Musket Man/ Pikeman combo

White Pine · April 20, 2002, 23:09

"The matchlock musket and pike were virtually the only armaments of infantry (in Europe) from about 1550 to 1675," Encyclopaedia Britannica, War, Technology of. The musket would do the damage, while the pike kept opposing melee troops at bay during the long reloading periods.
This historical combination could easily be replicated in Civ3 by having a pikeman with a high defensive value (as it does) and a musket man with a high attack value. Unfortuanately, the Civ3 musket man has an attack value of 2. What's up with that?

Wittlich · April 20, 2002, 23:31

Well, you can always change the setting in the editor...

Zachriel · April 21, 2002, 00:03

Quote:

Originally posted by White Pine
"The matchlock musket and pike were virtually the only armaments of infantry (in Europe) from about 1550 to 1675," Encyclopaedia Britannica, War, Technology of. The musket would do the damage, while the pike kept opposing melee troops at bay during the long reloading periods.

This historical combination could easily be replicated in Civ3 by having a pikeman with a high defensive value (as it does) and a musket man with a high attack value. Unfortuanately, the Civ3 musket man has an attack value of 2. What's up with that?

Gundpowder units are very poor on offense. Battles of the period still tended to be decided by "push of the pike."

BRITANNICA
The first firearms were primitive devices lacking both buttstock and trigger; hence, they had to be held under the arm and could scarcely be aimed. It was only during the second half of the 15th century that the harquebus, which incorporated both of these features, made its appearance. This was a great improvement, but the harquebus still suffered from a low rate of fire as well as inaccuracy and unreliability. In order to compensate for these disadvantages and build staying power, 16th-century units such as the famous Spanish tercio were made up of pikemen surrounded by “sleeves” of harquebusiers on each corner. Much like the light armed troops of antiquity and the crossbowmen who accompanied the Swiss Haufen, harquebusiers would open the action and then retreat behind the pikemen as the latter came to close quarters with the enemy. Hence, 16th- and early 17th-century battles still tended to be decided by “push of pike,” as the saying went.

ixnay · April 21, 2002, 00:34

The AI setting for musketmen has apparently had "offensive" added to it now. While I was playing today, I did in fact witness the AI using it to go after longbowmen and other low-defense units.

Zachriel · April 21, 2002, 08:46

Quote:

Originally posted by ixnay37
The AI setting for musketmen has apparently had "offensive" added to it now. While I was playing today, I did in fact witness the AI using it to go after longbowmen and other low-defense units.

Cool. Very cool.

player1 · April 21, 2002, 09:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Cool. Very cool.

Musketeer (french), not musketmen.

Venger · April 21, 2002, 10:06

It depends on what type of unit you think the musketeer represents.

If you think it represents harquebusiers, then you can likely buy into the ridiculous 2 attack rating. If it represents the 33rd Regiment of Foot, it's ridiculous. I tend to think of the musketeer as the mid 18th century type - which would need a far higher attack rating, as with bayonet and sword, were far superior to any bladed units.

Adding a harquebusier unit may be a good thing to represent the very early gunpowder units.

Venger

Zachriel · April 21, 2002, 10:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger
It depends on what type of unit you think the musketeer represents.

If you think it represents harquebusiers, then you can likely buy into the ridiculous 2 attack rating. If it represents the 33rd Regiment of Foot, it's ridiculous. I tend to think of the musketeer as the mid 18th century type - which would need a far higher attack rating, as with bayonet and sword, were far superior to any bladed units.

Adding a harquebusier unit may be a good thing to represent the very early gunpowder units.

Venger

I was responding to the pikeman/musket question of the 16th-17th century. Generally, in the game, the latter day musket units would be facing other similar musket units, so they would still be better on defense than offense.

Of course, if an advanced musket did meet a primitive version, the situation would be significantly different, but the gamemakers chose this model as a good average value for most situations. Gunpowder units are generally better on defense than offense.

Keep in mind that it is still just a game. It would take many more units to accurately represent all the possible combat situations.

White Pine · April 21, 2002, 15:21

Many thanks to Zachriel, Venger, et al for your edifying contributions. The following is from Pike and harquebus, War the theory and conduct of, Encyclopaedia Britannica, "After firing at the word of command, each (harquebus) rank withdrew to the rear to reload and gradually moved forward by successive volleys until its turn came again. It was the function of the pikes to protect the harquebusiers while reloading. When the enemy's ranks were broken by firepower, the pikemen evolved from square to line and advanced, shoulder to shoulder, in a massive charge calculated to sweep the field."
It seems that what is going on here is more complicated than a Civ3 battle could simulate. First, the guns break the moral and discipline of the foes while the pike defends. Then the pike sweeps the foes from the field. Shogun: Total War, which has a superlative battlefield system, does a good job of simulating how pike (actually short spear) and musket perform well together.
The take home message is that there should be a way for Civ3 to encorage using the Pikeman and Musket Man in combination. The most realistic way would be to have the musket cause its foes to flee from battle, but moral is not part of the Civ3 system. Increasing the Musket man's attack rating and lowering his defense rating seems like a workable compromise. A 4-2-1 musket man and a 1-3-1 pikeman would work well together. Suggestions, comments and criticisms are welcome.

Random Passerby · April 21, 2002, 16:06

Actually, I think the best way would be to give musketmen (and similar ranged units) limited bombardment capacity. I'm pretty sure it's possible to give a unit defensive only bombardment (so that you couldn't have musketmen blowing up libraries and such), though if you wanted to you could even give them limited offensive bombardment (this would probably need to go along with a pretty hefty overhaul of the general combat mechanics, possibly increasing the general movement rate and base bombard range and power for siege/artillery units, the end result being that each space would represent a smaller amount of territory than it presently does. It would still be a stretch to represent this sort of tactical detail on a tile-by-tile basis, but it would be a start and most importantly, it's doable).

Anyway, long story short: Muskets can take bits out of the enemy forces but would be awful at taking territory on their own, while still being more mobile and more capable of self-defense than traditional bombard power (catapults, any later siege engines such as trebuchet you might add, etc.)

Venger · April 21, 2002, 16:22

I had thought about giving ranged units (bowmen, gunpowder) the ability to bombard, but it appears that you cannot give this ability without giving them the ability to bombard buildings/rail/etc. Using musketeers to bombard, lethally, would be the best way to use ranged units - able to deliver a blow at range with no risk to themselves. They would still be subject to close quarters combat as well.

If only you could give units ranged attack without the destructive tendencies of the current bombardment rule...

Venger

Cyclotron · April 21, 2002, 20:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger
I tend to think of the musketeer as the mid 18th century type - which would need a far higher attack rating, as with bayonet and sword, were far superior to any bladed units.Venger

Hmmm... you think of a unit aquired near the beginning of the mideival age as its 18th century counterpart? That's like me justifying modern armor losing to riflemen on a regular basis because it's "approximately" like its world war 1 counterpart. Only, in that case I'm only 80 years off, and you're about 300.

Captain · April 21, 2002, 21:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger
I had thought about giving ranged units (bowmen, gunpowder) the ability to bombard, but it appears that you cannot give this ability without giving them the ability to bombard buildings/rail/etc. Using musketeers to bombard, lethally, would be the best way to use ranged units - able to deliver a blow at range with no risk to themselves. They would still be subject to close quarters combat as well.

If only you could give units ranged attack without the destructive tendencies of the current bombardment rule...

Venger

But you can! ...well, sort of. give the unit bombardment, but then set the range to Zero. Tada! You can't really bombard with it (and thus improvements are safe) so I up the attack values instead. But if you are attacked, it's like a defensive volley. High bombard and ROF, but low defense value of 1. Thus when the enemy closes on the musketeer (or archer) after the initial defending volleys, they're toast unless stacked with pikemen. Not perfect, but closer to what you guys were aiming for, right?

I can't take credit for the idea though, someone else came up with it. I wish I could remember his name because it was pretty ingenious and he deserves credit.

I've been using it with my archers and longbow, and it's pretty good! The AI manages to handle it well too!

Zachriel · April 22, 2002, 07:50

Quote:

Originally posted by White Pine
Many thanks to Zachriel, Venger, et al for your edifying contributions. The following is from Pike and harquebus, War the theory and conduct of, Encyclopaedia Britannica, "After firing at the word of command, each (harquebus) rank withdrew to the rear to reload and gradually moved forward by successive volleys until its turn came again. It was the function of the pikes to protect the harquebusiers while reloading. When the enemy's ranks were broken by firepower, the pikemen evolved from square to line and advanced, shoulder to shoulder, in a massive charge calculated to sweep the field."

I wonder why our Britannicas have quite different descriptions. Which version are you using?

In any case, and using your information, it appears that bombard would be the best simulation as the harquebus do not destroy the enemy, but reduces it. It requires the standard "push of the pike" to finish the battle. Indeed, according to my source, the harquebus was shortly thereafter replaced with cannon, pike, cavalry (sword) combination.

Bombard, not increased attack strength. IMHO.

Grumbold · April 22, 2002, 09:46

The best way would be to have a proper army formation where combined arms could be used, but the zero range bombardment is an ingenious Civ 3 answer. It doesn't allow two hackbut formations to bang away at each other until one perceives it has sufficient advantage to charge but its a good way of representing the defensive volley.