If everything was range 1, I would start hating 1upt. Maybe if the 1upt tiles were smaller: I.e. More distance between cities, a 5 city radius instead of 3, Angkor wat would annex a tile every turn, 3 movement for infantry.
Gatling guns and above - lackluster?
- Thread starter Question
- Start date
Summary of this tread is that some think that no one will hard build Gatling, but what else will you build instead what we usually have available at time? muskets? If I need army at time and do not have standing to upgrade I will build Gatling, If I am warmonger and have highly upgraded crossbows I will upgrade them to Gatling.
so, they are not suck, they actually usually the best available unit unit units at time.
so, they are not suck, they actually usually the best available unit unit units at time.
Well, xp would still get up to 2 range. The more elegant nerd would be that archers/CBs/XBs not allowed the range promotion. Its okay for Gats+ as is.
One person did make that point well, depending how your work the tree, gats are much stronger than any other land you have available. In that situation, I feel like I can get by on lancers and cav. Very different tactics, so that might not work every time. Either way though, one is pretty much biding time until AA and artillery come on line.
I like the Gatlings & Machine Guns - you have to get a little more aggressive with them, but given that they have close to the melee strength of their melee counterparts, they can handle themselves just fine. They usually need to change tactics slightly after the upgrade though; they can't stand off as much as Crossbows did & they now have to share space with melee line, so you can't really use as many.
The argument about not hard-building them is crazy to me. I typically have plenty of former Composite Bows/Crossbows that can be promoted. I actually use fewer Gatlings than I do Crossbows, so I've got a surplus of Crossbows to upgrade: even if I lose a gatling or two, I've got spares and don't need to hard-build. In the rare, rare event that I lose all my best-promoted former crossbows and lose the reserves, then I will replace them... that just doesn't happen unless I screw up royally or have really bad luck.
Artillery is great and all, but there's a very uncomfortable period where it's still your current Siege unit, and there's Strength 50 Great War Infantry showing up and 70 Strength Infantry imminent. Great War Bombers can't take their show too far on the road, but Strength 28 Artillery can't seriously wound a Strength 50+ unit. Hell, they're a liability against a former Janissary or Jaguar... all your Artillery can do is tickle them, and then restore their health as a snack.
The argument about not hard-building them is crazy to me. I typically have plenty of former Composite Bows/Crossbows that can be promoted. I actually use fewer Gatlings than I do Crossbows, so I've got a surplus of Crossbows to upgrade: even if I lose a gatling or two, I've got spares and don't need to hard-build. In the rare, rare event that I lose all my best-promoted former crossbows and lose the reserves, then I will replace them... that just doesn't happen unless I screw up royally or have really bad luck.
Artillery is great and all, but there's a very uncomfortable period where it's still your current Siege unit, and there's Strength 50 Great War Infantry showing up and 70 Strength Infantry imminent. Great War Bombers can't take their show too far on the road, but Strength 28 Artillery can't seriously wound a Strength 50+ unit. Hell, they're a liability against a former Janissary or Jaguar... all your Artillery can do is tickle them, and then restore their health as a snack.
RatesAnalyst
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2014
- Messages
- 80
I don't normally build them, but did find myself with quite a few thanks to a military CS recently and found them quite strong.
They are good as "meat shield" units that can also attack with taking damage. I found that three around the edge of a city did substantial damage per turn in total. And if you were just going to have muskets there anyway to protect the artillery behind, then why not do a little extra damage to the city.
On the Xbows topic - what about it range was 2, but the strength was weaker at 2 than at 1? Something like 50% or 65% strength at range 2. Would nerf the xbows a little, but leave them good. It also makes intuitive sense to me - with most ranged units the more distant the target the less accuracy and therefore the less damage.
They are good as "meat shield" units that can also attack with taking damage. I found that three around the edge of a city did substantial damage per turn in total. And if you were just going to have muskets there anyway to protect the artillery behind, then why not do a little extra damage to the city.
On the Xbows topic - what about it range was 2, but the strength was weaker at 2 than at 1? Something like 50% or 65% strength at range 2. Would nerf the xbows a little, but leave them good. It also makes intuitive sense to me - with most ranged units the more distant the target the less accuracy and therefore the less damage.
It is a very fundamental way to tell if a unit is relatively good or not.
Of course you do. And making good use of veteran units you already have on the field is a no-brainer, but is tangential to OP question, and very much distracts from forming an objective response.
Okay, so you do like gats+ enough that you would hard build them! My litmus test argument is not crazy at all.
I very much enjoy gats+ for all the reasons you mention. I also agree, that arty can be vulnerable to point of pointlessness. But in the circumstances you describe, I would probably build lancers or cavs before gats or machine guns.
That seems like an elegant way to split the baby. Even though I think reducing range is the “better” fix, it would upset most players and much cause gnashing of teeth, really not worth the grief to Firaxis. I have to wonder though, would that be an easy mod for the developers? I doubt we get another patch, and if we do, it will only be easy stuff.
I guess it wasn't so much crazy, it's just that it feels like an odd way to word the question. I think a lot of players are in a similar boat to me; they're almost never hard-building Gatlings because they have plenty of Crossbows.
I do feel like they're pulling their weight and are a valid addition to the composition, rather than just something I'm using because I happen to have it.
Cavalry I like too but use in a different way: Lancers I have little to no use for. Any Lancers I've got are the opposite of the Gatlings I have; I'm using them because I happen to have some pikes and I don't want to throw away the promotions they had. I don't like the path the Lancer upgrades from, I don't like how it waits forever then turns into yet again a different kind of unit, and I don't like how weak its 25 strength feels when strength 34 units are on the field. (The Winged Hussar feels much better at 28).
LoneRebel
Emperor
I think GoStu's point was that not hard-building gatlings may not always be a good indicator of how good they are, since often the reason players don't hard-build them is that they already have a lot of crossbowmen to upgrade, not that gatlings suck.
For what it's worth, I hard-build gatlings and their upgrades. But then you'll probably just say I'm an unskilled player or something. Which is true, anyway.
Dr. D
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Messages
- 258
Agreed. I get great use out of gatling guns but never build them. I like to start with my four archers and go to war in an attempt to clear my continent before meeting any of the other civs across the ocean. By the time I hit gatlings my four original archers are crossbowmen who are attacking twice per turn, some with the range promotion. Gatlings attacking twice, particularly with range, will take down cities and are certainly useful.
Considering how few units are truly required to win, even by domination, I think using the frequency (or lack thereof) of building a particular unit to determine if a unit is worthwhile is a poor metric to judge things by. Now if you used that metric to determine how game-changing a unit is (i.e. building/buying artillery or bombers), then yes, I agree that is a fair metric. Gatling guns are not game-changing but can certainly be strong.
Trackmaster
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2014
- Messages
- 258
I think that strategy just changes a lot at that point in the the game in terms of what is going on and what you anticipate. If I'm going domination, around industrialization, I've probably wiped out most of my neighbors if I haven't decided to scrap the game. So I'm thinking about making a stronger Navy and anticipating flight. Archers are also usually a big part of early domination, so they're right there to upgrade.
Conversely, if I'm not playing to war monger, I'm probably trying to get my factories in for the ideology, and gats aren't the best for defense. I'd usually prefer planes, Navy, and infantry for that. Also when I'm peaceful I'll probably CS whore, and they keep me flush with units.
Conversely, if I'm not playing to war monger, I'm probably trying to get my factories in for the ideology, and gats aren't the best for defense. I'd usually prefer planes, Navy, and infantry for that. Also when I'm peaceful I'll probably CS whore, and they keep me flush with units.
How do you get their range up to 2? I never have.
It is easiest to get gatling range to 2 by earning the Range promotion before they become gatlings -- when 3-range cross-bows are upgraded they become 2-range gatlings.
Whether range 1 or range 2, gatlings work best as a complement to your artillery. Artillery fronted by gatlings are far more durable than naked artillery.
Whether range 1 or range 2, gatlings work best as a complement to your artillery. Artillery fronted by gatlings are far more durable than naked artillery.
Oh I see...so always best to use upgraded rather than new units.
I guess with ranged units, I have been using promo's just to get barrage III, I guess I should use the increased range ASAP.
I had thought with units, it was best to just take 3 straight promo's rather doing say combat I than barrage I.
Agreed. Range 2 Logistics and Cover 2...don't see how people think these dudes are lack luster. Upgrade to Machine Guns and Bazooka for late game damage absorbers and defenders
It is usually better to stick with a promotion line that unlocks, e.g., ranged promotions or logistics/blitz (2 attacks/turn) or march (heal every turn). So for non-ranged units stick with the drill or shock lines (don't mix the two and don't divert to take, e.g., siege, cover or medic, unless you don't care about delaying march/blitz) and for ranged units stick with the accuracy or barrage lines until you can take logistics or range (you can take march afterwards).
The problem is that even on the best terrain with Cover 2, if you are only at tech parity with the AI, Gats (and then later MGs and Zooks) will be one-shot killed by cities.
The very early archer line can move in, fire, take a hit, and then retreat the next turn. Before too long they get Range 3, and cities are no longer a threat.
Hard built Gats (and latter) can never take on cities, so consequently they take much longer to level up. Hard built CBs and XBs actually face the same problem, as they could be one-shot killed by contemporary cities when first built, but the extra range gives them lots more flexibility in getting xp. Or maybe you use them only against the very weakest cities.
I don't find that my Ranged units get one-shotted, unless the enemy has some truly obnoxious combination of Goddess of Protection, Oligarchy, every single defensive building, Red Fort, and Himeji Castle with the Great Wall. At that point, I'll just leave that player alone.
To me, I think of my Civ Units in a similar fashion to my Starcraft Units.
- If I build them every time and always want them, they're a core unit (or OP)
- If I build them in certain situations, but don't always want them, they're good enough.
- If I never want to build them and can only be forced to do so , they're probably underpowered or overpriced and should be avoided.
I find Gatlings a little more durable vs. cities than archers in earlier eras. Actually, I like inexperienced Gatlings going against cities better--partly because it's not so crushing if something bad happens. But also because the promoted Gatlings have their bonuses vs. different terrain types. You're not getting a bonus vs. cities anyway.
Gort
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,518
I don't particularly like how units change their ranges as they get upgraded, so I made a mod to fix it.
I reduced the melee strength on gatling guns, machine guns and bazookas to make up for increasing their range to 2.
I reduced the melee strength on gatling guns, machine guns and bazookas to make up for increasing their range to 2.
Similar threads
