1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

So Machine Gun has the strength of a Panzer?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by aziantuntija, Feb 18, 2012.

  1. Olleus

    Olleus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    5,909
    Location:
    England
    b ) .
     
  2. Scarpa

    Scarpa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    476
    Great discussion here! I think another relevant data point from the screenshots is the way they are deployed. Looks to me they are setup in a classic trench warfare covering fire formation. Any melee unit dumb enough to try and split that gap would be shredded if these things had range one, and the formation would not be ruined.
     
  3. Deggial

    Deggial Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    943
    Location:
    Germany
    Definitely b), as it is the only no-indirect fire variant. And, please, *not* in the archer-upgrade-path, as there might be the +1 range promotion then - which would lead to 2 range attacks.
     
  4. Uberfrog

    Uberfrog Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,160
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    Machine guns with +range, indirect fire and logistics would be a particular treat. :p

    "Sir, it appears to be raining bullets. Lots of bullets."
     
  5. Monthar

    Monthar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,855
    Location:
    Elmendorf, Tx
    Yes I've read the combat mechanics article and no it does not say the damage you deal is a percentage of the health of the unit. What it talks about is the range of damage you deal based on the strength of the two units involved.

    Now to prove my point about increasing the hit points to 100 yet still only doing the same damage we do now, I modified my global defines to do just that. Here's the line in the file that does this.
    Then I loaded a game I was already playing and took some screenshots. In them you will see that units do have a max of 100 HP and that the damage is still around the 5 HP mark with the variations described in Vexing's article.
    My warrior has 96/100 HP.
    Spoiler :

    The Jaguar on the next hill has 91/100 and my warrior is estimated to do 5 damage.
    Spoiler :

    After attacking you can see the Jaguar not has 87/100 HP, so my warrior only did 4 damage.
    Spoiler :

    In the last shot, you can see the floaty text says my archer did 5 damage, but the Jaguar still shows 86 HP, indicating it actually only took 1 damage.
    Spoiler :

    After these screenshot I also modified the Civ5Units file to give the warrior and Jaguar 11 strength (based on that screenshot of the Pictish warrior) and the archer an 11 ranged strength and 7 combat strength. That's an 83.3% increase. Unfortunately only the archer's ranged strength actually increased when I relaunched the game and reloaded the same save. However, the archer's 11 ranged strength vs the 6 combat strength of the Jaguar only increased the damage dealt by a couple of points.

    So I then looked further down in the global defines file and found these lines.
    So, I reverted the Civ5Units file back to it's original values and modified these lines in the GlobalDefines file and reloaded. I increased these values by a factor of 5, so that when coupled with the 100 HP it should take 4 hits instead of the 2 hits we see now. Here are the screenshots of that change.

    As you can see, now my warrior is expected to do about 27 damage with modified strengths of 7.2 vs 7.5.
    Spoiler :

    Yet my archer is only expected to do 19 damage even though both it and the target Jaguar show a modified strength of 7.5. That's a potential of 42% less damage from the ranged attack.
    Spoiler :

    Here you can see the Jaguar only has 76 HP after the Archer shot it, so the actual damage done was only 15 HP.
    Spoiler :

    Conclusions:
    1. The damage formula also has to be modified if the HP are increased to 100. Otherwise, as I pointed out earlier, a normal 2 attack kill on a similar strength unit would take 20 attacks.
    2. When increasing the ranged damage and melee damage by the same factor, the ranged damage is lower than the melee damage even though the ranged attack strength of my archer was 0.3 higher than the melee attack strength of my warrior against the same Jaguar.
    Therefore, either a higher base ranged strength or a higher multiplier to the ranged damage is required to have the same damage output as a melee unit of the same era.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. MkLh

    MkLh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    Finland
    1 ranged unit is almost useless defensively. It can't hit an attacker that is two tiles away (without moving) but in most cases that attacker can take it away. If the MG is 1 ranged, it will be definitely used mostly offensively. You want to put your 2+ ranged units to choke points and cities as they are vastly superior there.
     
  7. MkLh

    MkLh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    Finland
    This would be a laughable unit. It would be almost impossible to ever reach a competitive enemy as it can't even move closer and shoot. Of course extremely high strength combined with AI stupidity could somewhat compensate it. Pretty useless against a human player.
     
  8. anandus

    anandus Errorist

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,477
    Location:
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Well, that's not the point of an MG, they're supposed to be defensive weapons.
     
  9. steave435

    steave435 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    96
    That's not the point, they deny the area to the enemy, they're not getting trough without dealing with the MGs.
     
  10. Haig

    Haig Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,730
    Location:
    Finland
    Another way to do them could be as a ranged unit that needs to get a clear line of fire, meaning there cant be friendly units between them and enemy, like there can be with artillery.

    Of course Civ games are not a super realistic simulation, and it's good that way. For me it would just be a bit funky if machineguns just rambo forward. :p
     
  11. Babri

    Babri Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,441
    Location:
    Pakistan
    I think he answered that.
    Hmm... That would just delay the invasion a bit, the enemy will bring artillery with infantries on front. That will outrange ur MGs
     
  12. steave435

    steave435 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    96
    Place your own artillery and tanks behind so you can kill his weaker non-fortified infantry and then kill the artillery with tanks, or rotate damaged machinegun units to the rear to heal while putting fresh ones in.
     
  13. Deggial

    Deggial Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    943
    Location:
    Germany
    The fact that there *always* is a counter tactic doesn't render an unit worthless.
     
  14. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Yeah, plus, having artillery is realistic (although I will point out it's better able to defend against artillery than infantry).

    Essentially, it would work great as a deterrence weapon. No one will want to attack because they won't win on one turn (they'll probably take more damage than they give). In the counter turn, they'll take massive damage with a unit that isn't harmed. I agree a range two unit is more effective defensively, but it runs into the problem that they can then use it offensively, which I think is problematic.
     
  15. Montov

    Montov Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    707
    Not just on offense, but range 2 would make it possible to have 2 rows of MG's, which would make it impenetrable. And you could have a strong melee in front of it to defend. And because the equal combat strength and ranged attack is designed for the MG to be directly at the frontline, range 1 seems necessary.
     
  16. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    That's a good point as well.

    Basically, with a range two unit, I don't see why it should be so dramatically higher than Artillery. We're all speculating, but for that strength, range one has the best combination of pros and cons.
     
  17. MkLh

    MkLh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    Finland
    The line of any 2 ranged units is always very penetrable by Artillery, as it has a range of 3.

    Assuming artillery is before MG on the tech tree which sounds plausible, MGs can be useful if they are (at least) 2 ranged and cheaper than arty.
     
  18. Haig

    Haig Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,730
    Location:
    Finland
    In Civ IV:Bts, machineguns didn't get collateral damage, or was it that they were highly resistant to it. If I'd be designing MGs for this 1upt system I would represent their digging in by giving them a bonus vs ranged damage.

    I mean, in WW1 the British might give a massive week-long bombardment with million shells to German trenches before attacking, and still be wiped out by machine gun fire..
     
  19. elprofesor

    elprofesor Pluri-editing poster

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    773
    Location:
    (hint: I can type "Ñ")
    Well, it seems like my reply to you got lost in my wall of text, since we basically agree (only you decided to redo Vexing's research :p)
    Indeed, the damage you deal isn't a function of total health, rather a function of relative strength of fighting units, thus why I said that increasing all units' strength by the same multiplicative factor wouldn't change a thing. Multiplying the current formula by 5 or (hopefully) more would solve the "100hp problem", as you concluded.

    And indeed, a ranged strength of X is 2/3 as strong as a melee strength of X, thus your second conclusion.

    Well, infantry doesn't have a range of 2 (since it's melee), and it's still useful against artillery (even if only by sheer numerical superiority), so I don't think that particular argument is valid.
     
  20. steave435

    steave435 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    96
    Only if you're willing to leave the artillery with no units in front protecting them, meaning tanks can kill them.
     

Share This Page