Gunpowder Warfare: Early Modern and Industrial Era

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

What Amplitude tries to represent Early Modern era actually? While it actually begins Late (1400) compared to Civ6 'standard Renaissance Era Starts'. HK Still plagued with the same histrorical accuracy problems
1. Eh? Did 'Arquebusier' in this game also represents early Handgunners (with hand cannons or even Sinic fire lances invented in 11-12th Century that appears in the Huǒlóngjīng (火龍經 Book of Fire Dragon)? eh? The first efficient 'handguns' that 'changes the game' is Arquebus with triggers and long barrel that appeared much later in the 15th Century.
2. And what Halberdiers actually represents? eh? Halberds are medieval weapons and By the Early Modern, the dominant polearms are Pikes. As per HK combat rules. this setting (separate 'pikeman' and 'arquebusier' units) APPEARS to be valid (and this includes obstruction rules. 'gunner' class unit may not shoot from behind melee or anticavalry units, only right next to each other in the same front line (the only instance possible for gunners to shoot from behind other troops is that this unit stands atop of cliffs which also advantageous because any shooters standing there deals more damage than usual. exploiting 'higher ground advantage' rules) but 'Pikemen' of the Early Modern carry pikes that AT LEAST twice as long as wielder's tall (4-5 meters or maybe more, or even as long as a wielder can still wield) and placed in dense formation. Initially in one pike square, soldiers standing by the rim may be either HALBERDIERS or SWORDSMAN (either sword and buckler, this includes the famous examples--Iberian Rodeleroes, Scottish Clansmen (The unit's actual name, Highlanders were English nicknames of Scottish superior infantry which can be either light infantry or linear infantry, but before then they were a kind of Pike&Shots or any other footsloggers), or Austrian Roundshier (Cossacks 1 & 3 but i'm not sure if Early Modern HRE really uses this kind of swordsmen in battlefield as well), or greatswords like HRE's Landsknechte that included Double Soldiers) to counteract enemy counterparts which were anti-pikemen troops. These extra units however were replaced with arquebusiers OR became pure pikemen as pikes became longer and a block of pikemen square became bigger, charging a pike square with brave swordsmen or halberdiers became impossible. also halberds cannot achieve the same lenght as pikes because bladed tips were much heavier and the weapons will not become wieldy nor can be used entirely.
IF There's an excuse to save Early Modern Halberdiers, why on earth can't Greatswordsmen upgraded to ? funny enough, Greatswordsmen are upgradeable to Naginata Samurai which is Edo's Emblematic Unit that replaces halberdiers (Just because Naginata samurais also use swords as secondary weapon??).
3. And 'Musketeer' unit https://humankind.fandom.com/wiki/Musketeers

While in-game description says.

The first regular troops armed with a gunpowder weapon, their range and stopping power makes up for a slow firing rate.

This is a description of 'Fusiliers' which actually the first 'Line Infantry' because Flintlocks and Socket Bayonets they wield were game changers.
This unit uses flntlock tech, but only few portraits shown them to use actual flintlocks. the European portraits didn't feel like Amplitude artists draw them correctly--dressing in Thirty-Years war fashion rather than Malburian uniforms with cravats, and using 'flintlock' muskets with 'hot matches' clamped to the flint clamp!

^ This is a correct uniform. This also the moment where Pike&Shot formations transits into all gun Fusiliers--The battle of Neerwinden, where there's a report where there were pikes dropped without dead body next to it, which finally news reporter concluded that pikemen in the same p&s formation dropped pikes and looted flintlock muskets and ammo from dead musketeer/fusilier (in 1690 the term 'musketeer' still remain in use in French army to refer to foot soldiers wielding that weapons even if they're actually 'Fusiliers' that have bayonets as well) of the same unit. Yes the Flintlocks have twice or thrice an ROF to matchlock muskets, also the designs to accommodate with bayonets permitted them an anticavalry defensive capability (particularly if deployed in squre formations), and the use of 'flint against steel' ignition system means it is now safer for them to stand shoulder to shoulder, same safety standards were also augmented with haversacks became ammo containers (which paper cartridges were used) instead of Apostle bandoliers used for centuries. To this end, Pikemen (along with halberdiers) became useless. This compelled anyone else outside Europe to stokpile flintlock guns even if they don't understand how to use socket bayonets until the next century, but more guns that can released two or three more shots in the same minutes are still advantageous enough even with these units carried either axes or swords as secondary weapons instead of fixing socket bayonets. as attested in King Rama III's era (Early 19th Century) Wars between Siamese Kingdom and Dai Viet empire (Under Min Mang Emperor). which Siam bought Brown Bess in large numbers from Henry Hunter (British merchant).
Interesting enough. Halberdiers DID NOT upgreadeable to 'Musketeers' unit BUT to Line Infantry of the next era, while Great Swordsmen can become Musketeers. I don't really understand what Amplitude tries to represent this unit ? Did they intend to portray this unit as Malburian fusiliers particularly with the team itself is located in France and should have plenty of times visiting French War Museums or conduct extensive researches on Louis XIV era's army where he created fusiliers as standard elements of French Army.

^ African musketeer portrait

^ Mekhong subcontinent Southeast Asian Musketeer portrait. (Did this unit wears 'Siamese' or 'Burmese' outfit in this variant particularly in the Fall of Ayutthaya and Rise of Thonburi in 18th Century?)

^ Similary lame 'Asian Musketeers' portrait. which can be either Ming or Korean but wearing Imjin war outfit with helmet removed.
4. Why 'Mortar' becomes available AFTER arquebusiers? And where's straight shooting 'Culverins' (or 'Cannons' or 'Bombards' or 'Basillisks'. What should be proper name?) which can exploit the same rule as HOWITZERS (Heavyweapons https://humankind.fandom.com/wiki/Howitzer without non line of sight shootings) but unlockable with the same tech as Arquebusiers?. If 'Cannons/Culverins' is to be a unit, I'd propose a resource prereq- 1 Saltpeter and 1 Iron/copper.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

I'm not qualified to meet you point-for-point on this topic, but I do hope velikiy Boris may steal some time to lend his expertise in military history.

As for 2., purely from a gameplay perspective, the Halberdiers do seem odd to me. For one, they're very robust and have some staying power before the gunpowder shift. On top of that, they take a bewildering three population to train, which makes them good for population sinks and transfers.

Good news is, from the looks of their adapting unit appearance roughly to cultures, Amplitude may just be committed to better unit modeling in the long-run.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I was one of the VIP pre-release commentators/testers on the game and had a discussion on just this subject back a few months before release.

Basically, they made early battlefield gunpowder weapons somewhat more complicated than they had to be, and mis-labeled several of them.

First, for the historical notes: all the early 'hand gonnes' or 'fire lance' or 'Hackbuss' (Hook Gun) weapons were not particularly effective or revolutionary weapons. They had short ranges, were stunningly inaccurate, and fired more slowly than any other weapon except a hand-winched arbalest or heavy crossbow.
The first effective weapon was the Arquebus with a shoulder stock and a trigger mechanism for firing, which meant that the weapon could be aimed and fired by one man. No previous gunpowder firearms had shoulder stocks, only handles or straight-stick stocks, and so were fired, basically, underarm - pointed, not aimed. That development of the shoulder-fired arquebus took place in Europe between 1425 and 1472 - 1425 first certain mention of the Serpentine firing mechanism, 1472 first illustration of a shoulder-fired weapon.
The Musket was originally simply a heavier matchlock arquebus firing a bullet heavy enough to definitively pierce plate armor, and therefore usually fired from a 'rest' or forked supporting stick.
The flintlock mechanism, which did away with having a lit match dangling from your weapon, was adopted between 1660 and 1700 CE. It was originally known as a 'Fusil' and the men called Fusiliers - a term I've been arguing should be used in Civ for years on these Forums.

Now, Humankind starts out with Arquebusiers, but makes them Move or Attack and Gunner, which implies a melee factor which 'real' arquebusiers did not have - no bayonets, and the arquebus was a 15 - 20 pound clumsy club, not much use in a melee against men with pikes or halberd. They should have been Ranged (reduced melee factor) and Move or Attack, which nicely represents the reduced battlefield maneuverability of 6-rank or deeper infantry units of the time.
Then they add Musketeers at the Flintlock Tech, which means they should be armed with Flintlock weapons, or in other words, they are Fusiliers. HK gives them the same Gunner, Move or Attack characteristics as the Arquebusiers, which is Dead Wrong - with socket bayonets that were adopted at the same time as the Fusils giving them an effective Melee factor, and the tighter formations they could use (no lit matches to set your neighbor on fire) they really should be characteristic: Gunner.
Humankind doesn't have Bombards at all, but does have the Mortar, which comes at the right time in the Tech progression to be a Bombard and the illustration for it is of a Bombard, not a fat short-barreled early Mortar! The reason for the absence of the Bombard is that it was a very effective Siege Weapon, but in HK Siege Weapons (up to that time) are built on the spot for sieges, and that was not true of Bombards at all - they represent the first great Siege Trains that encumbered armies for the next 300 years as they were dragged from target city to target city. Including them with any accuracy would require a whole new set of characteristics for a specialized Siege Weapon in the game. Much as I hate not having Bombards and Siege Trains in the game, I understand why they left them out and chose not to encumber the gamer with a whole new Siege mechanic built around one Weapon and Unit.
Halberdiers were included as a Progression for the Spearmen - Pikemen Anti-Cavalry characteristic units, because Humankind does not have Combined Units like Pike & Shot. In fact, with the exception of Englsh Billmen, which were simply Halberdiers with a title that was easier to spell, there were no separate Halberd units IRL: they were always part of other units of Pikemen and other weapons.
But again, Humankind has no Combined Units. Think of the Halberdiers as being something more like the late Pike units of Landsknechts and Swiss that included Great Swords, Halberds, and Pikes in the same unit.

Line Infantry is another dodgy unit: the graphic shows Napoleonic British infantry, so dates to the end of the flintlock era: 1800 - 1820 CE. But that would give it realistically exactly the same factor and characteristics as the Fusilier, so Why Bother? The answer is that it really represents by its placement on the Tech Tree, the black powder riflemen of the 1850s - 1880 CE, so should have a better illustration and be called Rifles

What they call Rifles are by illustration and Tech post-WWI infantry with rifles, machineguns, light mortars, light anti-tank weapons. The only people who called them Rifles was the Soviet Army, and they should simply be labeled Infantry

And finally, because I was a Chief Instructor at the US Army Artillery School for three years I have to add:
Humankind's Siege Artillery is actually 20th century Field Artillery, and the characteristics of Bombard and Suppression accurately describe exactly what artillery has been doing on the battlefield for the past 115 years

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Several more wrongful unit labellings.
1. IF there's no BOMBARD in this game. still why ain't straight shooting 'Cannons' (either tiller guns or trunion culverins or basillisks) exists and exploiting Heavy Weapons rule? Actually 'gunpowder warfare' should include this unit as well.
Tell me about 'cannons' before 1350 please. were these guns a good and decisive field weapons and what actually an artillery used by English Army against French in Battle of Crecy?
2. Did 'gunner' rules actually means bayonets? too bad no 'defensive bonus against enemy cavalry charges' and this bonus shouldn't apply to skirmishers like Irregulars (Equivalent to Civ6 rangers), and Commando (They were so easily flushed out by cavalry charge while Linear Infantry was more resilient to the same attack that it wasn't easy to break Linear Infantry formations without flanking (and without speed to catch them off guard before they forming a square!!)
3. What should be done in any mod?
3.1 I'd say rename Musketeers to Fusiliers.
3.2 Line infantry -> Rifles
3.3 'Rifles' -> 'Infantry'
and should be upgradeable to more modern infantry that has Assault Rifles and Bazookas. There's no ATGM in this game
4. 'Howitzer' is sorely mislabled here as well. what this unit graphically represented is actually Civ6 field cannons. Howitzer should be Mortar upgrades and should inherit no-LOS capability as well (There are discussions that @Boris Gudenuf proposed that Industrial era siege artillery choice should be 'Howitzer'). and this is how this unit actually looks like

Basically a mortar on carriage similiar to cannons but with adjustable barrel that can be aimed high. some Howitzers were even adapted for point defense serving as big shotguns. particularly in American Civil War, where Armored Trains were armed with scattershot-shooting howitzers.

Industrial era unit to add... Fieldgun. using 'howitzer' portrait.

 

[tangjinfeng]

Hello, I'm looking for a suitable model for the modification of civilization, I want to know if the model in humankind is consistent with the portrait?
By the way, this Southeast Asian musketeer doesn't look like Siam or Burma in the 18th century, mainly because his hairstyle（too long） and turban don't look like it. But humankind has a standard Burmese line infantry portrait

 

[killmeplease]

in HK Siege Weapons (up to that time) are built on the spot for sieges, and that was not true of Bombards at all

Actually Ottomans cast bronze bombards at the spot, as Cipolla wrote in the "Guns, Sails, and Empires: Technological Innovation and the Early Phases of European Expansion, 1400-1700"

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Actually Ottomans cast bronze bombards at the spot, as Cipolla wrote in the "Guns, Sails, and Empires: Technological Innovation and the Early Phases of European Expansion, 1400-1700"

Quite right, and my apologies for the omission.

Butt the fact remains that was not the normal practice in Europe, and even the Ottomans had to supply a mass of raw materials and workers to cast on the spot. The fact remains that Bombards suddenly required a whole new mass of paraphenalia, either tr=he weapons themselves or the materials, ammunition, workers, etc for them, to be carried along to the siege site.

This quickly evolved into a Siege Train which was very difficult to transport. Whether you were hauling a 10 ton Bombard or 10 tons of bronze, copper, tin, and artisans to use the material to make a Bombard (as an example, it took several times the weight in firewood, charcoal or coal to heat the metal to cast it), it was still a great mass to transport. Taken overland with the army, it slowed the army to a crawl, and sent separately by river barge or coastal boats (the preferred method, actually) it meant the Siege Train and Field Army became two separate components and the former had to be protected against interference from the enemy Field Army in transit or at the siege site.

Things got a little better after Tartaglio's and Robins' writings and experiments on Ballistics showed how to get the same effect as a massive Bombard using much lighter cannon. After Robins' book New Principles of Gunnery 1742) a long-barreled cannon firing a 24-pound shot could, with better velocity and mass of the projectile, crack a wall as well as a massive Bombard lobbing a 100 pound stone ball - and the 24-pounder could cool off and be fired again in a few minutes, whereas the Bombard took hours to cool down to where it was safe to reload. The Siege Train still existed, but it was much more mobile and consisted of lighter pieces some of which could also be applied to a regular battlefield - famously, Frederick the Great used two 24-pounder cannon at Lützen to blow the Austrians out of a village, and Marlborough's artillery commander, Holcroft Blood, used 22 24 pounders as a grand battery at Rameilles to blow a gaping hole right through the middle of the French Army. Frederick summed up the change with his comment:

"Never forget your Dogs of War: the big guns!"