What's the deal with Longswordsmen?

[j51]

Why are they stronger than musketmen? That's weird. They're essentially a slower knight with no weakness towards pikes. All I can see as a use for them is as a pike-counter and a placeholder for samurai. But they don't need to be at 18 strength for that, or so expensive. Why not make them a strength 14: stronger than a legion but still weaker than knights and muskets? And let the samurai be at say strength 16.

Edit: I hope this hasn't been already discussed elsewhere.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Because they require resource and musketmen don't. Just a medieval elite unit.
Gameplay > Realism.

 

[Mercade]

They require iron and they cost more. They used to be 16 and seem 18 in a more recent video. Most likely there's continuous balancing going on. I'd agree it does feel a little counter-intuitive to have them stronger than musketmen, but given that you don't need any resources for the latter, it's defendable.

 

[adam_grif]

Keep in mind that high quality armor of the day was generally capable of resisting musket-balls, i.e. the origin of the term "bullet-proof" was armorers who would shoot the armor they were selling with a gun to prove that it could resist it.

It is at least conceivable that a longsword unit would be "better", assuming they had high quality kit (represented as higher cost + iron req). Also consider that despite having gunpowder weapons, knights and non-gunpowder units did not become obsolete on the battlefield for hundreds of years (from memory, when they learned to effectively combine the pike and the musket was the transition), so obviously musket-men weren't some kind of super-soldier.

 

[AriochIV]

Medieval heavy infantry was very effective, but it was also very expensive. The early matchlock musket took over because it was cheap (and could be operated by peasants), not because it was more powerful than longbows or heavy infantry.

 

[Cilpot]

The musketmen were, unit by unit, quite weak compared to longbowmen. 1000 longbowmen would slaughter 1000 musketmen on a field of battle. The advantage of the musketmen were the numbers. While a longbowman required a lifetime of practice to be good enough for battle, a musketman required only a day.

 

[Alki]

There was a saying "If you want to train a longbowman start with his grandfather!"

Heavy infantrymen's armour, like the Milanese mercenaries wore which were practically immune to the English longbows (and which ended the golden age of the longbow), was incredibly expensive to make.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if early musketballs wouldn't bounce off of it. The armour was curved and shaped to deflect bodkins and I doubt a musketball would impart that much more energy per hit.

 

[Tee Kay]

Early muskets were crap. Their main advantage is that they could be employed en masse.

 

[Olleus]

If the musketman in civ5 is meant to represent pre-bayonet musket armed infantry then it makes perfect sense for heavy elite longswordsmen to be more powerful.

And from a gamplay perspective, muskets are slightly cheaper and can be spammed due to no resource requirement. Of course, it might still end up being a virtually useless unit like the Civ4 musketman.

On an unrelated note, people often compare longbows with muskets, but that is not a fair comparison to make. Its not the musket that made longbows obsolete, but the cannon. Both were used as close support for closer range troops, both were vitally important in sieges and both were very expensive to make/train. What muskets did make obsolete was your average halberd yielding infantry and (once bayonets were invented) pikemen.

 

[12agnar0k]

The reason as many other people have stated is because the longsword is more expensive and requires a strategic resource, the musket on the other hand is cheaper and "resource free", meaning while your enemy may be limited to say a maximum of 10 longswords due to Iron limits, you can build 100 muskets if you have the economy to support the maintenance.

The reason why a Knight shouldn't be stronger than the longsword is simple, its not meant to be better. If they wanted the Knights to be the medieval super unit against everything but defending pikemen, then they would have made it cost more and cost both Horse and Iron, as it is however it only needs a horse resource, and its main purpose is not to replace longswords as main field infantry but to be a quicker (although not as quick as unarmoured horses) unit that can flank the enemy, it doesn't need the strongest strength to do this job.

 

[Tarkhan]

True. Also, Longswordsmen would destroy a line of muskets, if they survived the initial barrage and closed with the front ranks. The original muskets were horribly inaccurate.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Gameplay > Realism.

People use this phrase far too often these days (especially since, as others have pointed out, this is quite realistic, to be honest).

 

[Disgustipated]

In fact, the next person who uses that phrase will get a smack up the side of the head.

that equation is too simple. Why? Because it doesn't address the fact that realism increases gameplay.

 

[Veshta]

Muskets will still slaughter Longswords simply because they are ranged; first attack lands before the knife wielders are even in range .. that and the resource requirement is more than enough to justify the strength.

 

[stealth_nsk]

People use this phrase far too often these days (especially since, as others have pointed out, this is quite realistic, to be honest).

There are reasons for this phrase very often
Realism here depends on who we consider longswordsman and who we consider musketman, but I just don't care

 

[ottocrat]

Gameplay > Realism.

I think the gameplay > realism is that longswordsmen have the same mobility as musketmen.

 

[pi-r8]

Muskets will still slaughter Longswords simply because they are ranged; first attack lands before the knife wielders are even in range .. that and the resource requirement is more than enough to justify the strength.

are you talking about real life, or in the game? because, in the game, Muskets are NOT ranged. And even if they were, there's no guarantee they'd get the first shot since most units can move at least 2 now.

 

[Jerrymander]

Remember this guy?



He'd get trounced by Crusaders and Legions.

 

[12agnar0k]

In fact, the next person who uses that phrase will get a smack up the side of the head.

The correct phrase doesn't need perfect English punctuation, as its a slang comment. It's not quite as "hip" if you throw in a "the" and a "of".
(May as well throw in some incorrect spelling too because it is "wicked, bra!"

"Da next person who uses dat phrase will a smack upside da head!"

Cool Person's Speech, - 101.

Muskets will still slaughter Longswords simply because they are ranged; first attack lands before the knife wielders are even in range .. that and the resource requirement is more than enough to justify the strength.

You are obviously speaking ingame wise, but unfortunately no, muskets and all the kin to follow (infantry/paratroopers/riflemen) are not ranged units. They are melee units. The reason for this has been explained but I can't be bothered to bring it up in this thread.

In-real life, they may well shoot first, but some will miss, others will hit and not penetrate, some longswords might fall, but the majoirty will close in on the muskets, muskets take a long time to reload, the longswords probably won't take more than two hits. With armour resistant to mere musket bullets, you will get into melee combat, and there the heavily armoured longswords have a distinct advantage.

 

[MrBanana]

In fact, the next person who uses that phrase will get a smack up the side of the head.

that equation is too simple. Why? Because it doesn't address the fact that realism increases gameplay.

Captain, an opinion is cooming up to us fast! We'll have to fight it!

No, fighting it is hopeless, bear left and activate hyperdrive! We... must... flee!








Sorry.