Is it just me, or are machine guns useless?

[Cedbird77]

they aren't if you change their range to two in units.xml

Two range machine guns. Not very realistic. But then again. Not archers are not either I guess. Lol

 

[bladex]

they are ye old machine guns they had way more range than your current thug machine guns street gangs use

 

[Thorrez]

They are really quite good at taking out AI units, as pointed out especially with the new movement system.

The real issue is that the AI doesn't build any units...

 

[diamond geezer]

They are really quite good at taking out AI units, as pointed out especially with the new movement system.

The real issue is that the AI doesn't build any units...

And it seems loathe to upgrade them. That seems likely to be a poor algorithm - the AI doesn't value upgrades enough.

 

[player1 fanatic]

The biggest problem with this unit is that it is missing an upgrade. They are stuck with modern era tech for no reason.

Kinda sad considering how much game changer were they historically in early 20th century.

Heck, machine guns and trenches where the reason why tanks were invented.

 

[Victoria]

I often see barbs and AI with very eary AT troops. Just seems wrong thay have then when I am way off tanks.
Visibility also hrlp machine guns hidden in jungle, AI trots right up to them

 

[ColPaladin]

I never pay to upgrade to MGs. 2 range is just too good.

 

[bladex]

my MGs have 2 range

 

[Lanthar]

I like having both 1 range and 2 range attack units. They fulfill different roles, and I like using 1 range for chokepoint/strongpoint defense, as well as flank guards.

 

[diamond geezer]

The problem is that if you look at the progression here it seems counter-intuitive. You start of with Slingers who have a Range of 1, and people only get those to upgrade to Archers, which are very strong with a Range of 2, they progress to Crossbowmen and then Cannons, both of which have Range 2 and are strong units in their era. Against that background, and compared to Missile Launchers and Modern Armor, Machine Guns are disappointing.

 

[player1 fanatic]

IMHO it would be great if machine guns had range of 2 but penalty that they can not fire over friendly units.

It just seems immersion breaking that 2 move infantry can bypass machine gunner attack, by starting turn 2 tiles away, due to MG attack being limited to single tile.

 

[isau]

Machine guns should deal AoE damage. I'm looking into whether there's some way to mod that in using missiles as a base. Fingers crossed. But really Firaxus... machine gun... AoE damage.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Machine guns should deal AoE damage. I'm looking into whether there's some way to mod that in using missiles as a base. Fingers crossed. But really Firaxus... machine gun... AoE damage.

So you want Machine Guns to become semi-nukes?

 

[isau]

So you want Machine Guns to become semi-nukes?

I want there to be some tactics in the tactical combat. AoE damage is very common in other games. Civ IMO has always been stuck in a strange halfway place, having evolved from Civ 4 into a "tactical" game but still keeping almost all the old cludges of the "stacks" game.

 

[King Rad]

Personally, I like the MGs as is. I tried the 2-range mod in V and found I didn't like it - too overpowered. Obviously, the map scale is limited and varied for the different eras, and I think this is part of why MGs have a 1-tile range vs. 2 for the earlier ranged units.. At the time of archers and crossbows, they really did have a much longer range than the units they were attacking. MGs are attacking infantry/soldiers, who so long as they're using rifles are actually ranged units as well [at least until they reach bayonet range]. So one tile is the appropriate range for MGs, they can attack without actually having to move into the tile of the unit they're attacking, but not from so far away that the unit they're attacking can't also attack them back. So if the map were literally to scale, then bows would be shorter than MGs, etc., but rifles would also have a range compared to swords and spears. The 1-unit range of MGs is right for the units they are designed to be attacking.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

So if the map were literally to scale, then bows would be shorter than MGs, etc., but rifles would also have a range compared to swords and spears. The 1-unit range of MGs is right for the units they are designed to be attacking.

If you scale everything by the Archer range, then Tanks should have at least a 3-tile range.

 

[shaglio]

Machine guns should deal AoE damage. I'm looking into whether there's some way to mod that in using missiles as a base. Fingers crossed. But really Firaxus... machine gun... AoE damage.

If only I was a competent modder, I'd create a 2nd attack button for MGs. The 1st, called "Focus Fire," would do 100% damage to the target tile. The 2nd, called "Spray," would do 33% damage to the target tile and 33% damage to each of the tiles left and right of the target tile.

 

[Jaybe]

If you scale everything by the Archer range, then Tanks should have at least a 3-tile range.

During WWII, most tank-vs-tank combat occurred within 500 meters. German 88 A.T. guns could range farther out and still penetrate, but tanks also had vision, aiming & stability issues to contend with.