Machine Guns - Why less range than crossbows?

[Legion]

Query in the title. Who was the genius that decided ranged units would completely change in functionality like this? How in the world can a crossbowman/longbowman outrange a machine gun, or a rocket launcher? Not only is it ridiculous, but it makes these 'ranged' units pretty much useless, since they still suffer an attack power penalty for being 'ranged'.

[Ryika]

They are a defensive unit, not a ground taking unit. Made for defensive play, not for the offence. The Unit(type) does a great job at what they're supposed to do.

If you want an additional, fast moving offensive range-unit, then... well. Okay. I understand that. The thing is: The shifting gameplay seems to be intentional, it's just a design decision. The whole combat becomes slower, but also gives a more siege-heavy touch to it. Some people like it that way, others don't.

You don't like it... so why not use a mod?

[Burbot]

Originally posted by prometheus.mh:

Machine/Gatling/Bazookas are terrible on offense. They have the same movement and terrain restrictions as infantry do, but they cannot attack and move as well and defensive warfare is extremely limiting and easily countered by hit and run attacks by tanks, bombardment by artillery/aircraft/battleships or simply being outmaneuvered by basic foot soldiers. A line of basic infantry or tanks with or without artillery support is far more effective than machine guns/bazookas. They can't take ground. Other units are more effective at holding ground. They suck at fire support. They can't combat ships effectively, and they are extremely vulnerable to aircraft/other ranged units. There simply isn't a place for low powered walking turrets in the modern era.

They are not optimal on offense, but they are a defensive unit after all. Mixing a few into an offensive push is not so terrible. They hold ground far better than any melee of equal strength. They are not for every situation, but they are valuable when you have to make a slow push or used in battles of attrition. They soak up a lot of damage, seem to be high on the AI's aircraft targeting priority saving other units from taking damage. Adding defensive capability to an offensive line is hardly useless. Attacking without taking any damage and following it up with a melee attack is pretty useful.

The change in range is rather sudden and those units may not fit into everyone's playstyle. Plenty of range options for people who don't find them useful.

Admittedly, I seldom upgrade the archer line past crosswbows unless it's an emergency, the cost is pretty steep unless they have a lot of XP already. By then I've usually built promotion building and it's more effecient to build new units and garrison or scuttle the archers.

Ranged is already a bit lopsided in CIV5. More ranged offensive units are not really necessary. Three ranged units plus two ranged units would just make ranged more OP than it probably already is. The archer line really shines when used defensivly like it's meant to be.

TL;DR - It's for balancing ranged vs. melee. If they don't fit your playstyle, don't build them or mod them to your liking.

[Danny]

Also for more discussion, I think its to show progression and change in warfare tactics to the game for the players in the match. Instead of it always being the same formations of melee with huge range support from archers, It slowly progresses to forcing those archers to turn into defensive lines mostly, and siege weapons being the main ground range with infantry support. Then having bombers and tanks being the main offensive actions for ranged/melee attacking. My only evidence is due to the fact that tanks no longer have -33% vs cities and the autocracy path in bnw has the +15% str for armored units. I assume its just to allow some sort of dynamics in the domination game as time progresses and Im cool with it. Also it shows how much "faster" warfare is as bombers and tanks are have the movespeed and also the units ignore zone of control perk from autocracy again.

[Danny]

This is why I hate the renaissance era in bnw also because its such a transition and in that transition cities feel much more formidable than the units you get to attack them until you hit greatwar infantry or artillery then cities seem extremely fragile. Im not a man of peace unless I need infrastructure to work on or happiness problems

[Mazey]

Give a machine-gun or bazooka the +range promotion and they become one of the most powerful land units in the game.

[Martin]

I think it ultimately comes down to damage, the more damage a "ranged" unit can do, the less actual range it has. Gatling gun v musketeers or riflemen owns them, machine gun v grt war or infantry owns them.. allowing them 2 tiles of attack, would make them extremely overpowered.

The units as pointed out in multiple replies are also defensive units, so they get ground bonuses from the tiles they are in, the also don't move into tiles they attack and recieve no damage although they effectively melee their target.

To allow gatling, machine gun and bazooka 2 tiles, would make having infantry utterly pointless. unless they removed the defensive bonus completely. In which case, I'm sure the supporters would be on here whining about why don't gatling guns get a defensive bonus.

All the units are paired up to a common foe, except pikemen really.. who are quite possibly the most overpowered unit in the game.

archers and warriors/spearmen bowmen and swordsmen, crossbows and longswords, gatling and musketeers/riflemen and so on. Each can do a comparitive amount of damage to the other.

Except pikemen which in thier time, can do serious damage to longswords, crossbows, cities, mounted units. However, they do seem weak to barrage from ships. unlike longswords or similar melee. Perhaps the only weakness pikemen have really is ships. And gatling is weak to horse units as machine guns are to tanks. Arty is also weak to tanks and weak against them, which is why theres bazoookas and anti tank guns, tanks are good v infantry and so forth.

If you really want to complain that a unit isn't as capable as it should be, you should look at swordsmen.. who are almost solely useless for anything other than clearing barb camps.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Danny:

This is why I hate the renaissance era in bnw also because its such a transition and in that transition cities feel much more formidable than the units you get to attack them until you hit greatwar infantry or artillery then cities seem extremely fragile. Im not a man of peace unless I need infrastructure to work on or happiness problems

You're clearly not very good at civ.

[Burbot]

Originally posted by Danny:

Also for more discussion, I think its to show progression and change in warfare tactics to the game for the players in the match. Instead of it always being the same formations of melee with huge range support from archers, It slowly progresses to forcing those archers to turn into defensive lines mostly, and siege weapons being the main ground range with infantry support. Then having bombers and tanks being the main offensive actions for ranged/melee attacking. My only evidence is due to the fact that tanks no longer have -33% vs cities and the autocracy path in bnw has the +15% str for armored units. I assume its just to allow some sort of dynamics in the domination game as time progresses and Im cool with it. Also it shows how much "faster" warfare is as bombers and tanks are have the movespeed and also the units ignore zone of control perk from autocracy again.

I deleted my commentary on how 'range' could be construed as an abstract mechanic. 'Range' of warfare changes as the eras progress and becomes more modernized. Good to see I'm not the only one who interpets the range change as such. After all, a Swordman would hardly have the same range as the Modern Armor it upgrades into, but noone complains about that.

Perhaps if they had dropped the ability to upgrade the units and simply treated them as seperate lines it would make more sense. But people probably wouldn't like that much either, losing their earned XP. And as Mazey said. the +1 range upgrade is brutal.

Originally posted by The Milkman:

No kidding it's a design decision. You're missing the entire point of the post. These people disagree with the design decision because you're effectively eliminating a form of offense that was available earlier in the game. Having a bow from 3000 BC that can fire over more tiles than a freaking machinegun is ridiculous. Once xbows because outdated, i just delete them because it isn't worth the upkeep.

I don't think anyone is missing the point, just interpeting things with a different perspective. If anything some may be missing the point that the archer line is meant to be a defense and support unit in nature. The earlier units lend themselves to offense a bit more, but the artillary line is meant to be ranged offense. I can understand why people don't like the limited range if they consider them offensive units, but I don't share that perspective.

As far as bows firing further than machine guns, think of range as an abstract.

[Matthew]

Put in a tiny amount of effort and you can keep the 2 range through promotions.

People in these discussions typically forget that Gatling and machine guns have higher defense than their earlier era counterparts. It is funny when people talk about the "worthlessness" of Gatling when they straight up own rifles. They don't take damage upon attack and can take just as much of a hit as a rifle can.

[arj1218]

Thanter, you said soething about how the "range" is abstract. thats what i think of if i try to find a realistic response to why there is a change. the gunpoweder units could be ranged (and are based on weapons instead of gameplay) so the gatling gun is really only as effective at the range slightly longer than a rifle. that explains why the are counted as range.

[Legion]

The abstract nature of ranged combat makes sense, except that older units are not updated to reflect the ranges modern era combat would take place at. A longbowman can equal the range of a rocket artillery, which is ridiculous. I'm not arguing that the longbow is a better unit than the rocket artillery, just that the abstract doesn't really play out ingame very well and a bit of realism sacrificed for gameplay would've made the transition less jarring.
To balance MG's/GG's having 2 tile range, you could lower their overall combat strength (rendering them more vulnerable to artillery/aircraft) but compensate with a damage bonus against infantry units in melee range, to simulate the effectiveness of a close-range machine gun barrage vs. long range suppressing fire. They're still a primarily defensive unit that is effective at stopping infantry charges, but are now more mobile and versatile.
And I agree that MG's that manage to kill enough enemies to gain the +1 range upgrade are devastating. MG's are supposed to chew up infantry and spit them out like nobodies business.

On a side note, Bazookas never should have been part of the archer tier. Bazookas are close range anti tank ambush weapons (and a 1 tile range is somewhat fitting for them, given their common tactical deployment) but they aren't generally fielded in an anti infantry role. An advanced machine gun unit would've made a whole lot more sense (think upgrading your Maxims to MG42's).

[mss73055]

Machine gunners are slow moving units, if they move at all. They excel in being dug in. How about giving Gatling guns/Machine guns/Bazookas a bonus to fortification and terrain ratings?

Another trait is their fast rate of fire. Logistics should be an early upgrade for these units, maybe even at 20 XP.

[Ryika]

Originally posted by prometheus.mh:

The abstract nature of ranged combat makes sense, except that older units are not updated to reflect the ranges modern era combat would take place at. A longbowman can equal the range of a rocket artillery, which is ridiculous. I'm not arguing that the longbow is a better unit than the rocket artillery, just that the abstract doesn't really play out ingame very well and a bit of realism sacrificed for gameplay would've made the transition less jarring.

That's just realism sacrificed for better gameplay. Technically, an "Infantry" isn't a "melee" unit either, in fact, it would have a much higher range than any medieval crossbow. So if we wanted to scale that linear, we'd have to start with... 4 range infantry? 10 range snipers and 40 range tanks, 100 Range bombers. And suddenly the unit range is hilarious, when they start shooting each other from cities on opposite sides of the continent.

There's just no optimal solution to that. You could lower the general range of archers, to make them the same as machine guns, but then early combat would become really boring. You could make the archers lose their range when x civs entered the next age, but that would also not make much sense. So they did the easiest thing and just let that Longbow-Artillery-Paradox exist. In that age, those units are useless anyway.

I agree with the Bazooka-Argument though, that's really silly.

[Clockwork Lime]

The machine gun unit has limited range for the same reason knights in chess are 'slower' than rooks.

[arj1218]

Originally posted by Ryika:

Originally posted by prometheus.mh:

The abstract nature of ranged combat makes sense, except that older units are not updated to reflect the ranges modern era combat would take place at. A longbowman can equal the range of a rocket artillery, which is ridiculous. I'm not arguing that the longbow is a better unit than the rocket artillery, just that the abstract doesn't really play out ingame very well and a bit of realism sacrificed for gameplay would've made the transition less jarring.

That's just realism sacrificed for better gameplay. Technically, an "Infantry" isn't a "melee" unit either, in fact, it would have a much higher range than any medieval crossbow. So if we wanted to scale that linear, we'd have to start with... 4 range infantry? 10 range snipers and 40 range tanks, 100 Range bombers. And suddenly the unit range is hilarious, when they start shooting each other from cities on opposite sides of the continent.

There's just no optimal solution to that. You could lower the general range of archers, to make them the same as machine guns, but then early combat would become really boring. You could make the archers lose their range when x civs entered the next age, but that would also not make much sense. So they did the easiest thing and just let that Longbow-Artillery-Paradox exist. In that age, those units are useless anyway.

I agree with the Bazooka-Argument though, that's really silly.

i know this wold be extremely annoying ,but im taking this thread as a way to post solutions, no matter how strange.
to fit the abstract change, once a civ has access to any semi-omodern ranged unit (artillery, gatling, etc.) the crossbowmen down for that civ lose the 2 range. it would be an incentive to upgrade, but again woulld be very unbalanced and annoying