Will there be indirect infantry?

[EasyWay91]

Hi everyone!

There are many of us who are hoping that the upcoming expansion pack will bring a lot of us back into the game. We all hope that it will revive the feeling of depth that Civ IV had, that if this pack is successful, then there will be others after it. We all personally have certain things we want them to add. Hopefully we will all help each other by emailing Firaxis or just by continuing to post our ideas(I'm pretty sure they read up on the forums!).

Now getting to the point, I have many friends who agree that ranged infantry are really good units that play a vital role in the early to mid game. Their mobility makes them preferable to the early siege units. When modern artillery arrives however, they are completely removed as Crossbowmen become direct combat Riflemen. I think that the Crossbowmen should become either Grenadiers, Mortar Teams, or Snipers. While they might not have the range of the late game siege weapons, they could have bonuses against infantry, cost less, and have better movement than the siege weapons. I think if implemented properly, then the game's combat system will be that much deeper.

I would like to hear some comments, suggestions, and criticisms from you guys. What do you think? What alternatives might you have? Thanks.

 

[anandus]

Crossbowmen become gattling gunners which become machine gunners.
Although their range will be reduced to one.

Edit:
Here is an overview of all the info about G&K where you could've found this information:
Gods and Kings - Overview

 

[anandus]

The gap between crossbows and gattling seems worringly large to be honest. Crossbows come at the same time as longswords and gattling will, presumably, be around riflemen. That seems like a rather large gap.
But then, they might move crossbows further forward with the new composite archers.

But we also have the same 'upgrade gap' with melee units, longswords->riflemen, so it isn't that strange.

 

[Draskar]

CompositeArchers and Crossbowmen aren't upgradable each other IMHO (like in Civ4).

 

[Montov]

Composite Bowman and Crossbowman are in the same upgrade path, that is confirmed. It is likely Crossbowman will be available a bit later, so there is room for the Comp-archer, and to narrow the gap with the Gatling gun.

 

[Draskar]

Composite Bowman and Crossbowman are in the same upgrade path, that is confirmed. It is likely Crossbowman will be available a bit later, so there is room for the Comp-archer, and to narrow the gap with the Gatling gun.

Oh, i'm a bit sad

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm sure there will have to be tech tree changes to the Classical and Medieval eras to accommodate all this.

 

[CoolLizy]

I just find the idea of have a musket army supported by xbows odd, especially considering that muskets replaced xbows before they replaced pikes/swords.

Actually, early gunpowder weapons co-existed with crossbows for quite some time. Crossbows were more accurate, reliable, and could often be reloaded faster.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Although the Musket Infantry in the game is from a bit later.

That being said, an Arquebus/Matchlock leading to a Flintlock would be good.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Muskets had existed for a little while even by the point of Louis XIV (also, I think the Musketeers were Louis XIII).

 

[nokmirt]

The upgrade from crossbows to gatling guns is a leap, but it does make sense within CiV. The technology branches off, and the crossbow therefore needs to upgrade into a gatling gun. While longswords, muskets, and pikes upgrade to rifleman. Crossbows were used in warfare up to 1500 CE. In reality, thet were replaced by gunpowder weapons and late crossbows had a rifle stock.


Link to video.

BTW I would love to see the matchlock musket man upgrade to a flintlock musketman. Then from there to rifleman.

 

[CoolLizy]

I'm quite interested about this. By early gunpowder weapons do you mean early cannons or also hand held weapons? And how early is early? I ignored 'experimental' weapons as they always overlap with previous technology, but I don't recall having heard of, say, musketeers under Louix XIV being supported by crossbowmen.

Hand held weapons; off the top of my head I'm assuming more in the era of the arquebusiers, though, although I don't have a good source on hand to say for sure. Keep in mind that early firearms, including muskets, were considered support weapons until the development of volley fire tactics. I'd wager this significant change in the layout of the battlefield was likely a contributing factor to the crossbow's decline more than anything else.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

Speaking of Musketmen... I really hope they allow Pikemen to be upgraded to Musketmen. This has always bothered me.

 

[Kurtbob]

BTW I would love to see the matchlock musket man upgrade to a flintlock musketman. Then from there to rifleman.

Agreed. The civ series has always treated firearms from the 12th - 18th centuries as one in the same which is horribly inaccurate. I would like to see: Arquebusier->Musketmen->Flintlock Infantry->Riflemen. Pikemen should have their combat value increased as well to better portray pike and shot tactics.

 

[Duke Maynard]

Speaking of Musketmen... I really hope they allow Pikemen to be upgraded to Musketmen. This has always bothered me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_and_shot

NO.

Pikemen and muskets only coexisted and symbiotically worked together for a 200 year period of military history which even bears it's name from them. Pikemen were still in use by some armies well into the 18th century. When it was short of firearms in the American Civil War, the confederacy even started mass manufacturing pikes!

 

[HardRocker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_and_shot

NO.

Pikemen and muskets only coexisted and symbiotically worked together for a 200 year period of military history which even bears it's name from them. Pikemen were still in use by some armies well into the 18th century. When it was short of firearms in the American Civil War, the confederacy even started mass manufacturing pikes!

It is sad the lack of interest in history these days, as it is so fascinating. Yes, pikes and muskets coexisted and were used together very efficiently for centuries. It would be a shame if they did upgrade pikes to shot, I would be very disappointed in Firaxis.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The Confederacy didn't do this because it was ideal, they were a little desperate. While the Musketman does seem to be a matchlock musket, which would be before the tactics that later appeared, it doesn't work the way that would be ideal, which would be a ranged unit (otherwise, having Pikes protect Muskets makes no sense).

Then again, we would get rid of all melee units if all gunpowder units became ranged.

 

[elprofesor]

I'd rather have pikemen upgrade to lancers. Or better yet, add an extra unit between the two. Say, halberdiers, for example (or any other similar unit, I'm no expert).

Not to mention that pikemen upgrading to musketmen would radically alter the balance in the game. Ottomans are slightly weak now (maybe changes to naval warfare in G+K will change that), but if pikemen upgraded to musketmen, they would be OP.