Renaissance wars pwn because musketmen suck...

[Zeiter]

...and medieval wars suck because longbowmen pwn.

Not only is the general trend of economic development and the tech tree set up to discourage medieval war (AI prioritizes machinery and guilds) and favor renaissance war (AI goes after constitution/democracy nonsense), but the relative defender/attacker unit strengths are just inviting the player to go offensive in the renaissance.

Let's consider each resourceless defense unit in comparison to each set of respective attackers that one usually faces. (When fighting the AI, let's face it, most of the garbage that you have to mow down consists of whatever era's resourceless defense unit. The AI simply does not spam defensive spears or axes or crossbows. Maybe a few. That's it. So the relative strengths of their resourceless defenders vs. your attackers is what is mostly going to determine victory or defeat).

Units will be compared from a basis of no promotions, but fortification is assumed in all cases for the defender. Also, where hill bonuses apply to the defender, we will assume that half of all cases will involve that bonus, so half of the bonus will be applied to the overall strength.

Late ancient/Early classical:

Archer: 3 * (+50% city def.) * (+25% hills def.)/2 * (+25% fortification bonus) = 5.625

vs.

Axe: 5 (ratio: 1.125)
Sword: 6.6 (ratio: 0.852)
Horsey: 6 (ratio: 0.9375).

Average ratio: 0.9715

Early classical wars have the added disadvantages to the attacker of:
*Slower/non-existent roads.
*Greater distances
*Economy not set up to handle acquisition of many new distant cities.
*Walls that won't be bombardable.
*Archer gets 1 first strike against 2 of the 3 main attackers.


Late classical/medieval:

Longbowman: 6 * (+25% city def.) * (+25% hills def.)/2 * (+25% fortification bonus) = 9.75

vs.

War elephant: 8 (ratio: 1.22)
Maceman: 8 (ratio: 1.22)
Knight: 10 (ratio: 0.975)

Average ratio: 1.383

On the bright side:
*You can now bombard away wall and cultural defenses.
*Closer borders
*Moar courthouses!
**Economy will be able to handle the war better.
*Moar roads! (and 3 movement points after engineering). Faster wars...(but more than compensated by those awful castles...)

On the downside:
*Longbows are freakin' tough! An average ratio of 1.383 times the strength of the most common attackers. The ratios are higher (longbows are tougher) against both the weakest attacker (1.22 vs. 1.125) and the strongest attacker (0.975 vs. 0.852).
*Longbows still get 1 first strike against 2 of the 3 toughest attackers.


Renaissance:

Musketman: 9 * (+0% city def.) * (+0% hills def.)/2 * (+25% fortification) = 11.25

vs.

Cuirassiers: 12

Ratio: 0.9375

Not only is this the lowest average ratio so far, but:
*Less rock/paper/scissors mechanics for the attacker to worry about.
*Defender does not get 1st strike
*Main attacking unit has an inherent 15% retreat chance.
*Economy fully ready for war
*Medieval castle nonsense is obsolete.

Everything is geared for going on the attack in this period.

Also consider:
*You can get 3 longbowmen (9.75, 1 first strike) for 150 hammers.
*You can get 2 musketmen (11.25, no first strike) for 160 hammers.
*You can get 3 musketmen (11.25, no first strike) for 240 hammers.

That seems like a steep jump in price for such a marginal increase in strength. Sometimes I almost feel like I'm getting a downgrade when I research gunpowder. It's no wonder that people like to either strike hard with cuirassiers or jump ahead to rifles. Who wants to turtle with muskets?!

To continue the comparison:

Industrial era:

Rifleman: 14 * (+25% fortification bonus) = 17.5
Grenadier: 12 * (+25% rifleman attack bonus) = 15

Ratio: 1.166

I'll calculate it separately for vs. cavalry:

Rifleman: 14 * (+25% fortification bonus) * (+25% vs. mounted) = 21
Cavalry: 15 (with 30% retreat chance).

Ratio: 1.4

Average ratio: 1.283

Once you make it to riflemen, your defenders once again get a very sturdy ratio vs. the attackers. Not quite as good as the medieval period, but close.

Once you get into modern warfare, the rock/paper/scissors stuff becomes ridiculous, even assuming only resourceless defenders, but let's just assume we stick with the draftable defenders:

Infantry: 20 * (+25% fortification bonus) = 25.
Tank: 28

Ratio: 0.893.

The advantage then shifts back to the attacker, except for the fact that you're now dealing with railroads, anti-tank stuff, defensive air patrols, possibly nukes, etc., making attacking actually relatively difficult.

Future era:

Mech infantry: 32 * (+25% fortification bonus) = 40
Modern armor: 40 (+1 first strike)

Ratio: 1

Plus, you are dealing with all of the aforementioned headaches of the modern era, times like a thousand.

So, by late game, it gets really really hard to go on the offensive without a tech advantage or a huge production advantage.

The nice thing about the renaissance period is, you don't really need a temporary tech advantage. You can pretty much fight at parity and win as long as you are the attacker, going cuirassier vs. musket. Some people like to try and go cav vs. musket, but then they often get unpleasantly surprised by "magic rifles," which are a HUGE jump up from crappy muskets.

That's why I'd say, if you are worried about the tech situation being close, cuirassiers are the name of the game! They'll do the job.

So here's how I would summarize a typical game, assuming tech parity all the way through:

Ancient/early classical era: Attack opportunistically, if you can take them by surprise and overwhelm them before they get more defenders/walls (because reinforcing your attack will be hard). And know when to stop.

Medieval era: Just don't. Or, only attack if you have a very good specific reason for it.

Renaissance era: Hurry, hurry, go for it! It's a small window, but it's your best chance to attack in the game, all other specific things being equal. (Of course, every game is going to be different. This is just a rough guide that assumes tech parity and no extenuating circumstances).

Industrial era: exercise caution.

Modern era: Finish up those last few campaigns with your tanks before things really start getting hairy!

Future era: War is hell.

To conclude, in my opinion, increasing the base strength of musketmen to 10 would balance the warring potential of the era, if that is desired, and would make the jump to "magic rifles" less extreme. Muskets might also then find some use alongside cannons as offensive troops as well, which is what they were historically (a dual offense/defense unit, a la the Napoleonic wars).

Another rule of thumb: any city defense unit should be able to attack and kill the previous era's defense unit. This makes it so that a player could theoretically compensate for not having any strategic resources by temporarily beelining a whole tech era ahead in military technology and pwn his/her neighbors. And this rule holds for every defensive unit except the musketman:

Longbowman attacks and kills city-fortified archer.
Rifleman attacks and kills city-foritifed musketman.
Infantry attacks and kills city-fortified rifleman.
Mechanized infantry attacks and kills city-fortified infantry.

But musketmen cannot attack and kill city-fortified longbowmen, on average.

If musketmen were increased to strength 10, then they could. And riflemen could still attack and kill musketmen.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Good on some levels but disagree in some areas:

- Cuirassers are only good against muskets if you have a way to (quickly) drop the defenses...in other words you need to commit to them via spies and espionage focus. It may still be easily worth it, assuming you have horse + iron.

- Cannons are an excellent counter to "magic rifles" (hmmmm, that term sounds familiar...), especially with city raider II they basically tear through everything that defends until machine guns or infantry. That's a big window.

Speaking of windows, the industrial era is the BEST ONE IN THE GAME. Infantry are ridiculous against rifles thanks to their gunpowder bonus, and artillery will easily handle anything contemporary (even machine guns). To add insult to injury, this period has the LONGEST PERIOD OF MILITARY PARITY IN THE GAME. Infantry are able stack defenders against every non-tank unit until choppers, modern armor, or mech infantry. But guess what comes from artillery...anti-tanks! So the only reliable unit the AI has to pick off an infantry-arty stack can be discouraged with a cheap, also resourcless unit. Obviously CR II arty chews through all defenders after a couple are used.

Industrial might not have the BEST ratio, but the window of opportunity makes it really appealing, and it's one of the best war periods to utilize a tech lead (if if if you can actually get one by then w/o war...tech leads are easier to come by in the renaissance).

 

[Zeiter]

Good on some levels but disagree in some areas:

I'll admit, I feel a little unsure about the war elephant. It straddles right on the edge between classical and medieval, between going up against archers and longbowmen. When put up against archers, they are as good as praetorians. Devastating. So...yet another notch lower in the defensive ratio for the ancient/classical era, if we agree to that.

Cannons are an excellent counter to "magic rifles" (hmmmm, that term sounds familiar...)

I did leave out siege, or rather, for expediency I assumed that siege would do nothing more than drop the defenses to zero (which spies can also do, as you pointed out). But siege (especially quasi-unbalanced cannons) do much more than that. I mean, c'mon, a siege unit that can at times be the strongest unit in your army? That would be like getting catapults right after archery, or trebs right after iron working. That's pretty much how cannons fit into the renaissance/early industrial tech tree, it feels like to me.

As for late industrial/early modern...infantry are good against rifles, but that's going against a whole tech era lower. What about infantry vs. machine guns? Not looking so rosy....

But then there's arty to fix that. Once again, arty is relatively strong within its tech era. When you get it, its raw strength is barely lower than your strongest unit (infantry, most likely). And with city raider promotions, it may well be your strongest attacker for some time. That's kinda ridiculous. Like having catapults as strong or stronger than swordsmen.

Why I made this post was to point out that any time you can give a pretty safe general rule of thumb about how to play a portion of a game, that shows that the balance could be improved, or that some other feature could be tweaked to provide the player with more interesting, difficult decisions. If I feel that way about the renaissance, and you feel that the industrial era is a time when you can always count on being able to war your way up the scoreboard, then maybe that suggests some ways that both eras could be improved so that you aren't given such surefire expectations each game. Because that can lead to a player having the incentive to do the same things over and over again in each game.

And I do believe that I've heard the phrase "magic rifles" somewhere before as well...

 

[Defiant47]

We should not be talking infantry versus rifles if we're assume technological parity.

Cannons are indeed quite effective, as they can even take on Rifles with some proper promotions. Be careful of enemy cavalry, though...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Another thing worth mention is the jump point of being able to DRAFT rifles. Although it's difficult to go up against rifles (or grenadiers ) with draft rifles, anything else is toast. Considering a 30+ man army can be generated in 10 draft turns (probably more units from building/whipping also), it can be a fast way to get a ton of units which will take AND hold cities pretty well, and is especially good to know when resources are lacking (you're not pulling cuirassers OR cannons w/o iron) or you have enough cities where the demands aren't obscene.

Edit: Draft rifles are OK at parity too, with support, due to the ridiculous food:hammer conversion. It's insane! You get past the happiness, and suddenly any garbage city is a military powerhouse...

 

[Rusty Edge]

I figure that the problem with muskets is that they were used for 100s of years, and there were differences between early and late ones. I think that the early ones are fine as is. I think there should be an automatic first strike bonus given to them with replaceble parts to represent flintlocks, and an automatic defensive bonus against mounted troops with the invention of bayonets ( military science ) and probably a melee bonus with bayonets as well.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Muskets are already considerably powerful under the right circumstances...namely defense vs medieval or with cannon support.

Even in enemy territory, promoted muskets are usually enough stack cover. Give them guerrilla or woodsman II and see what the AI can throw in that era that would actually win (pre-cavalry, although they'd win in woods with woods II you don't want to get caught elsewhere). They hold cities decently too so make an excellent unit to cover cannons, especially since they can be drafted.

Nothing but knights win in the field vs muskets that comes from an earlier era...

 

[AlienSexFilth]

I have never understood all this *ahem* CRAP about defenders vs attackers things and good/bad period of attacking. It all becomes relative when you add in the SIEGE factor (Catapults/Trebuchets/Cannons/Artillery/Mobile Artillery).. I always hear about the dreadfull medieval wars and the dreadfull industrial wars etc, but I never had any kind of problem ti wipe out LARGE civs during ANY era. Most of the time, it is during medieval era that I am able to war good and have no problems since it is usually by medieval that I will have my Heroic Epic ready with a couple GGs settled+Theocracy+Vassalage to pump out those CR3 siege units.

 

[Iranon]

It also depends on what you are comfortable with. If I have to fight at tech parity, I like doing so in the medieval age.

- Counters are harsher than at other times. Incompetent AIs will throw good units away.
- There are 2 types of siege, the right unit needs to be used for the right job. Another source of AI blunders.
- Sieges take longer; this is a good thing. Humans can keep an AI stack busy/let it wear itself down by rotating units. This can be done at a fort, as AIs rarely bypass them: you don't lose a city if you need to retreat and the enemy stack will be gimped.
- Defenses are strong enough that you need the right ratio of siege and cleanup units. The AIs rarely get it right.

Medieval war is full of pitfalls which makes them cheaper for me: the AIs are worse at tactics than they are at strategy. I don't even try to match the pace of other eras.
A good rush and many a classical war can blindside an AI and take land quickly; a quick beeline to Rifles/Cannons/Cuirassiers can have them face medieval units and we're on a bit of a clock (10% upgrade cost on Deity for an instant reversal of fortune once they reach parity)

In the medieval age, letting the AI reinforce a doomed city as much as it wants will break its back once you wear that down, with very tolerable losses. Afterwards, steady if slow conquest follows. Fighting fair is possible, which I'm very reluctant to do in other eras.
In the middle ages, I will sometimes fight just for the hell of it: Low-intensity warfare won't cost me much, an Oops is easily prevented by whipping walls/castles, I don't need to really risk my units, and it distracts someone who might become a long-term threat otherwise and often stabilises diplomacy. Oh, and talking of diplomacy: Because the AIs aren't good at making balanced attack stacks, it's likely that an ally will soften up a fortified city without being able to take it in a reasonable time. Present for you.

 

[nikosison]

Honestly, I don't see the point of comparing any non-siege unit to the primary city defender of the same era. (with exception of preclassical units) Chances are, if you're attacking an enemy city at tech parity, you HAVE to bring siege or face heavy losses. And, as long as you have siege, taking cities is incredibly easy. After the sacrifice of maybe one or tow trebs, the rest can attack with little fear of losses. And when you're facing units at less than 30% strength, petty much any unit capable of taking it down.

Personally, though, the problem for medieval warfare is not the units but the fact that hammer are much harder to come by during that era. During the medieval period, workshops are crap until guilds/Caste, both mills are weak, forcing you to rely on mines for production. However hilly cities with decent food production can be hard come by.

 

[twansalem]

Cuirassiers (and later Cavalry) do have one disadvantage to the offensive units of other eras. You have to research an otherwise useless technology in Military Tradition. Even if you're not necessarily preparing for war, you still need technologies such as Bronze Working (axemen), Iron Working (Swordsmen), and Civil Service/Machinery (Macemen) for general game progression, but Military Tradition is of no use if you aren't planning on war or don't have horses. I've had plenty of games where I was building modern armor but had never even bothered to research Military Tradition or Military Science. More often than not, when I do decide to research those techs, I just get behind. I'd rather run the risk of being slightly behind militarily for a few turns while I beeline Assembly Line.

 

[Zeiter]

Honestly, I don't see the point of comparing any non-siege unit to the primary city defender of the same era. (with exception of preclassical units) Chances are, if you're attacking an enemy city at tech parity, you HAVE to bring siege or face heavy losses. And, as long as you have siege, taking cities is incredibly easy. After the sacrifice of maybe one or tow trebs, the rest can attack with little fear of losses. And when you're facing units at less than 30% strength, petty much any unit capable of taking it down.

So, in general, would you say that the factor that determines the average successfulness of war in an era (disregarding all factors specific to each game) is how developed a civ's hammer production is, on average, in each era? By that line of thought, classical wars should be really really tough (although often you can resort to chopping your original forests). I guess medieval war is the first war that you have to power mainly through non-chop, steady production (and usually non-slavery production as well, as many people switch out of slavery right about then). So I guess that argument would make some sense--it's just hard to amass a critical mass of units to go on the offensive in that era.

Or maybe there is another factor that you are pointing to: the effectiveness of the anti-siege counter of each era. The more effective the anti-siege counter, or the crappier the siege, the harder it is to war?

Classical wars:

*Archers vs. cats 5.625 vs. 5. (R = 1.125)
*Horsey vs. spear: 6 vs. 8 (R = 0.75) + 20-50% withdrawal.

Medieval wars:

*Longbowman vs. trebs: 9.75 vs. 8 (R = 1.22)
*Knight vs. pikemen: 10 vs. 12 (R = 0.833) + 0-30% withdrawal.

(Defense against siege is stronger, but ability to counter siege is mixed = somewhat stronger defense and somewhat more difficulty to go on the offense.)...(Knight is relatively stronger vs. pikeman in pure strength, although it does lack the inherent withdrawal chances of other anti-siege units, making stack defense of attacking siege that much easier).

Renaissance wars:

*Musketman vs. trebs: 11.25 vs. 8 (R = 1.401)
*Musketman vs. cannon: 11.25 vs. 12 (R = 0.9375)
*Cuirassier vs. pikemen: 12 vs. 12 (R = 1) + 15%-45% withdrawal
*Cuirassier vs. musketmen: 12 vs. 9 (R = 1.33) + 15%-45% withdrawal

Defense against siege can be much stronger or much weaker, depending on whether trebs or cannons are being used (I consider cannons as right on the border between being matched up with muskets and being matched up vs. rifles). Cannons are really a huge jumppoint. Maybe this is part of the issue. (That's why I like the intermediate "bombard" unit in WolfRevolution).

Also, the ability to counter siege is muuuuch stronger (both higher relative strength for cuirassiers vs. stack defenders, and higher withdrawal chances), which actually privileges the defender. So maybe renaissance wars aren't so great for the attacker after all!

Especially if you assume that you are going up against grenadiers as city defenders and stack defenders (although I don't think the AI is programmed to build and use grenadiers in this way. Grenadiers are AI-attack units, right? Which, in a way, would be kind of silly if it were true. Grens are resourceless and would make for a very logical intermediate city defender between muskets and rifles, assuming the AI was programmed to stock 4 grens in each city like it does with muskets. But I believe I've seen an AI that can build grenadiers, and yet still continues to build musketmen!)

Industrial:

Rifles vs. cannons: 14 vs. 12 (R = 1.166)
Cavalry vs. rifles: 15 vs. 17.5 (R = 0.857) + 30%-60% withdrawal chances

City defender vs. siege is average.

Siege counter vs. stack defender is really bad, except for the really high withdrawal chances which, in this case, are the decisive factor. So in this sense, the defense is privileged as long as it has gobs of flanking II cavalry. Otherwise, the defense is screwed because the attackers will have very good stack defenders defending their siege, which stands up against the defender's city defenders moderately well.

 

[nikosison]

TBH what makes medieval warfare harder is not just due to undeveloped hammer production, but also the fact that the period where you have to build seige. In premedieval warfare a primary city taker (swords, CR axes) can easily get 50% or better odds against archers. As such, you do not have build 6+ trebs/cats just to war. Not only that, since a civ's production is quite limited in this era, a civ that put hammers into non-essential non-military builds (henge, mids etc.) will find itself at a significant disadvantage against civ that has fully dedicated itself to war.

In the medieval era, most of these points are moot. With feudalism, you suddenly need a 3+:1 ratio of non-siege attackers to put a dent into longbows. In addition cultural defenses will have matured by now, giving defenders another advantage. Finally, the early non-military build have likely paid themselves off by now, thus ending the advantage of pure military guy.

On your point about siege units and siege counters, siege units are just as effective against attacking stacks as well. making them effective defensive units as well.

 

[Codeman]

it's all about how you use it. i have many times fought successful wars against AI who has more advanced units. have successfully transported troops in galleons while AI had destroyers; have every move end in a city until landfall.

you can take cities with macemen defended by rifles if you bring the seige. and a long bow fortified in a city on a hill and promoted CG3 being attacked by an unpromoted rifle... my money's on the long bow. it's all about how you use what you got.

 

[Molybdeus]

I heavily agree with the production argument. Early warfare makes heavy use of slavery, but by the time you reach the medieval period you are probably either running Caste System for a specialist economy, or want to keep your population to work cottages. You can still use the whip, of course, but it's easier to race the AI to cannons than to build a stronger military than the AI at that point. Interestingly, spiritual is a huge help at this point in the game, as it enables a specialist economy to flip between slavery/theocracy and caste system/some other religious civic.

This is particularly true since the medieval battlefield requires heavy diversity in units. This means you need to research all of the techs for those units: you can't just hit construction for war elephants and catapults. You also need to build more units than you would with just Janissaries and catapults or some other such simple army, since each stack needs to have adequate stack defense.

 

[dankok8]

the original analysis is still valid in that medieval warfare is the hardest relative to other eras. The reasons for that are:
1) Longbows - see str ration calcs in OP
2) Walls, Castles, and the Protective trait give the already strong Longbows a serious boost in city defense
3) Production is limited in the medieval age; whipping is usually inefficient, chopping inviable since most forests are often cut down already, draft not discovered

Fighting a medieval war against a tech parity AI with Feudalism without Trebs or renaissance units is very costly. Catapults die in bunches and often fail to do much so will need lots of them. This make medieval wars before Engineering very hard. Trebuchets make it much easier though and often worthwhile although I still usually wait till Cannon or Cuirassiers.

Don't attack Sitting Bull in the medieval age if you don't have a really really pressing reason to do so!!

 

[Shackel]

Honestly, the Longbowman is the most overpowered unit unless you have horses.

RIFLEMEN are killed by them, and at one point, MODERN ARMOR!

 

[Tiepolo]

Honestly, the Longbowman is the most overpowered unit unless you have horses.

RIFLEMEN are killed by them, and at one point, MODERN ARMOR!

Realistic. The range of a rifle is less than that of a longbow and given the tactics of the times, five longbow volleys could severely damage marching riflemen. Similarly Longbows could let loose multiple volleys in the time it takes for a rifle to reload.

 

[phungus420]

Realistic. The range of a rifle is less than that of a longbow and given the tactics of the times, five longbow volleys could severely damage marching riflemen. Similarly Longbows could let loose multiple volleys in the time it takes for a rifle to reload.

I think you mean musket. A rifled round is going to way outrange even a modern compound bow, let alone a mideaval longbow. But yes, muskets were less effective then longbows. The issue was that it takes far less time to train a company of musketmen then it does to train a similar sized unit if archers, like years longer... so with the change in the way nation states levied armies in the enlightenment period, longbows quickly went out of style.

I tried simulating this with modding, making muskets 6str and much cheaper. But it's increadibly unbalanced and not fun. So I just set things back to default. Civ is a game, it doesn't need to be historically accurate.

 

[Tiepolo]

Scratch the range part. Riflemen would still have a hard time.