Alpha Centauri

[Malakal]

Having units live for 4000 years is ok then? Because I am fairly sure that if you are going to accept all the sacrifices made at the expense of realism you have to accept spearmen defeating tanks. As rare as it is.

 

[oscar]

Even regions today that would be unable to 'produce' anything more advanced than spearmen on their own are still equipped with AK's and RPG's. You don't have to have researched 'Rifling' to be able to use one. There aren't a great deal of historical examples (and certainly nothing as extreme as tank vs phalanx) of combat between soldiers more than an epoch or so apart (the sterotypes of imperial British soldiers fighting hordes of spear-wielding savages is generally incorrect, most of the time [Madhi revolt, invasion of Tibet, post-Isandlwana Zulu War] they had muskets and rifles just like the British and it was infinitely superior discipline that won the battles, not technology. Thus the very idea of a phalanx holding off a column of tanks is retarded, Avatar-esque shit.

And no, Civ4 combat doesn't work like "tank has 40 strength, therefore 40 clubmen beat tank hurr" despite what Skyway says. And no way would a "horseman" (Horse archers? Knights? Persian Immortals? Cossacks?) spam in any way shape or form work. Attacking units automatically have to face the unit that counters them best, meaning you'd lose 2 - 5 cavalry archers to even weaken a single spear/pikeman unit to the point that you would face a non-hard counter (and even then you'd probably still take heavier losses) while attacking a city.

Slam Civ4 for it's silly art direction and pointless graphical transition, but the game itself is well-balanced and has a very sensible combat AI (it's telling that the only two 'safe' ways for military victory are a cheesy rush where you chop to get an immediate unique unit or playing defensively and out-teching until you reach the industrial/modern era).

 

[Satan]

Thanks for the info, though it seems the damaged units were still damaged, just next the best unit in the stack defends when attacked by another enemy, which is pretty smart.

 

[tindrli]

Thank frikin gode that we have civilization series games... yes it took me time to get used on civ V but the series are GREAT!!! IMHO of course

 

[ravinhood]

what a fucking crap this game is. i built massive cheap army to outnumber my enemies so much and all for nothing, because apparently i cannot attack with multiple units?!

Hey MORON it helps if you RTFM!

The game is GREAT you just suck because you didn't READ.

So, just as YOU FAIL in LIFE you FAIL in this GAME.

 

[DakaSha]

what

 

[taplonaplo]

One thing is certain, you are not playing on a proper difficulty level if your opponent still has spearmen against your tanks. AI has ridiculous upgrade rates so it's never the case.

 

[Marsal]

I am once again amazed by the level of stupidity some people exhibit every fucking time Civ IV combat is mentioned. What does all of this even have to do with Alpha Centauri? Listen here, retards.

The cost of units in "hammers" (or gold depending on civics/wonders) is constant. There is no "miniaturization" like in Moo2. So, essentially, you are throwing industrial production in form of units at your opponent. Spearman costs 35 hammers, tank 180, modern armor 240. Combat strength values are 4, 28, 40 respectively. Take in account that the way combat in Civ IV works, unit(strength) >> n * unit(strength/n). So strength 12 unit easily beats 3 strength 4 units, all other things being equal. There are also support costs for units to consider (lot of factors in play, but can be crippling for warmongering empires).

Now, would you rather have 1 modern armor or 7 spearmen? Or for that matter 1 MA or 20 spearmen? Only drawback to tanks/MA compared to spearmen is a resource requirement (oil, aluminium vs copper) and obviusly tech level needed. Mechanized infantry is a better all round unit, but as tanks can attack multiple times and have access to City Raider promotions, they are the best (ground) attacking unit.

Start BTS and try to kill a vanilla tank with a vanilla spearman, doesn't matter who attacks or defends. Go ahead, I'll wait. Post a video of your exploits. How many tries does it take? 1000, 10000? Or did you give up? Even if you stack all of defensive promotions on a spearman, put him in a fortress of a city and position a non-promoted tank in the worst possible manner, I think you can't get better than 20% odds vs the tank, even on defense. Now fire up Civ 3. Repeat the experiment. Apply Skyway logic. Conclusion: Civ 4 >> Civ 3.

As for spearman ever being able to "kill" a tank: shit happens, tanks break down; spearman represents a larger number of men wielding spears... There are a bunch of plausible explanations. Spearman unit is a hero and gets a huge amount of XP for the feat. I consider it a plus that the probability is not 0, but something like 0,00001. IMO, it adds not detracts from realism. As our BloodBowl players know, 97% chance is not a sure thing.

Now stop being a fucking retard and put this issue to rest, Skyway. Go play KOTOR or ARMA or whatever other garbage you like to play and stop parroting the same fallacious statements. Especially seeing as your pinnacle of Civ series has the "issue" much more pronounced. I really don't know what you get from this. Being negative I can understand, but repeating the same stupid shit over and over again...

Also, in before: scale of Civ maps/units is all screwed up

EDIT: I somehow missed this little gem:

A tank has 28 base strength in civ 4, spearman has 4.

Yes, which means it only takes about 7 spearmen to kill a tank, and often considerably less.

Did you try to do this or are you just talking nonsense, like Skyway? Please, do try and report back. Keep in mind that losing more than 5 spearmen vs a tank means you're trowing hammers away (not to mention the support costs for a horde of spearmen).

 

[Malakal]

I agree with Marsal, things happen randomly all the time. There is nothing sure with big enough number or tries.

That tank unit could have ran out of fuel, ammo, had a technical problem etc. If better tech won wars we wouldnt have surprises...

 

[Marobug]

Having units live for 4000 years is ok then? Because I am fairly sure that if you are going to accept all the sacrifices made at the expense of realism you have to accept spearmen defeating tanks. As rare as it is.

Well that is technically possible specially if the spearmen carry some C4 with them. Just use your imagination.

 

[Marobug]

Having units live for 4000 years is ok then? Because I am fairly sure that if you are going to accept all the sacrifices made at the expense of realism you have to accept spearmen defeating tanks. As rare as it is.

Well that is technically possible specially if the spearmen carry some C4 with them. Just use your imagination.

 

[Storyfag]

Having units live for 4000 years is ok then? Because I am fairly sure that if you are going to accept all the sacrifices made at the expense of realism you have to accept spearmen defeating tanks. As rare as it is.

Comrade Malakalov, you surely know that units tend to be reinforced? Soldiers die and retire, yes, but new ones come to take their place and the unit lives on. Not a single one survived 4000 years, but some Roman Legions had a couple hundred of years under their belts...

 

[Malakal]

I sure dont remember paying for any reinforcements. But I digress, my point was its an abstraction. And if units reinforce then spearmen can carry C4.

 

[Jed]

No way to siege or starve cities to surrender.

Don't know about the other Civ games, but you can destroy improvements around cities in SMAC to "starve" either their production or population.

 

[Serious_Business]

Now stop being a fucking retard and put this issue to rest, Skyway. Go play KOTOR or ARMA or whatever other garbage you like to play and stop parroting the same fallacious statements. Especially seeing as your pinnacle of Civ series has the "issue" much more pronounced. I really don't know what you get from this. Being negative I can understand, but repeating the same stupid shit over and over again...

He didn't say combat in Civ 4 was unrealistic, he said it involved spamming the same kind of units all the time, compared to Civ 3. Your argument is missing his point.

As far as spamming units go, it depends on what the enemy has access to. A chariot rush is perfectly possible in the beginning for example, but it will require that you are close enough to the enemy and that they don't have access to spears (obviously). Usually it is true that you can spam a unit type to bring another civ down, but then, it requires technological superiority and sufficient planning. Especially the diplo aspects of Civ 4 are much more superior to Civ 3, as you cannot (on higher difficulties) manage war without knowing where the other players stand on your decision. I can't argue much more than that because I didn't even play Civ 3 that much, but I guess it's fair to say that Skyway didn't play more than 1-2 games of Civ 4. It's just the good 'ol grinding man, you gotta leave a guy his personality traits

 

[Shuma]

Now stop being a fucking retard and put this issue to rest, Skyway. Go play KOTOR or ARMA or whatever other garbage you like to play and stop parroting the same fallacious statements. Especially seeing as your pinnacle of Civ series has the "issue" much more pronounced. I really don't know what you get from this. Being negative I can understand, but repeating the same stupid shit over and over again...

He didn't say combat in Civ 4 was unrealistic, he said it involved spamming the same kind of units all the time, compared to Civ 3. Your argument is missing his point.

He made more than one point:

You can easily kill tanks with spearmen provided spearmen have more strength (make a bigger stack)

This is of course some of the fallacious nonsense Marsal mentioned. You CAN'T just run a pile of spears into even a single tank and hope to win, not numerically (Civ 4 combat is not 7 Spears * 4 Strength = 28 damage HURR DURR TANK DIES TO SPEARS), and especially not when you take resources into account, again as Marsal mentions.

I get that when you play a game once or twice on the near-easiest levels and just spam one unit, you might be under the impression that game is easy and simplistic. Nowhere does anyone mention the horse rush numbnuts mentions is basically hard-countered by spearmen. Well, gee, what could beat those spearmen? Hmmm, looks like Axes have a 50% bonus against spears, maybe I should mix in Axes... but oh crap now he got something that counters my Axes, hmm what counteOHMYGODMYSTACKISMIXED

I am not saying Civ 4 combat is great, but it's not a one-dimensional mindless spamfest. Combined arms in most circumstances win the day. The spammiest unit tends to be the siege units, but those tend to be expendable compared to your actual army, and that assumes you've beaten him in the field through superior strength, composition, placement, and/or production.



And seriously, shut the fuck up about tanks and fucking spearmen. It's an emotional and meaningless fictional problem. If you have tanks and are fighting spearmen, why the fuck are you complaining? What difficulty are you playing on? How the fuck are you so stupid as to ram your tank into enough spear-wielding primitives until it dies? Wah, you lost one of your 32974 tanks. It will now take you 10 more seconds to captue that city. Shove it up your ass.

 

[Malakal]

Civ 4 combat is as diverse as Civ 3 combat was. Lets compare:

Civ 4 medieval warfare - pikemen vs mounted, macemen vs mellee, knights as an overal high str unit, elephants as a mounted cavalry counter (but can be counted as being ancient units despite high str), crossbowmen as ranged resourceless counter vs mellee, longbowmen as garrison units and resourceless offensive units, trebuchets and catapults as siege units. You cant stack one unit type and win (at least on higher difficulty levels), you CANT just rush cities without siege.
Civ 3 medieval warfare - pikemen, longbowmen, knight, catapult, medieval infantry (this one is stupid - what pikemen are not infantry), trebuchet.

As one can see civ 4 expanded on number types. It expanded even more when we consider unique units available in civ 4. So of course Skyway is full of shit as always.

 

[DwarvenFood]

...

Great post !!

 

[spectre]

Not to mention, CiV4 system is much more transparent, listing all the relevant modifiers and a % chance of victory. In my experience, it produces much less derp results than previous iterations.

The only thing from III I missed in number IV was the way siege weapons behaved.

 

[GarfunkeL]

No way to siege or starve cities to surrender.

Don't know about the other Civ games, but you can destroy improvements around cities in SMAC to "starve" either their production or population.

You can do that in all the CIV games. Not sure about V as I haven't touched that. But yeah, raze/pillage all the improvements around the city and it starts to starve. Additionally, the citizens cannot work the tile that enemy unit is standing on, so...

 

[Destroid]

Yes, I still have nightmares of being rape-trained by helicopters in my first game of Civ4.

 

[spectre]

That's because in Civ III siege weapons were magic artillery. Stacks were all essentially lots of a few defensive units protecting siege weapons. The main modern-age tactic was to simply flatter a city with artillery shots until every defender was red-lined and almost dead, then take the city.

Yeah, as opposed to Civ 4 modern day strategy when you do the same shit, but with bombers.

Anyways, it may have been broken, but it still felt more right than suicide catapult charges from civ4.

Yeah, If they went the AC route, that would be heavan.

 

[Malakal]

Actually siege weapons pre modern era were built for each siege so their representation in civ 4 is fine. Even cannons were made to assault specific fortresses.

Bombers being strong is fine since it gives you the ability to recreate blitzkrieg, a good thing for me, showing the change in warfare.

Starving cities in submission is a retarded tactic. Mainly because you would have to split your stack, unwise considering the number of tiles you need to pillage, also because you can gain this territory after war and regrowing cottages takes a lot of time. So this part isnt working - they should add land blockades like naval units have on water.

 

[spectre]

For the record, I am not opposed to the whole siege system in CiV4, what i dislike, is actually attacking with artillery pieces, which take damage in the process.

Now, if they took an approach more similar to AC, or Panzer General (which frankly I had hoped for when they announced Civ 5, fuck, we all know how it turned out), it would be heavan indeed. But it didnt'. So fuck it. Mods can't do much about it, from what I saw, and even if they try, there's the matter of teachning the AI all the tricks the human can do.

Starving cities in submission is a retarded tactic. Mainly because you would have to split your stack, unwise considering the number of tiles you need to pillage, also because you can gain this territory after war and regrowing cottages takes a lot of time. So this part isnt working - they should add land blockades like naval units have on water.

Yep. It's only practical when you use helicopters. Otherwise, you have to split your stack and move it around while pillaging the countryside one spot after another.
On the whole, it is much more practical to just capture the city and starve it manually. This doesn't apply, of course, if you're just doing the pillaging to make money, but that's a different story.

 

[GarfunkeL]

OR you build a couple of horsemen in addition to your doomstack of doom and while the doomstack stands next to the town, ensuring that the defender does nto dare to send troops out, the horsemen pillage the countryside. Done in 3-6 turns, let starvation commence.

Yes, it's usually better to just capture the city in a straightforward manner, but starving them is quite possible. And in MP, it's great to annoy other players.