New Unit: Minuteman

Here is the Minuteman, the patriot of the American War of Independence.
(“Patriots? PATRIOTS? If they were patriots then they would be fighting for their true king and country! They were traitors sir. Rebels, every man jack of ‘em!”)

As you can see, it is only a crude variation of Dark Sheer’s Musket Infantryman, and it is not in civ colours, as I assume that only the Americans will be building them….



Suggested Stats: cheap to build, requires no resources, weak attack, average defence (but less than regular troops), plus ZOC, and with a movement of 2 in all terrain so that they can slip away if hard pressed.
It is not a good idea to have these replacing workers, as they will all run away if an enemy approaches (which no doubt many of them did….but not ALL of them!).

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/Minuteman.zip

Myths of the American Revolution
------------------------------------------
As you probably already know, the notion that the Americans won because they hid behind trees while the British stood in the open in rigid straight lines with their bright red uniforms is a complete myth.
Even George Washington realised that the only way to win battles against European troops was to train his forces to fight in the European fashion. This was done under the direction of Baron von Steuben in the winter of 1778 at Valley Forge, thus creating the first Continental Army….who fought in the open in rigid straight lines.
This is because light infantry skirmishers, good as they are in causing enemy casualties while minimising their own, cannot stop an advancing battalion bristling with bayonets (imagine trying to hold a flank with nothing but skirmishers….they would be swept aside as the line infantry fell on your main force’s flank & rear).

You know, the Civ3 concept of ‘defensive infantry’ is completely artificial, and bears no relation to reality.

In the whole of human history, apart from city militia (who would have poor stats both inside & outside of city walls), there were NEVER any infantry created purely for defence alone.
Spearmen, Pikemen, Musketmen. Riflemen, Infantry…..ALL were expected to ATTACK as well as DEFFEND (after all, what was the Napoleonic Wars all about? Musketmen defending while the Cavalry did all the attacking? I don’t think so).
And what do these troops attack with?
Why, they very same weapons that they use for defence!

The problem is this: in Civ3 there are too many ways to increase a units defence, and NO way of increasing it’s attack, except for Radar Towers, which are of course a modern invention.

Now I know that by the time of the American Civil War, and especially the First World War, defence had become superior to attack. But consider the following: -
* All Industrial & Modern foot troops have a much greater defence than attack…fair enough.
* But this can be increased by defensive terrain such as rivers/hills/forests/mountains/jungle.
* And it can be increased more by having the unit ‘fortified’ (i.e. by ‘digging in’ and entrenching)
* Plus there is the defensive effect of Fortifications, City Walls, and large towns.
* On top of all this, some people also like to give troops with firearms a defensive bombardment as well!….
NO WONDER FOOT TROOPS CANNOT ATTACK, THEIR STATS ARE TOO WEAK!

Personally, I think that ALL foot troops armed with firearms should have an attack EQUIL to their defence, so that they CAN attack each other….and if you want ‘super-defensive-troops’, then you should work for it by fortifying them on suitable terrain, instead of having it handed to you on a plate.
This more accurately reflects their true role throughout history, and allows things like the Napoleonic Wars to be fought as they should be.

As for defensive bombardment, I like to give this to Ancient & Medieval archers/crossbows/longbows/slingers/javelinmen, but not to Industrial or Modern troops.
This is because these skirmish troops can run up to the enemy to shoot at them, whereas heavy slow line infantry with muskets can only really defend themselves, as a musket is very inaccurate over a 100 metres.
And as all Modern troops are armed with long ranged weapons, and they fight in much more extended formations, so they too can only really protect themselves and not other units in the same stack; the effect of both sides having rifles largely cancelling each other out.
So if you want defensive bombardment in a Napoleonic army, use skirmishers (who can increase their musket range by running up to the enemy), or Cannons, who outrange muskets.
Likewise, in Modern times, everybody is already fighting in loose skirmish formation, so Modern armies have Artillery and Heavy Machineguns to outrange the rifles, and give supporting fire to other units in the stack.

Fortunately, it is possible to give units in Civ3 both the offensive & defensive strategies.
What happens is this: as each unit is built by the AI, it assigns either an offensive or defensive role for that unit, and uses it in that way from then on.
This is not quite as flexible as a human player, who would use Legionaries for attacking or defending, depending on the situation. But it does give the illusion that the AI is using them in this way.

So rather than the totally artificial line-up of : - offensive cavalry and defensive infantry,
let’s see instead: - offensive cavalry and heavy infantry (sometimes defending, sometimes attacking).
In addition, there could also be offensive light infantry skirmishers with defensive bombardment, who would help to protect other units in their stack.

Having said all that, I very much doubt that I can persuade anyone to beef-up their Industrial and Modern infantry attack factors, just because it is more realistic!
(“At least you tried Kryten, at least you tried”)

Very nice Kryten

YAAY! a true minuteman. Thank you Kryten.

That's wicked

I just love Mr Kryten's thorougness on Unit creation, right down to the rants and raves! hehe.

Alright now Kryten, no more modern or semi-modern units, finish those bleedin ancient units alrighty then? Ya hear me?

I disagree w/ Kryten about the defense issue.

getting people to move forward is much more difficult than getting them to hide behind thier fortifications and shoot.

Nice rant, Kryten!

Although I do think that ranged infantry should be stronger defensively, I agree that the terrain and fortification bonuses, as well as defensive bombardment, make up for that. The main point I agree on is that it's stupid to have cavalry be your offensive option in a gunpowder world. Unfortunately, if you don't use it for offense, it's pretty useless.

WOOOOOHOOOOOOO!!!!!! Now I just need a Texan UU so Massachusetts can beat the crap out of Texas!

Great unit! I've been looking forward to a minuteman for a long time. And yes, they were rebels but considered patriots after they won. They defined the American revolution; everyday workers fighting for their freedom.

Thats a good minuet man! but on the whole id like to see more of the regulation uniforms that were actually fairly colorful some even similar to the british uniforms
Conntinental Infantry, 1779-1783

How come all those revolutionaries can afford to have those wigs in place if they're havin a hard time paying taxes? They wouldn't be fighting if they were 55 and had white hair.

Anyway, great unit

They took the Brit's wigs!

just beefing up my infantry attacks as well but not to equal though (modern infantry anyway) as tactics have to come into play look at the british always defeated the frwench column so for my little my mod i have decided to have attack 1 behind defense

ohh and by the way superb unit just like all your others

Ok, the real issue is with the modelling of attack/defense in civ3, not so much with whether infantry defend better than attack in real life. I'll get back to this in a second...

Hey, for Napoleonic wars, didn't those bozos walk up against artillery, then have infantry point at each other with muskets in large lines, then blow lead into each other? Wasn't this supposed to be not because it was smart, but because it was gentlemanly? Weren't we yanks called swine because we didn't stupidly walk up in large columns and broadside one another?

In the gunpowder age, fire support has been among the biggest killers of the bad guys, not infantry charges. Artillery reigned supreme in WW1 (machine guns helped, but artillery was the big killer). During the US civil war, grapeshot tore the enemy to pieces. In modern times, fire support comes in the form of aircraft and artillery. Infantry can move forward only when an area has been hit hard because 1-on-1, infantry are dead on an assault against a dug-in prepared defender (not considering armor).

Also, attack is a funny thing. For example, pikeman would be required to move forward, but they rarely spearheaded the attack. They were there in case horse units would come crashing down on infantry, and to secure the territory taken by more offensive-minded units. Consider, for example, the medieval infantry/pikeman combination.

So, that infantry are better at defending is not, IMHO, a myth. After all, it is easier for me to defend than to charge into enemey lines. The later takes better than your every-day units.

Just my $.02

Originally posted by c0wg0esm00
Hey, for Napoleonic wars, didn't those bozos walk up against artillery, then have infantry point at each other with muskets in large lines, then blow lead into each other?

Click to expand...

bozos hmmmm yeah... it was how europen main armies fought ever thought how the term line battlion came about.......

Originally posted by c0wg0esm00
Wasn't this supposed to be not because it was smart, but because it was gentlemanly?

Click to expand...

it was smart the french managed to break everyones line apart from the english because we trained with live ammo and therefore where faster at shooting

Originally posted by c0wg0esm00
Weren't we yanks called swine because we didn't stupidly walk up in large columns and broadside one another?

Click to expand...

americans did fight in lines as well.........

Well, having a name for it doesn't make it brilliant, nor does succeeding well at it But I do agree it is how the Europeans fought.

Americans did also fight in lines, but fought effectively a guerilla campaign. After all, the only battle we really won was the last

Oh, and BTW, very awesome unit. It will go into my (personal) mod. I have a Minuteman now, different from Musketman and Musketeer in not having to be maintained by that gold coin

Originally posted by c0wg0esm00
Hey, for Napoleonic wars, didn't those bozos walk up against artillery, then have infantry point at each other with muskets in large lines, then blow lead into each other? Wasn't this supposed to be not because it was smart, but because it was gentlemanly? Weren't we yanks called swine because we didn't stupidly walk up in large columns and broadside one another?

Click to expand...

....er....you have just discribed exactly how the American Civil War was fought!

Getting back to the main debate, it looks like it’s time for me to defend myself....
....which is ironic in a discussion about defensive units.
(“Yeah, let’s see if YOUR defence is as good as your attack Kryten!” )

First of all, I would like to make it quite clear that of course I agree that entrenched infantry are superior to attacking infantry. How could it be otherwise? If you if have a man behind a wall or in a trench shooting at someone standing up in the open, then it is obvious which one would be hardest to kill.
The problem with Civ3 is....infantry are ALWAYS entrenched!
When they are moving, they are entrenched....
When they are standing, they are entrenched....
When they are disorganised after just landing from ships, they are entrenched....
When they are in a drunken sleep in the middle of the night in their tents, they are entrenched....
Why do I say this? Because their defence is ALWAYS greater than their attack.

I fully agree that entrenched (i.e. fortified) infantry should have a higher defence.
And troops in difficult terrain (i.e. uphill/across rivers/in forests/etc) should also have a higher defence.
As should troops behind city walls, or in a fortress, and so on.
But troops marching across a totally flat plain....?
Do they carry mobile walls on their backs?
Or have they got transportable trenches in their knapsacks, which they just throw on the ground and jump in to!

Fortified troops, or in difficult terrain, or a prepared position, should have a higher defence.
But if they are not fortified, or in difficult terrain, or in a prepared position, then what is their advantage?

In Civ3, because infantry have an attack so much weaker than their defence, you are forced in the game to perform totally unhistorical and impossible things such as using cavalry to attack city walls.
You have no choice....infantry cannot even defeat other infantry in the open!

Now let’s look at the historical use of foot troops
---------------------------------------------------------
The Napoleonic Wars: -
Was Napoleon a good general?....yes, he was a military genius.
Did he use his musket infantry to attack other musket infantry?....yes, he did, in EVERY battle.
But according to Civ3, he was an idiot, as was EVERY general in history, because infantry cannot defeat other infantry....even if the enemy infantry are in the open and unfortified.

The English Civil Wars:-
Prince Rupert of the Rhine, the Royalist cavalry commander, almost always routed the Parliamentarian cavalry, then pursued them from the field leaving the infantry of both sides to fight it out, without cavalry support.
According to Civ3, there is no way that the Parliamentary infantry could have defeated the Royalist infantry, because Pikemen & Musketmen have a much higher defence than attack.

The American Civil War:-
Did the cavalry win all the battles?....no.
Was it infantry regiments attacking other infantry regiments?....yes.
Did fortified infantry have an advantage?....defiantly YES!
Was every battle won by the defenders?….no.
So who won these battles? It wasn’t the cavalry. And infantry cannot defeat other infantry, even if they are unfortified.
So how did they use their infantry to attack another infantry force and win?

The American War of Independence:-
As this is a thread about Minutemen, I thought I’d better mention this war, just in case I get accused of being ‘off-topic’ (can you be off-topic in a thread that you have started? Let’s not find out!).
There were very few cavalry in North America in this war.
The British had a handful of mounted regiments, while the American had even less.
So it was purely musket battalions verses other musket battalions, with cavalry being almost nonexistent.
But according to Civ3, Musketmen cannot defeat other Musketmen, even if they are unfortified in the open.
So how was ANY battle won in this war?

The British verses the French in the Peninsular War:-
Did Wellington carefully plan his battles and use the terrain to his best advantage, or did he say to his subordinates:-
“Oh, just plonk the battalions anywhere you like. It really doesn’t matter where, because our Musketmen have a much higher defence factor compared to the enemies attack, so we are bound to win, no matter what I do”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not suggesting that infantry have a lower or weaker defence than currently. All I am saying is….
….history shows us that infantry CAN defeat other infantry, provided that the defenders are NOT fortified.
Shouldn’t it be the same in the game?

good job kryten, and I think that is the longest rant on one topic you ever typed. Good job mate.

I'm in complete agreement with Kryten. You already have terrain and fortification bonuses. For troops marching in the open it should be pretty much equal odds. I have raised the attack values of most infantry types to equal to, or just below, their attack.

Spearman 3/4
Phalangite 4/5
Pikeman 6/8
Crossbowman 9(6)/2
Musketman 11(7)/4
Musket Infantry 12/12
Rifleman 15/15
Infantry 19/21