[Civ7] Names of Mid-game 'Enlightenment Era' Basic Infantry

What should be the name of Mid-game 'Enlightenment Era' basic infantry

  • Line Infantry

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Fusilier

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Musketeer

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Rifleman

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Foote

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Regulars

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,869
What should be the name of Mid-game 'Enlightenment Era' basic infantry?
These infantry have these basic characteristics
1. Primary weapon. Flintlock smoothbore musket (usually of 'three band' types) capable to attach or detach bayonets of a specific kind (Which are historically 'upgraded' first to caplocks, then with rifled barrels when 'munroe effect bullets' are devised, and later with either 'trapdoor' breechloading conversions or entirely new breechloader service rifles of new designs.)
Secondary weapon. bayonets that can fit with a musket this infantryman carries,
2. Deploys in linear formation and can use basic infantry formations.
3. Forms backbone of any army.
And what should be unit names?
1. Line Infantry
This is the most 'generic' term to call this kind of footsloggers. obiviously because they usually fights in linear formations. Using this term however is still problematic because
1.1 This can includes pike and shotte infantry as well. especially with musketry elements (usually wields matchlock muskets/arquebuses) can, and did form linear formations to max out shooting frontage, with some rank depts to compensate with musketry slow rate of fire, utilizing fire by rank volley), in addition pike elements can form linear Phalances in line formations just like oldschool hellenic spearmen and macedonian pikemen did.
1.2 The term 'Line Infantry' is only coined in 1792 by French Revolutionary Army to fit with their infantry tactics--to have light infantry company quickmarch and shoot enemy column and quickly retreats behind marching 'heavy' slowmarch elements (which does the real fighting). In this case 'Light Infantry' and 'Jagers/Rangers' are different units entirely. Before that the main elements of infantry regiments are called 'Center company', The term did last until 1914 even with everbody equipped these infantry with bolt action repeating rifles that use smokeless propellant cartridges already, and no longer deployed in the same ol linear formations in combat but instead made use of light infantry skirmishing formations.
2. Fusilier
Named after weapons they carry. the term 'Fusils' originally means flintlock firearms. it later includes ones that uses percussion caps, cartridge based breechloaders, and even mean 'rifles' and 'shotguns' as well. (All in all it means they carry 'non matchlock' guns.)
Pros: 'Clear Descriptive'
Cons: Not every army in the world called basic regular 'linear' infantry with this name. in fact only French, Spanish and Portuguese (and maybe others) use this term to call linear infantry (even after 'Line Infantry' word is invented), Prussians and Russians use this term to call elements of Light companies.
3. Musketeer (AKA Musketmen)
Not everyone called flintlock muskets 'fusils'. some still called these 'muskets' even with matchlock weapons are also called as such. While this term originally referred to 'Shotte' elements of Pike and Shot infantry, some countries called 'Center companies' Musketeer (Russia and Prussia especially).
In Civ 1-3, this term is used to refer to BOTH Arquebusiers AND 'Line Infantry' excluding those armed with rifled muskets of 1850s-1860s. even Civ1 and 2 uses Enlightenment Era infantry as a portrait.
Musketeer_Civ1.jpg

Musketeer_Civ2.jpg


Historically early flintlock equipped linear infantry also inherited the name 'musketeers' for a while, indicating that their units were once Pike and Shotte infantry with shotte elements armed with matchlock arquebuses.
Cons: Ambiguous particularly it could also mean arquebusiers as well.
4. Rifleman.
In civ 3 - 5 this term is also used to refer to 'Line Infantry' of 1700s-1900s !!!! Despite the fact that this term is valid only in 1850s-1860s. In Civ4 even Redcoats are English 'Riflemen's replacements' despite that fact that they used rifles in 1850s, their 'Riflemen' however were specialists and wears green uniforms and NOT red (this included Rogers Rangers as well as 95th Rifles equipped entirely with government issue Baker Rifles). Another ridiculousness of this unit is enabling techs in different iterations of Civ games.
- Civ1 and 2: Conscription
- Civ3: Nationalism
- CivRev: Gunpowder !!!!!!!!
Only Civ4 and 5 uses 'correct' enabling tech.
Civ6 did shift away from this rather 'misleading' traditions.
5. Foot (or Foote)
Same as 'Line Infantry' the term was officially used to call 'Infantry' of Early Modern era but coined much earlier (in 17th Century). also same 'ambiguity'.
6. Regulars
In some videogames, this term means 'Line Infantry'. But it isn't really descriptive. actually it serves more as prefix rather than actual unit name. and this is to lable that this unit is part of standing army and not militias (Irregulars).
 
My simplified system is:
-16th century, Arquebusier wearing a Morion.
-17th century, Musketeer wearing a Cavalier.
-18th century, Fusilier wearing a Tricorne.
-19th century, Rifleman wearing a Shako.
 
^ Four separate basic infantry units. and what are enabling conditions?
the 16th and 17th C. units are not really THAT comparably different beyond dressings. both of the two still remain the same Shotte elements in Pike and Shotte infantry (same matchlocks, which means these soldiers must maintain about one man's reach spacings to avoid accidential contacts of hot match the very weapons needed to work) very weak melee capabilities (one may have either swords, axes or knives but virtually no combat trainings, since swords are associated to aristocracy (knight caste), common footsloggers (who are largely drafted or volunteered peasantry or other commoners) ain't no chance getting trained in such weaponry so they couldn't have much chance using swords in melee, and if enemy attackers are pikemen, such limited swordsmanships don't work either), requires phalanx units to protect them against fast chargers)
The clear cut would be 18th C. Fusiliers. Flintocks (and later upgrades like percussion caps) allows them to line up shoulder to shoulder since they don't use hotmatch anymore and so the risks of accidential contacts no longer existed. But what's more is that each of these weapons now can attach bayonets. and this rendered pikemen redundant and thus obsolete as melee and phalanx elements.
And your 'Rifleman' means early 19c elite light infantry like The Green Jackets, or basic infantry of 1860s and 1870s?
 
And your 'Rifleman' means early 19c elite light infantry like The Green Jackets, or basic infantry of 1860s and 1870s?
For me is very important to keep gameplay role, naming consistency and unit recognition even sometimes at the expense of some historical inaccuracies.
In this case I think is better to choose the units to reminisce not the early inovation of each era but the middle point that characterizes the period in both directions, for example if the era is supposed to cover one century 1800-1900 pick the units closer to the middle point that is also different from the previous one, so the 1860's regular Riflemen as the upgrade to the 18th century Fusilier.

Also is not needed for regular units to be an specific historical unit, since they will be used by many civs is better to make a mix looking unit with only some of the most generalized and distinctive elements of the era represent. Of course Unique Units may be closer to their historical version.
 
"infantry level X"

I tried thinking this through a lot but there's no good answer. "Fusilier" was a term some units used to sound distinguished but it was not universal. "Regulars" would probably be a more accurate term, because by the 1700s most regiments in Europe at least were wearing their own uniforms to separate themselves from militia types.

you could have a progression like:
> muskets
> regulars
> "rifles" (as in, Commander X's Rifles, not that there weren't rifles before)
> "battalion"?? whatever the great war infantry would be. what would be the largest force that would attack a WW1 trench? several hundred at once I'm guessing; that'd be a battalion.
> "infantry company"? as opposed to a support company that became more specialized in WW2, like medical, military police, signal, maintenance, etc.
> "combat team"? I think the US now uses the term "combat brigade team" and no longer has regiments per se.
...I'm not sure about these last ones. I just hate the generic term "infantry" as, well, every group of soldiers that attacks something is more or less "infantry"
 
Last edited:
It is worth to remember that there is nothing suggesting Firaxis will create more than one era covering the Early Modern period 1500 - 1800 (which is the dominant 'culturally universal' name for this age btw), so there is probably going to be only one unit to name there, and one for the 19th century 'Industrial era'. I just don't see them finding any reason to create a separate era for 18th century.

I'd simply stay with "musketmen" and "riflemen" as, by Wikipedia, "musket [which appeared in the early 16th century] continued as the generic term for smoothbore long guns until the mid-19th century (...) when rifled muskets (simply called rifles in modern terminology) became common", while "arquebus" has much narrower temporal extent.

Anything more specific would feel more culturally - specific imo
 
I mean, the various sizes of combat units are also terms that have been used for a wide variety of units in game terms. Calling them Battallions or Combat Teams makes no more sense than "Infantry". "Regulars" has pretty similar problems.

And I'd argue that the use of infantry for one specific unit comes very specifically from the diversification of weaponry, tools and specialties among ground forces, which means that any term based on describing their weapons fails. It reflect the much more diversified and integrated nature of infantry in more modern times.

(Besides which, by the same standard, every unit in the game is made up of warriors, yet we keep using warriors for the very early game unit).
 
You can go down the proverbial rabbit hole with this, and never see the light of day again . . .

First. @Evie is exactly right in that no unit title should include Unit Size, like battalion, or regiment, or company, because the size of a single unit Must change during the game: the largest organized ancient unit I have found was the Egyptian Pedjet, of about 1200 men or 250 chariots. By the Classical Era, a single Taxeis of Alexander's pike phalanx was 1600 men. The smallest 'musket' tactical unit from around 1600 CE was the Battalion of 800 - 1000 men. The 'standard' operational basic unit for most of the 20th century (Modern, Atomic, Information Eras) was the division of 10,000 to 25,000 men and heaps of big, expensive equipment as well. Unit sizes in-game, then, need to be kept flexible and therefore Not Mentioned.

Second. The game does not need to be cluttered up with basic units that are not very different in their capabilities and function. In other words, in game terms, the difference between a flintlock smooth-bore musket and a percussion cap smoothbore musket just isn't worth modeling: units armed with both weapons were about the same size (see Battalion above), fought in the same formations, and the weapons had the same rate of fire, accuracy, and range. The percussion cap was far more reliable, especially in wet weather, but a game at Civ's size does not model Weather - it barely models Climate except by the decade or century.

So, the 'gunpowder evolution' of effective gunpowder weapons is:
Arquebus - the first individual man-portable gunpowder weapon that could be aimed - it was the first with a shoulder stock and a mechanism for firing - the matchlock in its various forms.
Musket - a term that was used for everything from a heavy Arquebus, then the last of the matchlocks, then the flintlock - but always a smoothbore, muzzle-loading black powder weapon. The Singularity Event that this term is for, though, is the adoption of both the flintlock firing mechanism, which allowed lines of men to form up shoulder to shoulder for a density of fire over twice as great and the weapon to be reloaded about twice as fast, and the socket bayonet which gave the musket unit a good Anti-Cavalry capability and Melee Factor as well.
Rifle - meaning, in this case, either the 'rifled musket' muzzle-loader that killed most of the casualties in the US Civil War, and the breechloading black-powder rifles that quickly replaced those by the late 1860s and early 1870s in virtually all armies.
Magazine Rifle - the smokeless powder and box magazine rifles of 1890 and later - the weapons that fought World War One and most of World War Two.
Assault Rifle - the fully-automatic weapons that have become the standard infantry firearm of the last 60 years.

Each one of these weapons represented a 100 - 400% increase in rate of fire, or range, or both over the previous weapon. In other words, each one represented an increase of 2 - 4 times in effective Firepower/Combat Power over the previous weapon.

The units that used these weapons don't have exactly the same nomenclature:
Arquebus/matchlock muskets, having virtually no Melee factor (no bayonets) and no anti-cavalry factor, were almost always deployed as part of a mixed formation: "Pike and Shot" in the vernacular, which covers a wide variety of non-gunpowder weapons, all designed to protect the arquebus/matchlock men from being trampled under hoof before they could reload.
Muskets were used by Line Infantry, but also by Light Infantry, 18th century Rangers and Jagers, and Grenadiers. 'Fusil' was the French term for a flintlock musket, and Fusiliers was used to refer to both regular 'line infantry' and special semi-elite units, depending on the time and the army doing the referring. I like Fusilier as a term because it refers specifically to the weapon rather than the function of the unit, which could be in fixed formations, assault forces, or skirmishers.
Riflemen carried rifles. Let's keep it simple.
Infantry had become the generic term for the basic foot soldier by the time the magazine rifle was introduced. This also has the advantage that it includes all the Other Infantry Weapons in those units, staring with modern Machine Guns and by WWII, light mortars, antitank weapons, and light antiaircfraft weapons.

So, overall not much different from the current Civ VI line-up, except for the overdue division between the Arquebus and the Musket/Fusilier, and the recognition that the Arquebus/Matchlock was NOT a Unit, but a component of the Pike and Shot, which should be the Basic Infantry Unit of the period from about 1550 to 1700 CE. The most short-lived of all these was the (black powder) Rifle, which was only in general use from about 1850 to 1890 - 40 years, but caused a massive shift in infantry tactics and techniques compared to everything that had gone before.
 
You can go down the proverbial rabbit hole with this, and never see the light of day again . . .

First. @Evie is exactly right in that no unit title should include Unit Size, like battalion, or regiment, or company, because the size of a single unit Must change during the game: the largest organized ancient unit I have found was the Egyptian Pedjet, of about 1200 men or 250 chariots. By the Classical Era, a single Taxeis of Alexander's pike phalanx was 1600 men. The smallest 'musket' tactical unit from around 1600 CE was the Battalion of 800 - 1000 men. The 'standard' operational basic unit for most of the 20th century (Modern, Atomic, Information Eras) was the division of 10,000 to 25,000 men and heaps of big, expensive equipment as well. Unit sizes in-game, then, need to be kept flexible and therefore Not Mentioned.

Second. The game does not need to be cluttered up with basic units that are not very different in their capabilities and function. In other words, in game terms, the difference between a flintlock smooth-bore musket and a percussion cap smoothbore musket just isn't worth modeling: units armed with both weapons were about the same size (see Battalion above), fought in the same formations, and the weapons had the same rate of fire, accuracy, and range. The percussion cap was far more reliable, especially in wet weather, but a game at Civ's size does not model Weather - it barely models Climate except by the decade or century.

So, the 'gunpowder evolution' of effective gunpowder weapons is:
Arquebus - the first individual man-portable gunpowder weapon that could be aimed - it was the first with a shoulder stock and a mechanism for firing - the matchlock in its various forms.
Musket - a term that was used for everything from a heavy Arquebus, then the last of the matchlocks, then the flintlock - but always a smoothbore, muzzle-loading black powder weapon. The Singularity Event that this term is for, though, is the adoption of both the flintlock firing mechanism, which allowed lines of men to form up shoulder to shoulder for a density of fire over twice as great and the weapon to be reloaded about twice as fast, and the socket bayonet which gave the musket unit a good Anti-Cavalry capability and Melee Factor as well.
Rifle - meaning, in this case, either the 'rifled musket' muzzle-loader that killed most of the casualties in the US Civil War, and the breechloading black-powder rifles that quickly replaced those by the late 1860s and early 1870s in virtually all armies.
Magazine Rifle - the smokeless powder and box magazine rifles of 1890 and later - the weapons that fought World War One and most of World War Two.
Assault Rifle - the fully-automatic weapons that have become the standard infantry firearm of the last 60 years.

Each one of these weapons represented a 100 - 400% increase in rate of fire, or range, or both over the previous weapon. In other words, each one represented an increase of 2 - 4 times in effective Firepower/Combat Power over the previous weapon.

The units that used these weapons don't have exactly the same nomenclature:
Arquebus/matchlock muskets, having virtually no Melee factor (no bayonets) and no anti-cavalry factor, were almost always deployed as part of a mixed formation: "Pike and Shot" in the vernacular, which covers a wide variety of non-gunpowder weapons, all designed to protect the arquebus/matchlock men from being trampled under hoof before they could reload.
Muskets were used by Line Infantry, but also by Light Infantry, 18th century Rangers and Jagers, and Grenadiers. 'Fusil' was the French term for a flintlock musket, and Fusiliers was used to refer to both regular 'line infantry' and special semi-elite units, depending on the time and the army doing the referring. I like Fusilier as a term because it refers specifically to the weapon rather than the function of the unit, which could be in fixed formations, assault forces, or skirmishers.
Riflemen carried rifles. Let's keep it simple.
Infantry had become the generic term for the basic foot soldier by the time the magazine rifle was introduced. This also has the advantage that it includes all the Other Infantry Weapons in those units, staring with modern Machine Guns and by WWII, light mortars, antitank weapons, and light antiaircfraft weapons.

So, overall not much different from the current Civ VI line-up, except for the overdue division between the Arquebus and the Musket/Fusilier, and the recognition that the Arquebus/Matchlock was NOT a Unit, but a component of the Pike and Shot, which should be the Basic Infantry Unit of the period from about 1550 to 1700 CE. The most short-lived of all these was the (black powder) Rifle, which was only in general use from about 1850 to 1890 - 40 years, but caused a massive shift in infantry tactics and techniques compared to everything that had gone before.
Blackpowder rifles since French P1851 to transitional magazine rifles that still used blackpowder ammo or converted singleshot breechloaders like Mauser Modelle1871/84. what are numbers of increased efficiency between Minie rifles and smoothbore predecessors? is it really one time or twice increase? are these potentials tampered by black powder smokes generated after a first volley or outdated military syllabus that hasn't been updated (line infantry commanders still remain familiar with 50 meters range rather than full 100-200 meters and still ordered fellow infantrymen to blind aim at enemy formations rather than individual men? or both?
 
Once the Monroe effect (expanding 'Minie' bullets) was discovered, muzzle-loading rifles could be loaded just as fast as smoothbores, and even with the clouds of black powder smoke their accurate range was 2 - 4 times that of a smothbore. Cartridge-firing Breechloaders, even single shot breechloaders like the Dreyse needle gun, US Sharps or Springfield 45-70 or French Chassepot, could be loaded 2 - 4 times faster, so that in the one major match-up between breechloaders and muzzle-loaders (Koeniggratz in 1866) the casualties inflicted by the breechloaders were 3 times those inflicted by the muzzle-loaders, even when the troops with breechloaders (Prussians) were attacking.
Once smokeless powder (patented 1889 as Cordite) was in production and the dense clouds of smoke disappeared, effective ranges were pretty much as far as you could see a target: massed fire was taught and practiced by companies at enemy groups 800 meters away with rifles (but by the end of the century, they realized that the new machine guns could concentrate fire for this effect much better).
Here are the figures:
Arquebus/Matchlock Musket - 1 man firing for every 1.5 - 2 meters, 100 meter range, 1 shot per minute
Flintlock Musket/Fusil - 1 man firing for every .6 meters, 100 meter range, 2 shots per minutes (sustained)
Black Powder Rifled Musket (muzzle-loading) - density up to .6 meters per man, usually much less, 300 meters range, 2 shots per minute
Black Powder Breechloading Rifle - same density, 300 meters range, 4 - 5 shots per minute (sustained)
Smokeless Powder Magazine Rifle - same density, 500 meters range (average), 15 - 20 shots per minute

In Dupuy's Numbers, Predictions & War. Fairfax, Virginia: HERO Books, 1985, which attempted to 'quantify' historical weapons and effects, he estimated that the flintlock musket was 4 times more effective at causing casualties than the arquebus, the black powder rifle was 2.5 times more effective than the smoothbore, the breechloading black powder rifle 50% more effective than the muzzle-loader (but Koeniggratz seems to indicate at least 2 - 3 times that) and the smokeless powder rifle 3 times more effective than the black powder breechloading rifle.
These figures should not be taken as an absolute basis for relative effectiveness, because a host of other factors also apply, like the level of training, tactics and formations used by the various troops to make the weapons more or less effective, the terrain and weather, leadership at the small-unit level - most of these have to be abstracted, since they are well below the time and distance scale of the game.
 
1. When did infantry tactical shifts took place due to effects of infantry rifles of 1860s?
2. Back to Fusiliers. What option of garments should be in-game uniform? Note that Fallcollar frock coats only match with tricornes while standing collar ones matches better with BOTH Tricornes, Bicornes, and later Shakoes.
Civ6 Redcoats are one of mismatching examples since they wear BOTH Tricornes of 18th Century and Shakoes of early 19th C. (or are there armies that indeed matched fallcollar coats with visored shakoes by 1800-1830s?)
Fusiliers through the ages.jpg

Not really a good scanner uses actually. all of these chaps wore tricornes so to ease off comparisions.
Examples of Redcoats with one mismatched headgear
Civ6 Redcoat Default.jpg

3. Back to the blackpowder rifleman
Is this a correct or acceptable graphical representation of this unit?
Rifleman Redtrim.jpg

 
Last edited:
#3 that is definitely a musket infantryman early 1800s

just some graphical considerations:
when it comes to a line of battle formation at least,
your "fusiliers" are going to be carrying their muskets on their left side with their hands holding the butts
your "rifles" are probably more often than not going to be carrying them on their right with their hands gripped around the trigger guard
why?
it all comes down to the lock which was usually mounted on the right of the gun
those with muskets typically carried their weapon not only loaded but primed; if the gun accidentally went off, the smoke would be blown out to the man's left side and not into his face while he carried it.
those with rifles typically primed their weapon last, right before firing it, so an accidental discharge was impossible, so they just carried it in their shooting hand

you can tell from these images, or search for it yourself:

other than that, the units might look fairly similar besides the hats and whatever jacket you want them to wear (typically some sort of colorful wool)
 
Last edited:
^ Shako is clearly1800-1840s but shirts he's wearing is Shelljacket/ roundabout with no 'tails' nor turnups. the more correcct uniform is tailcoat. In truth this is modified default Fieldcannon crew actually. I'm not sure if there's any fusiliers wearing jackets of aforemented style by that time already.
 
Top Bottom