manageable in full auto mode.) The TT 7.62x25mm cartridge was pretty powerful, and the SMG's had a decent range. (Early PPSh-41's had their sights adjustable up to 500m, which is over 1500 ft, but later ones had that reduced to a more realistic 200m maximum.) And they had LOTS of them. By 1945, over 5 million PPSh-41 SMG's had been produced. (And that's only one of the models.) Whole regiments were often armed with nothing else.

By comparison, the German MP-38 and MP-40 put together, only had some 1.2 million produced until the end of the war. They also had only 400-500 RPM cyclic rate of fire. They also had a shorter effective range than the Soviet burp guns. About half of it, in fact. (Though in all fairness, the Germans had a much better squad machinegun, with the rest of the squad being mostly support for it, a squad of Soviet burp guns could saturate the air with bullets much better than the German squad with its machinegun.)

Back to armour, later in the war the Soviets had such monstrosities as the ISU-152, which wasn't just a long barrelled 152mm hovitzer on threads, but perfectly able to destroy any German tank at great ranges. It had earned the nickname "animal killer", for the obvious reason. (That it had no problem killing a Tiger, Panther or Elephant.)

[Barnacle Bill]

On the scale of the Civ(1-3) world maps and by the number of units in play, it is not "a tank" and "a guy with a spear" (plus a pot lid & a bottle of gasoline). It is not 100 tanks and 100 guys with spears. It is an armored division and an equivalent-sized formation of guys with spears.

In WWII, leaving out "attached" units (which were mostly made organic shortly after the war because they were effectively permanently attached in practice during the war), a US Armored Division (1943 TO&E) consisted of:

3 Tank Battalions (about 60 tanks each)
3 Armored Infantry Battalions (about 1000 guys each)
3 Armored Artillery Battalions
1 Mechanized Cavalry Squadron (battalion)
A wad of assorted support troops.


A modern US Armored Division consists of:

6 Tank Battalions
4 Mechanized Infantry Battalions
4 SP Artillery Battalions
1 Mechanized Cavalry Squadron (battalion)
2 Attack Helicopter Battalions
A wad of assorted support troops.

For a modern US Mechanized Infantry Division, change the above to 5 each Tank & Mech Infantry Battalions.

About 1 guy in 4 in either the WWII or modern versions actually is an infantryman or in the crew of an AFV or artillery piece. The rest are support troops who do maintenance, clerical duties, and keep the logistics flowing - modern warfare consumes huge quantities of ammo, fuel & spare parts, plus the troops don't feed themselves by ripping off the local farmers as in spearman days (they might still do it to get fresh food, but they are supplied with those lovely MRE's).

Neither version is going to have any problem capturing a city and keeping the civilians in line (setting aside guerrilla warfare, which is not modelled in Civ).

Also, no problem taking out 5000 or 10000 spearmen, and giving the spearmen pot lids & bottles of gasoline isn't going to affect the outcome much.