July 1914 : On the Eve of the Great War

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
About Machine Gunners, my point was to make the WW1 Infantry as the main units to build at the beginning of the game. They should be used both for attack and defence. If we make of Machine Gunners a defensive unit, then infantry would be used only for attack. Well, it's a matter of choice, but I'm sorry to say I don't want to fight against 5 machine gunners to take a city... that's the purpose of Spak, not the purpose of machine gunners.

Sadly it was the MG that murdered mobility. There were no city fights at all, save if youre looking at Ypres where there was fighting. WW1 was a rural conflict, not a cityfight. Naturally MG nests would be in citites. It is a reality that needs to be accepted.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
As you see the graphics of the machine gunners, they are mobile and can easily move from one point to another.

MG's arent supposed to be mobile thats the point im trying to make!

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Now Lynx, if you really hate the scenario and despise us because we did everything wrong. Do your own one and stop bother us.

Dont tempt me, It wont be a good thing to see if I did make one of my own creation.

 

[Marla_Singer]

If you look at graphics, Spak isn't a mobile unit, Machine Gunners is a mobile unit. They can easily put their guns on their back to move fast.

About the accuracy of the scenario. If you really want to make of it a rural fight (as it was indeed in reality), you'll realize you won't be able to make the whole Europe... you'll have to focus on either the western or the eastern front. That wasn't the purpose of this scenario. As Civilization works, the goal of a war isn't to grab fields but to grab cities. I don't want it to be this way, it's this way. If you're not happy about it, you should whine about it to Sid Meier, not to me.

I just like the way it is and I see no reason to change it. The idea of a fast moving artillery unit sounded great to me and I've found that graphic to be the best to represent it. The scenario won't be funnier to play with machine gunners being used as defense units.

And please please please, do your own scenario so that I won't hear you anymore.

 

[Lynx]

actually it is very possible, you just cant do it with your scenario and its map.

Fast moving artilery would be in the form of field guns, not Machine gus stationed in pillboxes.

you can like it, many others probably do (you never know though, you dont have a poll) but whe a scenario is inaccurate those who know it dont post here or did for a time but dont anymore because they found just how inaccurate it was.

Go down the lists of who has posted here then check the pages to see who has been here recently. You will notice some of the best mapmakers and creators have NOT posted here in a long time or even at all. I can name many of them.

No im not saying you need EVERY one, (ACW probably would be the only one with that title) but a few good makers who have posted recently would disprove my idea. Good luck in doing so.

 

[Andrewz]

Then just rename machine gunners as field guns and spak as machine gunners so that everyone will agree !

Boy, it's impressive how people can get passionate about just a scenario...

 

[MarcusSaurono]

Marla_Singer, He's right about the machine guns and field guns and how they were used. The machine guns were meant to support in the defence of the trenches while field guns, pulled by horse, would move forward and provide artillery support for advancing infantry.

 

[Adler17]

MarcusSaurono is right concerning the MGs. MGs are used as infantry support in the defense, but useless as artillery. In the war of 1870 France had first MGs called Mitralleuse (spelling?). But it looked more like a cannon ao it was used as artillery with nearly no success. Only a few times they shot at short distance with that weapon against massed German infantry- with the known results.
Many battles were won because of MGs in defense positions. An example would be Tanga as I mentioned before. So I would give them a defense a little bit better than infantry but perhaps only a few life points. Alone they were not able to defend very much.

Adler

 

[Lynx]

You have a choice here Marla: accuracy or inaccuracy, Completeness or Laziness. In the end this scenario will fall back into the archives, Its your choice how soon that will be: a few months... or a few weeks.

 

[Tantor]

I totally agree with Marla that MG`s should be a support unit. But I have suggestion that might be worth a shot. I believe if the MG`s have a bombardement range of 0 they will give defensive bombardement if stacked with another unit. Then give them a very low offensive stat and a somewhat better defensive stat. Their defensive stat and HP shoud be kept low to reflect the low number of troops in MG units. Perhaps it`s some way in the editor to limit HP achieved from promotions, I`m not familiar enough with the editor to know. Unprotected MG`s stand little chance vs infantry, but i think it`s unrealistic that they`re captured by the enemy. In ww1 MG crews were killed on numerous occations after surrender because they were hated so much by the enemy.

I think you`re doing a great job!

 

[MarcusSaurono]

Its possible to give the MG's a negative bonus in hit points so that as they gain xp they would return to normal hit points. Combined with a reduced but still decent defence they would serve as both good support units and passable defensive units. Also, the standard infantry would still be needed on the defensive to augment the mg's. It almost sounds like a compromise.

 

[Tantor]

Has it been discussed to give infantry the ability to build fortifications(trenches) and/ or enslave(POW`S). This will increase their advantages over special forces and MG`s.

If the MG`s are given a bombardement range of 0 it will pave the way for horsedrawn field artillery(move 2) to support infantry attacks. MG`s not classified as artillery will improve defense of a square by beeing one more unit to kill. Thus a square with one Inf and one MG requires more than one unit to conquer.

 

[Gogf]

Tantor: Yes

Okay, sorry to jump in a little late, but don't you think giving defense (12) is a good idea. Although WW1 was primarily a defensive, it would seriously underpower the attackers. Based on game strategy, the AI would fill it's cities with them, and then you would need a ton of artillery to take them. Well, based on human intelligence, you would do the same. How would the AI take your cities? They never use artillery. It's too hard even with the intelligence to use artillery. Now, machine gunners could be used as arillery, for example, there is a valley, and above it a machine gunner. Two enemy infantry platoons walk through the valley... they weren't frontally attacking the MG. MGs can be used for defensive bombard, and should have a ZOC, but no defense. It's too powerful.

 

[The Last Conformist]

During WWI, machine guns where integrated in infantry units; if accuracy is the goal, I'd remove them as a separate unit, and give infantry a high defense rating along with a defensive bombard.

If they are to be indep units, how about zero range artillery? Give them a highish bombard rating, and they'll usually knock off a HP on any attacker against the stack. Make them cheap, and you can easily have a few in each defensive position. Wouldn't be gamebreaking, and would seem more realistic than either the powerful defender concept or the ranged artillery implementation.

Capture can be done away with by giving each side an unique MG unit which isn't availble to the other. They don't need have any different abilities or prereqs, just different names and list of civs they're available to.

Lynx: Your attitude is very annoying.

 

[Gogf]

If we decide to use TLC's idea, we would give a different one to each alliance. That means we only need to make two different units, not one for each civ.

 

[Andrewz]

I'm against the idea of a specific defensive unit different from the Infantry. In Civ3, defensive units are used to defend cities, it's impossible to make them defend trenches. I agree with the Last Conformist, we can easily consider the machine gunners Lynx talks about as integrated into Infantry... And that's not "inaccurate" to me... Actually, it' the best way to represent it.

I like also the idea of Tantor and Last Conformist that if we really need them as independant units, they should be zero range and very powerful bombard units. However, I'm not sure it's quite necessary to do it so.

Even if I think Infantry defence rate at 12 is way too much, maybe the unit should be (9.10.1) instead of (9.9.1). That would give a small advantage to defenders against attackers.

I think the original Civ3 infantry unit is something like (8.10.1). Why did you change it ? (I'm not against it, just curious )

 

[Gogf]

Because, Infantry is supposed to be the main ground unit in this scenario. We don't want it to be undefeatable, and we want it to be able to win in attack. 9.9.1 has a defensive advantage: defensive bonues (mountains, +100%, grassland +10%, etc.). If you want machine gunners integrated in infantry, why not have tanks integrated with special forces... and infantry? We want all units represented independantly.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Remind me again what Special Forces represent?

Reg'lar CivIII Inf is 6.10.1, which I for one think is way too defensive. This is one of the very few areas in which I think CivIII represents a step back from CivII - gunpowder infantry lost all usefulness on offense.

 

[MarcusSaurono]

Give the mg's the same defence as standard infantry and standard infantry will still have a good chance of defeating them, even when stacked, and a great chance with artillery support. Also, with as poorly as the AI uses artillery it is sure to use mg's just as poorly if the are left as mobile artillery. However, if they are made as low level defeders (defence of 4 to 6) that need to be supported, the AI will use them and human player will still use regular infantry on the defence.

 

[Gogf]

@TLC: I agree with you about the infantry being too defensive. In the American Civil War, Riflemen attacking other Riflemen won probably around 50% of the time.

@Marcus: We want MGs to bombard, and kill, and if you give them defense, it overpowers them. I know the AI doesn't use it that well, but still, we don't want them to be really overpowered. I'm not sure, some defense does make sense, it's just too powerful.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Move two with lethal bombard sounds fairly overpoweringish to me: build enough of them, and wipe out any defending stack without risking your own units. Sure, bombard of eight isn't too much, but they're fairly cheap and you shouldn't be losing any, so building a huge stack isn't that hard.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Maybe Howitzer should be lethal bombard units instead of machine gunners...