Machine Gun with 2 Attack Range 1.0

[sp00n]

sp00n submitted a new resource:

Machine Gun with 2 Attack Range - Sets the attack range for the Machine Gun unit to 2

Simple mod to set the attack range for the Machine Gun unit to 2, making it on par with all its predecessors.

Until someone adds a real Mortar unit to replace the Machine Gun, this is probably the best we can come up with.

Read more about this resource...

 

[Agent327]

Machine guns being a later game unit, they should not have a 2 tile range. That's just plain silly, sorry.

 

[sp00n]

Machine guns being a later game unit, they should not have a 2 tile range. That's just plain silly, sorry.

I don't understand your reasoning? I do acknolewdge that it's a bit awkward, and a Mortar unit would be much more suitable (as mentioned in the desription), but this just brings the unit on par with the previous units (Archers, Crossbows, Field Cannon).
And to be honest, the Machine Gun shouldn't have been added as an offensive unit in the first place. It's mainly used to secure a position, not to advance on an enemy. But it's in there, and we can't add new graphics to the game yet, so as long as there's no real Mortar unit, this will have to do.

 

[MindXX]

Just my thought, if the Machinegun evolves from the slinger/archer/crossbowman line then it should have a range of 2 while keeping in place the restrictions of the line.

 

[Agent327]

No it shouldn't. Machine guns don't have the same range as tanks.

I don't understand your reasoning? I do acknolewdge that it's a bit awkward, and a Mortar unit would be much more suitable (as mentioned in the desription), but this just brings the unit on par with the previous units (Archers, Crossbows, Field Cannon).
And to be honest, the Machine Gun shouldn't have been added as an offensive unit in the first place. It's mainly used to secure a position, not to advance on an enemy. But it's in there, and we can't add new graphics to the game yet, so as long as there's no real Mortar unit, this will have to do.

I'm sure people will use it. (And you are quite correct: machine guns aren't offensive... so they have no need for a 2 tile range. Unlike, say, SAM crews.)

 

[thecrazyscot]

Machine guns being a later game unit, they should not have a 2 tile range. That's just plain silly, sorry.

So...don't use the mod?

 

[CrazyAce]

Thank you much for this mod, it bothered me to see that an early age archer unit can shoot 2 tiles away while the MG cannot.

 

[Larsenex]

No it shouldn't. Machine guns don't have the same range as tanks.



I'm sure people will use it. (And you are quite correct: machine guns aren't offensive... so they have no need for a 2 tile range. Unlike, say, SAM crews.)

They are the late game ranged unit and should have a 2 range. Civ V had them as 'defensive' units when in fact they should be up front as line breakers on enemy units with our melee there to siege cities.

 

[Agent327]

Line breakers, as you say, would be artillery or tanks. That they are the late game ranged unit (they're not) doesn't automatically imply they should have a 2 tile range anyway. AT crews don't. (One might even argue that archers/crossbowmen shouldn't have a 2 tile range either.)

 

[sp00n]

No it shouldn't. Machine guns don't have the same range as tanks.

True. But Infantry doesn't have the same range as a Machine Gun either, so why should they share the same attack range of 1? If you'd go that route you'd have Infantry range 1, Machine Gun range 2, SAM range 2, Tanks range 3, and Artillery range 5 or 6 or even more.
So you need to draw a line somewhere. However setting the range of an Archer higher than that of a Machine Gun seems just wrong to me.
For example, the English Longbow had a range of about 370m, while the German MG 08/15 used in WW1 & WW2 had an effective firing range of about 2000m (with a max range of 3500m). In this context it seems ridiculous that an Archer could ranged attack a Machine Gun, and it not being able to fire back without moving one tile closer.


I just wish they'd release the mod tools already, so that we can replace the Machine Gun altogether with a Mortar unit. And possibly make the Machine Gun a support unit with increased combat strength vs. (melee, cavalry, ranged?) attacks. This would make so much more sense.

 

[Buni0ns]

I just wish they'd release the mod tools already, so that we can replace the Machine Gun altogether with a Mortar unit. And possibly make the Machine Gun a support unit with increased combat strength vs. (melee, cavalry, ranged?) attacks. This would make so much more sense.

Indirect fire OP



Indirect fire aside, it raises an interesting question. If the SDK allowed for a breakout tactical map a la Endless Legend, would there be interest in modeling more accurate ranges and use of combined arms forces?

It would be the ultimate "insert tactics into muh strategeries" I think.

 

[Axil]

Wouldn't a better option be archers and crossbowman - reduced to range 1
That way we'd have essentially 3 classes of units
Melee - infantry , swordsmen etc - attack and counterattack in same move
Close ranged - archers crossbow etc- able to attack without being counterattacked in the same move
Long range - catapults , cannon etc - able to bombard at range

 

[Buni0ns]

Wouldn't a better option be archers and crossbowman - reduced to range 1
That way we'd have essentially 3 classes of units
Melee - infantry , swordsmen etc - attack and counterattack in same move
Close ranged - archers crossbow etc- able to attack without being counterattacked in the same move
Long range - catapults , cannon etc - able to bombard at range

I'm attempting just that here - https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/unit-rebalance-mod-1-1.605477/

The change I am attempting isn't showing up in the civlopedia so I am testing to see if it applies in game regardless, then will try and figure out how to fix civlopedia entries too.

 

[Agent327]

True. But Infantry doesn't have the same range as a Machine Gun either, so why should they share the same attack range of 1? If you'd go that route you'd have Infantry range 1, Machine Gun range 2, SAM range 2, Tanks range 3, and Artillery range 5 or 6 or even more.

That makes no sense. On the Civ scale range difference between machine guns and general infantry is negligible. All modern infantry types having a 1 tile range makes perfect sense. Artillery (whether mobile or stationary) should then have a range of 2. SAMs are different as they defend against air attack.

So you need to draw a line somewhere. However setting the range of an Archer higher than that of a Machine Gun seems just wrong to me.
For example, the English Longbow had a range of about 370m, while the German MG 08/15 used in WW1 & WW2 had an effective firing range of about 2000m (with a max range of 3500m). In this context it seems ridiculous that an Archer could ranged attack a Machine Gun, and it not being able to fire back without moving one tile closer.

The English longbow didn't face tanks, and we're not talking real life military units here. You'd have a better point comparing Crossbowmen with Musketmen.

I just wish they'd release the mod tools already, so that we can replace the Machine Gun altogether with a Mortar unit. And possibly make the Machine Gun a support unit with increased combat strength vs. (melee, cavalry, ranged?) attacks. This would make so much more sense.

Mod tools would be handy, yes. But we've only just had our first patch.

 

[Ryika]

I'll be honest here... that discussion gave me an idea for a "Machine Gun 5 Range"-mod, but I'm too lazy to create it just to be a jerk.

These "That is not at all realistic!"-discussions are annoying when they are about the unmodded game, but there they do at least have some merit... I don't see why people now also feel the need to start arguing about it with people in optional mods that nobody has to use and some people will obviously appreciate. That's just dumb.

 

[PoundedChicken]

I'd like to see a more in-depth version of this mod, essentially:

Machine gunner gets +1 range,
BUT only on a hill
BUT it can only target the closest unit in its line of sight (ie. it cannot shoot over another enemy unit)

Started it myself, but didn't want to go down the rabbit hole...

 

[Torbk]

How to put it. Bows, crossbows, napoleonic field guns, they all have a shorter range than a modern or world war 2 machinegun. Saying it is silly for machinegunes to have range 2, well.
- - what's really silly is archers and crossbowmen being able to outrange machineguns. Or equally silly is upgrading field guns and crossbowmen which has been used to defend cities into units that cannot defend cities, simply because they cannot attack besieging ranged units.

When you wrote:

I'm sure people will use it. (And you are quite correct: machine guns aren't offensive... so they have no need for a 2 tile range. Unlike, say, SAM crews.)

That is just plain wrong. It is when the unit has a range of 1 it becomes an offensive unit. A ranged unit with only a ranged attack of 1 becomes an offensive unit because it no longer has a true defensive purpose. It must move into the same range as melee units to be able to attack.
- - Where as a ranged unit with a range of 2 can repell moderate offensives by staying at range, or fulfill the fire support role for other units. Even today machineguns are squad fire support weapons and deployed both on offense and in defense. It is still an important field weapon to provide covering fire.

What is silly is replacing the field guns with units that can no longer fulfill the field gun's defensive role. While I can agree that the machinegun is silly in this role, at the same time it is the unit in the game. Until it can be replaced by something which would be a more natural bombardment unit its range should be 2 so it can continue to perform the defensive and fire support role.

I fully support machineguns having a range of 2, for ranged support and defense is the intended purpose of its previous units. The machinegun as it was became a downgrade instead of an upgrade. What is silly is feeling one should not upgrade field guns even when they are utterly obsolete, simply because of the range.

 

[Agent327]

As I noted before, you're just comparing the wrong things. Archers etc have a 2 range, because Slingers. Not because 'they can shoot very far'.

Secondly, and rather more importantly, machine guns having a bigger range than Crossbowmen is irrelevant. They're modern units, fitting in with Tanks and such. And if modern artillery has a 2 range, it would be silly to give Machine Guns the same range. The effective range of machine guns isn't that much bigger than that of longbows. (Yes, I know, the game has Crossbowmen.)

 

[Mynex]

Here's my post from another thread about this subject -

Thread is here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/can-we-increase-range-of-machine-gun-by-1.605012/

--- --- ---
Max Effective/Lethal Ranges
M60 Machine Gun - 1200 meters
50 Caliber MG - 1800-2300 meters
M240 SAW (Squad Antipersonell Weapon) - 1100-1800 meters

M16 Rifle - 984 meters
AK47 - 350 meters
.306 - 800-1000 meters (varies by manufacturer)

M252 Mortar - 4500-5600 meters

Sniper rifles are a different category and not widespread use, so I didn't include them (but they can range from 1100 to 2000 meters).

So no, Machine guns do not, and rarely ever, have had shorter distances than rifles.

As for implementation in CiVI... Maybe try giving machine guns a range of 2 and mortars a range of 3? If that seems too powerful for the game, then stick with 1 and 2.

Taken from various sources, for what I couldn't remember (I've fired all of those weapons when I was in the Marines), and there is a distinct difference between Maximum Range and Effective Range.
--- --- ---

In the end though, real world facts aside, this is a game. This is a mod for said game. If you like it use, if you don't like it, don't. To each, their own. *shrug*

 

[silverberry13]

The fact that Machine Gun is a defensive weapon is NOT an argument to it having a range of 1. For the combat dynamics of the game to work, the defensive weapons must match the offensive weapons in range. Otherwise, the offensive ranged weapons can be stationed out of the range of the defensive weapons and keep pounding on the city ad infinitum. Thus, a single Frigate can stay out of a machine gun's range and beat a city into oblivion.

Coincidentally, this also concerns the range of Battleship. Its range of 3 is not matched by any land unit until Rocket Artillery--or Artillery, supplemented with an Observation Balloon--both of which are supposed to be a bombard-type unit, for offensive purposes. This introduces another imbalance between offensive and defensive weapons in their range. In this case, however, I can find attenuating circumstances, which is to force the players into paying attention to their fleets, even on a continent-type map. But the range of Machine Gun is a design blunder. Upgrade should not reduce a unit's capability.