I really hope they add a line infantry unit..

[pokeravi]

between the musketman and the rifleman. I noticed that all of the civ games lacked this unit even though line infantry was the staple of European armies from the 1650s to 1850s. The game usually just skips it and goes from musketman to rifleman which is historically inaccurate. Heck some of the unique units like the redcoat and minuteman are actually types of line infantry even though they replace the musketman or rifleman.

 

[Heinage]

Because of tech progression and balance. There's no need for yet another melee unit between the musket and rifle.
The game makes major leaps of thousands of years between Club wielding Warriors and iron sword wielding swordsmen, and that's not a problem for you?
What you're suggesting is adding too much detail and specifics to an unnecessary part of tech, warfare, and units, and would only serve to imbalance the tech tree.

 

[iRule]

Not to mention that you have Great War infantry and Infantry - which is based around WWII infantry. If you have that, it doesn't make much sense not to have line infantry. Then again, we ought not to expect that because they're not adding it.

 

[Arachnofiend]

This would require a complete overhaul of the tech tree; they'd need to widen it to include an Enlightenment Era. The time before a melee unit goes obsolete is already too small as it is without that.

 

[iRule]

Yeah, you have a point.

 

[Zednaught]

I don't get it.

Isn't the musket essentially the weapon that line infantry used? How is that historically inaccurate? They seem quite like musketmen to me.

If anything, perhaps you're looking for an earlier gunpowder user, like an arquebusier.

 

[Yzman]

I don't get it.

Isn't the musket essentially the weapon that line infantry used? How is that historically inaccurate? They seem quite like musketmen to me.

If anything, perhaps you're looking for an earlier gunpowder user, like an arquebusier.

Yeah from what I just read they used muskets. The tech tree makes sense as it is now.

 

[j51]

Yeah from what I just read they used muskets. The tech tree makes sense as it is now.

It makes more sense, but it's less fun. They should have gone arquebusier to line infantry to - infantry. They skipped the most colorful period of warfare.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It's all a moot point anyhow. We've seen the tech tree. The game ships in a matter of weeks. There is no way they are putting in any more features into BNW.

Go post it in the ideas forum. BNW is a locked box at this point.

 

[ehecatzin]

This would require a complete overhaul of the tech tree; they'd need to widen it to include an Enlightenment Era. The time before a melee unit goes obsolete is already too small as it is without that.

Completely agree, Enlightment era is something I would like to see in a third expansion, but as it is right now? it wouldnt make much sense to cram line infantry just for the sake of having it.

 

[Tsar NicholasII]

It would be more accurate than having separate units for WWI and WWII Infantry. Infantry units who went into both wars with literally the exact same weapons they went into the last war with.

Line Infantry would be different from the Musketman in that Line Infantry is using Flintlocks with Socket Bayonets whereas Musketman are armed with Matchlocks and have to rely on Pikeman to provide cover against Cavalry charges. Musketry had major advances from 1600 to 1700 and the game doesn't represent that at all but they are fine with representing the Land Ship? A unit that only 2 countries bothered to develop and only 1 of them mass produced them?

 

[seancolorado]

It would be more accurate than having separate units for WWI and WWII Infantry. Infantry units who went into both wars with literally the exact same weapons they went into the last war with.

Only partially true. Yes, certain weapons were the same (E.g. Springfield rifle for American soldiers) but for the most part there was plenty of overhaul and upgrade going on as well

 

[Tsar NicholasII]

I don't get it.

Isn't the musket essentially the weapon that line infantry used? How is that historically inaccurate? They seem quite like musketmen to me.

If anything, perhaps you're looking for an earlier gunpowder user, like an arquebusier.

The difference is in Matchlock and Flintlock muskets.
Matchlocks were common in the early days when guns were first starting to make their impact in war. They were slow, unreliable, cumbersome and had to rely on Pikemen to defend them from Cavalry and Melee charges. From around the late 15th century till late 16th century. Arquebusier is an example of a Matchlock musket. Examples:





Flintlocks were developed around the turn of the 18th century along with the socket bayonet which meant that muskets were lighter, more reliable, faster to reload, more accurate and didn't have to rely on Pikeman for defense in melee combat. With Flintlock muskets, every soldier could be and was equipped with a firearm. The Seven Years War, US War of Independence, French Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars etc. were all fought with Flintlock muskets. Examples:

 

[Tsar NicholasII]

Only partially true. Yes, certain weapons were the same (E.g. Springfield rifle for American soldiers) but for the most part there was plenty of overhaul and upgrade going on as well

And I respect that they put them in the game. The point I was trying to make is that others were brushing off the Line Infantry idea by claiming that they used muskets and we already have a musket unit. Musketry went through huge changes that took centuries to develop and these guys didn't want that to be represented but they are o.k. with the small transitions from WWI to WWII Infantry.

The U.S., Britain, Russia, France, Japan, Italy & essentially Germany all started the war with the exact same model of rifles that they used in WWI.

 

[Yzman]

And I respect that they put them in the game. The point I was trying to make is that others were brushing off the Line Infantry idea by claiming that they used muskets and we already have a musket unit. Musketry went through huge changes that took centuries to develop and these guys didn't want that to be represented but they are o.k. with the small transitions from WWI to WWII Infantry.

The U.S., Britain, Russia, France, Japan, Italy & essentially Germany all started the war with the exact same model of rifles that they used in WWI.

I think its important to look at time scales as well. Later on in the game the time intervals start getting smaller significantly. The musket and GW infantry units are not supposed to be representing the same periods of time.

 

[ptoss1]

I want bronze swordsmen.

 

[Tsar NicholasII]

I think its important to look at time scales as well. Later on in the game the time intervals start getting smaller significantly. The musket and GW infantry units are not supposed to be representing the same periods of time.

I know that but does the 20th century really need 3 different types of Infantry while the 16th - mid 19th centuries only get 1? Especially considering what I've stated before that most armies went into both world wars with the same infantry weapons? The game has so many 20th century units that the late game is pretty much a WWII strategy game than a history simulator. Some of us want to get the feeling of leading our nations through the times of Napoleon, the American Revolution and such but the game has no representation of that. It skips from 16th century Pike & Shot formations to 1850's Minie ball rifles. There are so many techs from the 20th century that you don't actually get all the tech that they had in the 30's until the 1960's and 70's.

 

[Bisqit]

I'm pretty sure we're set on units. I think first musket and rifle units sufficiently fill this role.

 

[Tsar NicholasII]

Certainly this would require a new era to be added to the game (which won't be in BNW) but we can be hopeful for a 3rd expansion

 

[Olleus]

This would require a complete overhaul of the tech tree; they'd need to widen it to include an Enlightenment Era. The time before a melee unit goes obsolete is already too small as it is without that.

This. The current renaissance era and even some of the industrial era 'feel' more like enlightenment. I mean, that's when religion started fading in the west, not during the renaissance (which was more religious than ever!). Not to mention that the all the military units of the time feel awkwardly between two different periods which are drastically different.

This bizzare oddness gets inherited by having a modern era that ends with the second world war. Honestly, the tech tree is the one thing G&K got pretty wrong.