New and Changed Unit Stats

[Pikkis]

He edited his post after I quoted him, did you notice?

No, I didn't (I think you knew that already). About bonuses, I think that Grenadiers should have attack bonus against Musketmans as well as against Riflemans (+50% against both).

 

[DrewBledsoe]

The fictional Grenadier bonus is almost certainly made up for gameplay. Why on earth should a small hand thrown bomb, with very limited range, have any possible advantage over a guy with a long ranged lethal projectile weapon.

The bit in Indiana Jones, where the Arab starts twirling his sword, and Indy just shrugs, grabs his pistol, and shoots him instead springs to mind.

 

[Roland Johansen]

The fictional Grenadier bonus is almost certainly made up for gameplay. Why on earth should a small hand thrown bomb, with very limited range, have any possible advantage over a guy with a long ranged lethal projectile weapon.

The bit in Indiana Jones, where the Arab starts twirling his sword, and Indy just shrugs, grabs his pistol, and shoots him instead springs to mind.

I have thought about that, but the wars in that era were relatively boring if you look at the different types of units used. It's hard to find a historical counter unit for the rifleman as battles were often riflemen vs riflemen.

Cannons armed with shrapnel shots could be called a historical counter unit for riflemen. Then you'd get cannon > rifleman > cavalry > cannon. But the problem is that artillery units already have a special position in civ4 warfare with the collateral damage system. So also making them a counter unit vs riflemen might overpower them.

Edit: the grenadier bonus is not completely fictional if you consider this Wikipedia article. It's good that they only get the bonus on the attack. But they were only effective during a small period as the firearms got better at longer ranges and could be fired more rapidly.

 

[Pikkis]

Edit: the grenadier bonus is not completely fictional if you consider this Wikipedia article. It's good that they only get the bonus on the attack. But they were only effective during a small period as the firearms got better at longer ranges and could be fired more rapidly.

But what do you think about my suggestion to add attack bonus against Musketmen too, I think that if it can be faster to act than unit with a rifle (that's the reason of the advantage, though it should because of that reason instead have 2/3 first strikes, but that would Riflemen units w/o counter), it's also faster to act than unit with a musket. Though more modern units than Rifleman are faster to act than Grenadier, older units than Rifleman should be much easier to beat, not just a bit.

Rifleman defending: 12.00 vs. 9.33
Musketman defending: 12.00 vs. 9.00

With my suggestion:
Musketman defending: 12.00 vs. 6.00

 

[Edgecrusher]

I have thought about that, but the wars in that era were relatively boring if you look at the different types of units used. It's hard to find a historical counter unit for the rifleman as battles were often riflemen vs riflemen.

I thought a "Sharpshooter" unit should have been used instead of a Grenadier. i.e. a "longer" range rifleman with pinpoint accuracy.

Grenadiers could stay as an offensive unit vs cities (much like the Medieval Swordman or the War Elephant)

Pikeman --> Rifleman
Knight ---> Cavalry
Maceman ---> Sharpshooter

 

[Roland Johansen]

But what do you think about my suggestion to add attack bonus against Musketmen too, I think that if it can be faster to act than unit with a rifle (that's the reason of the advantage, though it should because of that reason instead have 2/3 first strikes, but that would Riflemen units w/o counter), it's also faster to act than unit with a musket. Though more modern units than Rifleman are faster to act than Grenadier, older units than Rifleman should be much easier to beat, not just a bit.

Rifleman defending: 12.00 vs. 9.33
Musketman defending: 12.00 vs. 9.00

With my suggestion:
Musketman defending: 12.00 vs. 6.00

The grenadier is only effective when used offensively against the rifleman, so the rifleman is already a lot better than the musketman against the grenadier. But you're right that it is historically illogical that the grenadier can effectively storm a position of riflemen and doesn't have a similar advantage against musketmen (allthough the effectiveness of storming riflemen seriously diminished when rifles became quicker to load and more accurate).

I thought a "Sharpshooter" unit should have been used instead of a Grenadier. i.e. a "longer" range rifleman with pinpoint accuracy.

Grenadiers could stay as an offensive unit vs cities (much like the Medieval Swordman or the War Elephant)

Pikeman --> Rifleman
Knight ---> Cavalry
Maceman ---> Sharpshooter

The rifle was developed specifically to get better accuracy and range. It was the sharpshooting weapon of its age. The spiraling effect on the bullet by a rifled gun made the gun more accurate than the smooth-bore musket. So, I don't exactly know what you mean with sharpshooters. We're talking about 1850-1930 here. Shortly after the riflemen appeared also early machine guns appeared and then repeating rifles and then you're close to the era of the unit represented by infantry in this game. The modern sniper unit with telescope vision is something I would place in WWII in city fighting. The sniper is more used to kill officers disrupting the command structure and demoralizing the enemy and not to win a battle on its own. It's part of a unit and not a unit on itself. Whenever I see an infantry unit in this game, I imagine that some of the soldiers in the unit are snipers.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

The rifle was developed specifically to get better accuracy and range. It was the sharpshooting weapon of its age. The spiraling effect on the bullet by a rifled gun made the gun more accurate than the smooth-bore musket. So, I don't exactly know what you mean with sharpshooters. We're talking about 1850-1930 here. Shortly after the riflemen appeared also early machine guns appeared and then repeating rifles and then you're close to the era of the unit represented by infantry in this game. The modern sniper unit with telescope vision is something I would place in WWII in city fighting. The sniper is more used to kill officers disrupting the command structure and demoralizing the enemy and not to win a battle on its own. It's part of a unit and not a unit on itself. Whenever I see an infantry unit in this game, I imagine that some of the soldiers in the unit are snipers.

Well, sharpshooters were used long before WWII... certainly during the American Civil War and before too. However, a sharpshooter unit, to me, is a bad idea as is any kind of sniper units. While deadly and capable of doing a lot of damage by killing higher-ranking officers, snipers would never be able to kill a whole "unit" of infantry.

Personally, I think they should just get rid of the Grenadier and let the Riflemen just slug it out... Let the better-trained (i.e. more highly promoted) units win.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Well, sharpshooters were used long before WWII... certainly during the American Civil War and before too. However, a sharpshooter unit, to me, is a bad idea as is any kind of sniper units. While deadly and capable of doing a lot of damage by killing higher-ranking officers, snipers would never be able to kill a whole "unit" of infantry.

Personally, I think they should just get rid of the Grenadier and let the Riflemen just slug it out... Let the better-trained (i.e. more highly promoted) units win.

I know that sharpshooters existed before the modern sniper and you're right that they would never be a complete unit that would completely destroy another unit.

Removing the grenadier might be more realistic. Although elite units that were used for storming the line did exist, they could well be represented by highly promoted units. But I guess, you would quickly get the player complaint that the era in the game is a bit boring for warfare (as it historically was in terms of different units).

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Removing the grenadier might be more realistic. Although elite units that were used for storming the line did exist, they could well be represented by highly promoted units. But I guess, you would quickly get the player complaint that the era in the game is a bit boring for warfare (as it historically was in terms of different units).

Well, if you could have Artillery units providing support when stacked with infantry units, you might get some more interesting combinations.. it's not a particularly long period of the game anyway... That's beyond the scope of this.. especially since some people are already playing the game, but it's something I'll keep in mind for mods.