Why are machine guns considered artillery?

[rev063]

I've always wondered -- why are machine guns considered artillery in BTS (and in Vanilla too, I think). You can't attack with them and they don't cause collateral damage. So, from a gameplay perspective, why?

[Bhruic]

I'm assuming it's to make them immune to collateral damage, but that's just a guess.

Bh

[Bushface]

Nitpicks :- they're not artillery but "siege weapons", none of which are immune to collateral damage from air strikes though they are immune to collateral damage from other siege weapons. Not sure if the immunity applies to attacks by Tanks and Mod. Arm.

[KMadCandy]

so that you can giggle at nonsensical pop-ups like


woohoo, thanks for the helpful advice. i'll get right on that "attacking" with my machine guns, if i can figure out how to do it

[Supr49er]

Originally Posted by rev063

I've always wondered -- why are machine guns considered artillery in BTS (and in Vanilla too, I think). You can't attack with them and they don't cause collateral damage. So, from a gameplay perspective, why?

Well, machine guns have always been used for defensive purposes. Except for the tommy guns/uzis.

[Bhruic]

Originally Posted by KMadCandy

i'll get right on that "attacking" with my machine guns, if i can figure out how to do it

Actually, if you read the text carefully, you'll note that it never says they can attack, just that they do collateral damage if they do.

Bh

[aokces]

Still, you don't have to make a unit a "siege" unit just to make them collaterall immune. It's not a built in feature of siege. Personally i think that AT guns might as well be defensive siege units too with collateral immune.

[Powerslave]

If I remember correctly, siege weapons were made immune to collateral damage in Warlords, but it wasn't until Beyond the Sword that machine guns were also made immune to collateral damage. So, when Civ IV was first released, one can only assume that machine guns were made siege weapons in order to give pause to stacks of infantry and cavalry, who both often take Pinch as a favored promotion. Also, the Drill line of promotions were not available to Gunpowder units until Beyond the Sword, making machine guns unique in the Industrial Era (and, I think, Modern, too).

Siege weapons are only immune to collateral damage by other siege weapons. Using Armor or Aircraft works fine. I usually give my tanks City Raider III, then go down the Barrage line. This is most especially powerful when you have The Pentagon, West Point, and few settled Great Generals. At this point, I usually start feeling a bit guilty about playing below my level.

[Polycrates]

From a gameplay perspective, it makes them immune to collateral damage from other siege units. Which is incredibly useful, because while a stack of infantry can be bashed all to hell by suicidal artillery, the machinegunners will still be sitting pretty except for the damage that was directly inflicted on them. It's a clever mechanic that really differentiates them from "defensive-only infantry" and makes them very useful for stack and city defense. Being siege also negates infantry's 25% vs gunpowder, so that infantry get absolutely eaten alive by them. Of course aircraft and tanks change the dynamic, but before that they're monsters.

It all makes sense historically too - for example, the Battle of the Somme was preceded by massive artillery bombardment to try and dislodge German positions, but the allied infantry were slaughtered in appalling numbers by German machinegunners when they actually got up and tried to advance.

[KMadCandy]

Originally Posted by Bhruic

Actually, if you read the text carefully, you'll note that it never says they can attack, just that they do collateral damage if they do.

"to the tiles they attack". there's no if, no "tiles they're allowed to attack". so i read it my way, and i giggle! . i find that silly too ... i don't attack tiles, i mean there might not be any units on tiles! i attack the bad guys.

[Lord_Zath]

Yeah, I don't know why they're considered siege AND can't attack either... I could see maybe a negative modifier for attacking or a modifier for defending...

[Nikis-Knight]

Unit categories only relate to the promotions they can take, and to the bonuses other units get against them, either inherently or through promotions.
So the reason must have to do with one or both of those. Either that or because machine gun [emplacements] seemed more "seige-like" than "infantry-like".

[Woodreaux]

I'm sure the reason they make Machine Guns like that serves 2 purposes: historically, in WWI ground forces used are represented in game as artillery, riflemen, infantry and machine gun units. Historically, the hundreds of mile long trenches were dominated by machine emplacements. Attackers on from both Entente and Central powers sacrificed men by the thousands trying to penetrate these entrenched machine gun nests. Their in-game dominance over artillery and riflemen reflected the effectiveness of the fortifications and firepower advantage over non-semiautomatic rifles. Their lack of ability to attack accurately reflect how non-portable the early machine guns really were. The near parity with infantry demonstrates the big advantage of newer magazine loaded semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
The second purpose of making MG units as they are is provide an early defensive only check and balance against spamming other early gun-powder units.

[Scaramanga]

They are seige and thus inherit the promotions available to seige equipment except for the ones that involve attacking other units (city raider, bombard).

[AfterShafter]

Originally Posted by KMadCandy

i don't attack tiles, i mean there might not be any units on tiles! i attack the bad guys.

That's propaganda... They're not bad guys, they're just misunderstood.

Besides, from what I hear of many players' "I build 40 axes and bump off Mansa Musa, then move on to Hatsheput and Gandhi" I think the players are usually the "bad guys," not the CPU's.

[HoMM3 fanatic]

Why machineguns are even an individual unit? normal infantry should have machineguns as well as rifles and anti-tank armanent. It just sounds stupid, like if one machinegun defends a city against of companies of enemy soldiers. Make it bunker or mg emplacement instead, but even that sounds silly. Machineguns as a unit just sucks, why not make a flamethrower too? It should be infantry what defends towns and cities, not few machineguns.
The game has wonderful choices how to promote your units, IMO this should be the only way to make infantry good against tanks or air units.
Same goes for anti tanks and sam infantry as well. Those weapons are integrated in normal infantry and I believe there really doesn´t exist whole armies based on those weapons only. Sorry for my bad english, I hope my message still is understood.

[MrFelony]

Woodreaux sort of hit it on the head, but machine gunners dramatically altered this thing called warfare when they were introduced in WWI.


It's also probably a gameplay thing. things need counters apparently so firaxis adds them in to counter other units. and I'm not sure if it was mentioned yet, but just think of how quickly protective machine guns would stop any sort of gun based assault. that's probably why they aren't gunpowder

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by HoMM3 fanatic

Why machineguns are even an individual unit?

Because they were.

[gunter]

Their classification IMO it's a kind of typo. They don't have to be considered nothing but a defensive unit and this is intended cause they could be too powerful if they had also an attack ability that in that era I think to remember pertains only to Infantry with a value of 20.

To be honest I believe that this limitation is fair for the abovementioned reasons

[Zongo]

As already stressed, the reason is a twofold gameplay one:
1) no infantry bonus against machineguns;
2) no collateral damage from siege weapons.
Unusually for siege weapons, machineguns DO GET defense bonuses, START with a first strike and MAY NOT attack.

It means that you have a snowball-in-hell chance of getting through an enemy stack of the aforementioned with neither infantry nor artillery, but you have to wait until marines or tanks. (or airships, but here we start hearing the damning whine of lost souls)

It implies that, after the cuirassier/cavalry age, there will be a progressive slow down in war offensives which will grind to the complete halt of trench warfare and desperate attrition pillaging of the machinegun stacks.

I personally like this, it makes you feel the tense sense of impotence and waste of the age. And when you get the rolling cabs or the smoking guys, the raging happiness is doubled.