The musketman unit

[Pipe tooth]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
In 1 minute a trained longbowmen could release 10 arrows, whereas a crossbowmen would only have a rate of fire of 1 bolt /minute.

just watched a show about this, and the longbow fired 9 arrows in 30 seconds, and the crossbow 4 bolts in the same amount of time.

So the crossbow could fire faster than previously thought... but the longbow is still a far better weapon in my opinion.

[kseecs16]

Another important thing to remember is that musketman, in a historical sense, did not fight in formations alone and would get slaughtered if they tried to against cavalry or shock infantry (pikes). They fought in squares with pikemen to protect them (most famously the Spanish Tercios.) It was the rifle, and the fixed bayonet that made infantry truly deadly and capable of holding off cavalry on their own. So the musketman I feel is well represented. A strong unit but not deadly against any specific target.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Pipe tooth
just watched a show about this, and the longbow fired 9 arrows in 30 seconds, and the crossbow 4 bolts in the same amount of time.

So the crossbow could fire faster than previously thought... but the longbow is still a far better weapon in my opinion.

The longbow was (IMO) a unit that excelled in quantity. A crossbow OTOH could be used to kill off specific targets (like a small bunch of charging knights) while the longbows aimed at the heavy infantry).

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by GeoModder


I know my history, thank you. In fact I said precisely this regarding the longbow men.

You seemed to be disputing that musketmen were less expensive than longbowmen, leading me to think you were either over-estimating the cost of weapon or under-estimating the cost of training effective archers. I wanted to make it clear for all, even those who do not know their history, why gunpowder weapons came to dominate the battlefield. It's something a lot of people are not clear on and it's an interesting time in history, because the changes in the structure on the battlefield also effected peacetime social structures - there was no need for a class of people who had trained with weapons their whole lives when you can train and arm 10 peasants with muskets for the cost of one knight, and since civilizations built their economies and civil systems around justifying and funding these obsolete warriors, this had far-reachign effects.

[Hauptman]

I think you guys are not paying much attention to the Musket's MAIN strength...

its not that he has 9 str.
its not that he requires no resource.
its not that he gets all the defensive promotions.
It IS that he makes all previous unit specific promotions OBSOLETE!

Now your combat1/shock macemen loose their +75% vs melee bonus.
Now your crossbows are only 6str.
Now your combat1/cover pikemen gain no bonus.


Knights where trained to lay waste to foot infantry armed with swords/spears. Armored to help protect against arrows. but nothing but a big fat target to a man with a gun. Until later when they could be trained to counter the guns range with its slow rate of fire. in game this translates to your knights having shock promotions beeing less valuable but not obsolete.

Guns did never obsolete the mounted soldier, they obsoleted his armor. Dragoons replaced Knights, wearing nothing more than a breastplate if any armor, and still armed with sabres and lances with single shot carbines as a secondary weapon.

[Aro]

Great post, Hauptman.

[johnmcd]

Just to emphasise the level of training a longbow man took, football's precursor was outlawed in Scotland due to men spending time on it rather than their archery practise, also, you can tell from skeletal deformation the bones of men who were skilled archers. There aren't many men today who do anything to the extent that it deforms their bones.

Spot on though Hauptman, it's about the game.

[Zoid]

Hauptman, no one is claiming that guns obsoleted the mounted soldier, just the knight.

[Hauptman]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg
Hauptman, no one is claiming that guns obsoleted the mounted soldier, just the knight.

However game mechanic wise, the knight also includes the dragoon. Muskets only made knights stop wearing armor. The newfound speed made up for the lack of defense against old weapons.

So unless you'd like to add a new unit called "Dragoons" like civ2, then i donot see the reason to change muskets to give a bonus vs knights. because like i said the muskets real bonus is that he takes away that knights "shock" promotion. Few people give there units the 25% vs gunpowder promo before gunpowder comes on the scene. so in effect the musket is a huge advance when they hit the battle fields.

Also their short lifespan negates the need to really rely on them to continue combat beyond that "first gunpowder unit" era.

[Mace]

I think musketmen in Civ4 are about right, for the reasons stated above by others. Also remember:

It's historical fact that musketmen were often guarded by ranks of PIKEMEN to protect the musketmen from knights charging in.

Once guns got better (particularly the rate-of-fire) it made the necessity of pikemen less and less. Also the bayonet first appeared in about 1590, and by 1650 the bayonet was becoming standard...this also helped the musketman against mounted opponents.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
You seemed to be disputing that musketmen were less expensive than longbowmen, leading me to think you were either over-estimating the cost of weapon or under-estimating the cost of training effective archers.

I did slightly nevertheless. Thank you for the clarification on the costs, especially for the later centuries.

Originally posted by Hauptman
Guns did never obsolete the mounted soldier, they obsoleted his armor. Dragoons replaced Knights, wearing nothing more than a breastplate if any armor, and still armed with sabres and lances with single shot carbines as a secondary weapon.

Ain't that true!

[Feyd]

Regardless of the military backup of the musketmen (pikes), and their comparison to more "sophisticated" weaponry (longbows). I think we're ignoring one of the main reasons the Musket ended the era of the Knight.

Knights were nobles who covered themselves in armor because they knew that it would save their skinny behinds from a lot of deathdealing. Crossbows were illegal and so they felt reasonably safe, but the gun was too effective a weapon to be banned and also, it appeared after the protestant revolution and so a big chunk of Europe could have cared less what the pope "banned".

So we have the fact that it could penetrate any armor of the time easily as an instigator for these nobles to decide to start staying home, but the second part of the matter IMHO was that the weapons did not have rifiling. Warfare had rules at this time and a focus on sparing important people on the opposing side was one of them. When dealing with a weapon which even if aimed at an approaching peasant could wind up hitting the duke ten paces to his left or right it was quickly discovered that the methods of combat needed to be changed (by the people who did the deciding ... the nobles).

So you go to a system where guys pretty much just line up and shoot at each other face to face with the people giving the orders in the back or off to the side. Now, as we all know, Rifling became a priority after the initial brunt of the musket was felt and slowly superceded unrifiled weapons, but the Knight had been replaced by calvary which focused on speed more than "tank value"

Oh... and those nobles? They simply started sending their underlings to the front lines to stand twenty feet away from the enemy, load a musket, and fire (hoping not to get hit the whole time) while they changed, evolved, and became the guys who do the same thing today by taking our underclass, throwing a gun in their hand, and sending them into harms way for king (opt.) and country.

(Sorry if I rambled... Basic jist is there tho I hope)

Peace...

[zombielordzero]

feyd, nice... very nice... *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap*

[ghen]

I love military threads, sorry.. carry on

[zombielordzero]

feyd, from the sounds of it, this is what should have happened before rifleing:

formation of muskets lines up

formation of crossbowmen lines up

assume equal numbers/similar formation

both sides fire a voley simultaniously
first 3 rows of muskets drop
first row of crossbowmen drop
crossbowmen reload and fire again
next in-line muskets fire a voley
next 3 rows of muskets drop
2nd row of crossbowmen drop

at this point:
muskets are down 6 rows, crossbowmen down 2 rows.
at this rate, the musketmen lord should've turned tail and run