Musketmen - poor design, poor tech placement?

[a4phantom]

I don't see how his response was rude at all. I said hwachas were catapaults in my post and it looked as though your confusion came from missing that. He simply cut right to the chase. If he said "you idiot, ..." then that would be a different story.

Ok, I was reacting to his previous statements which were so ridiculously nasty the forum moderator censored them. If you read them you'll understand what I meant. In this case I guess I overreacted, and I apologize.

 

[a4phantom]

Ermmm, I wasn't being rude AT ALL. I was just moving on since this thread was quite interesting until you decided to be a smartass. And the "discussion" (if u wanna call it that) between me and you ended when you failed to prove your point even minutely

Untrue. The wikipedia article brought up by your google search said: "The origins of the modern British military rifles are within its predecessor the Brown Bess musket. While a musket was largely inaccurate due to a lack of rifling and generous tolerance to allow for muzzle-loading it was cheaper to produce, loaded quickly, and the use in volley fire by massed troops meant accuracy was largely irrelevant ." You've never dealt with any of the facts I've put on the table or put forward any of yourself, you simply resort to insults, profanity and declarations that your views are self evident "truth".

but also went on to contradict yourself.

You keep saying that, but as you've already proven doing that doesn't make something true. I've asked you to quote my statements that supposedly contradict, but you remain unable to do so.

 

[a4phantom]

The only thing that can beat a musketman in the field is a knight, which you can protect against by stacking pikeman (which is realistic, wasn't pikeman + musketmen a military formation at some point in history?) or by placing the musketman or a hill or forest.

Yes, one of the medieval formations that survived longest was the pikeman, so they overlapped with early guns quite a bit.

 

[Norseman2]

I play on Marathon, so I usually get quite a bit of use out of my Musketmen. They don't replace every military unit you have. On the open field, knights are still better against practically everything, and faster too. Where musketmen come in is for attacking cities with walls, and castles. Against a city with a wall, a musketman is effectively 50% stronger than normal (compared to non-gunpowder units). Against a city with a wall and castle, that goes to 100%. That makes it like an 18 strength unit, compared to a 10 strength knight.

The tech line for this (rushing it) is also nice, at least for maps with a lot of AIs. Basically, you get writing, grab alphabet on the side (lets you get everything the computers are getting), then get theology (found a religion, nice for maps with lots of players, as is alphabet), paper (lets you map out an attack plan), education (lets you grab liberalism, which, at the cost of an extra 150 can get you gunpowder and access to free religion and free speech). You're still 4 techs away from chemistry and three techs away from rifling, so there is a fairly long niche for this unit. All the while, alphabet will keep you up to date with the other technologies so you can still do some damage while you get the techs you need.

This unit is particularly nice if you're playing as the Ottomans or the French. As the French, you can make a blitzkrieg unit composed of knights and musketeers. Whatever you attack, you're good. The musketeers don't count as cavalry, so you can take spearmen pretty easily. The knights are slightly stronger for dealing non-walled targets, though the AI needs to be advancing its tech pretty quickly for you to have both of these.

For the Ottomans, the 25% bonus against practically everything makes them a jack-of-all-trades. Just give them some cats or trebs and they can take on practically any city during that time period quite easily.

 

[Proteus]

Yes, one of the medieval formations that survived longest was the pikeman, so they overlapped with early guns quite a bit.

Yep.
Pikemen were widely used till the end of the 17th century to protect the musketmen from cavalry charges (in the end in formations called Tercios)

 

[Proteus]

I play on Marathon, so I usually get quite a bit of use out of my Musketmen. They don't replace every military unit you have. On the open field, knights are still better against practically everything, and faster too. Where musketmen come in is for attacking cities with walls, and castles. Against a city with a wall, a musketman is effectively 50% stronger than normal (compared to non-gunpowder units). Against a city with a wall and castle, that goes to 100%. That makes it like an 18 strength unit, compared to a 10 strength knight.

As far as my understanding of the civ combat system, goes, this is not always correct.
Although walls and castles don´t count as a defense against gunpowder units, the city still has its cultural defense.
And AFAIK the units within cities use either the cultural defense or the defense by walls+castles, whichever is higher.
So, if the city for example has a wall, but also a cultural defense modifier of 50% or higher, it doesn´t make a difference if you attack with a knight or a musketman, as for both the cultural def mod would count.
(and especially the older cities within a civ usually have cultural defs of more than 50% )

 

[homan1983]

Yes, one of the medieval formations that survived longest was the pikeman, so they overlapped with early guns quite a bit.

You keep saying that but the problem is that its not the case in-game.

What actually happens is that people go straight for chemistry and make Grenadiers which are Str.12 and hence can beat any unit that the player 1tech below can throw at them.

 

[a4phantom]

You keep saying that

Really? Is that even close to true? How many times have I said it?

but the problem is that its not the case in-game. What actually happens is that people go straight for chemistry and make Grenadiers which are Str.12 and hence can beat any unit that the player 1tech below can throw at them.

DigitalBoy's statement was about history, not the game. Proteus' and my agreements were likewise about real history.

 

[a4phantom]

As far as my understanding of the civ combat system, goes, this is not always correct.
Although walls and castles don´t count as a defense against gunpowder units, the city still has its cultural defense.
And AFAIK the units within cities use either the cultural defense or the defense by walls+castles, whichever is higher.
So, if the city for example has a wall, but also a cultural defense modifier of 50% or higher, it doesn´t make a difference if you attack with a knight or a musketman, as for both the cultural def mod would count.
(and especially the older cities within a civ usually have cultural defs of more than 50% )

Does bombardament simultaneously reduce both cultural and physical (walls) simultaneously, and you only see the reduction in the higher number? I've always assumed this was how it worked but this seems like a good time to ask.

 

[Proteus]

Yes, I think so.
Normally I´d assume that they are both reduced by the same fraction of full strength, so that for example if you have 60% cultural defense and a wall and fire with two trebs, your cultural def is reduces to 30% (which is the amount shown) and the defense due to the wall is reduced to 25% (which isn´t shown but is present in some internal variables of the game)

 

[a4phantom]

Yes, I think so.
Normally I´d assume that they are both reduced by the same fraction of full strength, so that for example if you have 60% cultural defense and a wall and fire with two trebs, your cultural def is reduces to 30% (which is the amount shown) and the defense due to the wall is reduced to 25% (which isn´t shown but is present in some internal variables of the game)

Would a way to test this be: bombard a city with weak culture but walls, and toggle back and forth between selecting a gunpowder and melee unit as if you were going to attack it? I'd try it out myself but I'm in Mississippi doing hurricane relief far from my laptop.

 

[homan1983]

Really? Is that even close to true? How many times have I said it?



DigitalBoy's statement was about history, not the game. Proteus' and my agreements were likewise about real history.

1) Listen up you adolescent freak, you just need to learn to give it a rest, there is no need to continuously be rude to me. It gets to the point where even others point it out. If u wanna keep going back to it then its fine with me.

Your ignorance about the catapult showed and I corrected it, you should just learn and move on instead of crying to me about how I was insulting you simply because I told you that the korean unit replaced the catapult and NOT the trebutchet.

DigitalBoy's statement was about history

I think #3 is the real problem. Maces vs. Muskets is fine. The macemen still have their uses with their city raider promotions, but the musketman, aside from having 1 more strength, have the added bonus of not having a counter (plus whatever percent against gunpowder). The only thing that can beat a musketman in the field is a knight, which you can protect against by stacking pikeman (which is realistic, wasn't pikeman + musketmen a military formation at some point in history?) or by placing the musketman or a hill or forest.

READ!

Proteus' and my agreements were likewise about real history.

IMHO either add some filler techs between gunpowder and the tech needed for grenadiers, so that there is a longer timespan between the time you get gunpowder and the time when you can build grenadiers. (which IMHO would be interesting, as the filler techs could make it possible to build new improvements/units/buildings)
Or let gunpowder appear further down the tech tree, so that most players will get to gunpowder earlier.

LOL

Ok, I was reacting to his previous statements which were so ridiculously nasty the forum moderator censored them. If you read them you'll understand what I meant. In this case I guess I overreacted, and I apologize.

No you wasn't you was commenting on my reply which only pointed out that they replaced catapults. You are looking like a sad little child now.

You responded:

If you insist on being rude, please go back and finally justify your earlier claims before you start something else. The way I'd read the previous statements made it sound like hwachas were treb replacement. If they are catapult replacements, then it's a good thing I ask questions to learn about things I don't know, such as Warlords. You should really try it sometime, you could start with history or logic or manners.

YOU QUOTED MY POST WHEN YOU SAID THIS... GO BACK TO YOUR POST AND CHECK.

Untrue. The wikipedia article brought up by your google search said...

I don't care about what you say just Get the **** out of here and stop causing trouble.

You keep saying that

I'll stop saying that when it gets through your thick head.

Yes, one of the medieval formations that survived longest was the pikeman, so they overlapped with early guns quite a bit.

THE POINT IS THAT IT DOESNT PLAY OUT LIKE THAT IN THE GAME.
When someone uses pikemen, its because they DONT have gunpowder GET IT? If they have gunpowder then they just go ahead 1 more tech and voilla they can make grenadiers.

How many times have I said it?

No one cares shut up.

Does bombardament simultaneously reduce both cultural and physical (walls) simultaneously

Thats offtopic.



And FOR CRYING OUT LOUD STOP MAKING SO MANY POSTS CONSECUTIVELY AND LEARN TO EDIT.


To the Mods: I find it appaling that you've allowed it to go on this long, this is enough, so many times I tried to sidestep this teen, even answer his ridiculous questions in an attempt to get back on topic but this contraceptive-advert keeps insulting OVER and over and over again until I just give up.

I blame 60% of this on the moderators' inability to do anything right in this thread and now would be the time to actually do something right.


Making 1.2million consecutive posts in the same thread should AUTOMATICALLY call for modAction, but the content just makes it an insult that you haven't done so and trolls feed on this, you've given him the green light to go this far.

 

[Civrules]

Moderator Action: Homan1983 and a4phantom - cease the bickering now.
This warning is for Homan1983 mainly. As far as I see there are no direct insults at you, at least nothing compared to what you have written.
Please learn how to lead a conversation and don't take differing opinions personally.
If you see anything wrong with a thread or a post - report it, and don't wait. As moderators we are unable to hover around the forums 24/7, which is why you have the convenient ability to wisely report posts.
Furthermore, once you have reported a post, do not proceed arguing, much less breaking the forum rules with trolling.

I want to see no more trolling in this thread. If it continues, the thread gets shut down and whoever ignores this mod action gets a ban.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[homan1983]

Moderator Action: 3-day ban. Ignoring mod actions/continued trolling. Please read the forum rules by the time you come back. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Wodan]

In that I found the original discussion interesting, maybe it's worth it to try to get it back on track. Alternately, we could let this thread die.

In any event, I started thinking about this and thought about ways they could change the musketman in the first Warlords patch (like they did the Jag and Praetorian). Giving it a bonus vs Gunpowder units would help. Not terribly true to history, though. Changing the tech tree would surely be a pain and would have potential drastic & unintentional effect on other parts of the game. Making them cheaper would do the trick.

And then it occurred to me to look... fancy that, they ARE cheaper. 20% cheaper than a Grenadier.

So, straight up, they can beat all units in the game at that point as nothing has a bonus against them (except city/hill defenses etc of course). When Knights show up they have the edge, except you could give your Musketmen Formation against them, knowing your one weakness. And, Knights are more expensive.

And, by the time Grendadiers show, all your Musketmen could have Pinch plus quite a few levels of Combat. In addition to being 20% cheaper (means you can have 5 Musketmen for every 4 Grenadiers), this is not too shabby.

Wodan

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I still think it might be Improved if Grenadiers required Replaceable Parts as a Secondary Requirement.. that would move them "up the Tech Tree" without actually making them available any later. (Perhaps a slightly similar thing could be done with Cavalry)

That would give Muskets a solid time period of use.

 

[Wodan]

Well I still think it might be Improved if Grenadiers required Replaceable Parts as a Secondary Requirement.. that would move them "up the Tech Tree" without actually making them available any later. (Perhaps a slightly similar thing could be done with Cavalry)

That would give Muskets a solid time period of use.

Wouldn't that put Grendadiers into exactly the same situation vis-a-vis Riflemen?

Wodan

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Not really because Grenadiers are Attack units, Riflemen are Defense units

A Grenadier is better for attacking Riflemen than a Rifleman is.

 

[a4phantom]

In any event, I started thinking about this and thought about ways they could change the musketman in the first Warlords patch (like they did the Jag and Praetorian). Giving it a bonus vs Gunpowder units would help. Not terribly true to history, though. Changing the tech tree would surely be a pain and would have potential drastic & unintentional effect on other parts of the game. Making them cheaper would do the trick.

That was my thinking, since the early advantage of muskets was the ability to field large armies with a weapon that required less strength and skill than the longbow. But as someone pointed out, the 50% strength advantage is probably representative of superior numbers of musketmen rather than an actual man-to-man superiority.

I heard Praet got (once again) more expensive (to what? 50?), what did they do to the Jag? (I don't have Warlords yet).

 

[Henrik]

Not sure if it's been stressed already but if you're playing the turk then they are indeed worth it. Janisaries are wicked as both attackers and defenders