swordsman vs tanks issue and some things

[tuckson]

Hi,

I thought long whether I should place this mail in an existing thread or create a new one, I decided to make a new one, just because I don't have the time and money (Yes, I'm still paying for my internet access per second) to read all the enormous threads out there. If this message better suits somewhere else, forgive me and pretend reading it there.

First the swordsman vs tank issue. I'm a bit bothered and annoyed after in one game, at the Chieftain level (yes, sometimes a like playing an easy game, go ahead and start rolling on the floor for a while, then read on) I managed losing a tank in combat to a SWORDSMAN . Wait, that's not all. I also lost 2 veteran and 1 elite Ironclads when attacking the very same *&$*&%@#%$&* caravel. How the @#$%#$*&% can that be? Even battleships sometimes sustain serious damage when attacking a galleon or frigate. Shouldn't it be time to make the combat rules a bit more subtile?

Maybe it's an idea to add armor points to units and to use the age they are created in. Let's say, A swordsman should never be able to even damage a tank because of the armour it has. And it should have much more difficulties in trying to kill a unit from the modern times than one of the industrial times, which should be harder to kill than the units from earlier ages. I know this is now also a bit the idea, but it simply doesn't work enough. It makes no sense to me when I just spent hundreds of dollars to upgrade my entire army from pikemen to musketman (for example) when next turn seeing a musketman loose a battle from a swordsman.

Some other things:

• I want my fighters to be able again (like civ2) to attack units. That's what I used them for the most. The recon missions make no sense to me. Then better create a seperate unit, a recon plane or something like that . Give it no attack points, but double or triple it's range.
• When I build a coastal fortress in a city and a regular ironclad comes by, I don't expect after 1 SINGLE BOMBARDEMENT that the first object that's destroyed is my coastal fortress. WHAT THE F*** DID I BUILD THE THING FOR?
• A lot of messages are put in single lines on the screen instead of in decent message boxes. Maybe it's just a setting and have I turned off something wrong, but what annoys me in my game is that with a large civ, messages and city flash around my screen without me being able to remember al thing once it's my turn. Even when messageboxes are There, there's no option often to break in and fix something before continuing.

Hah...
Just needed to express this for the moment. Oh, the relief...

Anyway, I hope they're (F.) working hard tot keep up with all the suggestions made here on Apolyton. I bet the can't.

[Atahualpa]

All valid points.

I got just badly beaten up by cavalry.
I cant imagine a Swordsman beating a Tank but when you say. I mean thats worse than being EXTREM unlucky.

Good points about Armor. Though then I think the industrial age needs an offensive unit. Cause the Cavalry is MiddleAge and the whole industrial age would lack a descent offensive unit.
And then you would have to wait all the way for Tanks.

I suggest replacing cavalry with Dragoons and adding cavalry in industrial age with something like 8/4/2. Marines should have: 10/6/1.

ata

[Viper2263]

The problem with believing it is wrong for a swordsman to be able to destroy a tank is that it is possible by current day standards to take out modern equipment in combat. Northern Alliance vs. Taliban is a perfect example. I don't know if you've seen it, but the NA has been known to chase battalions of Taliban tanks on horseback (AND win frequently). It does happen. It's a representation of good tactics over technology. "The most expensive army in the world is only second best."

Take the destruction as a learning experiance, tuck your tail between your legs and take in defense next time.

[Viper2263]

The problem with believing it is wrong for a swordsman to be able to destroy a tank is that it is possible by current day standards to take out modern equipment in combat. Northern Alliance vs. Taliban is a perfect example. I don't know if you've seen it, but the NA has been known to chase battalions of Taliban tanks on horseback (AND win frequently). It does happen. It's a representation of good tactics over technology. "The most expensive army in the world is only second best."

Take the destruction as a learning experiance, tuck your tail between your legs and take in defense next time.

[Grrr]

The AI needs to upgrade it's units more, it might be an idea to give the AI free upgrades.
This is an idea for ALL games, but I think it is necessary. Tech should seep out civilizations gradually, say that techs move accross land by 1 movement point every two turns after you recieve a tec, from your capitol, this means that if you have a 10 tile mountain range between your capitol and your neighbour's, the tech will cross it in 60 turns. Later with railroads etc the tech will move almost instantly, giving a nil lead in tech, making the game extremely difficult. This happens in reality all the time, I mean, didn't Japan buy a US plane, pull it apart, put it back together, and design their own. This should travel at different speeds according to world size and difficulty level.

If you're wondering, I have posted this, among other things, here.

[Atahualpa]

Viper:
BUT! These man are equipped with handgrenades and automatic rifles and not spears.

Besides I dont believe it. Anyone who has played Flashpoint knows: Either you have a LAW or you got to RUN!!!

ata

[notyoueither]

Oh man, not more of the spears in the 20th century *stuff*...

Give it a break. What major or minor nation of the 20th century maintained regular army formations of men with spears? None. Zero. Zippo. Nada.

Ever heard of hand-me-downs? Many militaries have. The best get the latest, then the older stuff goes to the 2nd echelon, etc, till the oldest go to the reserves and the militia. We're not all the USofA you know. Chr*st the Montana National Guard is better equipped than the Canadian Army.

Can't you grant that older, obsolete unit types might be MILITIA. Weekend warriors armed with rudimentary firearms or anti-tank shaped charged weapons? Much like the Volksgrenadiers of the very late Nazi era. A bunch of kids given Panzerfausts and sent out to hunt Joseph Stalin tanks? They killed a few you know. More than a few if you include T34s.

Salve

[Zachriel]

Even civilians can beat an advanced military unit under some circumstances. That is why cities sometimes "flip" while in resistance. A million people blocking roads, setting fires, and throwing molotov cocktails can easily threaten the communications of the armed forces. That is why I use the TOTAL CONTROL doctrine on cities in resistance, that is I garrison as many units as there are resistors until the resistance ends, usually within a turn or two. If civilians can cause this much trouble, imagine what a trained, though underarmed, army can do with a few cans of gasoline in the dark of night.

Here is an example of how spearmen can be used effectively in the modern age:
http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/counterattack.htm

Also, click the link on the webpage for the solution to the "Killer Phalanx" problem.

[Sze]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh man, not more of the spears in the 20th century *stuff*...

Give it a break. What major or minor nation of the 20th century maintained regular army formations of men with spears? None. Zero. Zippo. Nada.

Hm. So they have the same statistics, the same icon of a guy with a spear, and they are called spearmen, yet you want me to believe that they are, in fact, not spearmen at all but instead some sort of modern equivelent? That makes no sense. If they were a modern equivelent with modern weapons, the unit would reflect that evolution. Obviously there's a logical breakdown.

Either there should be:

- a more realistic combat system that rewards having modern units

- a mandatory upgrade feature

- a system by which the ancient units all 'evolve' into a simplistic modern unit (by era).

Until one of these things is implemented, everyone will just have to suffer through the silliness of guys with spears beating tanks.

[Zachriel]

A civilian with a gas can, while under the cover of darkness, is sometimes capable of causing serious damage to advanced military units. Especially if the military units don't feel threatened by "unarmed" civilians.

[Whoha]

units shouldnt be able to raze cities, thats just inconsistent with the rest of the game. They should fix it so that cities are unrazeable since civilians are so good.

[Captain]

Originally posted by notyoueither

We're not all the USofA you know. Chr*st the Montana National Guard is better equipped than the Canadian Army.

Salve

tru dat.

countries, armies, or better yet politicians like to rest on their laurels. our so-called army isn't non-existent but it's working with 30-40 year old equipment and underfunded. still, a nation's got its priorities and our current govt doesn't seem to agree with the majority of Cdn citizens about the need for improvement. Chretien thinks past success indicates future success, and to hell with the supplies, equipment, manpower, morale, logistics, arms, EW, intelligence, or all those other unnecessary items...

but before I get OT, ever read a chintzy US-Canada war novel by Richard Rohmer (sp?) called Ultimatum?
The point of that somewhat ludicrous story is that Canada "beats" the USA, not because of superior army, but because they did the "surprising*" instead of the US jumping the gun (US military initiated but didn't achieve a total victory before the press got wind and US civilians were outraged and the army was recalled with severe global diplomatic repercussions.)
*with the help of a few friendly UK SAS troops.

Cdn military is somewhere in the 35k-60k manpower range depending on what you're counting (air, sea, officers, reserve, etc...).
I believe US military is in the 1M+ range. That kind of force isn't going to get tossed out by us (though casualties are possible) if it really sets its "mind" to it. It's not just numbers, it's quality.

As someone else once said, in a localized battle, tanks just don't lose to spearmen (or militia). They might take damage from some surprise but you'd be surprised how much it takes to stop an Abrams.

A heavily "injured" tank group might lose to saboteurs. Over an entire war, this could add up to make the invading forces back out.

I don't remember where but someone posted that USSR losses were 15k and Afghan losses 1M+. US losses compared to Viet losses were similar. Both superpowers backed out not because they were losing battles, but because of war weariness and horrendous morale in the army. You can't fight what you can't see. You can own their cities but you can't own the jungles and mountains. You can have control, you can't have victory unless you exterminate them all.
you might lose a tank but not a whole division, except over time.
Guerillas win b/c it's not worth it for you.

Spearmen kills tanks, no.
Impi kills riflemen, no.
20 Impi kills 1 riflemen, yes.
Frigate kills Destroyer, no.
20 Frigates kill Destroyer - maybe... recall the first 2 Ironclad bounced shells off each other for hours without hurting one another. naval guns couldn't penetrate the armour. but wooden ships were nice and breakable...

[tuckson]

Hi,

Just another thing to bump into the discussion. Someone from Firaxis once stated Civ3 doesn't "cheat" at the lower levels, or it should be in favor of the player. Well, still speaking of the same chieftain game, yesterday night I invaded a continent of the iroquois with on it's highest point still had 1 french town. I examined the city and it had only 2 units and 2 ships in there. I attacked with a veteran tank, it defended with a rifleman, so (ironic mode on) of course (ironic mode off) I lost. So I got another tank (in the same turn), but couldn't reach the same square that turn. I stood one square back. The town was on such a piece of land, surrounded by water and 2 of my battleships. Only 1 end (Yes the sqaure where the first tank stood) connected it to the continent. Next turn my (newly gotten elite tank) was attacked by 7 (!!???!!!) horsemen ???
Strange enough, my tank won, however critically injured.

Also, I invaded that iroquois continent on a loction less crowded. After have won 1 city I wasn't able to count the number of attacks done on my units.

Did I mention my army? I had an army filled with 3 veteran tanks. It attacked the next iroquois city (size 13), defended by 2 riflemen. Unfortunately also a cannon was there. I attack and lose over half of my health bar on that single rifleman.

Booohhh...

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by tuckson
I examined the city and it had only 2 units and 2 ships in there. I attacked with a veteran tank, it defended with a rifleman, so (ironic mode on) of course (ironic mode off) I lost.

The cheating only has to do with the speed of production, and a few units extra at the beginning. The combat system is the same on all levels.

A city adds a great deal of defensive bonus, plus it was fortified (perhaps across a river, and maybe on a hill). Sending a single tank to take a city is not the best tactics, especially if your entire strategy depends on the outcome. Read this post about this problem:
http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/killerphalanx.htm

[Atahualpa]

great analysis Zachriel!!!

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Zachriel
A city adds a great deal of defensive bonus, plus it was fortified (perhaps across a river, and maybe on a hill). Sending a single tank to take a city is not the best tactics, especially if your entire strategy depends on the outcome. Read this post about this problem:
http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/killerphalanx.htm

I know a single tank usually is not enough in most cases. However, This town (NOT a city, just a town without city walls, so the defence bonus is of minor importance) lied on a desert square, with no river there. Besides, I choose for only 1 tank, because besides the town I had 2 battleships, meant to weaken the defences before attacking. So this strategy could work (Actually it did work the 2nd time).

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by tuckson
I know a single tank usually is not enough in most cases. However, This town (NOT a city, just a town without city walls, so the defence bonus is of minor importance) lied on a desert square, with no river there. Besides, I choose for only 1 tank, because besides the town I had 2 battleships, meant to weaken the defences before attacking. So this strategy could work (Actually it did work the 2nd time).

The civ calculator say that one tank v. one fortified regular rifleman on grassland is 89% or 9/10. If you knock him down to 2 hp, then your chance is 97% or 29/30.

Not every combat is strategically significant and sometimes you have to take chances in any case. That's part of the fun. But sometimes you will lose even when the odds are 99%, so having a second tank handy was good planning on your part.

http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel


The civ calculator say that one tank v. one fortified regular rifleman on grassland is 89% or 9/10. If you knock him down to 2 hp, then your chance is 97% or 29/30.

Not every combat is strategically significant and sometimes you have to take chances in any case. That's part of the fun. But sometimes you will lose even when the odds are 99%, so having a second tank handy was good planning on your part.

http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html

Sorry, hit a wrong button. Veteran Tank v. fortified regular rifleman is 95% or 19/20.

[Zachriel]

Never run a civulator when at work. It could be dangerous to your combat results.