Unit between Spearman and Pikeman

[civilizationfanatic2000]

hmmm
should the player have the ability to customize what weapons and what aarmor their military units use? and each type of weapon could have different effects. to balance it out you could only do it when you have enough control over your army, the cultural bias towards a specific weapon, and the technology.

vikings were known for axes (i think) because they were poor people who had to raid to live, and in their normal lives were people like farmers or woodsmen.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The problems of the in-game representation of Spearman and Pikeman is another reason for my suggestion for a different system for common militar units. I have some points in mind to build the common lines:

1- Units should be easy to identify by the player, being key elements the weapon used and the way the warrior move using such weapon. Even their icon could be just the weapon.​

2- Also considering that each common unit should have different "skins" for different world regions (european, middle eastern, far eastern, etc.) Likewise prioritize to have upgrades for the lines each era if possible.​

3- Replace the every turn micro of carpets of units from overspecific units lines with a system of armies+garrisons composed by different units, formations and orders (adding value to experience, moral, positioning, terrain and supplies).​

4- Integrate the "denizens" core system of social "classes" with regular units from the Warrior class and irregular units from the Labourers class.​

Then as @Boris Gudenuf pointed spears were usually a cheap weapon commonly used by the irregular/non-professional troops. So for my Irregular line (Commoner>Levy>Militia>Guerrilla) the two first stages would be armed with spears (Commoner is Ancient+Classical and Levy is Medieval+Renaissance, Militia is Industrial+"Modern* from the introduction of accesible guns). For reasons of naming and being a non-ideal combatant unit (also some historical) this line has two eras stages.

Well now come my more heterodox take on this. The whole "anti-cav" line is scraped, incorporated into the "melee" line. As mentioned the Pike was a weapon associated to professional units that beyond the hellenistic Phalanx were not so common until the LateMedieval+EarlyModern period, then I decided to add Pikeman to my Melee line (Clubman>Axeman>Swordman>Pikeman>Musketman>Rifleman>Shock Infantry>Assaul Infantry>Augmented Infantry). The stages 1-6 are named after their weapon while 7-9 are under the scheme of a more technified system of mechanized warfare (the biggest change in militar gameplay). For the early stages the visual of each era are:

- Clubman, beathing the enemy with a two-hands wooden club based on the ones from Polynesia and Amazonia.​

*The era is Neolithic but is NOT supposed to be a hunter-gatherer gameplay era, is based in prehistoric agrarian-pastorial-maritime villages that at least for me are an underrated period.​

- Axeman, chopping the enemy with a single hand bronze axe (shield in the other) based on the ones from ancient Egypt, Sumer, China, etc.​

- Swordman, slicing the enemy with a single hand iron sword (shield in the other) based on popular picture of classical and "dark age" infantry.​

- Pikeman, stabbing the enemy with a two-hands steel pike (still could have a shield tied up in one arm or in the back) based more on early forms of the Scottish Schiltron than on the Swiss Reislaufer for a more medieval esthetic.​

Of course these weapons historicaly were NOT a succession, but we must take in mind that any try to fit all these into the game's abstracted common militar units for the whole world from Ancient to Modern eras would end in another ahistorical naming anyway. Otherwise in a more overspecific system à la Total War even more different lines would turn to be an incovenient to visualy represent every regional forms of each one and for the player to recognize them.

Just some comments:

1. The Clubman could also be labeled a Maceman, in that very early (2500 - 3000 BCE) Chalcolithic depictions in Mesopotamia show infantry armed with stone-headed maces - enhanced clubs, basically - as, apparently, the basic melee type. The addition of a heavy weight to the end of the club turned it from a stunning weapon into a killing one, as skulls found with large round holes in them indicate.
2. The 'dagger axe' or narrow-bladed axe seems to have been the real Melee Weapon characteristic of the Bronze metallurgy, along with the short stabbing sword (under 50 cm, or 2 feet). This makes a natural transition from bronze to iron in weaponry as well as tools: iron was strong enough to form into long swords (the La Tene or Hallstadt types) up to 80cm or just under 3 feet long, a distinct change from what was available in bronze.
3. As mentionedin my previous post above, the Scots 'pikeman' was actually wielding a half-pike. On the other hand, the Flemish city militia pikemen or Swiss pikemen in studded leather coats or even metal breastplates (the Flemish and Italian cities were very wealthy, which allowed them to equip their 'militia' lavishly with armor and weapons and pay for their training time) are distinctly Medieval in appearance.

 

[BuchiTaton]

- Definitively I prefer the name Maceman over Clubman. What I would like to keep is the weapon to be two-handed, I know there are both one and two handed options for both clubs and maces but most ancient despictions of stone maces I find are one handed.
*Funny thing my avatar is a "Tumbas de Tiro" tradition warrior from Preclassic Western Mesoamerica using a two-hands mace.
- About the Axeman at least the name I think is better to keep it as just Axeman for simplicity sake. Visually I would prefer to prioritize the more "axe looking" one-handed narrow-axe with a still identifiable axe-like cutting edge (for sure NO the stereotypical battle axe). Although complety agree that spears first and then dagger-axe were more common than axes at bronze age their notoriety still justify to choose them. For example Shang infantry used a lot of dagger-axes but there are some examples of different kinds of axes, my favorite is the next one

Spoiler Ancient China :

https://periklisdeligiannis.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/03-shang_dynasty.gif

.
* Another interesting reason is that early forms of bronze axes (Tlaximaltepoztli) were also used in Postclassic Mesoamerica.
- For the visual representation of Pikeman I apply my preference for units that were closer to the middle point of each era. In this case for medieval period the equipment from the contemporary First War of Scottish Independence and Franco-Flemish War have priority. While the attire and armor of the Swiss pikeman is basically renascentist, at least the more popular depiction of them. I mean is better to put the middle point between the classical swordman and the early modern musketman in something more intermediate to both (to be honest I am still traying to justify a First Crusade looks ).

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

1. In the Civ VI system, a better route would be to make the Pezhetairoi, or "Foot Companions" of Phillip or Alexander as Unique to Macedonia and the Successor States: no one else in the classical world ever used them. That also allows keeping the 'real' title for them.
2. Never, never, never use 'phalangists' or 'phalangites' for ANYTHING. Phalanx in the Greek system simply meant 'the Army': specifically, the mass of heavy close-formation infantry. It does not have anything to do with how they are armed, equipped or organized, which is why the Greeks refer to Persian and Roman 'phalanxes' - the term becomes meaningless when you try to apply it to specific units or types of troops.
3. Both the Greek, and much later, the Roman forces, started as Decimal formations: 100 men, 10 ranks by 10 columns. The Greeks quickly changed to an 8-man rank, which was more flexible in that it could be sub-divided into formations 2 or 4 ranks deep if necessary, or 'doubled' to 16 and still keep its internal organization of pairs of File Leaders and File Closers. The original decimal organization is attested by the nomenclature: both the Greek and the Roman words for the commander of the file translate as 'leader of 10' (Latin: Decurion, Greek: Dekarch) even though the later Roman Decuria was in fact a 'squad' or section of 8 and the Greek file was normally also 8 men.
Both also had formations of 100 men: the famous Roman Century, and the Greek Lochos, which much later got applied to a larger formation of 500 as a sub-division of a Chiliarchy (force of 1000).
The change in armament among the Roman forces from all spears to a mix of spears and swords is well-attested in the writings of Livy and Polybius and took place over a period from well before the Carthagenian Wars until right after them: Hannibal fought against a Legion whose third 'line' of Triarii still carried long spears to give the entire formation more firmness in defense. It was only definitively with the reforms of Marius that the Legion became a force entirely of armored swordsmen with heavy javelins (pilum) as a secondary weapon.

The generic Pikeman should remain a Medieval unit, because they were far more generally adopted in Europe at that time, among both the Flemish and Italian city states as well as the Swiss (in all cases by 'volunteer', highly-motivated infantry rather than the conscripted peasant spearmen that had preceded them). The Lowland Scots actually used a 'half-pike' about 10 - 12 feet long instead of the true 18 - 21 foot Pike, which gave their formations more flexibility in the rough country more characteristic of Scotland, but their combat characteristics were similar enough that they could be included in the 'pike' units for game purposes. Also, of course, the pike formations gradually converted to mixed units culminating in Pike and Shot, starting with the early Spanish addition of crossbowmen to the pike units, then Halberds, and the already-mentioned Swiss adoption of mixd halberd and pike units.

I'm asking about 'generic' iterations of intermediate unit between Bronze Age Spearman and Middle Age Pikemen.
If Pezhetairoi is for Macedonians only, And Greek Hoplite is Classical Era and not Ancient Era, I'd prefer Hoplites to be intermediate Greek units and Pezhetairoi Macedonian counterparts..
If there's gonna be one. what should its name be??

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm asking about 'generic' iterations of intermediate unit between Bronze Age Spearman and Middle Age Pikemen.
If Pezhetairoi is for Macedonians only, And Greek Hoplite is Classical Era and not Ancient Era, I'd prefer Hoplites to be intermediate Greek units and Pezhetairoi Macedonian counterparts..
If there's gonna be one. what should its name be??

Maybe move Pikemen to Classical Era, to represent sarissas, and have Halberdiers be Medieval? The current icon and some of the weapons in the unit are actually halberds

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm asking about 'generic' iterations of intermediate unit between Bronze Age Spearman and Middle Age Pikemen.
If Pezhetairoi is for Macedonians only, And Greek Hoplite is Classical Era and not Ancient Era, I'd prefer Hoplites to be intermediate Greek units and Pezhetairoi Macedonian counterparts..
If there's gonna be one. what should its name be??

There isn't any 'alternate' or intermediate unit between Bronze Age and Medieval, because there is no Progression - that's an artificial Game Mechanic.

Pre-Dynastic Egypt (Very Late Neolithic), around 3200 BCE: depiction of a man with a round hide shield, long stone-tipped spear, no body armor. - our earliest solid pictorial evidence of a 'spearman'.
BUT The earliest Bronze Age (2600 BCE) depiction, the 'Vulture stele' of Sumer, shows men with metal-pointed spears holding their spears in both hands - which makes them Pikes, technically. They are also in a dense, close formation covered by large wood or reed shields carried by a second man, so that the formation actually consists of pairs of warriors.

So, from the beginning of the Bronze Age, if not before, the spearman and pikeman appear together. By no coincidence I am sure, the dense formation of pointy things appears at the same time as the first 'mounted' units, the War Carts that had at least the potential to run down individual warriors.

Aside from details of what the armor or points were made of (bronze, iron, steel, Kevlar) there is no substantive difference among spearmen and pikemen from 2500 BCE to 1500 CE except those associated with specific cultures/states: the big interlocking Greek Aspis (Hoplon) shields, link mail or laminar iron/steel armor, articulated plate armor very late in the Medieval, and changes in additional weapons: the Spartan Kupris short sword, side-arms like short axes, maces, swords, etc.

The most relevant changes in the period, in fact, are the Formations that combined spears/pikes with other weapons: not just the Early Modern Pike & Shot, but late Imperial Roman and Thematic Byzantine infantry with both Spears and long swords that combined the artificial game distinction between Melee and Anti-Cav, the early Roman Legion with a second and third line of spearman backing the armored swordsmen, the Pictish formation of pikemen (or, more properly, half-pikemen) backing up aristocratic swordsmen, etc.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

There isn't any 'alternate' or intermediate unit between Bronze Age and Medieval, because there is no Progression - that's an artificial Game Mechanic.

Pre-Dynastic Egypt (Very Late Neolithic), around 3200 BCE: depiction of a man with a round hide shield, long stone-tipped spear, no body armor. - our earliest solid pictorial evidence of a 'spearman'.
BUT The earliest Bronze Age (2600 BCE) depiction, the 'Vulture stele' of Sumer, shows men with metal-pointed spears holding their spears in both hands - which makes them Pikes, technically. They are also in a dense, close formation covered by large wood or reed shields carried by a second man, so that the formation actually consists of pairs of warriors.

So, from the beginning of the Bronze Age, if not before, the spearman and pikeman appear together. By no coincidence I am sure, the dense formation of pointy things appears at the same time as the first 'mounted' units, the War Carts that had at least the potential to run down individual warriors.

Aside from details of what the armor or points were made of (bronze, iron, steel, Kevlar) there is no substantive difference among spearmen and pikemen from 2500 BCE to 1500 CE except those associated with specific cultures/states: the big interlocking Greek Aspis (Hoplon) shields, link mail or laminar iron/steel armor, articulated plate armor very late in the Medieval, and changes in additional weapons: the Spartan Kupris short sword, side-arms like short axes, maces, swords, etc.

The most relevant changes in the period, in fact, are the Formations that combined spears/pikes with other weapons: not just the Early Modern Pike & Shot, but late Imperial Roman and Thematic Byzantine infantry with both Spears and long swords that combined the artificial game distinction between Melee and Anti-Cav, the early Roman Legion with a second and third line of spearman backing the armored swordsmen, the Pictish formation of pikemen (or, more properly, half-pikemen) backing up aristocratic swordsmen, etc.

^ So .'Swordsmen' were never deployed as homogenous 'melee intensive unit' worths of a hex in Civ6? did they? But in Civ6 they are upgradeable to Men At Arms at the Middle Ages
Then What are solutins for Civ6 modding?
A. Leave an 'anticav slot' in the Classical Era blank. (and shuffle Hoplites into Swordsman Replacement instead?)
B. Use combined 'Spear and Sword' in one unit tile as an intermerdiate unit. if this choice is taken what is the unit name? 'Heavy Infantry' having a line of swordsmen and another line of spearmen in the same armor and similiar shields?
And if this choice is taken. what are 'anti-spear' factors (vulnerability to melee class) to be reduced? or will it be annuled completely?
Yet it doesn't seems that distinctions between 'Anticavalry' and 'Shock attack infantry' ended in Classical Era. In modding sense it is still possible to reform promotion classes into one (coding heavy, and I've yet to test. and my replacement Notebook Computer is yet to be purchased.
such distinctions resurfaced as Men at Arms are shown up as shock troops to use against either pikemen or spearmen of that time.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

On the contrary, the Caesarian and early Imperial Legions were all armored swordsmen. That is, in fact, the 'classic' view of the Legion, I just insist on pointing out that in the roughly 700 year history of the Legion it included spearmen for most of that time (about 450 years, in fact!)

Frankly, I do not care about Civ VI modding. The game to me is dead: virtually unplayable as presented and too full of major disconnects between its various elements to be worth saving.

 

[Evie]

The fundamental problem is that language tend to be simplistic in descriptions. A guy fight with a spear? He's a spearman. It doesn't matter that one guy has a flint-tipped spear, no shield and no amor, and the other has a iron-tipped spear, padded armor and a sizeable shield: they both use spears, so spearmen. The same problem applies with swordsmen (are we talking gladius, zweihander or what), archers, riflemen, what have you: we name soldiers for their main weapon and we divide weapons into extremely broad categories, so generic unit names (as opposed to UUs names) are few, far between and cover a lot of history. Even when we don't do that (eg, knight) we still manage to cover an amazing range of extremely different equipment, training and even social roles.

Usually, when we have more specific terms describing a specific tactic, a specific variant of the armament, it:s also a term that's unique to a region or culture, so we don't actually have good options for expanding the generic unit roster: we end up dragging out obscure or seldom used in warfare weapons just to fill holes.

And then you add the unholy mess that is counter-units (spear and pike were not anticav units, they were the standard infantry!), which create even more need for named generic units, and it gets worse.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

On the contrary, the Caesarian and early Imperial Legions were all armored swordsmen. That is, in fact, the 'classic' view of the Legion, I just insist on pointing out that in the roughly 700 year history of the Legion it included spearmen for most of that time (about 450 years, in fact!)

Frankly, I do not care about Civ VI modding. The game to me is dead: virtually unplayable as presented and too full of major disconnects between its various elements to be worth saving.

And do you even bet on Civ7 to move away from ill-designed 1UPT gameplays adopted since Civ5?

Well i'm still have to finish what i've begun. and you are very useful in academic resources regarding to unit (and class designs). I'm really appreciate this.
But I can't let my grand modding project dies.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And do you even bet on Civ7 to move away from ill-designed 1UPT gameplays adopted since Civ5?

Well i'm still have to finish what i've begun. and you are very useful in academic resources regarding to unit (and class designs). I'm really appreciate this.
But I can't let my grand modding project dies.

A foreign observer once said of Napoleon III that "Foolish ideas multiplied like rabbits in his head"

The same could be said about the design decisions in Civ VI.

Consequently, I'll make no bets on what kind of combat or any other system we get in Civ VII. I have some ideas about what I'd like to see, and what I think desperately needs compete overhaul or at least refining from Civ VI, but what we actually get is anybody's guess.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@Evie:
I would also point out that the descriptive language used in the game is inconsistent. On the one hand it frequently refers to the primary weapon used, on the other hand it sometimes (especially with Unique Units) refers to the formation or activity of the unit instead: Legion, Skirmisher, Ranger, Scout, and also on occasion goes completely 'generic' so that the description could refer to a wildly wide range of weapons over the Eras the unit is 'assigned' to: Horseman, Cuirassier, Cavalry, Infantry, Spearman, Swordsman, etc.

I understand that they are trying to keep the descriptions familiar to a gaming audience that may as a group have no familiarity or interest in the difference between a rifled musket, a single shot Enfield-Snider breechloader or a Springfield .03 bolt-acton magazine-fed rifle - or care, except as they affect his/her gaming units - but a little consistency would be nice.

More dangerous, at least in my view as a military historian, is the complete misrepresentation of military units and their capabilities that encumber parts of the game: the depiction of spears and pikes and units carrying them as 'Anti-Cav', of Cossacks as the equivalent of 19th century Cavalry, or for that matter, the general cramming of individual units into hard and fast Categories. - And most critically the divorce of units from their Costs, the economic side of War which has been of fundamental importance to the forming and fielding of military units since the first Humanoid threw a rock at another.

None of this, by the way, is unique to Civ games: similar problems have bedeviled gaming since the original Avalon-Hill board games of the 1960s and I have seen absolute Howlers of mistakes made in depictions in miniatures games that had the gamers around the table laughing so hard they could not move their units.

A prime example is the Roman Legion, the quintessential Swordsman Unit in numerous games, which was actually the Quintessential Flexible Unit that changed weapons and tactics and numbers based on changing economic and military conditions throughout its history. That, however, does not lend itself to a simple Armored Man With Sword graphic and Beats The %$#^ Out Of Spearman and Builds Roads mechanic.

It's safe to bet that Civ (and other games) will continue to go with the Simple . . .

 

[Evie]

I mean, I'm okay with the legion being based on one specific iteration of the legion, and the best known one, (although some pilum would be nice) rather than trying to encapsulate everything the legion morphed into at various points based on changing conditions and need. You cannot realistically cover the several hundred years of history of the legion in one unit.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

.....

A prime example is the Roman Legion, the quintessential Swordsman Unit in numerous games, which was actually the Quintessential Flexible Unit that changed weapons and tactics and numbers based on changing economic and military conditions throughout its history. That, however, does not lend itself to a simple Armored Man With Sword graphic and Beats The %$#^ Out Of Spearman and Builds Roads mechanic.

It's safe to bet that Civ (and other games) will continue to go with the Simple . . .

And again Roman Legionairy tend to beat Greek Hoplites or any other 'Phalanx Infantry' / 'Heavy Infantry' every time they meet in any game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The fundamental problem is that language tend to be simplistic in descriptions. A guy fight with a spear? He's a spearman. It doesn't matter that one guy has a flint-tipped spear, no shield and no amor, and the other has a iron-tipped spear, padded armor and a sizeable shield: they both use spears, so spearmen. The same problem applies with swordsmen (are we talking gladius, zweihander or what), archers, riflemen, what have you: we name soldiers for their main weapon and we divide weapons into extremely broad categories, so generic unit names (as opposed to UUs names) are few, far between and cover a lot of history. Even when we don't do that (eg, knight) we still manage to cover an amazing range of extremely different equipment, training and even social roles.

Usually, when we have more specific terms describing a specific tactic, a specific variant of the armament, it:s also a term that's unique to a region or culture, so we don't actually have good options for expanding the generic unit roster: we end up dragging out obscure or seldom used in warfare weapons just to fill holes.

And then you add the unholy mess that is counter-units (spear and pike were not anticav units, they were the standard infantry!), which create even more need for named generic units, and it gets worse.

Makes me wonder that if instead of having separate melee and anti-cavalry class, we instead have light infantry (currently known as the recon line) and then heavy infantry( a mix of melee and anti-cavalry), for Civ 7?
It could go like this:
Light/Standard Infantry: Scout>Skirmisher>Ranger/Riflemen>Commando
Heavy Infantry: Warrior>Spearmen>Phalanx.>Pikemen>Pike and Shot>Line Infantry>Modern Infantry>Mechanized Infantry
In the case of UUs, the Legion could replace the Phalanx, and graphically carry mostly swords, instead of spears/pikes. In fact, many UUs could also most likely carry swords, or other weapons, such as German Landsknecht, French Musketeers etc., to differentiate them from the standard units.

@Evie:
I would also point out that the descriptive language used in the game is inconsistent. On the one hand it frequently refers to the primary weapon used, on the other hand it sometimes (especially with Unique Units) refers to the formation or activity of the unit instead: Legion, Skirmisher, Ranger, Scout, and also on occasion goes completely 'generic' so that the description could refer to a wildly wide range of weapons over the Eras the unit is 'assigned' to: Horseman, Cuirassier, Cavalry, Infantry, Spearman, Swordsman, etc.

I understand that they are trying to keep the descriptions familiar to a gaming audience that may as a group have no familiarity or interest in the difference between a rifled musket, a single shot Enfield-Snider breechloader or a Springfield .03 bolt-acton magazine-fed rifle - or care, except as they affect his/her gaming units - but a little consistency would be nice.

Which is why I suggested the generic term of 'Phalanx', if you must have an anti-cavalry unit in between Ancient Spearman and Medieval Pikemen, despite it being the name of a formation.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I mean, I'm okay with the legion being based on one specific iteration of the legion, and the best known one, (although some pilum would be nice) rather than trying to encapsulate everything the legion morphed into at various points based on changing conditions and need. You cannot realistically cover the several hundred years of history of the legion in one unit.

It is inherent in the game that many units will have to be a mere 'slice' of what the unit represents historically: 700 years of 'Legions', 300 years of 'Hoplites', 250 years of 'Redcoats' are all going to be able to represent only a bit of what the units were overall. Then it becomes the designer's decision what to represent: the most popular version, he most effective version, the version featured in the latest Big Budget movie? I can't really argue with any decision made from a game perspective, it just bothers me that the game must inevitably present only a glimpse of what the unit represents.

And, perhaps, it doesn't have to be inherent. Civ has chosen to have Fixed Units: a Legion is a Legion is a Legion until it Upgrades into something completely different, usually in a New Era.
But what if there were, instead, Upgrades specific to individual units?

To keep the Legionary example, what if you could form Legions early that are Hoplite-like armored spearmen? Then a Legion Upgrade turns it into a mixed spear and sword unit - more capable than spears in rough country, more steady than swordsmen against mounted troops. Another Upgrade could turn it into a professional Swords unit with Pilum - more dangerous in all types of terrain than Spearmen, but requiring expensive upkeep to keep all the Swordsmen trained and efficient with their weapons.
Finally, an Upgrade that extends potentially into the early Medieval Era would make each Legionary a Spearman with a long sword he is also trained to use: a unit capable against both mounted and dismounted opponents as long as you have an economy that can support keeping them in arms and trained at all times.

These 'Specific Upgrades' could be automatic (or nearly so) once selected, but might also vastly increase the cost in Population and Gold to keep the units around - and so result in 50 Legions becoming the equivalent of 15, as happened in the 4th and 5th centuries to Imperial Rome.

As a system, this could 'solve' the problem that has already been discussed here, of units like the Redcoat and certain Spearmen that lasted a long time nut kept changing their weapons and sometimes internal organization during their period, a process the game has had to mostly ignore up to now.

 

[Evie]

The same or a similar model occured to me, but I think from a game design perspective the simplicity of "one unit is one thing" is probably given a lot of value. I cannot say if that's right or wrong, considering the way people go up in arm against the idea of having the same word appear in the name of multiple units right here, I suspect there may be some reason to that idea.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yeah, I think the only way to 'multiply Units' that way would be to include changes to the graphics (which, as fairly simple 'reskinning' is not that complex, and with some of the new AI-enhanced graphic options may be much easier and cheaper nowadays) so that, at a glance, the fact that a unit has changed subtly or not-so-subtly is instantly apparent and, ideally, Unmistakable.

To quote Admiral Gorchkov, though: "The Best is the Enemy of Good Enough" so that what might make a wonderously detailed and varied set of units is Too Much to hope for. Have to remember that the design team has to design for both the casual gamer that puts in maybe 2 - 3 hours a week amongst all his FPS games AND the CivFanatic that racks up over 1000 hours a year, year after year. A game that is Good Enough for both of them will not be The Best for either . . .

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

It is inherent in the game that many units will have to be a mere 'slice' of what the unit represents historically: 700 years of 'Legions', 300 years of 'Hoplites', 250 years of 'Redcoats' are all going to be able to represent only a bit of what the units were overall. Then it becomes the designer's decision what to represent: the most popular version, he most effective version, the version featured in the latest Big Budget movie? I can't really argue with any decision made from a game perspective, it just bothers me that the game must inevitably present only a glimpse of what the unit represents.

And, perhaps, it doesn't have to be inherent. Civ has chosen to have Fixed Units: a Legion is a Legion is a Legion until it Upgrades into something completely different, usually in a New Era.

And
1. Legion in F'xis perspective IS ALWAYS Swordsmen replacements. while in truth it includes spearmen (or even there were eras that they are 'armored spearmen' similiar to hoplites) or early medieval heavy infantry
2. Preferred F'xis Redcoat iterations is that Mid 18th Century (Seven Years War to American Revolution War).
Civ6 Redcoats began to represent Napoleonic Era (+North American version of Napoleonic War between 1812-1814, US Army Infantry wore recolored Redcoat uniforms literally) in addition with (mismatched) Shako added to Tricorne headdress list. This only look valid if Redcoat wears standing collar uniforms (1790s iterations)

 

[BuchiTaton]

Makes me wonder that if instead of having separate melee and anti-cavalry class, we instead have light infantry (currently known as the recon line) and then heavy infantry( a mix of melee and anti-cavalry), for Civ 7?
It could go like this:
Light/Standard Infantry: Scout>Skirmisher>Ranger/Riflemen>Commando
Heavy Infantry: Warrior>Spearmen>Phalanx.>Pikemen>Pike and Shot>Line Infantry>Modern Infantry>Mechanized Infantry
In the case of UUs, the Legion could replace the Phalanx, and graphically carry mostly swords, instead of spears/pikes. In fact, many UUs could also most likely carry swords, or other weapons, such as German Landsknecht, French Musketeers etc., to differentiate them from the standard units.

Personally, the Recon Line is the other one that I keeped with two eras stages, the other is the mentioned Irregular Line:

Scout		Raider		Adventurer		Commando		XCOM
	Commoner		Levy		Militia		Guerrilla

Each of these upgrades are Era related for example:
- Scouts, are the earliest militar unit in the new starting Neolithic Era, essential to find locations for your first agrarian, pastorial and maritime villages.
- Commoners, are avaible until Anciet Eras when with the first cities a deep social stratification is developed.
- Raiders, representing the barbarian raiders from the Classical and Medieval time. Gain stealth ability.
- Levies, significative manpower avaible to be summoned by the feudal lords.
- Adventurers, covering conqueror and filibuster like explorers. Oversea related and/or auxiliar native recruitment abilities can be gained.
- Militias, upgrade motivated by the Enlightenment ideals and the cheap and effective industrial guns. The period of Revolutions!
- Commandos, militar elite capable of operations behind enemy lines. Sabotage and parachuting abilities unlocked.
- Guerrillas, the recent decades show us that local resistance can success in asymmetric wars.
- XCOM the furutistic Firaxis unit.