Why Don't Riflemen require Saltpeter?

[wilbill]

Finally got this figured out. They have to add saltpeter to the diet of the cavalrymen who are more virile than the riflemen.

 

[Pirate]

I buy the rationale that saltpeter no longer came from natural sources, but could be made synthetically.

As for rubber and infantry: rubber soled boots, rubber overshoes, rubber blankets, and rubber used in butts and recoil mechanisms in rifles all made infantry much more field-worthy for trench wars in any weather. It doesn't quite revolutionize infantry tactics, but it certainly modernizes the equipment. I think it is reflected in the game that infantry are a bit tougher than riflemen, but their tactical use doesn't really change except that they may go on the offensive in the field more often.

(p.s. long time reader, first time poster!)

 

[Hygro]

welcome Pirate! Great first post I must say as it very accurate descirbes the game's rational. Also, you registered something like 3 years after this site is made and you manage the name "Pirate"? I'm impressed.

 

[Nad]

Originally posted by Pirate
I buy the rationale that saltpeter no longer came from natural sources, but could be made synthetically.

That still doesn't explain why cavalry trained after nationalism do require saltpeter - if you can mass-produce it for riflemen, why not cavalry?

Quite simply it is an anomaly, but as I've said previously, it's a pure gaming decision, it does not make any sense logiocally.

 

[Hygro]

My most honost oppinion is that riflemen should require saltpeter but not infantry, as riflemen represent a unit that was just trained before the process of synthetically made gunpowder.

 

[trumpeteer]

Originally posted by Cheops


The bottom line is that Riflemen, if they are to be allowed to be made without the Saltpeter resource, should not be rewarded with a GREATER attack and defense bonus over their Musketmen precursor.

Because the rifle has a rifled barrel. The smoothbore musket was extremely inaccurate except at close range, and even the earliest rifles were a huge improvement. By the time of the Kentucky Rifle and the Civ 3 version of the rifleman came into existence, advances had been made in gunpowder technology. I think that the rifleman should have a large offense value, rather than defense value, and that the Musketman should come slightly later with better defense and last longer. The musket was deadly on the battlefield almost until the 20th century. Please correct me if I'm totally mistaken, but I watch the History Channel worship: ) and I saw a Conquests episode on early rifles.