Should the Machinegun be a support unit?

[Art Morte]

The drop down to range of one makes the machinegun pretty meh. I was thinking what if it was a support unit (and therefore could occupy the same tile with another military unit)? That would give it much more purpose than it currently has. If it was op, you could limit it so that only either the machine gun or the other unit in the tile could perform an attack in one turn.

 

[Uberfrog]

Probably not as the game is currently built. But I wonder, since they bothered to implement support units in Civ VI, if it wouldn't work with a revamped unit tree. I'd also remove the anti-cavalry class, and have one core infantry class built around spears pikes (historically the core of ancient armies, not "swordsmen") and put Anti-Tanks as supports too.

I'd envisage something like:

Melee: Warrior -> Spearman -> Pikeman -> Fusilier -> Rifleman -> Infantry -> Mechanised Infantry

Ranged: Slinger -> Archer -> Crossbowman -> Musket (yes, they should be ranged ) -> Field Cannon -> Artillery -> Rocket Artillery

Then Support units:

Machine Gun: - unit receives an instant fortification bonus whenever it is attacked.

then

Anti-Tank - unit receives +10 combat strength against Tank units
Modern AT - unit receives +15 combat strength against Tank units

The idea here is to allow an Infantry unit stacked with an AT to achieve parity with a Tank unit, and a Modern AT to have a clear advantage.

You could add some different support units to earlier eras too, e.g.:

Grenadier - unit receives a +10 attack strength against a fortified defender

 

[Turrdy]

I'd change the machine gun to a mortar team. and make the machine gun a seperate unit class: defensive ranged, and then add gatlin gun before (whith rifling or something like that), and CIWS afterwards (with laser guidance or whatever).

 

[TomKQT]

I'd change the machine gun to a mortar team. and make the machine gun a seperate unit class: defensive ranged, and then add gatlin gun before (whith rifling or something like that), and CIWS afterwards (with laser guidance or whatever).

This sounds quite good. Mortar as an more modern upgrade of the ranged units is what I proposed back in the CivV days before the huge changes in the tech tree. That unit fits the unwritten rules of ranged units much more than gatling - for me the rule always was "a unit that can shoot with an arch, so another unit or obstacle can stand between the shooter and the target", which also explains why rifleman isn't a ranged unit.

And making machinge gun / gatling gun a separate category sound nice because they really play a slightly different role in the game and have specific rules.

 

[Art Morte]

Mortar team (with range of 2) does sound better to me, too, than machine gun with only 1 range.

On the other hand I feel that in late-game I rather have artillery and rocket artillery units than ranged-class units. Whereas in early and mid-game crossbowmen and field cannons feel better options to build in numbers than catapults or bombards. I could like a change of field cannons upgrading to artillery rather than machine guns (or mortar teams). Maybe that's just me, though.

 

[Uberfrog]

Mortar team (with range of 2) does sound better to me, too, than machine gun with only 1 range.

On the other hand I feel that in late-game I rather have artillery and rocket artillery units than ranged-class units. Whereas in early and mid-game crossbowmen and field cannons feel better options to build in numbers than catapults or bombards. I could like a change of field cannons upgrading to artillery rather than machine guns (or mortar teams). Maybe that's just me, though.

This is what I'd like to see too.

I think Civ VI's ranged unit definition is based not on the logic of firing over people's heads (or we wouldn't have 1-range units like the Slinger, Quadrireme or Machine Gun), but rather a unit that is capable of skirmishing - i.e. attacking without putting itself directly in harm's way (which is what melee units do). Hence why I think Musketmen should be ranged units, as the role they occupied in Renaissance battlefields was firing at each other from a distance while either side's Pikemen engaged in close quarters.

As firearms (now with bayonets) became front-and-centre infantry weapons, the role analogous to a Civ VI ranged unit was assumed by field artillery. Napoleonic field guns upgrading to WW1-style artillery makes much more sense than losing its range altogether and becoming a machine gun.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I definitely want the machine gun in the game, in some fashion. As weapon of war, it was among the real historic game-changers. I'd be satisfied with making "Machine Guns" a Tech that is a prerequisite for upgrading Riflemen to Infantry.Think about 5,000 men from the US Army of 1863 going up against 5,000 men of the British army of 1893, with their Maxims. It wouldn't be pretty.

 

[Uberfrog]

I've turned machine guns into mortars in my mod (see signature), its purely a thematic change, although some of the other changes are more important.

I would also like to turn AT units into a support unit that gives a bonus against tanks/helicopters (strong to it's tile when attacking/defending, weak to adjacent tiles when defending only). Machine guns would do the same, but vs infantry units. I think Civ6 took a step in the right direction when it made AA a support unit. The problem with this idea for AT units though, is what do spears/pikes/fusiliers upgrade into? Having two different infantry melee lines in the first half of the game simply makes sense - one 'elite' that requires resources, and another resource free one that also counters cavalry - but what happens to the latter post gunpowder?

I was interested in a discussion along similar lines a little while ago (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civilization-6-need-this.620570)

The way I see it, the combat trees in Civ VI don't really serve a hugely interesting purpose right now.

The distinction between anti-cav/shock infantry and light/heavy cavalry could be implemented interestingly in a deeper war-game focus. But that isn't what we have in Civ VI. On the infantry side, anti-cavalry is just too weak, and on the cavalry side what happens in practice is that light and heavy cavalry alternate the eras in which they're relevant, leaving huge stretches of time with puny obsolete Horsemen waiting until they can be upgraded to Cavalry.

So I would do away with both distinctions and have one infantry line and one cavalry line, with a new unit every era. Then you have a rock-paper-scissors effect where melee is strong against cavalry, but vulnerable to ranged, who are in turn vulnerable to cavalry.

Melee: Warrior -> Spearman -> Pikeman -> Fusilier -> Rifleman -> Infantry -> Mechanised Infantry

Ranged: Slinger -> Archer -> Crossbowman -> Musketman -> Field Cannon -> Artillery -> Rocket Artillery

Cavalry: Chariot - > Horseman -> Knight -> Cuirassier -> Cavalry -> Tank -> Modern Armour

And then the Support units support these units in specific ways, as their name suggests.

I'm not sure how strategic resources fit into all this, but that risks going even further from the topic than I already have .

 

[Uberfrog]

Because what happens with resources then? Either you lose the ability to build 1/3 of the units in an era, or you remove resources altogether. You've removed the distinction between ranged and siege units, thereby making ranged units even more powerful. There's also strong gameplay reasons to have units last two eras and leapfrog each other. It means that each unit is valuable for longer, which is especially important on larger maps or quicker speed. It also means that if you build an army which is really strong this era, you will naturally be weaker next era (and stronger the one after again), giving the game a rhythm of conquest and counter conquest. Admittedly, with the current state of the AI that isn't super important, but it still has potentional

Not to mention that having a choice between only 3 units every era is kind of boring. Rock-paper-scissors has been done to death, having a more dynamic system where the balance changes between eras is simply more interesting.


As for the problems you mentioned, that's just balance. In my mod I've boosted the strength of anti cavalry units (and their bonus vs cavalry) while cutting down their cost. All cavalry are far more expensive. All ranged units have weaker attack and are more vulnerable to counter attack. With this I've pulled off a hoplite rush several times, as well as used pikes and xbows to defeat swords and knights. I don't think the best way to address balance problems is to half the number of units choices at any given point in the game.

It's a balance issue, sure, but my point is that at the moment extra units are not being used - spearmen and pikeman just can't compete with swords and knights.

Also the era leapfrogging would be more convincing if it were consistently applied to anything other than cavalry. It is also not particularly good to have units around long after their relevance, considering that someone who leads in terms of military will tend to continue leading in the next era - they'll just have a bunch of swords or horses or knights waiting around to be useful again. I have never seen a cycle of conquest and counter-conquest.

I should've also pointed out that the siege artillery would still exist as a separate line (at least in the earlier game), something like:

Catapult -> Trebuchet -> Bombard -> Mortar

But you're right, having the balance and focus of armies change between eras is an interesting concept. I just don't think it's present at the moment. It seems the only unit worth having (if you have the resources) is pretty clear in each era.

 

[Turrdy]

Tbh, I really like the differentiation betwenn ranged units and artillery as we have it now, and wouldn't vote to change that. It makes sense in my opinion, as ranged (slinger, archer, and onwards) are good against other units and bad against infrastructure and artillery (catapult, bombard, and onwards) are bad against units but very strong against infrastructure i.e. cities. And since mortars don't have the caliber to be effective against infrastructure, I'd put the mortar into the ranged line.

To differentiate mortars and machine guns, I'd give the machine gun a strong melee defence combined with a below-average-ranged attack capability (mostly due to only 1 range) and the mortar a bad melee defence combined with a strong ranged attack (with range 2), as ranged units are now.

As Olleus mentioned, I don't believe that a classic and simple rock-paper-scissiors scenario could suffice the tactically more demanding players (as I am). Rock-paper-scissiors-lizard-spock is the absolute minimum I demand!

It seems the only unit worth having (if you have the resources) is pretty clear in each era.

I disagree. It depends on so many circumstances: What civ am I playing? Who's my enemey and what's his/her plan? Do I have barracks or stables? Am I playing defensive or offensive? Do I have the ressources? What policy-cards am I using? How productive are my cities? What does the map look like?
Being able to adapt is key. You can't adapt if you don't have the choice between different alternatives.

 

[Gedemon]

I do agree that the machine gun should be a support unit, but as others have pointed, that's a first step to some more global changes.

Here's my current draft for the land units upgrade path in my total overhaul project:

Spoiler :

"Infantry" and "Cavalry" are "melee" units, all the others are "support" units (stacking with melee)

All ranged units have a range of only one tile, until rocket artillery. Relative ranges will be represented by the ability to provide various counter/support fire (or not)

Starting at the first "Skirmisher" unit, the "Recon" line will gain a ranged attack similar to the ranged line of "Light Infantry", and starting with musket, the "Infantry" line can "return fire" against the "Ranged" and "Recon" light infantry units

Some units are represented by equipment classes in the table, as the mod will also use a more complex resources collect/trade/production mechanism linked to building/healing units.

[table=head]|Ancient|Classical|Medieval|Discovery|Industrial|Machine|Arms Race|Atomic|Information
Infantry| blunt weapons + ancient armor (warrior)|swords + ancient armors + shields|medieval weapons + medieval armors|Musket|Rifled musket (Line infantry) upgrading to Rifle (Riflemen)|Repeating rifle + Combat Helmet (infantry)|Automatic rifle + Combat Helmet (infantry)|Assault Rifle + Combat Helmet (infantry)|Assault Rifle + Connected Combat Helmet (infantry)
Infantry (alternate)|spear + light armor |spear + light armor|Pikes + medieval armors|(upgrading to musket)|||(motorized Infantry)|(mechanized infantry)
Cavalry|(chariot)|(horsemen)|(knights)|(lancer)|Rifle (cavalry)|Repeating rifle (cavalry)|(tank)|(main battle tank)|modern armor
Cavalry (alternate)||||||(landship)|(heavy tank)|(upgrading to main battle tank)
Light Infantry (recon)|light weapons (scout)||(explorer)|Musket (skirmisher)|Rifled musket (skirmisher) upgrading to Rifle (skirmisher)|Repeating rifle (scout on horses)|Automatic rifle + Combat Helmet (commando)|Assault Rifle + Combat Helmet (special forces)|Assault Rifle + Combat Helmet (special forces)
Light Infantry (ranged)|(slinger)|(archer)|(longbowman)|(upgrading to skirmisher)
Light Infantry (direct fire)| | |(crossbowman)|small cannons (culverin, volley gun)|(gatling gun)||(machine gun)
Light Infantry (anti-vehicule)| | | | | ||(AT crew)|(modern AT)
Artillery||(catapult)|(trebuchet)|(bombard)|(field cannon)|(howitzer gun)||(rocket artillery)
Artillery (alternate)||(ballista)||(upgrading to bombard)|||(Field gun)|(upgrading to rocket artillery)
Anti-Air| | | | | ||(AA-Gun)|(Mobile SAM)
[/table]

 

[Turrdy]

I do agree that the machine gun should be a support unit, but as others have pointed, that's a first step to some more global changes.

Here's my current draft for the land units upgrade path in my total overhaul project:

Spoiler :

"Infantry" and "Cavalry" are "melee" units, all the others are "support" units (stacking with melee)

All ranged units have a range of only one tile, until rocket artillery. Relative ranges will be represented by the ability to provide various counter/support fire (or not)

Starting at the first "Skirmisher" unit, the "Recon" line will gain a ranged attack similar to the ranged line of "Light Infantry", and starting with musket, the "Infantry" line can "return fire" against the "Ranged" and "Recon" light infantry units

Some units are represented by equipment classes in the table, as the mod will also use a more complex resources collect/trade/production mechanism linked to building/healing units.

[table=head]|Ancient|Classical|Medieval|Discovery|Industrial|Machine|Arms Race|Atomic|Information
Infantry| blunt weapons + ancient armor (warrior)|swords + ancient armors + shields|medieval weapons + medieval armors|Musket|Rifled musket (Line infantry) upgrading to Rifle (Riflemen)|Repeating rifle + Combat Helmet (infantry)|Automatic rifle + Combat Helmet (infantry)|Assault Rifle + Combat Helmet (infantry)|Assault Rifle + Connected Combat Helmet (infantry)
Infantry (alternate)|spear + light armor |spear + light armor|Pikes + medieval armors|(upgrading to musket)|||(motorized Infantry)|(mechanized infantry)
Cavalry|(chariot)|(horsemen)|(knights)|(lancer)|Rifle (cavalry)|Repeating rifle (cavalry)|(tank)|(main battle tank)|modern armor
Cavalry (alternate)||||||(landship)|(heavy tank)|(upgrading to main battle tank)
Light Infantry (recon)|light weapons (scout)||(explorer)|Musket (skirmisher)|Rifled musket (skirmisher) upgrading to Rifle (skirmisher)|Repeating rifle (scout on horses)|Automatic rifle + Combat Helmet (commando)|Assault Rifle + Combat Helmet (special forces)|Assault Rifle + Combat Helmet (special forces)
Light Infantry (ranged)|(slinger)|(archer)|(longbowman)|(upgrading to skirmisher)
Light Infantry (direct fire)| | |(crossbowman)|small cannons (culverin, volley gun)|(gatling gun)||(machine gun)
Light Infantry (anti-vehicule)| | | | | ||(AT crew)|(modern AT)
Artillery||(catapult)|(trebuchet)|(bombard)|(field cannon)|(howitzer gun)||(rocket artillery)
Artillery (alternate)||(ballista)||(upgrading to bombard)|||(Field gun)|(upgrading to rocket artillery)
Anti-Air| | | | | ||(AA-Gun)|(Mobile SAM)
[/table]

So basically you'll always have to build two units to get one archer?
and only one range? or did you mean 2 range (like it is now)?

 

[Gedemon]

You don't need a melee unit to put a "support" unit on the field (or did I misunderstood the question ?)

 

[Art Morte]

Making the machine gun a support unit (or replacing it with the mortar with 2 range) would be doable quite easily without messing up the balance too much. While I like many of the ideas thrown around in here, some of them are such big changes that it would be like re-writing the majority of the game's combat and I don't think there's any chance of that happening. Mods are another thing, of course.

On the infantry side, anti-cavalry is just too weak, and on the cavalry side what happens in practice is that light and heavy cavalry alternate the eras in which they're relevant, leaving huge stretches of time with puny obsolete Horsemen waiting until they can be upgraded to Cavalry.

This is a very good point. I feel Pikemen are still somewhat purposeful - although maybe a bit too expensive - since knights are very powerful and the pikeman can hold its own against the swordman. But spearmen and the two AT units, they feel like waste of space.

Light cavalry is perhaps the most messed up line of units, though. Horsemen were too powerful in Civ5, imo, but here they feel useless. The Cavalry can be a good unit if researched soon enough, but you indeed have to wait forever to upgrade obsolete horsemen to cavalry, so there's no point building the horsemen in the first place. There's a long, likewise a two-era wait between the Knight and the Tank, but at least it makes sense to build them.

Basically, all the two-era gaps are mistakes, if you ask me. Pikemen to AT crew, Horsemen to Cavalry, Knights to Tanks (and Galleys to Caravels), all these are troublesome to some extent.

 

[Uberfrog]

I feel Pikemen are still somewhat purposeful - although maybe a bit too expensive - since knights are very powerful and the pikeman can hold its own against the swordman. But spearmen and the two AT units, they feel like waste of space.

I find in practice that they're too expensive (200 hammers) for very little gain, even matched up against the Knight, who is supposed to be their natural prey.

Pikeman costs 200 hammers for a base strength of 41 (+10 against mounted)

Knight is 180 for a strength of 48.

So a unit's supposed counter only has an advantage of +3, is more expensive, and lacks the movement and ZOC ignore that heavy cavalry gets.

As Olleus mentioned, I don't believe that a classic and simple rock-paper-scissiors scenario could suffice the tactically more demanding players (as I am). Rock-paper-scissiors-lizard-spock is the absolute minimum I demand!

I'm not quite advocating for the game to be simply rock-paper-scissors. Ideally siege artillery, support units, raider units and light cavalry/scouts would come into play on the battlefield as well. But I do think there needs to be a core RPS mechanic at the centre to encourage the player to field a variety of units, or focus on countering, eg. a civ with an advantage to one particular side of that triangle.

Beyond that, I think era jumps are thematically jarring. There is something extremely awkward about seeing pikes waiting around until the invention of the bazooka.

To go back to the machine gun, these should be extremely powerful units that change the nature of warfare in the modern era. A machine gun support unit could stack with any unit to (you guessed it!) break the foregoing RPS paradigm and create strong entrenched lines of attack that you need to shatter with artillery.

 

[Turrdy]

You don't need a melee unit to put a "support" unit on the field (or did I misunderstood the question ?)

Maybe I misunderstood you. In my understanding a support unit can't fight on its own (just like rams, siege towers, medics and so on). So you'll need a melee unit that can fight, and then stack it with a non-combat ranged unit, to give the melee unit a ranged attack? Making it a somewhat modular unit system...

Basically, all the two-era gaps are mistakes, if you ask me. Pikemen to AT crew, Horsemen to Cavalry, Knights to Tanks (and Galleys to Caravels), all these are troublesome to some extent.

I agree. But since we have at least two expansions to come, I'm pretty confident that those gaps will be filled soon enough. That happend in a previous civ as well, when they added the medieval two-handed swordsman (and many other units).

And I also do agree that the combat system doesn't need a drastic overhaul. Maybe add another unit type (ranged defensive or whatever) but a reinvention of the wheel is not needed.

 

[Art Morte]

I find in practice that they're too expensive (200 hammers) for very little gain, even matched up against the Knight, who is supposed to be their natural prey.

Pikeman costs 200 hammers for a base strength of 41 (+10 against mounted)

Knight is 180 for a strength of 48.

So a unit's supposed counter only has an advantage of +3, is more expensive, and lacks the movement and ZOC ignore that heavy cavalry gets.
.

Yeah, you're right, on paper like that it doesn't make sense. Building your own knights instead of pikemen is the way to go. However, if you don't have iron, the pikeman can save you from knights (and swordmen). The pikeman should probably cost a bit less, though.

 

[Uberfrog]

Yeah, you're right, on paper like that it doesn't make sense. Building your own knights instead of pikemen is the way to go. However, if you don't have iron, the pikeman can save you from knights (and swordmen). The pikeman should probably cost a bit less, though.

Once you factor in the Swordsman's +10 against anti-cavalry units, even that matchup (36+10 vs 41) fails. And Pikemen are much more expensive than Swordsmen. It's just that you're stuck with them if you don't have Iron. In that case you need to beeline straight for Gunpowder and try your luck in the Nitre race to have anything approaching a competent army.

This is why I think Civ VI's combat system is in need of substantial changes, at least balance-wise. Corps come way too late for you to realistically combine resourceless spears and pikes to stand a chance against an army with Iron. You're best off just building a load of Crossbowmen.

I also think Rock Paper Scissors is an improvement on what we have now, which is pretty much Rock Paper Scissors, but where your scissors are completely blunt, and you have to keep swapping your rock out every other era for a different one .

 

[Turrdy]

Once you factor in the Swordsman's +10 against anti-cavalry units, even that matchup (36+10 vs 41) fails. And Pikemen are much more expensive than Swordsmen. It's just that you're stuck with them if you don't have Iron. In that case you need to beeline straight for Gunpowder and try your luck in the Nitre race to have anything approaching a competent army.

This is why I think Civ VI's combat system is in need of substantial changes, at least balance-wise. Corps come way too late for you to realistically combine resourceless spears and pikes to stand a chance against an army with Iron. You're best off just building a load of Crossbowmen.

I also think Rock Paper Scissors is an improvement on what we have now, which is pretty much Rock Paper Scissors, but where your scissors are completely blunt, and you have to keep swapping your rock out every other era for a different one .

lvl 2 promotion where you get double strength if the anticav is on the same tile as a support (ram, siege tower, engineer, medic, AA and so on) is just insane though

 

[Turrdy]

That's not how the promotion works. You get double bonus from having adjacent friendly units when defending (so +4 per unit rather than +2).

https://civ6.gamepedia.com/Promotion
so this must be wrong then...