Musketeer Rush

[Joh]

It's all down to playstyle.

As I said - if you don't want to use musketeers and just like to rely on macemen/cats/grenadiers - why play france?

I play huge map sizes on marathon speed, and on these maps, siege warfare is painful. You really notice the extra movement.

Also, as I've pointed out before, you don't bring musketeers to fight even odds, you bring them to fight battles that are stacked in your favour. Not every city is going to have a zillion longbowmen defending it. You use musketeers speed to march through open border territory and attack weak cities from other directions. If you just use musketeers like any other unit and not make use of their special bonus, then of course you're going to lose alot against prepared defences.

The key is still promotions though - if you have 10 musketeers with combat 2 and cover, then they will overwhelm a city defended by just a few longbowmen quite easily. They may not be able to take th ecapital defended by 10 longbowmen, but not every city is going to have 10 longbowmen.

 

[Xerol]

In my experience, the AI doesn't have "just 3 longbows here and there". With the exception of fringe cities, there's usually at least 5 longbows as well as a few other units in each city in the late middle-ages. Then again I just found my CD after it was hiding in my C3C box (I don't know how it got in there) for 4 months, so my recent experience is only 3 games on Noble.

 

[Joh]

People should just try it out.

The people who like going to war as soon as they get musketeers in this thread are the ones who have actually used them. No, I don't think it is really too possible to get musketeers before 1000AD or so, so doubt that you can do a rush to have them around 200 AD without taking sacrifices in other areas that make it worthwhile - the aggressive trait makes for some very nasty axemen, so use them!

But, if they weren't as useful as they are to me, I wouldn't be using them to fight with. It's not a case of trying to find value for a sub-par UU, it's a case of having won games with musketeers. You can say that hammer for hammer, longbows are more effective. But longbows are a very static unit, and it will get very expensive trying to keep enough longbows in each city to ward off a stack of 10 fast moving musketeers.

 

[Mutineer]

Axeman need cooper or Iron, Muskets need nothing.
That is my main reason to fasttrack in that direction, otherwize I would play normally.

 

[acidsatyr]

as much as i'd really like to use muskets, i just dont see them effective at all.
they dont pack great offensive punch, and granadiers are just around corner. As for defending cities..i never build defensive units like archers, long, muskets, etc..
I guess they could be effective if stacked with knights, but even then you need cats really..

 

[Joh]

As I said, try it out

You will find you don't need cats so much.

 

[Oggums]

I do like them, and I use them to pillage, and as defensive units to escort my catapults and knights and to quickly move around for city defense. But this "Musketeers are awesome city raiders" idea, I just personally don't support.

I have tried a couple of games heading straight for muskets, and I'm sure you can get by with this, but I think you'd be better off not doing that and picking up catapults and other techs with a more typical researching approach...and that approach leaves a short window where they are useful, because you'll probably just pick up grenadiers next.

 

[Araqiel]

In my experience, the AI doesn't have "just 3 longbows here and there". With the exception of fringe cities, there's usually at least 5 longbows as well as a few other units in each city in the late middle-ages. Then again I just found my CD after it was hiding in my C3C box (I don't know how it got in there) for 4 months, so my recent experience is only 3 games on Noble.

In this you're off. The AI often has only 3-4 units of various types (usually a spear/axe/catapult thrown in with a couple longbows) in cities that it doesn't feel threatened in. Everything else is put in important cities, like its capital, or ones it feels are threatened.

Often times after I've just gotten military tradition I find myself using my medieval army to siege the border cities the AI has well defended, while my smaller force of cavalry that I'm now pumping out in most of my cities ends up pillaging or taking 3-4 weakly protected cities away from the border. Musketeers I don't think are suited for this however. My test game did not impress me all that much. Again though I play on normal, and I gather most of their proponents seem to play epic or marathon.

 

[GABB]

As I said, try it out

You will find you don't need cats so much.

I never play with Napoleon. I play on Terra/Large/Epic/Prince (the next game will be one difficult up)/Standard number of AI.

I love the challenge and usually try different way than the most of people. Most of people are “cottage spammer” and I manage to win without a single cottage. Reading this post, I was inspired to play with Napoleon.

Some tips:

Consider Barracks + Vassalage + Theocracy (8 XP without combat), this mean 2 more XP to Level 4. With free combat I, this mean 2 more XP for Combat IV (can be doable with only-barbarian fights). After some battles, I think that isn’t difficult to get some “COMMANDO MUSKETEERS” . With +40% vs ALL (12.6) and receiving defensive bonus they can be a nightmare for cottage spammers. Imagine a group of 4 of that C-M entering deep on enemy territory, pillaging Town-Village-Hamlet and Cottage (all in the same turn), surviving the counterattack (gaining XP) and attacking again (or retiring from enemy territory very fast for heal)…

If you pillage enough you can slow your enemies enough to kill them later…

I don’t try this yet. I will report my experience with AI, However I think that can be powerfull versus human players too (cottage spammers )

 

[Oggums]

I would give them March over Commando for pillaging.

 

[Joh]

I just played a game where I did this:

Beelined to gunpowder, slight diversion to code of laws to stop my finances going too bad. Was able to keep my finances afloat by demanding gold whenever I tech traded. Ran my empire at a -50 gold loss for most of the game at 90% research.

Built up a musketeer force and immedietly attacked someone

Traded gunpowder for civil service, music, and some other stuff

Researched liberalism to get nationhood

By now my musketeers had conquered every city in the enemy civ except for the capital. Musketeers can beat longbowmen by just superior numbers. If you have a stack of 10 musketeers, the enemy can't have 10 longbows in each city. If the enemy has three longbowmen defending a city, all you will lose is 3 musketeers. By then the remaining musketeers will be easily able to beat the weakened longbowmen.

Researched military tradition and charged their capital with cavalry, who beat longbowmen just about every time.

Now I'm working on going towards riflemen... once I get them I can upgrade my combat 4 musketeers to an experienced riflemen force. It worked very well.

Macemen weren't really an option in this game because after my 4 ancient era wars I was spending the whole classical and medieval eras just to stay afloat.

 

[vilemerchant]

This seems pretty pointless to me. You might as well just go the russians and beline to Military Tradition. Build a bucketload of cheap horse archers as you approach it, then switch science to zero for a few turns to do mass upgrades to Cossacks.

 

[Joh]

But the russions don't have industrius and aggressive. I also built a fair few wonders and took out the entire chinese civilisaiton using only aggressive warriors...

The point of this game was that I was in war for most of the game - right through from warriors, then axes, then musketeers. The msuketeers filled a gap with which I took 5 cities whilst I waited for cavalry.

Waiting for cossacks would have delayed my continual war.

If the musketeers took out most of a civilisaiton with not too many casualties, then how are they pointless?

 

[vilemerchant]

Fair enough! It certainly sounds like Napoleon suits your style of play so it's not pointless at all. I've never tried a warrior rush but I guess i'm a rather different kind of player. Don't you find your economy gets crippled if you're expanding too much early on? I find myself limiting my earlier wars to securing the resources I want and a few extra cities along the way before holing up to develop the empire and try to get ahead in tech.

 

[Joh]

Well, to maintain the economy I trade for gold and gold per turn.

Liberalism is a dead-end tech that isn't all that good after it's been discovered first, but the AI seems to love it. With that 1 tech you can net yoursself heaps of lesser techs and thousands of gold if you peddle it round to everyone as soon as you discover it.

It was the same after the warrior rush. I traded things like paper for a thousand gold in addition to other techs.

A happyness source like silver also seems to be worth a good 10 gold per turn.

And I just discovered another use for msuketeers with cavalry... defending against war elephents. My cavalry force just got stomped, good thing riflemen are coming up. Musketeers are also good for consolidating your gains overall. A good thing to do is bring a small force of cavalry to take a hill city, then pull them out and send in a holding forece of msuketeers. The enemy AI will waste heaps of units just trying to take it back. I guess you could use normal musketmen, but they can't keep up with the cavalry.

 

[Mutineer]

May be we need to play a few games and post them here in critical point to illustrate Muskets use for unconvinced.

 

[Joh]

Though I do think they are better for empire defence. With nationalism and engineering, you can draft 5 of them per turn and move them very fast over roads.

It is handy being able to draft a movement 2 unit.

 

[aelf]

Yes, GABB and Joh made good points there. I think Musketeers work best with military civics and Nationhood.

I still don't understand this "I'd rather use knights argument". Knights cost more and are hindered by walls and castles and have only 1 more strength to make up for it, not to mention they die to pikes. They also don't get defensive bonuses coming to rest on that wooded hill, forest or hill in enemy territory. Plus Musketeers can get promotions to counter knights or other unit types that might try to attack them.

And I've already said that you can get Gunpowder before knights and way before the enemy gets grenadiers, AI or no. And you are not confined to just pillaging either, as mobile units can multitask, esp since Musketeers CAN defend. Who says I need to put them in a big stack waiting to be hit by cats, by the way? What if you have stacks of 3 or 4 coming at you at once? Can you be sure you have enough cats at that particular place to whittle down those stacks? Or even enough units, enough longbows in/near those cities? One thing I find so good about Musketeers is the fact that they can move 4 tiles in MY territory, which means I can pick where to strike. Military history shows how good this advantage can be. War in multiple fronts? Not so daunting for Napoleon in cIV, just like in real history.

I am a pretty conventional player who doesn't like to beeline so savagely, and yet I still find Musketeers to be a significant advantage in continuing my legacy of wars. As another leader, I'd actually have to wait for grenadiers to appear in enough numbers before I can conduct a large campaign. That's a long time. Plus (i've said this) having Musketeers means it's safer go for cavalry next while my opponents frantically try to get grenadiers. Then, as they smugly march their grenadiers out, they find cavalry appearing to dish out doom. By the way, Musketeers would defend in the stack instead of cavalry if pikes attack.

As with any other UU, if you don't play in a style that caters for them, they become somewhat superfluous. A Russian who doesn't beeline to MT might find his Cossacks facing riflemen. Even a Roman player, complacent with copper and goes for economic techs before IW, might find his Praetorians not that great vs enemies with longbows. If you choose to get Guilds first before Gunpowder, fine - then you can build more knights and have fewer Musketeers. If you research Gunpowder when you are ready to go for Chemistry immediately and don't plan to fight much, fine - then don't build Musketeers. If you rather have a quicker game with fewer wars and play on Normal, fine - then don't bother with Musketeers, or don't even play France, if you wish. The option is yours to make, not the UU's. Don't blame it for you not being able to use it well.

I am not saying Musketeers are the best UU. All I am saying is you can put them to good use and that they're worth it.

 

[GABB]

I am not saying Musketeers are the best UU. All I am saying is you can put them to good use and that they're worth it.

Another use for musketeers:

With Barracks, you can draft excelent "MEDIC MUSKETEER". They can be usefull until the moder war, remember his mobility is the same than mech-infantry and Tanks, and they are better in battle than Medic Explorers.

I think that they are a versatile unit, don't need resource to build, can be drafted, high mobility, free combat I (Allowing differents promotions). Of course, If you want a UU that "kill everybody", you can find another. If you want a UU with the biggest window of oportunities, you can play with India...

 

[Oggums]

I still don't understand this "I'd rather use knights argument". Knights cost more and are hindered by walls and castles and have only 1 more strength to make up for it, not to mention they die to pikes. They also don't get defensive bonuses coming to rest on that wooded hill, forest or hill in enemy territory.

Knights come before muskets, so you can stock up on them while you research muskets. When you do get your muskets, you can quickly whip a couple to escort your knights and catapults. The no terrain defense is a non-factor, because your muskets will defend. Knights can withdraw and get flanking, so you will have far less losses attacking with a stack of knights.

Plus Musketeers can get promotions to counter knights or other unit types that might try to attack them.

Exactly. This leaves your knights and catapults safe from attack. With a balanced stack, you hardly have any losses. You just have to send your new musketeer city defenders quickly to the front lines to defend your new cities. It's far more efficient than the "just-build-a-horde-of-muskets" strategy.

But then you can just pick up grenadiers next anyway, so the whole argument is pointless.