RifleMan Vs Muskateer?

[Budweiser_64]

I am currently in a war and my muskateers seem to be stronger than the rifleman. Is this just bad luck or has anyone else thought this.

 

[Budweiser_64]

Sorry im half asleep anyways its the year 1906 and ive jsut studied steam power (Thats the tech age im in).

 

[Grey Knight]

What do you mean? What is the exact situation? If the Rifleman is attacking (4) a Musketman (D of 4, plus bonuses), the musketman will likely win.

If you are talking about defending versus, say Cavalry, the Rifleman does have a small advantage. Assuming they both have 4 HP (veteran), the Rifleman should have about a 25% advantage (winning roughly 4 out of 5, whereas the Musketman would win roughly 3 out of 5).

If the Musketman has 1HP more than the Rifleman they will perform roughly the same, if the Musketman has 2HP more (elite Musket vs regular Rifleman) the Musketman will actually do about 10% better.

So what's going on?

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[Budweiser_64]

Its an absolute warzone whats happening is im shooting archers as riflemen in a group and my rifleman is on the offensive and he is shooting but he seems to lost life more. The Unit keeps getting better i need a nuke lol.

 

[Zouave]

Anyone still playing with the original idiotic unit values in the game mod deserves what they get.

Musketeers should almost always defeat spearmen (even on the offensive), and riflemen should always defeat musketeers. And so many other examples of combat. Knights should be 5.2.2, as another example. Naval units? Beyond help.

Edit unit values accordingly. Edit them to reflect Military History and reality. Which is mre than Firaxis did.

 

[simwiz2]

Originally posted by Zouave
Knights should be 5.2.2, as another example.

Personally i think that 5 attack would be a bit unbalancing. I like them as they are, at 4.3.2. Why should knights get a massive advantage over other knights just because they are attacking?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave
and riflemen should always defeat musketeers.

Guns are essentially defensive weapons. Concerning the specific example of riflemen v. muskets; in the latter half of the U.S. Civil War, the Union was fielding "modern" repeating rifles, while the Confederates were still using mostly smoothbore muskets. The Confederates put up a reasonable fight, and casualties were extremely high on both sides. The siege of Richmond at the end of the war was a standoff, even with heavy Union bombard. The Union won by attrition. (Lincoln knew the Union would win the war when he discovered in Grant a man who could "face the arithmetic.")

In other words, expect to take a lot of losses if you are attacking with muskets or riflemen.

 

[Zouave]

Let me add here that Firaxis and Soren admitted their post-gunpowder unit values are a crock, non-historical, and too low.
Why? Because of his even more idiotic (and very rare) resource allocation. Iron and coal are especially too rare. So, to "give civs
a chance" later in the game without such and such a resource, they kept artifically low the strengths of those units. Hence, we see a 1.2.2 spearmam and a 2.4.2 musketman, when in fact the latter should be more like 6.10.2, compared to spearmen.

So, we see Firaxis admitting its unit values are a crock because their resource allocation is an even BIGGER crock!!


Edit, edit, edit.

 

[Mr Adeoye]

i think it goes without saying that you should never go on offensive with infantry units they don't have the attaking power nor the speed to retreat ,so i'm afraid you shouldn't be surprised in riflemen loose to fortified musketmen.