Musketmen? What for?

[sylvanllewelyn]

Cavalry were only effective after the advant of gunpowder because they were good at making sure routing armies kept routing. As soon as a line wavers, cavalry will ensure that they will never reform.

A frontal charge against infantry after the advant of gunpowder is a contest of wills, not even numbers or training. By default, if the infantry simply stood there and did not panic, the horses would only kill off the first rank, and then proceed to get themselves slaughtered, as horses fear man as much as man fear horses. The difference wasn't even muskets and rifles, but rather the training and experience of having a group of ranged units without pike support standing still against charging horses. In the age of muskets, men simply wasn't ready for new ideas about fighting cavalry.

Nothing wrong with muskets themselves, they dealt horrible damage in volleys, but commanders didn't learn how to organize gunpowder armies until the advant of rifles, so many mistaken this as "rifles were a lot deadlier than muskets". In truth, neither rifles nor muskets killed a lot - the killers were cannons.

 

[Roxlimn]

I actually use a fair bit of musketry if I get it first somehow, or at least earlier than my neighbor. A 9 strength gunpowder unit with a few relevant promotions under its belt is surprisingly good for taking cities; and they can be drafted!

 

[aronnax]

I dont like musketmen, I find them quite useless, usually I fight with Macemen and knights and sometimes a few crossbowmen and give them rifles when i can.

 

[Antilogic]

Cavalry were only effective after the advant of gunpowder because they were good at making sure routing armies kept routing. As soon as a line wavers, cavalry will ensure that they will never reform.

A frontal charge against infantry after the advant of gunpowder is a contest of wills, not even numbers or training. By default, if the infantry simply stood there and did not panic, the horses would only kill off the first rank, and then proceed to get themselves slaughtered, as horses fear man as much as man fear horses. The difference wasn't even muskets and rifles, but rather the training and experience of having a group of ranged units without pike support standing still against charging horses. In the age of muskets, men simply wasn't ready for new ideas about fighting cavalry.

Nothing wrong with muskets themselves, they dealt horrible damage in volleys, but commanders didn't learn how to organize gunpowder armies until the advant of rifles, so many mistaken this as "rifles were a lot deadlier than muskets". In truth, neither rifles nor muskets killed a lot - the killers were cannons.

Spoken like someone who has done some reading on the subject. I salute you, good sir.

I'm wondering how they could be fixed, if its necessary (I'm in favor of some small improvement). However, let's wait for BtS in two weeks to see what Firaxis has done before jumping the gun. Pun may have been intentional.

 

[UncleJJ]

Cavalry were only effective after the advant of gunpowder because they were good at making sure routing armies kept routing. As soon as a line wavers, cavalry will ensure that they will never reform.

A frontal charge against infantry after the advant of gunpowder is a contest of wills, not even numbers or training. By default, if the infantry simply stood there and did not panic, the horses would only kill off the first rank, and then proceed to get themselves slaughtered, as horses fear man as much as man fear horses. The difference wasn't even muskets and rifles, but rather the training and experience of having a group of ranged units without pike support standing still against charging horses. In the age of muskets, men simply wasn't ready for new ideas about fighting cavalry.

Nothing wrong with muskets themselves, they dealt horrible damage in volleys, but commanders didn't learn how to organize gunpowder armies until the advant of rifles, so many mistaken this as "rifles were a lot deadlier than muskets". In truth, neither rifles nor muskets killed a lot - the killers were cannons.

I don't think this is right, at least not for the period in the 1640s during the English Civil War. At that time musket armed infantry were definitely not able to stand against the cavalry of the time on their own in the open. They needed the cover of hedges, buildings or blocks of pike armed infantry. That is often called the period of pike and shot, with the muskets providing the shot ( see wiki/Pike_and_shot. The infantry component of armies on continental europe and in the several wars in Engalnd, Scotland and Ireland was about 2/3 musket and 1/3 pike. The main role of the pike was to provide staying power against shock action from cavalry or other pike both of which would roll over unsupported musket armed troops. That was due to the relatively weak firepower of muskets at that time even though they were often using volley fire techniques.

The flintlock musket and bayonet was introduced gradually into European warfare during the 1670s and that saw what you seem to be suggesting - that musket armed infantry that could withstand the contemporary cavalry - by adopting defensive formations. The use of the bayonet meant that pikemen were no longer needed to provide protection from shock action and they were phased out and so all infantry could become the ubiquitous musket and bayonet armed line infantry.

This is getting off topic perhaps, but Firaxis have done a very bad job of covering the evolution of gunpowder armed troops, at least for European warfare from say 1400 through to 1900. During most of that period smooth bore muskets were the dominant gunpowder weapon. The major developments that occured during this period was the use of paper cartridges, flintlocks and bayonets and various formations to maximise firepower and resist shock cavalry. Rifles (for line infantry rather than skirmishers) and breechloading were introduced relatively late circa 1850. The grenadier was just a specialist constituting maybe 10% of an army that eventually became an elite designation for musket armed infantry. The vast bulk of all European armies (and the American revolutionary army) from say 1700 until nearly 1850 consisted of musket and bayonet armed infantry. So the Redcoat is completely the wrong sort of troop as he was not rifle armed until the Crimean War (and should really be an upgraded grenadier).

 

[IPEX-731BA5DD06]

Uncle JJ, thanks for the history lesson. Honestly Thanks. An educated voice is a pleasure to hear.

Back to game stratergy, Muskets as defence, I use bowmen/pikes/longbows, to keep citizens happy. Actual defence is my stack of doom, I declare war, roll up to a city, catapult it down, *Vanilla civ*, and Catapult defenders if I have some left, usually first 3 cities I do...then is "Macemen, forward" (Lords of the Realm 2), or even Swords do well.... Maceman with City raider 2, coming out of Barracks, win and lose, gain city raider 3, win some more, gain combat 1, 2, etc....Muskets, "OOOhhhhaaa"...., Longbows "Arrrgghhhh", Crossbows ( I hate crossbows)...are a problem so you lose a couple there..nothings prefect, and promotion has its risks....

Take city, rest hurt maces with healing unit, and 2 longbows for counter attack, move on to next city, rinse and repeat.

Drafting Muskets, I NEVER and I mean NEVER use NATIONALISM at that time, I'm busy building Universities or the University of Oxford in Capital under Beauracy, and conquering the continent.

Rifles, don't draft either...I don't invade other continent *I play continents as I like navy*, till after Combustion and destroyers/transports. I recently drafted a continent of Infantry 40+ and invaded other continent with my conquering army and drafted infantry as city garrision. City raiding infantry 3, are scary, as are city raiding cannon 3.....again, stack of doom are my defenders.

Last game, I used this to great affect, I attacked Napoleon to build a corridor through to Isobela who I wanted to attack via sea and land.

Land stack of Doom conquerers up to Isobelas borders, and I'm about to make peace with Nappy, when she declares on EX ALLY. Takes out 4 cities in 2 turns...I"m thinking...."whoa.....got to reconsider my plans", when she takes a city RIGHT NEXT TO MY STACK OF DOOM...well 3/4 tiles away/railroads.

So while city is still in anarchy and she has 1 stack of 20+ resting, and another 20+ advancing into Nappy's lands 95%+ INFANTRY, I declare, attack and destroy all but one in city. launch attack via sea, (they sat there for 20 turns)...take 2 more cities, end turn and wait. Of course she reinforces with 2nd 20+ stack, so again I destroy and take city, thus I effectively broke her military might, *INfantry and tanks*, took 4 CORE cities, including Madrid in 5 turns.

Crux is, defenders only keep Pop happy, no "we demand military protection", and stack of Doom is HOME LAND DEFENCE/OFFENCE.

 

[obsolete]

UncleJJ: I agree with you on the Redcoat issue, and was actually going to complain about that myself sometime.

IPex: Lords of the Realm 2.

Ohh what fun memorizes. Used to play that over and over to death until I mastered it and beat every god damn level no matter what. Even when the graphics got out of date it was sort of fun. Unfortunately LoTR III was a letdown, as is obvious from all the flack the forums got. Not surprising, as it was a totally different game altogether just under the same name. ARgggh, Damn you Sierra!

 

[Antilogic]

I don't think this is right, at least not for the period in the 1640s during the English Civil War. At that time musket armed infantry were definitely not able to stand against the cavalry of the time on their own in the open. They needed the cover of hedges, buildings or blocks of pike armed infantry. That is often called the period of pike and shot, with the muskets providing the shot ( see wiki/Pike_and_shot. The infantry component of armies on continental europe and in the several wars in Engalnd, Scotland and Ireland was about 2/3 musket and 1/3 pike. The main role of the pike was to provide staying power against shock action from cavalry or other pike both of which would roll over unsupported musket armed troops. That was due to the relatively weak firepower of muskets at that time even though they were often using volley fire techniques.

The flintlock musket and bayonet was introduced gradually into European warfare during the 1670s and that saw what you seem to be suggesting - that musket armed infantry that could withstand the contemporary cavalry - by adopting defensive formations. The use of the bayonet meant that pikemen were no longer needed to provide protection from shock action and they were phased out and so all infantry could become the ubiquitous musket and bayonet armed line infantry.

This is getting off topic perhaps, but Firaxis have done a very bad job of covering the evolution of gunpowder armed troops, at least for European warfare from say 1400 through to 1900. During most of that period smooth bore muskets were the dominant gunpowder weapon. The major developments that occured during this period was the use of paper cartridges, flintlocks and bayonets and various formations to maximise firepower and resist shock cavalry. Rifles (for line infantry rather than skirmishers) and breechloading were introduced relatively late circa 1850. The grenadier was just a specialist constituting maybe 10% of an army that eventually became an elite designation for musket armed infantry. The vast bulk of all European armies (and the American revolutionary army) from say 1700 until nearly 1850 consisted of musket and bayonet armed infantry. So the Redcoat is completely the wrong sort of troop as he was not rifle armed until the Crimean War (and should really be an upgraded grenadier).

What you say is true for the 17th century. However, as time progressed into the 18th and 19th centuries, cavalry charges became less and less effective against infantry formations (largely due to technological advancements with muskets). Cavalry pursuits, however, were a fact of life for the routed infantry, and many retreating troops were cut down by horsemen with swords, even in the 19th century. Up until machine guns made cavalry much more ineffective (see: WW1).


However, back to the topic at hand:

Here's an idea...I wonder if BtS will have support for the discovery of a technology improving an existing unit. As in, discover Replaceable Parts, and your muskets increase in strength by 2. Or, make muskets a lot cheaper.

Or, add another unit inbetween current muskets (renamed arquebuisers, sorry for poor spelling), and make it very cheap to upgrade the poor muskets to the good ones.