Still no solution to spearman vs tank problem. - Page 3

steelehc · April 23, 2002, 17:17

Still no-one has posted a save or screenshot or whatever. I am not attacking those who have seen this, but I am attacking this events existence, and will do so until I see proof of some kind. Or if it happens to me.

Steele

Dom Pedro II · April 23, 2002, 17:22

Ok, steelehc,

I'm probably going to be eliminated for telling you the truth, but it's all been a big conspiracy to try and trick you. Everybody got together at Apolyton and conjured the Spearman killing a Tank story just to mess with your head...

I'm sorry that we've been playing this nasty joke on you.

notyoueither · April 23, 2002, 18:16

Tsk, tsk, tsk Dom Pedro. The ninja spear-hit-man is enroute.

steelehc · April 23, 2002, 22:41

Dom Pedro: ROFLMAO!! Thats the funniest thing I have heard all week. Thanks for humoring me.

Seriously, I find this hard enough to believe, and having never seen it myself in many hours of Civ3 does not help its credibility. I do not mean to attack anyone, but without proof I find such claims as "I lost 5 tanks to 4 spearmen" rather hard to believe.

NYE: if you are sending ninja-spear-hitmen, then I am doomed, as my only defense lies in my tanks.

Steele

Cyclotron · April 23, 2002, 22:49

I posted a topic on this exact question... "where is the evidence?" and nobody was able to give me a save of tanks losing to spears. A few did say they had experienced it, but most had never seen that occur and didn't see how it could.

PatLasch · April 24, 2002, 01:22

The worst that I've ever had was a musketeer fortified in a city defeated by a regular warrior. That darn warrior razed my city too.

TCO · April 24, 2002, 03:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Conqueror

I have tough time believing that, i cant remember ever losing tanks to spearmen, unless, ofcourse you use low health tanks to attack full health elite spearmen.

Lower your difficulty level if you cant handle losing units ?

And dont talk about "but it must be like in real life", would you seriously state that spearmen or other units survive for thousands of years in real life.

I can't beleive there are still wussy boys who whine about losing a unit. Try to approach the game strategically. Who cares if an occasional unit is lost. You should have enough to cover it. And the way odds work, you will occasionally benefit also. Do you want the game to be mechanical and tectical or strategic and fun?

Skanky Burns · April 24, 2002, 04:29

I want my games to be mechanical and tectical

player1 · April 24, 2002, 06:12

One important thing!

Defense bonus in metopolis is 100%
plus fortify (25%)

Which gives 2.25 multiplier not counting terrain.

So in metopolis:
Cavalry can lose form Pikemen. (6 vs 7.5)

Cavalry can lose from Speramen. (6 vs 5)

Tank can lose from Musketmen (16 vs 9), but rarely

Tank can lose from Rilfmen (16 vs 13.5).

Anyway, don't foget CITY BONUS.
Urban combat is diffenet form open space combat.
Use artillery if you don't want to lose some tanks.

notyoueither · April 24, 2002, 06:33

Use artillery liberally, in all circumsatnces. Makes a better salad.

Sava · April 24, 2002, 07:51

Bah.... there's no solution. The game is flawed. It's like the leaky dam... you plug up one hole, another appears.

Cesa · April 24, 2002, 08:52

Just think of it like this, the spearman was probably created say 3000BC and the tank 2000AD. This means the spearman has 5000 years more combat training/experience. One can learn alot in that time...

And btw, yes it has happened to me (once, and the tank had only two HP left attacking a city), but no, I don't think of it as a problem.

(and steelehc, that was 4 tanks to 5 spearmen, not the other way around...)

edit: I'll learn to spell someday...

Grumbold · April 24, 2002, 08:58

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Use artillery liberally, in all circumsatnces. Makes a better salad.

That'll be rocket then

Willem · April 24, 2002, 11:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Hurricane
The best thing Firaxis could do is to give obsolete units a new look in new eras. For example, a spearman in the modern age would look like some rag-headed militant sporting revolvers and molotov cocktails. People could live with the occasional loss after that.

They alresdy update the worker (and leaders), why not make it for some other units, too?

Apparently someone has tried that and it works. Simply add a folder in Art/Units with era specific graphics, like the Settler etc. now has, and any unit can upgrade their appearance, though not their ability.

Random Passerby · April 24, 2002, 12:48

This is ridiculous. The people on one side of the debate say "This can't happen because the probability is just too low" so they complain about the combat system, and the people on the other side say "That can't happen because the probability is just too low" and so they demand to see proof that of these 'miracle spearman' who can somehow magically obtain results in strict accordance with the laws of probability.

Zachriel · April 24, 2002, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Random Passerby
This is ridiculous. The people on one side of the debate say "This can't happen because the probability is just too low" so they complain about the combat system, and the people on the other side say "That can't happen because the probability is just too low" and so they demand to see proof that of these 'miracle spearman' who can somehow magically obtain results in strict accordance with the laws of probability.

I'm so confused!

hexagonian · April 24, 2002, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by steelehc
Still no-one has posted a save or screenshot or whatever. I am not attacking those who have seen this, but I am attacking this events existence, and will do so until I see proof of some kind. Or if it happens to me.

Steele

Don't breathe then - after all you can't see the air, but its there...

Ethelred · April 24, 2002, 13:57

Come over to the Information thread in the OT area and we will REALLY confuse you.

I am pretty sure it was the paragraph that was confused not you.

Some of the words needed to changed here and there and then it might actually make some sense.

How about I try it.
-------------------------------------------------
This is ridiculous. The people on one side of the debate say "This SHOULDN'T EVER happen because the probability is just too low" so they complain about the combat system, and the people on the other side say "That can't happen because the probability is just too low" and so they demand to see proof that of these 'miracle spearman' who can somehow magically obtain results THAT ARE NOT in strict accordance with the laws of probability.
------------------------------------------------------

I think thats what he meant. Its still not an accurate restatement of the thread. Since few think it can't happen. I simply haven't seen it myself.

The odds are REAL low for a tank attacking a spearman on grass. Something like 99.5 to one. However the spearman's odds of survival impove a lot if it is in a city of greater than 13 population and on a hill. Even then the tank will win the vast majority of the battles.

Some of the people (Coracle) wouldn't be satisied with the Civ II combat system. Even there a speaman had a tiny chance of winning. They don't want the spearman to ever win under any conditions. They want it treated as a special case I guess.

IF attacker is TANK
AND defender is SPEARMAN
THEN piss on the odds tables and decapitate the SPEARMAN no matter what.

THEN PLAYER RANTS that the TANK has smeared blood on its tracks.

steelehc · April 24, 2002, 14:37

Now people are attacking me because I don't believe in their story.

I can't see the air, but I can tell its there. I would know if it weren't.

In any case it seems like no-one is going to be able to provide proof of this seemingly commonplace event. If it is so common, show me something. If it isn't so common, why are you b1tching?

Steele

Denday · April 24, 2002, 19:24

I once played a cheiften game a long, long time ago
and i took over 50 tanks to fight a country and came back with 39 I razed all the cities and they had just discovered gunpowder and I lost 11 tanks.
it seems when I play a game even on monarch i will lose at least one tank to a musktmen or phlanex.

Hi Pieter

notyoueither · April 24, 2002, 22:11

Here you go Steele. I knew I'd seen it out there somewhere.

BTW. It won't work anymore due to the random seed being reset when you load old saves with 1.21. If you are that determined to witness it yourself, you'll have to reinstall and patch to 1.17.

Look at this thread at cfc . Now everyone can leave you alone.

Grumbold · April 25, 2002, 05:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Denday
I once played a cheiften game a long, long time ago
and i took over 50 tanks to fight a country and came back with 39 I razed all the cities and they had just discovered gunpowder and I lost 11 tanks.
it seems when I play a game even on monarch i will lose at least one tank to a musktmen or phlanex.

Hi Pieter

If the nation had 11+ cities then I would say that you got value for money. You lost a few hundred production points and eradicated an entire nation. Unless you lose a unit or two in attacking the cost of a war is absolutely zero, which imo would be more of a problem than the occasional run of bad luck.

SpencerH · April 25, 2002, 07:59

There may be a graphical fix for the spearman vs tank problem. Its in this thread

spearman vs tank fix

PGM · April 25, 2002, 08:22

I still don't understand what the "spearman vs tank problem" is. I don't see it as a problem, and would never want it fixed.
The game would be incredibly dull if combat results were always as predictable as many people in this thread wanted it to be.
Tank charges in and stops, the soldiers inside get out for a smoke, spearmen ambush them. Spearman 1, Tank 0. Just take it as fun. It IS a game...

Sava · April 25, 2002, 09:15

In the real world, the Modern Armor defeats regular old tanks 100 percent of the time. Need proof? There was a little skirmish called the Gulf War. The coalition forces lost 0 tanks to enemy fire.... THATS A BIG O. They did lose tanks to friendly fire because they are stupid.

Of course spearmen are not going to even stand a chance against tanks. The combat system is flawed because its based on a probabilty scale. 100 to 1 chance is still too unrealistic.

Sava · April 25, 2002, 09:15

Quote:

Originally posted by PGM
I still don't understand what the "spearman vs tank problem" is. I don't see it as a problem, and would never want it fixed.
The game would be incredibly dull if combat results were always as predictable as many people in this thread wanted it to be.
Tank charges in and stops, the soldiers inside get out for a smoke, spearmen ambush them. Spearman 1, Tank 0. Just take it as fun. It IS a game...

But I don't think that spearmen beating a tank is fun. It's stupid.

Sava · April 25, 2002, 09:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold

If the nation had 11+ cities then I would say that you got value for money. You lost a few hundred production points and eradicated an entire nation. Unless you lose a unit or two in attacking the cost of a war is absolutely zero, which imo would be more of a problem than the occasional run of bad luck.

Yeah, but come on.... In the ME, for example, I haven't heard of any reports of Israel losing any tanks to the Palestinians. And they have AK-47's and other types of modern weapons. In the Gulf War, tank vs tank... the Coalition LOST ZERO to enemy fire.

Sava · April 25, 2002, 09:20

My solution to this problem involves two steps.

1. Make combat outcomes more realistic (spearmen will never be tank)

BUT

2. Make evolution of technology more realistic so that one civ can climb up the tree while his neighbor sits idly by.

Weapons of warfare have not just developed in isolation. They have been battle tested and constantly improved upon. It's an arms race.

player1 · April 25, 2002, 09:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
But I don't think that spearmen beating a tank is fun. It's stupid.

But not losing Tank to some other units, makes game pointless and less fun.

Who gets tanks, WINS.

What would be point of bombers, artillery and infantry if you could win any battle with several tanks.

Sava · April 25, 2002, 09:54

Quote:

Originally posted by player1

But not losing Tank to some other units, makes game pointless and less fun.

Who gets tanks, WINS.

What would be point of bombers, artillery and infantry if you could win any battle with several tanks.

That's the whole point. You have to make the game evolve more smoothly. You don't just discover Tank Warfare (or whatever) and boom you can churn out tanks in every city. There has to be a part of the game based on industrial infrastructure.

BTW, that's the way the real world works. He who gets the strongest military technology, wins. Although there are other factors, but I'm not going to teach you about warfare.