Musketmen - poor design, poor tech placement?
- Thread starter AfterShafter
- Start date
scottcstoness
Chieftain
homan1983 said:
Pretty much everything you said in the post was bang on, but the British did have a few rifle units in the Pennisular war -- check out Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe novels. Of course, the rifles didn't appear in *nearly* as many places as he has them appearing, and they were pretty marginal units useful for those few times when slow reloading and extreme accuracy were militarily useful -- e.g. rarely.
An interesting later analogue was the WWI Canadian Ross Rifle. Canada asserted its political independence from Britain by waiting three days after Britain did to declare war, and the Canadian war ministers lined their pockets by sending troops in with the Ross, rather than the Lee Enfield. The rifles were finicky, and became nearly useless when they got dirty, which made them little more than bayonet holders in the trenches; troops tossed them for Lee Enfields as soon as they could. However, the rifle was extremely accurate, and was the sniper's rifle of choice, at least in the Canadian divisions, throughout the war.
http://www.google.com/search?q=military+rifles+versus+muskets&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Here let me start you off. All I did was type "military rifles versus muskets"
You can use your imagination and come up with different variations.
The thing to remember is that the Internet is for more than just sitting in a forum massing post counts typing 1liner sarcastic remarks hoping to become the forum clown.
Saying: "Yeah, I didn't think so." was very witty though, I have fond memories of those teenage brawls.
What it didn't do was give a single reason as to why I was wrong.
Spend some time and read up on the subject, or just do what 99% of the forumers have done here and refrain from posting.
You know as soon as I saw your post a quote came to mind:
Here let me start you off. All I did was type "military rifles versus muskets"
You can use your imagination and come up with different variations.
The thing to remember is that the Internet is for more than just sitting in a forum massing post counts typing 1liner sarcastic remarks hoping to become the forum clown.
Saying: "Yeah, I didn't think so." was very witty though, I have fond memories of those teenage brawls.
What it didn't do was give a single reason as to why I was wrong.
Spend some time and read up on the subject, or just do what 99% of the forumers have done here and refrain from posting.
You know as soon as I saw your post a quote came to mind:
homan1983 said:
The first paragraph of the wikipedia article that came up from your search.
"British military rifles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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. Ironically, a similar tactical preference would be a factor in considerations regarding rifle design in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when rate of fire would be a key design consideration for British bolt action rifles."
Who's the clown? You offer no evidence (except google searches that confirm what those you attack have been saying) and pick stupid fights instead. As for "What it didn't do was give a single reason as to why I was wrong.", did I say that you were wrong or did I accept your point as possibly true (I'm aware of my fallibility, if yours isn't obvious enough by now you'll probably never see it) and ask you to support it? You really do seem to long for those teenage brawls, but I wish you'd find someplace else to start them. Myspace?
The irony is that even the piece of evidence you have dug up doesn't comfirm what you say.
But at least we are getting somewhere, now that you're on the path of reading and enlightenment perhaps you should take some time off the forums and expand your knowledgebase instead.
READ
READ
READ!
Don't just make stupid assumptions!
But at least we are getting somewhere, now that you're on the path of reading and enlightenment perhaps you should take some time off the forums and expand your knowledgebase instead.
READ
READ
READ!
Don't just make stupid assumptions!
Back to muskets in the game.........
Has anyone mentioned janisseries, and the Ottomans. If you beeline to gunpowder and then to engineering, and get their a little ahead of everyone else, an army of janisseries and few pikemen (don't need many) will polisha medieval army off easy. It takes a bit of a commitment though with regards to tech beelines and you hav to be quite quick (slavery helps)
Has anyone mentioned janisseries, and the Ottomans. If you beeline to gunpowder and then to engineering, and get their a little ahead of everyone else, an army of janisseries and few pikemen (don't need many) will polisha medieval army off easy. It takes a bit of a commitment though with regards to tech beelines and you hav to be quite quick (slavery helps)
homan1983 said:
Do you want to try and be adult about this just once and quote some facts to support your claim? If not, I'm ending this. I never claimed to know a great deal about the topic, but all the facts on the table support my claim. I've acknowledged your argument and asked you to support it, but all we have to support your claim is your wierd anger and claim that "the real world" is your source.
Randolph
Warlord
This thread is just begging to be closed. It doesn’t seem that anyone has substantially different positions. Everyone appears to agree that:
(1) There was a period of time between the invention of rifling and breach loading (and other improvements to rate of fire)
(1) Pre-breach-loading, muskets had a better rate of fire, but less accuracy: RoF was more important in large military engagements, accuracy in hunting and sniper situations.
(2) Post-breach loading, rifling no longer slowed down loading time, thus rifle and musket RoF were approximately the same, and rifles were clearly superior in all contexts.
BTW I know next to nothing about guns, so don’t start arguing we me, I’m just trying to summarize the thread.
(1) There was a period of time between the invention of rifling and breach loading (and other improvements to rate of fire)
(1) Pre-breach-loading, muskets had a better rate of fire, but less accuracy: RoF was more important in large military engagements, accuracy in hunting and sniper situations.
(2) Post-breach loading, rifling no longer slowed down loading time, thus rifle and musket RoF were approximately the same, and rifles were clearly superior in all contexts.
BTW I know next to nothing about guns, so don’t start arguing we me, I’m just trying to summarize the thread.
DarkSchneider
King
I agree, I don't think I have ever built more than 1 musketman. I always end up using Longbowmen for defense until I get either Riflemen or Grenadiers and go on offense. Musketmen are pointless, although I could see myself building a few of the UUs based on them, the base unit is obselete.
Randolph said:
That's roughly my position, and all the facts I and others have laid out seem to support it. Muskets came first. Late muskets were better for standard infantry operations (line up and fire as fast as you can in that direction) than early rifles, which had better range/accuracy but were slower. As rifles improved (especially ROF, also range, accuracy and penetrating power, especially with the Minie ball) muskets became obsolete. The disagreement (sans the bizarre hostility) is that Homan said "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." and I'm waiting for some facts to back that up.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
OK, the general problem with Muskets is not Riflemen, but Grenadiers, available relatively soon after Muskets (and Cavalry as well)
The best solution would probably be to make Grenadiers a slightly higher tech (say have them require Replaceable Parts as well as Chemistry)
Probably do the same with Cavalry. Have them require MT, HorseRiding and Chemistry rather than MT, HR, and Gunpowder.
You could also slightly decrease the cost of Gunpowder (as a tech) or of Muskets themselves.
The best solution would probably be to make Grenadiers a slightly higher tech (say have them require Replaceable Parts as well as Chemistry)
Probably do the same with Cavalry. Have them require MT, HorseRiding and Chemistry rather than MT, HR, and Gunpowder.
You could also slightly decrease the cost of Gunpowder (as a tech) or of Muskets themselves.
methane
Warlord
DarkSchneider said:
It's time is limited, but it's a quite useful unit for the time it's there...mostly on the defense. Of course, I play on epic speed, so every unit has a more extended shelf life.
My last game I was playing as the Egyptians without horses on a huge map. I was in basically nonstop war for 100s of turns, as just about every civ on the map declared war on me 2 or 3 at a time, while I fought defensively, never losing a city, occasionally taking one that borders me. (I admit, I screwed up my diplomacy that game!). When several ships worth of troops get dropped off next to one of your cities you really appreciate the fact that you can draft musketmen! Without horses, they were also the best offensive unit in the field I could build. They're stronger than maceman, and the opposing army has no unit that counters it.
They've also been a pain when I'm on the attack. A few games ago, I was trying to annex Germany to my kingdom and was sieging his cities. My attack was greatly slowed by his catapults in cities; I had to keep delaying my attacks while I healed (and those catapults seemed to have about a 90% withdraw rate!). During this time he developed gunpowder. The muskets that appear can kill anything in my stack. Fortunately for me, the AI would use it to kill my best unit the turn he built it, then he would attack with it again the next turn before it healed, usually leading to its death. This was the AI's fault, not the fault of the unit!
Certainly their window of usefulness is small, but if you're in a war when they become available, you should be building them.
methane said:
Certainly, but the same goes for the Marine and it's still a strong but little used niche unit. The difference is that Marines, though powerful and crucial in some truly key battles (Iwo Jima and the rest of the U.S. advance across the Pacific), have played that role in the real history of the world, whereas hundreds of years of it were written with musketmen. Obviously "Marine" is a stand-in for elite mobile infantry in the game, but even then.
a4phantom said:
Yes, and I presented them to you but you seem to be blind.
In fact early rifles weren't even used as a military weapon so I think your point is kinda moot!
You say thats roughly your position but you seem to be the only person here that keeps arguing about it. Although I'm pleased to see that you are doing somewhat ofa u-turn and have at least conceded that military rifles had the SAME ROF as muskets. What you seem to miss though - and had you any knowledge of the subject - is that by the time the military had started the use of rifles their ROF was HIGHER than muskets, not even the same.
homan1983 said:
1. As usual, plenty of arrogance, lots of anger, but no facts (which is understandable seeing how poorly they've served you so far, the phobia is sad but not unreasonable). You seem to be trying to duck out of defending your statement "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." You claim to be so enlightened that the very "real world" proves your statements correct, so how hard could it be to find some evidence for that (seemingly odd, to lesser minds) claim?
2. Of course militaries abandoned muskets and adopted rifles once rifles became advanced and clearly superior to muskets. Duh. Please support your nonsense about me making a "u-turn" or having "conceded" anything to you by quoting what you're accusing me of originally saying then backtracking on.
3. You claim to have presented facts to which I was blind. I don't think that's true. If it is indeed true, please point out where. I, for example, quoted the Wikipedia article your google search brought up and it 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 ." Where are your facts?
4. "Although I'm pleased to see that you are doing somewhat ofa u-turn and have at least conceded that military rifles had the SAME ROF as muskets. What you seem to miss though - and had you any knowledge of the subject - is that by the time the military had started the use of rifles their ROF was HIGHER than muskets, not even the same."
Which do you consider the first military rifles?
homan1983 said:
Funny, since I'm the one presenting and asking for evidence. You claim I've said certain things, but you refuse to show where. You claim that your opinions are self evident truths, proven by "the real world", but you refuse to give any evidence which should be plentiful. You lack even the courage or integrity to define which you consider the first "military" rifles, when you're trying to make the whole debate hinge on that distinction! So I'm not at all sorry to see this end. Goodbye, goodluck.
Similar threads
