Which is why the simultaneous age mechanic works well with units
Exploration Age: Muskets can fight Knights and Crossbows…Muskets are ranged
Modern Age: all units shoot…Rifleman are melee (artillery are ranged)
Speculation on units
- Thread starter stealth_nsk
- Start date
Exploration Age: Muskets can fight Knights and Crossbows…Muskets are ranged
Modern Age: all units shoot…Rifleman are melee (artillery are ranged)
The way they were used, musketeers were usually unable to get "free" shots without getting either shot or charged in return. So they usually either had pikes mixed with them or later bayonets to become makeshift pikemen themselves. So it makes sense that musketeers cannot attack without taking damage themselves (at least when fighting contemporary units).
But when an archer unit was being charged, something had gone seriously wrong because they were not supposed to be frontline units.
Trav'ling Canuck
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3,465
As Olleus mentions, the "fantasy" aspect of archers that infiltrates Civ and Hollywood is the idea that they shot over their own troops to hit the enemy. There were basically 3 types of archers historically:
1. The vast majority were skirmish troops that fired arrows at the enemy from in front of their own, more heavily armed troops, and ran back to the protection of those friendly troops when the enemy closed on them. Civ has never depicted skirmish troops, although one could argue that the "firing over the heads" is an abstraction of archer skirmishers (although the model graphics are all wrong for skirmishers).
2. The most effective were horse archers, who could ride up to the enemy, shoot them, and then ride away faster than the enemy could chase them. They didn't need the protection of friendly troops to retreat behind, because they could outpace the enemy and continually attack them without suffering casualties themselves. It took special circumstances, however, to create the conditions to be able to field large numbers of horse archers capable of fighting like this.
3. The most unique were massed foot archers, who relied on mowing down sufficient enemy troops that by the time they reached them, they could survive the subsequent melee. For this regular hunting bows wouldn't cut it, you needed specialized and expensive weapons, either longbows fielded by some Indian and English armies (which were "expensive" because of the insane amount of time the bowmen needed to spend training) or crossbows fielded by some Asian and European armies (which were easier to train on but required a specialized industry to produce). You also needed additional equipment (swords, daggers, etc.), seconds (assistants to help load the crossbows, hold shields, etc.), and sometimes even more (English armies famously deployed stakes for protection). It was really rare to try to win field battles against a well-armed enemy by fielding massed foot archers.
1. The vast majority were skirmish troops that fired arrows at the enemy from in front of their own, more heavily armed troops, and ran back to the protection of those friendly troops when the enemy closed on them. Civ has never depicted skirmish troops, although one could argue that the "firing over the heads" is an abstraction of archer skirmishers (although the model graphics are all wrong for skirmishers).
2. The most effective were horse archers, who could ride up to the enemy, shoot them, and then ride away faster than the enemy could chase them. They didn't need the protection of friendly troops to retreat behind, because they could outpace the enemy and continually attack them without suffering casualties themselves. It took special circumstances, however, to create the conditions to be able to field large numbers of horse archers capable of fighting like this.
3. The most unique were massed foot archers, who relied on mowing down sufficient enemy troops that by the time they reached them, they could survive the subsequent melee. For this regular hunting bows wouldn't cut it, you needed specialized and expensive weapons, either longbows fielded by some Indian and English armies (which were "expensive" because of the insane amount of time the bowmen needed to spend training) or crossbows fielded by some Asian and European armies (which were easier to train on but required a specialized industry to produce). You also needed additional equipment (swords, daggers, etc.), seconds (assistants to help load the crossbows, hold shields, etc.), and sometimes even more (English armies famously deployed stakes for protection). It was really rare to try to win field battles against a well-armed enemy by fielding massed foot archers.
Archers can fire over other units because in 1UPT, they would otherwise be useless.
Unless you give them good defense values, in which case they're just superior infantry.
It has nothing to do with historical accuracy and everything to do with gameplay.
Unless you give them good defense values, in which case they're just superior infantry.
It has nothing to do with historical accuracy and everything to do with gameplay.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
The 'classic' defense against archers in every western army from Classical Greece to Medieval spearmen, great swordsmen and mounted knights, was to charge them. If they stood fast, they got massacred by more heavily-armed and armored enemies, if they ran away they usually kept running and never came back. T his in a nutshell is why missile troops on foot were never a battle-winning force in European warfare until gunpowder. The "English Longbow" was actually a military system, not just a weapon, and despite winning three great battles they still lost the 100 Years War: if they didn't have stakes in front of them and dismounted knights beside them, they had to run just like every oher European archer when charged by mounted troops.
The crossbow was invented in China some time in the 6th century BCE, and in Syracuse, Sicily in 400 BCE. It became the primary weapon of a large part of every Chinese infantry force; it was virtually ignored by every field army in Europe until 1500 years later.
What was the difference?
In China they also developed Volley Firing by Rank: in which a deep formation of 8 - 10 ranks of crossbows would fire the first rank, that rank would file to the rear, the next rank would fire and file back, etc. The first rank would be reloaded before the last rank fired, so they could keep up continuous heavy fire as long as the ammunition held out. In Europe, Volley Fire was not invented until it was applied to muskets at the end of the 16th century CE (By which time the Chinese, Japanese and probably the Koreans had already adopted volley firing for their own handguns).
That meant, simply, that Chinese massed crossbows could potentially stop an infantry charge with massed firepower, while no European force could mass enough fire to do the same.
That also meant, by the way, that the first handguns in Europe were 'Hook Guns' or Hackbusse, designed to be braced against the parapet of a fortification and fired in defense - from the top of a nice stone wall where the tar get could not get to you with any kind of charge. It was only a century or so later that Arquebusses ventured onto the battlefield, and then quickly protect ed by blocks of pikes, halberds, swordsmen and other heavily-armed melee troops.
So, realistically, it takes special training, organization and technique to allow muscle-powered missile troops to remain on the battlefield for any length of time. That's no fun at all for the gamer who just spent X turns producing Archers, Slingers, and their ilk only to see them run for their lives after one shot.
So, forget about 'Historical Accuracy' in this instance. To keep archers from being almost completely useless outside of fortifications, they have to be given excessive effect and the ability to be protected by other units in front of them. The only difference I suggest would be to reduce their normal Melee factors to keep them honest: archers hit by regular melee troops with melee weapons (spears, swords, shields) have almost always turned into disappearing runners or Speed Bumps, and that should still be true in the game.
The crossbow was invented in China some time in the 6th century BCE, and in Syracuse, Sicily in 400 BCE. It became the primary weapon of a large part of every Chinese infantry force; it was virtually ignored by every field army in Europe until 1500 years later.
What was the difference?
In China they also developed Volley Firing by Rank: in which a deep formation of 8 - 10 ranks of crossbows would fire the first rank, that rank would file to the rear, the next rank would fire and file back, etc. The first rank would be reloaded before the last rank fired, so they could keep up continuous heavy fire as long as the ammunition held out. In Europe, Volley Fire was not invented until it was applied to muskets at the end of the 16th century CE (By which time the Chinese, Japanese and probably the Koreans had already adopted volley firing for their own handguns).
That meant, simply, that Chinese massed crossbows could potentially stop an infantry charge with massed firepower, while no European force could mass enough fire to do the same.
That also meant, by the way, that the first handguns in Europe were 'Hook Guns' or Hackbusse, designed to be braced against the parapet of a fortification and fired in defense - from the top of a nice stone wall where the tar get could not get to you with any kind of charge. It was only a century or so later that Arquebusses ventured onto the battlefield, and then quickly protect ed by blocks of pikes, halberds, swordsmen and other heavily-armed melee troops.
So, realistically, it takes special training, organization and technique to allow muscle-powered missile troops to remain on the battlefield for any length of time. That's no fun at all for the gamer who just spent X turns producing Archers, Slingers, and their ilk only to see them run for their lives after one shot.
So, forget about 'Historical Accuracy' in this instance. To keep archers from being almost completely useless outside of fortifications, they have to be given excessive effect and the ability to be protected by other units in front of them. The only difference I suggest would be to reduce their normal Melee factors to keep them honest: archers hit by regular melee troops with melee weapons (spears, swords, shields) have almost always turned into disappearing runners or Speed Bumps, and that should still be true in the game.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
The key thing that the game has always missed in the past is the difference between the original handguns and arquebus and matchlock muskets and the later flintlock musket with locking socket bayonet: namely that the earlier gunpowder weapons had the same abysmal melee factor as unarmored archers had. Most matchlock musketmen had a short sword that they were not trained to use, and an unloaded musket was a 20 pound clumsy club. Against a man in armor with a great sword, halberd or pike it was Speed bump Time as it had been for archers for nearly 2000 years.
By comparison, the flintlock musket with fixed bayonet both allowed the firing line to be twice as dense (matchlock musketeers holding a lighted match had to keep a foot or more away from everyone else or they could set each other on fire, and since they had cloth or paper packets of gunpowder and shot hung about them, that could be far more exciting than anyone could stand), could fire twice as fast, and could fight off charging cavalry with the long musket and bayonet or charge home and engage with a good melee factor: at Culloden in 1745 bayonets proved superior to swords in close melee, and pikemen by 1695 were considered "poor defenseless fellows" compared to men with muskets.
I know it won't happen, but it would be nice if Arquebussiers were given a very low 'malus' to their defense factor against melee combat but a very high attack factor (representing their close range firepower) while Fusiliers carrying flintlocks got equal defense and attack factors (both higher than matchlock muskets) and an Anti-Cav 'bonus' factor against Mounted from their bayonets and 'square' formations when required - that drill was actually introduced simultaneously with the flintlock musket in the late 1600s.
Last edited:
I guess the difference lies in the turn increments being larger in the musketmen era, thus making them in need of covering more time?
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
What fascinates me about Civ's portrayal of the period roughly 1490 to 1850 CE is that it includes the "Military Revolution" that Parker postulated from the use of gunpowder that has been widely accepted (and even extended back to China and the Far East) and used as the basis for many academic studies concentrating on this period.
Civ seems to have missed all that, and it's a Crying Shame. This period saw some of the most explosive changes in human affairs since Agriculture, and much of it was driven by sudden, dramatic imbalances in military effectiveness, largely the result of effective use of gunpowder weapons.
I sincerely hope that they are using, as posted, the Age system and the Mastery Techs to remedy this. I am somewhat hopeful by the fact that the last Tech in the Exploration Age is Gunpowder with what is apparently a hand-held 'musket' type weapon Unit included. IF that is the arquebus or matchlock musket-toting Unit, then the 'Modern' Age could start with the Flintlock Musket-equipped Fusilier, a new standard infantry unit for the start of a new Age, and with appreciably different factors than the previous Musketman.
That would also have to assume, then, that most of the 16th and 17th century events are considered part of the Crisis Period between the Exploration and Modern Ages. Not too sure how I feel about that, but given how cavalier they are being about precise dates in the Civ allotments to Ages, it may not make that much difference.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Hah! Once I blew the shot up I could see the extending single line even with my near-80-year-old eyes. Thanks for the catch.
That actually makes me feel a little better, because it implies that they might actually model the start of the Military Revolution as the start of the Crisis Period between Exploration and Modern Ages, which makes much more sense.
It also means that, disregarding Agriculture as the Base Tech for everyone, that both Antiquity and Exploration Age have (at least) 6 Tiers of discoverable Techs. IF Modern Age also has 6 Tiers, then Civ VII has 18 Tiers compared to Civ VI's 17 Tiers plus Future Tech. Probably not a coincidence!
Similar threads
