Gatling guns and above - lackluster?

qemist · Nov 10, 2014

Vitruvius said:
Gatlings and above are fine if you look at them on their own. But the face of battle has also changed in that era and above. There's less city engagements and more field battles because of the introduction of bombers and artillery. On the field, gatlings are just not good enough. Even with two range they can't do much against an infantry + artillery army, not to mention bombers.

With two range they would be much better. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning about field engagements because extra range is a big plus for the xbow in the field. You can easily concentrate three on an enemy unit. In hilly terrain you get two hits on an advancing foot soldier before he gets one.

Gats suck even as a garrison unit. They are helpless to defend a city against frigates, and not much use against a cannon siege.

Vitruvius · Nov 11, 2014

qemist said:
With two range they would be much better. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning about field engagements because extra range is a big plus for the xbow in the field. You can easily concentrate three on an enemy unit. In hilly terrain you get two hits on an advancing foot soldier before he gets one.

Gats suck even as a garrison unit. They are helpless to defend a city against frigates, and not much use against a cannon siege.

Xbows in an era where they have the longest range. Gats in an era with gw bombers and artillery. That's the difference.

tetley · Nov 11, 2014

In SP, my gatlings fight just fine against AI, including infantry and artillery. Especially infantry, in fact. I have never found gats to be particularly any more vulnerable to bombers than any other ground unit is. Actually, less--cav and artillery get clobbered by bombers.

Gatling guns and above - lackluster?

qemist

Prince

Vitruvius

King

tetley

Head tea leaf

Similar threads