Uses for Musketeers – Napoleon’s commandos

[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. Alongside Napoleon, his musketeers also came in for criticism as being a weak UU.

I believe the problem is rather that the different strengths of Napoleon and his unique units are not fully recognised and so are being underestimated or undervalued. I have therefore decided to put together an idea of how these units can be used effectively as an aggressive combat unit.

The first thing to note is that Musketeers are the first gunpowder unit and they have no natural counter unit. Their only real threats are Knights and War Elephants who can also take the promotion for +25% against gunpowder. On the positive side, musketeers get defensive bonuses and have two movement points making them the ideal as a special unit working behind enemy lines and drawing fire from units that would otherwise be combined together to challenge your main stack. Your musketeers can aim to cut those key resources that lie deep inside enemy territory in a way that mounted units could never do. Their promotions also can be varied to suit the terrain they will be facing

For a very simple land incursion, I will also using Napoleon as a leader simply because he conveniently allows your Musketeers to leave the barracks with Combat I + another promotion. I will also assume that you can easily move from hills to forests in enemy territory. A small musketeer group of 4 or 5 can probably survive quite well if given the following promotions

1) Medic
2) Guerrilla (x2)
3) Combat II (with plan to take +25% horses)
4) Woodman

Depending on the relative threats from units, you might want Melee or Cover for a little variety. Once you have them all together then the small stack can typically move freely from hill to forest and threaten the key resources of copper, iron and horses. Failing that they will often draw some fire from defenders and, while they can lose a unit of two, will usually hand out more damage than they take while your stack approaches its target more securely.

For a sea based strike of a strategic resource I would tend to recommend a more traditional mixed stack although Musketeers might be used for moving inland from a small beach-head. Mixing musketeers and other units will, however, reduce their effectiveness because of the movement costs.

[fed1943]

Can a musketeer with woodmanII move just 2,or 4 forest/jungles tiles?
Best regards,

[pchang]

The major problem I have is that musketeers do not last very long as a unit before they are obsoleted. When I get musketmen, it is not too long before I get riflemen or grenadiers. The move 2 part is the real key to the UU. It is just that their lifetime as a unit is not too long. Take a look at Caesars UU. It is a long time between swordsmen and macemen. Praetorians can run around for a long time as the best attacking unit in the world.

[Fallenhero]

I like the fact that Musketeers get to the front twice as fast as other INF units.

I find the AI will always send a pike or a spear to kill off/wound my pillaging knight but won't have the extra close combat unit to take on a Musketeer.

The first wave of my invasion will bypass the target city to interdict reinforcements and cut the road net while the siege train goes about it's business. I'll drop a few back for the assault if needed but the rest will push on to take out resources and grab a nice defensive spot from which to assault the next city.

A side note. I find it interesting that spears get their bonus against mounted units both attacking and defending while grenadiers only get theirs when they attack riflemen. (am i right?) I know it's all about game play but it just seems a little inconsistent.

I think as far as longevity goes, as Napolean, you would aim for gunpowder sooner and time a major expansion to make full use of your Musketeers. With expansion comes high maintenance/low tech numbers so you'll get plenty of use out of your UU. I would also go for cannons first because you don't need rifleman to expand.

[pchang]

I should have added that at the higher difficulty levels, it is not too long before the AIs have grenadiers (pretty much musket killers).

[Fallenhero]

Well,

I've only played Napoleon a few times on Monarch but I found his Musketeers to be effective. A musketeer can duck into the woods/jungle and survive a lone grenadier and then use his movement the next turn to get away. It's all about the movement and using the terrain. I wouldn't go with Nappy on a desert map for example and there are better leader traits and better UU's but Napoleon and his Musketeers can get it done.

[Spiderjeru]

That's exactly the problem. It's not that Napoleon's UU is underpowered so much as it's a poor choice of base unit.

You have to ask yourself, when looking at the unique units:

1. What is its relative power compared to units of the era

and

2. What are the circumstances where the unit would bring something to the table militarily.

So.

Musketman: 9 str / 1 mov / 80 shields
Musketeer UU: 9 str / 2 mov / 80 shields

Let's take a look at what's already on the table when musketeers become buildable.

Maceman: 8 str / 1 mov / 70 shields / 50% melee bonus
Knight: 10 str / 2 mov / 90 shields / Immune first strikes, no defense bonus

Musketeers start out weaker than knights and only slightly stronger than macemen. They are not vulnerable to Macemen's special, which does provide them with some utility. However, their immediate succesors

Rifleman: 14 str / 1 mov / 110 sheilds / 25% vs mounted

are dramatically increased in power, both against the nearest powerful units (knights) and in pure strength.

Musketeers, then, are truly only useful in a very narrow window. One technology from gunpowder you'll find rifling, which renders muskets obsolete.

So under what circumstances would musketeers be a wise building choice?

If you're already pressing an attack, turning a few Macemen into musketeers would allow for quicker advances. As you mention, pillaging would be quicker and easier - but 2 mov doesn't equal the terrain negation of earlier UU's like the Keshik, it's effectively the same as mounted meaning for 10 shields more you could still build a knight and have a slightly more powerful unit that is also immune to first strikes.

If you're in the midst of defending against a maceman rush, the musketeer would be a good choice to upgrade to or rush out.

Other than those two situations, Musketeers are just not a great unit. Riflemen and Grenadiers are poised to become the units of choice almost immediately on the heels of Musketeers, and I believe you'll find most players don't bother building Musketmen anyway as by the time they've left the assembly line Riflemen are available.

For my money, Musketmen and Musketeers are not units that enable any kind of military action; they are stopgap units that fill a very brief period of time before the onset of the age of cavalry, riflemen, grenadiers, and cannon. That is why most players find the UU underwhelming.

In my opinion, a few of the UU's need a look, starting with Napoleon's. Letting the current bonuses of this unit modify Riflemen would be a great choice, or changing the unit to Foreign Legion, basing it off of infantry, and adding either Commando or Guerilla 2 and Woodsman 2 would be a great change.

[tijuanacowboy]

Originally posted by Spiderjeru
Musketeers, then, are truly only useful in a very narrow window. One technology from gunpowder you'll find rifling, which renders muskets obsolete.

Not necessarily. Replaceable Parts is a huge tech (60% more expensive than Gunpowder) not to mention you can totally miss it's prereqs if you beeline for Gunpowder. I found that out the hard way in one game where I was getting demolished in techs, my military power was lacking, so I ran to Gunpowder, was hoping to jump right to rifiling and forgot about Banking, Printing Press & Replaceable Parts.

EDIT: But I agree with what you're saying, they're just not much better than Muskets, and they don't last as long as some other UUs. They have their uses, they're just really specialized.

[Shaka II]

The regular musketeer has limited use, since chemistry is often the next tech advance researched after gunpowder. Also, the musketman down't upgrade to greneadier, only to rifleman, so there's a long wait. I usually build knights in that era, which have good strength even against grenadiers. And then there is the catapult, which has a shelf life lasting to steel.

The musketeer with a movement of two does have some shelf life, especially if there is a war going on or about to be. That defense bonus is key in enemy territory like Couerdelion says and the ability to move as fast as knights is nice, to pillage if need be.

Things could be a lot worse, like getting the marine UU, when you play your games to be over before the modern era. But Washington is overpowered anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

[Generaldoktor]

The thread subject also deals with Napoleon's characteristics, Aggressive/Industrious. I have had some success with those and have not read the other thread alluded to here that supposedly dismisses this combination.

I like Wonders and some are military-oriented. But you also get cheap forges and with aggressive, cheap barracks. I don' t think you can sit around with a peaceful stance all game playing Nappy Boney, that is kind of a waste.

RE: Musketeers. Is anybody complaining about Cho-Ko-Nu, the Chinese crossbow UU? How many centuries do you get out of that? Or those silly skirmishers or Jaguars where you have to rush in caveman days to get any utility out of them?

I guess this boils down to MP versus SP strategies again. The AI doesn't always rush to gunpowder, except for Genghis and maybe Peter, on a good day. This could be because they don't want heavy upgrade expense while seeking other tech. If they do rush to gunpowder, they're usually broke and can't upgrade most of their army right away.

Athos/Porthos, et al; are seminal GUNPOWDER units; they have a significant advantage over spearchuckers until significant numbers of grenadiers appear. I have to believe, based in combats I have been in, this applies to knights. (My blue commandos usually win, unless the knights get a charge in first; try taking some "no first strike" promotions with D'Artagnan, using barracks/theocracy to even the field and use the extra movement to pick your defensive approach terrain.)

In general, I think the movement helps also and with this, they make great pillagers for years after their front-line effectiveness is diminished by rifles. I think the person who pointed out the struggle to get Replacable Parts was right on the mark too. I've had to backtrack for it myself and traded it to AI's years afterwards, admittedly on Noble or below, as they seem to find it a pain too, especially when going for mid-game wonders like Statue of Liberty, and the bonus GP from Liberalism and Physics. Rifles do not come all that easy, unless you and the dumb AI somehow get fanatic about having them.

I'm also thinking about modding my game to make Steel a prereq for Gunpowder, only because cannons came in and were more effective long before Muskets/Arquebus. (The Turks blew away Constantinople with them in 1453.) Frigates should be moved out of chemistry and somewhere else, maybe Astronomy with the galleons, with Steel as a prereq for both, if we assume cannons need steel. I think steel is misnamed also, at least where it is on the tech tree. Steel technology was necessary for the fine swords of Spain and Japan, long before cannon were practical.

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
I think steel is misnamed also, at least where it is on the tech tree. Steel technology was necessary for the fine swords of Spain and Japan, long before cannon were practical.

I think this is referring to the Bessimer/Blast Furnice method of steel production, which allowed steel to be manufactured in multi-ton batches--enough for making really large steel objects. Before that, individual blacksmiths had to make steel a few kilograms at a time.

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.

[couerdelion]

What confuses me a little is that people are looking too much from the perspective of the musketeer as attacking battle winner then stating correctly that their window of use is small. I could not agree more with this statement. As an attacking unit, I’d argue that their era of dominance lasts approximately 0 years. With the exception of “stack-busting”, there is always a better attacking unit around. The most powerful UU in the game is, IMO, India’s fast worker which has no combat use.

The point of my post was to suggest a way in which the musketeer becomes a valuable addition to the forces. I am not suggesting that it should become the bulk of any army in the way that Praets, Samurai might be. Rather it adds diversity.

Get a small stack of musketeers with varying promotions and you can create problems behind enemy lines in a strong defender. Better that such skirmishers are killed than your city raiders and these skirmishers still take some killing. So not only are you threatening key resources and enemy production but you are also weakening the ability of the AI to defend against the real threat.

I used this in a recent game when fighting Peter. Although I had a strong tech lead, Peter still had Cats and Elephants that could cause some damage to my stacks and slow things down a bit. Fortunately, his one source of horses was just outside his borders at the start of the war so a small landing of troops on the square ensured that he never managed to build any knights. Back in the main battle area, my stack of musketeers first managed to coax about four or five units to attack it around St Petersburg. The only result here was the loss to Peter of three catapults and a war elephant. Later while moving on Moscow, the Musketeers could spy on the city and noticed a large stack in a nearby small coastal city. They were able to cut the road link from the stack to the capital and also destroy production sources for the loss of just two musketeers (perhaps 3/4 Russians units were killed) but the key thing was keeping that stack from relieving Moscow which would have been a tough nut to crack with an extra 8+ defenders

That reminds me. Another use of the Musketeers is as scouts behind enemy lines.

[Generaldoktor]

Now that I ponder this further, especially in light of game experience, I see Coeur is right in his last comment above, about the Musketeer as a useful auxiliary, rather than front-line batterer. I do think, just because it is a seminal gunpowder unit, that there is a small window where it might be a front-line performer, maybe more than 0 years.

I also notice, looking for the first time at that pretty chart I got with my deluxe, that "no first strike" promotions are not possible with gunpowder footsloggers, as they don't get "flanking." However, if they get enough "Drill," (admittedly Drill IV, difficult) or "Formation" (easier,) it would appear that they would still give Sir Lancelot a run for his money, besides terrain bonuses, if they are deployed carefully. (I still can't load this game with Internet options on, which is why I occasionally make conceptual errors. )

And I stand corrected about the difference between mass steel production and artisan steel production, thank you Ijuin; you are a true Japanese "Warlord!"

I still think cannons should predate small arms as effective gunpowder weapons, reinforced by some reading I did last night. They developed together, but the early arquebus would bounce off plate at range well into the 17th century, (hence the retention of breastplates in that period,) whereas cannon, as in my example of the Turks at Constantinople, were raking them in (down) from the early 15th on.

I also still find it silly that you could have shipboard cannon on frigates and galleons (via earlier acquisition in the game of chemistry and astronomy, or optics for caravels, for that matter,) than you would land cannon (requiring, in-game, "steel,") when in real life, the land cannon developed earlier. The ships should have the cannon advance (steel or whatever) as a prereq, regardless if you take astronomy/chemistry/optics otherwise first. But I suppose this is a little off-topic.

[Fallenhero]

I think it was Nathan Bedford Forrest who summed up the key to all battle strategies "Git there first with the most". This is what the musketeer can do.

It won't make assaulting the city any easier but it will cut off enemy reinforcements that would make your job tougher.

On the higher levels a campaign is often limited to 4 maybe 5 cities. With the musketeer to interdict you can limit the enemies production to longbows (in the area) which you can over come by pumping out more cats. You essentially bite out a chunk of the enemies empire and then chew it up with your other troops with little or no interuptions from the enemy.

True, Praetorians have a far greater game impact but it's fun to get the most of more challenging set up.

[Spiderjeru]

Well, I understand that in an early rush for gunpowder it may be a while waiting for chemistry or rifling to catch up. In that case, more power to the musketeer.

Personally I don't tend to focus that hard, so as with any opinion on these boards, mileage may vary.

My point, ultimately, is this. For 160 shields, I can build 2 musketmen/musketeers. For 160 shields, I can build a Maceman and a Knight. It is my *opinion* that both in the short and long term, the Maceman and the Knight are a better team - a slower team, if there are pikemen around and I need the macemen to cover, but a better one at almost any application to which I might apply them. The upkeep on two musketeers and two knights is the same.

As I see it the chief advantages of a musketeer detachment are the lack of trump units and the speed. I'm not saying those are useless, I'm saying that they don't really make the UU shine. There are a lot of UU's in this category.

Generaldoktor pointed this out, but I would make something of a rebuttal on his choices. The Cho-Ko-Nu is a phenomenal unit when built as the culmination of a Chinese CS slingshot - followed by a push to machinery.

Cho Ko Nu: 6 str / 1 mov / 2 first strikes, causes collateral damage, 50% vs. melee
Crossbowman: 6 str / 1 mov / 1 first strike,50% versus melee

Chos are monster units. Effective strength of 9 versus its raiding contemporaries the Macemen - who should never, ever win against a Cho. Considering that Macemen and Longbowmen are the units of the day, the Cho completely outclasses one and runs well with the other while causing collateral damage to a stack. They may not have a huge window of use - but during that window, they're a really amazing unit. Don't believe me, play China and build a few. Like, a few dozen.

Mali is one of my favorite civs, and I think Skirmishers are pretty damn useful. They get an extra point of strength and a half first strike at a time when that is very likely to make the difference in battle. They can repel an Axeman rush or barb invasion with much fewer numbers than a regular archer team, and at the time when small savings mean the most.

The Jaguar...alright, you're right. The Jaguar sucks. He should get that point of strength back and be given auto Woodsman 2, imho.