I really hope they add a line infantry unit..

[Olleus]

This is probably not the place for this, but I would like to see the melee line something like this:

Warrior -> swordsman -> longswordsman (-> Musketman) -> Line Infantry -> Rifleman -> Infantry -> Mechanised Infantry -> Robotic/Enhanced Infantry

The musketman would represent everything from the Arquebuse up to (but not including) the bayonet. That is, it would go more or less up to the English Civil War. It is in brackets because it would be a somewhat specialised unit dealing in anti melee, while still being vulnerable to cavalry (think of the pre expansion or Civ4 musket).

The line infantry would be everything from the socket bayonet to the mass adoption of breech loading weapons. That is, it epitomises the American War of Independence and the Napoleonic Wars. In game, it would be a general purpose melee unit, quite similar to the current musketman but a little stronger. Clearly, the tech tree would need shuffling to fit this in. In general, it would be a unit that most players could avoid, but that you might want to beeline to if you're playing a warmongering game in this era.

The rifleman is pretty much as is in the game. For the late American Civil War to the Boer war, it is breech loading rifled weapons.

Infantry would be what GW infantry is, the infantry used in WW1 and 2 consisting of repeating fire weapons. Got rid of the duplicate infantry and GW infantry.

Mech infantry would be just post WW2, or even late WW2, and represent the use of armoured and armed personnel carriers, as well as (semi)automatic weapons. Also represents current infantry used in the West

Robotic or Enhanced infantry (need a better name) would be a near future unit. Represents the use of drones and "smart" rifles, as well as the increasing use of heavy armour in infantry units.

 

[Tsar NicholasII]

This is probably not the place for this, but I would like to see the melee line something like this:

Warrior -> swordsman -> longswordsman (-> Musketman) -> Line Infantry -> Rifleman -> Infantry -> Mechanised Infantry -> Robotic/Enhanced Infantry

The musketman would represent everything from the Arquebuse up to (but not including) the bayonet. That is, it would go more or less up to the English Civil War. It is in brackets because it would be a somewhat specialised unit dealing in anti melee, while still being vulnerable to cavalry (think of the pre expansion or Civ4 musket).

The line infantry would be everything from the socket bayonet to the mass adoption of breech loading weapons. That is, it epitomises the American War of Independence and the Napoleonic Wars. In game, it would be a general purpose melee unit, quite similar to the current musketman but a little stronger. Clearly, the tech tree would need shuffling to fit this in. In general, it would be a unit that most players could avoid, but that you might want to beeline to if you're playing a warmongering game in this era.

The rifleman is pretty much as is in the game. For the late American Civil War to the Boer war, it is breech loading rifled weapons.

Infantry would be what GW infantry is, the infantry used in WW1 and 2 consisting of repeating fire weapons. Got rid of the duplicate infantry and GW infantry.

Mech infantry would be just post WW2, or even late WW2, and represent the use of armoured and armed personnel carriers, as well as (semi)automatic weapons. Also represents current infantry used in the West

Robotic or Enhanced infantry (need a better name) would be a near future unit. Represents the use of drones and "smart" rifles, as well as the increasing use of heavy armour in infantry units.

except I think that Mech infantry is more of the 1960's infantry with heavily armored APC's and the standardization of assault rifles. I do think that GWI and WWII Infantry shouldn't be two separate units.

 

[ScottMcPwn]

This is probably not the place for this, but I would like to see the melee line something like this:

Warrior -> swordsman -> longswordsman (-> Musketman) -> Line Infantry -> Rifleman -> Infantry -> Mechanised Infantry -> Robotic/Enhanced Infantry

The musketman would represent everything from the Arquebuse up to (but not including) the bayonet. That is, it would go more or less up to the English Civil War. It is in brackets because it would be a somewhat specialised unit dealing in anti melee, while still being vulnerable to cavalry (think of the pre expansion or Civ4 musket).

The line infantry would be everything from the socket bayonet to the mass adoption of breech loading weapons. That is, it epitomises the American War of Independence and the Napoleonic Wars. In game, it would be a general purpose melee unit, quite similar to the current musketman but a little stronger. Clearly, the tech tree would need shuffling to fit this in. In general, it would be a unit that most players could avoid, but that you might want to beeline to if you're playing a warmongering game in this era.

The rifleman is pretty much as is in the game. For the late American Civil War to the Boer war, it is breech loading rifled weapons.

Infantry would be what GW infantry is, the infantry used in WW1 and 2 consisting of repeating fire weapons. Got rid of the duplicate infantry and GW infantry.

Mech infantry would be just post WW2, or even late WW2, and represent the use of armoured and armed personnel carriers, as well as (semi)automatic weapons. Also represents current infantry used in the West

Robotic or Enhanced infantry (need a better name) would be a near future unit. Represents the use of drones and "smart" rifles, as well as the increasing use of heavy armour in infantry units.

I agree with this all exept the removal of GWI.
Firstly, the Devs have shown with BNW that they are not willing to remove any already made content from the game.

Secondly, If you're removing GWI then it means you must remove the Land Ship and the GW Bomber aswell.

Third and finally, there were many changes in the way infantry fought from WW1-WW2. In WW1, infantry were only just becoming modernised with basic modern rifles. They mainly fought together in large charges by a General's orders whereas infantry in WW2 had advanced weaponry, although some used rifles still, they were upgraded versions of their predesecors, some were even automatic to a degree. And a very large amount of infantry didn't even used rifles but instead were armed with sub-machine guns. The Infantry unit in Civ is armed with an automatic rifle. During WW2, most armies standardized grenades which was not the case in WW1.

The way war was fought and the way infantry were deployed on the battlefield greatly changed, the transition from GWI-Infantry represents this change.
However, your idea of adding the Enlightenment Era with Line Infantry is one I greatly approve of. To make the whole infantry tradition fit well aswell, the Rifleman should be renamed Rifle Infantry so it's a constant line after the Musketman, it would look like this:
Musketman - Line Infantry - Rifle Infantry - Great War Infantry - Infantry - Modern Infantry (Marine) - Mechanized Infantry

Marine should also be renamed Modern Infantry to fit with the Modern Armour aswell!

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

It's not needed.

In fact, we don't even need 2 world war units, when we don't even have a cold war era unit, when the small arms weapon tech changed a lot more during that era.

The melee line post longswordsman to infantry is too cramped as is.

 

[pilot00]

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?

Why should this be considered a problem? It happened that way. Iron was worked around 1100s for the first time.

 

[SamBC]

Why should this be considered a problem? It happened that way. Iron was worked around 1100s for the first time.

So what were all those Roman legions' swords made of?

Edit: Which is not to say I disagree that thousands of years between clubs and iron swords is wrong - it is wrong. But iron working starting in the 1100s is also wrong.

 

[Yzman]

I agree with this all exept the removal of GWI.
Firstly, the Devs have shown with BNW that they are not willing to remove any already made content from the game.

Secondly, If you're removing GWI then it means you must remove the Land Ship and the GW Bomber aswell.

Third and finally, there were many changes in the way infantry fought from WW1-WW2. In WW1, infantry were only just becoming modernised with basic modern rifles. They mainly fought together in large charges by a General's orders whereas infantry in WW2 had advanced weaponry, although some used rifles still, they were upgraded versions of their predesecors, some were even automatic to a degree. And a very large amount of infantry didn't even used rifles but instead were armed with sub-machine guns. The Infantry unit in Civ is armed with an automatic rifle. During WW2, most armies standardized grenades which was not the case in WW1.

The way war was fought and the way infantry were deployed on the battlefield greatly changed, the transition from GWI-Infantry represents this change.
However, your idea of adding the Enlightenment Era with Line Infantry is one I greatly approve of. To make the whole infantry tradition fit well aswell, the Rifleman should be renamed Rifle Infantry so it's a constant line after the Musketman, it would look like this:
Musketman - Line Infantry - Rifle Infantry - Great War Infantry - Infantry - Modern Infantry (Marine) - Mechanized Infantry

Marine should also be renamed Modern Infantry to fit with the Modern Armour aswell!

Marines are not (modern) infantry units and the game expresses this. Marines are naval specialty units that are good at naval to land combat.

 

[werothegreat]

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.

Not at all. Technically, "modern" is a specific term that refers to the first half of the twentieth century. Modern art, modern music, all comes from this time. This is why we have the term "post-modern." And the modern era is definitely different from the atomic era, which started pretty much with the end of WWII and the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So G&K got it right.

 

[pilot00]

So what were all those Roman legions' swords made of?

Edit: Which is not to say I disagree that thousands of years between clubs and iron swords is wrong - it is wrong. But iron working starting in the 1100s is also wrong.

Roman swords were made around the third century BC. The Iron age starts at 800BC because it was then that mankind discovered how to work that specific metal. Also it is a recorded fact that Iron (not for weapon crafting) was used by the Dorians at 1100 for the first time in recorded history and it speculated to be the actual reason that they conquered the first Greek civilizations (Mycenaeans as an example), the other been the speculation about the war of Troy (irrelevant to our discussion here)

However you want to dispute them, those are actual historic facts. Search and read about them.

EDIT: Further more you are using the roman swords as an example without having knowledge proper about that weapon. It was not made of Iron but of steel to answer your question.

 

[baptismbyfire]

Roman swords were made around the third century BC. The Iron age starts at 800BC because it was then that mankind discovered how to work that specific metal. Also it is a recorded fact that Iron (not for weapon crafting) was used by the Dorians at 1100 for the first time in recorded history and it speculated to be the actual reason that they conquered the first Greek civilizations (Mycenaeans as an example), the other been the speculation about the war of Troy (irrelevant to our discussion here)

However you want to dispute them, those are actual historic facts. Search and read about them.

EDIT: Further more you are using the roman swords as an example without having knowledge proper about that weapon. It was not made of Iron but of steel to answer your question.

Steel is an alloy composed of iron and several other elements. Use of steel only shows a more advanced ability to use iron in weaponry.

 

[SamBC]

Roman swords were made around the third century BC. The Iron age starts at 800BC because it was then that mankind discovered how to work that specific metal. Also it is a recorded fact that Iron (not for weapon crafting) was used by the Dorians at 1100 for the first time in recorded history and it speculated to be the actual reason that they conquered the first Greek civilizations (Mycenaeans as an example), the other been the speculation about the war of Troy (irrelevant to our discussion here)

However you want to dispute them, those are actual historic facts. Search and read about them.

EDIT: Further more you are using the roman swords as an example without having knowledge proper about that weapon. It was not made of Iron but of steel to answer your question.

Well, someone else took up the point about steel being made from iron, so I'll just add...

It sounds like you're referring to 1100 BC. Usually, when people give a date without an era and without other context, especially in a way suggesting a century (as yours did), they are referring to AD. As such, we may have ended up talking at cross-purposes.

 

[pilot00]

Steel is an alloy composed of iron and several other elements. Use of steel only shows a more advanced ability to use iron in weaponry.

Your point been? The advancement of creating steel alloys doesn't mean that the gap between club and iron is shorter. It means that they had around 500 years since they discovered iron to formulate steel. Given the process by which one advancement leads to another the tech of the time and recorded history and artifacts seems more legit than personal theories to me.

Well, someone else took up the point about steel being made from iron, so I'll just add...

It sounds like you're referring to 1100 BC. Usually, when people give a date without an era and without other context, especially in a way suggesting a century (as yours did), they are referring to AD. As such, we may have ended up talking at cross-purposes.

Rereading my post again I find this reference (on the first line nonetheless): The Iron age starts at 800 BC, so I pretty much give BOTH an era and a date. There is precise context in my posting.

 

[baptismbyfire]

Your point been? The advancement of creating steel alloys doesn't mean that the gap between club and iron is shorter. It means that they had around 500 years since they discovered iron to formulate steel. Given the process by which one advancement leads to another the tech of the time and recorded history and artifacts seems more legit than personal theories to me.



Rereading my post again I find this reference (on the first line nonetheless): The Iron age starts at 800 BC, so I pretty much give BOTH an era and a date. There is precise context in my posting.

I was not making any point about the gap between club and iron or sword. You were stating that a gladius was not made of iron, but steel is largely composed of iron, so that is not correct.

The post to which you refer is also not your first post about the 1100s. Your first post said: "Why should this be considered a problem? It happened that way. Iron was worked around 1100s for the first time." No context given. It seemed you were saying that iron hadn't been used until the 1100s AD. Regardless, obviously that has been cleared up and we can all agree that iron was used in weaponry likely at some point in the 1100s BC by the Hittites, if no one else.

 

[The Leviathan]

Not at all. Technically, "modern" is a specific term that refers to the first half of the twentieth century. Modern art, modern music, all comes from this time. This is why we have the term "post-modern." And the modern era is definitely different from the atomic era, which started pretty much with the end of WWII and the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So G&K got it right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

To return to the original discussion of 'line infantry'.

1. I agree that it ain't going to happen in BNW.

2. I also agree that a revamp of the Tech Tree and especially of the combat unit progressions is long overdue. No Civ game has gotten the actual combat units right yet, and it's long overdue.

First, the original 'game-changing' gunpowder weapon was not the musket or 'handgun', it was the Bombard - a massive and slow-firing cannon that made medieval walls and castles instantly obsolete: in game terms, a Missile Unit like the Battering Ram of the Huns - no ability to attack units (they took hours to load, and the enemy usually will not conveniently stand around waiting for you) but massive factors against cities.

Second, the original 'gunman' for the game is the matchlock-carrying 'musketman'. He has several notable characteristics:
1. He is actually cheaper to equip than the previous 'longswordsman' or crossbowman - a musket barrel is a lot simpler, metallurgically, than fine plate armor, steel long swords, and a spring-steel crossbow,
2. He is very vulnerable to cavalry, since he loads slowly and has no 'pole weapon' to keep the horseman away. Hence, the pike-and-shot combination of pikes and matchlocks that characterized European armies from about 1580 to 1690.

About 1690 increasing numbers of matchlocks got replaced by flintlock muskets, originally called 'fusils' - Fusilier, in fact, is a good term for these units. This had a major change in combat power. Not having a lit match hanging from their weapon, the fusiliers could have much tighter formations - you didn't have to worry about setting you neighbors on fire (or setting off their gunpowder - most distressing) and you could fire faster - reloading without worrying about where the lit match was shaved about half the movements off the drill . That means, for a given number of men, the fusilier unit could deliver 2 - 3 times more bullets per frontage and fire them twice as fast.
The wide adoption of the flintlock also coincided with the adoption of the socket bayonet, so the Fusilier had another major impact: he could defend himself against cavalry.

Therefore, from about 1700 to 1840 the flintlock-carrying fusilier has a great increase in combat factor over the preceding musketman, and also has some of the increase in effectiveness against mounted units that the pikeman had.

That also means that here is where the musket man and the pikeman (the melee and anti-cavalry lines of units) converge - they both Upgrade to Fusiliers, avoiding the idiotic 'lancer' Upgrade of pikemen that we are now stuck with.

The game's Rifleman represents the black powder rifled musket, either breech or muzzle loading. The major factor is that it can be fired as fast as the fusil, but to 3 times or more of the range. It is superseded by the smokeless powder, magazine rifle. This is what the 'Great War Infantry' represents, and it dates from the 1890s, not the 'Great War' of 1914. With smokeless powder and a magazine feeding bullets into the breech, the rate of fire goes up by 100% or more, and the range now is effectively as far as you can see a man-sized target.

After or right at the end of WWI, another change took place. Yes, a lot of armies started WWII with the basic infantryman carrying virtually the same rifle as he had been carrying for the previous 40 years or more, but that's not the point. The point was that now the major killer in the infantry was not the rifle, but the automatic rifle or light machine-gun team in the infantry squad, or the light mortar in the infantry company, or the heavy machine-guns integrated into the company and battalion.

Late in WWII, more and more individually-carried automatic weapons started to appear, like the submachinegun or the assault rifle, but it really wasn't until the late 1960s, or about 25 years after the WWII infantry became common, that every infantryman had an automatic weapon and even small infantry units had shoulder-fired rockets, heavy machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades - more firepower than a 'Great War Infantry' company of 200 men in a squad of 10 men.

So, to sum up, the 'melee line' should look like this:
Ancient Era:
...Warrior
...Spearman ('anti-cavalry')
Classical Era:
...Swordsman, upgraded from Warrior
Medieval Era:
...'Longswordsman', or Man At Arms, Upgraded from Swordsman
Renaissance Era:
...Musketman, Upgraded from Man At Arms
...Pikeman, Upgraded from Spearman
Enlightenment Era:
...Fusilier, Upgraded from either Musketman or Pikeman
Industrial Era:
...Rifleman, Upgraded from Fusilier
...Magazine Rifleman, Upgraded from Rifleman
Modern Era:
...Infantry, Upgraded from Magazine Rifleman
Atomic Era:
...Mechanized Infantry, Upgraded from Infantry

During the Atomic Era, and also not represented well in the game, you also get a proliferation of 'light infantry' with special mobility characteristics: rangers, commandos, Airborne, Air Assault, and so forth, leading to 'future' units like the X-Com and, eventually, one supposes, Heinlein's 'Mobile Infantry'.

 

[Tsar NicholasII]

How would you do the Anti-Mounted line then? Just have the Lancer start as a separate branch or have it be the Enlightenment era Mounted unit that upgrades from Knights?

 

[SYKOJAK]

That latest post by Boris is right on target, concerning the development and evolution of Infantry. Very well thought out and concise. I would just add one little thing to it.

Please remember folks, the more units that get added into the tech tree, the more cluttered it becomes. Assuming most folks play on normal speed. How many of these units
actually get used, little alone built, before they become outdated?

 

[baptismbyfire]

I play on normal speed and generally I barely use the longswordsman, musketeer or great war infantry. But the lack of longswordsmen may be partially due to the issue that the swordsman isn't a particularly useful unit when you can use archers to destroy a city's defenses completely and then have a horseman rush in from outside the city's range and take the city. Once I get to longswordsmen, I usually get to riflemen tech before I really have a chance to build many. The great war infantry, on the other hand, is totally useless and I've gotten to infantry by the time I've been able to upgrade all my riflemen.

 

[Dunkah]

To return to the original discussion of 'line infantry'.

Excellent Post.

Really puts it all together.

May be kind of cool to add it! I'm all in! I always play Marathon speed games, so the more the merrier for me.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

How would you do the Anti-Mounted line then? Just have the Lancer start as a separate branch or have it be the Enlightenment era Mounted unit that upgrades from Knights?

The 'anti-mounted' line would peter out as a separate line after the Enlightenment, because, frankly, cavalry takes on a more specialized role after that. During the 'black powder rifle' wars (American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War, Crimean War) you are hard put to find an instance where cavalry managed a successful attack against enemy infantry or artillery. von Bredow (German cavalry commander) managed to take out some French and Austrian artillery units during the 'German Wars' 1866 - 1871, but his attacks are characterized in most of the histories as 'Death Rides" - gives you a pretty good indication of just how nasty the results were for his own horsemen as well as the enemy gunners.

This is a little off-topic, but I would revamp the entire 'Mounted Line' as follows:

Ancient Era:
Chariot Archer - Mobile Ranged
Heroic Warrior - Mobile Melee
.....this represents the Big Men like the Homeric Heroes or the Celtic/Briton charioteers - only available if you have both horses AND certain Social Policies)

Classical Era:
Light Horse - Mobile Ranged, Upgrades from Chariot Archer
.....Unarmored horsemen throwing javelins, range factor 1, but can move after firing, if you are kind enough to stand still and take it, they can wear you down eventually, harass your flanks, etc. Can also take on Scouting roles if Barbarians are making terrain unfriendly to your less-combat effective scouts.
Horseman - Mobile Melee, Upgrades from Heroic Warrior

Medieval Era:
Jinette - Mobile Ranged, Upgrades from Light Horse
.....Middle Ages javelin-throwers, have better melee weapons/factors, but not the armor of heavier Knights
Knight - Mobile Melee, Upgrades from Horseman

Renaissance Era:
Mounted Arquebussiers - Mobile Ranged, Upgrades from Jinettes
....first attempt to put handgunners on horses: Range 1, move after fire
Cuirassiers - Mobile Melee, Upgrades from Knights
.... Not quite as heavily armored as knights, but more mobile and able to ride down musket men.

Enlightenment Era:
Dragoons - Mobile Ranged, Upgrades from Mounted Arquebussiers
...The neat thing about these Range 1, move after firing units is that they dismount to fire, so enemy pikes, fusiliers, etc. get no bonus against them. They are also considerably cheaper than the Mobile Melee units.
Lancers - Mobile Melee, Upgrades from Cuirassiers
...Anti-cavalry to an extent, but also has a slightly better melee factor against infantry, and more speed than the Cuirassiers.

Industrial Era:
Galloper Guns - Mobile Ranged, Upgrades from Dragoons
...Also called 'Flying Artillery' or Horse Artillery, very light guns, so penalized against cities, but range 2, can retreat from melee like Incan slingers
Cavalry - Mobile Melee, Upgrades from Lancers
...Lower melee factors than Riflemen - horsemen by now are losing their significance against well-armed infantry.

Late Industrial:
Armored Car - Mobile Ranged, Upgrades from Galloper Guns
...Very fast - range 1, move after firing, mobile machineguns, in fact
Landship - Mobile Melee, Upgrades from Cavalry

Modern Era:
Helicopter - Mobile Ranged, Upgrades from Armored Car
...comes late in the Modern Era, after the Tank: Range 1
Tank - Mobile Melee, Upgrades from Landship

Atomic Era:
Helicopter Gunship - Mobile Ranged, Upgrades from Helicopter
...specifically, with long range missiles so has Range 2, anti-armor advantage
Modern Armor - Mobile Melee, Upgrades from Tank.

I will freely admit that this is a lot of extra units, but it solves the current Upgrade Problem, where mounted and 'anti-mounted' units are losing promotions' effects when they Upgrade and change from melee to ranged and back again. Most players or AIs will never build all of them, because they won't need them all the time in every game. BUT it would certainly be handy when facing Genghis and his cavalry hordes to be able to upgrade to Lancers in those games when you are right next to a sea of dark orange at the end of the Renaissance.