CyberChrist
You caught my attention
It would only require some fairly simple pieces of Python code to be added to accomplish this.
Redcoat UU's purpose
- Thread starter Wolfshanze
- Start date
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Ah great... something else I don't know how to do!
Well, I don't have a problem with the "Redcoat Graphic" they used... if they want to use that because it's familiar with the US audience, fine with me... but then make it the "Musketman" unit, not the Rifleman unit, because that's what it is...
If US audiences are familiar with the "Knight in shining armor" look, I'm fine with that too, but don't use a Knight in shining armor look for the Tank... use it for what it is... a Knight!
Same goes for the Redcoat... if they want to use the quisessential "Redcoat" from revolutionary times, then use it for the Musketman, not the Rifleman... that was all I was saying.
I care not if the UU for England is the Musketman or the Rifleman... I just want the graphic to match the unit!
Verge
Let's hug it out
Whereas I don't particularly care because 1) the developers could only give justice to the Redcoat by making it a Rifleman replacement instead of the less powerful (and quickly obsolete) Musketman, and 2) the Redcoat graphic is close enough to what it's trying to represent. The "tank and knight" argument doesn't convince me because that's not a matter of "close enough;" it's blatantly incongruous that would be palpable to anyone playing the game, whereas the Redcoat's graphic problem is a matter of relatively subtle distinctions that slip by the vast majority of players.
I argue all this at the risk of being cavalier with history, but given that there is already appreciable leeway in terms of the game's historical accuracy, the Redcoat's graphic is really a trivial matter. Ultimately, most players--including those with strong backgrounds in history--will consider the Redcoat's graphic appropriate in regards to what the developers wanted to convey.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
I have to take issue with that... anyone with a passing knowledge of history would have to realize the redcoat graphic in Civ4 represents musket-weilding troops (most notably the famous "Brown Bess"), and that the revolutionary war uniform of the Redcoat predates widespread rifle use by European armies by approximately 100 years passage of time.
Sorry, but I'm not buying the "close enough" when we're talking 100 years differance in uniforms and small-arms technology.
The graphic they chose for the UU "Rifleman" is about 100 years and a completely differant firearm off-target... that's not close at all.
To be clear Verge, not upset with you, I'm just saying I think Firaxis was bonkers to choose this graphic to represent the Rifleman... or, in other terms bonkers to call that unit a rifleman when it's clearly a musketman.
I'm just trying to figure-out Firaxis' intent... did they mean to make it a Rifleman and chose the wrong graphic, or did they choose the right graphic and accidentally forgot to make it a musketman?
No matter how you slice-it, dice-it, twist-it, turn-it, spin-it... the graphic for the English UU in the game is the Revolutionary War era British troop (roughly 1770s), and in that timeframe, the Brown Bess smoothbore musket, which was used in the era of the expansion of the British Empire and acquired symbolic importance at least as significant as its physical importance, was in it's heyday. To say it's a "Rifleman" unit, or to say it's "close enough" to being a rifleman, is just plain silly and a slap in the face to the most predominate musket in British history.
I really don't care if Firaxis says the best British troops are musketmen or rifleman... I just want the graphic to match the unit... I've shown two fine examples at the top of this post of a "Redcoat" Musketman and Rifleman. I have both in my game as such... I'm just trying to figure out if I should give the UU bonus to the Musketman or Rifleman.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
What do you mean - you don't know how to code it yourself or even adding code made by others would pose a problem?Ah great... something else I don't know how to do!
Verge
Let's hug it out
I think you're simply looking to far into the issue, Wolfshanze. The most likely explanation of the discrepancy is that the developers of Firaxis, who are busy trying to produce an entire game, probably didn't care that the Redcoat as its depicted in the game is not a rifleman. Why? Well, now that I've come to think about it, consider all the other unique units and what they replace:
Is the Jaguar Warrior a Swordsman?
Is the Phalanx an Axeman?
Is the Samurai a Maceman?
Is the Hwacha a Catapult?
Is the Skirmisher an Archer?
Is the Immortal a Chariot?*
Is the Beserker a Maceman?
Is the Gallic Warrior a Swordsman?
*I find the Immortal particularly out of place because it clearly depicts a man riding a horse, despite the fact that you only need to research the Wheel instead of Horseback Riding.
The only conclusion you can really come regarding any of these is "no," but in the end, no one truly cares. Hence, despite my full knowledge that the Redcoat's graphic in no way depicts a rifleman, I honestly can't see any reason to take issue with it.
Firaxis's intent is pretty obvious, I think: Let's make a unit that's fun, gameplay-wise. If that means infringing on a bit of history, they made the accurate prediction that few people will do more than twitch.
Is the Jaguar Warrior a Swordsman?
Is the Phalanx an Axeman?
Is the Samurai a Maceman?
Is the Hwacha a Catapult?
Is the Skirmisher an Archer?
Is the Immortal a Chariot?*
Is the Beserker a Maceman?
Is the Gallic Warrior a Swordsman?
*I find the Immortal particularly out of place because it clearly depicts a man riding a horse, despite the fact that you only need to research the Wheel instead of Horseback Riding.
The only conclusion you can really come regarding any of these is "no," but in the end, no one truly cares. Hence, despite my full knowledge that the Redcoat's graphic in no way depicts a rifleman, I honestly can't see any reason to take issue with it.
Firaxis's intent is pretty obvious, I think: Let's make a unit that's fun, gameplay-wise. If that means infringing on a bit of history, they made the accurate prediction that few people will do more than twitch.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
I simply can't agree with any of that...
Is the Samurai a Maceman? No he isn't... but the Samurai (or Maceman) isn't preceeded by a Samurai either. You don't have a Samurai, that is then upgraded to a Samurai...
But with the British unit you have a Musketman that is upgraded to... a Musketman (the Redcoat).
You also don't look at the other units they are likely to face. A Samurai is likely to face other medieval units (Maceman anyone?)... gee... the Samurai existed in medieval times.
The Redcoat (as a Rifleman) is likely to face... OTHER RIFLEMAN... well that doesn't make sense because the graphic is for a 18th century Musketman, when every other nation would be fielding 19th century riflemen.
Really Verge, you seem to go out of your way to justify Firaxis throwing history and logic out the window. You seem to be arguing for the mere sake of arguing, and you're not making any valid points on this if you really look at how lazy Firaxis was on this particular subject.
I don't have a problem making something fun and throwing something out the window if it would infringe on fun. But you only do that if you CAN'T have fun AND history right... but in this case, it's clear with a minimal amount of effort (really none at all), they could make it BOTH FUN AND HISTORICAL... but I suppose you don't want anything accurate, lets just randomly make fun stuff even if it would require no effort at all to make it fun and historical.
Really verge, you're going way out of your way to justify an obvious goof on Firaxis part... just how hard would it have been for them to make the Redcoat with a musketman graphic a musketman? Or how hard would it have been for them to make a redcoat graphic of the correct rifleman period uniform?
Neither is difficult, and neither needed to be sacrificed... yeah, they didn't care to get it right... and you justify it. I'm not looking to crucify anyone, I would just like to know what Firaxis' intent was, and failing that, what the majority of folks THINK Firaxis might have been trying to do.
Firaxis got it wrong... not because it either had to be accurate or fun and there was no middle ground... no... they just didn't care... you got that part right.
I'm just looking to fix it... it doesn't take much effort to get it right and historical and make it every bit as fun... someone has to pick up the slack for Firaxis.
Verge
Let's hug it out
I'm not trying to justify anything, really. I'm only trying to explain why:
1) Firaxis doesn't care about maintaining strong consistency. Heck, they probably didn't even consider that their depiction of the Redcoat was historically incorrect.
2) That people don't necessarily care either. This is the first time I've ever seen someone bring up the inaccuracy of the English unique unit.
Most importantly, I'm trying to explain why:
3) I don't care, despite knowing of the problem with the English unique unit and plenty of other curious inconsistencies.
Again, /invokes airship. This is a far better launchpad for constructive criticisms of Firaxis than the Redcoat.
1) Firaxis doesn't care about maintaining strong consistency. Heck, they probably didn't even consider that their depiction of the Redcoat was historically incorrect.
2) That people don't necessarily care either. This is the first time I've ever seen someone bring up the inaccuracy of the English unique unit.
Most importantly, I'm trying to explain why:
3) I don't care, despite knowing of the problem with the English unique unit and plenty of other curious inconsistencies.
Again, /invokes airship. This is a far better launchpad for constructive criticisms of Firaxis than the Redcoat.
GeneralMatt
Emperor
Wolfshanze@ The change to volley fire and the bayonet to me signify as much change as the change to squad based combat from the volley firing. Because (discounting the uniforms) that is all that is inherently different between the "Rifleman" and the "Infantry", tactics and support tactics.
Your argument about Redcoats not making sense replacing riflemen could also make sense to not replace musketmen. If so, redcoats would then be fighting Macemen, and knights, and French Musketeers which is just as inaccurate as fighting Rifleman. That is why I am an advocate for an expanded industrial era which could then include an earlier cannon (Which should be in there either way) maybe another ship or two, and definitely a musket unit to represent the period from the start of the flintlock to the breech loading rifles.
the Mod Total Realism did it real well it looks. I have not played far enough, but it looks like it has not been ignored that whole era..
Your argument about Redcoats not making sense replacing riflemen could also make sense to not replace musketmen. If so, redcoats would then be fighting Macemen, and knights, and French Musketeers which is just as inaccurate as fighting Rifleman. That is why I am an advocate for an expanded industrial era which could then include an earlier cannon (Which should be in there either way) maybe another ship or two, and definitely a musket unit to represent the period from the start of the flintlock to the breech loading rifles.
the Mod Total Realism did it real well it looks. I have not played far enough, but it looks like it has not been ignored that whole era..
BoydofZINJ
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 126
I dont think I lost any sleep knowing the red coats were firing muskets versus having a rifleman unit with bullets in my civ games.
If you want them to be muskets, create a civ mod and "make it so"
The Immortals were light infantry and the Persians did have calvary units as well but they were not Immortals. So... I wont lose any sleep seeing a few horsies with immortals. 300 had horsie units and no one called foul! 300, by the way, was not accurate - but yet its close and a very good movie. i will not lose sleep knowing that the Greeks had a large naval force helping the "300" with an additional 6K land troops in the background as well.
Going back to redcoats, I personally beleive ther should be Muskets --> upgraded muskets (which will be replaced by redcoats) and THEN infantry. However, that means that both the regular muskets and the upgraded musket units will have a smaller "life" in the game. Hence, a ballance must be made so Redcoats be in the game a bit longer than 2 techs - depending on your game style you can get past the redcoat era very fast.
If you want them to be muskets, create a civ mod and "make it so"
The Immortals were light infantry and the Persians did have calvary units as well but they were not Immortals. So... I wont lose any sleep seeing a few horsies with immortals. 300 had horsie units and no one called foul! 300, by the way, was not accurate - but yet its close and a very good movie. i will not lose sleep knowing that the Greeks had a large naval force helping the "300" with an additional 6K land troops in the background as well.
Going back to redcoats, I personally beleive ther should be Muskets --> upgraded muskets (which will be replaced by redcoats) and THEN infantry. However, that means that both the regular muskets and the upgraded musket units will have a smaller "life" in the game. Hence, a ballance must be made so Redcoats be in the game a bit longer than 2 techs - depending on your game style you can get past the redcoat era very fast.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Actually then that is not correct. While it is true that 'Immortals' was first applied to Persian Elite Infantry during the Achaemenid period, then the term was also later used for Persian Elite Cavalry during the Sassanian dynasty.
BoydofZINJ
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 126
According to this wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Immortals
The Achaemenid Persian Immortals, also known as the Persian Immortals or The Immortals were an elite force of soldiers which performed the dual roles of both Imperial Guard and standing army during the Greco-Persian Wars. Herodotus describes the Immortals as being heavy infantry led by Hydarnes that were kept constantly at a strength of exactly 10,000 men — every killed, seriously wounded or sick member was immediately replaced with a new one, maintaining the cohesion of the unit. The regiment accepted only Median, Elamite or Persian applicants (Herodotus).
The term Immortals comes from Herodotus who called them either the Ten Thousand or Athanatoi (lit. immortals). There are no other sources and the Persians themselves have no record of such a unit.
The Immortals were equipped with a leather and wicker shield, a short spear with an iron point and a counterbalance on the other end, a bow with cane arrows, and a quiver for them . They were experts at horseback riding. The regiment's clothing was not a uniform in the modern sense but consisted of a fairly standardised tiara or soft felt cap, an embroidered long-sleeved tunic, trousers, and a coat of metal. Their usual tactics involved a front rank charge at the enemy while the rear ranks shot arrows to support the assault.
The Immortals had variegated costumes and acted as the Imperial Guards. "Of these one thousand carried spears with golden pomegranate at the lower end instead of spikes; and these encircled the other nine thousand, who bore on their spears pomegranates of silver."
The regiment was followed by a caravan of covered carriages, camels and mules that transported their women and servants. The Immortals received special food.
The fighting style of the Immortals left them weak to particular enemy forces using spears and long swords. The Hoplites use of both these weapons in combatting the Immortals frequently rendered them helpless, stuck at a distance unable to reach. Even in close combat against other troops the immortals light leather padding provided little armor for protection.
Frank Miller's comic book 300, turned into a motion picture in 2007, presents a heavily fictionalized version of the Immortals at the Battle of Thermopylae. The film illustrated these guards covered fully in black, with metallic masks covering their monstrous faces. The 1962 film The 300 Spartans includes similar depictions, although far less stylized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Immortals
The Achaemenid Persian Immortals, also known as the Persian Immortals or The Immortals were an elite force of soldiers which performed the dual roles of both Imperial Guard and standing army during the Greco-Persian Wars. Herodotus describes the Immortals as being heavy infantry led by Hydarnes that were kept constantly at a strength of exactly 10,000 men — every killed, seriously wounded or sick member was immediately replaced with a new one, maintaining the cohesion of the unit. The regiment accepted only Median, Elamite or Persian applicants (Herodotus).
The term Immortals comes from Herodotus who called them either the Ten Thousand or Athanatoi (lit. immortals). There are no other sources and the Persians themselves have no record of such a unit.
The Immortals were equipped with a leather and wicker shield, a short spear with an iron point and a counterbalance on the other end, a bow with cane arrows, and a quiver for them . They were experts at horseback riding. The regiment's clothing was not a uniform in the modern sense but consisted of a fairly standardised tiara or soft felt cap, an embroidered long-sleeved tunic, trousers, and a coat of metal. Their usual tactics involved a front rank charge at the enemy while the rear ranks shot arrows to support the assault.
The Immortals had variegated costumes and acted as the Imperial Guards. "Of these one thousand carried spears with golden pomegranate at the lower end instead of spikes; and these encircled the other nine thousand, who bore on their spears pomegranates of silver."
The regiment was followed by a caravan of covered carriages, camels and mules that transported their women and servants. The Immortals received special food.
The fighting style of the Immortals left them weak to particular enemy forces using spears and long swords. The Hoplites use of both these weapons in combatting the Immortals frequently rendered them helpless, stuck at a distance unable to reach. Even in close combat against other troops the immortals light leather padding provided little armor for protection.
Frank Miller's comic book 300, turned into a motion picture in 2007, presents a heavily fictionalized version of the Immortals at the Battle of Thermopylae. The film illustrated these guards covered fully in black, with metallic masks covering their monstrous faces. The 1962 film The 300 Spartans includes similar depictions, although far less stylized.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
You seem to have 'overlooked' the following part of the very same Wiki article you linked to yourself. 
"The title of "Immortals" was first revived under the Sassanids. The most famous of the Savaran units were the Zhayedan (Immortals) and numbered 10,000 men, like the Achaemenid predecessors, with the difference that they were cavalry."
"The title of "Immortals" was first revived under the Sassanids. The most famous of the Savaran units were the Zhayedan (Immortals) and numbered 10,000 men, like the Achaemenid predecessors, with the difference that they were cavalry."
ltccone
Prince
An interesting discussion. I'm not sure what the Civ4 "musketman" is supposed to be, but I'm guessing arquebus/flintlock with no bayonet musket because of the time period of France's UU. Then the "rifleman" unit must represent the flintlock musket with bayonet through breech loaders like the Martini-Henry.
Approximate Eras in the West:
Smoothbore Matchlock Muskets and Pike - c.1400 to c.1550
Smoothbore Wheellock/Snaphanse Muskets and Pike - c.1550 to c.1600
Smoothbore Flintlock Muskets and Pike - c.1600 to c.1700
Smoothbore Flintlock Muskets and Bayonet - c.1700 to c.1850
Percussion Cap Rifled Muskets and Bayonet - c.1850 to c.1870
Cartridge Breech Loading Rifles and Bayonet - c.1870 to c.1895
Bolt Action Cartridge Magazine Rifle and Bayonet c.1895 to c.1950
The Infantry definately represents soldiers armed with bolt action rifles. One could also argue that they could also cover the era of the breech loading rifle.
So the "musketman" represents a unit that lasted for about 300 years and the "riflemen" a unit that lasted about 195 years. Of that time period they used muskets for 150 years and rifles for 45.
In that context the British Redcoat UU is an appropriate replacement for the "rifleman."
One could say that "riflemen" are misnamed, but what else would you call them? A musket is defined as a muzzle-loaded, smoothbore long gun, so everything from an arquebus to Brown Bess qualifies. The British (but not the French) used riflemen as skirmishers all through the Napoleonic era (Baker Rifle), but rifles weren't used by all foot soldiers until the invention of the Mine Ball.
Approximate Eras in the West:
Smoothbore Matchlock Muskets and Pike - c.1400 to c.1550
Smoothbore Wheellock/Snaphanse Muskets and Pike - c.1550 to c.1600
Smoothbore Flintlock Muskets and Pike - c.1600 to c.1700
Smoothbore Flintlock Muskets and Bayonet - c.1700 to c.1850
Percussion Cap Rifled Muskets and Bayonet - c.1850 to c.1870
Cartridge Breech Loading Rifles and Bayonet - c.1870 to c.1895
Bolt Action Cartridge Magazine Rifle and Bayonet c.1895 to c.1950
The Infantry definately represents soldiers armed with bolt action rifles. One could also argue that they could also cover the era of the breech loading rifle.
So the "musketman" represents a unit that lasted for about 300 years and the "riflemen" a unit that lasted about 195 years. Of that time period they used muskets for 150 years and rifles for 45.
In that context the British Redcoat UU is an appropriate replacement for the "rifleman."
One could say that "riflemen" are misnamed, but what else would you call them? A musket is defined as a muzzle-loaded, smoothbore long gun, so everything from an arquebus to Brown Bess qualifies. The British (but not the French) used riflemen as skirmishers all through the Napoleonic era (Baker Rifle), but rifles weren't used by all foot soldiers until the invention of the Mine Ball.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
I'm confident the gist of the game is that units are mainstream soldiers... ie: the BULK of the army of the time... rifles of any type never consisted of the bulk of any army until the mini ball in the 1850s and beyond, ergo, smoothbore muskets were the standard-issue arm from the 1400s through to about 1850... in-turn meaning the "Musketman" unit in Civ4 represents smoothbore muskets from the 1400s to about 1850.
I'd call the "Rifleman" unit anything from the 1850s to about 1900 or so (with "Infantry" taking over as the primary unit in the 20th century).
Whether or not one agrees with my breakdown of what unit represents what time frame (let's assume for now that it's correct), I don't see how that matters wether or not you call the 'Redcoat' UU a Musketman or a Rifleman, other then saying 1770s troops were better British Redcoats then 1870s troops...
Also, without there being additional "Musket-age units", and we are stuck with ONE Musketman... saying French Musketeers are musketmen, as well as 1805 Napoleonic soldiers are also Musketman is actually correct... we have one unit spanning hundreds of years of musket warfare... which uniform you choose to use in said timeframe is users choice... but what I'm saying all-along, the Revolutionary War Redcoat uniform does not belong post-1850, when (in my belief) the Rifleman unit is represented.
Oh... and to the guy who said I should make my own mod... I did... some time ago.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
It's pretty clear that the reason why was for gaming and playability over realism and historical education. The trend is obvious as the next gen Civ game is for a console.
Rejoice, because you can mod it to be however you want!
Rejoice, because you can mod it to be however you want!
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
It's pretty clear the reason was "laziness" (or ignorance) on Firaxis part. Make the Redcoat a Musketman with a Musketman graphic, or make the Redcoat a Rifleman with a Rifleman graphic... how hard is that? It's not that hard to do. Why would you intentionally make a Rifleman with a Musketman graphic? They either didn't know what they were doing or didn't care, but I have a hard time believing they did what they did intentionally.
