Uses for Musketeers – Napoleon’s commandos

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Gherald
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.

Yeah, there often is one pikeman in a city; still, if the AI has 1 pikemen and 4 macemen, you're better off attacking with all knights (and catapults, obv) then you would be attacking with all macemen, even if you're aggressive. You lose a knight or two on the pikeman, but after that, you clean up.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor


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 wasn't even thinking of that aspect, although it's also important. I was thinking about things like reinforcement speed - a 2 move unit is going to be able to reach the front faster. Or having a 'flying company', which I usually use for defense - able to move to cities being threatened in a single turn instead of taking 2. Or having the ability to attack from one of your cities, take out a pillager, and then retreat to the city, instead of being stuck, wounded, out in the open.

None of those things you are going to get if you don't have horses or Musketeers in the early game. I consider them all invaluable, which is why I certainly would make a lot of Musketeers if I found myself without horses.

Bh

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Bhruic


I wasn't even thinking of that aspect, although it's also important. I was thinking about things like reinforcement speed - a 2 move unit is going to be able to reach the front faster. Or having a 'flying company', which I usually use for defense - able to move to cities being threatened in a single turn instead of taking 2. Or having the ability to attack from one of your cities, take out a pillager, and then retreat to the city, instead of being stuck, wounded, out in the open.

None of those things you are going to get if you don't have horses or Musketeers in the early game. I consider them all invaluable, which is why I certainly would make a lot of Musketeers if I found myself without horses.

Bh

All true!

[Hermann the Lombard]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor They were common throughout the world except in the post-Paleolithic Americas, which was a biological fluke;

Not so common as that. No horses in Africa south of the Sahara, nor in Australia...but ubiquitous in Eurasia south of the arctic.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Hermann the Lombard

Not so common as that. No horses in Africa south of the Sahara, nor in Australia...but ubiquitous in Eurasia south of the arctic.

Ah, okay, Mali had to do without them, in real life. And I sometimes forget Australia is part of this planet. I still think they are a little too rarefied in Civ4. But now that I've figured out "World Builder," I guess I can cheat out of that, at least in SP.

[Yosho]

In real life, horses were most likely domesticated only once, and all modern horses are decendents from that one domestication, so almost everyone "Started out" without horses. They just spread through most of Eurasia by the dawn of written history.

[pchang]

In Civ4, the best reconnaisance unit is the missionary who can convert a foreign city to your religion.

[Generaldoktor]

Presumably true, if you are not fighting the party you are trying to reconniter. In a war situation, the unarmed missionary is simply gobbled up by the nearest enemy. Barbs eat them for breakfast too. I am also finding that if the city is far away and covered by fog of war, even after conversion, you have to get someone within visibility to see in, even if once you do it is permitted due to the shared religion.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
Presumably true, if you are not fighting the party you are trying to reconniter. In a war situation, the unarmed missionary is simply gobbled up by the nearest enemy. Barbs eat them for breakfast too. I am also finding that if the city is far away and covered by fog of war, even after conversion, you have to get someone within visibility to see in, even if once you do it is permitted due to the shared religion.

No, that doens't seem to be true...

If I have a shrine to hinduism, and that's also my state religion, if a city on the other side of the world converts to hinduism I instantly can see it and have contact with that empire.

[Generaldoktor]

The game I'm finishing is one I started a month ago, (as Napoleon, I've cited it before in this thread.) Peter has converted to Hinduism, which I founded; and partially because it spread naturally (without my missionary help) through a lot of his empire early on anyway. (The AI didn't find it important, as Peter, to have his own religion.)

His empire extends well into the southern hemisphere from me on a continents map with two big continents and a fair amount of water. I can see into two border cities where my units are right on the border. There is no true fog of war, I can see the rest of his cities, just not what's in them. I moved a fleet near Moscow, as sort of an intimidation thing and also to keep an eye on Montezuma further south. I can see into Moscow, when the fleet, or its accompanying submarines are there, but not if I move them away.

I seem to remember, as you say, games where I could see in from clear across the map. I don't know if it blacked out because Peter had additional religions establish in those cities or what. I will check other stored games and try to figure out what's going on.

[Gherald]

Originally posted by Yosho
If I have a shrine to hinduism, and that's also my state religion, if a city on the other side of the world converts to hinduism I instantly can see it and have contact with that empire.

Actually, having the shrine is irrelevant.

[Generaldoktor]

Could it be that you have to have open borders, plus shared religion, to see units in cities? In the game cited above, Peter revoked open borders after originally extending them. I can now not see units in his cities without my units in line of sight, though I can see the city and terrain themselves.

[Bhruic]

All you need is to have founded the religion (or have taken the founding city over), and to have the religion as your state religion. You will then see all cities that have that religion.

Bh

[cynyck]

Could it be that you have to have open borders, plus shared religion, to see units in cities? In the game cited above, Peter revoked open borders after originally extending them. I can now not see units in his cities without my units in line of sight, though I can see the city and terrain themselves.

No, Yosho is absolutely correct. If you establish a religion, build a shrine in the holy city, and spread it, you can then make that religion your state religion and you will be able to "see" all cities around the world that have that religion established in them. You can also then hover your cursor over those cities and "see" what units are inside them.

It has been a while since I did this, so I cannot remember if you can "see" the units in these cities even when you are at war with the civ in question.

[cynyck]

All you need is to have founded the religion (or have taken the founding city over), and to have the religion as your state religion. You will then see all cities that have that religion.

O.K. I loaded an old save. Bhruic is correct. So is Gherald. You do not need the shrine.