If the planets align perfectly than yes, musketmen are useful AND important. I find myself normally fighting other muskets or riflemen typically at this point of the game. I also play on Immortal most of the time. King if I want more of a "slower" game. I guess my point is that even if you find a use for musketmen at a strength of 16 all you need to do is wait a few turns to get them up to a riflemen 25 strength. What I would like to see is that science rates are scaled properly later in the game and that we could have a more complex tech tree which creates more strategical thinking and planning. I WANT musketmen and Ironclads to gain more importance. Sadly as the game is, this is a very rare occassion in my experience.
Upgrade to Musketmen?
- Thread starter Marshall Thomas
- Start date
If the planets align perfectly than yes, musketmen are useful AND important. I find myself normally fighting other muskets or riflemen typically at this point of the game. I also play on Immortal most of the time. King if I want more of a "slower" game. I guess my point is that even if you find a use for musketmen at a strength of 16 all you need to do is wait a few turns to get them up to a riflemen 25 strength. What I would like to see is that science rates are scaled properly later in the game and that we could have a more complex tech tree which creates more strategical thinking and planning. I WANT musketmen and Ironclads to gain more importance. Sadly as the game is, this is a very rare occassion in my experience.
Bandit17:
Even if you were doing some sort of Immortal Gold-exploit Maritime ICS, you would need something like 3 or 4 turns per tech and something like 8 turns to get up to Rifling from Gunpowder. What you're doing is you're purposefully delaying your war because the AI is more technologically advanced - because you're playing on Immortal.
At the point where I've bulbed Steel and then Gunpowder for the Era change, Rifling is more than "a few turns away." It's usually at least 20 turns away, and I usually bulb because I have a war that I need to fight right now.
I mean, given the existing tech tree right now, I get the feeling that Musketmen could be rated at Strength 25 and people would still diss them - possibly because they haven't even tried them. I find this event not-uncommon.
Even if you were doing some sort of Immortal Gold-exploit Maritime ICS, you would need something like 3 or 4 turns per tech and something like 8 turns to get up to Rifling from Gunpowder. What you're doing is you're purposefully delaying your war because the AI is more technologically advanced - because you're playing on Immortal.
At the point where I've bulbed Steel and then Gunpowder for the Era change, Rifling is more than "a few turns away." It's usually at least 20 turns away, and I usually bulb because I have a war that I need to fight right now.
I mean, given the existing tech tree right now, I get the feeling that Musketmen could be rated at Strength 25 and people would still diss them - possibly because they haven't even tried them. I find this event not-uncommon.
I'm sure there are some instances like that. However... I've never actually seen one. By the time I've researched steel I've always been able to settle a source myself, or at least find an AI to trade it to me. Especially on lower levels where the map stays empty a long time, I don't see how this could be a problem. Just send a settler over to wherever an iron is.
How on earth did you get yourself stuck in this situation? Sounds like you decided to focus your research entirely on getting iron-based units despite having no iron available. Then you researched metal casting for... I don't know why. Maybe you got it from a research agreement. And you decided not to make any scientists because you didn't want to get fast rifling. OK.
I would just sit back and defend with the trebuchets while researching rifling, chemisty, or chivalry. If you really have nothing else I might build a couple musketmen in that situation, but the trebuchets are really a much better unit (their RANGED attack is stronger than the MELEE attack of a musketman!).
For your question: I hate using any sort of non-mounted melee unit in this game. After they attack they get stuck in place and they die to any sort of counterattack, espcially if they're stuck on open ground. I think the minimum they'd need to be good is strength 20 like the musketeer, and even then I'd greatly prefer using knights, because of their attack and move ability, or trebuchets. At the very least they need to be stronger than the longsword, which comes out earlier. Surely you agree that, as long as you have iron, you'd always prefer making longswords?
pi-r8:
This can be a problem if the only source of Iron near to you is two Civilizations over and has already been claimed by an enemy city.
Well, I believe that in that particular game, I actually had a 2-Iron mine, and I used my Swordsmen to defend against and then take out a close Civ. They were quite useful for that, but they died before the conclusion of the war.
I researched Metal Casting for Workshop to boost peacetime building production, and for Crossbows, which are strong ranged units.
I made Scientists, but the first was used on Civil Service to boost farm productivity, and the second was used for Steel.
There is no reason to wait for Rifling in this case. Trebuchets are strong enough to deal with any defense and will handily kill units on the field, but they do require setup and can be destroyed by melee easily. Having Musketmen escort them is better than using Pikemen for the job.
Last question first.
No. It depends on what I need at the moment. Longswordsmen are good, but they are also more expensive. I can't use Longswordsmen if I'm dead. If I need units quickly, or if I just need to round out the sweepers or defend Trebs from random attacks (ie - not to spearhead a shock troop wave) then Musketmen will get the job done nearly as well, and for less hammers.
I know this because I have actually used Musketmen in this functionality.
In general, I do not like using mounted units in this game because it cheapens the combat game. No need to maneuver. No risks from attacking a unit in open terrain. Beats units that supposed to counter them. Knights are not so bad in this regard, so I actually do use them, and I find that I do not universally prefer them to infantry.
The nice thing about infantry is that they get defensive terrain bonuses, so there's no better unit to put on top of a hill so you can see what's up on the other side. Knights can skirt around for sight, but you can lose them to counterattack if you poke too far.
Strength 20 Musketeers are really just overkill on the lower settings. If you can get them before the enemy has Rifling, you can just make them and nothing else and take over an entire Civ or two on just brute force.
pi-r8 said:
This can be a problem if the only source of Iron near to you is two Civilizations over and has already been claimed by an enemy city.
pi-r8 said:
Well, I believe that in that particular game, I actually had a 2-Iron mine, and I used my Swordsmen to defend against and then take out a close Civ. They were quite useful for that, but they died before the conclusion of the war.
I researched Metal Casting for Workshop to boost peacetime building production, and for Crossbows, which are strong ranged units.
I made Scientists, but the first was used on Civil Service to boost farm productivity, and the second was used for Steel.
There is no reason to wait for Rifling in this case. Trebuchets are strong enough to deal with any defense and will handily kill units on the field, but they do require setup and can be destroyed by melee easily. Having Musketmen escort them is better than using Pikemen for the job.
pi-r8 said:
Last question first.
No. It depends on what I need at the moment. Longswordsmen are good, but they are also more expensive. I can't use Longswordsmen if I'm dead. If I need units quickly, or if I just need to round out the sweepers or defend Trebs from random attacks (ie - not to spearhead a shock troop wave) then Musketmen will get the job done nearly as well, and for less hammers.
I know this because I have actually used Musketmen in this functionality.
In general, I do not like using mounted units in this game because it cheapens the combat game. No need to maneuver. No risks from attacking a unit in open terrain. Beats units that supposed to counter them. Knights are not so bad in this regard, so I actually do use them, and I find that I do not universally prefer them to infantry.
The nice thing about infantry is that they get defensive terrain bonuses, so there's no better unit to put on top of a hill so you can see what's up on the other side. Knights can skirt around for sight, but you can lose them to counterattack if you poke too far.
Strength 20 Musketeers are really just overkill on the lower settings. If you can get them before the enemy has Rifling, you can just make them and nothing else and take over an entire Civ or two on just brute force.
I just feel like you're talking about extremely rare, out of the ordinary situations. For example, in the last game I played, I had 4 sources of iron near my start, as well as being able to trade for it from other civs or from city-states.
And yeah, I guess if you need a unit right now and you don't have quite enough gold for a longsword and you have JUST enough for a muskteman I guess that's what I'll build. But it's still an incredibly niche situation that hardly comes up. And it's not like it's the unit you want, it's just the only unit available.
It sounds like you made a beeline for metal casting, physics, machinery, and steel, despite having no iron. You wasted a scientist on steel despite the lack of iron, and used one on civil service even though it's not that expensive. And you don't want to use mounted units because they're too good. And you don't want to play on higher difficulty levels where any sort of infantry will get destroyed even on rough terrain. I don't know what to tell you except that you probably shouldn't worry too much about strategy, and just have fun doing whatever you want.
And yeah, I guess if you need a unit right now and you don't have quite enough gold for a longsword and you have JUST enough for a muskteman I guess that's what I'll build. But it's still an incredibly niche situation that hardly comes up. And it's not like it's the unit you want, it's just the only unit available.
It sounds like you made a beeline for metal casting, physics, machinery, and steel, despite having no iron. You wasted a scientist on steel despite the lack of iron, and used one on civil service even though it's not that expensive. And you don't want to use mounted units because they're too good. And you don't want to play on higher difficulty levels where any sort of infantry will get destroyed even on rough terrain. I don't know what to tell you except that you probably shouldn't worry too much about strategy, and just have fun doing whatever you want.
pi-r8 said:
There's also the situation where you have enough for two (or soon will have) or just one Longsword. One Longswordsman is more powerful than one Musketman, but clearly not more powerful than two.
There are situations where you can leverage the cost differential, if you aren't so focused on everything else that you can't see it.
pi-r8 said:
Was I not quite explicit? I have two Iron. I used the Scientist on Steel to get up sooner on Gunpowder and subsequently, Rifling. I used the first scientist on Civil Service because I wasn't going for Great Library. Is it not common practice to do so? Is Civil Service so cheap that you should just always brute force the research?
At the time Civil Service opens, I usually need something like 28 turns to research it.
My preference for not playing on higher diff levels is because I don't want to handicap myself by giving the AI tons of bonuses. I prefer to handicap myself in other ways - like not using Horsemen.
Should I not worry about strategy because my choice of handicap happens to be different from yours?
Of course you should but you should NOT argue that your handicapped strategies are automatically good in non-handicapped environment. What you don't seem to understand is that by saying muskets are bad people mean they're sub-optimal choice, not that it's impossible to win with them. Doing something in a game you won don't automatically make it a good strategy - many bad strategies can win in this (and many other) game(s).
Also many bad strategies are far more fun to use than optimal strategies. Especially in a game that's so broken as Civ5 is at the moment. I rarely horse rush because it's dull but I don't have any need to convince others that my alternatives are good strategies - they're not but they're more enjoyable for me and it's all that matters.
kuukeli:
Exactly! Strategies that are good in handicapped environments (like Deity or Immortal play) are not necessarily good in non-handicapped environments (like Prince!). I could not have put that better, myself.
Many people here are saying Muskets are bad based on experience in handicapped environments. I'm playing a different set of handicaps, but they're playing in handicapped environments as well!
My example which I illustrated here, is not such an example. I did not intentionally avoid Knights. I did not tech Chivalry because I actually had 2 Iron and I had Iron units, and they were performing pretty well. I was playing at King, so my AI handicaps were less onerous, and I did not intentionally avoid Knights as a handicap, so that's out as well.
Would you not say that use of Musketmen here is more reflective of the design intention at normal game settings?
Exactly! Strategies that are good in handicapped environments (like Deity or Immortal play) are not necessarily good in non-handicapped environments (like Prince!). I could not have put that better, myself.
Many people here are saying Muskets are bad based on experience in handicapped environments. I'm playing a different set of handicaps, but they're playing in handicapped environments as well!
My example which I illustrated here, is not such an example. I did not intentionally avoid Knights. I did not tech Chivalry because I actually had 2 Iron and I had Iron units, and they were performing pretty well. I was playing at King, so my AI handicaps were less onerous, and I did not intentionally avoid Knights as a handicap, so that's out as well.
Would you not say that use of Musketmen here is more reflective of the design intention at normal game settings?
Sigh. I'm sure you think this kind of replies are smart but they're not. There clearly is difference between two kinds of handicaps:
1) restricting your decisions
2) giving AI extra resources
People have already admitted in this thread that selling luxuries to AI is not as good strategy in lower levels because AI doesn't have that much money (though the new patch closed the gap on this one) but besides that immortal and deity strategies do work like charm on lower levels. Few extra wonders can be incorporated to lower level game but no need to change anything else for more or less optimal play.
On the other hand large amount of strategies that work on prince don't work or only work rather poorly on deity or immortal because they're bad strategies. Multiple posters have explained to you why muskets are generally bad yet you cling to your hypothetical situation and based only on that you proclaim that prince (and maybe king as you admit playing it) is the true test of strategy.
Yes, you handicap better strategies away from your arsenal and declare the remaining as optimal while others give AI extra resources and try to crush them as effectively as possible. If you don't see the difference between the two then I can't really help.
Despite of you having two iron I mostly agree with pi-r8 (especially on the use of scientists). Also I have had at least one start where I had no horses and only two iron - I had no problem taking the closest civ (Japan) out with archers, spears and two swordsmen on immortal. Situations where I'd go for muskets can pretty much be summed as "I WANT muskets".
If by reflective you mean that on normal settings pretty much anything goes then yes. Lower the difficulty the more strategies come feasible but that doesn't make them good per se.
P.S. I'm probably done hitting my head against the wall that is you
It's useless because you refuse to understand the topic of discussion.kuukeli:
Begging your pardon, but exactly what difficulty level do you play on, and what makes you think that Deity strategies are optimal for Prince level play? Do you play on Prince a lot? Have you had comparative games where you did a Deity strat, and then tried various alternatives?
For one thing, rushing to Riflemen is completely overkill and totally unnecessary for brute force domination, even on King. Longswordsmen will do, in fact.
I have made no such proclamation! I have only said that playing on Prince and playing on Deity are two separate entities, and that you cannot extrapolate between them just because you think playing on Deity makes you a better player.
As far as I can tell, this is what's happening in the above statement:
1. You are mistaking my arguments as statements that say that using Musketmen is optimal. I don't believe I have ever said that.
2. You mistakenly believe that playing with a particular set of handicaps is inherently superior to playing with a different set of handicaps.
Just because you are incapable of using them to effect doesn't necessarily mean that they are unusable. You are not the most skilled player on the planet and you are not omniscient as far as Civ V is concerned.
It is more appropriate to say, "I don't know how to use Musketmen to any great effect."
To tell you the truth, I'm getting a bit tired with all the elitism. If I win on Deity the next time I play by using Horsemen, do I get to be as leet as you, too? What if I use Musketmen? Would that suddenly make me gosu?
"I don't know how to use Musketmen," is the issue here. I don't know how to use them on Deity, either, since I haven't tried, but at least I know situations where they've helped me on King. Declaring them unusable just because you can't use them now closes off your mind to the possibilities.
If it's any illustration, it wasn't long ago when ICS or even REX "was impossible!!!" in Civ V. Supposedly. Some forum-goers still think this way, amazingly enough. That has changed, despite the fact that the game has not been patched to allow it. We just know the game better now.
kuukeli said:
Begging your pardon, but exactly what difficulty level do you play on, and what makes you think that Deity strategies are optimal for Prince level play? Do you play on Prince a lot? Have you had comparative games where you did a Deity strat, and then tried various alternatives?
For one thing, rushing to Riflemen is completely overkill and totally unnecessary for brute force domination, even on King. Longswordsmen will do, in fact.
kuukeli said:
I have made no such proclamation! I have only said that playing on Prince and playing on Deity are two separate entities, and that you cannot extrapolate between them just because you think playing on Deity makes you a better player.
kuukeli said:
As far as I can tell, this is what's happening in the above statement:
1. You are mistaking my arguments as statements that say that using Musketmen is optimal. I don't believe I have ever said that.
2. You mistakenly believe that playing with a particular set of handicaps is inherently superior to playing with a different set of handicaps.
kuukeli said:
Just because you are incapable of using them to effect doesn't necessarily mean that they are unusable. You are not the most skilled player on the planet and you are not omniscient as far as Civ V is concerned.
It is more appropriate to say, "I don't know how to use Musketmen to any great effect."
kuukeli said:
To tell you the truth, I'm getting a bit tired with all the elitism. If I win on Deity the next time I play by using Horsemen, do I get to be as leet as you, too? What if I use Musketmen? Would that suddenly make me gosu?
"I don't know how to use Musketmen," is the issue here. I don't know how to use them on Deity, either, since I haven't tried, but at least I know situations where they've helped me on King. Declaring them unusable just because you can't use them now closes off your mind to the possibilities.
If it's any illustration, it wasn't long ago when ICS or even REX "was impossible!!!" in Civ V. Supposedly. Some forum-goers still think this way, amazingly enough. That has changed, despite the fact that the game has not been patched to allow it. We just know the game better now.
See, just like I said - you're debating completely different thing than others. I don't think anyone here has said muskets are unusable yet you're debating against that.
P.S. I'm not leet deity player. I mostly play on emperor and immortal. First couple of games I played on prince and came to conclusion that I couldn't lose unless I actively tried. Also I said that I rarely choose to play the optimal game because in Civ5 it's often boring yet you're trying to make me look like an elitist "u suk unless u horse rush" person just because you've run out of arguments pages ago. I'm out of this thread so soon you can congratulate yourself for winning the argument when the last of the opposition has got tired of repeating the same things over and over again.
kuukeli:
Well, in that case, perhaps you can help clarify things. When people say that using the Musketman is suboptimal for theoretical reasons and that they therefore never use them, what are they saying?
Are they not declaring, without trying, the Musketman unusable as a practical unit?
Well, in that case, perhaps you can help clarify things. When people say that using the Musketman is suboptimal for theoretical reasons and that they therefore never use them, what are they saying?
Are they not declaring, without trying, the Musketman unusable as a practical unit?
Tell you what Roxlimn. You've been arguing about this for a long time now and no one seems to agree with you that Musketmen are a good unit. Why don't you post some screenshots or a save from one of your games, and show us how they're good?
Dang. I'd have to play a game to the point again, though, and it would need to be a situation when I would want war at that point in time. I'll try to remember saving the game at that point going forward, and see what I can do about uploading those saves. Screenies need hosting, though, and I'm not about to give personal information out.
The Government
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 40
Roxylimm, you've gotten yourself into a terrible position if you're on prince level, so you must have declared war, during a time when you had a pathetic army and you could wait seven turns for rifling and you decide to declare war, let them invade, and build a musketman. Even though historically, longswordsmen were better than musketmen, the latter should be stronger. There should also be more of a gap between gunpowder and rifling.
Airey
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
- Messages
- 509
musketman are good as a mean to upgrade to rifleman.
if lacking iron or want to use iron for catapults/trebs, and not wanting excessive unit maintenance cost.
but like pi-r8 already stated, putting pikeman/crossbowman in build quotes are viable alternatives with no strategic resource requirement. Although it's prob cheaper to upgrade (to rifleman) from musketman.
That's ture, but with RA being the way it is right now, lots of top players can get from musketman to rilfeman in >10 turns. Musketman are ok as defensive units, something to build to delay the war for a few turns. There are better units for going on the offensive with...combo of LSM and Cats are much better than lone musketmen.
if lacking iron or want to use iron for catapults/trebs, and not wanting excessive unit maintenance cost.
but like pi-r8 already stated, putting pikeman/crossbowman in build quotes are viable alternatives with no strategic resource requirement. Although it's prob cheaper to upgrade (to rifleman) from musketman.
That's ture, but with RA being the way it is right now, lots of top players can get from musketman to rilfeman in >10 turns. Musketman are ok as defensive units, something to build to delay the war for a few turns. There are better units for going on the offensive with...combo of LSM and Cats are much better than lone musketmen.
The Government
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 40
Yeah sure, there are some good things about them, but it's not good enough compared to the rest of the late medieval, renaissance army. I know that historically, muskets were weaker and cheaper than longswords, but it's a game, and musketmen need to have a better advantage than just being cheap.
