Riflemen or Cannon?

[Roxlimn]

It's a common thing around these parts to pooh-pooh the efficacy of Musketmen in favor of Rifling. In the past, I could readily attest to the justice of that position, and it's definitely still in vogue in that other Civ .

Having said that, and playing only on King (like to win, hate losing), I haven't found Riflemen to be nearly as strong as I once thought when I considered using Cannon in lieu.

Despite the obvious drawbacks, Cannon have equivalent ranged combat strength, have bonuses against cities, do not take any damage when attacking, and cost only one tech from Gunpowder instead of two. And I get to "use," Musketmen, which appeals to my graphics sensibility.

Has anyone else tried this? Am I insane?

 

[vexing]

why's it an either or choice? any ranged attackers are great, but they fill a completely different role. if your cannons get attacked by riflemen, it's close to a 50% chance they'll be killed in one shot.

 

[Artingel78]

IMO Cannon is better because vs cities he is very good and useful.
You can combine Cannons and Musketmans/Muskeeters/Jannisaries and Lancers/Sipahis to create a great army.
But if you have a good science you will have both Riflemans and cannons.
But first research chemistry.

 

[TW_Honorius]

So its not Riflemen vs Cannon its Riflemen vs. Musketmen/Cannons, which I do not think is a good scenario. Cannons have there uses, going all cannon is dumb, going half/half is decent but not the best, maybe a 3:1 ratio is best. It also depends on your civ, as China, you would go all out Riflemen men from their UU. Cannon are support units and will die to melee heavy AI armies.

 

[joncnunn]

The thing for me is that I'll often have enough Rifles as soon as I finish upgrading the units so I usually don't need to build any more.

While I'm usually finding I want to build a cannon or two since I don't have enough Trebs.

 

[Roxlimn]

vexing:

Cannon shouldn't be getting attacked by melee units. That's what your own melee units are for.

TW_Honorius:

It's a mix, of course. Babylonians can go hardcore bowman rushing, but going for cannon obviously necessitates using the core melee army you've had up to that point. The scenario isn't actually hard-teching Gunpowder and then hard teching Chemistry.

It's hard teching Physics (already having Steel), then bulbing to Chemistry on the instant, once your siege units have enough count. Alternatively, it's bulbing Chemistry and going on the offensive, if you're a little short on GS's at the moment.

Aside from the obvious, one of the advantages of going this route is that Chemistry also increases the productivity of Quarries and Mines by +1 hammer.

joncnunn:

That's a definite issue. I've certainly only glommed onto this once I started using the early siege units a bit more. It can be a hassle to set them up, but their impact is astoundingly good. It is plausible to take on Riflemen with a Longswordsman/Cannon mix, and if the AI doesn't even have that level of tech, it is most definitely dead. Cannon have a native bonus against cities, and combined with the Siege promotion, they're remarkably effective against even 30+ defense cities.

Of course, Cannon defended by Musketeers are even better!

If I had to gauge impact, I would say that they're comparable with Mandekalu Cavalry when the latter is up against 20-30 defense cities. Of course, the caveat in each case is that they're not so good in the field against units, so you have to arrange your army in the best spots to take on the initial army rush with as little damage as possible.

 

[Artingel78]

Cannon is very good like backup for musketmen.
Maybe the best proportions is 2:1.
That means for every 2 musketmen build 1 cannon
If you do that 3 times that mean you will have 6 musketmen and 3 cannons.
Combat Strength:16x6+13x3=96+39=135
Ranged Combat:26x3=78
Ranged Combat(vs cities):33.7x3=101.1

Musketmen Cost:150
so 2 cost 300
300x3=600
Cannon cost:185
185x3=555
Final Count is:1155

 

[MadDjinn]

heh.. I'd be going 6 cannons for 6 muskets, but you know...

I've found that I ignore rifles a bit more now, depending on the game. I actually like the extra production from Chemistry, so a few cannons are very good.

As well, it's always good to give them a head start on promotions before getting to artillery.

 

[vexing]

vexing:

Cannon shouldn't be getting attacked by melee units. That's what your own melee units are for.

my point was mainly you can't go all out cannons so it's very situational. for example if you're playing a level beyond your comfort zone and the AI has rifles before you, if you try going on the offensive with cannons and muskets you're going to get destroyed.

on the other end if you have a major tech lead, rifles can wipe out cities faster than you can move, setup, and fire cannons anyway - especially if your rifles were from a core lsm army upgraded.

 

[w a i n y]

At this point in the game, siege units are ascendant, while melee units are 'descendant'. There's no point building many riflemen since they and their upgrades will end up fulfilling a support role to your artillery. Try and get by with your existing melee units and build only cannons at this point in the game. Of course, if you're just starting to attack now, build maybe 1 rifle for every 2 cannons. Let the enemy come to you (trust me, the AI will do this) and kill melees with your cannons, while going after weak ranged units with your rifles. Then advance slowly, get your cannons within range of a city, and only on the turn the city will fall start attacking it with your rifles.
Rifles are mainly to protect your cannons, since you can't really attack in melee without taking some damage and opening yourself up to more on a counterattack.
Against weak cities, it may be faster to use rifles, but they take more damage per attack against stronger ones, and also you will require more attacks, which compounds the damage.

 

[Roxlimn]

vexing:

I've actually been in that situation, and played it both ways. Cannons performed better, largely because they allowed the tech jump from Physics sooner (and I already had two Catapults from earlier wars). It was still on King, but it was a really bad start and I made a bunch of bad decisions - ended up in a bad way, against an AI running away. I had to put a stop to it.

I fought with Minutemen (not stronger in strength than Musketmen) and Cannon against Riflemen and won handily, though I was expecting more troops from the AI. Could've held out against more, definitely.

If I did just get Riflemen, I would only be at tech parity, you see. Getting Cannon seemed better because it introduced an element of inequality through which I could exploit the AI's programming. As long as I kept my Minutemen in good terrain, Fortified, they'd hold against a Rifleman attack, and my Cannon would finish up the AI's troops without trouble.

Of course, always with the caveat, this is not Deity level play.

I'm not entirely sure how getting Riflemen against Riflemen when you're playing beyond comfort level would be a better idea, having tried it myself. I'm always interested in using melee troops better, could you elaborate on the tactical plan for making that work?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This sounds like a civ IV debate.

Rifles are the better general unit; better field control. Cannons w/o a range 3 promo are pretty bad; they have to move into range and make themselves vulnerable while setting up. In a pure war game I'd almost prefer xp farmed xbows to them (which unfortunately don't upgrade well, but maybe if you farmed up some cats/trebs you could reach range 3 and then cannons are more useful). Ultimately though something has to hit the city and rifles tend to be good enough at it to take it down quickly/without major losses if your tech pace is decent.

Although in this game, you can take str ~20 cities with swords w/o losses if you have the XP and tactics.

 

[w a i n y]

Although in this game, you can take str ~20 cities with swords w/o losses if you have the XP and tactics.

Not on deity! The AI has too many units. Also, cannons are really just a gateway to artillery, with which you can basically win the game. Cannons with 3 range are only situationally more useful without indirect fire, another attribute that artillery comes with for free. You're not going to be doing much serious warmongering between early medieval and artillery, so this really boils down to comparing upgrade paths.

 

[snarzberry]

It does depend on the situation but I think it's fair to say that strength 20 cities are right near the top of the swords range of use. Once CStr climbs much above that it's upgrade time. I know I have taken deity cities at str 20 with swords, but usually with losses. The fact that they usually have a promotion or two by this time does help. If I'm fighting deity cities with swords at this point then it's probably because I've really spammed them and have a horde of units so some losses are acceptable. Playing Iroquois is warming me to swordsmen.

 

[Roxlimn]

The main advantage of Cannon of Riflemen is in the taking of many cities at a lower tech cost, and at a production advantage. Given that the prospective AI cities will be at Combat Strength between 20 and 30 and I will not be facing Riflemen, I would still tech Cannon for the immediate production boost (playing for the long term) and to prep the siege weapons for the eventual game-winning military campaign.

Contrary to supposition, practical use of Cannon on the field does not always bear out the theoretical disadvantage of taking longer to take cities, so long as a reasonably open terrain can be mapped out for the Cannon to take advantage. Hills are a problem, as are Forests, for the obvious reason that you can't fire Cannon over either tile.

On a flat terrain surrounding a riverside location, taking lone cities with Cannon/Musketmen and Riflemen are comparably fast, and taking multiple cities faster with Cannon, for the simple reason that Cannon do not need to heal after taking cities.

A contingent of, say, 10 Riflemen, attacking a city from one side, cannot really hope to attack it in one turn with more than three attackers, because you only get three tiles on a side to occupy with Riflemen, and they will all take damage in the siege.

A contingent of 5 Longswordmen, 2 Musketmen and 3 Cannon can bring more immediate firepower to bear, Cannon have more bonuses against Cities than Riflemen, and only one melee unit will take damage taking the city, in an ideal situation. The setup time is immaterial - you move the Cannon into position at the same time that you would move the Riflemen up next to the city, and then attack next turn. As a limitation, the setup time is really more to prevent Cannon from being used in agile ways against units in the field. They are really bad for chasing down, well, anything.

 

[snarzberry]

At that point of the tech tree, which is often beelined with a chain bulb, I would say my mind is more on rifles than cannons. I'm hoping to upgrade my melee units and have the tech superiority for a big offensive push. But from that point on I produce cannon after cannon, because they are great to supplement the rifles when taking cities, but more so because I have my eye on the next important upgrade to artillery where they become the backbone of the army.

 

[w a i n y]

The main advantage of Cannon of Riflemen is in the taking of many cities at a lower tech cost, and at a production advantage. Given that the prospective AI cities will be at Combat Strength between 20 and 30 and I will not be facing Riflemen, I would still tech Cannon for the immediate production boost (playing for the long term) and to prep the siege weapons for the eventual game-winning military campaign.

Contrary to supposition, practical use of Cannon on the field does not always bear out the theoretical disadvantage of taking longer to take cities, so long as a reasonably open terrain can be mapped out for the Cannon to take advantage. Hills are a problem, as are Forests, for the obvious reason that you can't fire Cannon over either tile.

On a flat terrain surrounding a riverside location, taking lone cities with Cannon/Musketmen and Riflemen are comparably fast, and taking multiple cities faster with Cannon, for the simple reason that Cannon do not need to heal after taking cities.

A contingent of, say, 10 Riflemen, attacking a city from one side, cannot really hope to attack it in one turn with more than three attackers, because you only get three tiles on a side to occupy with Riflemen, and they will all take damage in the siege.

A contingent of 5 Longswordmen, 2 Musketmen and 3 Cannon can bring more immediate firepower to bear, Cannon have more bonuses against Cities than Riflemen, and only one melee unit will take damage taking the city, in an ideal situation. The setup time is immaterial - you move the Cannon into position at the same time that you would move the Riflemen up next to the city, and then attack next turn. As a limitation, the setup time is really more to prevent Cannon from being used in agile ways against units in the field. They are really bad for chasing down, well, anything.

This is a really good analysis. Xbow-upgraded rifles with logistics help increase the number of rifles that can attack (this helped me in my Babylon game), since they can attack and then swap with someone else. You're not likely to have blitz-promoted rifles unless you play as Japan (free Shock 1 for Samurai gets you that much closer).

 

[Roxlimn]

wainy:

I'm not down on the blitz promotion in general for Riflemen. Their support role begins relatively quickly after acquisition of Riflemen, and attacking multiple times per turn really increases the risk of severely damaging and then losing the highly promoted Rifleman unit. I'm far more in favor of taking the March promotion. In conjunction with a Medic unit, March means that the Rifleman recovers 2 HP every turn, regardless of what it does. This renders it much more useful in general, as it able to see action turn after turn and to kill enemy units in quick succession without seeing a noticeable decrease in survivability.

A Blitz Rifle can kill two units in one turn, but then has to spend three turns doing nothing. A March Rifleman can kill units in all that time, ending with a 2:1 kill advantage over Blitz.

I confess that I haven't been too impressed with the performance of Logistics Riflemen, either. It's immaterial that they don't get the benefit of Shock or Drill, since neither of those promotions carry weight in the city attack anyways, but their lack of terrain promotions sometimes proves devastatingly bad in the enemy's counterattack.

Their usefulness is as you describe - they enable a Cannon-less force to exert more impact at the moment of attack, at the cost of more damage to the Logistics Rifleman. The hoped-for result is an immediate taking of the city to reduce damage taken from defensive fire.

Of course, the best units are Jaguar March Riflemen! As the Aztecs, I have no compunction whatsoever with teching for Rifling as hard as I possibly can.

 

[w a i n y]

Their usefulness is as you describe - they enable a Cannon-less force to exert more impact at the moment of attack, at the cost of more damage to the Logistics Rifleman. The hoped-for result is an immediate taking of the city to reduce damage taken from defensive fire.

The logistics rifleman doesn't take more damage if it swaps out for another one (could be non-logistics). This is the real strength of blitz/logistics: not two attacks per turn, which is mediocre, but the ability to move after attack. March is weak unless you have a medic, and by the time you're sending rifles up in small numbers to spot for artillery, you won't necessarily want to bring one (wastes a promotion on the unit that could be used for defense in open or rough). It does help you heal when walking for several turns through neutral territory between conquests, however, or if you have immortals or fountain of youth .

 

[Roxlimn]

I'll have to counter that. I always want a medic somewhere, particularly when I have Blitz Riflemen, because I'll be sure to have a lot of damaged Riflemen that will benefit from the extra healing. Not attacking twice a turn doesn't mitigate having more Riflemen available to attack, which necessarily means more Riflemen damaged after combat.

March lessens the need for a medic, because they heal well in friendly territory between city taking, but I like having a medic anyway, because I occasionally have to put a Rifleman somewhere where it'll be hit by enemy Artillery or enemy City bombardment, or attacked by enemy Riflemen, or all of the above. The extra turn of healing during defensive maneuvers or immediately after taking the spotting location is invaluable.

FWIW, I favor March on my Cannon and Artillery as well. Sacrilege, I know.