I want to change unit parameters and move them on the tech tree correspondingly to their role in history.

archery tech 4000 bc is nonsense so archer will be a first available military unit, instead of warrior. So warriors were buffed.

Archers: str 4, ranged 5 (first available unit)
Warriors: str 6, close combat (+50% attacking city, +50% in rough terrain), available with a Military Caste tech

Chariots were the main military power of ancient states so they were significantly buffed too:

Chariots: str 5, ranged 6, charge (+50% in open terrain), can move after attack, move 3
they also have to be quite expensive in production, as horseback riding invented by Assyrians has made chariots effectively obsolete

Some minor changes to classical-medieval units:
Spearmen: str 7, spears (+50% in the open terrain, +50% vs mounted)
Horsemen: str 6, charge, flanking bonus
Swordsmen: str 10
Knights: str 12, charge, armor (-25% vs gunpowder units)
Crossbowmen: str 6, ranged 10, does not require iron

Pikemen dominated battlefield in the late medieval/early renaissance times, so they were buffed:
Pikemen: str 10, spears, requires iron, Guilds technology (ex Banking)
Longswords were removed as a historical nonsense. Maybe they should be replaced with men-at-arms (that is, heavier knights)
Men-at-arms: str 18, heavy armor (-50% vs gunpowder units, -25% in rough terrain), move 2, requires iron and horses

Musketmen: str 10, firearms (+50% vs melee units)
Lancers: str 10, spears, firearms, move 5
Cavalry: str 10, charge, firearms, ranged str 10, move 4, requires Military Science

new unit to fill the gap between musketmen and riflemen:
Line Infantry: str 12, firearms, bayonets (+25% vs mounted, +25% city attack), requires Conscription

Riflemen: str 18, firearms
Infantry: str 24, firearms


new tech tree attached:

Isn't the range strength for the early units a bit strong?

yeah, it seems..
as generally base strengths are scaled down

5 for archer, 6 for chariot, 10 for crossbow.. or so - would be better
firearms should also provide bonus defense vs archers. say +50%. so they will not harm gunpowder units a lot

sounds good to me, however, the warrior in the game looks like a guy with a club. they would have to make them look more like a Hoplite with a sword

This is just nonsense. Warriors represent brutes carrying big sticks to hit with. I, for one, don't consider that extremely more advanced than archery.

sounds good to me, however, the warrior in the game looks like a guy with a club. they would have to make them look more like a Hoplite with a sword

sword was an elite weapon well until the classical era
ancient (neolithic) warriros were armed with maces and axes for most.

axemen predate spearmen as spear is only effective in close formations which were not used until second part of third millenia BC iirc
as warriors on the battlefield trooped in small groups by principle of belonging to particular clans
use of spearmen rises with maturing of the state

This is just nonsense. Warriors represent brutes carrying big sticks to hit with. I, for one, don't consider that extremely more advanced than archery.
simple bows were hunting weapons not very efficient against a man
thus foot archers were cheapest soldiers used for skirmishing before an actual battle begins.

chariot archers were armed with composite bows. that is a far superior wheapon compared to a simple bow, and very expensive as well. no way foot soldiers could be given these.

This is just nonsense.
Please be a little more polite in your disagreements in future.

the point is, they shouldn't be running around with a stone on a stick if they require any technology.

i like ur ideas to the changes. i agree that pikes should be mainstay of medieval infantry.

simple bows were hunting weapons not very efficient against a man
thus foot archers were cheapest soldiers used for skirmishing before an actual battle begins.
I know, I know, but I'm talking of big branches here.
Either way, the brutes that now are warriors shouldn't be changed. Maybe copied and then modified, yes, but it would be irrational to completely take them away or modify them. They are needed, and logically they should be the first military unit.

sword was an elite weapon well until the classical era
ancient (neolithic) warriros were armed with maces and axes for most.

axemen predate spearmen as spear is only effective in close formations which were not used until second part of third millenia BC iirc
as warriors on the battlefield trooped in small groups by principle of belonging to particular clans
use of spearmen rises with maturing of the state

The Sword has never been the mainstay of an army, not even in the classical era. Even the Romans, known for the Gladius, considered the sword something that only the upper class should have. Spears however, are cheep, easy to make, and even easier to teach someone to use. Learning to use a sword takes years. spears take hours. Making a sword takes days, if not weeks, and special equipment. I could make a spear in my backyard, with tools I have in my house.

The spear was one of the first weapons invented by humans, and was originally used for hunting. Heck, it was actually invented BEFORE humans by the Neanderthals, and it was the only hunting weapon they had. In fact, one theory as to why the Neanderthal died out was that humans managed to figure out the bow first. However, we have been using spears as a defensive and hunting tool since prehistoric times, and if the axe was also around at the same time (I doubt that it was though, considering that they are more difficult to make) I highly doubt that anyone could tell you which came first. What your are thinking of is the Phalanx, which is simply a strategy that makes use of spears.

In fact, one theory as to why the Neanderthal died out was that humans managed to figure out the bow first.
well its just a theory

However, we have been using spears as a defensive and hunting tool since prehistoric times, and if the axe was also around at the same time (I doubt that it was though, considering that they are more difficult to make) I highly doubt that anyone could tell you which came first. What your are thinking of is the Phalanx, which is simply a strategy that makes use of spears.
axes, spears and bows were invented 10s of thousands years ago
so of course discovering techs like 'archery' after 4000 bc has no sense.
phalanx - yeah its a strategy, but successfull use of it became available after the developing of political power and rising of the state. in pre-state social conditions phalanx formation could not be effectively implemented as there was a lack of subordination.

About renaissance era warfare. (Civ5)

Having musket troops introduced without the possibility to upgrade crossbowman, pikeman and longsword formations are historically accurate. but introducing cannon AFTER musket is a bit inaccurate. if one successfully researched gunpowder. one should be able to upgrade medieval siege engines into renaissance cannon (should we say, bombard?).. i.e. gunpowder research should allows a player to train both musket troops and cannon (of any form). NOT cannon introduced AFTER gunpowder research.

historically, men built cannon BEFORE harquebus (which even predates musket)

About line infantry (i prefer a name 'Fusilier' instead :P) to bridge the technological gap between musketry and rifle troops makes sense. (line infantry uses bayonets, which really is a knife required but this should allow pikemen and crossbowmen to get an upgrade. The swordsmen should become grenadier instead (Grenadier is an elite troop, the combat animation should be as follows)
- fights with fusil in open pitch battles.
- throw grenade when attacking a city/unit inside a fort/citadel.

But what's wrong with cavalry and lancers can't become tanks after combustion was researched? those two mounted troops became pretty obsolette once 'modern infantry' was introduced.

good points Lone Cat
the problem with bombard is that we have no animation for it
as for line infantry, bernie14 has promised to model it (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10715114&postcount=70).
upgrading cavalry to tanks makes sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cavalry_Division_%28United_States%29)

can't wait to see Line Infantry models/animation but i'm for either of these.

http://www.fttoulousejackson.org/Images/new.guidebook.2.jpg
^ late 1600s - Seven years war/American Revolution war.
http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/08/2/8/1/09246124039772489.jpg
^ Napoleonics (and maybe... War of 1812... where Yanks fight Brits oncemore)

^ late 1600s - Seven years war/American Revolution war.

isnt it a minuteman?

they might be a minuteman but... at that time, the main feature of Line Inf. was also tricorne hat.
Tricorne hat is a symbol to both minuteman and carribean pirates.