[GS] What do Pike&Shots represents in warfare history?

[riddleofsteel]

And we owe it all to Carolus Rex!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I might add that before the socket bayonet, there was the plug bayonet in the 1680s, which had to be stuck in the actual barrel of the musket. This meant that when the infantryman was in the act of fixing the bayonet his weapon was useless for either fire or melee. At the Battle of Killiecrankie (1689) the government troops were caught by the Highlanders' charge at exactly this critical moment, leading to an instant rout and a very short battle. The battlefield is preserved, and a very scenic spot. Worth a visit.

The plug bayonet also had the extreme disadvantage that it was a force-fit down the barrel, so once it was fixed, it could not be removed without a lot of effort - effectively, once you fixed bayonets you were carrying a short spear instead of a musket for the rest of the battle.
And just to be completely pedantic, in between the plug and socket bayonets, briefly, there was the ring bayonet, which was fastened to the end of the barrel by a simple ring around the barrel. This meant that once you stuck the bayonet into something (or, more often, someone) it tended to come off and stay embedded - good for lowering enemy morale, but a real bummer when an unstuck enemy came at you next waving a sword, spear, halbard, pike, etc.

To answer your question.
#1 No, Wayne's Legion was a brigade size unit (3000 men likely less) used against semi-organized American Indians, Napoleon's Corps were units of 25,000 to 30,000 men used in the line of battle against well organized and supplied units of other European Armies.
# 2 Firaxis "Corps" and "Armies" are labels they put on their extremly poor attempt to placate the One Unit per Hex haters. If we give the basic civ unit the designation of a division sized unit then a "Corps" should consist of 3-5 melee, artillery, or cavalry units and an artillery or horse artillery unit. The " Army" 3-5 Melee Corps ( Cavalry and Artillery as best I recall never formed higher than Corps, the WWII Soviet "Armies would have been Corps in any other nations armed forces) and an Artillery and Cavalry Corp.
Tanks for this discussion should be considered Melee.

#1: IF all the units were up to strength, one of Wayne's Sub-Legions would have had about 2500 men, and the entire Legion, which was also the entire US Army at the time, had about 10,000 men, or about the size of a division (which had just been invented in France and Russia in the previous 10 - 15 years)
#2: By definition, Napoleon's Corps de l'Armee (Army Corps) was a Combined Arms unit, primarily infantry divisions (2 to 5) plus artillery and light cavalry enough so that the Corps could fight off a superior enemy force for a day or more - until the other Corps came up to support.
Therefore, Civ VI's "Corps" is not a Corps by the original definition.

The 'real' size of a unit in Civ (any Civ) is, I think, better thought of a s a 'sliding scale'. Just as the size of cities slides - a Pop 1 'city' in the Ancient Era is probably about 1-5000 people, the same size as the earliest Settlements at Jericho, Catal Huyuk, and other earliest 'cities'. The size of a Pop 20 city in the Information Era is not 20 times that, which would be about 100,000 people max, it has to represent a modern 'Mega City' in excess of 10,000,000.
Therefore, I suspect the way to approach it is that the Ancient Era units represent the largest 'units' we have historical record of, in Sumer or Egypt, which were about 600 - 1000 men, or the size of a modern Battalion, but by the Industrial Era they represent a Division of between 10,000 and 20,000 men.

That also means that from the Industrial Era on a 'Melee Unit' of Infantry, riflemen or such also includes a small proportion of artillery, and by the Modern Era a large proportion of artillery, machine-guns, antitank and antiaircraft weapons. The Modern Era Definition of a Division (WWI and WWII) was 'the smallest unit that can act independently on the battlefield' - so it had to have all the necessary 'supporting arms' to survive for at least a short time. Even the small-by-comparison Soviet rifle division (9 - 14,000 men by regulation, 3 - 7000 in reality) had an artillery regiment, 50 or more antitank guns, and 200 - 300 machine-guns. "Rifles" were not the most important component of any modern Division or 'Melee Unit'.
Oh, and the Soviet Armies of late 1941 to early 1943 were the only ones without a subordinate Corps HQ under them, but even those 'Rifle' units included not only 3 - 6 Rifle Divisions (which were not entirely Rifle units either) but also heavy artillery, antitank, antiaircraft, and mortar support units and, usually, a tank unit of battalion to brigade size.

1UPT gives a nice Tactical 'feel' to Civ combat, but it does not handle Combined Arms well at all, which makes it increasingly poor in representing combat after the Industrial Era. The 'limited stacking' Corps and Armies as Units didn't address this at all.
@acluewithout and @Sostratus have suggested that this might be addressed through the system of Support Units, which are essentially 'freely stacked' on top of the 1UPT system. Basically, most Units other than the basic Combat Units (Melee, Anti-Civ) would be Support so that your 'army' would have supporting Ranged, Siege, Engineer units, etc.. IF that idea was combined changing the Corps-Army Units into specific Combined Arms types of 'Units', we might approach Industrial to Information Era warfare with a a whole new Dynamic.

As an example, one of the earliest "Units" (Roman Unique Combined Unit?) might be a Roman Legion, consisting of 1 Swordsman and 1 Spearman Unit (the earliest form of the Republican Legion: Triarii Spearmen plus Principes/Hastati Swordsmen). It would have a 'special' Anti-Cav Bonus in addition to a superior Melee factor compared to 'ordinary' Swordsmen - go forth and beat up your neighbors! Later, the Imperial Legion (available mid to late Classical Era) would be 2 Swordsmen stacked into a single Unit, but they now have the Fort and Road-Building capability of the current Legion, and I would give them extra capability agains City Walls - the Imperial Legions were very, very good at Siege Work (see Masada for a particularly nasty example).
Later, again as an example, the Panzer Division (German Unique Atomic Era Combined Unit) would be a tank and an infantry Unit which gets the advantages of whichever type of unit is appropriate for the terrain and situation and automatic Flanking Bonus - BUT the infantry has to be Motorized, which increases its cost to Build and Maintain: there's a reason Germany in WWII never had more than 40 Panzer Divisions total out of over 300 divisions formed.

We could probably work up Unique Combined Units for most of the Civs in the game (although it might be a stretch for those that never got past Ancient/Classical Era units, like the Aztecs or Cree) and a series of 'Common Unique' Units that can be chosen based on Technology, Civic, or geographical situation. It would provide both a potential Combined Arms feature and (limited) Stacking to the game without returning to the infamous SOD of pre-Civ V.

 

[bizwan]

It’s threads like this that convinced me to become a supporter of Civfanatics. So much information about subjects I know little about! Combined with all the game information, it’s a wonderful place to lurk!

Boris, you’re amazing. And you must be unreal at the keyboard!

 

[ghost88]

@boris was basing Wayne's legion on the fact you I believe said it became the 1st -4th Regiments which in US service were authorized a strength of no more than 1000 (cav 700, arty were 6 gun batteries) each up till circa1900, I had thought the US army had initially comprised the 1st-9th Regiments circa 1800 that would put it close to 10,000.
Also had thought Nappy's Corps had Arty but was not familiar enough with their TOE to be sure.
As for the size of the Soviet Armies circa 1941 most of my Knowledge of Their TOE comes from Avalon Hill and SPI magazines' articles on WWII TOE which stated they were Corp size, maybe large corps but still not anywhere near Army size.
I used the division as the size of Civ units to compare Civ Corps (2 div) and armies (3 div) to Real life corps (3-5 div) armies (9-25 div) not counting support units like Arty, Cav, and Logistics ect.
One exception that equals the Civ size that I know of was the 1st Allied Airborne Army dropped in Market Garden that had XVIII Airborne Corps US (2 div) and a British Airborne Div. I know it also had the Polish ABN brigade dropped later but IIRC the British was only 2/3rds strength when dropped.
As I hated the "Stacks of Doom" I was happy to see the 1upt, after reading and seeing how poor the AI handles both its units and pathing of the players units in multiple turn moves. I have become to believe in limited stacking but the "Corps/Army" system they currently have is not even close to expectable as you do not get any real advantage in using them other than having 2 or 3 units in a single tile and then you are stuck with them for the rest of the game and one of the best advantages of unit stacking combined arms or guarding Settler/ Builders is not allowed.
I have really come to believe that Firaxis current model of trying to bring every bodies wish list into the game is destroying the Civ franchise.
An example I as an SP player want big maps that take hundreds of turns to explore, I consider the current maps not as tiny, small, standard, large, and giant?, but miniscule, postage stamp, very small, extra small, and still to small. To me standard should be at least as large as YnAMP's Ludicrous size with the largest so a good map maker could build a TSL earth at 1 KM per hex. I know they can not go to this extreme in the Base game as most peoples computers could not handle it, but making and supporting maps of at least twice YnAMP's should have been in the base game as using multi cores should be. As is designing the game down to include devices as small as Smart phones impedes the ability for giving most of what I believe is the core fandom of the Civ franchise what they deserve which is a class AAA game that is fun and challenging to play, they need look no further than Age of Wonders III which does a great job in the 1upt and map size (there is a mod for larger) as well as other elements. End of Rant.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@boris was basing Wayne's legion on the fact you I believe said it became the 1st -4th Regiments which in US service were authorized a strength of no more than 1000 (cav 700, arty were 6 gun batteries) each up till circa1900, I had thought the US army had initially comprised the 1st-9th Regiments circa 1800 that would put it close to 10,000.
Also had thought Nappy's Corps had Arty but was not familiar enough with their TOE to be sure.
As for the size of the Soviet Armies circa 1941 most of my Knowledge of Their TOE comes from Avalon Hill and SPI magazines' articles on WWII TOE which stated they were Corp size, maybe large corps but still not anywhere near Army size.
I used the division as the size of Civ units to compare Civ Corps (2 div) and armies (3 div) to Real life corps (3-5 div) armies (9-25 div) not counting support units like Arty, Cav, and Logistics ect.
One exception that equals the Civ size that I know of was the 1st Allied Airborne Army dropped in Market Garden that had XVIII Airborne Corps US (2 div) and a British Airborne Div. I know it also had the Polish ABN brigade dropped later but IIRC the British was only 2/3rds strength when dropped.

The early US Army is confusing, because the modern units sometimes claim "lineage and honors" from units that got disbanded and then reformed later. So, the Sub-Legions from Wayne's Legion were reformed as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Infantry Regiments, but in fact at least the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd had been raised for St Clair's expedition into the Ohio country and virtually wiped out in St Clair's Defeat (Battle of the Wabash) in 1791. The subsequent regiments existed right through the War of 1812, and by the end of the that war the US Army consisted of 46 regiments, which after the war in 1815 were disbanded or amalgamated into 8 Infantry and 1 'rifle' regiment. All the cavalry (many of which were militia in any case) were disbanded, which is why the 1st Dragoons of 1833 is considered the 'earliest' regular mounted regiment in the US Army.
Napoleon's Corps included artillery, both individual batteries assigned to Infantry Divisions and artillery Brigades (battalions) under the Corps HQ itself. They also included brigades (2 regiments each) of light cavalry for screening and scouting, but the bulk of the Corps were infantry: 24 to 60 battalions versus 4 - 6 cavalry regiments and no more than 2 - 4 guns per 1000 infantry.

Hah! Fond memories of the old SPI magazines and articles, but their Soviet data was almost all from German memoirs and accounts and Western accounts based on those. We now (well, I now) have access to several million archive documents from the Soviet military archives (TsAMO) and Russian accounts by a new generation of Russian historians who have been rewriting the propaganda that passed for history in the USSR. And, of course, David Glantz here in the USA who has been making a lot of that material available in English for 30 years now.

The Division is a good 'size' unit to represent post-Renaissance Era units in Civ, because it is the smallest unit IRL that would be wandering around on its own for any length of time.

As I hated the "Stacks of Doom" I was happy to see the 1upt, after reading and seeing how poor the AI handles both its units and pathing of the players units in multiple turn moves. I have become to believe in limited stacking but the "Corps/Army" system they currently have is not even close to expectable as you do not get any real advantage in using them other than having 2 or 3 units in a single tile and then you are stuck with them for the rest of the game and one of the best advantages of unit stacking combined arms or guarding Settler/ Builders is not allowed.
I have really come to believe that Firaxis current model of trying to bring every bodies wish list into the game is destroying the Civ franchise.
An example I as an SP player want big maps that take hundreds of turns to explore, I consider the current maps not as tiny, small, standard, large, and giant?, but miniscule, postage stamp, very small, extra small, and still to small. To me standard should be at least as large as YnAMP's Ludicrous size with the largest so a good map maker could build a TSL earth at 1 KM per hex. I know they can not go to this extreme in the Base game as most peoples computers could not handle it, but making and supporting maps of at least twice YnAMP's should have been in the base game as using multi cores should be. As is designing the game down to include devices as small as Smart phones impedes the ability for giving most of what I believe is the core fandom of the Civ franchise what they deserve which is a class AAA game that is fun and challenging to play, they need look no further than Age of Wonders III which does a great job in the 1upt and map size (there is a mod for larger) as well as other elements. End of Rant.

Agree, but also recognize that Civ is one of the games in constant contest between the optimum size of map and game versus the 'average' machine it's being played on. Since starting on Civ 2 on a Mac back about 25 or more years ago, I have upgraded my computer at least three times almost entirely to keep up with new Civ games: just bought a new iMac late last year because my 6 year old machine couldn't handle Civ VI maps larger than 'Large' (which I call Size Mediocre) without choking on the Modern Era and later - frustrating. I expect to have to upgrade again when Civ VII comes out, unless they take a wildly different approach to graphics-rendering.

 

[ghost88]

The early US Army is confusing, because the modern units sometimes claim "lineage and honors" from units that got disbanded and then reformed later. So, the Sub-Legions from Wayne's Legion were reformed as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Infantry Regiments, but in fact at least the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd had been raised for St Clair's expedition into the Ohio country and virtually wiped out in St Clair's Defeat (Battle of the Wabash) in 1791. The subsequent regiments existed right through the War of 1812, and by the end of the that war the US Army consisted of 46 regiments, which after the war in 1815 were disbanded or amalgamated into 8 Infantry and 1 'rifle' regiment. All the cavalry (many of which were militia in any case) were disbanded, which is why the 1st Dragoons of 1833 is considered the 'earliest' regular mounted regiment in the US Army.
Napoleon's Corps included artillery, both individual batteries assigned to Infantry Divisions and artillery Brigades (battalions) under the Corps HQ itself. They also included brigades (2 regiments each) of light cavalry for screening and scouting, but the bulk of the Corps were infantry: 24 to 60 battalions versus 4 - 6 cavalry regiments and no more than 2 - 4 guns per 1000 infantry.

Hah! Fond memories of the old SPI magazines and articles, but their Soviet data was almost all from German memoirs and accounts and Western accounts based on those. We now (well, I now) have access to several million archive documents from the Soviet military archives (TsAMO) and Russian accounts by a new generation of Russian historians who have been rewriting the propaganda that passed for history in the USSR. And, of course, David Glantz here in the USA who has been making a lot of that material available in English for 30 years now.

The Division is a good 'size' unit to represent post-Renaissance Era units in Civ, because it is the smallest unit IRL that would be wandering around on its own for any length of time.



Agree, but also recognize that Civ is one of the games in constant contest between the optimum size of map and game versus the 'average' machine it's being played on. Since starting on Civ 2 on a Mac back about 25 or more years ago, I have upgraded my computer at least three times almost entirely to keep up with new Civ games: just bought a new iMac late last year because my 6 year old machine couldn't handle Civ VI maps larger than 'Large' (which I call Size Mediocre) without choking on the Modern Era and later - frustrating. I expect to have to upgrade again when Civ VII comes out, unless they take a wildly different approach to graphics-rendering.

Mediocre that is fast becoming my name for this game. Started SPI with Oil Wars,,there's a game I wish had a computer version, but was playing Risk long before that. Picked up Civ II Gold about the time you were playing on your Mac. Currently thinking on picking up a "Thread Ripper" from Alienware but it ain't cheap. That's why I like Gal Civ III's maps as they warn you up front that you need a robust machine to play the largest maps but they support them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Mediocre that is fast becoming my name for this game. Started SPI with Oil Wars,,there's a game I wish had a computer version, but was playing Risk long before that. Picked up Civ II Gold about the time you were playing on your Mac. Currently thinking on picking up a "Thread Ripper" from Alienware but it ain't cheap. That's why I like Gal Civ III's maps as they warn you up front that you need a robust machine to play the largest maps but they support them.

I started with the original Gettysburg and Tactics II boardgames from Avalon-Hill, then subscribed to SPI's Strategy & Tactics from about their 4th issue, worked for them for a while as a play-tester in NYC, later did OB research for GRD, the Europa games, and worked with a couple of miniatures rules writers, finally lectured at GAMA for 10 years or so - most of that before discovering Civ and computer games.
The Mac, unfortunately, has a limited suite of games available: back 10 years or so ago I had a separate PC just for gaming, but I had to keep upgrading that every 2 - 3 years to keep up too, and it just got to be more trouble than it was worth.
If 5G ever gets working in this Third World they call non-urban USA, streaming game services may be the only way to go . . .

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The pistol appears around 1550 CE, by no coincidence about the same time as pocket watches, both requiring the same type of precision metal working for watch mechanisms and wheel-lock firing mechanisms. At virtually the same time the German Reiters start appearing: "light" cavalry armed exclusively with pistols. They were Light in the sense that they didn't have armored feet, but helmets, cuirass, arm and thigh armor down to the knee was just as heavy as any Cuirassier or late-Medieval Knight.

Once you get firearms with bayonets around 1700 CE, they take over both the Melee and Anti-Mounted roles. Extend the range with rifled firearms, and the cavalry can barely form up for a charge without getting shot to pieces: a man on a horse, according to the German and American 'Kriegspiel' rules of the late 19th century, is 10 Times the target a man on foot is - and the man on foot can drop flat and seek more cover a lot faster than the man on a horse can

1. So this reflects American Cavalry tradition style that they prefer carabinier or dragoons (and maybe Hussars. There were two 'American Hussars' units, one in Georgia (Raised just before American Revolution, which sided did this unit takes?), others saw action in War of 1812 and stationed in Boston (Mounted State Militia? are these units made of Germans or Hungarians?) over other European syles like fancy Cuirassiers or Lancers? I'm not sure if Americans have fought any of these fancy euro cavs back in the early days of Nationhood? (did Mexicans used any against Americans in the Mexican-American War?)
2. And concepts of Pistoliers in American Civil War. did Union considers any? is this Confederate exclusive units like those armed with imported Whitworth weapons?
3. And 'Bombard' in Civ6. Is it actually represents Renaissance era Mortars? (but the Bombard barrel angled 30 degrees against the flat ground, while mortar does 45)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

1. So this reflects American Cavalry tradition style that they prefer carabinier or dragoons (and maybe Hussars. There were two 'American Hussars' units, one in Georgia (Raised just before American Revolution, which sided did this unit takes?), others saw action in War of 1812 and stationed in Boston (Mounted State Militia? are these units made of Germans or Hungarians?) over other European syles like fancy Cuirassiers or Lancers? I'm not sure if Americans have fought any of these fancy euro cavs back in the early days of Nationhood? (did Mexicans used any against Americans in the Mexican-American War?)

The New Jersey (State) militia cavalry regiment was in a blue Hussar-type uniform as late as 1899, just before it became part of the National Guard. "Borrowing" European fancy uniforms was pretty normal in the USA in the 19th century. There were a bunch of militia outfits in French Zouave costume in both the North and South when the Civil War started, and some of them staying in the fancy Zouave uniforms until quite late in the war. At least one militia unit from Pennsylvania (German immigrants) started the war in German Jaeger uniforms: gray with green piping and Tyrolean feathered hats. For a while in the late 1870s the "Dress" uniform for the entire US Army included a Prussian-style spiked helmet. I don't know of any Cuirassiers in America service ever, but both the South and the North each had a unit of Lancers in t he Civil War. Can't remember the Confederate designation, but the North had the 9th Pennsylvania Cavalry "Rush's Lancers". And no, there is no record of them ever making a charge with the lances.

2. And concepts of Pistoliers in American Civil War. did Union considers any? is this Confederate exclusive units like those armed with imported Whitworth weapons?

The Colt revolver was an early adoption by American mounted troops, but not by any 'regular' military: the first 'troops' to adopt Colt revolvers as regular weapons were the Texas Rangers: the "Walker Colt" was named after one of their commanders!
Just about all American mounted troops used firearms - carbines, pistols - as often or more often as they used 'cold steel' even when mounted. That was partly because a great deal of the US mounted arm both before and after the Civil War did all their 'active service' against the mounted natives out west: sabers against bows, lances or rifles is a bad deal, so mounted firepower was much more effective, especially fire from pistols that could fire 5 - 6 times without needing to stop and reload. Charging with pistols, if you could close to within 10 - 15 meters of the enemy, could inflict a lot more casualties than having to close to saber distance (30 inches or less) and try to hack your way past buffalo-hide shields and lances.

Union troops started the Civil War trying to charge with sabers, because that was in the (European-inspired) Manual. By 1863 they were doing a lot less of that, and more often charging with pistols, as the pre-war professional cavalry had already been doing against the natives out west. The peculiar 'advantage' of the American cavalry was that they were always willing to dismount and use firepower to hold a position: witness Buford's brigade at Gettysburg on 1 July 1863, when his force of less than 2000 men held off an entire Confederate division for several hours until I Corps came up. This was in the old tradition of Dragoons of the 17th and early 18th centuries, but no one in Europe had been doing it for over 100 years by 1863!

3. And 'Bombard' in Civ6. Is it actually represents Renaissance era Mortars? (but the Bombard barrel angled 30 degrees against the flat ground, while mortar does 45)

No, the in-game bombard is the Bombard of about 1375 CE and later: the massive, primitive cannon that made medieval walls and castles Obsolete in Europe. Technically it is an "end of the Middle Ages" Tech that made the independent Baron defying the King from his castle also obsolete, because the Bombard and its technicians, artisans, gunpowder and paraphernalia was so expensive only kings could afford them in most cases. That was the last nail in the coffin of "Fuedal Europe" since feudalism no longer provided war-winning military forces: gold (to buy Bombards and Mercenary Pikemen) did: exit Knights with their castles down around their ears.
The earliest Mortar is still about 30 years later, in the early 15th century (1407 CE is the earliest date that I know of) and it is the Wan'gu or "gourd-shaped mortar" of Korea. The only similarity between Bombards and Mortars was that they were both originally Siege Weapons, the European Mortars specifically to attack by lobbing 'bombs' over the walls instead of attacking the walls themselves as the Bombards did.
After that, the mortar gets replaced by Howitzers except in a few cases (railroad-mounted Siege Mortars in the US Civil War, for instance) until small (75mm - 100mm bore) mortars make a re-appearance as 'trench mortars' in WWI, returning to their original purpose of being able to lob 'bombs' into the opposing trenches without having to pound their way through parapets and obstacles in front of them.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

And how Firaxis interpret Field Cannons and Machine Guns. that Field guns are upgraded to MGs
1. What are the actual ranges of the two. In game ranges, both has a range of TWO hexes.
2. And functions. Fieldguns are more offensive, while MGs are defensive oriented.

 

[steveg700]

Well they needed something to upgrade the pikeman into to help contain knights and cavalry units. Of course now we have cuirassiers too.
It's a bit funky because once you have P&S, why are their separate melee and anticav units at that point?
I've heard that the staple renaissance melee unit of civ, the musketman, is actually the out of place "fake" unit. We can see historical examples of P&S in the spanish square etc. I'm not sure musketmen were exactly marching around independently, though. Without an industrial "rifleman" generic unit, things get awkward with muskets going straight to infantry.

Well, the whole melee unit class is rather nonsensical. Swordsmen are an even more "fake" unit, and of course once guns come onto the scene, then the entire notion of calling a unit "melee" goes out the window. This is all about setting up some kind of roshambo approach to combat: melee counters anti-cav, anti-cav counters cav, cav counters ranged, and I guess ranged counters melee. In practice, the map doesn't have the right proportions to support 1UPT combat using complex arrangements of combined arms, and players aren't that enamored with combined arms and would rather just crank out masses of archers in one era and masses of knights in another.

Firaxis wants the game to be super-easy, so you won't ever see a civ game where you simply start with a baseline soldier unit and then outfit and upgrade them with equipment that you unlock throughout the eras. Which makes me ask why oh why is there nobody out there taking on historical 4x instead of adding to the glut of space 4x games?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And how Firaxis interpret Field Cannons and Machine Guns. that Field guns are upgraded to MGs
1. What are the actual ranges of the two. In game ranges, both has a range of TWO hexes.
2. And functions. Fieldguns are more offensive, while MGs are defensive oriented.

1. Believe it or not, the relative ranges of 'field cannon' (which I interpret as the smooth bore, solid-shot firing black powder muzzle-loading cannon of about 1500 CE to 1840CE, after which exploding shells became a practical projectile for them) and the Maxim water-cooled machine-gun were very similar IRL: the 12 pounder cannon was regularly used at ranges of 800 - 1200 meters (extending to about 1500 meters with exploding shells by the US Civil War) and the Maxim was considered suitable for direct fire out to about 1000 meters and could be used for area fire - basically, dropping lots of bullets into a space to keep the enemy's heads down - out to 2000 meters or more. This is, in fact, one of the few places where Civ gets the relatively ranges of two Ranged Units right.

2. Once the artillerymen became professional soldiers in the late 17th - early 18th century, Field Cannon were Support Weapons - either spread out to provide defensive support to infantry and cavalry ("horse artillery", invented in Prussia in the middle of the 18th century, could theoretically keep up with the cavalry's movement) or massed to provide offensive power to blast a hole through an enemy defense. This remained pretty much the function of artillery right down to the present day: the big difference being that modern artillery doesn't have to be massed physically: guns kilometers apart and kilometers away from the front can mass their fire under the control of Forward Command Posts and Fire Direction Centers for much greater flexibility and destructive effect than the old 'direct fire' cannon could.

The 'heavy' machine-gun was and is primarily a defensive weapon: 1914 to 1917 being the ghastly example of how effective it was in that role. However, in the 1920s in Germany the WWI-era Infiltration Tactics' were developed into a tactical method that emphasized offensive use of machine-guns. Using light machine-guns that could be easily carried forward as fast as a man could run, the German tactics can be summarized as 'Machinengewehr Vor!" - "Machineguns to the Front!" - in which the light machine-guns moved up to firing positions, covered by the heavy machine-guns further back, and then provided heavy close-range fire to keep the enemy suppressed while the riflemen charged in and took the position. One American military observer of a German exercise in the late 1920s commented on the fact that he didn't see any infantry actually firing a rifle - everything was machine-gun fire in attack and defense.

. . . FWhich makes me ask why oh why is there nobody out there taking on historical 4x instead of adding to the glut of space 4x games?

Based on experience trying to play "historical" games like Europa Universalis, Grand Ages: Medieval and everything Civ since Civ 2, I'd say it was because no one in the gaming industry knows anything about military history except what they saw on the History Channel.

- And part of that is the abysmal state of military history teaching in American colleges and universities. I was part of a lecture program on 'real' military history at one of the big gaming conventions for several years. Most of the other lecturers were professors of history or military history from nearby universities, and they were shocked to be standing in front of audiences that were actually enthusiastic about being there - gamers who wanted to know more about the background of the games, or just enthusiastic amateur military history buffs. They were used to lecturing to students who either had to take the course to fulfill a requirement or because it matched their schedule, but had no interest or desire to actually learn anything about military history.

Based on the performance and design of the 'historical' games, I suspect a lot of those students went on to work in the game industry, still blissfuly ignorant of the subject.

Don't misunderstand: there are some excellent military history professors and programs in American universities, but you can almost count them on the fingers of one hand, and the programs frequently consist of 1 - 2 really dedicated professors and a few grad students treading water in the middle of 20,000+ other students and faculty most of whom don't even know that military history is being taught there . . .

End Of Rant: Mea Culpa.

 

[steveg700]

Well, I'd say that the whole game mechanism where pikes are relegated to being the "paper" to cavalry's "rock", rather than being the actual mainstay of their era are predicated on some misguided conceptions. Pikes are pretty good at killing anything that charges into them with inferior reach, on horse or not.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, I'd say that the whole game mechanism where pikes are relegated to being the "paper" to cavalry's "rock", rather than being the actual mainstay of their era are predicated on some misguided conceptions. Pikes are pretty good at killing anything that charges into them with inferior reach, on horse or not.

This is another of the things that "everybody knows" that Just Ain't So. The most successful pike units in history were not the ones that formed a bristling defensive "Hedgehog" that the enemy bounced off of or impaled themselves on. They were the ones that charged, and attacked as fast and as soon as possible.
Martius, a member of the Roman Legions, said in his 'memoirs' that the most scared he was in 25 years in the Roman Army was when he served in the Macedonian War and on his first battlefield in that war saw All the Pike Points In The World come charging out of the dust, all apparently aimed right at him.

Alexander's Pezhetairoi, the Swiss Cantons, and Scots at Bannockburn, the Flemish 'town militia' - every one of those hosts of pikemen charged, and the most feared of them - the Macedonians and Swiss - charged Right Away, without waiting on any preliminary shooting or skirmishing.
And if you weren't as well-trained and organized and experienced as a veteran Roman Legion, or another body of pikemen, you either got out of their way or you died.

Pikemen could be beaten: have your own pikemen, as stated above, or outflank them with light or heavy cavalry, or catch them disordered by rough ground (or while crossing a dry stream bed, as happened to Alexander's Pezhetairoi at Issus) or best of all, hide behind a stone wall with a slope covered with vines and a stream between you and the (Swiss) pikemen, and every cannon you could drag across France waiting to blast anything coming through those vines and across that stream.

In Game Terms, Pikemen should have an Absolute Melee Factor superiority over Knights and any earlier Mounted, Roman Legion should have just about even Factors against them (with any Anti-Anti-Cav bonus that Melee Troops get), while 'ordinary' Swordsmen versus Pikemen should be at a disadvantage even with a Melee Bonus. To have a good chance against Pikemen, you should need preliminary Ranged Fire - preferably from Field Cannon or lots of Crossbows, and/or Flanking Bonuses - or units from an Era later than the Pikemen: Pike and Shot, Fusiliers (the Unit that Musketmen Should Be) or Cavalry that can shoot the pikemen to pieces from 100 meters away with rifled carbines instead of getting anywhere near the pike points.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The main take aways of the above two posts being that:
a) Pikeman weren't a technology unavailable until the early renaissance, but rather a civic (military) innovation available much earlier
b) needed to be well trained to be effective, therefore were elite units requiring a specialized military society to support, much like Knights (though of a different nature than Knights)
c) were generally superior to other foot troops of their contemporaries

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

This is another of the things that "everybody knows" that Just Ain't So. The most successful pike units in history were not the ones that formed a bristling defensive "Hedgehog" that the enemy bounced off of or impaled themselves on. They were the ones that charged, and attacked as fast and as soon as possible.
Martius, a member of the Roman Legions, said in his 'memoirs' that the most scared he was in 25 years in the Roman Army was when he served in the Macedonian War and on his first battlefield in that war saw All the Pike Points In The World come charging out of the dust, all apparently aimed right at him.
.

And thus Firaxis got it right on Macedonian UU. the Hyspalis ? (replacing swordsmen rather than hangin' in between spearmen and pikemen? Melee class rather than Anticav?)

 

[steveg700]

This is another of the things that "everybody knows" that Just Ain't So. The most successful pike units in history were not the ones that formed a bristling defensive "Hedgehog" that the enemy bounced off of or impaled themselves on. They were the ones that charged, and attacked as fast and as soon as possible.

Well, yes, infantry strives to advance. But sometimes in the course of events a unit will be charging and at others they will need to dig in and screen against a charge.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, yes, infantry strives to advance. But sometimes in the course of events a unit will be charging and at others they will need to dig in and screen against a charge.

Which, of course, Pikes could do, but that's not how they won battles.
In fact, one of the worst disasters to befall pikes was at Flodden Field, where the Scots pikemen couldn't charge because English knights were on their flank, and the English infantry 'billmen' (the bill was, basically, an axe married to a long spear, later shortened to a halbard in the Renaissance) walked up and chopped the points off of the stationary Scots pikes and then massacred a bunch of Scotsmen holding long poles.

And thus Firaxis got it right on Macedonian UU. the Hyspalis ? (replacing swordsmen rather than hangin' in between spearmen and pikemen? Melee class rather than Anticav?)

Yes, but probably not relevant to a discussion of pikes. The Hypaspists were the elite infantry of the Alexandrian Macedonian army, and their tactical role was as a link between the Companion Cavalry (Hetairoi) and the main body of the phalanx (Pezhetairoi, or "Foot Companions"). Exactly how they were armed is still a subject of discussion. Fast moving, mobile infantry do not seem consistent with a bunch of pikemen in close formation, but when Alexander made up a pursuit force he mounted equal numbers of pezhetairoi and hypaspists, so they couldn't have been more heavily equipped then the phalanx and must have been armed differently in some way to make it worthwhile to have both along. It is extremely unlikely that they used any kind of sword, because the sword was simply not a primary weapon for any infantry east of Rome. Probably they were armed with shorter spears, similar to the Thracian Peltasts that were both neighbors of the Macedonians and had influenced other Greek 'lighter' infantry in the preceding generation, but it is still being debated among military historians and academics.

What confuses things is that some of these men kept right on soldiering until they were in their 60s, fighting for Alexander's Successors as the "Silver Shields", by which time they were an elite unit of 'spearhead' (Agema) pikemen - but that was in armies in which the basic pikemen were largely militia instead of professionals, and needed all the role models they could get.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Which, of course, Pikes could do, but that's not how they won battles.
In fact, one of the worst disasters to befall pikes was at Flodden Field, where the Scots pikemen couldn't charge because English knights were on their flank, and the English infantry 'billmen' (the bill was, basically, an axe married to a long spear, later shortened to a halbard in the Renaissance) walked up and chopped the points off of the stationary Scots pikes and then massacred a bunch of Scotsmen holding long poles.

Can't swordsmen (either sword and shield or greatswords) do this jobs assauting a pike square?

Yes, but probably not relevant to a discussion of pikes. The Hypaspists were the elite infantry of the Alexandrian Macedonian army, and their tactical role was as a link between the Companion Cavalry (Hetairoi) and the main body of the phalanx (Pezhetairoi, or "Foot Companions"). Exactly how they were armed is still a subject of discussion. Fast moving, mobile infantry do not seem consistent with a bunch of pikemen in close formation, but when Alexander made up a pursuit force he mounted equal numbers of pezhetairoi and hypaspists, so they couldn't have been more heavily equipped then the phalanx and must have been armed differently in some way to make it worthwhile to have both along. It is extremely unlikely that they used any kind of sword, because the sword was simply not a primary weapon for any infantry east of Rome. Probably they were armed with shorter spears, similar to the Thracian Peltasts that were both neighbors of the Macedonians and had influenced other Greek 'lighter' infantry in the preceding generation, but it is still being debated among military historians and academics.

What confuses things is that some of these men kept right on soldiering until they were in their 60s, fighting for Alexander's Successors as the "Silver Shields", by which time they were an elite unit of 'spearhead' (Agema) pikemen - but that was in armies in which the basic pikemen were largely militia instead of professionals, and needed all the role models they could get.

How well Hypastists fare against Persian mounted units (Horsemen, Dromedary, Aswarun and maybe chariots) ? aren't sarisa (Long spears Hypastists used) supposed to be anti cavalry weapons too?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Can't swordsmen (either sword and shield or greatswords) do this jobs assauting a pike square?

Only if the pikes are stopped. If the pikes are charging at them, they may or may not get a chance to swing their swords before 4 or 5 pike points are running through them. The Zweihanders or "Double-Pay" swordsmen in the Landsknechts' pike blocks were to chop up the enemy pikemen after their own pikes had stopped the initial charge. The Roman Legions managed to stop the pike charge with volleys of thrown plum, but if you don't stop that pike charge first, or if the enemy is kind enough to stand there and wait for you, the charging pikes will hit you first and it's all over but the massacre.

How well Hypastists fare against Persian mounted units (Horsemen, Dromedary, Aswarun and maybe chariots) ? aren't sarisa (Long spears Hypastists used) supposed to be anti cavalry weapons too?

The sarissa was the pike carried by the Pezhetairoi in the regular Macedonian infantry: 18 - 22 feet long with an iron point over a foot long and a bronze counter-weight/butt spike on the other end, and the exact length depending on which definition of a 'cubit' you use (W. W. Tarn even argued for a 'Macedonian Cubit' that was shorter, but nobody buys that any more). Whether the Hypaspists also used that pike or a shorter thrusting spear is the crux of the argument about them. In "Phillip's Tomb' that was excavated some decades ago indications were found of 8 - 9 foot long spears, but they were probably Kontos - the lance used by the Macedonian Hetairoi heavy cavalry (Phillip had a leg wound that had healed badly - it is very unlikely that he fought on foot with any troops after that, so weapons in his tomb were most likely cavalry types, like the kontos)

We don't have any specific description of the Hypaspists against Persian cavalry from the 'original' sources (Original in quotes because in fact, all of our Alexandrian sources are secondary, the closest to a primary source is Arrian, who used Ptolemy Soter's memoirs, but wrote some 300 years after the events). At Gaugamela they may have been some of the troops that were charged by the Persian chariots - although that happened right in front of Ptolemy, and he ascribed the massacre of the chariots and charioteers to the Agrianes light infantry. When the Hypaspists charged in against the Persian line next to Alexander and the heavy Macedonian cavalry, they hit Indian and Persian infantry who were also being charged in the flank by the Hetairoi and collapsed almost immediately. At Issus and Granicus all the accounts are of the charge of Alexander and his horsemen, so there just isn't anything about the performance of the Hypaspists.
Against the elephants of Porus presumably they were alongside the regular Macedonian infantry, who had a lot of trouble against the elephants at first, but then sent them running - elephants are, basically, too smart to try to charge into a bunch of pointy things, especially after they've been stuck a few times, and there isn't much their drivers/mahouts can do to force them once they've made Other Plans...