French special unit - Musketeer SUCKS

[rutiger53]

The French special unit is the Musketeer, (3,4,1). It has one more hit point than the Musket Man unit, (2,4,1), it still requires the special resource, Saltpeter and it costs the same.

This is CRAP!!:slay: A TOTALLY USELESS UNIT!

You don't get this unit till the middle game so it's extra hit point is no help in attacking fortified units on it's own. In Civ2 I used these Musket guys as city defenders and they'll probably do the same in Civ 3. Adding an extra defensive point would make them alot better or they could reduce the building cost so they're cheaper. I'm probably going to have to edit their abilities along those lines to make them useful.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by rutiger53
The French special unit is the Musketeer, (3,4,1). It has one more hit point than the Musket Man unit, (2,4,1), it still requires the special resource, Saltpeter and it costs the same.

This is CRAP!!:slay: A TOTALLY USELESS UNIT!

You don't get this unit till the middle game so it's extra hit point is no help in attacking fortified units on it's own. In Civ2 I used these Musket guys as city defenders and they'll probably do the same in Civ 3. Adding an extra defensive point would make them alot better or they could reduce the building cost so they're cheaper. I'm probably going to have to edit their abilities along those lines to make them useful.

Gimme a
E
D
I
T
O
R
!

Go on, change it!!

 

[sekong]

Well, you have to know how to use them. Put them in army , and see what's the difference.

Originally posted by rutiger53
The French special unit is the Musketeer, (3,4,1). It has one more hit point than the Musket Man unit, (2,4,1), it still requires the special resource, Saltpeter and it costs the same.

This is CRAP!!:slay: A TOTALLY USELESS UNIT!

You don't get this unit till the middle game so it's extra hit point is no help in attacking fortified units on it's own. In Civ2 I used these Musket guys as city defenders and they'll probably do the same in Civ 3. Adding an extra defensive point would make them alot better or they could reduce the building cost so they're cheaper. I'm probably going to have to edit their abilities along those lines to make them useful.

 

[Stuie]

Originally posted by rutiger53
The French special unit is the Musketeer, (3,4,1). It has one more hit point than the Musket Man unit, (2,4,1), it still requires the special resource, Saltpeter and it costs the same.

Luckily I never use the French... but you're right! What's the use of adding 1 to Attack for a unit which gets all of its value from its ability to defend? Especially in mid-game where other units have come and gone that have better Attack values. Maybe if the unit didn't require any resources to build..... think that's one for the editor.

 

[LoneWolf5050]

Not a bad combo. The only foot unit from the same rough time period, which has a better attack (4), is the longbowman, and the Persian Immortal. Therefore, the musketeer can be used as a swordsman, but you can expect it to sustain attacks in the field better because of its defense rating of 4.

The regular mustketman, on the other hand, attacks only at 2. So it would be next to useless as an attacker, since even old swordsman are better. So with gunpowder, the French get the best defensive unit of the day (musketman/musketeer), but for them it can also double as an attacker. Doesn't seem that bad to me.

Check out my full unit comparison chart in this thread for more details (neatly divided into foot, mounted, artillery, air and naval):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7359

Of course, the Persian Immortals are way better. They attack as strongly as knights or Riflemen, but you only need iron working to build them!

--LW

 

[Schnitzelnator]

Originally posted by LoneWolf5050
Unthoughtout nonsense

You are comparing a musketeer to a swordsman?

HELLOOOO?

"I think the panzer makes a much better defender than the spearman."

Do you see your error?

 

[Matte979]

Just to inform you of Net Etiquett.. Capital letters should only
be used when screaming. You don't use SUCK and those words if
you wannt to be taken as a respectable person.

Just my five cent.. You have a valid point though. Just be civlized about it.

 

[Schnitzelnator]

Originally posted by Matte979
Just to inform you of Net Etiquett.. Capital letters should only
be used when screaming. You don't use SUCK and those words if
you wannt to be taken as a respectable person.

Just my five cent.. You have a valid point though. Just be civlized about it.

I DID NOT ASK FOR YOUR OPINION.

 

[LoneWolf5050]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough....

unit -- A/D/M

Swordsman -- 3/2/1
Musketman -- 2/4/1
Musketeer -- 3/4/1

So, uh, a Musketeer defends like a mustkeman, but attacks like a swordsman.

--LW

 

[rutiger53]

Originally posted by LoneWolf5050
Not a bad combo. The only foot unit from the same rough time period, which has a better attack (4), is the longbowman, and the Persian Immortal. Therefore, the musketeer can be used as a swordsman, but you can expect it to sustain attacks in the field better because of its defense rating of 4.

The regular mustketman, on the other hand, attacks only at 2. So it would be next to useless as an attacker, since even old swordsman are better. So with gunpowder, the French get the best defensive unit of the day (musketman/musketeer), but for them it can also double as an attacker. Doesn't seem that bad to me.

Of course, the Persian Immortals are way better. They attack as strongly as knights or Riflemen, but you only need iron working to build them!

--LW

I don't agree that the Persian Immortal and the Roman legionary are from the same time period as the Musketeer but putting that aside, those units only cost 1/2 as much to build as a Musketeer. The Japanese special unit, the Samurai, hich comes from the same general period, not only gets one more defense point than a Knight, it also needs fewer strategic resources, (it doesn't require horses).

I don't think the French are the only Civ to be ripped off in their assigned special unit but maybe I should give them more of a workout before complaining about them.

QUOTE]Originally posted by sekong
Well, you have to know how to use them. Put them in army , and see what's the difference.

[/QUOTE]

By the way Lonewolf, I want to thank you for making the unit Comparision Chart. Beats the H*** out of what you get with the game.

 

[LoneWolf5050]

Historically, no, not the same time period! : ) But in the game, I'm in the industrial era right now with the Persians, and I can still build Immortals, and since they attack better than musketmen, I'll still build them (though knights are king right now since they're faster).

So, yes, Immortals are from an earlier era, but you can build them the whole game I think. They aren't upgradable to anything, so I think they stay with you as long as you have the required resource. Likewise, the regular swordsman (and the Legionaire) don't upgrade to anything either, so I think you can still build them when you get musketmen/musketeers.

And yes, I think the Samurai is a kick ass unit! Gotta try those Japanese sometime.

Glad you like the chart! : ) For those that don't know, it's in this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7359

Real unit and terrain stats, neatly organized, since the manual is out of date and hard to refer to (won't lie flat, units not organized by type, etc).

--LW

 

[Schnitzelnator]

Originally posted by LoneWolf5050
Maybe I wasn't clear enough....

unit -- A/D/M

Swordsman -- 3/2/1
Musketman -- 2/4/1
Musketeer -- 3/4/1

So, uh, a Musketeer defends like a mustkeman, but attacks like a swordsman.

--LW

Maybe I wasn't clear enough....

Musketeer -- 3/4/1
Knight -- 4/3/2

So, uh, a knight is a faster and stronger attacker than the defensive unit Musketeer, thus rendering your point null and void.

--Schnitzelnator