So Machine Gun has the strength of a Panzer?

aziantuntija

Prince
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
533
Location
Finland
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 ;)
 
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.
 
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?

MkLh said:
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.
 
Top Bottom