Are machine guns worth keeping in the atomic/information era?

[hardcore_gamer]

Since machine guns have a 1 tile ranged attack and (I assume) are very good in defence, are they worth keeping even after you have researched mech-infantry?

Just wondering.

 

[Flaviusx]

Nope, switch over to mech. Your airforce, navy, and artillery provides you all the ranged firepower you need and far greater mobility. Indeed, these guys do most of the actual fighting. Melee units mop up, whether they are tanks or mech, they deliver the killing blows to targets/cities that have been knocked down to the red zone by the other stuff. So the faster they are, the better.

 

[Winston]

machine guns are fine as defenders and garrisons though so I wouldn't delete them

 

[AfterShafter]

I keep my double attacking range +1 ones but other than that, I tend to upgrade.

 

[Gort]

It's a real pity they keep their useless promotions, though. I'd love for them to get equivalent promotions, or better still, to have all their XP refunded so you can promote them back to the same level.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

machine guns are fine as defenders and garrisons though so I wouldn't delete them

That is what I was thinking. I know mechs are no doubt better offensive units but I was wondering if machine guns could still hold their own in the later eras while in a defensive position.

 

[smallfish]

Unless those machine guns were upgraded from Longbows, no. In the Info Era they are there for the AI to spam at you instead of artillery.

 

[civnoob13]

I know it's not fully relevant, but whenever I upgrade to gatling guns I always get a sense of boredom. I love the ranged aspect of civ 5 combat and by giving them a range of 1 it feels like a massive nerf and a boring gameplay decision. Am I the only one who thinks that their range should be increased (coupled with an appropriate reduction of ranged strength)?

As for the OP, for me the fact that they only have a range of 1 means they aren't worth keeping. I usually go for melee and sort of ignore them anyway, other than when I'm upgrading.

 

[Yngvi]

The answer really depends on the promotions; if they have/are close to the +1 range promotion, keep them. They are very sturdy units and can manage in close combat. If they are relatively new and inexperienced, upgrade them.

I don't usually like them as garrisons unless they have the +1 range promotion; I just prefer to keep an artillery piece in my city. If they're close to the extra range, I put them into battle; get the promotion or die. (They usually get the promotion.)

 

[TedToaster22]

Personally I like to put MGs in any Citadels I've built.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

I like keeping them as garrisons if I went Tradition and/or Honor.

 

[Louis XXIV]

This is why I think there needs to be one more upgrade (I still recommend RPGs ). It sounds like they put off the archer upgrade problem rather than completely removing it.

 

[pspboy7]

I move my machine guns to cities for defence, since they are pretty useless in battle when you have modern infantry, paratroopers, artillery, ships, and aircraft that can outshoot and outrun them on the battlefield. It's a nice upgrade for archery, but not one I would use for too long. When I hit flight, I go for bombers and fighters, airpower is king.