Uses for Musketeers – Napoleon’s commandos

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by 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.

Culture provides more than some defense. If you have high culture plus walls, you get whichever is highest. The gunpowder exclusion from walls evidently doesn't apply to culture. So big cultural cities would be as big an obstacle to musketmen/musketeers as they would to melee or missle troops. I can see what you're saying about some cities being small with little culture, but those often get bypassed in an offensive anyway. I also like the idea put out of using them for raids/pillage.

In general, as my comments early in the thread indicate, I like the musketeers; and with Napoleon. But I don't know that as a walls' countermeasure is sufficient reason to produce a lot of them.

[Charles_Bronson]

Musketeers are nice for city taking, if you are agressive on the end of medieval era (with everybody going to archers). The only problem are the knights. Use a few pikemen too. And don´t forget to bring some siege...

If you beeline to GunPowder, musketman can last a lot.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by dalessi12
Well, walls are +50% defense bonus, so a city with 50% defense and walls, would have a 0% shield (not 20%) vs. musketeers.

Only if the city has no culture at all. If a city would normally have a 20% defense due to culture, and with walls it has 50%, then muskets ignore the walls but still have to deal with the 20% cultural bonus.

They don't add; you go with whichever one is higher. So in a city with 60% culture, walls do nothing at all, but a castle still helps.

[Bhruic]

Of course, Musketeers are incredibly useful if you happen to get stuck in a game without horses. Which can happen more often than one would like.

Bh

[Gherald]

Originally posted by Bhruic
Of course, Musketeers are incredibly useful if you happen to get stuck in a game without horses. Which can happen more often than one would like.

Since when are horses incredibly useful for an agg civ like Napoleon?

[Bhruic]

Because at that stage of the game your main attackers are likely to be Knights. And you won't be able to make Knights without horses. That leaves you with Macemen and Elephants as your main attackers, neither of which is as good as Musketeers.

Bh

[Gherald]

Originally posted by Bhruic
Because at that stage of the game your main attackers are likely to be Knights. And you won't be able to make Knights without horses. That leaves you with Macemen and Elephants as your main attackers, neither of which is as good as Musketeers.

Elephants are even rarer than horses. I was not saying that Maces were as good as Musketeers. But for an Agg civ, they are as good as Knights, especially with a few pikes thrown in the mix.

Remember, Knights don't get defensive bonuses, so Macemen can easily overwhelm them if those knights are just defending a city, especially with pike protection from sorties.

UUs aside, horses never have been and never will be particularly important to any Agg civ with the right metal or guns. Some can be helpful, I'm not denying that, but you said "incredibly useful" which is overstating things by a long shot.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Gherald

Elephants are even rarer than horses. I was not saying that Maces were as good as Musketeers. But for an Agg civ, they are as good as Knights, especially with a few pikes thrown in the mix.

Remember, Knights don't get defensive bonuses, so Macemen can easily overwhelm them if those knights are just defending a city, especially with pike protection from sorties.

UUs aside, horses never have been and never will be particularly important to any Agg civ with the right metal or guns. Some can be helpful, I'm not denying that, but you said "incredibly useful" which is overstating things by a long shot.

Even with the agg bonus, a knight is still much stronger then a macemen when attacking (10 vs. 8.8). Even agg civs can get a lot of use out of mounted units at certain points in the game.

If I have knights and macemen defending a city, and you have macemen and pikes attacking, you're going to have a very hard time getting anywhere; a maceman attacking into a knight dies without doing much damage, as does a pikeman attacking into a maceman.

[Gherald]

Originally posted by Yosho
Even with the agg bonus, a knight is still much stronger then a macemen when attacking (10 vs. 8.8). Even agg civs can get a lot of use out of mounted units at certain points in the game.

No, because there can easily be pikes defending. A knight is a bit stronger against cities when there are no pikes, but then it becomes weaker.

If I have knights and macemen defending a city, and you have macemen and pikes attacking, you're going to have a very hard time getting anywhere; a maceman attacking into a knight dies without doing much damage, as does a pikeman attacking into a maceman.

Cities are more likely to be defended by macemen and pikes than by knights and macemen. Even a spearman in a city is usually stronger than an offensive non-shock knight.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Gherald

Elephants are even rarer than horses. I was not saying that Maces were as good as Musketeers. But for an Agg civ, they are as good as Knights, especially with a few pikes thrown in the mix.

Remember, Knights don't get defensive bonuses, so Macemen can easily overwhelm them if those knights are just defending a city, especially with pike protection from sorties.

UUs aside, horses never have been and never will be particularly important to any Agg civ with the right metal or guns. Some can be helpful, I'm not denying that, but you said "incredibly useful" which is overstating things by a long shot.

Combined arms are the name of the game in Civ4, whether or not you have knights (or musketeers, we are staying on topic, right?) I like horses early and often for their mobility and like musketeers for the same reason, as a supplement to the mounted, with gunpowder, before Military Tradition, or as a substitute in those games that I find all too frequent in Civ4, where there are no horses available anytime. (I authored a thread last winter, which may not still be up in strategy, No horses or coal, ever!. We got a pretty good consensus there that horses frequently end up scarcer in the game than in Civ3, or real life.)

Knights on cities is not the way to go, though sometimes by penetrating far to the rear you can take a weak one by storm and hold till relieved. (Like paratroopers later and I miss them a lot in Civ4.) But you can disrupt resources and defeat field sorties a lot with knights too. I find them and horse archers before them, indispensable to my war strategy and for reconaissance. Musketeers for a time, are a satisfactory substitute.

[Gherald]

though sometimes by penetrating far to the rear you can take a weak one by storm and hold till relieved

Weak cities are usually not worth holding.

[Generaldoktor]

Depends on the location. If you're planning on taking over the whole empire anyway and it's a strategic location for doing that; you can save a settler by holding it. Ditto if key resources are nearby. "Weak" just means it was founded recently.

[Gherald]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
Depends on the location. If you're planning on taking over the whole empire anyway and it's a strategic location for doing that; you can save a settler by holding it. Ditto if key resources are nearby. "Weak" just means it was founded recently.

It's just going to be a drain on your economy for the next 20-30 turns.

The only way I can see capturing such a city is as an Org with a huge cash surplus. Otherwise you are much better off building a settler later and commiting your military elsewhere - such as on the front lines.

Regardless, it's most definitely not an "incredibly important" use for knights.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by Gherald

UUs aside, horses never have been and never will be particularly important to any Agg civ with the right metal or guns. Some can be helpful, I'm not denying that, but you said "incredibly useful" which is overstating things by a long shot.

UUs aside, if you don't have horses, you aren't going to have a single 2 move unit in the early game. If that's the case, then having a UU that does give you 2 moves is going to be "incredibly useful".

Bh

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Bhruic


UUs aside, if you don't have horses, you aren't going to have a single 2 move unit in the early game. If that's the case, then having a UU that does give you 2 moves is going to be "incredibly useful".

Bh

I don't think we're going to convince him. The whole idea of "shock warfare" from Attila through Rommel is fast troops disrupting the enemy rear; and in Civ, the reconnaissance element is important also, early on. I finally figured out the "World Builder" and I'm thinking, though I don't like cheats, of dropping horses in on me in the future, if I don't otherwise see them; particularly if playing with a horse UU. They were common throughout the world except in the post-Paleolithic Americas, which was a biological fluke; and I personally find them indispensable. Civ4 makes them a little too rarified.

To stay on topic, let me say again, Musketeers are a good substitute. This horse talk really is non-topical.