 |
|
Sabre2th
|
|
There is more than one musketeer unit. There is a basic unit and the French CSU. There are also mounted CSUs that go hand and hand with knights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Col Bigspear
|
 |
Manchester, England. Im 1/2 Polish and proud of it!
Jul 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
The German CSU, the panzer has a counter part(not in abilitaly), the Sherman(in the hills) from what I can tell from this picture (old pic, not very good pic of Sherman, too rounded). A modern tank, the Abrams and a Bradley AFV ( APC )* For people not familiar with Military abreveations APC= Armoured personnel Carrier Aka Mech Inf. are also present. Not pictured here are the other WW2 era equipment e.g the Spitfire is in the game!. Could be some very good Scenarios for WW2 emerging.
Ok so not many old units have multiples but the last centuary was a mile stone in technology. WW1 gave us fighter aircraft and the tank, Chemical warfare (Not in game, though in SMAC), the flame-thrower, submarine warfare etc.
WW2 gave us more modern fighters (Spitfire)and ultimately the Jet Fighter, RADAR, SONAR/ ASDIC, NUCLEAR WEAPONS  ,Spec forces (SAS, OSS/Navy seals), Smart Weapons (V-1, V-2) V-1 modern=Cruise Missile ( Americans captured german ones and developed them into cruise Missiles).
What I am getting at is so much has come from the last centuary, it needs to be in there, like 5 panzers taking on a Abrams, a Spitfire taking on a MiG 27? or an F-16. A Knight represents a man on horse back (Armoured). A WW2 era tank highest calibre=88mm, A modern tank calibre= 105mm Av (I think) with better Armour (thicker and small packs on the outside that explode outwars when hit detonating the round before it penertrates the Armour) this is a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.
I don't recall a knight with a few cm or mm of Armour meeting a knight donning 3inch armour!
Old pic. http://www.civfanatics.com/cgi-bin/...es/fpsunits.jpg
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
there arent two tanks iirc, ones a tank and ones a mech inf. |
in that pic, there are four mobile units, one (2nd from top) is almost definetely mech. infantry. BUt the other three are tanks. I would guess that one's the Panzer (German special unit - KNOWN in game) and one's the regular tank (KLNOWN in game). My guess for the last is either a modern (abrahms) tank or a placeholder/alternate graphic. Also, this was one of the first screenshots, there are pribably all different graphics now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rommel393
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
While modern armour is certainly far superior to WWII, I would suggest that 5 Panzers could knock out an one modern tank.
|
On the contrary Viking that would be almost impossible, unless the modern tank was caught completely offguard. In WW2, possibly the best and least known about tank was the Soviet Tiger. When these were first implemented against the Germans on their operation Barbarosa there were some amazing victories by the Tiger tanks. During a Soviet retreat, 15 Tigers were providing cover fire for the retreating soldiers and other tanks. By the end of the day about 40 German Panzers lie burning. No lie.
Now where I'm getting to is this: if a tank advanced during its time (ie, Tiger) can crush another tank of its time (ie, Panzer), then what about another tank with 60 years more technology and experience behind it? The Abrams uses potent, but nasty Uranium depleted shells (I could tell you how they work but it would take a while), has a much more powerful engine, uses chemical explosives instead of gunpowder, has much thinker composite armor, and a much long range (several miles compared to the Panzers couple thousand yards). A single Abrams tank could easily kill Panzers until it runs out of shells. Thats a lot of Panzers. The two tank units are entirely needed and are a great addition to the game. I suggest you spare yourself the embarrasment and not even compare modern tanks and "ancient" tanks. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rommel393
|
|
Check out these units I have never seen before. I think I saw what could be the Sioux (its not the sioux anymore is it?) special unit.
http://www.firaxis.com/games_civ3.cfm
All I can say is sweet. I like the stealth fighter.
P.S. Please tell me what the Native American civ is now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rommel393
|
|
Sorry executor. The tiger was american designed and sent to the ussr shortly after the war began. Why the other allies didnt use it boggles my mind though.....
This is fact unless I've been grossly misinformed which I really dont think happened. I'm 98.634% positive the tiger was soviet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Col Bigspear
|
|
Manchester, England. Im 1/2 Polish and proud of it!
Jul 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Rommel393
In WW2, possibly the best and least known about tank was the Soviet Tiger.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Rommel the Tiger was a PANZER mark VI, GERMAN!!
The PANZER mark V was the PANTHER
Jerrie Tanks
PZ mk I
Pz mk II
Pz mk III
Pz mk IV
Pz mk V (Panther)
Pz mk VI (Tiger) (Appeared before the Panther in 1942, Panther first used at Kursk 1943)
Soviet tanks
T-34, 1940-55 (near enough) (the one I assume u r talking about, Panther Copied from this (no-one dared tell Hitler)).
KV series, 1930s-45 (Big BAST*RDS)
JS series, 1944-45 (JS=Joseph Stalin, HUGE, 88mm+ gun LOTS OF ARMOUR)
thats of the top of my head
BTW, PANZER=German for tank!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Col Bigspear
|
|
Manchester, England. Im 1/2 Polish and proud of it!
Jul 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rommel393
Sorry executor. The tiger was american designed and sent to the ussr shortly after the war began. Why the other allies didnt use it boggles my mind though.....
This is fact unless I've been grossly misinformed which I really dont think happened. I'm 98.634% positive the tiger was soviet. |
American, AMERICAN, F***ING AMERICAN
Who told you this?
Give them a slap for me, tell them British Stef sez NO!
AMERICA Pisses me of CONSTANTLY.
e.g
Chuck Yeager? goes through the sound barrier, IN A BRITISH INVENTION!!!!!!!.
A picture from the 1930's showed a british plane with a one-piece rear wing, so that it would not get ripped of at high speed ( the airelon? moving down to raise the plane would be ripped off causing the plane to crash. A one-piece wing acts as the airelon, but much more airodynamic).
Anyway the Americans asked Britain for their research notes in exchange of theirs, we give em ours we get a telegram "The Chief of staff's believe that our research is too high a defence secret and cannot be shared" ? we're your F-ing Allies.
British scientists give america all our data on the Nuclear forces and how they can be developed in to a bomb ( ok these were notes from the mid 30's but still, we got f-all in return until the USSR developed the bomb then they decided to give us THE BOMB.
And the NORDAN bomb site, Britain was forced to Carpet bomb at night because we lacked a precition bombing site.
The list is endless.
Americans this is not aimed at you, more at you Governments and Generals. Patton, don't get me started.
Patton quote " British generals are well known to fight to the last Australian" And so they should but we has less men than he and the American army had, he could have ACCEPTABLE losses.
No Offence 
Your with me arn't you brits
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
A WW2 era tank highest calibre=88mm, A modern tank calibre= 105mm Av (I think) with better Armour (thicker and small packs on the outside that explode outwars when hit detonating the round before it penertrates the Armour) this is a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.
I don't recall a knight with a few cm or mm of Armour meeting a knight donning 3inch armour! |
A 1st century AD cataphract is a knight in civ terms, but it is totally inferior to the knights fighting in the Battle of Poitiers or at the Great Siege of Malta.
A single regiment of Napoleon's infantry, which would be musketeers in civ terms, would totally wipe out a great number of musketeer regiments that fought in the Battle of Granada some 300 years earlier. The difference between them is much greater than the difference between a Tiger and a Leopard.
Spanish musketmen anno 1500:
* inaccurate, precision shooting wasn't possible with these weapons. Only usefull against a great number of enemies. In other words, when it's impossible to miss
* underpowered. The bullets would often not even reach their target or inflict serious damage.
* slow reloading. In those early days, soldiers would usually fire once and then use hand to hand combat because it would take forever to reload a weapon
* unreliable. The muskets would often not fire or worse, explode when fired.
French musketmen anno 1800
* far more accurate. "Sniping" was a real possibiliy with these muskets.
* far more powerful. The bullets could rip right trough it's targets, even if they have body armor.
* Reloading a lot faster. A weapon can be loaded and fired twice, or even thrice, in one minute. With the old spanish muskets it would take minutes to reload just once.
* Quite reliable. Of course, the weapon would still refuse to work sometimes (naturally) but far less often than in 1500. Exploding guns where also uncommon in these days.
And the Riflemen isn't a modern musketeer, because rilfemen where first used in the American Civil War, and not in the Napoleonic Wars.
All in all, it seems a bit silly to have two tanks and only one musketmen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:15
|
|
Mark L: The muskets used during the Napoleanic wars were still not very accurate, hence the use of massed formations. The muskets were not really accurate enough for sniping. This job was left to soldiers with muzzle-loading rifles. Napoleanic muskets had a high rate of breakdown in battle conditions.
As for pitting a 16th century musket regiment against a 19th century musket regiment, yes the 19th C would likely win, but it would likely suffer damage. Napoleanic battles were usually fought at about 100 yards or less - about the same range (or a little bit more) as the 16th C musketeer.
Now compare a leopard to a tiger. The leopard can fire accurately on the move, the tiger could not. The leopard can fire accurately in pitch-black night, the tiger could not. The leopard's shell would rip through the tiger's armour, don't know whether the tiger could inflict damage, but probably not. Still, in a match up, the leopard is far more versatile and far more likely to inflict damage without being damaged itself.
But in the end, all of this is meaningless. The reason there are two tank units and only one musketeer is because that's what the designers decided.
Finally, maybe you will get your answer when we see the game in action, unless you already know the attack, defence and speed of the two tank units.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-09-2001 17:31
|