Missing age of reason and broken medieval

[Bivoj]

I saw a lot of mods improving techs and adding new units / balancing them, but I wonder why nobody even noticed, that almost two centuries of history are completely missing and medieval, as is, is broken mess. No mod tries to improve or polish this bug. And because it is so disturbing for me to have this unrealism (described lower), that I cannot play CivV until it will be fixed, it motivated me to register here and write this thread. It is very strange for me why Sid erased Age of Reason from game, when in every other Civilization (from I to IV), this era was somehow implemented...

I start chronologically - from what appears sooner in the game to the last (but the most important). So, the first few complains are nearly nitpicks, the most important issues are written at the end of this threat.

Medieval
The first and least effective medieval unit in game is pikemen (or Landsknecht for Germany). It is discovered sooner, than Knight unit. This is really ridiculous - in early medieval (the era of Crusades into Holy land), heavy cavalry (=Knights) was the "main" combat unit and the most effective unit. Infantry in close formations with long pikes (shiltron) was invented as a unit against cavalry and it was no sooner than in 16th century (4 centuries after first Crusade). Pikemen survived as effective unit until late 17th century. There were no crossbowmen or longswordsmen with plate armor on the battlefield in the late 17th century...

The end of medieval military era in CivV is a mess with unnecessary large variety of units. You have obsolete (in game terms, nonsense IRL) pikemen alnog with crossbowmen, musktetsmen and longswordsman; knights fight side-by-side with lancers (why there is no ability to upgrade knights to lancers?). Your experienced units are obsolete and you must either dismiss them and built new green "strong" units or have unnecessarily large army with many ineffective units. Why there is no ability to upgrade obsolete unit from early medieval into more effective one in late medieval?

And ridiculously, the most powerful unit at the dawn of middle ages is longswordsmen - foot soldiers with long swords and plate armor are more effective than musktetsmen, pikemen and knights. And crossbowmen are the most powerful ranged infantry unit - they have MUCH greater range than musketsmen (who are, in fact, melee unit as well as tanks and modern infantry).

So, musketsmen is really unnecessary unit - longswordsmen are more effective (and you can have some of them with some experience), crossbowmen are better support unit.

The real army of Gustaf Adolf or at English Civil War was not composed of foot soldiers in plate armor and crossbowmen/longbowmen. The era of ECW or 30 Years War is called Musket&Pike because the armies were composed of musketeers, arquebuziers and pikemen (along with cavalry - dragoons and cuirassiers) - these units should be the strongest at the end of medieval as well as there should be possibility to upgrade obsolete crossbowmen and longswordsmen into more powerful musketsmen and pikemen.

Age of Reason missing
All these medieval units can be upgraded after inventing riffling into Riflemen unit. The type of unit, which was common no sooner, than at the end of 19th century IRL. Even in American Civil War, the most common weapon was smoothbore musket.

So, how does armies of PjotrI, Frederick the Great or Napoleon look like in CivV? Foot soldiers with swords in plate armor supported by crossbowmen... In CivV, Waterloo is clash of swords and arrows with useless arquebuziers as cheap cannon fodder...

In CivIV, there were two units from this era: Grenadier and Cuirassier. Bring 'em back!

 

[Hail]

absolutely agree about muskets. nothing upgrades to them and longswordsman are stronger. muskets are indeed useless.
i would lower muskets' strength even more(to something like 14), but give them a weak range attack to compensate. that imho will be a boost for gameplay and realism

a completely different approach is to add to unit types a parameter "xp coeff" to differentiate types by the time/energy needed to become proficient with the weapon that the unit type uses (bow for archers, sword for swordsman, etc.). i'm no history fan, but i think the reason muskets replaced bows(and maybe men with swords) is the ease of use. imho a lot less training is needed to become proficient with a musket, than with a bow or a sword. more so since the effectiveness of bows and swords depends on the muscle power of the user.

Spoiler :

correct me if i am wrong

1) conscript some peasants
2) give them muskets
3) ????
4) PROFIT

 

[Bivoj]

Use of first muskets and arquebuses was far from simple. The soldier had two types of gunpowder - one to the bore, the other to the lock and the weapons were fired by manualy ignating the gunpowder in the "lock" by open fire. The firing procedure was more complicated than simple load-aim-pull-the-triger of crossbow or even simplier bow.

Loading the weapon was a tricky action and the weapon was difficult to maintain (it did not like dust, wet, mechanical demage etc.)

The reason, why gunpowder weapons replaced crossbows was higher rate of fire (when in hands of skilled soldier), smaller amunition (logistical reasons) and when first matchlock firearms were developed, they had higher penetration power and range than arrow based weapons. Gunpowder smallarms were the main reason why plate armor become obsolete - palte armor did not provide protection against muskets.

 

[awesome]

medieval life was a broken mess

 

[blac]

I agree with what you are saying, but if you are playing on standard speed the era is over so fast it would be pointless to add more units. I think renaissance needs more units though, its mostly just riflemen and cannons

 

[killmeplease]

remove longswordsmen from the game
change knight: str 18, -20% vs gunpowder
change pikeman: str 14, +50% vs mounted
change musketman: str 15, +20% vs meelee
introduce line infantry: str 21
change lancer: str 19
change rifleman: +10% vs line infantry

 

[Bivoj]

remove longswordsmen from the game
change knight: str 18, -20% vs gunpowder
change pikeman: str 14, +50% vs mounted
change musketman: str 15, +20% vs meelee
introduce line infantry: str 21
change lancer: str 19
change rifleman: +10% vs line infantry

Agree if "civil service" would be developed AFTER chivlary (knights should be there sooner than pikemen) + allow knight to lancer upgrade

(but I'd rather see dragoon or cuirissair instead of lancer...)

 

[killmeplease]

tech tree is plain crazy in civ5
it needs too much reconstruction to cover in one post

>knights should be there sooner than pikemen
i do not think it is that important
e.g. macedonian sarissophores technically were pikemen and they were used long before heavy cavalry came into use.
alternative history is what this game is about.
knights prereqs should be horse riding, iron working, stirrup. maybe also a breeding technology as their horses were not an ordinary horses but thoroughbred ones, horse was the knight's main weapon as it rammed into enemy lines and trampled them (knight figting that we see in "historical" movies is total BS).

pikemen in their turn have nothing common with civil service. they were town militia. and later mercenaries.
what their prereqs should be i can not think out. renaissance pikemen had no shields as their armor was strong enough to withstand arrows and cheap enough to equip men of 2-3 first rows with it. so maybe it should be some mass-production technology e.g. manufactory.

 

[killmeplease]

cuirassier represents renaissance/early modern cavalry better than lancer i agree
17th century dragoons and later ones are represented by Cavalry unit i believe
maybe it should have lesser str say 23, -20% vs line infantry.

there also were hussars (should not be confused with polish winged hussars), light cavalry with swords and pistols. they could have low str but moving fast
e.g. str 16, move 5, +50% vs cannons.
they may also have bonus against heavily wounded units (HP<50%) as they were frequently used in finishing escaping troops.

 

[Terrance888]

The reason, why gunpowder weapons replaced crossbows was higher rate of fire (when in hands of skilled soldier), smaller amunition (logistical reasons) and when first matchlock firearms were developed, they had higher penetration power and range than arrow based weapons. Gunpowder smallarms were the main reason why plate armor become obsolete - palte armor did not provide protection against muskets.

There were bullet proof brest plates to the end of the renaissance. They test them by firing a musket at close range and leaving the dent in to prove that it can survive a musket shoot.
Moderator Action: *snip* Links to racist hate sites are completely inappropriate.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

First Hand Cannons and Arquebusiers take about a minute to fire. Light crossbows can maintain 4 per minute, heavy crossbows can maintain 2 per minute. It was later muskets that reached up to 3 shots per minute. Well drilled soldiers can rarely reach 4 shots per minute.


As for ammo, it was smaller... but then you have to also carry the powder as well as matchs/flints. This is not the only reason that it worked.

The ONLY reason it worked is that it was easier to train with.

Long bow=Takes a lifetime
Crossbow=A month to get hang of it
Musket?=About a WEEK, not including drill with fellow troops

That is the only reason as I see it. Arquebusiers should be weaker, their only bonus should be that they are easier to build or something. Muskets should be the transition, as they are marginally bertter, but still require some mixture (Pikes, ect). Riflemen should get Bayonets. (Alternatively, Bayonet promotion for all musketmen after a certain tech)

 

[killmeplease]

bows and crossbows also required human force to operate, especially bows.
thus soldiers were getting tired fast that affected their accuracy

>There were bullet proof brest plates to the end of the renaissance
they appeared in 17th century and were very expensive and were used only by upper nobles and kings
while heavily armoured cavalry was not widely used after the first part of the 16th century
it was replaced by demi-lancers/cuirassiers protected with lightened armor that was not bullet proof

 

[Bivoj]

Terrance888
"There were bullet proof brest plates to the end of the renaissance."
+1 killmeplease

"First Hand Cannons and Arquebusiers take about a minute to fire."
These are not included in CivV, their importance on battlefield was were low and they were very rare. Maybe these first handcannons were more simple to use than crossbows, but this is definitly not true for widely used muskets.

"As for ammo, it was smaller... but then you have to also carry the powder as well as matchs/flints."

All ammo, gunpowder and matchs can be put into bigger pocket alltogethr. You must have special bag for arrows to carry...

"Long bow=Takes a lifetime
Crossbow=A month to get hang of it
Musket?=About a WEEK, not including drill with fellow troops"

I have fired from bow and crossbow and it is very simple. It is relatively tricky to aim with bow, but crossbow is peace of cake - just pull the string, put arrow on it, aim and push the trigger. Easy. I did not try to fire with musket, but I saw it many times: put gunpowder inside barrel (you must know how much), put bullet inside, stoke, put another gunpowder to the lock, aim, ignite the lock, pull the trigger...

And if the musket is wet, if dust is inside barrel or some mechanical demage is done to it, it is useless. You can easily fire with wet crossbow. Soldiers had to not only know how to shoot with muskets, they should know how to maintain them, clean them often and keep ready.

"Muskets should be the transition, as they are marginally bertter, but still require some mixture (Pikes, ect)."

I do not see any pikeman in Napoleon's army, or even in Stonewall Jackson's unit. Rifling, while invented in early 19th century, was wery expensive so smoothbore muskets were the most common weapon until late 19th century. Pikemen were becoming obsolete in late 17th century, because muskets were more and more effective and bayonet was already invented.

 

[Terrance888]

Hello.

I see that you have taken apart my post, answered to statements you seen false and ignored statements that support them.

Terrance888
"There were bullet proof brest plates to the end of the renaissance."
+1 killmeplease

For my first statement. It is TRUE. Try to prove me wrong and take an old fashioned arquebus, and try to break through a heavy reinforced tempered steel breastplate. Linky.

"First Hand Cannons and Arquebusiers take about a minute to fire."
These are not included in CivV, their importance on battlefield was were low and they were very rare. Maybe these first handcannons were more simple to use than crossbows, but this is definitly not true for widely used muskets.

For my second statement, you dodged it.

All ammo, gunpowder and matchs can be put into bigger pocket alltogethr. You must have special bag for arrows to carry...

For the third, I don't get your response. What do you mean that it can be placed in a single bigger pocket? You have your gunpowder horn, your bag of shots, another bag or sewed on pocket for flint/wheel/match/priming powder. That is for corned gunpowder. For uncorned gunpowder, it has to be mixed literally on the eve of battle.

Also, doesn't that mean both early guns and late bow weapons need special bags?

I have fired from bow and crossbow and it is very simple. It is relatively tricky to aim with bow, but crossbow is peace of cake - just pull the string, put arrow on it, aim and push the trigger. Easy. I did not try to fire with musket, but I saw it many times: put gunpowder inside barrel (you must know how much), put bullet inside, stoke, put another gunpowder to the lock, aim, ignite the lock, pull the trigger...

Also, the crossbow you are propably talking about the light crossbow. The ones that dominated combat are ever heavier crossbows that needed wrinches and other mechanical tools to load. Not only that but making the crossbow and mechanism is pretty complex, not to say about trying to fix it. Of course, the same can be said for the lock on a gunpowder weapon.


As for my timing, I was stating what I seen from various TV shows, internet discussions, history books and such. Longbows take a long time to acclime to and develope muscle for. Crossbows are easier with their mechanisms, but is still complex: You have stock, spring, mechanism, drawing mechanism and bow itself. The arquebus has a stock, barrel, lock and maybe match/stand if you include it. That alone make sit easier to understand.

Also, "Easy" is rather subjective. would you say that a crossbow with mechanism is easier than a gun?

And if the musket is wet, if dust is inside barrel or some mechanical demage is done to it, it is useless. You can easily fire with wet crossbow. Soldiers had to not only know how to shoot with muskets, they should know how to maintain them, clean them often and keep ready.

Are you sure? Is it easy to fire a wet crossbow with a lose string? Won't they be in the same situation: a musketeer with a broken lock and a crossbowman with a broken wrench and can't pull the string back? Or a musket that is too wet to use and a wet string to loose to fire?

I do not see any pikeman in Napoleon's army, or even in Stonewall Jackson's unit. Rifling, while invented in early 19th century, was wery expensive so smoothbore muskets were the most common weapon until late 19th century. Pikemen were becoming obsolete in late 17th century, because muskets were more and more effective and bayonet was already invented.

One, by Rifles I ment rifle-muskets of the civil war. World war 1 is already in the realm of 'Infantry'. As for your comment, I was talking about muskets as a transition from a Melee to a Gunpowder dominated armies. As I said, the bayonet would be useful as a tech-enabled upgrade for the Musket.



EDIT: Also, are you sure you want me to kill you?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Muskets are the new grenadiers.
In vanilla Civ4 I rarely build grenadiers because riflemen come too soon afterwards, in Civ5 I rarely build musketmen because usuall riflemen come too quickly after musketmen.

 

[killmeplease]

I was talking about muskets as a transition from a Melee to a Gunpowder dominated armies. As I said, the bayonet would be useful as a tech-enabled upgrade for the Musket.

dont you like Line Infantry unit idea?
that's Napoleonic era troops armed with advanced muskets and bayonets.

 

[Terrance888]

I just got ------- for linking to storm front.

Whats storm front?



Anyway. I think Line Infantry is a nice Idea.

 

[Sonereal]

I just got ------- for linking to storm front.

Whats storm front?



Anyway. I think Line Infantry is a nice Idea.

Stormfront is a butch of Neo-Nazis.


Also, I agree. Pikemen should probably come after Knights.

 

[Bivoj]

Hello.
For my first statement. It is TRUE. Try to prove me wrong and take an old fashioned arquebus, and try to break through a heavy reinforced tempered steel breastplate. Linky.

"heavy reinforced tempered steel breastplate" has nothing common with regural cuirass of Man-at-arms (ingame "Longswordsman") and heavy cavalry (ingame "knights"). It is invalid argument.

For my second statement, you dodged it.

Maybe. Let the public decide

For the third, I don't get your response. What do you mean that it can be placed in a single bigger pocket? You have your gunpowder horn, your bag of shots, another bag or sewed on pocket for flint/wheel/match/priming powder. That is for corned gunpowder. For uncorned gunpowder, it has to be mixed literally on the eve of battle.

Also, doesn't that mean both early guns and late bow weapons need special bags?

Arrows are bigger and weight more. That is all, but I may be wrong, I admit.

Also, the crossbow you are propably talking about the light crossbow. The ones that dominated combat are ever heavier crossbows that needed wrinches and other mechanical tools to load. Not only that but making the crossbow and mechanism is pretty complex, not to say about trying to fix it. Of course, the same can be said for the lock on a gunpowder weapon.

So, I have won

As for my timing, I was stating what I seen from various TV shows, internet discussions, history books and such. Longbows take a long time to acclime to and develope muscle for. Crossbows are easier with their mechanisms, but is still complex: You have stock, spring, mechanism, drawing mechanism and bow itself. The arquebus has a stock, barrel, lock and maybe match/stand if you include it. That alone make sit easier to understand.

It may be true, but why to argue with special English unit made by almost not trained peasants? Maybe longbow is difficult to handle and it is the reason why it was not used by other army then English. Btw. according to what is written in this book:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Matchlock-Musketeer_9781841762128

Army of The Queen Elizabeth used many longbows, which were considered obsolet. Not because of their difficult handling, but because they were far less powerfull than arquebuzes used by continental europe armies. Reforms mady by The Virgin Queen replaced remaining longbows by arquebuzes.

"Also, "Easy" is rather subjective. would you say that a crossbow with mechanism is easier than a gun?"

I do not understand this question. Modern pistol or revolver is far easier to handle than crossbow or arquebuze.

"Are you sure? Is it easy to fire a wet crossbow with a lose string?"

I do not know, but I assume yes.

"Won't they be in the same situation: a musketeer with a broken lock and a crossbowman with a broken wrench and can't pull the string back? Or a musket that is too wet to use and a wet string to loose to fire?"

No. Musketeer did get to this situation more likely than crossbowman and should have be more trained to avoid it.

"One, by Rifles I ment rifle-muskets of the civil war. World war 1 is already in the realm of 'Infantry'. As for your comment, I was talking about muskets as a transition from a Melee to a Gunpowder dominated armies. As I said, the bayonet would be useful as a tech-enabled upgrade for the Musket."

As I said - RIFFLED-BORE muskets were becoming common weapon in late 19th century. Whole 200+ years earlier, SMOOTHBORE muskets were the most common weapon (do you know the difference between smoothbore and riffled?). From Gustaph Adolph till Napoleon. And even in ACW SMOOTHBORE muskets were used.

EDIT: Also, are you sure you want me to kill you?

[/QUOTE]

Did you notice, that killmeplease is the nickname of one of guys here? Or is it a joke? How old are you?

But, we are getting deeper and deeper to Off-Topic. My point is: introduce some unit(s) with smoothbore musket, which is (are) more powerfull than all middle-ages units and less powerfull than rifflemen (i.e. add Age of Reason warfare). It is riddiculous to jump from longswords to rifles and miss almost 300 years of military history.

 

[Terrance888]

"heavy reinforced tempered steel breastplate" has nothing common with regural cuirass of Man-at-arms (ingame "Longswordsman") and heavy cavalry (ingame "knights"). It is invalid argument.

Are you saying the brestplates are not heavy, or made of steel (which are automatically tempered if being made for battle) or reinforced? (Common for latter age armour)

Maybe. Let the public decide

Fine

Arrows are bigger and weight more. That is all, but I may be wrong, I admit.

Fine

So, I have won

Says you. My point is that there was no advantage of the Musket to the Crossbow in that particular regard.

It may be true, but why to argue with special English unit made by almost not trained peasants? Maybe longbow is difficult to handle and it is the reason why it was not used by other army then English. Btw. according to what is written in this book:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Matchlock-Musketeer_9781841762128

Army of The Queen Elizabeth used many longbows, which were considered obsolet. Not because of their difficult handling, but because they were far less powerfull than arquebuzes used by continental europe armies. Reforms mady by The Virgin Queen replaced remaining longbows by arquebuzes.

Wait... so they used obsolete longbows because they are less powerful? I read the link and it said that Muskets and Arquebuses were more modern. Also, I have read that Kings in England made Archary practice a mandate on the weekends to try to preserve a longbow pool.

I do not understand this question. Modern pistol or revolver is far easier to handle than crossbow or arquebuze.

I didn't know we were talking about modern pistols and revolvers.

I do not know, but I assume yes.

So it is easy to use a sling shot with a saggy sling? Same thing with the crossbow: it is easier to use, doesn't do anything at all.

No. Musketeer did get to this situation more likely than crossbowman and should have be more trained to avoid it.

So both of them have complex mechanical devices, but the musketeer is somehow able to fiddle and fix his/avoid it while the crossbowman is clueless?

As I said - RIFFLED-BORE muskets were becoming common weapon in late 19th century. Whole 200+ years earlier, SMOOTHBORE muskets were the most common weapon (do you know the difference between smoothbore and riffled?). From Gustaph Adolph till Napoleon. And even in ACW SMOOTHBORE muskets were used.

In the ACW minie (sp?) bullets are most common: although they are used, they are secondary to the Rifled-muskets, like repeaters are secondary to them at the end of the war. They are becoming more common. MY point is that we have an early musket-type unit that repleaces longswordsmen, but are still dreadfully weak against cavalry. Then we have another that is still weak against cavalry, but is now the mainstream unit, and coutner-cavalry becomes other cavalry instead of left over pikesmen.

Did you notice, that killmeplease is the nickname of one of guys here? Or is it a joke? How old are you?

I am not omniscient: I can't make a joke about something I don't know: I am 14, so what? What does age have to do with it?

But, we are getting deeper and deeper to Off-Topic. My point is: introduce some unit(s) with smoothbore musket, which is (are) more powerfull than all middle-ages units and less powerfull than rifflemen (i.e. add Age of Reason warfare). It is riddiculous to jump from longswords to rifles and miss almost 300 years of military history.[/QUOTE]

I agree with the above.

Make Late Medieval Musketeers with bonus against melee and malus against cavalry.
Make early 'Age of Reason' musketeers that are decent alone, 17th-19th century.