There is something seriously wrong with this game...

[Mace]

Originally posted by joncnunn
5/5/1 would be way to high an attack factor for Lined Inf.

3/5/1 would be more like it.

Well in my mod they are 4/5/1.

The game is missing something, Midieval Inf. (sic) need something to upgrade to before a Guerilla, and it really needs to have at least the same attack factor as the unit it replaces...

I don't think it's correct for civs to be running around with LB and MI in the immediate pre-industrial period.

I'm curious why you think a 4/5/1 unit is too powerful for that stage of the game. After all, as you know, Crusaders (which aren't even a gunpowder unit) are 5/3/1. And longbowmen, available to all, are 4/1/1...

And cav have 3 moves and 6 attack. So what's so unbalancing about a 1 move unit with 4 or 5 attack during that time period?

So I'm curious as to why you think a gunpowder unit--nay--a gunpowder unit armed with a later flintlock ball musket, should not be better on the attack than a crusader or longbowman?

[joncnunn]

I was under the impression that this Lined Inf was an intermediate step between Muskets and Riflemen. And as such a 5 attack factor than the next it goes to. (4/6/1)

Never mind, 4/5/1 makes sense for your Lined Inf athough you do seem to have a MusketMen problem, which isn't all that popular anyway.

[Melboz99]

I'm still confused to this, why is a rifleman defensive?

I've always believed wars like the American Civil War, WWI and WWII were fought primarily with rifemen.

Wasn't the invention of the rifle what changed the course of the Civil war?

If the rifleman was what was used as both attack and defense in those wars, why isn't the rifleman good at both in Civ III?

Furthermore, since when was the Gureilla used by nations such as America, UK, France, Germany, or any other democratic state?

I've always thought that the Gurellia was more of a renagade type of military, such as that in Guatemalla, or the Congo.


Dan O.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Melboz99
I'm still confused to this, why is a rifleman defensive?

I've always believed wars like the American Civil War, WWI and WWII were fought primarily with rifemen.

Wasn't the invention of the rifle what changed the course of the Civil war?

They were offensive too. But they had very high losses if moving without support. That is why WWI was in a standstill for a long time, and it had late Riflemen as foot units. If you add Cavalry, and Cannons, you will have much better results.

Originally posted by Melboz99
If the rifleman was what was used as both attack and defense in those wars, why isn't the rifleman good at both in Civ III?

He is. He can kill most units, except other Riflemen and stronger.

Originally posted by Melboz99
Furthermore, since when was the Gureilla used by nations such as America, UK, France, Germany, or any other democratic state?

Since they exist, I suppose. Certainly for the last 50 years, although never openly.

Originally posted by Melboz99
I've always thought that the Gurellia was more of a renagade type of military, such as that in Guatemalla, or the Congo.

Yes, they are. Paid by some rich nation, who has vital interest in a guerilla operating in this specific place. Or what do you think does the CIA do, Christmas decoration?

[Mace]

Originally posted by Melboz99
I'm still confused to this, why is a rifleman defensive?

I've always believed wars like the American Civil War, WWI and WWII were fought primarily with rifemen.

Wasn't the invention of the rifle what changed the course of the Civil war?

If the rifleman was what was used as both attack and defense in those wars, why isn't the rifleman good at both in Civ III?

I'd argue that Cavalry were the most effective attacking force during the American Civil War, and that riflemen were not. In WW1, before the first crude tanks appeared, was also a bloodbath.

I think they made the Rifleman stronger on defense because that mirrors history. The American Civil War saw unbelievable losses when riflemen were charging other riflemen.

I think Riflemen should be primarily defensive. Same with Infantry. So I kind of agree with what Firaxis did there.

My opinion (or is it a fact?) is that cavalry were the most effective attackers until the invention of the machine gun (i.e. infantry) troops. Then for a while defenders had the advantage...until tanks and mobile warfare...

[Mace]

Originally posted by joncnunn
I was under the impression that this Lined Inf was an intermediate step between Muskets and Riflemen. And as such a 5 attack factor than the next it goes to. (4/6/1)

Never mind, 4/5/1 makes sense for your Lined Inf athough you do seem to have a MusketMen problem, which isn't all that popular anyway.

I shouldn't be talking about my mod here, as it is a major threadjack, but hey:

What is this "Musketman Problem" you refer to?

The key is this: I have read a lot about it, and it appears that Pikemen were used for some time for defensive purposes, even after gunpowder was well established.

It wasn't until the bayonet (1690) that pikemen finally disappeared. That corresponds with flintlock armed musketmen. Matchlock-armed Arquebusiers (earlier gun armed units) were poor on defense, I argue, because they had to have PIKEMEN to defend them. That's documented, so that's what I go with.

I am still tinkering with it. I'm thinking:

Pikemen (1/3/1)---> Musketman (3?/4/1) ---> Line Inf (4?/5?/1) ----> Rifle (5?/6/1)

Mid Inf. (4/2/1) ---> Arquebusier (4/2/1) ---> Musketmen (4/4/1) ----> Line Inf (4/5/1) ---> Rifle (5/6/1)

Lonbowmen (4/1/1) ---> Arq (4/2/1) etc. etc.

But I'm not sure about that. I don't like the fact that there's not much incentive to upgrade a mid inf. to the arquebusier. The arq. is primarily an offensive unit in this scheme, which I feel mirrors historical fact.

**Anything that replaces pikemen MUST have a defense of 4 or more, else it won't replace pike as a defensive unit.

**Anything that replaces Mid. Inf MUST have an offensive value of at least 4, or else it won't replace Mid Inf or Longbowmen as an offensive unit.

**Mid Inf and LB should disappear shortly after gunpowder appears, if we want be fairly accurate.
Pikes should not.

[joncnunn]

Civil War Era Calvary attacking healthy fortified Civ War Era Inf were butchered, and in fact, were mostly used by both sides as Scouts & Dragoons after some spectualar buchering of mounted Calvary unit charging inf units.

Artillery was was the most effective units in the US Civil War. Without a bombardment, charging open fields was a good way to wind up dead.

Rifles weren't used by the majority of the forces during the Civil War, initally only sharp shooters had them, they increasingly used during the war as more were produced, but they went to the better shooters.

In WWI, both sides had much better developed defenses against artilerly bombardment. Orders given to charge even after an extensive artillerly bombadment was basically calling for mass sucide. The first crude tanks were very late in the war, traveled as slowly as the men could walk and in addition were more likely to suffer a mechnical breakdown all on its own than be taken out by enemy action. WWI also saw the first use of Improvised Explosive Devices [fore runners to Grenades]

Roughly around 1880, the Gatling Gun was invented, this was the first artillerly unit that had a very high defense factor. The machine Gun is based on the Gatling Gun, it's just small enough that a man can hold it on his own. The Gatling Gun was a more common apperance during WWI than the machine gun.

Even during WW II, full machine guns were only used by about 10% of the members of a given US inf squad in Europe. Another 40% would have semi-automatic rifles, and the rest plain rifles.
Part of the reason in addition to supply is how much a machine gun weighed.

Originally posted by Mace

I'd argue that Cavalry were the most effective attacking force during the American Civil War, and that riflemen were not. In WW1, before the first crude tanks appeared, was also a bloodbath.

I think they made the Rifleman stronger on defense because that mirrors history. The American Civil War saw unbelievable losses when riflemen were charging other riflemen.

I think Riflemen should be primarily defensive. Same with Infantry. So I kind of agree with what Firaxis did there.

My opinion (or is it a fact?) is that cavalry were the most effective attackers until the invention of the machine gun (i.e. infantry) troops. Then for a while defenders had the advantage...until tanks and mobile warfare...

[joncnunn]

In the Game, Musketmen are a very unpopular unit to build.
Many experenced players go so far (when not playing the Dutch) as to disconnect any Saltpeter that appeared with the discovery of Gunpowder so they can still build Pikes. They don't connect it to the empire until shortly before Military Tradition is discovered.

This is because a MusketMen costs about 2X as a Pike, but is only 33% stronger.

Originally posted by Mace

I shouldn't be talking about my mod here, as it is a major threadjack, but hey:

What is this "Musketman Problem" you refer to?

[gunkulator]

I try to go on a Pike-building spree right before Gunpowder. I'll spot upgrade a few Pikes on the border and use the rest of my cash to upgrade Trebuchets to Cannons. While the 60 shield Musketman is a bad deal, the 40 shield Cannon is not.

And yes, the Swiss Mercenary is the best bargain in the whole game - unless someone has found a way to capitalize on the Enkidu Warrior.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by gunkulator
And yes, the Swiss Mercenary is the best bargain in the whole game

It all depends on the situation. In this case, I would count the civ traits more important. You can have enough Spears, and enough Gold to care little for the cheap upgrade/build cost.

Originally posted by gunkulator
unless someone has found a way to capitalize on the Enkidu Warrior.

Cheap pillaging, and defense if you can take the early GA. Just throw a pack of those into the enemy core, and watch him crumble without land improvements. Cheap defense against all barbs. Better suited for MP duty than Warriors, because of the more natural - defensive - upgrade path, and the ability to look strong for the AI. On lower difficulty levels, you can use those guys to create living walls of quite gigantic proportions, making a "chokepint" nearly everywhere.

[Mace]

Originally posted by joncnunn
In the Game, Musketmen are a very unpopular unit to build.
Many experenced players go so far (when not playing the Dutch) as to disconnect any Saltpeter that appeared with the discovery of Gunpowder so they can still build Pikes. They don't connect it to the empire until shortly before Military Tradition is discovered.

I have actually done this before, but i never knew it had an offcial name, "The Musketman Problem". heheh.

[Dis]

Originally posted by joncnunn
In the Game, Musketmen are a very unpopular unit to build.
Many experenced players go so far (when not playing the Dutch) as to disconnect any Saltpeter that appeared with the discovery of Gunpowder so they can still build Pikes. They don't connect it to the empire until shortly before Military Tradition is discovered.

This is because a MusketMen costs about 2X as a Pike, but is only 33% stronger.

I never build musketmen. Unless I'm in a war at the time (unlikely). I wait until rifleman come around.

[joncnunn]

The Enkidu Warrior is actually the most cost efficent defensive unit in the early game.
Costs only 5 shields per defenive point.
By comparison, the Greek Hoplite costs 6 1/3 shields per defensive point.
Normal spearmen costs 10 shields per defensive point.

Also the Sumerians are Agricultural & Scientific, which is a very good traight combo in the hands of a human.

The Dutch also have a great traight combo with Agriculture & Seafaring.

Originally posted by gunkulator

And yes, the Swiss Mercenary is the best bargain in the whole game - unless someone has found a way to capitalize on the Enkidu Warrior.

[joncnunn]

Well, it didn't have an offical name, but I've named it that and if it catches on it will become offical in the community until someone comes up with a better name for it.

Originally posted by Mace

I have actually done this before, but i never knew it had an offcial name, "The Musketman Problem". heheh.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by joncnunn
The Enkidu Warrior is actually the most cost efficent defensive unit in the early game.

The Impi? It can move and pillage all in one turn and then retreat if attacked. Not to mention you can get them into the AI's core faster. Also the only unit that can escort horsemen.

Costs only 5 shields per defenive point.
By comparison, the Greek Hoplite costs 6 1/3 shields per defensive point.
Normal spearmen costs 10 shields per defensive point.

True, however with with later UUs, the shield cost per point is not as big of an issue since a) you have more cities b) those cities are larger and c) the later GA has a more dramatic effect on city output. The bottom line is you can produce a lot of units per turn.

Still I'm now intrigued with the Enkidu Warrior plus the Sumerian's traits are good so I think I'll give them a shot.