Logitech
A Person.
Cool.
@D.Durand: Seconded!
@D.Durand: Seconded!

Question: how many THREADS are you going to devote to this one topic? I've counted FOUR on this board in the last week, and you haven't replied really to any of them, instead you're creating new ones.
Anyways, I'm kinda going the opposite direction with the musketman theory. I think that the earlier musketmen should have higher defense (they were mostly useful on defense), and then scale up to a more balanced unit at Riflemen.
An Arquebus unit should be added, to fill the gap between Musketman and Medieval Infantry, as these were commonly used from 1400's to 1600's.
I don't see a need for a stop-gap between Musketman and Rifleman.
Infantry shouldn't be able to be built before Riflemen (Replaceable parts can be obtained without Nationalism).
I still don't see how the Panzer UU is understrength when it has 1 extra movement point, and gets an EXTRA ATTACK. The idea behind the panzer is its supposed to be able to be like a Blitzkreg type unit, and it fits nicely. If I have 3 Panzers and you have 3 regular tanks, chances are I'm going to win, because I get up to 9 attacks to your 6. I could attack you once and then retreat 2 squares out of your reach. I don't see the problem here.
Ironclad was brought up in another thread. How does it ruin the Age of Sail? True, you can in theory get Ironclads soon after Magnetism, but you can get alot of other "spoiler" units pretty quickly if you research the right way. In my earlier example, I've pointed out you can have Infantry before Riflemen.
In a related note to the Infantry, while I'm on it, what can possibly attack a 6/10/1 unit, entrenched, with any success, in the early Industrial Ages?
Back to Ironclads, I think personally they should be made at least 5/5 (A/D), if not 6/6. Frigates I think should be raised to 3/2 or 4/2. Its sad watching a Frigate or Ironclad unable to kill a Ancient Age Galley. An Ironclad should be able to obliterate a Frigate and anything lower with ease. I think Ironclads are an important bridge between the Age of Sail and the modern ships (Destroyer, Battleship, etc.).
What would be nice is if units could get an "era" bonus vs. units from an earlier era. Say 100% for 1 era difference, 200% for 2 eras difference ,and 300% for 3 eras difference. There is no comparison between a Knight and a Spearman, for example, or a Rifleman vs. a Knight, or Modern Armor vs. a Rifleman. The first in each example should win at least 90% of the time.
Quite honestly it's how you place Tech paths. I never build Ironclads because it's not necessary to advance to the next age. If I were to have control of placing tech paths and what's necessary to advance to the next age I would make it so that all Unit baring techs at least are necessary to advance to the next age, especially Nationalism because it had a massive impact on the Industrial Age: it actually led to wars! I would also add more fill-in techs. This would extend the Tech Race and make it more of an accomplishment to get a major tech.
I know I'm not the only one disturbed by the fact that you can build tanks 1450 AD, and other things like that. I think that this is largely because EVERY civ becomes a republic at the end of the ancient era. Is this realistic? If you don't count the republic of Rome, which don't compare to a modern republic, IMO, did any country become a republic earlier than the late middle ages?
As this is rethorical questions, my answer is: No! The middle ages is the "Age of Kingdoms". Monarchies all around.![]()
So my solution to this was to move The Republic to the place of Democracy in the late middle ages, and move Democracy to the start of the industrial era. As everyone has monarchy, research is slower, and you push the tanks back a couple of hundred years. You might say this makes a more linear game, but, if you play the builder style, as I do, then the game already is linear, as in the ordinary game, everyone goes republic.
I have 24 eras planned in my mod, 8 are currently done.