The musketman unit

[Zoid]

Yes, a lot of horses had to make the ultimate sacrifice for the glory of the motherland... After the first days fighting at the battle of Waterloo 10 000 horses lay dead on the battlefield.

[Hengist]

In the 1807 - 1813 Iberian Peninsular War and the 1814 Battle of Waterloo, the most prominent weapon in service by the British army under the command of Wellington was the Brown Bess smooth bore Musket, this was used by the majority of the British armed forces. There was also specialised rifle regiments that used the Baker Rifle, like the 95th regiment, but these were generally in the minority.

Column was used for marching (and by the French for the 'pas de charge' tactic). Line was the standard formation for infantry combat, due to the accuracy of a musket volley being under 50 yards. Square formation, with bayonets, was used against Cavalry.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by kseecs16
2. Musketman always fought in units with pikeman/halberdiers and they were the anti cavalry and melee component.

This is only true of early musketmen. The last European war in which pikemen played much of a role was the Great Northern War 1700-1721, after which the musket remained the chief infantry weapon for a century more.

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by kseecs16

1. Muskets do not fight alone, and particularly do not do so against cavalry which can close the maximum firing distance in the time of 1-2 very inaccurate volleys. Btw - musket bearing infantry did not fire in volley's, they fired individually - the volley was a latter development and would be innappropriate for the musketman unit as represented in the game.

Musketmen would stand in formation, and because they took so long to reload, then every second or third line of them would fire, crouch and reload while the men behind them shot (and then possibly those behind them too), and then be ready to fire again when their turn came. They weren't like the javelin troops the Greeks (and later, the Romans) used, who'd only carry a few (sometimes only one), and then engage in hand-to-hand.

[kseecs16]

I am aware of the column formation as opposed to line, that does not change the fact that the muskets were not fired in volleys. As you said the rows of the columns alternated firing, but it was not as uniform as the regimentally trained armies that came later.

[Hengist]

Originally posted by kseecs16
that does not change the fact that the muskets were not fired in volleys.

???
'muskets were not fired in volleys'???
Surely that's a typo?

This was their only chance of hitting anything. As an individually aimed weapon, they were practically useless.

[Dr Strangelove]

Napoleon once remarked that any cavalry left at the end of a campaign had been wasted.

When talking about the distance an arrow could reach I think you also have to consider the loss of velocity and the corresponding loss of penetrating capability. An arrow might travel 300 yards, but when it reaches its destination will it still penetrate armor?

[Mace]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I would argue for having 2 early gun infantry units - the arquebusier, with its poor accuracy and unreliable firing mechanism having the value of the current musketeer, and the (flintlock) musketeer with a higher rating against cavalry and melee weapons.

Yes, that is an idea that has merit. I had that in Civ3 in a mod I made. Progression was as follows:

Longbow--upgrade to Musketmen. Historically accurate because Longbowmen co-existed with early firearm troops for a long time (1450-1650).

Pikemen--upgrade to Musketmen. Made this nice historically accurate scenario where early gun troops (see below) were dependent on pikemen for defense.

Arquebusier--available with Matchlock. decent attack unit, poor defense. Represented the 1450-1650 primitive matchlock/snaphaunce gun troops. Upgraded to Musketman.

Musketman--available with Flintlock. in my mod, these were flintlock troops and had better defense than the arquebus. This had the effect of obsoleting pikemen! Very nice, and very historically accurate. Upgraded to Line Inf.

Line Infantry--available with Military Tradition. represented 1770ish-1850ish infantry, complete with bayonet, flintlock musket, etc. When RIFLING appeared these were obsoleted. Upgrade to Rifleman.

Rifleman--1860-1910 infantry, represented rifle-armed troops. Etc. Etc...you get the idea

IMO this is the most accurate way to progress things during that time period. Certainly it would require a lot of balance and testing in a Civ4 mod to get it right though.

[kseecs16]

Originally posted by Hengist

???
'muskets were not fired in volleys'???
Surely that's a typo?

This was their only chance of hitting anything. As an individually aimed weapon, they were practically useless.

After the flintlocks came about in the late 17th century volley fire started to be adopted which meant that small units within a battallion fired in a specified order to present a consistent wall of fire.

Prior to the flintlock battallions fired in "salvo's" which meant entire ranks fired at once simply alternating rows. This took more time because with the dangerous matchlocks the formations had to be less compact and rate of fire was lower and less consistent between reload times and shuffling in the formation.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

This is only true of early musketmen. The last European war in which pikemen played much of a role was the Great Northern War 1700-1721, after which the musket remained the chief infantry weapon for a century more.

Right, and by that time the flintlock had become the primary infantry firearm. When taliking about "musketeeers" one should seperate the pre-flintlock era from the flintlock era. The pre-flintlock era is 200 years long at least, while the flintlock era is only slightly longer than 100 years, the flintlock beong superceded by the percussion cap fired rifle in the 1840s.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Mace


Yes, that is an idea that has merit. I had that in Civ3 in a mod I made. Progression was as follows:

Longbow--upgrade to Musketmen. Historically accurate because Longbowmen co-existed with early firearm troops for a long time (1450-1650).

Pikemen--upgrade to Musketmen. Made this nice historically accurate scenario where early gun troops (see below) were dependent on pikemen for defense.

Arquebusier--available with Matchlock. decent attack unit, poor defense. Represented the 1450-1650 primitive matchlock/snaphaunce gun troops. Upgraded to Musketman.

Musketman--available with Flintlock. in my mod, these were flintlock troops and had better defense than the arquebus. This had the effect of obsoleting pikemen! Very nice, and very historically accurate. Upgraded to Line Inf.

Line Infantry--available with Military Tradition. represented 1770ish-1850ish infantry, complete with bayonet, flintlock musket, etc. When RIFLING appeared these were obsoleted. Upgrade to Rifleman.

Rifleman--1860-1910 infantry, represented rifle-armed troops. Etc. Etc...you get the idea

IMO this is the most accurate way to progress things during that time period. Certainly it would require a lot of balance and testing in a Civ4 mod to get it right though.

I'd suggest folding musketman and line infantry together into one upgrade. The flintlock became the prime infantry weapon 1fter 1700. 1700 to 1770 isn't a lot of time. By 1820 percussion cap fired muskets were largely the rule. The percussion cap rifle firing a minie ball became standard in the 1840s since all the armies had to do was rifle the barrels of their percussion cap fired muskets.

[kseecs16]

That system looks pretty great, I think it would be appropriate to call the "line infantry" fusiliers though for a bit more flavor.

Taking this concept into cavalry also.

Light Cav - some timeframe as horse archers but perhaps some different bonuses

Cav. Archers - already there

Knights - already there

Cuirassier - lightly armored upgrade to knights not quite as good as cavalry

Dragoon - not totally necessary but could sort of work along the same principle as the L. Cav/Cav Archers

Carabineer - a more defining name for the current cavalry.

I always like more unit options myself and it could add some more strategic decisions with the bonuses these different units could have.

[gmsh1964]

Hauptman,

Your post as it relates to the mechanics of CIV 4 was great. Thanks.

[Mujadaddy]

Musketmen are fine... It's the Grenadier that's the problem...Eliminate it.