If neither Valliere and Gribeauval are what Firaxis referred to in tech tree, then it must be cannon denimination systems.. before Valliere and Gribeauval, different classes of cannons are denominatd by beasts and monsters names, while Culverin (grass snake, maybe cobras too?) referred to generic field guns, Sakers (a type of hawks) is a type of light cannons (and smaller), and Basilisk (a kind of dragon) is a long range heavy siege gun. soon enough Valliere proposed that cannons must be denominated by weights of cannonballs and not beasts (mythical or real).
It gets even better: the system was not based on the weight of the cannonball, but of the weight of a stone ball of the same size, and the French 'pound' was about 10% heavier than the British Pound, so a French 8-pounder actually fired a shot as heavy as the British 9 pounder and shortly after that I start getting one of my headaches . . .
Oh, and the British army was still using a system of 'weight of shot' as a classification until after World War Two: which is why the British field artillery light piece of that war was the 25 pounder howitzer, and the antitank guns were 2, 6 and 17 pounders.
And for the transition, the famous 12-pounder smoothbore cannon that was Napoleon's favorite field gun and, in modified form, was one of the most common pieces in the ACW, had a bore of 75mm - and you probably thought the 'standard' light cannon of WWI, the French 75mm, German 77mm (actually, 76.2mm) and Russian 76.2mm was accidental? It was a development from what was already a very familiar size dating back 200+ years.
oh! i forgot about Chinese Crouching Tigers, the weapon began as traction trebuchet (and by no means small, each one needs 70 men to pull the launching ropes) and thus availability with Machinery tech is correct, the weapon later became a lightweight cannon/mortar. What did Firaxis try to represents with the Crouching Tigers? an early handgunners or what?
The weapon saw action in Imjin War, used against Japanese invaders, What are the comparative ranges between a crossbow and the Tigers? I'm quite sure that it should have a range of TWO hexes.
No. The "Crouching Tiger" was more like a short-barreled Shotgun: maximum range less than 100 meters, or about half a crossbow range, but able to (theoretically) take out several men at once, and do so almost regardless of what kind of armor they are wearing. I suspect Firaxis thought of it as an Early Musket/Handgun, but Chinese 'gunpowder' was really poor quality stuff, not even an explosive mixture for several hundred years after it is first mentioned. It always had really good pyrotechnic qualities though, so a lot of the various mechanisms that are mis-translated as 'guns' or 'cannons' were not so much firing hard shot to pulverize something, as shooting flames or flammable 'bombs' to set fire to something or produce loud noises and noxious smoke to disorganize a unit (especially a unit mounted on excitable Horses) or force it to move away - like move off the top of a rammed earth city wall you are trying to storm.
Name of Civics please. Did 'Nation' (as defined in The Renaissance) differs to 'Nationalism' (in game civic available either in Industrial or Modern era) ?
Dr. Christopher Duffy, in
Experience of War in the Age of Reason, discussed the rise of 'nationalism' as an individual self-identification with their country (as opposed to with their village, family, county or other localization) among French and English soldiers in the early 18th century, but it's about 50 years after the start of 'professionalism' among the artillerymen. Since Civ VI Techs and Civics were designed as just titles to hang required Buildings. Units or developments on, they are very hard to relate to things they were not designed for. For lack of anything better,
Enlightenment would be better than
Nationalism, because while it's a bit early for Professionalism of artillery, it is not out of line with early technical development of the guns themselves.
Which slots the French Imperial Guard in Civ6 fits best? Grenadiers or Line Infantry?
The Civ VI graphic is of the Grenadiers a'Pied of the Old Guard of the First Empire: the "Grognards" (Grumblers) as they called themselves. I know of no occasion in which any of them ever used a grenade, but they were considered the most dangerous Melee Infantry in Europe at the time. The very sight of those tall bearskins coming your way was enough to make most foreign infantry start wavering: at Waterloo they were repulsed by the British Guards Brigade, but to quote Wellington, "- it was a near run thing."
Did fully armored knights still have their place in Early Renaissance with the advent of P&S? and how? did they become Lancers or what?
And the first uses of cavalry equipped wtih arquebuses please. when did Dragoons appear?
Fully armored knights became Cuirassiers, after a detour through being Mounted Pistoliers. The first thing they dropped was their lances, which eventually were replaced by long, heavy straight swords: "Panzerbrecher" or 'Armored Breakers' in the German armies. Carried held straight in front with a stiffened arm, they could theoretically punch through thin armor if backed by the impetus of a charging horse.
The Post-Medieval Lancer was a Light Cavalry development in eastern Europe which spread west, mostly as a result of Napoleonic contact with the Polish Uhlans and Russian Cossacks, who used lances to great effect against disordered cavalry and fleeing infantry, and on at least one occasion to break an infantry square (it helped that not only did the lances outrange the bayonets, but it was raining heavily at the time and the square's muskets were soaked and couldn't fire)
The first Dragoon Unit was organized between 1621 and 1624 by Count Mansfeld of the HRE - the 'Dragon" from which they got their name was a short musket, predecessor of the carbine that later became a standard mounted firearm. For the first 100 years or so that they existed, they were supposed to ride into battle and then dismount to fight, so they were frequently sent riding ahead to seize some important point, dismount and hold it until 'regular' infantry could come up. From that they became the principle scouting force of western European armies. Their other advantage was that they were not expected to charge, or even fight on horseback, so they could be mounted on anything that had four legs the last anyone looked - they were much cheaper to raise and maintain than regular cavalry of any kind. That was the reason that Peter the Great's first 30 regiments of 'cavalry' were all raised as dragoons, and Napoleon had about 3 dragon regiments for every regiment of cuirassiers.
By that time, dragoons were no longer dismounting, they were regular cavalry, heavier than the light cavalry like Hussars or Chasseurs, but lighter than Cuirassiers, so they could be used for both heavy and light cavalry missions. That made them very handy, so the first two mounted regiments raised by the US Army were both Dragoons.
In game terms. you still need to assign a specific unit into a lineage of classes. if Bayonets add Anti-cav effect to any musket/fusil armed troops. then Line Infantry thing is still in limbo, which lineage should they belong? Melee (upgrades from Musketmen) or Anti cav (upgrades from P&S). and since each class has its own upgrades remember?
Remember it well, but don't agree with the fake classes they shoehorn units into. Once the primary combat effect comes mostly from Firepower, the units should be classified as Firepower Infantry, to reflect their different tactics, formations and combined Melee and Anti-Civ Effects. They would have a new set of Promotions, and units Updating from one class to another would lose all their old class Promotions but could elect new Promotions up to 1/2 of the old number, rounded up. Upgrade a Swordsman with 3 promotions (not that I've ever gotten that many in a swordsman) and you could promote him to Pike and Shot with 2 Promotions from the Firepower set.
And with different rifles shown here, then some units are to be upgraded TWICE in Industrial Era (Similar to Riflemen in Ind. upgrades to Great War Inf. and later the Infantry in Modern Era in Civ5 GK/BNW)!!! First , for example. a P&S will first becomes Fusiliers, and with Rifle tech, Linear Riflemen. to add effects like Koniggratz and Pleven (where rifle tech decides the battle outcome, and not the tactics).
Never suggested that all changes should be reflected with discrete units, because there isn't enough time to build them, and doubt if there ever would be without stretching the game out unmercifully in the Industrial/Modern Eras.
Instead, take the Technical promotions/Upgrades system now used only for the GDR after the game is usually effectively over, and apply it to most or all Units. That way, your Pike and Shot armed with matchlock muskets could be Upgraded to Fusiliers when you get a technical Upgrade at the beginning of the Industrial Era, Upgraded again to Riflemen in the late Industrial Era, and Upgraded to Infantry at the beginning of the Modern Era. Make each such Upgrade reflected by a Graphics change to the unit, you can build the Unit with the Upgrades 'installed' for extra Gold/Production.
By using both basic Units and Technical Upgrades the actual number of discrete Units would increase without necessarily increasing the required Production time, which is the bottleneck now for introducing new Units.
