Civ 7 - Unique Units top 7 choices

[Boris Gudenuf]

And about Minutemen please. when was the first term came to be and why did the term referred only to those militias from New England Colony? (Massachusettes and Maine) how did they organize? are they the same 'cost cutting policies' originally imposed by British Government in term of colonial defense instead of posting permanent redcoat regiments anywhere in North American Thirteen Colonies?

There are two old, old Social/Civic conventions that apply to military units.
Comitatus - as I've mentioned before, the 'Sworn Bodyguard' of the Leader/Chief/King, etc Paid for, fed and housed by the leader, sworn to serve him until death and die with him on the battlefield if needed. These show up in very early Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian records, Germanic tribes, Celtic polities - it seems to date back at least as far as the early Neolithic.

Civitatus - (for lack of a better term) the possibly Pre-Indo-European in origin belief that to participate in government in any way you must be willing to defend it also. This was first made explicit in the earliest known 'constitution' of Athens (Draco's) which reserved the city governance (as voters, judges, magistrates, etc) to those who could afford to buy the Hoplite equipment and fight as part of the Phalanx. The 'full blown' Athenian Democracy formulated by Cleisthenes' reforms came about partly because Athen's primary defense by then was the Fleet, not the army, and anybody could be an oarsman on a trireme without having the income to buy any equipment at all - and so virtually every adult male citizen of Athens was given the vote.

BUT this social/civic was in force much earlier: again, Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Mitanni, and other very early Bronze Age Empires in the Middle East all had armies based on a combination of professional soldiers (frequently the 'elite' charioteers or Chief's Bodyguards) and a militia formed out of a percentage of the adult male population called up every year as either military or Civic Worker requirements. In Old Kingdom Egypt it was 1 out of every 10 men, which provided a huge workforce for building things like Irrigation Systems, Canals, Harbors and the occasional pyramid or two. In addition to bowmen and spearmen to tag along behind the Chariot Elites.

So basically, the idea that you Owed the State your time as a worker or soldier was not specifically Indo-European: that group, based on Greek, Roman, Germanic and other evidence, was very fond of participative government rather than anointed 'kings', and so equated Military Service with Participation (voting, as in Athens) while the Bronze Age Middle East, which seems to have embraced the 'anointed religiously-legitimized king' from the start, used it to demand service from everyone as the Right of Government.

By the Middle Ages, in addition to the better-known feudal knights, service in a self-defense/military force was also required of most of the population. The Anglo-Saxon Fyrd, for which we have lots of evidence, required that every 5th peasant farmer be available to be called up for the army, bringing with him a shield and spear as a minimum and having his farm worked by his 4 uncalled neighbors while he served. The French version had similar requirements, and later the growing cities also established City Militias which, because the cities concentrated more wealth, were much better equipped than the older rural militias (with, as examples, pikes and crossbows instead of spears)

Fast forward to the 17th - 18th century Colonial Americas, and the Militia Tradition was well-established in the lands they came from in Europe for over 1000 years, and was naturally established in the new country, especially since the colonists perceived that they needed protection against the 'savage Natives' - and also to provide the local force to shove the natives off their lands when the colonists wanted them. Colonial Militias of various kinds were actually the first 'European' military in the English colonies, being formed long before any government back in Europe sent any regular troops to the colonies - remember, England never had much of a standing army in peacetime until after 1700, and even on that date there were only 10,000 formed troops in all of the English-controlled British Isles.

The term 'Minuteman' is actually Pre-Revolution and strictly limited to New England colonies. From the founding of the Massachusettes Bay Colony in the early 17th century "all able-bodied men" between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to be part of a local militia company ('company' in this case meaning 'whoever shows up' - actual organization was pretty primitive in the militias). Because of the fear of sudden native raids, some 'more able-bodied' (generally, men under 30) were selected to be part of special 'rapid response' companies which came to be called 'minute companies' - to respond at a 'minute's notice' to emergencies. The earliest use of the term Minute Company seems to have been about 1645 - over 100 years before the Revolution, but interestingly, about the same time that the London city militia back in England were forming Trained Bands as the nucleus of the Parliamentary Army in England's Civil War. Whether this was complete coincidence or the two developments influenced each other I can't say from my references.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There are different options, the easy and traditional one is Medium Tank to MBT. But there are others more heterodox ones.
Lately I was thinking that the introduction of mechanized warfare changing the previous balance and roles is a good chance to also radically change some lines, so you can upgrade some of your Cavalry to Armor or Helicopter as needed, same late Range units can be upgraded to Armor or Siege.

The transition from Mounted (horse) Cavalry to motorized or mechanized forces was much more messy than we need to depict in a game. There was a very concerted effort by horse-loving cavalrymen to find any excuse to keep their horses,, even when to everyone else no animal that size had any business being on a battlefield filled with machinegun bullets and artillery shell fragments.

Luckily, within the framework of the traditional cavalry divided (in game) into Light and Heavy, there are separate development tracks for each.

Light Cavalry was always primarily concerned with Scouting/Reconnaissance and riding down fleeing infantrymen ('Pursuit').
Heavy Cavalry, also sometimes called Battle Cavalry, was always to Win The Battle, usually by charging and using the force and impetus of 1000 - 1300 pounds of horse and man at speed to smash everything in front of them.

So, the activities and missions of the Light Cavalry at the beginning of the 20th century (Modern Era) were taken over by units of Armored Cars - which started to be developed in Austria, France, and Britain even before World War One broke out. These units continued to be formed between the wars, and everybody's reconnaissance units in World War Two (Atomic Era) still had platoons, companies, and even battalions of them. By that time, some Heavy Armored Cars mounted guns up to short-barreled 75mm or long-barreled 50mm, the equivalent of early medium tanks. They were always faster than ordinary medium tanks (or later Main Battle Tanks) but more dependent on roads.

Post-WWII armored cars (right up to the present day) include multi-axle suspensions with much better off-road mobility and weapons up to 105mm cannon and heavy antiaircraft/antitank missiles

The Heavy Cavalry role was taken up by Medium Tanks. These appear in the mid-1930s, mounting 47mm to 76mm cannon that fire decent high explosive as well as armor-piercing ammunition and were armored against most infantry weapons - machineguns, rifles, etc). The earliest tanks, frankly, are Siege Weapons rather than battlefield weapons: the WWI British and French tanks were designed to grind their way at a man's walking pace over trenches and barbed wire, but were too mechanically fragile to go very far without needing maintenance halts, refueling, and rest for their crews (manning a WWI tank, with the noise and vibration from its primitive engine and drive train and tracks, was exhausting for everybody inside)

While various armies tried using the later medium tanks like the WWI tanks, strictly as direct infantry support in assaults, this turned out to be disastrously wrong when faced by properly-concentrated armor that used its speed as well as its firepower: cue the collapse of France in 1940, when faced by a handful of German tanks that were actually outnumbered in the campaign by the combined British, French, and Belgian armored and motorized forces. In game terms, we should ignore this, since nobody is going to play Stupid or accept Required Stupidity in rules in order to recreate the losing side in a late-game battle or war.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ And what would you do with BOTH Cossacks (Russians and Ukrainians), and Hussars? (Every 'whitemen's army' has ones. including US Army and ... the Confederate Army) if Dragoon is light choice for Earlymodern-early-industry eras rather than dashing mounted light swordsmen on light horse? (And they began as mounted infantry, lousy performances at mounted combat actions until several decades later (in Europe) or always no-chargers (North America))

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Light Cavalry was always primarily concerned with Scouting/Reconnaissance and riding down fleeing infantrymen ('Pursuit').
Heavy Cavalry, also sometimes called Battle Cavalry, was always to Win The Battle, usually by charging and using the force and impetus of 1000 - 1300 pounds of horse and man at speed to smash everything in front of them.

It would be interesting if the recon units were comprised mainly of cavalry units.
It could go
Scout>Horsemen>Skirmisher>Dragoon>Recon Vehicle/Recon Squad

 

[Evie]

I think that's conflating multiple sense of "recon". The "recon" line in game is more the "irregular" line; that is the specialist unit practicing assymetric warfare in small numbers. That is not a role that has much in common with cavalry recon.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It would be interesting if the recon units were comprised mainly of cavalry units.
It could go
Scout>Horsemen>Skirmisher>Dragoon>Recon Vehicle/Recon Squad

Given that the very first horsemen are referred to as 'scouts' in Egyptian and Akkadian records, I strongly suspect the reason for not going all mounted for the recon line is that they were meant to also represent the various unarmored, light-footed javelinmen, psiloi, foresters, etc that accompanied European and other armies for centuries without usually having much of any significant battlefield effect.

The earliest 'scouts', on foot, could probably be re-named Explorers, since that was more of their function, except that it might confuse people who think that term belongs to groups from the Age of Exploration/Discovery in the 15th - 17th centuries, and nowhere/no time else

This is one that Humankind and Millennia get right (although Millennia has them much too early, for what it's worth) in that both have a very early mounted unit of limited combat power which Humankind calls a 'Scout Rider' - exactly reproducing the earliest people on horseback, without proper saddles, tack, or effective mounted weapons (they seem to have used the same weapons men on foot were using at the time: throwing spears/javelins or stone-headed maces, both of which can be used better by men with their feet planted on the ground)

An All Mounted Recon line is perfectly possible, but potentially leaves out or would have to segue into the later types of 'light infantry' like Jaegers, Rangers, Special Forces, Spetsnaz, etc. Since there are also more mobile Light Troops at the same time (Armored Cars, Light Armor, Helicopters), that would require the Recon Line to split - doable, but a radical change from the way the game has been handling these things.

I suggest, then, that a better possibility would be to give the Light Mounted line some of the capabilities of the Recon line: better mobility over (some types of) rough ground, longer sight lines, etc. IRL most of the Light Cavalry from Classical Era on were used as much off the battlefield for scouting, screening, raiding as they were for Combat, and that would keep the 'dismounted scouts' available to screen the heavier infantry on the battlefield (their usual use starting in the accounts of classical Roman, Greek, and other forces then and later) or operate in rainforest, forest, swamp, marsh, etc: non-cavalry country.

That would make the Recon (dismounted) Line something like: (Ancient - Classical - Medieval - Industrial - Atomic Eras)
Scout - Javelinman* - Forester* - Ranger* - Special Forces

* = has a Ranged Factor

The Light Mounted line: (Ancient - Classical - Medieval - Renaissance - Modern - Atomic Eras)
Scout Rider - Horseman - Jinette/Courser - Dragoon - Armored Car - Helicopter

Between them, there is at least one 'recon' unit every Era. IF necessary (and it isn't in Civ VI) an Information Era advanced Recon unit could be UAVs, which seem to be taking over all recon functions for ground troops in the last 10 - 15 years.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

^ And what would you do with BOTH Cossacks (Russians and Ukrainians), and Hussars? (Every 'whitemen's army' has ones. including US Army and ... the Confederate Army) if Dragoon is light choice for Earlymodern-early-industry eras rather than dashing mounted light swordsmen on light horse? (And they began as mounted infantry, lousy performances at mounted combat actions until several decades later (in Europe) or always no-chargers (North America))

Hussars when they first became Non-Hungarian/Serbian/Eastern European specialty Cavalry were basically Thieves on Horseback: the first three Hussar Regiments in the French Army were formed largely from Hungarian refugees/deserters at the beginning of the 18th century, and all three Colonels of the regiments were fired or arrested within a year or so for Grand Theft Horse. But their uniforms were pretty so everybody decided they needed a few units of them parading about. However, like the rest of 18th century European regular light cavalry they were not particularly good at scouting or reconnaissance, remained very good at Grand Theft whenever they were on campaign, and after Frederick the Great reformed his cavalry in the middle of the century they were increasingly expected to perform like Heavy Cavalry: charge 1000 meters or more ending in a massed all-out run, sabres in hand against an enemy line.

Their primary characteristics were that they were always a minority of the light cavalry, and they were almost always more Expensive to maintain because those pretty uniforms were Expensive, full of braiding and lace and fur trim, and they weren't particularly good at all the Light Cavalry functions - scouting or reconnaissance they were poor at, raiding and pillaging they were very good at.

I would be very tempted, therefore, to make them a Special and Optional unit of Dragoons (correct era) which have a special graphic for the unit, don't get any extra Recon functions (longer sight distance, special movement) but have a higher in-battle combat factor and cost much more to maintain.

Cossacks, I think, should be reflected as the product of a separate culture/polity as they started out being. You could get Cossacks from City States like Zaporozhe, Azov, or Astrakhan, and keep getting them from those cities even after you conquered them or otherwise absorbed them into your Civ. That would reflect both the fact that they were fairly exclusive to only a few potential Civilizations but also started out 'independent'. It would also leave a Russian Unique slot open for something else for a change . . .

 

[BuchiTaton]

Personally I would keep just a regular Cavalry line, meanwhile for me "Light Cavalry" would be special and unique cavalry units that have a mix of higher movement, range and maneuverability but less HP, CS and shock. There is a serie of complications in the proposed Light Cavalry regular line:

- Scout Cavalry, Scout is already the earliest Recon unit that make sense being afoot unit representing *parties of hunthers*, meanwhile horse domestication is an achievement that make more sense to be unlocked later as an Anciet Era technology.​

- Horse Archer, and others forms of light cavalry from Classical and Medieval eras were mostly of nomadic/pastorial origin so these units would be perfect to be particular to certain civs and only unlocked for others when they are mercenaries, auxiliars or accesible from other exclusive way.​

- Armored Car, mechanized warfare already add new lines of high mobility like Airplanes and Helicopters (even artillery become self-propelled), so the recon and mobile roles are way too redundant (not forget Spy actions also).​

Think about it we can save some upgrading for units that are barely used, plus unique units weight is reduced when those UU are just an upgraded version of a regular one with an already limited use. Keep less lines of regular units would allow UUs to feel really special and they could make the difference in combat.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Hussars when they first became Non-Hungarian/Serbian/Eastern European specialty Cavalry were basically Thieves on Horseback: the first three Hussar Regiments in the French Army were formed largely from Hungarian refugees/deserters at the beginning of the 18th century, and all three Colonels of the regiments were fired or arrested within a year or so for Grand Theft Horse. But their uniforms were pretty so everybody decided they needed a few units of them parading about. However, like the rest of 18th century European regular light cavalry they were not particularly good at scouting or reconnaissance, remained very good at Grand Theft whenever they were on campaign, and after Frederick the Great reformed his cavalry in the middle of the century they were increasingly expected to perform like Heavy Cavalry: charge 1000 meters or more ending in a massed all-out run, sabres in hand against an enemy line.

Their primary characteristics were that they were always a minority of the light cavalry, and they were almost always more Expensive to maintain because those pretty uniforms were Expensive, full of braiding and lace and fur trim, and they weren't particularly good at all the Light Cavalry functions - scouting or reconnaissance they were poor at, raiding and pillaging they were very good at.

I would be very tempted, therefore, to make them a Special and Optional unit of Dragoons (correct era) which have a special graphic for the unit, don't get any extra Recon functions (longer sight distance, special movement) but have a higher in-battle combat factor and cost much more to maintain.

Cossacks, I think, should be reflected as the product of a separate culture/polity as they started out being. You could get Cossacks from City States like Zaporozhe, Azov, or Astrakhan, and keep getting them from those cities even after you conquered them or otherwise absorbed them into your Civ. That would reflect both the fact that they were fairly exclusive to only a few potential Civilizations but also started out 'independent'. It would also leave a Russian Unique slot open for something else for a change . . .

With this it means that Dragoons will be chosen as light choice. and Hussars not. is it also because they're more flexible and more discipline and also cheaper because they wear simple rank n file uniforms with some (french) units getting fur trimmed forage cap? and so when did Dragoons becomes chargers?

If so i don't understand why US Army has some cavalry units named as 'Hussars'?

And when did 'Greco-Roman' cavalry helmet first shown up in the 'gunpowder era'? 17th? 18th or 19th Century? and who wore it frist??

and if Austria and / or Hungary (both are separate countries) ever returns what should be their UU? should Austria gets Pandours instead?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

With this it means that Dragoons will be chosen as light choice. and Hussars not. is it also because they're more flexible and more discipline and also cheaper because they wear simple rank n file uniforms with some (french) units getting fur trimmed forage cap? and so when did Dragoons becomes chargers?

If so i don't understand why US Army has some cavalry units named as 'Hussars'?

And when did 'Greco-Roman' cavalry helmet first shown up in the 'gunpowder era'? 17th? 18th or 19th Century? and who wore it frist??

and if Austria and / or Hungary (both are separate countries) ever returns what should be their UU? should Austria gets Pandours instead?

Biggest reason for Dragoons rather than Hussars (to me) is Timing. Dragoons started to be formed in European armies in first third of the 17th century and remained as a valid 'light cavalry' (and Heavy Cavalry in the British Army, but that was a name change only) choice until the beginning of the 20th century. Hussars only appeared as regular general light cavalry in European armies from about 1700 to 1914, and for much of that period (most of the 19th century) they were indistinguishable in how they operated from other light cavalry except for having prettier uniforms and costing more generally to outfit and maintain.

The regular US Army never had Hussars, but the United States was overrun with militia units at the State, County, and City level throughout the 19th century, and they were very fond of 'special' uniforms snd titles, like Zouaves, German Jaegers, and Hussars. Some of these units kept their distinctive looks right up to the reorganization that formed the militia into the National Guard in 1903, which also required the former State and other Militias to conform to regular army organization, training and uniforms. Somewhere in my files here I have a lovely watercolor print of the 1st New Jersey (State) Militia Cavalry in full-blown Hussar uniform from 1901, which would not have looked out of place at Waterloo!

And it is normal for units to maintain 'Lineage and Honors' from ancestral units, complete with archaic titles. The British 11th Hussars, for instance, was an Armored Car/armored reconnaissance regiment in world war two, still maintaining a title that it had carried for over 100 years and through numerous changes of equipment and organization. There are still Massachusetts National Guard units that trace their origins back to the first official Massachusetts Bay Colonial Militia formed in 1636.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Biggest reason for Dragoons rather than Hussars (to me) is Timing. Dragoons started to be formed in European armies in first third of the 17th century and remained as a valid 'light cavalry' (and Heavy Cavalry in the British Army, but that was a name change only) choice until the beginning of the 20th century. Hussars only appeared as regular general light cavalry in European armies from about 1700 to 1914, and for much of that period (most of the 19th century) they were indistinguishable in how they operated from other light cavalry except for having prettier uniforms and costing more generally to outfit and maintain.

The regular US Army never had Hussars, but the United States was overrun with militia units at the State, County, and City level throughout the 19th century, and they were very fond of 'special' uniforms snd titles, like Zouaves, German Jaegers, and Hussars. Some of these units kept their distinctive looks right up to the reorganization that formed the militia into the National Guard in 1903, which also required the former State and other Militias to conform to regular army organization, training and uniforms. Somewhere in my files here I have a lovely watercolor print of the 1st New Jersey (State) Militia Cavalry in full-blown Hussar uniform from 1901, which would not have looked out of place at Waterloo!

And it is normal for units to maintain 'Lineage and Honors' from ancestral units, complete with archaic titles. The British 11th Hussars, for instance, was an Armored Car/armored reconnaissance regiment in world war two, still maintaining a title that it had carried for over 100 years and through numerous changes of equipment and organization. There are still Massachusetts National Guard units that trace their origins back to the first official Massachusetts Bay Colonial Militia formed in 1636.

1. And this means Dragoons do everything Hussars does but bettter compared to their upkeeps. with dragoons wore much simpler uniforms?

I'm not sure if early dragoons did wear any kind of riding boots with spurs attached? since they were originally considered inferior units

2. So when did Minutemen lost its meanings as Massachusetts state milita?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You will note from the second picture that 'riding boots' came up over the knee. They were designed to protect the knee from getting crushed between horses when charging in a tight line. To get an idea of the forces involved, horses were known to be lifted right off their hoofs by pressure towards the middle of a line when going forward at speed.

But that meant that cavalry literally could walk only with difficulty if dismounted - they could barely bend their knees in the high, stiff boots. Therefore, anybody wearing the 'cavalry boots' was not expected to act on foot very much. Earlier dragoons wore canvas or leather leggings to protect their lower legs from brambles and brush and low shoes or ankle boots - as seen in the first picture. These were comparable to the regular infantry of the time, who wore wool stockings to just below the knee, knee breeches and, frequently, canvas 'gaiters' over the stockings to protect against brush. Long trousers didn't become part of the uniforms until much later in the 18th century.

I have not seen the term 'minuteman' used for the state militia after the Revolution, but that doesn't mean it wasn't used informally - I don't have direct access to early state archives from New England, and the US Army histories I do have are concerned primarily with the regular army, not the local or state militia units before they were mobilized for the Civil War in 1861.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

You will note from the second picture that 'riding boots' came up over the knee. They were designed to protect the knee from getting crushed between horses when charging in a tight line. To get an idea of the forces involved, horses were known to be lifted right off their hoofs by pressure towards the middle of a line when going forward at speed.

But that meant that cavalry literally could walk only with difficulty if dismounted - they could barely bend their knees in the high, stiff boots. Therefore, anybody wearing the 'cavalry boots' was not expected to act on foot very much. Earlier dragoons wore canvas or leather leggings to protect their lower legs from brambles and brush and low shoes or ankle boots - as seen in the first picture. These were comparable to the regular infantry of the time, who wore wool stockings to just below the knee, knee breeches and, frequently, canvas 'gaiters' over the stockings to protect against brush. Long trousers didn't become part of the uniforms until much later in the 18th century.

I have not seen the term 'minuteman' used for the state militia after the Revolution, but that doesn't mean it wasn't used informally - I don't have direct access to early state archives from New England, and the US Army histories I do have are concerned primarily with the regular army, not the local or state militia units before they were mobilized for the Civil War in 1861.

and early dragoons. how did they use spurs when riding if they don't usually wear riding boots? did spurs not really neccessary for mounted infantrymen?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

and early dragoons. how did they use spurs when riding if they don't usually wear riding boots? did spurs not really neccessary for mounted infantrymen?

Exactly. "mounted infantrymen" or Dragoons were not expected to charge anyone, and they started out being given the horses rejected by the regular cavalry, so spurs weren't expected to make them go much faster.

Also, I suspect there was still a bit of Social Pressure: spurs were a badge of rank for knights and nobility in rhe late middle ages, and while regular cavalry thought of themselves as the heirs of the 'knightly tradition' dragoons were not so considered and giving them spurs would be considered placing them a bit 'above their station'.

For whatever purpose, spurs were not considered necessary equipment for dragoons until the middle of the 18th century, when European armies (starting with the Prussians in the 1740s) started requiring dragoons and light cavalry like Hussars to charge like cuirassiers, and so started requiring them to use spurs and wear regular 'cavalry' high boots.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ The Early US Army Cavalry standard equipment also includes spurs and riding boots. right?
and did the riding boots design changes in 19th Century? and Wildwest cowboys (Who would regularly rides horses) are popularized with images of riding boots included. and maybe spurs. (i've only saw my uncle's one that has a pair of riding boots. but no spurs, i think it was of cowboy types and not 18th century ones.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

^ The Early US Army Cavalry standard equipment also includes spurs and riding boots. right?
and did the riding boots design changes in 19th Century? and Wildwest cowboys (Who would regularly rides horses) are popularized with images of riding boots included. and maybe spurs. (i've only saw my uncle's one that has a pair of riding boots. but no spurs, i think it was of cowboy types and not 18th century ones.

Yes. From the late 18th century at least the cavalry 'riding boots' worn by army units got shorter so that they did not immobilize the knee.​

For example, a picture from the Napoleonic Wars after 1800:​

He's in the uniform of a Hussar, and wearing very much lighter and shorter boots than would have been consdered normal even 50 years earlier.

The United States mounted units always used a shorter boot, as an example:

This is from the US Army's 'official' set of illustrations of uniforms, showing the cavalry as of 1876: note that while they are wearing high 'riding boots' the boots no longer come up to or over the knee, so that they protect the lower leg from brush and brambles, but still allow the men to move dismounted. These are similar to boots shown in uniform photographs from the Civil War and illustrations of the Dragoons from the Mexican War.
Note also that in this picture not one man is even carrying a sabre, even though they were still being issued: they are prepared for fire action with carbines or repeating pistols, and most regiments never carried the sabres on campaign.