Speculation on units

[chaosprophet]

I agree with olleus take. The idea is a mix of gameplay balance and scale. At the time where people fought with melee weapons, bows were a different level of ranged in comparison, but later when everything is some level of ranged, you would better represent ranged units as one with a bigger range than that. Just like how each unit in later eras are likely to represent a much bigger army than the ones on early eras as wars end up with much more manpower later.

This is some concessions a game that go through 6000 years of human history has to make to stay the same game. While Civ 7 is doing things to make mechanics feel fresh in every age, as there is a continuation, it stills needs to be the same game with same basic mechanics after all.

 

[Krikkit1]

I agree with olleus take. The idea is a mix of gameplay balance and scale. At the time where people fought with melee weapons, bows were a different level of ranged in comparison, but later when everything is some level of ranged, you would better represent ranged units as one with a bigger range than that. Just like how each unit in later eras are likely to represent a much bigger army than the ones on early eras as wars end up with much more manpower later.

This is some concessions a game that go through 6000 years of human history has to make to stay the same game. While Civ 7 is doing things to make mechanics feel fresh in every age, as there is a continuation, it stills needs to be the same game with same basic mechanics after all.

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)

 

[uppi]

Like if it was consistent I could tolerate it you know but what do you mean that archers are a ranged unit but musketeers aren't?

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.

 

[Olleus]

I've always seen ranged vs melee in Civ to be about how your projectile moves. Shoot in an arc? Ranged. Shoot in a line? Melee. Apparently the really old games (maybe this changed in Civ3?) didn't really have this distinction.

[...] When an archer unit was being charged, something had gone seriously wrong because they were not supposed to be frontline units.

Not my exact expertise, but I think both of these are based on common misconceptions about how archers functioned on battlefield, at least, their "standard" use in pitched battles. Exceptions of course exist.

Firstly all ballistic trajectories are curved, for arrows and bullets likewise. The functional difference is whether the person aiming and shooting could see the target. For mortars and howitzers the answer is often no, but for archers, slingers, and muskets the answer is almost always yes. The nominal range of longbows with flight arrows might be very long, but the useful range of war arrows for most bows was <100m, with the ability to cause disabling injuries through any kind of armour / shield at a rate that actually mattered on the battlefield increasing rapidly as range reduced. Most casualties caused by archery were probably usually at around the 50m mark. The Total War image of a unit of archers standing behind a unit /cohort of legionaries and shooting over them is mostly fantasy - if only because units themselves are kind of a fantasy. Archers might be incorporated into a formation of spearman and shoot over the first few ranks Assyrian-style, but even that would not be completely blind. Such a hybrid unit is not in Civ however (outside of a few UUs like Immortals IIRC).

All that to say, large groups of archers avoided melee combat not by having melee infantry in front of them but by a combination of: having swords and being OK at melee fighting if need be; running away from heavier, specialised melee infantry; having fortifications or field works to prevent enemy charges (or break up the formations of such charges to weaken them such that archers could defeat them in melee); and adjacent melee specialised troops supporting them to dissuade the enemy from breaking their own formation by exploiting the weak point where the archers are.

Musketry was used in much the same way. Formations like Tercios or Dutch linear "maniples" didn't have muskets shooting over pikes, but sufficiently close to pikes to dissuade enemy cavalry from charging ahead into them. The level of drill and the amount of doctrine that went into these formations was greater than with medieval archers, but the fundamental idea of using direct firepower from the frontline is broadly the same. Earlier firearms, like arquebus in the later stages of the 100 Years War or the Franco-Italian wars, was used (IIRC) in loose skirmishing formations more like medieval archers. On the other hand bayonet armed line infantry of the 18th-19th century were, essentially, deployed and fought like they had 100m long spears (albeit in skinnier formations). The skirmishing role that peltasts, archers, and arquebus had once fulfilled was replaced by light infantry fighting in looser formation deployed in front of between the main lines. All that was brushing over a *LOT* of detail, regional variation, and temporal evolution of course.

Fundamentally, it's not the ranged attack of archers in Civ5/6 that departs from history, but their ability to shoot over friendly units. Although the turn based nature of Civ and the way distance and length scale combine in an inconsistent way makes it foolish to even attempt to compare it to history.

Edit: interesting blog by a real expert on the (un)importance of range

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

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.

 

[AriochIV]

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.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

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.

 

[Olleus]

It has nothing to do with historical accuracy and everything to do with gameplay.

Of course. Yet people use realism argument for why musketmen should / shouldn't have ranged attack. Besides, historical side discussions is one of the best things about this forum

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Of course. Yet people use realism argument for why musketmen should / shouldn't have ranged attack. Besides, historical side discussions is one of the best things about this forum

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.

 

[Olleus]

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

Yes, it's always been puzzling what musketmen were meant to represent. The in game musket seems to be everything from just before 1500 to a bit after 1850, which covers their real-life use from supporting pike squares to being virtually the only infantry weapon. That's a huge historical change covered by a single unit. And yet we then have Riflemen -> (GW Infantry) -> Infantry -> Mech infantry, which represents in detail far more incremental changes. It's particularly confusing how in Civ6 musketmen comes shortly before the pike-and-shot but continuedsall the way until riflemen. So it represents both arquebus style fighting from the battle Castillon in 1453, and Napoleonic style Fusiliers, but not the 16th century step in the middle? A complete mess. I see now that some expansion pack for Civ6 added line infantry, but at that point they may as well have removed musketmen altogether (having correctly split it into a pre-bayonet and post-bayonet version)

Although I never liked the inclusion of shot-and-pike, having joint formations like that seems to go against the whole point of 1UPT and the tactical play it's meant to introduce

 

[Nikolai II]

Yes, it's always been puzzling what musketmen were meant to represent. The in game musket seems to be everything from just before 1500 to a bit after 1850, which covers their real-life use from supporting pike squares to being virtually the only infantry weapon. That's a huge historical change covered by a single unit. And yet we then have Riflemen -> (GW Infantry) -> Infantry -> Mech infantry, which represents in detail far more incremental changes. It's particularly confusing how in Civ6 musketmen comes shortly before the pike-and-shot but continuedsall the way until riflemen. So it represents both arquebus style fighting from the battle Castillon in 1453, and Napoleonic style Fusiliers, but not the 16th century step in the middle? A complete mess. I see now that some expansion pack for Civ6 added line infantry, but at that point they may as well have removed musketmen altogether (having correctly split it into a pre-bayonet and post-bayonet version)

Although I never liked the inclusion of shot-and-pike, having joint formations like that seems to go against the whole point of 1UPT and the tactical play it's meant to introduce

I guess the difference lies in the turn increments being larger in the musketmen era, thus making them in need of covering more time?

 

[Olleus]

I guess the difference lies in the turn increments being larger in the musketmen era, thus making them in need of covering more time?

I'm sure that's part of it. I don't expect Civ to have different units for the Polybian, Marian, and Aurelian legions after all. But the changes between a musketman at Cerignola in 1503 and at Sebastopol in 1853 are night and day. Other than their weapon having the same name (ie, being in the same broad family) those two soldiers and their armies had almost nothing in common with each other. In past Civs, they also covered more turns and more tech-tree ages than going between the ACW, the Franco-Prussian War and WW1; yet those are represented by multiple unit upgrades. Despite being no greater a change in equipment or doctrine.

But this is increasingly irrelevant to the thread... Past Civs tended to forget about the enlignent and jump from the renaissance to the industrial era, thereby making a muddle of warfare in that period. Whether this will remain the case with the new ages-and-crises structure is far from clear at this point.

 

[Krikkit1]

I could see 2 versions of Muskets in Exploration, (base and a Mastery version)
and then Modern’s initial unit could be a third version (a pre Rifleman melee gunpowder unit..and the first modern unit you research is a Rifleman)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm sure that's part of it. I don't expect Civ to have different units for the Polybian, Marian, and Aurelian legions after all. But the changes between a musketman at Cerignola in 1503 and at Sebastopol in 1853 are night and day. Other than their weapon having the same name (ie, being in the same broad family) those two soldiers and their armies had almost nothing in common with each other. In past Civs, they also covered more turns and more tech-tree ages than going between the ACW, the Franco-Prussian War and WW1; yet those are represented by multiple unit upgrades. Despite being no greater a change in equipment or doctrine.

But this is increasingly irrelevant to the thread... Past Civs tended to forget about the enlignent and jump from the renaissance to the industrial era, thereby making a muddle of warfare in that period. Whether this will remain the case with the new ages-and-crises structure is far from clear at this point.

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.

 

[Olleus]

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.

I don't think it's the last tech. The screenshot looks like you can scroll to the right. Especially when you compare it to the ancient tree above it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't think it's the last tech. The screenshot looks like you can scroll to the right. Especially when you compare it to the ancient tree above it.

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!