Musketmen - poor design, poor tech placement?

[DrJambo]

Like someone else said above, the problem isn't with the musketmen, it's with the grenadiers and the fact they are one tech away.

 

[GIO888]

It REALLY bugs me I can't upgrade xbowmen to musketmen - the upgrade cost from musketman to rifleman/redcoat thereafter is the main reason I build musketment in the first place!

I tend now to go into worldbuilder and manually replace all the xbowmen I've built with musketmen. To me this feels like a cheat, and of course the temptation is then there to "tweak" other stuff, let alone being able to see everyone in the worldview.

And of course, musketmen in groups are actually quite a powerful offensive unit at the point they appear in the game - just like they were in actual reality!!

 

[BadHorsie]

I tend now to go into worldbuilder and manually replace all the xbowmen I've built with musketmen. To me this feels like a cheat

Uh... yeah, that is cheating, isn't it?

I would still rather take my chances with a Maceman of 8 and a possible 12 against melee, than a Musketman with his all-round 9.

 

[a4phantom]

But at least it is realistic.

The earliest musketmen weren´t really useful compared to archers and crossbowmen, as the earliest muskets were very inaccurate, had a slow rate of firing and a smaller range than crossbows and longwbows.
The main advantage of the musket was, that you could train large numbers of them in short time, as, compared to the longbow, a musket was rather easy to use (unless trained from childhood on, most peasants wouldn´t even be able to use a longbow because they lacked the necessary strength [a longbow has a rather large drawing weight])

This is very true, which is why my solution would be to keep musketmen mediocre but make them very cheap, to reflect how gunpowder revolutionized (RUINED!) warfare by making it available to every unskilled blot.

 

[homan1983]

The earliest musketmen weren´t really useful compared to archers and crossbowmen, as the earliest muskets were very inaccurate, had a slow rate of firing and a smaller range than crossbows and longwbows.
The main advantage of the musket was, that you could train large numbers of them in short time, as, compared to the longbow, a musket was rather easy to use (unless trained from childhood on, most peasants wouldn´t even be able to use a longbow because they lacked the necessary strength [a longbow has a rather large drawing weight])

This is WRONG. I realize that most people say the muskets were slow-firing and inaccurate (at long range).

But the fact is that to train someone to use a longbow or even bow took MANY years. This means that you could train muskets in mass.

The developement of gunpowder REVOLUTIONIZED warfare. Guns could shoot through soldiers armor as well.

Remember a unit of musketmen vs 1unit of longbows isn't 1man vs 1man.

If the musketman in Civ4 costs the same production as longbows, you should assume that there are triple the number of soldiers in the musketmen UNIT. Otherwise they should reduce the cost of musketman considerabely.


Sure the developement of the RIFLE was a HUGE stepup on the musket. But that doesn't change the fact that musketmen were a whole revolution in warfare.


The best game that portrayed this was in Civ2 where musketeers were the first unit to get 2hitpoint. This meant that they effectively had double the strength of their previous unit [this also goes in line with more musket-trained men].

I don't think that the obsoletion of walls/castles is enough to portray the revolution of the gunpowder [not to say the obsoletion of the forst/walls by gunpowder is NOT true - muskets on castle were much more powerful than those on the ground]




Many of you are saying muskets weren't that strong because they were much weaker than rifles, well early fighters were a world apart from modern jets, but that doesn't mean they weren't revolutionary at the time.


Fact is that Muskets along with a few other units are totally underrepresented in this edition of the game.

 

[Randolph]

But the fact is that to train someone to use a longbow or even bow took MANY years. This means that you could train muskets in mass.

The developement of gunpowder REVOLUTIONIZED warfare. Guns could shoot through soldiers armor as well.

Weren’t both of these factors also true for crossbows?

 

[KiOwA_25]

Muskeeters, with their movement of 2, are able to keep up with Knights and provide defensive cover (Knights do not get any defensive bonuses and are unable to fortify).

 

[Proteus]

The earliest musketmen weren´t really useful compared to archers and crossbowmen, as the earliest muskets were very inaccurate, had a slow rate of firing and a smaller range than crossbows and longwbows.
The main advantage of the musket was, that you could train large numbers of them in short time, as, compared to the longbow, a musket was rather easy to use (unless trained from childhood on, most peasants wouldn´t even be able to use a longbow because they lacked the necessary strength [a longbow has a rather large drawing weight])

This is WRONG. I realize that most people say the muskets were slow-firing and inaccurate (at long range).

But the fact is that to train someone to use a longbow or even bow took MANY years. This means that you could train muskets in mass.

The developement of gunpowder REVOLUTIONIZED warfare. Guns could shoot through soldiers armor as well.

Remember a unit of musketmen vs 1unit of longbows isn't 1man vs 1man.

If the musketman in Civ4 costs the same production as longbows, you should assume that there are triple the number of soldiers in the musketmen UNIT. Otherwise they should reduce the cost of musketman considerabely.


....

If you carefully reread my posting you´ll see that these are exactly the things I was saying
I even gave the same explanation for the higher strength of musketman units (compared to a longbows unit)(further down the posting within the parts you didn´t quote),
so you are just repeating the elements of my posting with other words

Weren’t both of these factors also true for crossbows?

Yep, that´s true.
Which is the reason why one pope forbade the use of crossbows against christians. Obviously he wasn´t happy about knights being slaufghtered from far away by simple peasants, with a weapon that was rather easy to learn.
However its use was still allowed against heathen (which probably included protestants )

 

[a4phantom]

If you carefully reread my posting you´ll see that these are exactly the things I was saying
I even gave the same explanation for the higher strength of musketman units (compared to a longbows unit)(further down the posting within the parts you didn´t quote),
so you are just repeating the elements of my posting with other words

Funny I had exactly the same reaction in reading that post. And for the record, muskets had decided advantages over early rifles (say 1776). Rifles had better range, but muskets could be reloaded and fired much more quickly. They also threw a more devastating shot, and the redcoats fired a musketball with two tiny balls, making it 3 times as likely that they'd hit something. Finally, whereas making use of the rifle's range meant a lifetime of drilling (as a hunter usually), the musket needed less skill and therefore could be used by more men, hence the highly successful (despite the counterexamples we Americans are so familiar with) British tactic of having a huge force firing from up close. This broke down once George Washington resorted to guerilla warfare, for which rifles were superb.*

* The History Channel

As I recall the rifle gained true supremacy with the invention of the Minié ball, which led to the Enfield and Springfield rifles just in time for the American Civil War to be a blood bath. I think breech loading predates Minié, but early breech loading damaged the bullet and thus the accuracy.

Which is the reason why one pope forbade the use of crossbows against christians. Obviously he wasn´t happy about knights being slaufghtered from far away by simple peasants, with a weapon that was rather easy to learn.
However its use was still allowed against heathen (which probably included protestants )

Worse. Protestants were 'infidels'. A heathen is a poor sucker who doesn't know enough to join your religion, an infidel (in the mideval Church's eyes Prots, Jews and probably Muslims) is someone who deliberately takes the wrong path.

 

[homan1983]

That is somewhat wrong, with a few expections, even the earliest rifles were considerabely faster than muskets.

In fact the rifle's range was generally a by product whereas the real aim of the rifle was to increase the incredibly long reload time of muskets.

 

[jimbob27]

In fact the rifle's range was generally a by product whereas the real aim of the rifle was to increase the incredibly long reload time of muskets.

I'm sorry dude... but what you said is absolute crap. Rifling the barrel has absolutely no impact on reloading time at all.

There were several innovations in the firing method that improved reload times, such as the flintlock and then the percussion cap, but the invention of the rifle was totally seperate. You can have a rifle with a matchlock mechanism that'd be slow to fire and accurate, or you can have a musket with a smoothbore barrel and a percussion cap system, that'd be fast firing but inaccurate as hell.

 

[theimmortal1]

Muskets are pretty good. No unit will have a bonus vs them, so straight out of the gate they are stronger than anything of that era (sans Knight).

It depends on the game, if you had a huge maceman war, I'd recommend going for Rifles or Cavalry. But if you got a good econ and you can get to Gunpowder faster than your rivals, then you can do some good damage.

Plus they are draftable. In a few turns you can have quite a few units...

 

[homan1983]

I'm sorry dude... but what you said is absolute crap. Rifling the barrel has absolutely no impact on reloading time at all.

There were several innovations in the firing method that improved reload times, such as the flintlock and then the percussion cap, but the invention of the rifle was totally seperate. You can have a rifle with a matchlock mechanism that'd be slow to fire and accurate, or you can have a musket with a smoothbore barrel and a percussion cap system, that'd be fast firing but inaccurate as hell.

The invention of a rifle was totally seperate?? What are you talking about? And please don't go around telling people they talk CRAP simply because you watched a show about rifles in the discovery channels.


READ:

Any reference to a rifle implies that it has a rifled barrel. This IS generally a reference to a more accurate gun with a longer reload time.

When muskets were first invented, they WERE FASTER than rifles [yes rifles came EXTREMELY SHORTLY after muskets.]

The reason for the reloading speed is that, to take advantage of the rifling, the ball would have to fit more tightly into the rifle barrel. The associated friction slows down the reloading. The original muzzle-loading rifle, with a closely fitting ball to take the rifling grooves, was loaded with difficulty, particularly when foul, and for this reason was not generally used for military purposes. Even with the advent of rifling the bullet itself didn't change, but was wrapped in a leather patch to grip the rifling grooves.


So what does this all mean? What it means is that IN CIV TERMS RIFLING AND RIFLEMEN REFER TO THE TIME WHEN RIFLES WERE USED IN THE MILITARY.
There is a reason that you can't make riflemen in cIV with the discovery of gunpowder.

The rifles you are referring to were never REALLY used in any decent army [one of their few uses were by american militia vs the english]. They were made mainly for hunting due to their EXTREME reload times.


If you thing I'm just comfirming what you said, I suggest you re-read this as many times as it takes for you to understand.

And please refrain from being rude to people!

 

[AfterShafter]

I think you two should have a shootout to decide who's right... Rifle VS musket

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I think you two should have a shootout to decide who's right... Rifle VS musket

Naah, pistols at dawn more like

 

[a4phantom]

to Jimbob27: The invention of a rifle was totally seperate?? What are you talking about? And please don't go around telling people they talk CRAP simply because you watched a show about rifles in the discovery channels.

Actually I was the one who learned what he knew about the subject from TV. If you think something I said was wrong and have a better source than History Channel, I have a lot of practice at accepting defeat graciously.

 

[MqsTout]

With Tukugawa's new traits (Aggressive and Protective), I find the musketman an immediate must-build once I get them, even if their replacement is soon. I feel the musketman is the "real" UU to Japan with those traits. He starts with Combat I, Drill I and Garrison I (as do all gunpowder units).

 

[homan1983]

I suppose we are all right, lets all have a group hug ok?

I realize that the first rifles were worst in terms of Rate of Fire than even muskets. But this only applies to the rifles that came out at the same time as muskets.
The rifles in those times were used only in hunting where the reload time was pretty low priority but the range and accuracy paramount.

Civ's version of rifling however is when rifling was refined for military level and by then rifles beat muskets in pretty much any field. This is also portrayed by their str. advantage in Civ4.

 

[a4phantom]

I suppose we are all right, lets all have a group hug ok?

The sarcasm isn't very sharp, but it's still unnecessary.

I realize that the first rifles were worst in terms of Rate of Fire than even muskets. But this only applies to the rifles that came out at the same time as muskets.
The rifles in those times were used only in hunting where the reload time was pretty low priority but the range and accuracy paramount.
Civ's version of rifling however is when rifling was refined for military level and by then rifles beat muskets in pretty much any field. This is also portrayed by their str. advantage in Civ4.

Agreed? I don't think that anyone is arguing that the rifleman shouldn't be significantly stronger than the musketman in the game, or even that muskets haven't become obsolete in real life . . .

The question is whether it is good for either gameplay or historical accuracy for the musketman to be as insignificant and often skipped a unit as it is.

MqsTout: Interesting, because Japanese history is a pretty good example of muskets being a decisive element in warfare. Both the rise of the Nobunaga/Tokugawa/Hideyoshi Shogunate and its destruction in the Meiji Restoration over two centuries later were largely due to the ability of peasant musketmen to defeat the traditional military elite, Samurai. Of course in gameplay terms the immediate benefit of three free promos more than makes up for the weakness of musketmen not being anyone's upgrade and therefore getting no preaquired promos (for example a rifleman upgraded from a mace with City Raider 3 . . .)

 

[a4phantom]

That is somewhat wrong, with a few expections, even the earliest rifles were considerabely faster than muskets.

In fact the rifle's range was generally a by product whereas the real aim of the rifle was to increase the incredibly long reload time of muskets.

Two interesting claims, what's your source?