I mean that (60 strenght and 60 ranged attack) is a kind of a big strenght for Machine Gun unit dont you think? Im guessing it wont have range bigger than 1 hex and that it wont be able to attack, otherwise it would be superduperhyper -unit basicly trough out the game. I still dont get it since as far as I understand, Machine Gun should appear even before Infantry, but yet it has almost the strenght of 2 Infantry units, AND its ranged.

Anyways, im hoping that they would add some units between the eras to close the gap even further. I would also hope that the current eras would last just a bit longer.

EDIT: I have now realized that the hitpoints of a units have risen from 10 to 100, and that they have also raised the units strenghts. So my concern about machine guns being über powered has allready been removed.

Well the combat system is getting a rework, for example instead of 10 hitpoints units get now 100.

I bet that machinegun will have a bonus against infantry units, but a negative modifier against tanks and armor. Just like in WW1 (and Russo-japanese war, Anglo-sudanese war etc.) infantry will be moved down by mg's before tanks come to rescue. :)

As a machinegun is a ranged unit, there's speculation that there's more between it and crossbowmen, for example grenadiers.

Well the combat system is getting a rework, for example instead of 10 hitpoints units get now 100.

What really? This will (or at least should) mean massive reduce in army sizes, wich btw isnt a bad idea at all.

I bet that machinegun will have a bonus against infantry units, but a negative modifier against tanks and armor.

I really, REALLY hope that they will take it very easy when going further into that road of giving every unit some bonuses against some other type of units. So that they wont do it like they did it in civ4.

The 60/60 strength of the mg on the first screenshots also got me immediately. But I assumed there would be severe changes to units and their combat values or maybe as you already mentioned they also (on top) only have 1 range or sth like that. If it was 60/60 with range 2 and other units staying as they are right now, it surely would be damn imba. It feels wrong though nevertheless, that a infantry unit that is strong with a ranged attack is also similarly strong in melee defense.

Oh and the thing about the 100hp also worries me. They said they do not want units to die in one blow... can't imagine how that will go and how ridiculous strong that will ranged units make, especially something like canons and other siege units.

Slightly related site question: Can someone tell me how exactly damaged units deal less damage at the moment (asking in regards to the actually effectivity of the Japanese UA Bushido, where they deal full dmg even when damaged). Never seemed like a weak ability - just want to know the exact numbers. It surely will buff Japan indirectly if units (also weaker units like ranged and siege) will never die in one attack due to the 100 hitpoints).

The 60/60 strength of the mg on the first screenshots also got me immediately. But I assumed there would be severe changes to units and their combat values or maybe as you already mentioned they also (on top) only have 1 range or sth like that. If it was 60/60 with range 2 and other units staying as they are right now, it surely would be damn imba. It feels wrong though nevertheless, that a infantry unit that is strong with a ranged attack is also similarly strong in melee defense.

Oh and the thing about the 100hp also worries me. They said they do not want units to die in one blow... can't imagine how that will go and how ridiculous strong that will ranged units make, especially something like canons and other siege units.

Slightly related site question: Can someone tell me how exactly damaged units deal less damage at the moment (asking in regards to the actually effectivity of the Japanese UA Bushido, where they deal full dmg even when damaged). Never seemed like a weak ability - just want to know the exact numbers. It surely will buff Japan indirectly if units (also weaker units like ranged and siege) will never die in one attack due to the 100 hitpoints).
I believe they will also increase incoming damage to 10x or so of current value. This will allow for a more fine tune control of damage, and will also make the min 1 hp damage rule stand out less.

Hopefully you're right. However the statement that they made the changes to avoid units getting killed in one blow conflicts with the idea of just multiplying the dmg by the same factor as the hitpoints ;)

Moved to G&K forum.

Oh and the thing about the 100hp also worries me. They said they do not want units to die in one blow... can't imagine how that will go and how ridiculous strong that will ranged units make, especially something like canons and other siege units.


I've used this kind of values in my mods (75HP in R.E.D. WWII), and even without changing the damage strength, you can kill a unit in 2 or 3 attacks if there is a big difference in combat value. And instant kill can still happens when a buffed tank meets some artillery on open field...

Well the combat system is getting a rework, for example instead of 10 hitpoints units get now 100.

I bet that machinegun will have a bonus against infantry units, but a negative modifier against tanks and armor. Just like in WW1 (and Russo-japanese war, Anglo-sudanese war etc.) infantry will be moved down by mg's before tanks come to rescue. :)

As a machinegun is a ranged unit, there's speculation that there's more between it and crossbowmen, for example grenadiers.


If they remove the instant heal promotion then its ok. :goodjob:

Hopefully you're right. However the statement that they made the changes to avoid units getting killed in one blow conflicts with the idea of just multiplying the dmg by the same factor as the hitpoints ;)

Absolutely true, but that would be so stupid from firaxis that I just cant see that happening.

I would suggest that if units have more HP so that units would not be destroyed as easily as before, then they should also reduce the army sizes. Because if units dont get destroyed as easily as before and armies are at the same size as before, then simply put: wars would last longer.

If they remove the instant heal promotion then its ok. :goodjob:

Or at least do something about it, like limit it to only every other level or something.

I don't think instant heal has anything to do with it.

Theyve added a lot of new units in the late industrial period. In order to have space for these units in the 'power spectrum' they've probably boosted the strength of all units after them.

About the 100HP thing, I assume that they have x3-5 the amount of damage caused, so that units have 2-3 times the survivability. Just thing of it as units have 10HP but it being measured to the nearest 0.1HP. What will this mean for combat? Probably that highly experienced units will become more important, and ranged units less so.

I bet that the machinegun must be set up before firing, and as some suspect that the range is one.
(with city-attack penalty)
It would be cumbersome on attack as it must be set up, but would be excellent on defense.

I don't think instant heal has anything to do with it.

Yes it has lot to do with it. Because even now killing a unit with lets say a ranged unit can be from time to time very frustrating, because the enemy unit might in process get 2 upgrades and the AI of course uses them to instant health. If units can take more punishment than before, then the AI just gets more upgrades to use them on instant health, in best scenario that would be pointless and in worse it would be freaking annoying.

About the 100HP thing, I assume that they have x3-5 the amount of damage caused, so that units have 2-3 times the survivability.

For instance if units have 2 times the survivability than before, then I would reduce army sizes (not yet sure how but one thing would be to double the upkeep of a single unit) to about half of what they were before. That way the battles wouldnt last too long plus there would be more space to manouver these more durable units in the battlefield.

I bet that the machinegun must be set up before firing, and as some suspect that the range is one.
(with city-attack penalty)
It would be cumbersome on attack as it must be set up, but would be excellent on defense.

Well there you go. Sound pretty true-to-life to me.

Yeah well, I wasnt exactly worried about those machine guns anymore ones Haig told me this this fact.

Well the combat system is getting a rework, for example instead of 10 hitpoints units get now 100.

I bet that the machinegun must be set up before firing, and as some suspect that the range is one.
(with city-attack penalty)
It would be cumbersome on attack as it must be set up, but would be excellent on defense.

A ranged unit with a range of 1 is quite pointless. It's virtually the same as a melee unit (yes, I know there are some non-important differences).

Like being able to attack without any risk to yourself? That sounds awesome. Actually, maybe Keshiks would make more sense if they had a range of one too...

Removing insta-heal and replacing it with a +50 health would be very beneficial to combat. This way, you won't regain like 90 hitpoints in one heal but it is still beneficial to consider taking over a policy.

Maybe:
- Instant: 50heal
- Medic I: 25 per turn
- Medic II: 25 per turn

If you spend the promotions on medic, you'll reap better rewards than if you keep spamming insta.

What do you think?

A ranged unit with a range of 1 is quite pointless. It's virtually the same as a melee unit (yes, I know there are some non-important differences).

Actually, a ranged unit with range one doesn't take melee damage from combat, unlike melee units. The difference is actually huge.

Yeah, I'd say it's certainly more than a non-important difference. Basically, it means any unit three tiles away isn't going to want to advance because the counterattack will hurt you without hurting them (and you'd still struggle to attack because the melee strength is pretty good).

If that's the case, machine guns would be a very interesting unit.
Managing to create a new kind of unit (defensive) without creating new promotions (well, unless you count 1-hex ranged attack) is always a plus in my book. It shows that you can make the best out of every already existing feature.
I guess that's the boardgamer in Shirk talking (since in boardgames, you have to do all the bookkeeping, so the less rules to remember, the better).

If the machine gun is indeed a deployable defensive unit, then it'll really draw WW1 (and trench warfare) into the game and also be a good anti-steamroll unit.
Planes and tanks will be a welcome development to get past machine gun lines.

A ranged unit with 1 range is stupid and here's why. One unit per tile and attacking a city with those ranged units, means you have to surround the city leaving no room for the melee units to get in. Plus it goes against the point 2K & Firaxis made about ranged units and the 1 unit per tile rule. That is the ranged units are meant to be behind the melee units. With a range of 1, they can't be behind anything and still shoot.

Also consider the fact that Rocket Artillery only has a ranged strength of 46 and the stealth bomber has 80. So a 60 strength would put the machine gun between these two, even though it come well before either of them. Therefore it's rather naive to think they didn't drastically alter the combat and ranged strength of all the units to go with the increase from 10 HP to 100 HP.

As I point out in another thread, that 60 strength when compared to the infantry, which comes around the same time, would represent a 66.7% increase in strength. Therefore it's as on par with infantry as archers are with warriors or crossbows are with longswords.

It would also be pointless to make it require being set-up before firing as it would then be a siege unit, which would be rather stupid since there's already an industrial era siege unit, artillery.

If it has a one-tile range, but requires set up it would certainly not be an offensive unit. It would only be useful for fortifying set positions. In that sense, a higher strength makes sense to counter it. However, you're right it can't be too high.

If it has a one-tile range, but requires set up it would certainly not be an offensive unit. It would only be useful for fortifying set positions. In that sense, a higher strength makes sense to counter it. However, you're right it can't be too high.

Very similar to the MG in CiIV. It was an excellent city defender, but it was weak to Marines.

In this case, it would be weak to Tanks. Actually, I'd probably actually give it a penalty against Tanks to weaken it further. Essentially, it would mow down infantry, but that's it.

A ranged unit with 1 range is stupid and here's why. One unit per tile and attacking a city with those ranged units, means you have to surround the city leaving no room for the melee units to get in. Plus it goes against the point 2K & Firaxis made about ranged units and the 1 unit per tile rule. That is the ranged units are meant to be behind the melee units. With a range of 1, they can't be behind anything and still shoot.

Also consider the fact that Rocket Artillery only has a ranged strength of 46 and the stealth bomber has 80. So a 60 strength would put the machine gun between these two, even though it come well before either of them. Therefore it's rather naive to think they didn't drastically alter the combat and ranged strength of all the units to go with the increase from 10 HP to 100 HP.

As I point out in another thread, that 60 strength when compared to the infantry, which comes around the same time, would represent a 66.7% increase in strength. Therefore it's as on par with infantry as archers are with warriors or crossbows are with longswords.

It would also be pointless to make it require being set-up before firing as it would then be a siege unit, which would be rather stupid since there's already an industrial era siege unit, artillery.

1-hex ranged units shouldn't be regarded as true ranged units, more like undefendable melee units. They make more sense that way.

If limited to one hex range and setting before firing that would mean (barring roads and railroads shenanigans and some UAs) that you can only attack another unit if starting next to it, which is a huge handicap. Sure, RAs only have 46 strength, but their available targets are much much more flexible than that, and the chances of retaliation are lower (it can even attack from outside a city's range!). Not saying that they won't revise the whole way combat works (they probably will, at the very least for naval units), but I don't think the changes will be massive.

And note that 60 ranged strength is as good as a no-retaliation 40 strength melee attack but with a higher variance in the result (see Vexing's in depth article in the war academy for that). Infantry has 36 strength. Seems reasonable to me, especially when taking into account how difficult it would be for MGs to attack. They are basically moving walls (60 strength on defense remains quite impressive indeed).

PS: and "setting before firing" isn't synonymous with being a siege unit. RA is a siege unit, so are bombers, yet they don't have that promotion. Why not do it the other way around too? Have units with "setting before firing" not be siege units, but rather defensive units with a penalty to limit their usefulness in attack (just like Ironclads and their inability to get into deep waters, for example).

--------

About tanks: they can simply ignore MGs if they want with their superior mobility, given the clunkiness on attack of MGs.


Although the fact that MGs have 1 range and setting before moving is wild speculation AFAIK though. If any of these isn't true (either more than 1 range or no need to set), infantry looks really tame compared to MGs, unless they are indeed boosted in strength.

Yeah, I looked at the numbers. Given that a Tank is 50 and Artillery are 32 with a range of 3, I can't think of a unit with such limited mobility having any number besides 60. If anything, the complaint is with the Panzer being too weak.

One of the things I like best about this unit, at least how it's currently being speculated, is that it looks easy for an AI to use properly. As long as they're programed to know that this is strictly a defensive unit I could see them having a few of these set up on terrain near their border, and just staying put. Having a few of these units around would make it a lot harder to exploit the stupidity of the AI because it would take some actual effort to dislodge the MG's and get at their otherwise undefended siege units.

It also helps them because they have the same defense (if our suspicions are correct, they won't be allowed to be used as offensive weapons) as their ranged attack (although I could see an argument for lowering that). That means the AI could be so stupid as to not attack at all with them and they'd still be useful for them defensively.

The downside is the AI will have to know how to avoid them when attacking or, at least, they got to be priced high enough so that the human isn't going to over-build them.

All unit strengths will surely be tweaked so Machineguns won't be OP. Just look at the Celtic UU strenght. It has 11 strength & it is probably not a sword, so that definately indicates that unit strengths would be increased & gaps between different units like rifles & muskets could be adjusted for better balance.
And I don't think machinegun would need to deploy or have one range. They might have extra fortification bonus & penalty against tanks. Deploying before attacking would be too similar to artillery & 1 range is unlikely as then it won't really be a true replacement for xbows of medieval era.

A ranged unit with 1 range is stupid and here's why. One unit per tile and attacking a city with those ranged units, means you have to surround the city leaving no room for the melee units to get in. Plus it goes against the point 2K & Firaxis made about ranged units and the 1 unit per tile rule. That is the ranged units are meant to be behind the melee units. With a range of 1, they can't be behind anything and still shoot.

I think it'd be odd if machine guns were designed to be used in attack. If you place a machine gun on a tile and an enemy unit approaches, your melee units will still be able to flank and attack that unit, and you can have an artillery unit pounding them from another line behind, too.

A ranged unit with a range of 1 is quite pointless. It's virtually the same as a melee unit (yes, I know there are some non-important differences).

As others have mentioned, they can do damage without taking damage, which is a huge plus. On top of that, it means they don't have to move in to the square that the unit they killed used to be in, allowing them to stay in the city/fort/forest or on the hill even after attacking.
Does attacking with a ranged unit remove your fortification status? If not, that's an another big plus.

They'd better buff tanks in some way or Germany's UU will be useless late game.
I'll admit I like the addition machine guns to the game a lot. They've made a real effort
to make it so you'll need a varied force to succeed.

As others have mentioned, they can do damage without taking damage, which is a huge plus. On top of that, it means they don't have to move in to the square that the unit they killed used to be in, allowing them to stay in the city/fort/forest or on the hill even after attacking.
Does attacking with a ranged unit remove your fortification status? If not, that's an another big plus.

Doing damage without taking damage doesn't matter much as a survived enemy unit can attack and hurt immediately on the next turn. If there is a melee unit with equal attacking strength, I don't think there are real reasons to ever use 1 ranged unit.

Doing damage without taking damage doesn't matter much as a survived enemy unit can attack and hurt immediately on the next turn. If there is a melee unit with equal attacking strength, I don't think there are real reasons to ever use 1 ranged unit.
Good point. Melee units are generally stronger in close combat than ranged units so even though machinegun would deal great damage without taking any, the next turn your enemy would use their infantry & tanks to annihilate your '1 range' unit.
The 1 range mechanism could work really well for some UUs which have both good melee strength & ranged attack however a pure ranged unit (in this case machinegun) with 1 range would be useless. They already said that they are increasing unit HP to 100 & several other strength tweaks so u can't say that Panzers will be useless or no one will make infantry etc.
In my opinion they are adding machineguns (and perhaps another unit between xbows & machineguns) to fill the gap of ranged infantry so that u can still have a more mobile & cheaper ranged unit than cannons & artillery and also making ranged promos for xbows useful.

Just think of the WW 1 -era machine guns, the strenght and weaknesses:

NOT an attack or siege weapon.
In fortified positions, smashes infantry approaching on open field
Even heavy artillery bombardment couldnt really sweep them from their fortifications
In a way to defeat them, tanks were developed

In Civ IV the stack attack system was totally different with the current one, but anyway in Civ IV machineguns are done that they have bonus against all gunpowder units, immune to collateral damage, and can't attack a stack (so they were dragged in a stack as a defensive unit). I think, in the stack system, they were done really well. But anyway I'm glad the stacks are gone.. ;)

In Civ V I'm sure they don't simply have that amount of strenght against tanks, either thanks get a bonus vs them or machineguns get negative modifier against tanks.


****

By the way, I think the new lead designer makes a huge difference. Award winning strategy boardgame designer with hobbies in history and AI programming, I think we're gonna see plenty of that in the new combat system. :)

I really hope he gets free hands to go with the combat system, we'll see. :)

I think ya'll are overlooking exactly what the increase from 10 to 100 HP would do without also increasing the strength of all units, so let me enlighten you. With the current strengths two of the same unit fighting each other with no bonuses on flat grasslands would do about 5 damage. With the current 10 HP that's 50%, so a minimum of 2 turns or two of that unit to kill the enemy unit. Increasing the HP to 100 would mean taking 10x the attacks to kill that same unit, so either 20 turns or 20 of your units to kill 1 of theirs.

Now if they also increased the strength of all units to about double their current strength that 20 turns or 20 units drops to only about 10, because the units are now doing about twice the damage per hit. Even if, as I suspect, the strength increase is only 66.7%, thus making the infantry also have a strength of 60, that 5 damage per hit become about 8.33, reducing it from 20 hits to 12 hits for that same kill.

Let's put this into perspective. Your scout upgrades to archer. You use it and your warrior to take out a barb camp. The barb is fortified giving it a 50% bonus, so it generally takes 2 hits from the archer and 1-2 from the warrior to clear that camp, so a minimum of 2 turns. Now they increase the HP of all units from the current 10 to 100. Do you really want to have to spend 20 turns or send a full army to deal with a single barbarian brute in its camp? Especially since it'll most likely spawn 2 more units in the time it takes to clear it with just that archer and warrior, or even the time it takes to build/buy enough units to reduce that to a reasonable number of turns.

Also look at just how fast units become obsolete on standard speed in the current game. Making combat take up to 10 times longer by only increasing the HP to 100 and not also increasing the strength of all units would only exacerbate this problem.

Now let say they did double the strength of all units. That would turn the infantry into a 72 strength unit vs the machine gun's 60 strength. Would it then make any sense what-so-ever to have those ridiculous restrictions on the machine gun ya'll keep harping about?

Doing damage without taking damage doesn't matter much as a survived enemy unit can attack and hurt immediately on the next turn. If there is a melee unit with equal attacking strength, I don't think there are real reasons to ever use 1 ranged unit.Well, as you say, the attacking unit will hurt the next turn, which gives the MG more survivability.
You can see that ranged and melee strenght are te same, which would make sense in this context.

Monthar good points about the strenght and hitpoints' relations.

I still put my money on machinegun being something different than just an archer-type unit, who knows yet.. ;)

Well, as you say, the attacking unit will hurt the next turn, which gives the MG more survivability.
You can see that ranged and melee strenght are te same, which would make sense in this context.

It's slightly different in theory. In practice it would be totally uninteresting. The point of a ranged unit is that it's tactically clearly different beast than a melee unit. 1 ranged unit isn't different enough. They now actually have a qualified lead designer and I doubt he would create such an anomaly as a "ranged unit with a range of 1".

Monthar, we do know that MG's are going to be ranged. Secondly we do know that MG's -cannot- produce indirect fire. So therefore the argument that MG's should have longer range so that they could be used from behind friendly units is an invalid argument. MG's are a frontline unit, end of story. Altough im not saying that MG's are going get range of just 1 hex, since it was just my initial thought when saw the strenght of the MG unit and didnt know that they were going to do a complete overhaul on units strenghts.

Still I if you count out the fact that arrows would shoot effectively further than a machine gun would fire (well this same problem comes with modern rifles vs ancient arrows anyway so..), then I dont see any problem giving a frontline defensive unit a range of just 1 hex. Still im not saying that this would be the case here.

What comes to the duration of the combats / wars, I have allready given my 2 cents on that also. I will quote myself: "For instance if units have 2 times the survivability than before, then I would reduce army sizes (not yet sure how but one thing would be to double the upkeep of a single unit) to about half of what they were before. That way the battles wouldnt last too long plus there would be more space to manouver these more durable units in the battlefield."

EDIT:

The point of a ranged unit is that it's tactically clearly different beast than a melee unit.

Machine gun is not a siege unit, it is a ranged frontline unit.

Btw I also edited the opening post.

Come to think of it, it might indeed have a 2 range.
But it'd make a lot of sense if it needs to deploy to set up.

I think the possibility of creating a 'kill wall' (trench war/Maginot line style) of MG's is a nice addition to the game, making late game war a lot more strategic. Making it harder to just 'smash through to the capital'.

I think ya'll are overlooking exactly what the increase from 10 to 100 HP would do without also increasing the strength of all units, so let me enlighten you. With the current strengths two of the same unit fighting each other with no bonuses on flat grasslands would do about 5 damage. With the current 10 HP that's 50%, so a minimum of 2 turns or two of that unit to kill the enemy unit. Increasing the HP to 100 would mean taking 10x the attacks to kill that same unit, so either 20 turns or 20 of your units to kill 1 of theirs.

Now if they also increased the strength of all units to about double their current strength that 20 turns or 20 units drops to only about 10, because the units are now doing about twice the damage per hit. Even if, as I suspect, the strength increase is only 66.7%, thus making the infantry also have a strength of 60, that 5 damage per hit become about 8.33, reducing it from 20 hits to 12 hits for that same kill.

Let's put this into perspective. Your scout upgrades to archer. You use it and your warrior to take out a barb camp. The barb is fortified giving it a 50% bonus, so it generally takes 2 hits from the archer and 1-2 from the warrior to clear that camp, so a minimum of 2 turns. Now they increase the HP of all units from the current 10 to 100. Do you really want to have to spend 20 turns or send a full army to deal with a single barbarian brute in its camp? Especially since it'll most likely spawn 2 more units in the time it takes to clear it with just that archer and warrior, or even the time it takes to build/buy enough units to reduce that to a reasonable number of turns.

Also look at just how fast units become obsolete on standard speed in the current game. Making combat take up to 10 times longer by only increasing the HP to 100 and not also increasing the strength of all units would only exacerbate this problem.

Now let say they did double the strength of all units. That would turn the infantry into a 72 strength unit vs the machine gun's 60 strength. Would it then make any sense what-so-ever to have those ridiculous restrictions on the machine gun ya'll keep harping about?

So you are saying combat will take 12 times longer? I don't think so. I think that when a unit is dealing 50% damage to the enemy in the current situation, it will deal 50% of the damage in the new situation. Ok, a little less then 50% probably because it is said combat takes more time, but nowhere near 12 times longer.

About the 60 strength MG, there are some indications everything has a higher combat value (the 66.7% you are talking about), so MG's wouldn't be overpowered. But it is still guessing hoe it will play out against other units. The only fact we have is that ranged strength and combat strength are equal. This is a good clue it is a unit which can defend them self in melee combat, unlike other ranged unit where the ranged strength is 50% higher for 2 archery units and 100% higher for the other ranged units. So it is likely this unit doesn't need to be defended by a melee unit like the other ranged units. To me that makes it clear it will have 1 range. Realistically, you wouldn't put your soldiers in between your machine guns and the enemy, and giving them range 1 is the solution. ;)

I don't think they will need to be set up. For one, they are likely on an upgrade path of crossbowman, something badly needed. Suddenly adding this requirements for those units as well would not seem right and I think it is not needed. Ok, you could move 1 tile forward and shoot, but what is the problem with that? Now you have giving up your fortification, and the MG is now closer to the enemy to retaliate. With the range of 1 this is a tactic that would only work in certain cases, where the enemy is 2 tiles away and no backup forces. But still, I can also imagine MG's need to be set up to eliminate all offensive capabilities. I'm fine with that.

In the screenshot there are 3 promotions: the embarkation, a generic positive promotion and a generic negative modifier. Most likely this is a penalty against armor, and the positive one should be some kind of advantages against ranged attack. I would assume they've should be using the Cover promotion, so one alternative it is a positive modifier against gunpowder units.

I think ya'll are overlooking exactly what the increase from 10 to 100 HP would do without also increasing the strength of all units, so let me enlighten you. With the current strengths two of the same unit fighting each other with no bonuses on flat grasslands would do about 5 damage. With the current 10 HP that's 50%, so a minimum of 2 turns or two of that unit to kill the enemy unit. Increasing the HP to 100 would mean taking 10x the attacks to kill that same unit, so either 20 turns or 20 of your units to kill 1 of theirs.

Now if they also increased the strength of all units to about double their current strength that 20 turns or 20 units drops to only about 10, because the units are now doing about twice the damage per hit. Even if, as I suspect, the strength increase is only 66.7%, thus making the infantry also have a strength of 60, that 5 damage per hit become about 8.33, reducing it from 20 hits to 12 hits for that same kill.

Let's put this into perspective. Your scout upgrades to archer. You use it and your warrior to take out a barb camp. The barb is fortified giving it a 50% bonus, so it generally takes 2 hits from the archer and 1-2 from the warrior to clear that camp, so a minimum of 2 turns. Now they increase the HP of all units from the current 10 to 100. Do you really want to have to spend 20 turns or send a full army to deal with a single barbarian brute in its camp? Especially since it'll most likely spawn 2 more units in the time it takes to clear it with just that archer and warrior, or even the time it takes to build/buy enough units to reduce that to a reasonable number of turns.

Also look at just how fast units become obsolete on standard speed in the current game. Making combat take up to 10 times longer by only increasing the HP to 100 and not also increasing the strength of all units would only exacerbate this problem.

Now let say they did double the strength of all units. That would turn the infantry into a 72 strength unit vs the machine gun's 60 strength. Would it then make any sense what-so-ever to have those ridiculous restrictions on the machine gun ya'll keep harping about?


OR, the same strength difference between units cause more damage. Instead of thinking of having 100HP units, think of it as having 10.0HP units, but being able to take/inflict 2.7 or 5.1 damage rather than being stuck with integer numbers. Kind of like when they moved to decimal point science/gold/culture in a Civ4 expansion pack. We didn't suddenly get 100x more of everything, instead we got a finer, more gradual system.

I suspect incredibly strongly that the same thing will happen here. Maybe the 100HP 'new' will map on to 15 or 20 'old' HP, but no more than that. Otherwise all wars would become mindless micromanagement and waiting a ridiculous number of turns for anything to happen. We have no indication that Firaxis is about to do something quite that stupid.

Incoming wall'o'text...

All unit strengths will surely be tweaked so Machineguns won't be OP. Just look at the Celtic UU strenght. It has 11 strength & it is probably not a sword, so that definately indicates that unit strengths would be increased & gaps between different units like rifles & muskets could be adjusted for better balance.

The point about the pictish warrior is a good one, actually, but we don't know if they have added new units for the ancient/classical era, in which case the 11 strength could not need to be justified (especially since it's a UU).

Good point. Melee units are generally stronger in close combat than ranged units so even though machinegun would deal great damage without taking any, the next turn your enemy would use their infantry & tanks to annihilate your '1 range' unit.
The 1 range mechanism could work really well for some UUs which have both good melee strength & ranged attack however a pure ranged unit (in this case machinegun) with 1 range would be useless. They already said that they are increasing unit HP to 100 & several other strength tweaks so u can't say that Panzers will be useless or no one will make infantry etc.
In my opinion they are adding machineguns (and perhaps another unit between xbows & machineguns) to fill the gap of ranged infantry so that u can still have a more mobile & cheaper ranged unit than cannons & artillery and also making ranged promos for xbows useful.

MGs have both 60 melee strength and 60 ranged strength, so I'd say you just gave arguments for both sides of this discussion... Infantry wouldn't be able to make great damage against a fresh MG. Even tanks would have trouble, which is kinda the only reason that makes me think that other units strength may have been increased.

Questions arise though if MGs are added in the promotion tree of crossbowmen (instead of the infantry tree), because those units don't have the same function at all, and it would indeed be weird (but would it be weirder than xbowmen upgrading into riflemen?). On the other hand, if you managed to get the ranged and the double shot promotion as crossbowmen, you have a beast here (You think England is underpowered? Think again...)

I think ya'll are overlooking exactly what the increase from 10 to 100 HP would do without also increasing the strength of all units, so let me enlighten you.

If you increase ALL units strength by the same multiplicative factor, there would be NO influence whatsoever in the damage dealt (again, check Vexing's impressive article). Plus, making combat last 12 more than now is just as improbable as making it last 20 times more.
I don't believe the durability of units has been increased over 2.5 times, and even then I believe the penalty for being damaged should be increased to account for it; but that's just speculation.

In short, they will change the combat formula, and will probably just multiply by 5 (at the very least) the result given by the current formula.

It's slightly different in theory. In practice it would be totally uninteresting. The point of a ranged unit is that it's tactically clearly different beast than a melee unit. 1 ranged unit isn't different enough. They now actually have a qualified lead designer and I doubt he would create such an anomaly as a "ranged unit with a range of 1".

As I said, you should regard a unit with 1 hex ranged attack as a ranged unit, because that isn't its function, but rather like an undefendable melee unit; this is supported by the fact that MGs have as much ranged strength as melee strength.

The only fact we have is that ranged strength and combat strength are equal.

Amen to that.

This is a good clue it is a unit which can defend them self in melee combat, unlike other ranged unit where the ranged strength is 50% higher for 2 archery units and 100% higher for the other ranged units. So it is likely this unit doesn't need to be defended by a melee unit like the other ranged units. To me that makes it clear it will have 1 range. Realistically, you wouldn't put your soldiers in between your machine guns and the enemy, and giving them range 1 is the solution. ;)

I can't see how someone could disagree with that reasoning. Archers and crossbowmen are extremely weak to melee combat, MGs would actually be better on defense than on attack (unless they change the ranged-melee raw strength formula, since now ranged strength is 33% weaker than melee).
Giving reasons that support other theories is something, but undermining this argument is another thing altogether.

In the screenshot there are 3 promotions: the embarkation, a generic positive promotion and a generic negative modifier. Most likely this is a penalty against armor, and the positive one should be some kind of advantages against ranged attack. I would assume they've should be using the Cover promotion, so one alternative it is a positive modifier against gunpowder units.

Thinking about the promotions, the penalty promotion is "ranged unit: cannot melee attack" (all ranged units have this promotion, regardless of everything else). So that throws the theory about needing to set up before firing out of the window. Which reinforces the idea that it only has 1 range (plus all the reasoning about indirect fire made by aziantuntija). Although even then I guess that's a way too impressive unit, so they will probably have increased infantry's strength somewhere in the 40s, while MGs probably need some strategic resource (otherwise they are just plain better than infantry).

No idea about what the positive promotion is, though.


Conclusion: other units' strength might indeed be increased, but not by a 67% factor, if you want my humble opinion.

The 100 hp is going to be like the current 10 hp but with 10.0. This will allow for more fine tuning and lesson the effect of 1 hp minimum damage. No more 5 Cho Ku Nu killing a GDR in a round. This will be like the VEM mod, which makes combat much better.

The 1 range machinegun makes a lot of sense, probably with need to set up first. With a 60/60 strength imagine a prepared defense of forts with machineguns in them? Currently arty in a fort is susceptable to attack unless it has an infantry screen which should then also be in a fort. With the MG you are good to go. Throw some arty behind and you are a tough nut to crack.

All this is purely conjecture on my part.

Doing damage without taking damage doesn't matter much as a survived enemy unit can attack and hurt immediately on the next turn. If there is a melee unit with equal attacking strength, I don't think there are real reasons to ever use 1 ranged unit.
If that unit survives the ranged attack, and even then it will be a lot weaker and do less damage then it would have done normally. With the new system where units will survive longer, making a melee attack would have the same effect, you attack and do damage without killing the unit and next turn they counter attack. The difference is that with a range 1 attack, you only take damage on your opponents turn rather then on both yours and his.

Good point. Melee units are generally stronger in close combat than ranged units so even though machinegun would deal great damage without taking any, the next turn your enemy would use their infantry & tanks to annihilate your '1 range' unit.
The 1 range mechanism could work really well for some UUs which have both good melee strength & ranged attack however a pure ranged unit (in this case machinegun) with 1 range would be useless. They already said that they are increasing unit HP to 100 & several other strength tweaks so u can't say that Panzers will be useless or no one will make infantry etc.
That's exactly it though, it has both good melee strength and a good ranged attack.

I think ya'll are overlooking exactly what the increase from 10 to 100 HP would do without also increasing the strength of all units, so let me enlighten you. With the current strengths two of the same unit fighting each other with no bonuses on flat grasslands would do about 5 damage. With the current 10 HP that's 50%, so a minimum of 2 turns or two of that unit to kill the enemy unit. Increasing the HP to 100 would mean taking 10x the attacks to kill that same unit, so either 20 turns or 20 of your units to kill 1 of theirs.

Now if they also increased the strength of all units to about double their current strength that 20 turns or 20 units drops to only about 10, because the units are now doing about twice the damage per hit.
As someone mentioned, that's not how it works. Damage is applied based on the ratio of your units strength compared to your opponents strength, and you can easily see this in the game already. A warrior VS warrior battle will result in the same amount of damage done to both sides that a mech infantry VS mech infantry battle does, despite the mech infantrys MUCH higher strength.

Good point. Melee units are generally stronger in close combat than ranged units so even though machinegun would deal great damage without taking any, the next turn your enemy would use their infantry & tanks to annihilate your '1 range' unit.

Except, in this case, it has a base 60 combat strength too, so it defends at twice the strength of infantry even without using its bombard. It could literally never fire and still have a good strength. That is, assuming our theory is correct. I like the theory because the unit will mirror the Machinegun in practice in WWI trench warfare. Other theories are arguing for gameplay first, this theory approaches immersion first.

Except, in this case, it has a base 60 combat strength too, so it defends at twice the strength of infantry even without using its bombard.

But we *don't know* the new infantry strength right now...

I may have edited my post after you saw it. We're going in circles. One argument against a range one unit is that it couldn't defend itself. The inference being that combat strengths must have increased as well. My response was that it can defend itself provided that nothing else has changed because its base 60, therefore combat strengths may not have increased. We don't know if they've changed, but, provided they haven't, it can defend itself.

If that unit survives the ranged attack, and even then it will be a lot weaker and do less damage then it would have done normally. With the new system where units will survive longer, making a melee attack would have the same effect, you attack and do damage without killing the unit and next turn they counter attack. The difference is that with a range 1 attack, you only take damage on your opponents turn rather then on both yours and his.

If it doesn't have typical ranged unit defensive weakness, then it's stronger than a melee unit. But tactically it doesn't bring anything new to melee unit. You would use it almost precisely the same way you would use a melee unit (probably the only real difference is that a 1-ranged unit can't capture a city). So what's the point?

You don't use it offensively, you use it defensively. A border with three of them would be very strong. You could put one in a Citadel and essentially hold the position indefinitely.

While I think a range of two is a possibility, that runs the risk that people will use them offensively, which I think defeats the point. It's no supposed to be a city siege unit. If anything, it should get a significant penalty against cities.

If it doesn't have typical ranged unit defensive weakness, then it's stronger than a melee unit. But tactically it doesn't bring anything new to melee unit. You would use it almost precisely the same way you would use a melee unit (probably the only real difference is that a 1-ranged unit can't capture a city). So what's the point?
I already answered that.
The defensive ability to stay where they are while attacking so they don't move out to a vulnerable position. For example, having one of those in a city would allow you to stay invulnerable and still attack any units outside.

Also, imagine a unit is in range. If you attack and take damage, you're vulnerable to a counterattack. If you attack and take no damage, you are safe from attack.

Also, imagine a unit is in range. If you attack and take damage, you're vulnerable to a counterattack. If you attack and take no damage, you are safe from attack.

Yeah, that doesn't change the tactics about how you use them though, which is what he was getting at.

Well, I do think it changes the tactics. Melee units are offensive units. You move them into position and attack. These units are defensive units. If it requires set-up, you can't move and attack on the same turn (barring a Persian golden age).

Well, I do think it changes the tactics. Melee units are offensive units. You move them into position and attack. These units are defensive units. If it requires set-up, you can't move and attack on the same turn (barring a Persian golden age).

Yeah, I agree that it changes things, it was just that one specific part I could see where he's coming from with. The tactical difference is in how they move in combination with the attack, not that they don't take damage when they do, even though that's obviously an advantage.

Which would you like the most:

a) machinegun would be basically an archer for late eras, with the same range as archer but also deadly melee strenght

b) machinegun would need to be set up prior firing and would have range of only one

c) machine gun would be like an archer unit, but with penalties against tanks, strenght bonus to infantry/melee units

Personally I'm with the range one and set-up

(someone go ahead and send a question to the Dennis Shirk Q&A and tell us that we need machinegun's info ;) )

b ) .

Great discussion here! I think another relevant data point from the screenshots is the way they are deployed. Looks to me they are setup in a classic trench warfare covering fire formation. Any melee unit dumb enough to try and split that gap would be shredded if these things had range one, and the formation would not be ruined.

Definitely b), as it is the only no-indirect fire variant. And, please, *not* in the archer-upgrade-path, as there might be the +1 range promotion then - which would lead to 2 range attacks.

Definitely b), as it is the only no-indirect fire variant. And, please, *not* in the archer-upgrade-path, as there might be the +1 range promotion then - which would lead to 2 range attacks.

Machine guns with +range, indirect fire and logistics would be a particular treat. :P

"Sir, it appears to be raining bullets. Lots of bullets."

Yes I've read the combat mechanics article and no it does not say the damage you deal is a percentage of the health of the unit. What it talks about is the range of damage you deal based on the strength of the two units involved.

Now to prove my point about increasing the hit points to 100 yet still only doing the same damage we do now, I modified my global defines to do just that. Here's the line in the file that does this.
<Row Name="MAX_HIT_POINTS">
<Value>100</Value>

Then I loaded a game I was already playing and took some screenshots. In them you will see that units do have a max of 100 HP and that the damage is still around the 5 HP mark with the variations described in Vexing's article.
My warrior has 96/100 HP.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=314208&stc=1&d=1329682927
The Jaguar on the next hill has 91/100 and my warrior is estimated to do 5 damage.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=314209&stc=1&d=1329682927
After attacking you can see the Jaguar not has 87/100 HP, so my warrior only did 4 damage.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=314210&stc=1&d=1329682927
In the last shot, you can see the floaty text says my archer did 5 damage, but the Jaguar still shows 86 HP, indicating it actually only took 1 damage.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=314211&stc=1&d=1329682927
After these screenshot I also modified the Civ5Units file to give the warrior and Jaguar 11 strength (based on that screenshot of the Pictish warrior) and the archer an 11 ranged strength and 7 combat strength. That's an 83.3% increase. Unfortunately only the archer's ranged strength actually increased when I relaunched the game and reloaded the same save. However, the archer's 11 ranged strength vs the 6 combat strength of the Jaguar only increased the damage dealt by a couple of points.

So I then looked further down in the global defines file and found these lines.
<Row Name="ATTACK_SAME_STRENGTH_MIN_DAMAGE">
<Value>400</Value>
</Row>
<Row Name="RANGE_ATTACK_RANGED_DEFENDER_MOD">
<Value>125</Value>
</Row>
<!-- Note: this will actually produce between 0.00 and 3.99 damage (rounded down to 0-3 typically) -->
<Row Name="ATTACK_SAME_STRENGTH_POSSIBLE_EXTRA_DAMAGE">
<Value>400</Value>
</Row>
<Row Name="RANGE_ATTACK_SAME_STRENGTH_MIN_DAMAGE">
<Value>200</Value>
</Row>
<!-- Note: this will actually produce between 0.00 and 3.99 damage (rounded down to 0-2 typically) -->
<Row Name="RANGE_ATTACK_SAME_STRENGTH_POSSIBLE_EXTRA_DAMAGE">
<Value>400</Value>
</Row>


So, I reverted the Civ5Units file back to it's original values and modified these lines in the GlobalDefines file and reloaded. I increased these values by a factor of 5, so that when coupled with the 100 HP it should take 4 hits instead of the 2 hits we see now. Here are the screenshots of that change.

As you can see, now my warrior is expected to do about 27 damage with modified strengths of 7.2 vs 7.5.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=314212&stc=1&d=1329684677
Yet my archer is only expected to do 19 damage even though both it and the target Jaguar show a modified strength of 7.5. That's a potential of 42% less damage from the ranged attack.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=314213&stc=1&d=1329684677
Here you can see the Jaguar only has 76 HP after the Archer shot it, so the actual damage done was only 15 HP.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=314214&stc=1&d=1329684677
Conclusions:

The damage formula also has to be modified if the HP are increased to 100. Otherwise, as I pointed out earlier, a normal 2 attack kill on a similar strength unit would take 20 attacks.
When increasing the ranged damage and melee damage by the same factor, the ranged damage is lower than the melee damage even though the ranged attack strength of my archer was 0.3 higher than the melee attack strength of my warrior against the same Jaguar.

Therefore, either a higher base ranged strength or a higher multiplier to the ranged damage is required to have the same damage output as a melee unit of the same era.

You don't use it offensively, you use it defensively. A border with three of them would be very strong. You could put one in a Citadel and essentially hold the position indefinitely.

While I think a range of two is a possibility, that runs the risk that people will use them offensively, which I think defeats the point. It's no supposed to be a city siege unit. If anything, it should get a significant penalty against cities.

1 ranged unit is almost useless defensively. It can't hit an attacker that is two tiles away (without moving) but in most cases that attacker can take it away. If the MG is 1 ranged, it will be definitely used mostly offensively. You want to put your 2+ ranged units to choke points and cities as they are vastly superior there.

Which would you like the most:
b) machinegun would need to be set up prior firing and would have range of only one


This would be a laughable unit. It would be almost impossible to ever reach a competitive enemy as it can't even move closer and shoot. Of course extremely high strength combined with AI stupidity could somewhat compensate it. Pretty useless against a human player.

This would be a laughable unit. It would be almost impossible to ever reach a competitive enemy as it can't even move closer and shoot.Well, that's not the point of an MG, they're supposed to be defensive weapons.

This would be a laughable unit. It would be almost impossible to ever reach a competitive enemy as it can't even move closer and shoot. Of course extremely high strength combined with AI stupidity could somewhat compensate it. Pretty useless against a human player.

That's not the point, they deny the area to the enemy, they're not getting trough without dealing with the MGs.

Another way to do them could be as a ranged unit that needs to get a clear line of fire, meaning there cant be friendly units between them and enemy, like there can be with artillery.

Of course Civ games are not a super realistic simulation, and it's good that way. For me it would just be a bit funky if machineguns just rambo forward. :P

Well, that's not the point of an MG, they're supposed to be defensive weapons.
I think he answered that.
1 ranged unit is almost useless defensively. It can't hit an attacker that is two tiles away (without moving) but in most cases that attacker can take it away. If the MG is 1 ranged, it will be definitely used mostly offensively. You want to put your 2+ ranged units to choke points and cities as they are vastly superior there.

That's not the point, they deny the area to the enemy, they're not getting trough without dealing with the MGs.
Hmm... That would just delay the invasion a bit, the enemy will bring artillery with infantries on front. That will outrange ur MGs

I think he answered that.



Hmm... That would just delay the invasion a bit, the enemy will bring artillery with infantries on front. That will outrange ur MGs

Place your own artillery and tanks behind so you can kill his weaker non-fortified infantry and then kill the artillery with tanks, or rotate damaged machinegun units to the rear to heal while putting fresh ones in.

The fact that there *always* is a counter tactic doesn't render an unit worthless.

Yeah, plus, having artillery is realistic (although I will point out it's better able to defend against artillery than infantry).

Essentially, it would work great as a deterrence weapon. No one will want to attack because they won't win on one turn (they'll probably take more damage than they give). In the counter turn, they'll take massive damage with a unit that isn't harmed. I agree a range two unit is more effective defensively, but it runs into the problem that they can then use it offensively, which I think is problematic.

Yeah, plus, having artillery is realistic (although I will point out it's better able to defend against artillery than infantry).

Essentially, it would work great as a deterrence weapon. No one will want to attack because they won't win on one turn (they'll probably take more damage than they give). In the counter turn, they'll take massive damage with a unit that isn't harmed. I agree a range two unit is more effective defensively, but it runs into the problem that they can then use it offensively, which I think is problematic.

Not just on offense, but range 2 would make it possible to have 2 rows of MG's, which would make it impenetrable. And you could have a strong melee in front of it to defend. And because the equal combat strength and ranged attack is designed for the MG to be directly at the frontline, range 1 seems necessary.

That's a good point as well.

Basically, with a range two unit, I don't see why it should be so dramatically higher than Artillery. We're all speculating, but for that strength, range one has the best combination of pros and cons.

Not just on offense, but range 2 would make it possible to have 2 rows of MG's, which would make it impenetrable. And you could have a strong melee in front of it to defend. And because the equal combat strength and ranged attack is designed for the MG to be directly at the frontline, range 1 seems necessary.

The line of any 2 ranged units is always very penetrable by Artillery, as it has a range of 3.

Assuming artillery is before MG on the tech tree which sounds plausible, MGs can be useful if they are (at least) 2 ranged and cheaper than arty.

In Civ IV:Bts, machineguns didn't get collateral damage, or was it that they were highly resistant to it. If I'd be designing MGs for this 1upt system I would represent their digging in by giving them a bonus vs ranged damage.

I mean, in WW1 the British might give a massive week-long bombardment with million shells to German trenches before attacking, and still be wiped out by machine gun fire..

Yes I've read the combat mechanics article and no it does not say the damage you deal is a percentage of the health of the unit. What it talks about is the range of damage you deal based on the strength of the two units involved.
[...]
Conclusions:

The damage formula also has to be modified if the HP are increased to 100. Otherwise, as I pointed out earlier, a normal 2 attack kill on a similar strength unit would take 20 attacks.
When increasing the ranged damage and melee damage by the same factor, the ranged damage is lower than the melee damage even though the ranged attack strength of my archer was 0.3 higher than the melee attack strength of my warrior against the same Jaguar.

Therefore, either a higher base ranged strength or a higher multiplier to the ranged damage is required to have the same damage output as a melee unit of the same era.

Well, it seems like my reply to you got lost in my wall of text, since we basically agree (only you decided to redo Vexing's research :p)
Indeed, the damage you deal isn't a function of total health, rather a function of relative strength of fighting units, thus why I said that increasing all units' strength by the same multiplicative factor wouldn't change a thing. Multiplying the current formula by 5 or (hopefully) more would solve the "100hp problem", as you concluded.

And indeed, a ranged strength of X is 2/3 as strong as a melee strength of X, thus your second conclusion.

The line of any 2 ranged units is always very penetrable by Artillery, as it has a range of 3.

Assuming artillery is before MG on the tech tree which sounds plausible, MGs can be useful if they are (at least) 2 ranged and cheaper than arty.

Well, infantry doesn't have a range of 2 (since it's melee), and it's still useful against artillery (even if only by sheer numerical superiority), so I don't think that particular argument is valid.

The line of any 2 ranged units is always very penetrable by Artillery, as it has a range of 3.

Assuming artillery is before MG on the tech tree which sounds plausible, MGs can be useful if they are (at least) 2 ranged and cheaper than arty.

Only if you're willing to leave the artillery with no units in front protecting them, meaning tanks can kill them.

Well, it seems like my reply to you got lost in my wall of text, since we basically agree (only you decided to redo Vexing's research :p)
Indeed, the damage you deal isn't a function of total health, rather a function of relative strength of fighting units, thus why I said that increasing all units' strength by the same multiplicative factor wouldn't change a thing. Multiplying the current formula by 5 or (hopefully) more would solve the "100hp problem", as you concluded.

And indeed, a ranged strength of X is 2/3 as strong as a melee strength of X, thus your second conclusion.

Yep, I just ran the numbers to compare various melee units with strengths increased by 83.33%, the 5x multiplier for min and spread damages. What I found was most of the calculations came out to the same damages with the increased strength as without it. In some cases, specifically a warrior facing a longswordsman or musketman would take 1 point less damage with the increased strengths. Since this was all based on 100 hit points, that's not much of a difference.

However, increasing the strength of all current units by the same factor would provide some wider gaps between those units. This would make it easier to fit new units in at all levels.

Current Strengths
Warrior 6
New Unit A 8.5 = 9
Swordsman 11
New Unit B 13.5 = 14
Longswordsman/Musketman 16
New Unit C 20.5 = 21
Rifleman 25
New Unit D 30.5 = 31
Infantry 36
New Unit E 43
Mechanized Infantry 50

Strengths Doubled With new units rounded down to be an even number
Warrior 12
New Unit A 17 rounded to 16
Swordsman 22
New Unit B 27 rounded to 26
Longswordsman/Musketman 32
New Unit C 41 rounded to 40
Rifleman 50
New Unit D 61 rounded to 60 (Machine Gun?)
Infantry 72
New Unit E 86
Mechanized Infantry 100

One effect of the new HP-system, that hasn't been mentioned yet:

5 logistics Archer can't kill a GDR/tank/etc in one single turn anymore!


At least IF we assume, that the minimal damage isn't set up to 10, but stays at 1 HP.

I actually like this change. However, a lead in military technology will be more beneficial than before, due to the 'reduced archer threat'.

Here is a thought. What about 2 tiles in a cone infront ?

If it is a one range unit, I think we will see an influx of players on England [Longbow Promotion, and Promoted from Rifle/Grenadier to Machine Gun] following the Expansion, coupled with additions to changes to UA (If it happens) and improvement of navies, England could become killer on multiplayer.

However, increasing the strength of all current units by the same factor would provide some wider gaps between those units. This would make it easier to fit new units in at all levels.

Yeah that's true, and considering that we will probably get ~6 new land units, they will probably increase all units strength since quite early (if we take the pictish warrior picture into account at least).

Here is a thought. What about 2 tiles in a cone infront ?
They'd have to introduce a mechanic for unit facing for 1 single unit.

If it is a one range unit, I think we will see an influx of players on England [Longbow Promotion, and Promoted from Rifle/Grenadier to Machine Gun] following the Expansion, coupled with additions to changes to UA (If it happens) and improvement of navies, England could become killer on multiplayer.
Can easily be fixed by making any promotions that would make the MG overpower be lost on upgrade.

I think machine guns will indeed be defensive 1-range units. This makes them perfect for area denial. They will probably do the same with anti-tank guns, except that they will have a huge bonus against tanks (and not so great against the rest).

Such area denial units are a perfect counter tactic for when the enemy spams direct damage units. In turn it can ofcourse be countered by artillery. Seems like a healthy balance to me, and more importantly it creates a more rock-paper-scissors combat gameplay, and this was missing in the gunpowder era.

Also, such tactics are not purely defensive, taking the risk of moving you area-denial units into new territory allows you to lock up an area easily, denying your enemy mobility. I for one am very happy with this change.

i Think that a correct implementation for MG is:

Range 2, Setup for fire, can't fire through units (and forests/hillis like other units).

Why Range 2? Because we need to implement hopeless assaults of ww1:

Infantry move towards MG, and MG must have the possibility to fire the unit in his round, and it's impossible with range 1 if the enemy ends turn at 2 tiles of distance, MG fires upon the infantry that loses an average of 4 (on 10) HP, in the next turn, infatry attack MG, it's a 4HP units with reduced base 50 strenght against a 60 full HP unit, result: infantry dies or lost 3 HP, MG lost 2 HP.

Why Setup for fire?

MG it's a difensive first line unit (like babilonian archers), we don't want the possibility to move and fire to a unit.

Why can't fire through units?

Becouse we don't won't a line of infantry whit range 2 MG behind him (we have artillery for this)

I think this is better than Range 1 MGs or not?

They will probably do the same with anti-tank guns, except that they will have a huge bonus against tanks (and not so great against the rest).

I totally agree, it's bad to see AT like the pikemen of XX century (and is more bad to see that they comes ERLIER than tanks in tech tree!!!).

They must have a MALUS against other units and normal values against tanks.

i Think that a correct implementation for MG is:

Range 2, Setup for fire, can't fire through units (and forests/hillis like other units).

Why Range 2? Because we need to implement hopeless assaults of ww1:

Infantry move towards MG, and MG must have the possibility to fire the unit in his round, and it's impossible with range 1 if the enemy ends turn at 2 tiles of distance, MG fires upon the infantry that loses an average of 4 (on 10) HP, in the next turn, infatry attack MG, it's a 4HP units with reduced base 50 strenght against a 60 full HP unit, result: infantry dies or lost 3 HP, MG lost 2 HP.

Why Setup for fire?

MG it's a difensive first line unit (like babilonian archers), we don't want the possibility to move and fire to a unit.

Why can't fire through units?

Becouse we don't won't a line of infantry whit range 2 MG behind him (we have artillery for this)

I think this is better than Range 1 MGs or not?

Not sure, it would more or less serve the same purpose but the MG will be able to lock up a larger area, very large actually if you ask me. I could see it working if all gunpowder units are given a 1-range ranged attack but I'm not expecting that.

I think their high combat strength is an indication that they will have 1 range. After all, in your theory they would not need strong defense since they should be firing at other units before they can be reached.


1 range is also good because it allows you to storm a machine gun with several infantry units. attacking with 1 unit is just getting you killed either in the ''melee'' or by a ranged attack. But by swarming it with several units you can take it out in one turn. Seems realistic to me.


As for hopeless assaults from WW-1, just imagine a row of machineguns, all fortified, with artillery behind it. Nothing will be able to attack the machineguns without taking damage first. And the machine guns won't take much damage if damaged infantry attacks, they are fortified and have a very high defensive value. Also, any unit surviving the attack on a machine gun will be shot to pieces by neighbouring machine guns.

It will take many units to actually reach the machine gun row, and even if they take one out they will all be killed themselves. And it will be easy to replace the lost machine gun. If you have two of these rows opposite of each other it's WW1. Then comes the new tank unit that will most likely take less damage from both artillery and machine guns, and is thus able to break these lines.

BTW, the Machinegun has one positive modifier and one negative one. Does anyone remember if the requirement that you had to set up the unit was marked by a red down arrow? Also, were there any other down arrows that ranged units have that would be more likely?

i Think that a correct implementation for MG is:

Range 2, Setup for fire, can't fire through units (and forests/hillis like other units).

Why Range 2? Because we need to implement hopeless assaults of ww1:

Infantry move towards MG, and MG must have the possibility to fire the unit in his round, and it's impossible with range 1 if the enemy ends turn at 2 tiles of distance, MG fires upon the infantry that loses an average of 4 (on 10) HP, in the next turn, infatry attack MG, it's a 4HP units with reduced base 50 strenght against a 60 full HP unit, result: infantry dies or lost 3 HP, MG lost 2 HP.

Why Setup for fire?

MG it's a difensive first line unit (like babilonian archers), we don't want the possibility to move and fire to a unit.

Why can't fire through units?

Becouse we don't won't a line of infantry whit range 2 MG behind him (we have artillery for this)

I think this is better than Range 1 MGs or not?

"can't fire through units" could work, maybe, but is is not likely such a concept would be introduced. Besides, the rules of ranged attack with forests and hills are difficult enough, I hop such a concept doesn't get introduced. Set up for fire is a better possibility, but it is likely on an upgrade path of crossbowman, and according to the screenshot there is only 1 standard negative promotion, which would be the "does not melee attack" as someone here pointed out.

To be clear, I'm not sure if my assumptions would be the best situation (although I'm beginning to like it), but I just think about what the most likely scenario is based on screenshots.

Remember also that there is quite some terrain which can prevent an melee unit to attack the MG before the MG has the change of firing: marshes, rivers, hills, forests, etc can bring an enemy to stop and give the MG the first shot. But the best strategy to beat MG's would be from the air or artillery.

BTW, the Machinegun has one positive modifier and one negative one. Does anyone remember if the requirement that you had to set up the unit was marked by a red down arrow? Also, were there any other down arrows that ranged units have that would be more likely?


http://civilopedia5.com/units/catapult.html
Both "May not melee attack" and "Must set up to Ranged Attack" is listed.

No set up for ranged attack would only be viable with range 1. You still would be able to fire 2 hexes away, but it would leave the MG vulnerable and lose fortification.

BTW, the Machinegun has one positive modifier and one negative one. Does anyone remember if the requirement that you had to set up the unit was marked by a red down arrow? Also, were there any other down arrows that ranged units have that would be more likely?

Hum, if you see the civilopedia on-line (http://civilopedia5.com/units/archer.html) all ranged units have the malus (red triangle) "may not melee attack".
If we assume that, MG don't need to be setupped, and then the 1-range is the only way.

So with this little bit of information and alot of logic reason we can be pretty sure that the Machine Gun is

* A defensive unit that may not melee attack
* most likely has a range of 1
* ranged strength is equal to combat strength

And asuming that's all true it is a unit intended on area control, which is a new role we haven't seen before.

Now let's hope they will make the anti-tank gun the same type of unit.

I think their high combat strength is an indication that they will have 1 range. After all, in your theory they would not need strong defense since they should be firing at other units before they can be reached.

1 range is also good because it allows you to storm a machine gun with several infantry units. attacking with 1 unit is just getting you killed either in the ''melee'' or by a ranged attack. But by swarming it with several units you can take it out in one turn. Seems realistic to me.



Maybe you are right, but the problem that with 1-range is that an Infantry can negate the first-shot to the MG is always in my mind.
And then, with this situation (-------- is one exe):

ARTILLERY // INFANTRY //////// //// ENEMY MG
----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Artillerty can setup and fire, and infantry can assoult MG at full strenght, after that MG will lose at least 8HP, and infantry 3-4, in the next turn MG will be forced to retreat.

Only one infantry and one artillery is too few to recreate the enormous stategic difficolty experienced by te WWI armies to advance.

Yeah, all things considered, I don't think it needs to be set up.

Maybe we have to concentrate on the BONUS of MG (Yellow triangle), no ranged unit has one (except for the bonus vs cities, but we can assume that MG doesn't have it).

Maybe is a bonus against artillery? but MG already have "Cover 2" by default.
And if MG have a special bonus like "shot at first sight" like the Citadel? (the map building created by Great Generals, im not sure about the name, my game is in italian)... maybe i'm travelling too much with my mind :)

Maybe you are right, but the problem that with 1-range is that an Infantry can negate the first-shot to the MG is always in my mind.
And then, with this situation (-------- is one exe):

ARTILLERY // INFANTRY //////// //// ENEMY MG
----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Artillerty can setup and fire, and infantry can assoult MG at full strenght, after that MG will lose at least 8HP, and infantry 3-4, in the next turn MG will be forced to retreat.

Only one infantry and one artillery is too few to recreate the enormous stategic difficolty experienced by te WWI armies to advance.

I think you might be a bit too focussed on the typical WW1 trench warfare. I have no reason to believe Fireaxis insists on recreating that.

To me, it seems the current idea we have for the machine gun makes for a balanced (even powerful) unit. And yes, artillery and air units ar obvious counters. Good, there should be counters.

Still, the MG seems like a powerfull unit, especially against offensive players who will most likely have alot of potential cannonmeat running around.


To sketch an equal situation, not 2 versus 1. X is an empty hex.

Artillery-infantry-X-MG-artillery

The right side will easily win, the infantry will die turns earlier than the MG, that means the right side player can bring in infantry of it's own that will then move towards the other artillery. Now let's do two sides with an MG


Artillery-MG-X-MG-Artillery

Here you go, typical WW-1 stalemate. Both may bring up infantry, but it will just be crushed by artillery and MG together. Both artillery can hit the other MG, but it is fortified so will not die easily, and may easily be replaced by a fresh MG.

So you see, stalemates will easily occur since both the MG and artillery are defensive and they will dominate their era untill that WW1 tank or planes come around.

Maybe you are right, but the problem that with 1-range is that an Infantry can negate the first-shot to the MG is always in my mind.
And then, with this situation (-------- is one exe):

ARTILLERY // INFANTRY //////// //// ENEMY MG
----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Artillerty can setup and fire, and infantry can assoult MG at full strenght, after that MG will lose at least 8HP, and infantry 3-4, in the next turn MG will be forced to retreat.

Only one infantry and one artillery is too few to recreate the enormous stategic difficolty experienced by te WWI armies to advance.

Artillery has a ranged strength of 32 now. Maybe it will be increased to 50 if we follow the 67% increase of strenght. But maybe Artillery will be limited to 45, because Artillery is really strong with the range of 3. Then you have a 45 attack against 60 of the MG. In 'melee terms', that would be 30 - 60, which is 2-3 HP? Then the attack of the infantry: probably a 60 strength unit, which will cause 4-5 HP. So 6-8HP

But this is without defensive modifiers like 50% fortification and 20% Great general, or other modifiers (In friendly lands, forest/hills, 15% Morale, ...). 60 * 1.7 = about 100.
And if the positive promotion of the MG is a bonus against Gunpowder Units, then this scenario is even better for the MG.

On top of that, you can have your own Artillery which can shoot the Infantry, and then go for the enemy Artillery with Horses or Tanks.

Maybe we have to concentrate on the BONUS of MG (Yellow triangle), no ranged unit has one (except for the bonus vs cities, but we can assume that MG doesn't have it).

Maybe is a bonus against artillery? but MG already have "Cover 2" by default.
And if MG have a special bonus like "shot at first sight" like the Citadel? (the map building created by Great Generals, im not sure about the name, my game is in italian)... maybe i'm travelling too much with my mind :)

Cover 2 by default is confirmed? Where?

Can easily be fixed by making any promotions that would make the MG overpower be lost on upgrade.

Should we really start removing unique promotions though?

For other units they remain and they become extra powerful, but that is part of the allure of playing the civ then.

Removing a promotion here, would become a call to remove promotion's elsewhere:

(Like Cho-Ko-Nuh's extra Attack on Mech Inf/Rifles/Infantry)
(Janissaries full heal abilities on Rifles/Infantry/Mech Infantry)
Minutemen's sight on Rifles/Inf/Mech Inf
Etc.

Should we really start removing unique promotions though?

For other units they remain and they become extra powerful, but that is part of the allure of playing the civ then.

Removing a promotion here, would become a call to remove promotion's elsewhere:

(Like Cho-Ko-Nuh's extra Attack on Mech Inf/Rifles/Infantry)
(Janissaries full heal abilities on Rifles/Infantry/Mech Infantry)
Minutemen's sight on Rifles/Inf/Mech Inf
Etc.
Those civs are already balanced for that, but England is not balanced for having an extra range MG unit. On top of that, all those bonuses are available with a normal promotion anyway, except the healing.

ok ok :) 1-range for MG works quite well.

Ok, my mind is travelling again...what if the negative promotion is "setup before fire" allowing MG to fire AND melee (by not having the promotion "cannot melee")?

In this scenario, MG will be the WWI infantry, when setupped plays the role of strong defense unit, when moving it play the role of cannon fodder against setupped machinguns

It's quite revolutionary for the game engine, i'm sure about that, but think about:
1) Melee ships
2) If "missile unit=no melee" is a game axiom, why they needed a promotion to negate melee?

p.s. Another question: Fortified ranged units loses their status firing? I the answer is yes it's a problem for MG...

Cover 2 by default is confirmed? Where?

Sorry it's not confirmed, the MG in the screenshot has the promotion, im supposing (due to the defensive attitude of MG) that Cover 1 or 2 is gained by default.

ok ok :) 1-range for MG works quite well.

Ok, my mind is travelling again...what if the negative promotion is "setup before fire" allowing MG to fire AND melee (by not having the promotion "cannot melee")?

In this scenario, MG will be the WWI infantry, when setupped plays the role of strong defense unit, when moving it play the role of cannon fodder against setupped machinguns

It's quite revolutionary for the game engine, i'm sure about that, but think about:
1) Melee ships
2) If "missile unit=no melee" is a game axiom, why they needed a promotion to negate melee?

p.s. Another question: Fortified ranged units loses their status firing? I the answer is yes it's a problem for MG...

That last question is a very good one, does anybody know?

I would not want to rule out what you are saying, but it has a very high melee strength, if it can actually use that offensively it would be very very overpowered, so i doubt that's the case. Seems illogical too, riflemen are the cannon fodder already ;)

Sorry it's not confirmed, the MG in the screenshot has the promotion, im supposing (due to the defensive attitude of MG) that Cover 1 or 2 is gained by default.

The screenshot shows no cover promotion, it shows 1 that looks like a shield, but it's the embarkation shield, not the cover shield. On top of that, it only has 1 generic bonus promotion and 1 generic negative, what those are is up to speculation. That generic bonus could be a defensive one to protect it from ranged attacks though.

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from the current promotions though, that is something that could probably change very easily, it wouldn't take long to add "must set up" if they find it's needed.

A ranged attack results in losing the fortification bonus. That is the reason a barb archer in an encampment usually doesn't fire when you are in range. ;)

But that means a MG has full fortification for the first (surprise) attack, and thereafter it doesn't have. Which is not bad gameplay I think. You get heavy resistence from MG for 1 turn, but with persistence the opposing army will have a chance after turn 2 to take it out. It'll still be a good first defense to slow down the enemy, which is the primary function. But you need some kind of backup to get through it.

Sorry it's not confirmed, the MG in the screenshot has the promotion, im supposing (due to the defensive attitude of MG) that Cover 1 or 2 is gained by default.

There are 2 screenshots with MG, and none of them have Cover 2.

I'm sorry, it was the "embarkation promotion"...

A ranged attack results in losing the fortification bonus. That is the reason a barb archer in an encampment usually doesn't fire when you are in range. ;)

But that means a MG has full fortification for the first (surprise) attack, and thereafter it doesn't have. Which is not bad gameplay I think. You get heavy resistence from MG for 1 turn, but with persistence the opposing army will have a chance after turn 2 to take it out. It'll still be a good first defense to slow down the enemy, which is the primary function. But you need some kind of backup to get through it.



There are 2 screenshots with MG, and none of them have Cover 2.

That could be the special bonus though, allowing it to stay in fortification even after attacking.

Did I miss something where they confirmed range is 1?

Did I miss something where they confirmed range is 1?

Nope, just our speculation..

The only things we know for sure are:
-It is a ranged unit
-It has as much ranged strength as melee strength (60)
-It (probably) has one generic bonus promotion
-It has one generic malus promotion

What we have speculated is:
-The fact that it has as much ranged strength as melee strength leads to the speculation that it has only 1 range.
-60 strength is high, but other units' strength have probably been raised (the exact multiplicative factor is completely unknown).
-Since the damage formula has to be reworked to account for the new "100hp rule", the relative strength of 60 ranged strength vs 60 melee strength, which until now was 2/3, may be changed too.
-The generic malus promotion is probably "cannot melee attack", since all ranged units until now have it.
-The generic bonus is completely unknown and up to your wildest speculations. The screenshot doesn't give us the name of it, so it could even be morale (and thus be completely unrelated to the specific unit, rather an already known national wonder, for example), for all we know.
-We don't know either if the MG will be an upgrade from the archer-xbow tree.

Take into account too that the unit may be changed before the release of the expansion.

PS: sorry for pretty much repeating what you said, CYZ :P

It seems pretty likely that the MG upgrade from the archer line - anything else would just appear a little odd. But going straight from x-bows to MG seems like a massive gap. Any speculation as to what else they might add?

Grenadier seems like a possible choice, but they were assault troops, not support troops; so that doesn't really work. Possibly something akin to Voltiguer or the British Riflemen of the napoleonic wars? So light infantry with slightly longer range that stayed out of close combat. Historically they were deployed further ahead of line infantry, but so were MG so thats not really a problem.
They could also fit in the tech tree somewhere between musketmen and riflemen (no point trying to guess where when new techs are being added). I, for one, can't think of a single good name for them, other than light infantry which sounds pants.

Like I suggested before, someone should pop a question to producer Shirk to his Q&A about MG's.. I've already sent my question.. ;)

It seems pretty likely that the MG upgrade from the archer line - anything else would just appear a little odd. But going straight from x-bows to MG seems like a massive gap. Any speculation as to what else they might add?

Grenadier seems like a possible choice, but they were assault troops, not support troops; so that doesn't really work. Possibly something akin to Voltiguer or the British Riflemen of the napoleonic wars? So light infantry with slightly longer range that stayed out of close combat. Historically they were deployed further ahead of line infantry, but so were MG so thats not really a problem.
They could also fit in the tech tree somewhere between musketmen and riflemen (no point trying to guess where when new techs are being added). I, for one, can't think of a single good name for them, other than light infantry which sounds pants.

I've had in my head a skirmisher line, first could be a javelin thrower or a slinger, like Inca uu, then a rifleman unit, maybe called Skirmisher.

I think ya'll are overlooking exactly what the increase from 10 to 100 HP would do without also increasing the strength of all units, so let me enlighten you. With the current strengths two of the same unit fighting each other with no bonuses on flat grasslands would do about 5 damage. With the current 10 HP that's 50%, so a minimum of 2 turns or two of that unit to kill the enemy unit. Increasing the HP to 100 would mean taking 10x the attacks to kill that same unit, so either 20 turns or 20 of your units to kill 1 of theirs.

Now if they also increased the strength of all units to about double their current strength that 20 turns or 20 units drops to only about 10, because the units are now doing about twice the damage per hit. Even if, as I suspect, the strength increase is only 66.7%, thus making the infantry also have a strength of 60, that 5 damage per hit become about 8.33, reducing it from 20 hits to 12 hits for that same kill.

Let's put this into perspective. Your scout upgrades to archer. You use it and your warrior to take out a barb camp. The barb is fortified giving it a 50% bonus, so it generally takes 2 hits from the archer and 1-2 from the warrior to clear that camp, so a minimum of 2 turns. Now they increase the HP of all units from the current 10 to 100. Do you really want to have to spend 20 turns or send a full army to deal with a single barbarian brute in its camp? Especially since it'll most likely spawn 2 more units in the time it takes to clear it with just that archer and warrior, or even the time it takes to build/buy enough units to reduce that to a reasonable number of turns.

Also look at just how fast units become obsolete on standard speed in the current game. Making combat take up to 10 times longer by only increasing the HP to 100 and not also increasing the strength of all units would only exacerbate this problem.

Now let say they did double the strength of all units. That would turn the infantry into a 72 strength unit vs the machine gun's 60 strength. Would it then make any sense what-so-ever to have those ridiculous restrictions on the machine gun ya'll keep harping about?

You also can change what strengths cause what damage values. So you say you are multiplying their health by 10, and to compensate you need to multiply strength by 10. This is not necessarily true. You can do it this way, sure. To compensate for x10 hp, you need to multiply DAMAGE by 10. Not strength. Damage. One way to do that is to multiply strength proportionally, or you could simply increase the base damage units do. So that they do 50 damage per standard hit instead of 5.

If this is what they have done, then 60 is a really high stat for strength of a machine gun. And stop wording everything you say so poorly. You are not 'enlightening' people and there is no point in telling people to stop 'harping' on 'ridiculous restrictions'. This is a place for discussion, not insults. Implying that they are unenlightened or stubborn or whatever is impolite.

Not to mention it's all speculation. We simply don't know by how much strength or resulting damage is going to be increased. We don't know if the 60 damage from the machine gun is serious or if they're still changing things.

You also can change what strengths cause what damage values. So you say you are multiplying their health by 10, and to compensate you need to multiply strength by 10. This is not necessarily true. You can do it this way, sure. To compensate for x10 hp, you need to multiply DAMAGE by 10. Not strength. Damage. One way to do that is to multiply strength proportionally, or you could simply increase the base damage units do. So that they do 50 damage per standard hit instead of 5

No, you can't. Damage is based on the ratio of the attacking units strength compared to the defending unit. A 500 strength unit will do the same damage to a 400 strength unit as a 50 strength unit will do to a 40 strength unit.

And it's completely impossible for the game designers to change that ratio?

And it's completely impossible for the game designers to change that ratio?

In contrary - this is exactly what they will do.

As I tried to point out elsewhere, it is needed to change the percental damage, which two equaly strong units will do to each other from 50% to, let's say, 30%.
steave435 (and others) just try to explain this fact, as it is obviously not clear for all forum members.

This has *nothing* to do with the total HP change from 10 to 100 or the change of unit strength.

The first has to do with the possibiliy of more gradual damage.
The second is necessary to widen the space for WWI-units (and others).

I should have known better than trying to be sarcastic on the internet...

I've argued the same position as you Deggial from the start.

Lord Ollleus, don't worry, I completely got your sarcasm! I just used your comment as a hook to hang my following post on it - which is not about you, but all the people repeating the same questionable statements on and on.

And it's completely impossible for the game designers to change that ratio?

It wouldn't be changing the ratio... it is impossible for game designers to change the ratio of a 50 strength to a 40 strength unit by increasing both unit strengths proportionately.

They can change the effect of the strength ratio on damage ratio though.

And it's completely impossible for the game designers to change that ratio?

Sounds like you don't know what a ratio is.
It's a representation of how many times larger or smaller one value is compared to the other, so for example, 2 50 strength units would have a ratio of 50:50 (abbreviated to 1:1) . A 50 strength unit VS a 25 strength unit would have 50:25 (abbreviated to 2:1), and a 50 strength unit against a 100 strength unit would have 50:100 (abbreviated to 1:2). Increasing those values by 10 does not change it though, it would just result in 500 VS 500, aka 500:500 aka the same 1:1 as in the 50 VS 50 and 500 VS 250, aka 500:250 aka the same 2:1 as in the 50 VS 25 and 500 VS 1000, aka 1:2 aka the same 1:2 as in the 50 VS 100.

I know what a ratio is, I know what a fraction is, and I know how the game code works.
The ratio I meant is the ratio of the relative strength to average damage caused.

WHY IS THIS CAUSING SO MUCH DISCUSSION?!?!?!

Isn't it obvious that it is possible for the game developers to make it so that two units of equal strength can cause 7 damage or 39 or 2 to each other on average??????

I recommend that you go back to your post and edit it to stop this absurd nitpicking.

PS: but since I'm here, I'll go ahead and nitpick too:
"The ratio I meant is the ratio of the relative strength to average damage caused."
Since damage dealt isn't proportional to relative strength, talking about a "ratio" isn't really very accurate, is it? You should rather talk about a function ;)

I know what a ratio is, I know what a fraction is, and I know how the game code works.
The ratio I meant is the ratio of the relative strength to average damage caused.

WHY IS THIS CAUSING SO MUCH DISCUSSION?!?!?!

Isn't it obvious that it is possible for the game developers to make it so that two units of equal strength can cause 7 damage or 39 or 2 to each other on average??????

Yes, it should be.
However, I responded to a post saying that just changing the unit strengths would be enough, explaining that it wouldn't by saying that it's the unit strength ratio that decides damage, and you responded with "it's impossible to change that ratio?", indicating that you were talking about the unit strength ratio and that you don't agree with my point about changing unit strengths doing nothing when it comes to damage caused. They obviously can't change the unit strength ratio by increasing all strengths by the same amount.

I am a first timer on here. I have stalked this site for some time, but very intrigued about the expansion, thus leading me to this post.

I think perhaps we are over-analyzing this a bit. Of course this is part of the fun, but let me throw a couple of ideas around and see what you guys think: I was upset that ranged units got a 2 range to begin with. I would much rather see these ranged units have a range of 1, with the possibility of range of 2 on a hill. The benefit in the first place of a range unit was to be able to cause casualties without being harmed. Moreover, typically ranged units throughout history did not completely wipe out an entire unit, just soften them up for the heavy hitters. Siege units were always used for sieges of city, and not often employed on the battlefield. Of course, once the cannon came into existence, it's versatility changed warfare as it could do both (which Napoleon mastered).
To add to this, I would like the range units to get the promotion that some mounted units get: the ability to move after attacking. This would enable a range unit (even though it only has 1 hex for range) the ability to hit and then run behind the line, where then a melee can switch with the unit and hit the enemy as well.

I also like specifically for the MG to have to set up before an attack, still with the range of 1. This would keep the unit from being offensive, which it never was.

Furthermore, am I the only one who wants to see the city range attack disappear? It is silly, and not fun when a single archer and the city defenses can defend an entire army invasion. I would substitute the city attack with a stronger city natural defense. This would also force a more strategic defense, thus making the game more fun. As much as I griped about the "stacks of doom" Those battles were much more epic and memorable than the conflicts in ciV seemed to be.

Thoughts and comments?

I am a first timer on here. I have stalked this site for some time, but very intrigued about the expansion, thus leading me to this post.

I think perhaps we are over-analyzing this a bit. Of course this is part of the fun, but let me throw a couple of ideas around and see what you guys think: I was upset that ranged units got a 2 range to begin with. I would much rather see these ranged units have a range of 1, with the possibility of range of 2 on a hill. The benefit in the first place of a range unit was to be able to cause casualties without being harmed. Moreover, typically ranged units throughout history did not completely wipe out an entire unit, just soften them up for the heavy hitters. Siege units were always used for sieges of city, and not often employed on the battlefield. Of course, once the cannon came into existence, it's versatility changed warfare as it could do both (which Napoleon mastered).
To add to this, I would like the range units to get the promotion that some mounted units get: the ability to move after attacking. This would enable a range unit (even though it only has 1 hex for range) the ability to hit and then run behind the line, where then a melee can switch with the unit and hit the enemy as well.

I also like specifically for the MG to have to set up before an attack, still with the range of 1. This would keep the unit from being offensive, which it never was.

Furthermore, am I the only one who wants to see the city range attack disappear? It is silly, and not fun when a single archer and the city defenses can defend an entire army invasion. I would substitute the city attack with a stronger city natural defense. This would also force a more strategic defense, thus making the game more fun. As much as I griped about the "stacks of doom" Those battles were much more epic and memorable than the conflicts in ciV seemed to be.

Thoughts and comments?

I can easily agree with you with no ranged attacks for cities.

But all units 1 range? It totally takes away the idea to defend your ranged units. You will only be able to attack and retreat when the enemy is attacking you, which you should never want to happen to ranged units. I really don't see how this would work out on the battlefield in a good way.

I can easily agree with you with no ranged attacks for cities.

But all units 1 range? It totally takes away the idea to defend your ranged units. You will only be able to attack and retreat when the enemy is attacking you, which you should never want to happen to ranged units. I really don't see how this would work out on the battlefield in a good way.

Well, that's why I said when a range is on a hill it should get an additional range. I understand what you are saying, but also I would argue as it is now with the range being 2, 2 or 3 crossbow can easily defeat an infantry. Clearly there needs to be a middle-ground here.

One follow up thought: Maybe the MG special ability should be that it can attack multiple times per turn?

Well, that's why I said when a range is on a hill it should get an additional range. I understand what you are saying, but also I would argue as it is now with the range being 2, 2 or 3 crossbow can easily defeat an infantry. Clearly there needs to be a middle-ground here.

One follow up thought: Maybe the MG special ability should be that it can attack multiple times per turn?

Hmmm... it would make ranged units very terrain depending but I suppose it could work. Still, I don't see how it's better.

Well, that's why I said when a range is on a hill it should get an additional range. I understand what you are saying, but also I would argue as it is now with the range being 2, 2 or 3 crossbow can easily defeat an infantry. Clearly there needs to be a middle-ground here.

One follow up thought: Maybe the MG special ability should be that it can attack multiple times per turn?

Well part of the crossbow v. Infantry problem is the 1 minimum damage.

With Hp changing to 100 max, 1 hp minimum damage will be negligble

Furthermore, am I the only one who wants to see the city range attack disappear? It is silly, and not fun when a single archer and the city defenses can defend an entire army invasion. I would substitute the city attack with a stronger city natural defense. This would also force a more strategic defense, thus making the game more fun. As much as I griped about the "stacks of doom" Those battles were much more epic and memorable than the conflicts in ciV seemed to be.

You don't want an enemy army just camping outside of your army, so that's why city attack is in: the army does whatever it came to do (usually invade the city), then leaves, instead of simply waiting until whatever happens.

There are ways around it, but it's better than no "exhaustion" mechanic.

Well, that's why I said when a range is on a hill it should get an additional range. I understand what you are saying, but also I would argue as it is now with the range being 2, 2 or 3 crossbow can easily defeat an infantry. Clearly there needs to be a middle-ground here.

One follow up thought: Maybe the MG special ability should be that it can attack multiple times per turn?

Hills already provide a way to shoot over another hill, and you have defensive modifiers. So there is already an advantage. Increasing the range would make terrain have too much impact.

The 'special ability' of a Machine Gun is the ability to be good on offense and defense (as indicated by the equal combat and ranged strength). And that needs to have some balancing, otherwise it would be overpowering, so that is the basis of the Range 1 speculation (and ofcourse, range 1 stimulates the use as a frontline unit, instead of protecting it by a strong melee unit as other ranged units)

Hills already provide a way to shoot over another hill, and you have defensive modifiers. So there is already an advantage. Increasing the range would make terrain have too much impact.

The 'special ability' of a Machine Gun is the ability to be good on offense and defense (as indicated by the equal combat and ranged strength). And that needs to have some balancing, otherwise it would be overpowering, so that is the basis of the Range 1 speculation (and ofcourse, range 1 stimulates the use as a frontline unit, instead of protecting it by a strong melee unit as other ranged units)

I doubt this actually, my guess is that the machine gun wil not be able to use it's melee attack (like all ranged units). My guess is that it will be more of an area-control unit, and thus defensive. After all, is has strong defense (melee strength) and the ability to inflict high damage on all units coming into adjacent hexes. It would both be logical for historical as gameplay reasons if the machinegun works this way.

So it can only work as a frontline unit if you're on the defensive (it will excell at this). It can also follow your offensive army where it will help in blocking flanking- and counterattacks.

Still all speculation ofcourse.

Hills already provide a way to shoot over another hill, and you have defensive modifiers. So there is already an advantage. Increasing the range would make terrain have too much impact.

The 'special ability' of a Machine Gun is the ability to be good on offense and defense (as indicated by the equal combat and ranged strength). And that needs to have some balancing, otherwise it would be overpowering, so that is the basis of the Range 1 speculation (and ofcourse, range 1 stimulates the use as a frontline unit, instead of protecting it by a strong melee unit as other ranged units)

Actually I disagree...I want terrain to have much much much more of an impact than it does now. As of now it simply is either rough or open. That is lame. Terrain is vital to any war and needs to be empathized much more than it is now. It will make hills crucial to success...like gettysburg or Waterloo.

You don't want an enemy army just camping outside of your army, so that's why city attack is in: the army does whatever it came to do (usually invade the city), then leaves, instead of simply waiting until whatever happen
There are ways around it, but it's better than no "exhaustion" mechanic.

Actually...yes I do want them hanging out around my city...it would then be a real seige...unlike now. Seiges historically took months and years...so whatever fireaxis needs to do to do that I am all for

Actually...yes I do want them hanging out around my city...it would then be a real seige...unlike now. Seiges historically took months and years...so whatever fireaxis needs to do to do that I am all for

Soooo...Sieges should end in less then half a turn then? ;)

I don't know if it has already been mentioned here, but according to this the MG is indeed 1-hex ranged: http://www.webhallen.com/spel/pc/149528-civilization_v_expansion-gods_and_kings

Actually...yes I do want them hanging out around my city...it would then be a real seige...unlike now. Seiges historically took months and years...so whatever fireaxis needs to do to do that I am all for

I can agree with this, making sieges last longer would be nice. With a higher city strength the only way to really take over a city is either pounding it repeatedly with siege units or suiciding melee units into it. Unless you really have the upperhand this would take longer and allow for counterattacks by the defending civ.

Right now, it does often feel like sieges are short (wheter you fail or succeed), and this leads to a steamroll situation. I think the idea for stronger cities but without ranged attack is a good one, especially to make conquest sligthly less easy and more strategic (you'll need the right units and enough of them).

Good to hear MG's have range 1.
Now the 'only' unknown is the positive generic promotion of the MG. It will probably be a bonus against gunpowder units, which would make Artillery the most logical counterunit (or Fighters, but the early fighters would just be support units).

*Really* good to hear! I was worried a little bit, that the MG could have a bigger range. More and more I'm convinced, that firaxis did a very good job with this expansion and invested some serious thoughts in what they are doing. Maybe, the influence of the new lead designer?

I'm optimistic!

--

Beside the positive promotion, it's still open, whether or not the MG will be in the archer upgrade path. (I don't hope so.)

Beside the positive promotion, it's still open, whether or not the MG will be in the archer upgrade path. (I don't hope so.)

Hmmm... It is doubtfull. On one side, I do not want to see machineguns with the range and indirect fire promotion. On the other hand, what else is there? Mortars?

If I had to choose between crossbows upgrading to machineguns (preferably with something in between) or crossbows remaining an deadend and machineguns needing to be build as fresh units I'd choose the first.

Otherwise we'll have a very odd WW1 era, machinegun up front, crossbows behind, artillery in the back. I do not want to see that please.

Hmmm... It is doubtfull. On one side, I do not want to see machineguns with the range and indirect fire promotion. On the other hand, what else is there? Mortars?

If I had to choose between crossbows upgrading to machineguns (preferably with something in between) or crossbows remaining an deadend and machineguns needing to be build as fresh units I'd choose the first.

Otherwise we'll have a very odd WW1 era, machinegun up front, crossbows behind, artillery in the back. I do not want to see that please.

And the range promotion wouldn't be too bad since artillery has a range of 3, and the MG+range would have a range of 2.

Otherwise we'll have a very odd WW1 era, machinegun up front, crossbows behind, artillery in the back. I do not want to see that please.

:lol: You are right!

But then, they promised 27 new units (and, as the most recent articles state, new for the *normal* game, *no* scenario units taken into account!).

Hence I am optimistic for a mortar-like unit. :)

:lol: You are right!

But then, they promised 27 new units (and, as the most recent articles state, new for the *normal* game, *no* scenario units taken into account!).

Hence I am optimistic for a mortar-like unit. :)

That would be interesting... although I would hope the "mortar" units would be range 1 (essentially making them more defensive than offensive.. so you still have to get Chemistry/Dynamite)

Artillery-mortar-MG in train
Oh, my.

Build those Maginot-lines, people!

Artillery-mortar-MG
Artillery-mortar-MG
Artillery-mortar-MG
Artillery-mortar-MG
Artillery-mortar-MG
And of course the MG's in citadels :p

(Of course easy to take out the MG's and mortars with creeping artillery, but it's the image that counts ;) )

A Mortar could be fun. Range 2 would seem likely, but just as the Archer and Crossbowman a weak defense, maybe a bonus against mounted and a penalty against gunpowder units.

By the way, the Land Ship tank would probably receive a bonus against MG's. So take out the MG with a Land Ship, take out the Mortar with Artillery and then Infantry to fight off the enemy Artillery. :p

I'm ready to bet that it's not that simple to get rid of MGs with plain artillery. They must have a special defense bonus against ranged attacks, in Civ IV they were immune to collateral damage, and in WW1 even massive bombardments of several days couldn't remove them of fortified positions.

So options are a human wave attack or trampling them under Land Ships..

Also, I'd like this line of upgrade path:

Crosbowmen - Grenadiers - Machineguns (or mortars)

Didn't one of those articles mention the land ship is part of the Sci-Fi scenario?

Didn't one of those articles mention the land ship is part of the Sci-Fi scenario?No, it's
Build flying airships and huge tractor-like tanks from the unique tech tree [...]But who knows?

The "huge tractor-like tanks" could be the landship.

No, it's
But who knows?

The "huge tractor-like tanks" could be the landship.

Or it's in both. It's not like new units haven't been shoved into new scenarios before (Conquistadors for all!)

I think it would be odd to have the Celts in the Victorian scenario. Otherwise, it's certainly a possibility.

I think the smart way to do it would be to have it for both.

The "huge tractor-like tanks" could be the landship.

No, a land ship is a close to the ground type of vehicle. Completely different with tractors.

So what do you think comes after machine guns. Machine guns existed in both WW1 and WW2, so we'll hopefully see two version of them, but what about modern ranged units:

- Jeep mounted with a machine gun (fast, range 1, move after attacking)
or
- Sniper (slow, range 2)
or
- Remote controlled machine gun (???)
or
- ?????

I am not pleased with any of my ideas, so please discuss and/or add to the list.

The field machine gun has been pretty stagnant since WW2. Just incramental improvements in materials, manufacturing processes, etc. It's still something that gets lugged around by a small team and deployed in a stationary position or mounted to a vehicle. If the MG upgrades to anything, it might be a future tech unit, like a combat robot or something. You can't really do the vehicle mount because that's Mech Inf.

The field machine gun has been pretty stagnant since WW2. Just incramental improvements in materials, manufacturing processes, etc. It's still something that gets lugged around by a small team and deployed in a stationary position or mounted to a vehicle. If the MG upgrades to anything, it might be a future tech unit, like a combat robot or something. You can't really do the vehicle mount because that's Mech Inf.

It might get a vehicle upgrade in Modern Era (slightly stronger stats but 3 or 4 movement) That way those crossbows could stay current.

Artillery-mortar-MG in train
Oh, my.

Build those Maginot-lines, people!

Artillery-mortar-MG
Artillery-mortar-MG
Artillery-mortar-MG
Artillery-mortar-MG
Artillery-mortar-MG
And of course the MG's in citadels :p

(Of course easy to take out the MG's and mortars with creeping artillery, but it's the image that counts ;) )

It should not be too hard to take that out. Such a purely defensive force needs some sort of counter and artillery, early planes and the early tank all seem likely.

Still, I would hate for crossbows to go to mortars directly. But also dislike the idea of 2 range grenadiers.


I'm guessing that crossbows turn into grenadiers (which basic range is 1). Grenadiers are strong in the fact that they can deal a blow without taking damage, and may move after attacking, however they're not very good when attacked directly.

Then Grenadier can turn into machineguns, also range of 1. The machine gun is strong on defense and offense. However it's range of 1 doesn't allow you to use it as the spearhead of your assault very easily. They will be a great defense against counterattacks though.

I don't really see the need for mortars personally, if they do come I hope it's not in the WW1 but WW2 era. Otherwise WW1 will have way too many ranged defensive units.

It should not be too hard to take that out. Such a purely defensive force needs some sort of counter and artillery, early planes and the early tank all seem likely.

Still, I would hate for crossbows to go to mortars directly. But also dislike the idea of 2 range grenadiers.


I'm guessing that crossbows turn into grenadiers (which basic range is 1). Grenadiers are strong in the fact that they can deal a blow without taking damage, and may move after attacking, however they're not very good when attacked directly.

Then Grenadier can turn into machineguns, also range of 1. The machine gun is strong on defense and offense. However it's range of 1 doesn't allow you to use it as the spearhead of your assault very easily. They will be a great defense against counterattacks though.

I don't really see the need for mortars personally, if they do come I hope it's not in the WW1 but WW2 era. Otherwise WW1 will have way too many ranged defensive units.

I like that idea for Grenadiers: Range 1, move after attacking (and slightly poor but not bad defense)

then upgrade to MG: Range 1, must set up to attack? (with really good defense+attack)

Then Modern upgrade to Mobile Machine gun: Range 1, move 3, move after attacking (but defense+attack no better than MG.. a cheap unit)

Finally (Future Era) upgrade to Combat Robot: Range 1, Move 3, move after attacking (but with good Attack and Defense)

I like that idea for Grenadiers: Range 1, move after attacking (and slightly poor but not bad defense)

then upgrade to MG: Range 1, must set up to attack? (with really good defense+attack)

Then Modern upgrade to Mobile Machine gun: Range 1, move 3, move after attacking (but defense+attack no better than MG.. a cheap unit)

Finally (Future Era) upgrade to Combat Robot: Range 1, Move 3, move after attacking (but with good Attack and Defense)

Hmmm... That could certainly work!

I'd call the mobile machine gun a modern machine gun. Also, give it 2 moves instead of 3 and strong defense+attack. Weak attack makes it useless, it would work best as an upgraded machine gun with the only real difference being able to move after attacking. Then the combat robot (mechanized machinegun?) will have the 3 moves, making it much more of a come in, shoot and go out unit.

But I think this upgrade path would be awesome, it's like every next unit has an evolution compared to the next one and it seems to make sense. Let's hope some developers at Fireaxis had a simmiliar idea.

Hmmm... That could certainly work!

I'd call the mobile machine gun a modern machine gun. Also, give it 2 moves instead of 3 and strong defense+attack. Weak attack makes it useless, it would work best as an upgraded machine gun with the only real difference being able to move after attacking. Then the combat robot (mechanized machinegun?) will have the 3 moves, making it much more of a come in, shoot and go out unit.

But I think this upgrade path would be awesome, it's like every next unit has an evolution compared to the next one and it seems to make sense. Let's hope some developers at Fireaxis had a simmiliar idea.

oh, how about we convert the GDR into a ranged unit and have it do a 2 hex wide attack with those lasers? (A. bomb like spread)

I don't see the point of a modern range unit other than rocket artillery. In previous ages, the difference between the two ranged unit is one needs to set up, and the other doesn't. In the modern era, nothing has to set up. Just make machine guns upgrade to rocket artillery?

I kind of like the idea for grenadiers, but am not convinced.

How about a dragoon unit for crossbows in upgrade to. Sure, it sounds odd as an upgrade tree but kind of fills a niche. Movement 3, moderate range attack strength (range 2), cannot move after firing. Moderate strength in defence, but vulnerable to cavalry. Maybe even get rid of the useless lancers and have these instead.

MG to Helicopters would be a weird switch. Considering they're defensive units, upgrading to Mech. Inf. would make more sense.

Or just make MG upgrade to rocket artillery, thus being convergent with the seige line. The ranged line is currently convergent with the melee line, so it's not a huge leap of imagination.

Or just make MG upgrade to rocket artillery, thus being convergent with the seige line. The ranged line is currently convergent with the melee line, so it's not a huge leap of imagination.

It might be better to just have MG be a dead end 60 attack+def is OK.. particularly if they are cheap. They then become functionally obsolete with Bombers+Tanks, but they still may be good for garrisoning in cities.

Since 1 range is Really different from 2 Range in the function of the unit. So I'd say

Crossbow->Grenadier->Machine Gun...and that's it

(although if they upgrade from crossbows.... imagine Slinger Machine Guns... that would be interesting.

I'm ok with a dead end too. In the real world, MG's still operate the way they did in WW2. If you mount a MG on a vehicle, it doesn't improve the MG. It improves the vehicle. The MG definitely has vulnerabilities now that it didn't when they were invented. Tanks, air strikes, bazookas, long range snipers, but they are still being used the same way. They aren't as effective vs Mech Inf as they are against regular infantry, but they aren't obsolete yet. Whatever supercedes the machine gun hasn't been developed yet.

I suspect a robotic sentry will replace machine guns in the next few decades. It could carry its own ammo and be armored while occupying less space than a vehicle. It could be equipped with a variety of sensors and linked to a battlefield network in real time.

I suspect a robotic sentry will replace machine guns in the next few decades. It could carry its own ammo and be armored while occupying less space than a vehicle. It could be equipped with a variety of sensors and linked to a battlefield network in real time.

that already exists, except for the wandering around part (unless on rails, but whatever).

but it's still just a machine gun. The only real difference is the lack of a body at the location.

Right. The next step in development isn't to replace the gun, it's to replace the soldier(s). One gunner and one ammo feeder/spotter get replaced by one robot that doesn't flinch and can see in multiple wavelengths and can communicate with all the other robots in the field and master control in real time.

Beyond that, the machine gun itself will probably get replaced by a directed energy weapon such as a solid state laser at such a time as those and their power sources become portable by the robot.

Right. The next step in development isn't to replace the gun, it's to replace the soldier(s). One gunner and one ammo feeder/spotter get replaced by one robot that doesn't flinch and can see in multiple wavelengths and can communicate with all the other robots in the field and master control in real time.

Beyond that, the machine gun itself will probably get replaced by a directed energy weapon such as a solid state laser at such a time as those and their power sources become portable by the robot.

well, there's still 'minor' things that can change:

Range upgrades (better material, a more accurate rifling of the barrel), damage upgrades (.50 cal or better), utility (smaller but same power), etc.

Of course, an MG Gauss cannon would be pretty fun to see (though definitely no invented yet).

Those are all incremental changes. They are the iphone 4S to the current MG's iphone 4. Whatever comes next, like my hypothesized robot sentinel, will have to be a leap ahead or else it's not worth turning into a unit.

You don't jump from Musketmen to Riflemen because they changed the caliber or gunsight. It's because of a paradigm shift in how the guns could be used (also, made), which was a result in changing how the ammunition was packaged and loaded. That's the kind of difference that it will take to remove a 2-3 man team lugging around a heavy machine gun, a tri-pod, and several cans of ammo from the battlefield and replace the whole thing with...something.

I propose the robot because it eliminates the 2-3 man team. That's a notable difference, especially if it alters the tactics.

I think remote controlled units in some form might be a good addition to Future Tech, since we only have Giant Death Robots currently. At a minimum, Predator Drones are in the "future is now" category, so it would only be an extension from that.

predator drones aren't a unit per se, they dont operate independently. They would be better represented as a promotion that increases line of sight or removes defensive bonuses when attacking another unit or something (not that this would necessarily be a good game decision).

I like the Predator drones as a unit. I could see them being utilized in a purely recon role and vulnerable to anti-aircraft. It would be neat to see them being set up to fend off spies, if spies are units in G&K.

Otherwise, they might be cool as an action that you can perform via Espionage to view a region in your enemies territory. Maybe it can kill civilian units like workers and GP's if they are in the target tile. You don't even have to be at war, but you take a huge diplo hit.

Predator drones would 100% be a cool unit. Would be nice to have but odds are would appear to late to be used often.

I think there should be an upgrade dead end for machine guns. There are still machine guns in use today, and like someone else was saying they are operated and used basically the same as in WW2. They may be expensive in say 1900, but if by 2000 they are real cheap then you can pump them out real quick and if they are killed it doesn't matter that much.

Predator drones would 100% be a cool unit. Would be nice to have but odds are would appear to late to be used often.

I would love to see predator drones.