Rifling (1700AD scenario)

Riflemen. Riflemen everywhere in 1700 AD scenario. But they shouldn't be in a beginning of 1700AD, and I will explain why.
All guns in mass production were muzzle-loading (for exception of few models with breech-loading, which were very expensive and difficult to manufacture, also they had own problems and never were in mass production)
Rifled muskets with muzzle-loading had a problem with loading of bullets through the barrel. Too long time to push a bullet into the barrel, as a result too low fire rate, which is significant in a war. Rifles were used only for sharpshooting, and a % of riflemen in world armies was so low, that it cannot be represented even as 1 rifleman unit. This and some other problems, like low quality of rifling, not enough good materials, etc, didn't allowed to use them widely before the first half of 19th century.
Problems was resolved after inventing of special bullets, mostly for the same muskets, without any constructive differences, just that muskets were rifled.
--
That is why I suggest next:
1. Replace all riflemen by muskets.
2. Rifling technology allows to upgrade muskets to rifles for very high cost, like 200-300 gold, but doesnt allow to produce riflemen, only upgrade of muskets.
You should have rich and successful empire, if you want to have strong army. It would be very realistic, isn't it?
3. Rifling technology known to everyone, just pillage your neighbours, buy and sell slaves and upgrade your army ;D
4. Assembly line allows to produce riflemen and cavalry instead of infantry.
Because infantry is too powerful, and with right promotions easily kill riflemen in a city without any bombarding.
Let them appear after industrialisation with marines and tanks.
Maybe infantry in this case should be a bit cheaper.
I think all this will be useful for 1700Ad scenario.

I think the part about Rifles/Muskets is a great idea. I especially like how it makes Prussia's UP (and American UU's cheapness) more meaningful.

With the possible upcoming removal of Mercenaries too, there need to be some alternative representation of how commercial power is oft translatable into military strength IRL. So this mechanism can even be generalized into earlier units, not just Musket/Rifle. The best example I can think of are:

- Levy/Pikeman. You can only build Levies even if you have Engineering, and upgrade them into Pikemen. This makes Levies more relevant (as they should be), and represents how medieval Pikemen are usually mercenaries.

- Horse Archer/Knight. This will better represent how Knights are feudal nobility in Medieval times, rather than regular army units raised from the peasantry (Levy). Knight UUs (Byzantine, Arab, Mongol, and Thai UUs) can be exceptions to this rule.

- Archer/Longbowman. A similar case to Horse Archer/Knight. This will allow a colonial civ like England (Yoeman Archer) & Portugal to leverage their financial power better into creating an effective colonial garrison.

The part about Infantry though, I disagree with.

- It's easy to make Infantry not overpowered. Just remove its +25% bonus vs. Gunpowder units. This bonus is unnecessary and harmful because it makes Marines and Paratroopers have a disadvantage vs. Infantry, which they really shouldn't have.

- Assembly Line and Industrialism are very close together on the tech tree, as they should be. So moving the tech requirement of Infantry to Industrialism makes very little difference.

Moving the tech requirement for Cavalry later is going to be terrible. If anything, Cavalry's tech requirement should be moved earlier, especially in the case of Cossack (I use Astronomy + Military Tradition personally).

Yes, it would be great. The war will require financing. And, besides, it will tie human player to the timeline in technologies, more or less, as he have to spend money to upgrade an army.
Especially it is applies to Greece, which can have herd of knights right after spawn of european civs.
But after changes (can produce horse archers, can upgrade them to knight for high cost, cannot produce knights) human player will have to choose between unrealistic technological progress and decent army which will guarantee safety. And ofcourse no more tanks in 18th century. ;D

No no, I disagree with this. I find nothing wrong with how the current units work; why fix what isn't broken? What's the point of this? Gold is already useful in a war; buy units instead of using hammers to produce them. Civs with more money should produce more units, not better ones.

I agree that Rifles are too early for everyone else except Prussia in the 1700 scenario. The success of Prussia actually resulted from them having better weapons than their neighbours. The other concepts are interesting, but shouldn't affect riflemen, since they formed the first conscript armies.

Yes, exactly, deviate from the current game design to introduce principles the AI doesn't understand for "realism".

And Riflemen with Assembly Line? No thanks. The Rifleman unit already represents stuff like 18th century Line Infantry in my interpretation, even though they are technically using muskets, so this is mildly anachronistic at most.

(And by the way, having to talk about stuff like this is what made me dread creating a new scenario.)

Ok, suggestion with assembly line is a sad mistake ;D.
But what with another suggestions? Does it mean, that we won't see any changes?
Or maybe later?

I think I have addressed everything in my post.

How about removing the +25% bonus of Infantry vs. Gunpowder units? It's ridiculous and unnecessary IMO. Infantry kills Riflemen easily anyway, with or without that bonus. All it does is making Paratroopers (and to a lesser extent, Marines) so bad that they become largely irrelevant.

I also don't really know why it exists. Maybe to make Infantry preferable to SAM Infantry?

Leoreth said:

Yes, exactly, deviate from the current game design to introduce principles the AI doesn't understand for "realism".

And Riflemen with Assembly Line? No thanks. The Rifleman unit already represents stuff like 18th century Line Infantry in my interpretation, even though they are technically using muskets, so this is mildly anachronistic at most.

(And by the way, having to talk about stuff like this is what made me dread creating a new scenario.)

Click to expand...

Yes. Thank you!

Leoreth said:

I also don't really know why it exists. Maybe to make Infantry preferable to SAM Infantry?

Click to expand...

Infantry has higher base Strength than SAM Infantry already. And much less tech requirement. And less cost.

SAM Infantry is one of the most hilariously worthless units in the game of Civ IV, but that is another topic.

iOnlySignIn said:

Infantry has higher base Strength than SAM Infantry already. And much less tech requirement. And less cost.

SAM Infantry is one of the most hilariously worthless units in the game of Civ IV, but that is another topic.

Click to expand...

TBH, I am trying to think of worse units......, maybe Airship?

SheaferDaDawg said:

TBH, I am trying to think of worse units......, maybe Airship?

Click to expand...

Airships have their uses. Anti-Tanks, on the other hand...

UnholyMudcrab said:

Airships have their uses. Anti-Tanks, on the other hand...

Click to expand...

Oh come on, how many games have you had where enemy subs were a problem, or you couldn't wait till Flight for a war? Anti-tanks fortified on hill forts (cough, Suez, cough) are useful against a technologically equal enemy, or if you lack most modern resources.

SheaferDaDawg said:

Oh come on, how many games have you had where enemy subs were a problem, or you couldn't wait till Flight for a war? Anti-tanks fortified on hill forts (cough, Suez, cough) are useful against a technologically equal enemy, or if you lack most modern resources.

Click to expand...

I find airships useful if you are in the middle of a long war, or if you are teching for something else. In Emperor level Prussia, for example, they can be a huge help in driving an invasion forwards whilst you focus on research with economy benefits to ensure you finish the tech tree.

As for Infantry, I would switch their bonus from 25% vs Gunpowder to 25% (or even 50%) vs Mounted. That way even badly damaged infantry units have a fair chance vs Cavalry, and it accurately portrays just how obsolete mounted units became in that era.

I agree about the Infantry modification. It is somewhat wierd that Mech. Infantries are quite weak against regular Infantry, when wounded even a little, since Infantry has base 25 strentgh against their 32. An Infantry with pinch is basically 50-50 against Mech. Infantry.

Maybe OT, maybe irrelevant, but just a matter of taste: does anybody else than me think that Mechanic Infantry is ugly? I mean, in late games I see no human soldiers fighting, just...machines!

Yes. I agree with your point.

To quote the wikipedia article on line infantry:

"In the middle of the 17th century, the muskets of line infantry had bayonets added. Bayonets were attached to the muzzles of muskets and were used when line troops entered melee combat. They also helped to defend against cavalry."

So, clearly, the bayonets of line infantry can only truly be represented by the Redcoat unit. I think this resolves the issue.