(Mod Potential) Alternate Renaissance Melee Unit

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

If you agree with @Boris Gudenuf 's proposals on Civ games unit class, a student of his History for Gaming and Modding classes. or a modder. you'll understood and enjoy a discussion. If you are agreed with current Firaxis unit classifications and rosters. Just observe this thread and please. don't provide any comments favoring current F'xis current unit lists and class systems WITHOUT providing sufficient and sound reasons nor any kind of 'trollings'.

Well the intro is strong but As i'm doing mod, and as April 2021 Patch affects modding environs as well. I have to think over unit names, classes, and functions throughoutly. Not just generic units, but also civ specific UUs as well. Concepts of separate Melee and Anticavalry infantry units are what Boris strongly detested with a couple of strongly valid reasons. Such class distinctions of two types of infantry are... in his, and my opinions, tolerable/acceptable/relevant UNTIL The invention of firearms (or as late as the introduction of Line Infantry which came with Flintlock musketry that can have bayonet attached). With that, Melee and Anticavalry infantry class converged into what in previous Civ games called 'Gunpowder', while I referred to a new class as 'Infantry' and Boris picked the 'firepower' class name.
As I looked back over the past.. again. It might be plausible that distinctions between Melee and Anticav MIGHT STILL be relevant in the Renaissance era as well. which I don't really agree fully as per historical accuracy how units did actually fight. this because. When Pike and Shot did exists in this era and actually fits well in Gunpowder converged class. There were still dedicated Renaissance era MELEE shock troops.. either swordsmen, bladers, or any other similiar units originated in this era or still recruited and trained. (But not Musketeers, Boris did even cited a solution if Gunpowder converged class is to be introduced, Musketmen should be short ranged unit similiar to Chinese Crouching Tiger but upgraded to Line Infantry (he favors Fusilier name instead, but since the April patch picked Line Infantry name it should be used) which should be definitely Gunpowder converged class. The other unit affected by this class reorganization is Conquistador. If the distinctions between Melee and Anticav remains valid in Renaissance, there can be possible alternative to keep Conquistadores as Melee. yet this also means generic renaissance melee unit should be invented in place of Musketmen.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/pikemen-reclassifications.668016/#post-16043577
^ Boris comments over Melee and Anticav distinctions. and his clear message cited that distinctions between Melee and Anticav ceased to be relevant in Renaissance era, with Pike&Shot is the first unit in the converged class. Actually I agree with him on this. but modding requires better solutions than just <delete ....> or <update ...> <replace...> units that no longer relevants.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/musketman-revised.654460/#post-15660308
^ Boris opinions on Musketmen which he clearly cited that they ain't no real MELEE unit AT ALL (Disagreements with F'xis), he even hinted a valid solution of this unit for modders as well.

Still.
There were 'Renaissance swordsmen' as well.
1. Rodeleroes.

The so called 'Swashbuckler'. This unit came from Age of Empires and actually formed a core of Early Conquistadores (Which one theory regarding to their origins actually came from Castillan campaigns to conquer Granada and its domain (Final stage of Reconquista in the 15th Century, something that their Iberian rival--Portugal--had already finished and about to begin their quests for Spiceland alternative trade route). Rodeleroes were 'evolved' in Italian Wars (their swordsmanships and swords) and even was one the three mixtures of Spanish Tercios in the early stages.
2. Roundshier

Austrian UU from Cossacks I and III games. Actually the SAME as Rodeleroes (I'm not sure if they were actually employed by Austrians, Holy Roman Empire, or anyone else by 17th Century (Settings of the Cossacks Games)
3. Scottish Clansmen

^ This is what I like most about Scottish (Should be their UU actually). Their swordsmen charged up English Redcoats (Shoudn't be tied to Vicky actually). They might also be called 'Jacobites' but not every Scottish clans joined up the Rebellion (which instigated by Louis XIV of France, to install his puppet and made Britain a vassal to France, something The Parliament knew too well so they created Glorious Revolution to save their country), some clans did fight alongside Redcoats against rebellions too!
There was an instance that this archaic swordsmen did won a battle over tech superior redcoats.

3 Various light swordsmen in Islamic world and in Asia.
And this included Moro berserkers in 1900s when they fought well against US Marines. American encounters with these swordsmen did prove two things
3.1 generic double action revolver that used .38 special rounds sucks.
3.2 Krag Jorgensen repeater rifle is obsolete.
And this was a pivotal moment in American firearms history as well. Eventually Springfield M1903 'Carbine lenght' rifle replaced Krag, and later M1911 (and improved A1 variants which became common shortly) that uses .45 ACP replaced S&W M10 that used .38 special.

But these were IMAO rare units. not particularly common. Not sure if these units should be included as well.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Not going to vote on this, because in a way I already have! But some comments on this and other speculation about Units in the game.

Having just spent a week playing the Humankind Victor Open Dev game (and taking copious notes) I realized that the type of combat resolution you use in-game dramatically affects the types of units and how you depict them. In that game, battles are fought on a separate tactical map, not the main game map. Therefore, a stack of 4 to 8 or more units 'spreads out' into a 1UPT layout on a tactical map that takes up 1 tile of the game map. There are, therefore, no 'mixed' units: Pike & Shot are separate pikemen and arquebusiers or musketeers. A unit like the late Tercios with pikemen, musketmen and swordsmen is one unit of each on the tactical map.

So, this discussion really revolves around the iv system of trying to depict tactical combat on a strategic map, in which units are 'classed' into categories because many of the intricacies of their interaction on the battlefield have to be depicted at a much grosser level.

Case in point is any 'melee' unit in Renaissance armies. There were a lot of them, ranging from halberdiers or 'great swordsmen' mixed in with pike blocks in Swiss, German, or Spanish armies, Spanish 'sword and buckler' (Rodeleros) mixed in with Tercios of pikes and muskets, and even the early French Grey and Black Musquetiers, who were ostenibly heavy cavalry (the colors referred to the color of their horses) but fought equally well on foot with muskets and swords.

But despite the proliferation of 'melee' types of infantry units, note that they were all parts of other units. Nobody fielded entire blocks or units of swordsmen, except in very special cases like the Scots clansmen on the edge of Europe. And, although many pike & shot units as mentioned above included some kind of melee sub-unit in them, by the beginning of the 17th century those had all disappeared. All the infantry units of the major armies of Europe after 1600 - the Dutch 'battalions', the Swedish 'squadrons' and brigades, the Spanish and German Tercios, were all composed exclusively of pikemen and musketmen (with the Swedes adding the first light 'direct support' artillery to their infantry units).

In addition, all the many swordsmanship manuals that have survived from this period are instructions for individual sword fighting - not as part of any large military unit. Swords remained immensely influential weapons throughout the period, but as symbols of aristocracy and individual weapons, not as the mainstay of any military formation.
The reasons are clear: a swordsman is helpless against a charging pike block - he gets out of the way or he is spitted before he gets within reach of anything with his sword. He cannot defend himself against a charging cavalryman, either - again, he gets out of the way or he gets knocked flat by the horse and finished off by an enemy sword. Against a musket, he has to cover 50 - 100 meters of 'deadly ground' to use his weapon at all, and his only hope is that all the muskets facing him are unloaded so that he has time to do that - and all the musket/arquebusier drills were designed to avoid having all the weapons unloaded at the same time - exeunt swordsmen all, as Shakespeare's stage directions would say . . .

So, in Civ-style combat resolution, there are no 'melee' units in the Renaissance/Early Modern Era, except for Unique Units like Scottish Highland clans. There are Anti-Cavalry infantry like English Billmen (form of halberd) or Swiss Pikemen or German Landsknechts (with sometimes higher factors because they include some halberds or great swords) but no separate Melee units to be run over by charging pikes or heavy cavalry.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ And if Conquistadores are to stay as melee. and if the distinctions between Melee and Anticav ends at the Renaissance Era (Yes I refer to Civ6 system which i'm working on rightnow).
What should be their solutions rather than write them off.? In addition of adding 'Colonial' ability (heals faster outside home continent). Recruitment methods? Should they be 'purchase only' units?

Historical wise. Conquistadores operated entirely outside Europe or even Eurasia supercontinent. They maybe formed in Spain but never fight anywhere in Europe.
Modding wise. Conquistadores will become orphaned as Men at arms will be upgraded to Pike and Shots along with (medieval) pikemen.

(Actually Conquistadores are equally pseudo units as 'Musketeers being melee')

PS: This reply is also a question to Melee UU of the renaissance era (Proposed scottish clansmen) that under this setting, will begin orphaned (not upgraded from any units), any solutions to these orphaned unit.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

On Conquistadores: they actually were armed just as the early Tercios were, with the exception of the pikes, which simply aren't much use in small groups and rough country. The rest of their normal weapons: swords, halberds, arquebus/muskets, were the weapons of the Tercio minus pikes. Since they combined melee combat with relatively light equipment (many of them in MesoAmerica, in fact, traded their metal armor for 'native' quilted cotton), why not classify them as Recon/Scouts? Think Upgraded Skirmishers with enhanced Melee instead of Ranged option, and enhanced capabilities vis-a-vis foreign territory and religion.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

Moderator Action: Quote and comment deleted. Please do not troll other posters. Browd
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Having melee and anticavalry converge into a single "gunpowder" class worked great in Civ4 and would have been just fine in Civ5, probably better than having those stupid Lancers. However, Civ6's promotion system makes such a convergence an impossible dream, a game design fantasy. Is the promotion system good? Probably not, Civ6 has a pretty garbage unit system, but you can't change unit classifications like that without an accompanying mechanical overhaul.

Replacing musketmen with doppelsoldner's or whatever also doesn't reflect the introduction of gunpowder to warfare. Are units armed purely with muskets purely historical? No, but neither is not having muskets. Since Civ6 does not have detail unit arming mechanics, you need to pick the best artistic abstraction and having a musketman unit is the best choice to me.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ Actually there's much more ambitious, and serious Civ6 modding project than what i'm doing rightnow. WHICH IMPLEMENTES @Boris Gudenuf 's proposals long before I even joined Modding Wulin.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/gedemons-civilization-development-thread.615222/
And I did test unit class transitions in Civ6 moddings before. It is possible (No game crashes) but not optimal (No 'reskillings').

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Realistically probably none.
Pike and Shot could be moved to Gunpowder to reflect the emergence of muskets, while Man at Arms could easily continue to be a melee unit until Line Infantry is researched. The term Man at Arms was used during the Renaissance anyway.