So Machine Gun has the strength of a Panzer?

[Monthar]

Originally Posted by elprofesor

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 )
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

[Schalke 04]

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'.

[dexters]

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

[Gucumatz]

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.

[elprofesor]

Originally Posted by Monthar

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).

[steave435]

Originally Posted by dexters

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.

Originally Posted by Gucumatz

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.

[CYZ]

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.

[Draskar]

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?

[Draskar]

Originally Posted by CYZ

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.

[CYZ]

Originally Posted by Draskar

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.

[Louis XXIV]

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?

[Montov]

Originally Posted by Draskar

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.

[Montov]

Originally Posted by Louis XXIV

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.

[Draskar]

Originally Posted by Louis XXIV

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.

[CYZ]

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.

[Draskar]

Originally Posted by CYZ

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.

[Louis XXIV]

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

[Draskar]

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

[CYZ]

Originally Posted by Draskar

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.

[Montov]

Originally Posted by Draskar

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.