What is the better musket

[The Fox]

Inspired by my last discussion, I am now asking what is the better musket for infantry to be armed with. This goes for all muskets, from the lowest one like the farmer, the Springfield 42 to advance ones like the The CSC Richmond, spring field 61 and 63. While playing union, thinking satisticly, accounting for military, economic, and supply factors I say, For me, the best to arm you troops with is the Enfield pattern 1853 musket for most, in not all, you troops, as it’s cheaper than the 55, has better stats two. It’s used many confederates ai in the early mid to late game, so you don’t have to worry about buying more, as you can capture the gun. The only others I would use would be the 61 or Harper fairy, both are the most accurate and cost effective for the game when you want accurately, very good for defence. the only reason they are not my primary is that they are more expensive and are not in greater number, for example for the union after Fredricksburg or around it, the h and f is no longer available in store, and confederates don’t have them in good number and why the 61 is rare itself until mid to late game. So I only arm with these guys for my defenders. This is my theroy, have a different opinion, or counter to my suggestion. Let me know, speak of what you think is good for your army.

[pandakraut]

This should be helpful for your analysis https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26142-hidden-mechanics-and-weapon-damage-degradation/

[The Fox]

Unfortunately it won’t let me look at the the data at the end but still helpful thanks

[pandakraut]

The attached files probably need a logged in account on that forum to access.

[The Fox]

True, either way this an open discussion, so agian if you have a opinion of what is the best musket to arm with, then post it. This from my experience as union army campaign. Some people may have different preference.

[pandakraut]

I basically don't buy weapons for infantry and just use whatever I can get from rep buys or captures. So I'm not going to be very helpful from a cost/benefit angle.

Better units get higher average damage at max distance weapons as I end up with stock of them, thus the above link for details. Otherwise it matters very little to me since they all have 300 range and perform well enough(even Muskets.) Repeaters aren't worth bothering with for infantry in my opinion.

Most of my focus is on snipers, artillery, and cavalry for damage and the infantry just provides a stopping block for the ai to walk into.

Infantry heavy armies tend to stick with muskets if melee focused. Or harpers ferries, Enfield's if more shooting focused.

[The Fox]

Originally posted by pandakraut:

I basically don't buy weapons for infantry and just use whatever I can get from rep buys or captures. So I'm not going to be very helpful from a cost/benefit angle.

Better units get higher average damage at max distance weapons as I end up with stock of them, thus the above link for details. Otherwise it matters very little to me since they all have 300 range and perform well enough(even Muskets.) Repeaters aren't worth bothering with for infantry in my opinion.

Most of my focus is on snipers, artillery, and cavalry for damage and the infantry just provides a stopping block for the ai to walk into.

Infantry heavy armies tend to stick with muskets if melee focused. Or harpers ferries, Enfield's if more shooting focused.

True with the statistics and the people tend to use ifantry as blockers if not they are not heavy relying on then, but I like to keep it balanced enough, with selling off weapons i deem not good to arm with, and I tend to focus on specalized core units, with flexable trade offs, for example, my fist corps is mainly infanty base, that i use to defend and then attack, once the emeny reveals there units to attack, then flank and where them down to there weakes, followed by charge to either further route, destory or capture, and to do so requires a balanced mustlet, whick i find in the enfield, which offers good balanced stats for its price, with my cannon corps having infanty armed with muskets that are armed for accuecy, such as springfiled 61 and 63 for defence. which brings me to a new debate i have for me. The Austrian Lorenzo, I am depatedin that of replacing my harper's fairy rilfes, as the are cheaper, have more accutecy, and way better melee damake, the only egitves bing slow reload, and slihgtly lower damage. besides the spead sheets, I do wnat to hear what others say about it.

[Hugh de Salle]

Do not underestimate Smooth-bores they are deadly the closer you get to the enemy you get this because it represents Buck & Ball.

Accuracy is determined by a set value at max range the closer you get to the enemy that value increase dramatically and that's why Smooth-bores are deadly because they hold the highest damage value they are also cheap allowing you to invest in veterans more imho.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

My infantry is not "balanced". I divide my regular infantry into two types, "rifle" and "assault", giving each type appropriate weapons and training perks, and putting those descriptions into the unit name, to more easily keep track of their differences. I try to purchase as few rifles as necessary, except for special purposes, although I will pay up for good cannons. Rifle troops are trained as marksmen and tend to be equipped with the Spring61, or similar all-around gun, depending on availability in the armory. However, about 1/4- 1/3 of the infantry are outfitted and trained as Assaults, used to charge weakpoints in the enemy's position, so that my weaker riflemen do not have to charge into the fray except in support. The Assaults also stand behind our firing lines to rush into to support enemy breaches thru our riflemen lines, shoring up hand to hand fighting with those who are skilled at that. The Assaults tend to be equipped with the Harper's Ferry (for the highest skilled units), Spring42 for mid level, or even smooth bore muskets for raw recruits - weapons that can be used to bash or fire in close combat, weapons whose melee stats are "80" and above.

I have found this two-prong strategy to conserve scarce funds for other expenses, while also being able to afford to continuously arm and field 100% of the recruits available. Using this approach, I never run out of funds for cannons, extra quantities of supplies, or the occasional veteran replacements. With the various training skills available for infantry units to use, it seems natural to specialize your main forces into the two categories.

At least, this is a solid strategy for southern forces, who really can't afford to only consider equipment effectiveness without regard to costs. Those whitworth rifles are just too expensive, regardless of their effectiveness - a few Lorenz rifle units are about the max for the veteran units of the south. This plan seems to be less useful for the north.

[The Fox]

true, smooth bores have great damage output at close range, plus the high melee is good for assaults, but for me up close is not the play style i prefer when attacking, especially when i don't know the enemies numbers by regiment and their position (I do have Calvary and skirmishers but i cant scout the whole army, let alone there armaments, unless i have high recon, and any defensive position, from terrain to fences and earth works. Up close and melee charges, while effective, do not for me seem to work as my regiments fall back either under fire or running from melee, even with number advantage, and even if i break the enemy, there would still be more coming up or defending behind, shooting at my regiments in melee. that's why I look for "balanced" muskets, as they, while not just good at melee, have a good shooting distance, can put up a good volley fire hit ratio and can repel charges and counter charges. at the battle of antitum my units were able to form a good line and fire at the confederates behind fences and at units that were flanking me and were able to inflict devastating losses, all at dunkered church, sunken road, and turners bridge, with the only time i went into melee besides my Calvary, was when i was finishing up sharpsburg, and at the swamp crossing down south of the town. while splinting my units between rifle to pin and smooth bore to flank, close, and charge is a good stratigy, along with attacking with smooth bore while Calvary/skirmishers flank is one of the better strategy, I perffer to weather down my enemy and either break them, have surrender or, charge and capture when they are weak. I am not underestimating smooth bore, just my play style is more shooting based, with me perfering my infantry units being able to deal with most situations with fire efficiency, especially against skirmishers. Also I use balance for lack of better term, as all weapons in game have advantages and disadvantages, and i use balance for personal use to describe, in my opinion, the main standard of a good musket to deal with most situations in game. for some balance my be the Mississippi, or the spring. 1855, or even the Lorenz, it mainly depends on play style. Also, for when i play north, I uses Lorenz for to help lat battle defense, or reserve attack as the idea for me is that if my main infantry are stuck in a shoot, charge, repeat stalemate, the idea is for them to flank the enemy and hit them with one to three accurate volley and then charge for melee, other wise they are to defend important positions, with the ability to shoot accurately, brace for charge, and hold with artillery support, as i usually have them guarding or close to my artillery, to break the enemy. its mainly between that or using the h&f or spring. 1861's or cs Richmond and just flanking/holding with fast accurate volleys. as I usually play union, nothing against confederate just a preference, when i am playing defensively, I am looking for essentially accuracy and melee vs accuracy and fire rate, to work with my cannons, not just on their own. along with statistics, economically and availability are main factors i am looking for both to invest money and also reputation in when equipping my army in terms of my play style, along with considering the scenarios that i will face in both minor and major battles, for defense, attack, and counter attack by myself and the enemy are to me, important factors to think about when I equip my all my units.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

That makes a lot of sense, particularly for northern forces. Playing as the south, our forces do not have the same opportunity to be selective with armaments. The south does not have either the access to a sufficient quantity nor quality of weapons, and is chronically short of funding. Figuring out how to be as effective as possible while being under-equipped is the normal southern condition. Smooth bores will be used frequently, because the south can't afford a lot of higher quality weapons, and even if occasionally some temporary surplus of funds is available, the quantity of better weapons is limited.

The south is a challenging side to manage. Basically, use ALL the better rifles that can be found for free in the armory. Equip the 1st units with the highest qual/cost arms possible, WITHOUT buying any extra pieces. You will find you wind up assigning ALL of the "good" rifles, and are now handing out various smooth bores. Get ALL the recruits possible into the field, saving only a few to reinforce during multi-part battles. Equip several units of melee cavalry, and several more of skirmishers/sharps (with the "best rifles"). The south will then be low on funds. Instead of buying a few choice rifles, the few left over funds go into cannons or are desperately saved for the next round. After the battles, surviving infantry that received the most basic guns are awarded with melee skills instead of marksmen skills.

It is indeed interesting to consider which rifles are better than others for particular tactics. And I have looked thru the specs and at least experimented with most of the types. However, I favor using the Spring61's plus a few Lorenz (for elites) for "Riflemen" (or "all around") units from mid game onwards -- otherwise its rebored farmers for them. For "Assault" units, the Harpers Ferry rifles go to trained elites. For new Assault recruits, the Enfield53's (if they can get them), or smooth bore muskets otherwise. But honestly, those better weapon choices are mostly because those are the "good" ones dropped in any quantity on the battlefield during specific years by the north.

Close combat is often not my first choice of tactics, but the south does not have the luxury in funds or manpower to standard back and trade bullets. We defend using terrain advantages, and carefully rush Assaults to rapidly overcome strategic enemy positions. Using those tactics, the south is winning most of its battles at a mid level difficulty - even a narrowly won "draw" at Gettysburg, without losing too many soldiers.

[Hugh de Salle]

Originally posted by Buckaroo Banzai:

That makes a lot of sense, particularly for northern forces. Playing as the south, our forces do not have the same opportunity to be selective with armaments. The south does not have either the access to a sufficient quantity nor quality of weapons, and is chronically short of funding. Figuring out how to be as effective as possible while being under-equipped is the normal southern condition. Smooth bores will be used frequently, because the south can't afford a lot of higher quality weapons, and even if occasionally some temporary surplus of funds is available, the quantity of better weapons is limited.

The south is a challenging side to manage. Basically, use ALL the better rifles that can be found for free in the armory. Equip the 1st units with the highest qual/cost arms possible, WITHOUT buying any extra pieces. You will find you wind up assigning ALL of the "good" rifles, and are now handing out various smooth bores. Get ALL the recruits possible into the field, saving only a few to reinforce during multi-part battles. Equip several units of melee cavalry, and several more of skirmishers/sharps (with the "best rifles"). The south will then be low on funds. Instead of buying a few choice rifles, the few left over funds go into cannons or are desperately saved for the next round. After the battles, surviving infantry that received the most basic guns are awarded with melee skills instead of marksmen skills.

It is indeed interesting to consider which rifles are better than others for particular tactics. And I have looked thru the specs and at least experimented with most of the types. However, I favor using the Spring61's plus a few Lorenz (for elites) for "Riflemen" (or "all around") units from mid game onwards -- otherwise its rebored farmers for them. For "Assault" units, the Harpers Ferry rifles go to trained elites. For new Assault recruits, the Enfield53's (if they can get them), or smooth bore muskets otherwise. But honestly, those better weapon choices are mostly because those are the "good" ones dropped in any quantity on the battlefield during specific years by the north.

Close combat is often not my first choice of tactics, but the south does not have the luxury in funds or manpower to standard back and trade bullets. We defend using terrain advantages, and carefully rush Assaults to rapidly overcome strategic enemy positions. Using those tactics, the south is winning most of its battles at a mid level difficulty - even a narrowly won "draw" at Gettysburg, without losing too many soldiers.

I found the North harder to play on Legendary especially in the early campaign you get drained of manpower pretty darn quick if you don't know what your doing.

The North also suffers from weapon drops while the South gets an endless supply of Harper's Ferry i think after Fredricksburg i had over 16k Harper's Ferry, While playing the North i was given inferior weapons like 1841's and Farmers.

For whats its worth i have well over 4000 hrs in this game in vanilla and imho the South is a lot easier to play on harder difficulty.