Gving the Musketeer a 25% melee Bonus

[Genv [FP]]

Yes or No? I think it would be historically accurate, and make the musketeer useful

 

[AmazonQueen]

Even if Musketeer could do with a boost (which I have no opinion on having not used it a lot) 25% bonus to melee would be too much.

 

[SenhorDaGuerra]

i agree, i think 2 movement i a bit weak.

 

[kniteowl]

I don't consider it weak. It's pretty reasonable... do you guys also consider the Zulu Impi Weak? As it has a similar bonus.

You're proabaly not leveraging it properly, have you tried combining it with Mounted units and Spies?

The fast movement allows you to travel to cities quickly and the Spies forcing Cities into Revolt should help you captue those weaker secondary cities.

 

[champ82]

The more I play BTS and the more I read these boards, the more I realize how many angles there are. To me, the musketer does seem rather weak, but a +25% to vs. melee seems a bit too much. Musket men have a short shelf life for me, I make it a point get rifling shortly afterwards – as I consider rifling to be one of the top 5 milestones (railroad and three others I haven't decided on making it to the list.)

So before rifleman I usually have stacks of pikeman, knights or preferably crusaiers, trebuchets, and crossbowman – I'm not so much into macemen like many people on the forum.

BUT consider this. If your greatest unit is knight and you discover gunpowder, having squads of knights/musketeers could be great for cleaning up pesky pillagers in your territory (or perhaps being the pesky pillagers.) The pikeman will lose to the musketeers and everything else will lose to the knight. Not enough of an edge to likely be a good invasion force, but with enough trebuchets you should be good to go. At any rate mobility can be huge, especially when infrastructure is not completed or pillaged or if an invader has you outmatched number wise for the time being.

The same thing applies to the impi and horse archers. Axemen shouldn't be a problem, especially if you have some chariots left over, and you can go toe to toe with any swordsman, plus you'd have a huge bonus against catapults.

.There's always an angle, but obviously some UU and Ubs are better than others.

As for realism? I'm not quite sure, I don't know much about battles in the musket era, but armies weren't completely composed of musketmen, and it wasn't just because of a lack of resources. Many a samurai and archers killed many a musketmen through out the ages.

 

[Mercenary82]

I think its strong enough as it is. I've been playing all 3 French leaders a lot more in BTS, and they are all powerful, especially De Gaulle.

 

[Bonescorpion]

I think extra first strikes would be more appropriate. If you think of any musket vs melee combat the muskets will get first shot, but the slow reload times allow any charging combatant to get in close.

I have always found musketman to be more usefull as an upgrade over bowman than any type of melee unit. Good for city/hills/forest defence but much weaker on the offence.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't think a melee bonus appropriate.

First of all, they're good units to begin with. People underestimate musket units - they're great stack d and will beat everything but knights in the field consistently. Musketeers can pick units off and return to the stack, and also have that ability to charge into cities on the first turn or make a nuisance of themselves in other ways. If you run an espionage game you can go in with knights/spies/musketeers and capture land very fast. Remember - they have the cover line open so they're not exactly sissies vs LB's. They can also just get combat and they're not bad.

Melee bonus wouldn't be particularly useful! They already beat melee consistently. They'd be far more dangerous with a first strike or a bonus vs archers (or gunpowder)...however I think buffing them too significantly would make them OP in a hurry. Maybe just hand them a first strike that doesn't upgrade (similar to the keshik) ?

 

[Rusty Edge]

Great topic !

To answer the implied original question , I think musketeers and impis are great. They pillage well, they keep pace with your spy/mounted assault force, and when you capture a city you can upgrade the ones you want to use for garrison duty - so they have a long useful life.

To my way of thinking, this is a musketman issue. Muskets were used for centuries, but there is a big difference between the ones the conquistadores used and the ones Stonewall Jackson's men used. The weapons evolved from matchlocks to wheel locks to flintlocks to percusion locks, greatly improving the rate of fire. Let's not forget the bayonet, which allowed the musketmen to go toe to toe with melee .

I think a free musketman Drill I with replaceble parts is a reasonable way to represent flintlocks. It's just the chance of a first strike afterall, not a first strike.

I also think a free shock promotion with RP or Military Science is a reasonable way to represent bayonets. By this time melee are obsolete, so it's not nescessarily overpowered.

Maybe more people would actually build non-UU musketmen under these circumstances.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Theres a considerable overlap between use of melee and muskets in the game and historically. Pikemen remained a part of European armies until well into the 17th century.

The main use of the bayonet was to defend against cavalry allowing musketmen to operate without protecting pikes. In melee a mounted bayonet is no match for a pike.

 

[Genv [FP]]

In Civ IV, the only units that have bayonets are redcoats.

Riflemen are missing bayonets from their rifles.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Theres a considerable overlap between use of melee and muskets in the game and historically. Pikemen remained a part of European armies until well into the 17th century.

The main use of the bayonet was to defend against cavalry allowing musketmen to operate without protecting pikes. In melee a mounted bayonet is no match for a pike.

I take it you don't have an issue with my Drill I suggestion?

 

[Genv [FP]]

I think the problem with Drill I is that they can promo to Drill II


How about making it a unit bonus instead?

 

[AfterShafter]

Musketeer... Production bonus if you have wine.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I think the problem with Drill I is that they can promo to Drill II


How about making it a unit bonus instead?

That would be better than what we have now.

The reason I suggested the promo approach is that it allows you to differentiate an early musketman/arquebusier from a flintlock era musketman at a glance without giving them seperate graphics.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Musketeer... Production bonus if you have wine.

 

[-FC-Commando]

How about an extra first strike? Bullets ARE faster than arrows so it would be a logical upgrade.

 

[Metal Alloy Man]

Musketeers are a huge advantage when used properly.

 

[AmazonQueen]

That would be better than what we have now.

The reason I suggested the promo approach is that it allows you to differentiate an early musketman/arquebusier from a flintlock era musketman at a glance without giving them seperate graphics.

I agree. An extra first strike with replaceable parts would be good. Not a Drill I promotion because that would open up otter promotions and also be carried over when the unit was upgraded. If it could be modded this way it would be ideal (assuming musketeers do need a boost which as I said I don't know).

edit: Also would the bonus carry on to Rifles extra. I assume not.

 

[D_almighty]

How about an extra first strike? Bullets ARE faster than arrows so it would be a logical upgrade.

A musket vs. a longbow was no contest: a longbowman could fire faster, farther and more accurately. The big issue was the difference in the amount of training required. Benjamin Franklin suggested using longbows in the American militia because it was a superior weapon at the time.