Uses for Musketeers – Napoleon’s commandos

[Generaldoktor]

Yeah, my whole point about Cho's was the window of usefulness before they're replaced by guns. In general, I'm poor in math , I guess that's why I read history books instead. The manual implies gunpowder units have an advantage; that's been my experience in the games I've played so far, also. I think I'm going to have to arrange some specific test combats where knights or macemen are pitted against musketmen/musketeers, or both are sent on similar tasks. (Knights errant? ) This quantitative analysis several people have done suggesting these blade/horse or melee units are superior is really a mystery to me.

I guess its foolish culture coding, but as I am not of African heritage, I have trouble justifying playing the Malinese. (I never played as Zulu in Civ3 either, not in over 200 games, though I did play the Nubians twice in "Ancient Med," mostly to get their gems and elephants.) Thus I have never used Skirmishers and in games with Mansa, have never been to war with him, though I've come close. My criticism of Skirmishers was based on what I read on a couple other threads where what I thought was credible analysis was being done by others, asserting that Jaguars and Skirmishers were
BOTH only good for the early game and then only if you were doing an early rush of somebody. Spider's analysis now seems more credible, sorry. But like he says, there are several UU that don't qualify for the UU Hall of Fame (er, "Shrine".)

[JackRudd]

Re: Uses for Musketeers – Napoleon’s commandos

Originally posted by couerdelion
In a recent thread, poor Napoleon got labelled as a poor leader primarily because a lot of people found his traits to be non-complimentary.

Pet peeve alert! Napoleon's traits are non-complementary. This causes people to be non-complimentary about him.

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
The manual implies gunpowder units have an advantage; that's been my experience in the games I've played so far, also.

Musketeers/Musketmen have the advantage that no unit before Grenadiers has a bonus against them. Macemen get a bonus against melee units, and Pikemen get a bonus against mounted units. Also, no pre-gunpower unit can gain the "Pinch" promotion (+25% vs gunpowder), so they are safe from that as well.

[Generaldoktor]

Re: Re: Uses for Musketeers – Napoleon’s commandos

Originally posted by JackRudd


Pet peeve alert! Napoleon's traits are non-complementary. This causes people to be non-complimentary about him.

I like Nappy; and he likes me!

[Mutineer]

I think people forgetting one very important characteristics of Musketeers/Musketmen. They do not cost 80 shield, they cost 1 population and 3 happiness.
They are Draftable unit, when grenadeers are not.
When I get Nationalism and gunpowder, I know it si time to atack. At that time you useally have a few this fishing villagess with excess of happiness. I switch and draft them to the hill. 3 units/turn. At that time no town can get 80 shields/turn. If town has barack this unit will have 2 expirience. So, now you have stack of disent units to support your knight/catapults you building naturally. I personally never build a single Musketeers/Musketmen and riffleman in my game, they all drafted.

[Yosho]

(shrug) The only real use I've found for muskets is as city defenders; they're better then macemen for that, and knights don't get defensive bonuses. Muskets fortified in a city can even do OK against grenaders, if it comes to that. But generally speaking, they're overall meh.

[Bhruic]

Don't forget that as the first gunpowder unit, they also render city walls ineffective (to themselves). This gives them an extra edge as attackers that Kngihts/Macemen won't get.

Bh

[dalessi12]

Another benefit of musketeers is that because it is a gunpowder unit, it doesn't face the +50% defense bonus of walls. A few in your attacking stack can save you time when you find a poorly defended city that has a semi-decent defense shield. I am aware culture provides some defense, but if you run into a city that is defended by only 2 longbowmen (one with city defense promotion, one without promotion), but has walls and a defense of 60%, you save yourself time (turns) and cats if you use a few musketeers, as they will only be facing a 10% city defense (from culture) vs. the 60% (50% from walls, 10% from culture). They may die but they will make the city a mop up job, and you don't lose cats or extra turn(s) reducing the defenses.

[dalessi12]

Originally posted by Bhruic
Don't forget that as the first gunpowder unit, they also render city walls ineffective (to themselves). This gives them an extra edge as attackers that Kngihts/Macemen won't get.

Bh

I type too slow, you beat me to it

[Ijuin]

Normally I haul around eight catapults at a time, so I can bombard the city walls to nothing on the very first turn after getting up to the city, then I attack with my other troops.

[Gherald]

I think Musketeers are very nice with +2 exp from vassalage or theocracy. I will say though that they are much less nice as Louie than Napoleon, because of the free combat I.

As I see it, the Musketeer has two advantages over the Knight. First of all, it is immune to the Pikeman's +100% vs. mounted. Second, it gains the normal defensive bonuses from fortification, etc. that Knights and other mounted units do not get. I think that these bonuses are worth having a combat power of 9 instead of 10.

Don't forget that strength 9 plus a free extra 10% strength == strength 9.9 , so an unpromoted Napoleon musketeer is practically as good as an unpromoted knight, but as you say also gets defensive bonuses and is immune to pikes. Additionally, combat III with heal while moving comes much sooner than with knights (exp 10 vs. exp 17), and hence are much more disposable. If you are lucky enough to reach exp 17 with a knight, you probably want to retreat with it ASAP and keep it around for West Point!

Interestingly enough, Napoleon has the distinction of having the only 2-foot unit that can be promoted to either medic II or medic I and heal while moving with just vassalage or theocracy. Do medic II with 1-2 muskets (they will easily live on to support your grenadiers...), and give about 3-4 of the rest medic + heal while moving, and the remainder combat III. Stack about 8 total with about 8 prebuilt knights and you've got yourself a nice surprise attack in the works...

Against a realatively strong opponent caught off guard, you could easily capture about 2 nice cities and sue for peace.

Against a weak opponent, promote the majority of your muskets to medic I and heal while moving for a French-styled blitzkrieg . Whatever you have left over will make nice support units for your cavalry or riflemen against stronger opponents.

[dalessi12]

Originally posted by Ijuin
Normally I haul around eight catapults at a time, so I can bombard the city walls to nothing on the very first turn after getting up to the city, then I attack with my other troops.

I do too, but the turn you take the city (and your first turn guarding the new city), the catapults have to stay outside the city (as they have used their movement point by bombarding). This usually means for me that I have to leave at least 2 units on top of them to guard them from fast moving enemy. My only point is that using musketeers saves time.

All in all, I am not really defending the total usefulness of musketeers, I am simply saying that if you happen to be warring during that brief time, you should bring a few in every attacking stack for the small garrisoned, but walled cities. It definitely saves a few turns overall in your effort to entirely wipeout an enemy civ.

[Yosho]

Well, going past walls can help, but it dosn't make that big a difference...even if you're only attacking into +20% defense instead of +50%, it's still probably worthwhile to catapult them into submission first.

Besides, that whole "avoiding the walls" thing only works at all if you have pure musketmen; if you have a mixed army with some knights, some pikes, ect (and you probably should), you'll have to knock down the walls anyway.

[dalessi12]

Well, walls are +50% defense bonus, so a city with 50% defense and walls, would have a 0% shield (not 20%) vs. musketeers. As I said, they are good to carry around especially when you are going for the war till enemy is eliminated plan, and even in some war till enemy sues plans. If you are warring with an enemy that has 9-10 cities, there is a good chance that you will run into 3-4 that are smaller cities (size 2-5) with walls and a couple of longbows only. These cities need to be razed or captured, and if one has the opportunity to avoid the extra turn and troops needed to bombard (and subsequently "guard" the cats), it will speed up the assualt. I have found that a decently promoted musketeer has at least an even money chance to win vs. a walled longbowmen (City Garrison I), and even if it loses, the longbowmen is reduced to a "free XP giver" for one of your other type of troops (knights or macemen).

Again, not the greatest unit, but it can be used for good in limited ways.

[couerdelion]

I’ve never thought of Musketeers as city busters except in those cases where you want to hurry and attack and your primary city busters are still healing from their last assault. The 50:50 success against a half-decent LB defender is perhaps a little optimistic and since the LB defender is cheaper, I find that the cost comparison weighs against their use in an assault. Grenadiers follow so closely behind Musketeers that they have little chance of making any mark before a much stronger unit arrives who does almost everything as well or better than its forerunners.

But one thing that Grenadiers can’t do is perfect for the Musketeers. Their use is extended because they can effectively raid into enemy territory until your rivals have either Steel or Military Tradition.