Zachriel
Kaiser
Musketeers are every bit as good as Musket Men.
think musketeers suck? roflol silly llamas, think again!
- Thread starter nihil8r
- Start date
Shabbaman
rebuffing the rebels
Well, if they sucked, you could use them as vacuum cleaner.
If anyone is under any misconception that the musketeer is a good unique unit, they should consider that the Samurai is only 1/6th more expensive, comes in slightly earlier, and weighs in at 4/4/2 to a musketeer's 3/4/1.
Samurai are only considered a slightly-better-than-average unique unit by most, and yet are clearly far better than musketeers.
@Charis: yes, there does seem to be some correlation between weak unique units and strong civilization traits, but this is all very murky.
To start with, it's not clear that Firaxis does consider some civilization traits 'better' or 'worse'. What's more, some civilizations seem to get an awkward pair of traits, with a poor or useless unique unit, e.g. England, Russia, and the Mongols.
Likewise, some civilizations get a powerful set of traits, and also get a powerful unique unit; e.g. the Persians and the Chinese.
I'm starting to think that the traits/unique units distribution isn't in any way connected: Firaxis decides upon them seperately, without consideration of balancing poor unique units with good traits and vice versa. There's also the consideration of actually providing traits and a unique unit which does match up (vaguely and a little arbitarily) with the civilization historically.
Of course, Firaxis does test the game most thoroughly on Regent level, and I think that they consider a late unique unit just as valuable as an early one.
-Sirp.
Samurai are only considered a slightly-better-than-average unique unit by most, and yet are clearly far better than musketeers.
@Charis: yes, there does seem to be some correlation between weak unique units and strong civilization traits, but this is all very murky.
To start with, it's not clear that Firaxis does consider some civilization traits 'better' or 'worse'. What's more, some civilizations seem to get an awkward pair of traits, with a poor or useless unique unit, e.g. England, Russia, and the Mongols.
Likewise, some civilizations get a powerful set of traits, and also get a powerful unique unit; e.g. the Persians and the Chinese.
I'm starting to think that the traits/unique units distribution isn't in any way connected: Firaxis decides upon them seperately, without consideration of balancing poor unique units with good traits and vice versa. There's also the consideration of actually providing traits and a unique unit which does match up (vaguely and a little arbitarily) with the civilization historically.
Of course, Firaxis does test the game most thoroughly on Regent level, and I think that they consider a late unique unit just as valuable as an early one.
-Sirp.
Bismarck
The Iron Chancellor
Sirp: you hit the nail on the head. I don't think Firaxis really attempted to balance civ traits with UU strength, partly because they didn't *know* how strong the traits were going to be in the beginning! The Commercial and Expansionist traits have changed significantly from version 1.0 to 1.29.
If anything, I suspect that most of the best UU's belong to civs with stronger traits! For example, Persia and China have strong UU's and are both Indstrious (which is generally considered the strongest trait). Japan and Greece also have good UU's and decent traits.
In fact, the only civ in vanilla Civ3 that has a significantly above-average UU, but relatively weak traits, are the Iroquois. Mounted Warrior can be deadly, but Expansionist/Religious is at best an average combo.
If anything, I suspect that most of the best UU's belong to civs with stronger traits! For example, Persia and China have strong UU's and are both Indstrious (which is generally considered the strongest trait). Japan and Greece also have good UU's and decent traits.
In fact, the only civ in vanilla Civ3 that has a significantly above-average UU, but relatively weak traits, are the Iroquois. Mounted Warrior can be deadly, but Expansionist/Religious is at best an average combo.
lord42
Prince
Musketeers are good!
1. They can successfully counter attack fleeing and wounded knights.
2. Everyone has to admit they have the coolest laugh sound.
3. Extreamly effective against border cities.
4. Cheaper then the knight.
5. Excellent GA timeing.
1. They can successfully counter attack fleeing and wounded knights.
2. Everyone has to admit they have the coolest laugh sound.
3. Extreamly effective against border cities.
4. Cheaper then the knight.
5. Excellent GA timeing.
peace_frog
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2002
- Messages
- 40
Yeah, I have to defend the muskateers as well. They are great defenders because they have enough offensive power to wipe up the units that bounce off of them when attacking. They can withstand the attack of a knight, longbowman or swordsmen and then clear out the wounded ones when your turn comes around.
I have not yet lost a game with the muskateers. Granted I have not played diety yet, but my second emperor game is getting a little boring so I might give that a shot next. I grant that France's strength has far more to do with the Ind/Comm combo than the uu though. I agree the GA is timed well for the stregths of the civ. It is later in the game when the Ind/com traits gain their power. With france all you have to do is survive until the muskateers arrive. The GA then kicks you into overdrive for the rest of the game that an AI just can't compete with, at least up to Emperor.
and yes, they do have a cool laugh sound.
I have not yet lost a game with the muskateers. Granted I have not played diety yet, but my second emperor game is getting a little boring so I might give that a shot next. I grant that France's strength has far more to do with the Ind/Comm combo than the uu though. I agree the GA is timed well for the stregths of the civ. It is later in the game when the Ind/com traits gain their power. With france all you have to do is survive until the muskateers arrive. The GA then kicks you into overdrive for the rest of the game that an AI just can't compete with, at least up to Emperor.
and yes, they do have a cool laugh sound.
I love the new PTW units. Its worth getting for them alone apart from the Conquistador which is OTT in my book (6 movement).
The addition of an upgrade path from Swordsmen and Longbowmen is absolutely great! Medieval Infantry are cool too - remind me of playing Baldur's Gate
I cant figure out how to use the other tilesets included though. Thats what you get for being dumb I suppose
I think I'll try the French next.
The addition of an upgrade path from Swordsmen and Longbowmen is absolutely great! Medieval Infantry are cool too - remind me of playing Baldur's Gate
I cant figure out how to use the other tilesets included though. Thats what you get for being dumb I suppose
I think I'll try the French next.
lord42
Prince
Yes if you can survive the first two periods with France you can go hog wild late game....
They're my best civ as i find early war is rather unproffitable with all the cities getting autorazed...
The ability to clean up bounced knights is the musketeer's true power. Especially when they laugh afterward!
They're my best civ as i find early war is rather unproffitable with all the cities getting autorazed...
The ability to clean up bounced knights is the musketeer's true power. Especially when they laugh afterward!
SirPleb
Shaken, not stirred.
I think Musketeers are indeed an offensive UU 
It sure is interesting how differently we can see the various traits. My feeling is that Religious is overall the most powerful for most maps. And that Expansionist is very powerful, right up there with the best other traits, on some very particular maps. (E.g. Huge Deity Pangaea.) So the Iroquois come out rather well to my mind.
Considering very few people play huge maps, expansionist civilizations aren't ranked well. Among people who do play huge maps, I think most would agree that they're good.
I think that Industrious vs Religious is split about 70/30 in favor of Industrious for people who think that's the best trait (neglecting people who don't think either of them are). Personally I think that Industrious is the best trait, but I don't rank Religious too far behind.
-Sirp.
I think that Industrious vs Religious is split about 70/30 in favor of Industrious for people who think that's the best trait (neglecting people who don't think either of them are). Personally I think that Industrious is the best trait, but I don't rank Religious too far behind.
-Sirp.
Well I'm playing the French ATM and the Musketeers are running rampant over the Germans. They only have Spearmen thanks to me controlling all the Iron within reach but its still 3 to 2 and my Musketeers are still creating havoc. I've only lost one combat and that was Regular vs Regular against their capital.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Greyhawk1,
A hammer will always break a hens egg. The point is to take an osterich's (?sp) egg and try to break that with a hammer.
You will find that the sledgehammer, for just a few pence more will do the job nicely.
And in english, anyone can use musketeers to kill spearmen, but try playing on a higher level and then come back and say how good the musketeers are against pikes and other muskets. You will find yourself using knights before too long.
Edit: And on the offchance you are playing Deity, well done
, but I'm afraid it only proves your prowess in general, not the usefulness of the musketeers.
A hammer will always break a hens egg. The point is to take an osterich's (?sp) egg and try to break that with a hammer.
You will find that the sledgehammer, for just a few pence more will do the job nicely.
And in english, anyone can use musketeers to kill spearmen, but try playing on a higher level and then come back and say how good the musketeers are against pikes and other muskets. You will find yourself using knights before too long.
Edit: And on the offchance you are playing Deity, well done
, but I'm afraid it only proves your prowess in general, not the usefulness of the musketeers.peace_frog
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2002
- Messages
- 40
anarres, they work well for me on emperor. I've played 2 emperor games, both have gone smoothly with my musketeers triggering the GA that put me in a position where all I had to do was not fall on my face to win. My next will be diety. I'll let you know how it goes. They haven't failed me yet. But, of course I use knights too. Muskateers are only good for cleaning up the wounded AI knights after they bounced off the muskateer's defense. But for that, they are far better than musketmen.
Sorry I'm a newbie at this - I'm playing Chieftain & Warlord mainly to get used to the new rules and stuff.
I never won a game ever of Civ 2 (and its many clones) but it was still fun to play anyway. Civ 3 is much more intuitive and I'm having far greater success. Though SMAC was my forte - never losing a game even on hardest level
I never won a game ever of Civ 2 (and its many clones) but it was still fun to play anyway. Civ 3 is much more intuitive and I'm having far greater success. Though SMAC was my forte - never losing a game even on hardest level
Similar threads
