Musketman revised

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

After a series of discussions with several forum members, some, to be precise Boris. does not agree with unit rosters and class systems Firaxis assigned for Civ6. Especially with Pike and Shot being mainstray units of the renaissance era the divisions between Melee and Anti Cavalry should end by that point, and Pike and Shot should be a new class, and I named the new class "Infantry". This opened up yet another borders of modding possibilities but certain units, to be precise, musketman, what shall this unit be classified?
1. Remain as Melee
2. Be an expensive variants of Pike&shot
3. Ranged unit (range of 1),
A: With assault ability
B: Sans assault ability
4. A new class: Light Infantry (similar to scout but more combat oriented)
5. A new class: Ranged defensives (upgrades from javelineer), Upgrades to Volley Gun
A: Can assault
B: Cannot assault

The choice 3, 4 and 5 are based upon Tercio (Earliest Pike&Shot units) where there exists arquebusiers (uses light and rather short firearms called arquebus, usually wears similar armor to pikemen) and musketeers (wears minimal armor or usually no armor beyond leather vest, wields heavyweight musket that requires a fork to keep the guns steady)

 

[Naokaukodem]

Remain as melee unit and I will say why : Muskets vs Muskets always leads to deaths from both sides. However there's a problem when they fight old melee. In that case, they should be granted one or two free shots, like Zulu Impies did in Civ5.

Also, 1 range ranged is useless in most of the cases, it has been proved by playtesting.

 

[Sostratus]

Also, 1 range ranged is useless in most of the cases, it has been proved by playtesting.

When they first added Gatling Gun units to civ5, they were 36/36, stronger than rifleman at 34. Boy were those a terror... This was later nerfed to 30/30, but it's an example of how one tile range viability depends on having that high melee factor. Compared to a Crouching Dragon or skirmisher in civ6, which are just horribly frail units.

That said, these threads are common, and imo the historical argument is much weaker than the game play argument - we need something to fulfill the direct attack role, and traditionally muskets/rifles/infantry is the answer. And really, units like xbows or Field Cannons represent the true historical role of our Ranged units- they are bombarding the enemy without needing to engage them directly like massed muskets. The actual range of the weapon isn't really as relevant. Similarly, a heavy machine gunner today might be instructed to fire at area targets far away, a job that you wouldn't be doing with a squad of infantry grunts.

However there's a problem when they fight old melee.

This of course, is represented by having higher than whatever came before it

 

[Naokaukodem]

This of course, is represented by having higher than whatever came before it

I mean, they should theorically be able to shoot at old melee without taking ANY damage. I then temperate it by supposing a melee charge, and there's not that much (?) distance between muskets range and melee ? BUT, now that i'm thinking at it, there's this famous japanese battle between old cavalry and fortified muskets that killed every horsemen charging at them. Let's say that in that case, the free shots should be much more powerful than the free Civ5 Zulu Impies single free shot.

When they first added Gatling Gun units to civ5, they were 36/36, stronger than rifleman at 34. Boy were those a terror... This was later nerfed to 30/30, but it's an example of how one tile range viability depends on having that high melee factor. Compared to a Crouching Dragon or skirmisher in civ6, which are just horribly frail units.

But they were the upgrade of 2 ranged units, and there was no others except artillery (generally speaking) which purpose was more attacking cities. The result may have been that you had to commit yourself into gattling guns wars, which is pretty much the same as melee. So we are at it : either 2 ranged or melee.

That said, these threads are common, and imo the historical argument is much weaker than the game play argument - we need something to fulfill the direct attack role, and traditionally muskets/rifles/infantry is the answer. And really, units like xbows or Field Cannons represent the true historical role of our Ranged units- they are bombarding the enemy without needing to engage them directly like massed muskets. The actual range of the weapon isn't really as relevant. Similarly, a heavy machine gunner today might be instructed to fire at area targets far away, a job that you wouldn't be doing with a squad of infantry grunts.

But i'm obeying to game play arguments too. I always try to mix reality and gameplay, I'm optimistic and think it is doable.

 

[The googles do nothing]

I see this as part of a revamp of units and combat. Specifically Modifier on strength of ranged attacks based on distance to the target and health affecting movement.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

muskets should be ranged. there is no reason why a unit with no guns would do much damage against a unit with them. see: the battle of Nagashino.
unless they are able to ambush them.
the thing is, now the whole map would need more tiles. because of course artillery would need a much longer range.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

muskets should be ranged. there is no reason why a unit with no guns would do much damage against a unit with them. see: the battle of Nagashino.
unless they are able to ambush them.
the thing is, now the whole map would need more tiles. because of course artillery would need a much longer range.

Another problem is.
in game rules. there's no counterbattery fire (ANY ranged units retaliate each other but in successive order rather than simultaneaously. if you play Heroes of Might and Magic series (1 - 3) before. melee combat rules worked this way
- Attacker moves first, and if placed next to enemy, attacker unit stack strikes first on command.
- One hit, if defender stack survives, he retaliates at that melee attacker once. He can only retaliates once per round in combat mode and if the attacker has 'no retaliation' ability, this defender cannot retaliate this enemy and if i remember correctly he may not retaliate till next rounds.
- In that game only one unit can retaliate twices (Griffon) and (in H3) one unit has unlimited retaliation (Royal Griffon). One magical spell (can't remember the name but AFAIK it exists) grants the same ability to normal units as well.
This is how counterbattery works but in ranged context. However counterbattery doesn't exists with Civ5 and 6 engines.

Remain as melee unit and I will say why : Muskets vs Muskets always leads to deaths from both sides. However there's a problem when they fight old melee. In that case, they should be granted one or two free shots, like Zulu Impies did in Civ5.

Also, 1 range ranged is useless in most of the cases, it has been proved by playtesting.

1. Well then what's the point Firaxis separates Musketman and Pike&Shot in two units and belonged to different classes? where Musketmen are hardcore assault unit but very vulnerable to cavalry charge. P&S (which came in RF) had no problems defending against cavalry attacks but sucks at attacking cities and other melee units. What actually are musketmen in real history?
Once i was agreed with Firaxis class system (and my mod goes with the existing ones, where in Industrial Era there were Grenadiers (melee) and Fusiliers (anti cavalry that can perform attacks two different ways; first assault, and second 1 range attack, with weaker strengh), but discussions here in this forum with Boris and others eventually convinced me that the distinctions between melee and anticav should end in Renaissance/Industrial Era. and Antitank units should be a new class entirely.
If this idea is to be implemented, musketmen will be in some trouble so i'm seeking some solution to find their new place in new class rules. Personally i'd go for Ranged Defense with assault ability (while anything since Volley guns can't)
2. Swordsmen, Axemen and other melee shock troops, and the likes of spearmen, pikemen and impis DID charge either musketmen or line infantry deployed in line formation head on, and sometimes it works in real history. though the attackers take more losses before getting close enough to fight hand2hand. Also Swedes Caroleans were Pike&Shot units that has Ga - Pa assault tactics that they even did this against Russian Line Infantry armed entirely with fusils+bayonets !!!

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

When they first added Gatling Gun units to civ5, they were 36/36, stronger than rifleman at 34. Boy were those a terror... This was later nerfed to 30/30, but it's an example of how one tile range viability depends on having that high melee factor. Compared to a Crouching Dragon or skirmisher in civ6, which are just horribly frail units.

That said, these threads are common, and imo the historical argument is much weaker than the game play argument - we need something to fulfill the direct attack role, and traditionally muskets/rifles/infantry is the answer. And really, units like xbows or Field Cannons represent the true historical role of our Ranged units- they are bombarding the enemy without needing to engage them directly like massed muskets. The actual range of the weapon isn't really as relevant. Similarly, a heavy machine gunner today might be instructed to fire at area targets far away, a job that you wouldn't be doing with a squad of infantry grunts.


This of course, is represented by having higher than whatever came before it

And what's your answer regarding to the roles of musketmen if new class system is to be implemented. In this, Grenadiers will belong to Infantry class (as well as Imperial Guard), and like the Imperial Guard. grenadiers have no predecessor units (i.e. you have to either train or buy ones anew, no units are upgraded to this) and upgrades to Infantry in modern era (Also to be in a new 'Infantry' class) The reasons this conditions should be imposed upon grenadiers are:
1. Grenadier begins with Siege oriented promotions!!!
2. Grenadier requires niter
3. And has Anticav ability like any 'Infantry' class (see this thread for more details, https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/creating-new-class-unit-upgrades-to-different-class.653558/ but that thread was made with modding perspective)

My view regarding to Musketmen under this new rule is now comparing them to what they did in old Spanish Tercio. Like I said there were Musketeers armed with heavy firearms that needs monopole to support its extra weight, and Arquebusiers whom wielded lighter shorter firearms that can be fired normally with two hands. Musketeers were deployed at the corner end of the pike square whie arquebusiers at the rim of this very square, completely surrounding them. Arquebusiers operate in tandem with pikemen while musketeers may move ahead of the pike square and may harrass enemy pike squares or enemy musketeers or other ranged troops.

In the picture shown above however this one was french variants.

This should be how Spanish Tercio fight. this one is expressed in Medieval Total War II engine.

Online lecture on Pike&Shot formations (including its origins)

 

[ghost88]

muskets should be ranged. there is no reason why a unit with no guns would do much damage against a unit with them. see: the battle of Nagashino.
unless they are able to ambush them.
the thing is, now the whole map would need more tiles. because of course artillery would need a much longer range.

To refute see Isandlwna , this battle and most of people in the US only knowing one African civilization is the only reason for Shaka and the Zulu being in the Civ series. The Zulu lost about 2 to 1, however military planers try to get 3 to 1 odds in attacks.
You might also include the Chinese Yalu River offensive in the Korean War as it is claimed only 1 in 4 of the Chinese involved had weapons.

 

[Jarms48]

Does the gun/gunpowder class still exist in Civ 6 like it did in Civ 5?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Does the gun/gunpowder class still exist in Civ 6 like it did in Civ 5?

^ Nah! The unit class system in Civ6 is very rigid now. Promotions now associated with unit class (though it is still possible to mod a new class and unit upgrades to different class.). Musketman is now 'melee' class.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Since I may be the only person on these Forums that has actually handled and fired a matchlock musket, I've got to put in my two pence' worth.
And no, I'm not (quite) that old, but I went to a Feld Day of the Sealed Knot Society, the English Civil War Re-enactment group in England, and when they found out I was an active duty soldier they (this was back in the 1980s) talked me through loading and firing one of their muskets.

First, the Musketman as a separate melee unit is a Fantasy Unit. A man with a matchlock musket or arquebus has NO Melee Factor - he's carrying a 15 - 20 pound (7 - 9 kilogram) clumsy club which, if he's smart, he will throw away as soon as the enemy reaches him so that he can either draw his sword or run like Hell. In most cases historically, his sword was a cheap little 'hanger' and he had almost no training with it, so running away was the preferred option if available. To stand and fight against real swordsmen or pikemen was, simply, suicidal.
That means that almost as soon as the first adequate individual should-fired firearm became available (1470 - 1472 CE, shoulder stock added to the 'hackbus' or Hook Gun, making it practicable to fire the gun without a wall to rest it on) they were combined with other troops that had a Melee Factor:
1486 CE - Emperor Maximilian of the Holy Roman Empire forms the first Landsknechts, combining pikes, two-handed swords, crossbows and arguebuses
1493 CE - 'Colunelas' are formed in Spain, the 'columns' combining pike, arquebus, swordsmen and halbardiers. A few years later when they started putting three Colunelas together permanently, they became Tercios.

In other words, Pike and Shot units develop out of Musketman Units in about 2 - 4 turns, and after that there are no separate Musketman units on an open battlefield. Other 'expedients' to keep musketmen alive were:

1526 CE: Ottoman Janisseries use multi-rank volley fire with muskets at the Battle of Mohacs - deep formations and trained swordsmen protecting the muskets while they reloaded to fire another volley.

1545 - 1550 CE: Ivan the Mighty equips his Streltsi with long 'berdische' axes as hand weapons in addition to their muskets (arquebuses). As it happened, the curved inside of the axe blade also made a convenient musket-rest for firing.

Battle of Nagashino, 1575 CE: The Musketmen were protected by wooden palisades so they could load and fire volleys undisturbed by enemy cavalry charges. BUT the Musketmen did not even attempt to engage in Melee - that was left to the rest of the army.

And, finally, the modern formation and drill techniques that made the Tercio and its ilk effectively obsolete, in 1592 CE Maurice of Nassau drew up the Dutch Army for review by Battalion - a permanent linear unit (6 ranks deep) of 1/3 pikes to 2/3 muskets which could both defend against enemy cavalry and infantry with the pikes and shoot any deeper formation to bits with volleys of musketry. In the 1620s CE the Swedes under Gustaphus Adolphus added light artillery to that mix in the Swedish Squadron formation that was the first true Combined Arms unit in modern history.

How to depict all this in the Game?

First and foremost, the Musketman, if you insist on keeping it, is a Ranged Unit with a 1-Tile range and a minimal Melee Factor. Since at about the same time (1460 - 1490 CE) the Field Artillery with long barrels, trunnions and trailed carriage is being developed in Europe, as a ranged unit musketmen are distinctly mediocre in both effect and range.

Pike and Shot, with possible Unique types like Spanish Tercios, Russian Streltsy or Swedish Squadrons, are the 'standard' Melee Unit of the late Renaissance Era. They all have a Ranged Attack also (see the current Persian Immortals unit in Civ VI) with a 1-tile range, and a nominal Anti-Cav Bonus (pikes) - say, about half what a regular PIke unit gets (@Sostratus can crunch the appropriate numbers better than I - with the 'fire before melee' defense possible, though, a Pike & Shot unit will not be easy to attack successfully)

The Technological Advance to the flintlock musket, or 'firelock' (French Fusil) and socket bayonet just before the glimmer of the start of the Industrial Era (1700 CE, historically) is HUGE. Range stays the same, but the rate of fire doubles, the density of fire doubles, and the entire unit (bayonet on the end of 5 to 6-foot muskets) now has a Melee Factor.

 

[Jarms48]

I actually wouldn’t mind seeing:
- All melee units from Musketman onwards get a range of 1.
- All anti-cavalry units from Pike & Shot onwards get a range of 1.
- All heavy cavalry units from Cuirassier onwards get range 1.
- All light cavalry units from Cavalry onwards get a range of 1.

Whilst this won’t change much about combat in general it will change some things:
- Defeating a unit will no longer force you off terrain if you use the range attack (which could also be a disadvantage). So you can position your muskets on a hill and they won’t move into lowland, for example.
- You can attack units and cities without being damaged in return. Which results in less damage from retaliation.
- Lastly, I would like to see any range unit act similar to Immortals. Which might kill their unique flavour, but it would allow any unit a chance to take a position held by a weakened enemy or a chance to take a city. Too many times I’ve seen the AI come at me with only range units or I’ve killed off their melee units which guaranteed me the victory.

My only issue with this is:
- The Archer and Crossbowman might need their range reduced to 1 and their combat strength buffed. It just seems strange if they out range guns. For example: Archers melee strength up to 20 and Crossbowman 35.

Interestingly enough this might actually make the Spearman more useful as the Archer would have the same strength as the Warrior. So players could try and rush Swordsman, but if no iron is available they could settle for Spears. I would still like to see the Spearman, and the Pikeman, get some form of production cost reduction.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

As i'm working on mod project (second version), Finally!

Battle of Nagashino, 1575 CE: The Musketmen were protected by wooden palisades so they could load and fire volleys undisturbed by enemy cavalry charges. BUT the Musketmen did not even attempt to engage in Melee - that was left to the rest of the army.

1. That means Samurai upgrading to Musketmen are incorrects right?? or there were actually 'Gun Samurais' (whom came from Warrior Caste) as well as less prestigious 'Ashigaru Arquebusiers' (whom came from Peasantry) ?
If so what should Samurai upgrades to? P&S or Line Infantry?
2. In this setting Ashigaru is actually Musketmen rather than Pike&Shot? Did Japanese really developped Pike and Shot formations too?

How to depict all this in the Game?

First and foremost, the Musketman, if you insist on keeping it, is a Ranged Unit with a 1-Tile range and a minimal Melee Factor. Since at about the same time (1460 - 1490 CE) the Field Artillery with long barrels, trunnions and trailed carriage is being developed in Europe, as a ranged unit musketmen are distinctly mediocre in both effect and range.

Pike and Shot, with possible Unique types like Spanish Tercios, Russian Streltsy or Swedish Squadrons, are the 'standard' Melee Unit of the late Renaissance Era. They all have a Ranged Attack also (see the current Persian Immortals unit in Civ VI) with a 1-tile range, and a nominal Anti-Cav Bonus (pikes) - say, about half what a regular PIke unit gets (@Sostratus can crunch the appropriate numbers better than I - with the 'fire before melee' defense possible, though, a Pike & Shot unit will not be easy to attack successfully)

The Technological Advance to the flintlock musket, or 'firelock' (French Fusil) and socket bayonet just before the glimmer of the start of the Industrial Era (1700 CE, historically) is HUGE. Range stays the same, but the rate of fire doubles, the density of fire doubles, and the entire unit (bayonet on the end of 5 to 6-foot muskets) now has a Melee Factor.

In this setting. This will make Musketman a superior versions of Crouching Tigers (Hudunpao 虎蹲炮) instead, then
1. Should Musketmen requires Niter to train? (Vanilla & RF)
2. And what about Cannons? (See Zaab Spicey mod https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/zaab-spicey.28012/) should they use Niter instead? (in my mod 'cannons' (ranged unit) needs no resource to build) (Vanilla and RF)

And about Early Modern class system. Your thoughs on combined early modern class systems. It seems that you're insist on keeping 'melee' class by adding 'anti cavalry' attributes rather than making an entirely new 'combines' class right? AFAIK you were the person whom introduced the new 'combined' class that has both melee and anti cavalry attribues in one and this made tanks and antitanks a distinct class entirely right?

If you think that early modern 'combined' class (I choose the name 'Infantry' ,since, the inception of pike & shots onwards, they are main line troopers) then
1. Do you agree with the new class name i give them?
2. What are 'level up' promotions for them? should the existing promo class (individually or as an entire packages) be used or a new promos to be introduced instead
3. If they should have distinct promotion names then what should these be? https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/creating-new-class-unit-upgrades-to-different-class.653558/

4. Also should there be TECH_FIREARMS in addition to TECH_GUNPOWDER ?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I actually wouldn’t mind seeing:
- All melee units from Musketman onwards get a range of 1.
- All anti-cavalry units from Pike & Shot onwards get a range of 1.
- All heavy cavalry units from Cuirassier onwards get range 1.
- All light cavalry units from Cavalry onwards get a range of 1.

Whilst this won’t change much about combat in general it will change some things:
- Defeating a unit will no longer force you off terrain if you use the range attack (which could also be a disadvantage). So you can position your muskets on a hill and they won’t move into lowland, for example.
- You can attack units and cities without being damaged in return. Which results in less damage from retaliation.
- Lastly, I would like to see any range unit act similar to Immortals. Which might kill their unique flavour, but it would allow any unit a chance to take a position held by a weakened enemy or a chance to take a city. Too many times I’ve seen the AI come at me with only range units or I’ve killed off their melee units which guaranteed me the victory.

My only issue with this is:
- The Archer and Crossbowman might need their range reduced to 1 and their combat strength buffed. It just seems strange if they out range guns. For example: Archers melee strength up to 20 and Crossbowman 35.

Interestingly enough this might actually make the Spearman more useful as the Archer would have the same strength as the Warrior. So players could try and rush Swordsman, but if no iron is available they could settle for Spears. I would still like to see the Spearman, and the Pikeman, get some form of production cost reduction.

I'd use different solution. 'Heavy Spearman' (classical units available with Iron Working tech) as intermediate unit upgrades that came between Spearman and Pikeman, requires no resource. well do you agree with this or what makes you disagree with my 'solution'?