(POLL) Should the GRENADIERS use a musket as their weapon?

Hello everyone, I think I may have gone a bit long with this post, so for those of you who are interested in reading it, I recommend listening to this song on repeat while you do :relieved: :ok_hand:

I’m glad to see your comments again. I want to emphasize that it’s not my place to make decisions about the design or rework of units, but I feel that the concept is taking shape thanks to the contributions that everyone has shared.

I believe that the most coherent approach is to separate the concept of the ‘grenadier’ from the ‘line grenadier.’ It’s impossible to attribute two radically different functions to a single unit that changed its role during the AoE 3 timeframe. By removing the role of ‘heavy infantry’ from the standard Grenadier, it can better serve as human artillery. Simultaneously, we can design a ‘Line Grenadier’ as heavy infantry with a specific role.

16th century Grenadier

Swedish early 1700s grenadier exercise
image

Below I present an interesting historical fragment from this link

In summary it says the following:

During the late 16th and early 17th centuries, Habsburg infantry used pomegranate-sized metal balls filled with gunpowder and shrapnel as grenades. The concept was adopted by the French, leading to the establishment of specialized grenadier companies. Grenadiers served as elite assault troops in sieges and close combat, armed with grenades, swords, or axes. They were selected from the largest and strongest soldiers and offered higher pay, distinctive uniforms, and privileges. However, with the increased firepower of infantry units and muskets, the use of grenades waned, mainly relegated to siege warfare. The tradition of grenadier companies persisted, and by the 19th century, the title ‘grenadier’ had become a badge of honor for certain units, losing its original tactical significance.

I know that for some forum members, it may even seem strange to seek historical information for gameplay mechanics, but from my perspective, AoE 3 can leverage the knowledge gained through trial and error in real battles to organize better gameplay.

Now, I would like to explore the idea of introducing a diplomat called the “Army Reformer” and how it could impact the gameplay of European civilizations if this decision makes the “Line Grenadier” accessible but removes access to melee infantry.


Army Reformer
(Referential portrait)

In Age of Empires 3, Hand Infantry serves as heavy infantry primarily designed to counter melee cavalry and provide mobile siege support. While Hand Infantry had common usage during the 16th and 17th centuries, they gradually disappeared in subsequent centuries. As the game covers a timeframe that could easily accommodate three different RPGs, it becomes challenging to fit units like pikemen or rodeleros into combat against Napoleonic-era musketeers. However, with Age of Empires 3 nearing its 20th anniversary, a complete game rework is unfeasible. Therefore, it falls on the fans to be creative in organizing the game.

Is it possible to choose a politician that disables the creation of Hand Infantry (barracks) without breaking the game?

Personally, I believe it can be done, but it requires substantial modifications:

  • The Grenadier should be replaced by the “Line Grenadier,” taking on the role of heavy infantry with powerful siege damage: The Line Grenadier will be a powerful unit that uses musket and grenades. It will not be as effective in siege or damage against infantry as the standard Grenadier but will have greater durability and effectiveness against infantry and cavalry.(the Line Grenadier will have the automatic ability to “throw grenades against units”)

  • The Musketeer gains the “Charge!” ability (big button): This will make it more effective in pitched battles, especially against cavalry.

Remember that this decision is a personal one, and I don’t want it to feel like “radically changing the game”, what I want is for it to feel like “adding new content.”

image
The French would lose pikemen and halberdiers, but would gain Line Grenadiers and charging ability for their musketeers. A balanced change without controversy.

image
The Dutch would lose their valuable Halberdiers, however they would replace their Grenadiers with Line Grenadiers giving them access to an elite type of musketeer (for which they do not have specific cards). A risky choice that only an experienced player would make.

image
The Portuguese would gain Line Grenadiers (which sounds good considering the Portuguese do not have Grenadiers). However, apart from not having specific cards, they would lose Pikemen and Halberdiers, having to rely on their powerful Dragoons and Legionarios to defend the fragile “Cassador” and “Ordinance Besteiro” from enemy cavalry. It seems like a significant improvement but would greatly increase the costs of their army (especially in coin).

image
The Swedes already have the Caroleans, who have a charge ability by default. Furthermore, they would lose the Dalkarls and transform their Grenadiers, but they already have the Hakkapelits. So, the configuration of their army could shift towards something more powerful but also more costly, without controversy.

Now let’s look at the civilizations whose choice of “Army Reformer” might be more controversial.

obraz
I know that for many, it’s sacrilegious that AoE 3 doesn’t feature Prussian or Austrian Grenadiers, and the Renaissance style of the 16th and 17th centuries may seem incongruous for the Germans. So, the inclusion of this politician for the Germans could be a sort of “reclamation” of German military history in AoE 3. The Germans would lose their Pikemen and powerful Doppelsoldner, but in return, they would gain a Musketeer and Grenadier for the first time. Although this may seem powerful, it can actually be an interesting nerf. The Doppelsoldner (although they lose efficiency from Age 3 onwards) are powerful “meat shields” with area damage ability and a bonus against cavalry. If a German army loses the Doppelsoldner, they will have to rely on the slow War Wagons (as they don’t have Dragoons) to counter cavalry and even depend on mercenaries or use Uhlan against cavalry for cost-effectiveness.

image
One of the characteristics of the Spanish in AoE 3 is their “archaic units,” and here I believe there could be an interesting exception. By choosing this politician, the Spanish would lose the “Rodelero” but retain the Pikeman, and in return, they would be able to train SOLDADOS in barracks. (The Soldado would be weaker and more versatile than the Line Grenadier, but the Spanish could still use their formidable Tercios; It seems like a fair change to me since the Spanish do not have grenadiers and their musketeers will have the ability to “Charge!”)

Civilizations that probably don’t need to have this new politician:
image
The British already have too many anti-infantry units (archers, Rangers and good musketeers). Maybe they should replace their current grenadiers with some unique Line Grenadiers cough Black watch cough

imageimage
Italy and Malta have well-structured and coherent armies as they are. They do not need Line Grenadiers.

Maybe yes, maybe no
image

I consider that Russia needs a better rework, they currently have the Pavlov Grenadier and I don’t know how they could modify the structure of their army if that unit is replaced by some “Pavlov Line Grenadier”. The historical concept fascinates me but I don’t know how this could affect the gameplay.

To conclude:
I emphasize that these are just my suggestions, but I would also like to hear your opinions, especially from those who find this idea unfeasible.

4 Likes

What if the Grenadier simply had 2 attacks and would automatically switch based on range.
A normal musket attack at long range but them throwing grenades at short range.

Similar to existing units like the Fulani Archer that get stronger at shorter range.

1 Like

then what you get is kinda a reverse Peruvian Legion revolutionary

which also fluctuates between busted and useless
image

Its very hard to use since the opponent can just kite in and out of range to cause animation changes

2 Likes

I think it really needs to be kept simple and easy for anyone to understand. A clear-cut implementation.

Let’s look at their historic role - they were the elite assault troops. They were considered specialist and elite, with the duty of storming enemy fortifications and positions.
Early on they were just the unlucky guys (it wasn’t originally an envied position) chosen to throw grenades however the role progressed to having the strongest, bravest and tallest lead assaults with all those qualities being handy for grenade throwing. These guys would all be armed with muskets, slung behind their back. Gradually they would drop grenades completely, however they were always considered elite infantry and the top guys for assaults.

The in-game role is decidedly different and actually doesn’t fit for them. Their only ranged attack is grenades, they are by default only available at the artillery foundry and whilst they are considered a light and cheap artillery of sorts, they fail at that role. They have always had an ambiguous role since the original game.

If we look at the Merc Giant Grenadiers we can see what Grenadiers should be - strong musketeers with grenade siege.

Grenadiers should be a watered-down version of these. They should be seen as Heavy Infantry first and foremost, with the best infantry siege for the Euro infantry roster, and be accessable via the Barracks by default, rather than the decidedly vague artillery-but-not-artillery unit that is meant to be the cheap siege but still locked up into the artillery foundry, where other units there do a far better job.

With the mindset changed from weird artillery unit to super-musketeers with grenades and then being freely available from the Barracks, along with hefty resource cost, we have then created a proper clear-cut role for them: elite assault infantry that do a damn great job at tearing through enemy buildings at mid-close range and being having the ability to defend themselves with their muskets and bayonets.

They’ll still fall to light infantry and artillery and due to their expense, the humble Musketeer would still be *far more cost effective to field as your general-use units. As an elite unit, even a build limit would be fair game to make them less abused.

Soldados (as much as I hate them) can exist comfortably as a unit that straddles both roles in lieu of Muskets and Grenadiers .

Line Grenadiers shipment - this can always be repurposed into giving the refreshed Grenadiers a grenade-throw auto ability (with a sensible cooldown) when in combat. If you want a bit of historical pizzazz, you can always call it Forlorn Hope. If you still wanted to retain the Line Grenadier shipment name and have a more relevant purpose, you could always make the resulting shipment affect its build limit instead (if we go that route for an elite unit).

Now, if for some reason you want still want a weird peudo artillery/infantry unit in the Artillery Foundry to take that place, but this time with a clear purpose, I give you the Sapper

Sapper
An engineer unit who uses an axe to deliver melee siege damage. This artillery unit can also build Pallisade Walls (even when Bastion Walls are researched) and Stockades (campaign model art) which function as Castle-like defenses which need to be garrisoned to amp up their firepower). Has a multiplier against artillery (should it be lucky enough to get close to one!).

A low pop and (comparatively) resource cost artillery unit that offers melee siege as well as utility. No other Euro artillery takes this role. Like the Haud’s Ram, it is a human unit tagged solely as a *Siege Unit, so makes it very obvious of what counters it.

TLDR?

  • Grenadiers become essentially the ‘standard’ version of Giant Grenadiers (I mean even while typing that it makes sense - it even shares the name!). Embrace the Heavy Infantry role along with grenade siege. It has obvious counters and function.

  • For those that miss the original Grenadier slot, we have a Sapper who offers the cheap siege unit role, albeit with far clearer purpose which sits alongside other siege units… *rather than doing a little of an existing unit’s role to a much poorer extent.

4 Likes

What if instead of just a normal musketeer, we make it a sort of riffle rider, with multis vs cav and heavy infantry in melee but also a multi vs heavy infantry at range?

1 Like

Not sure

Reasoning:

  • Having a Grenadier with a musket act like a musketeer is fairly intuitive - musketeer with funny mitre hat and a bag of grenades? I can tell that’s a heavy Infantry ‘shooter’ with a decent siege attack.
  • Having it as a heavy Infantry which is great vs cav and other heavy Infantry at both melee and range makes it a little too powerful plus not as readable. Muskets are your general use ranged attack with the bayonets being the real counter (Caroleans aside).

Harking back to the old RTS ‘Cossacks: European Wars’, everyone had normal, musket-wielding Grenadiers alongside their Musketeers. They shot at range, had bayonets and threw grenades so technically better than Musketeers, however they were far expensive than general troops so it would be ludicrous to have huge armies of them.

1 Like

They wouldn’t have a ranged multi VS. cav, just HI.

1 Like

Sure, it also frustrates me how slow those units are when using the grenade launcher. I would prefer if they had musket reloading animation.

Everything you mention is interesting. I also had an idea of implementing Sappers, but I was thinking of these units more as an equivalent unit to Grenadiers for Native American civilizations.

I also believe that the idea of having a “siege infantry” category, as mentioned in this post, is feasible. I also consider that this “siege infantry” might not just be a “cheap version of artillery.” Cannons can still attack without a minimum range (it’s common for a falconet to destroy a group of pikemen even if they have reached the falconet). So, it could be interesting for the “siege infantry” to have a powerful melee attack, but this melee attack has a x0.5 penalty against cavalry.


???

I don’t think it’s convenient to make radical changes to a unit that has been around for 18 years.

However, it could be interesting to give a unit the behavior of an “Eevee” (multiple evolution)

As I mentioned, I would like any changes to the Grenadier to feel like “adding new content.”

Even in my idea of adding a new politician called “Army Reformer,” we could include “Line Grenadiers” in barracks and also add the “Sapper” in artillery foundry.

But well, that’s just my opinion. I’m liking how this post is shaping up :smile:

3 Likes

Making them elite Musketeers seems kinda boring to me. It also has the issue of making Musketeers and Grenadiers compete for the same niche and inadvertently gives Musketeers to non-musk civs. I’d much prefer it if they keep their current identity of a siege unit based on early Grenadiers. That way they don’t compete with Musketeers and actually have a unique role.

2 Likes

Sappers didn’t really originate from Grenadiers so I’m not sure an Eevee style evolution makes the most sense. But Sappers could work well for your army reformer idea as a more appropriate replacement for melee units.

Instead of disabling the archaic units, it could be more like a one time swap, and change out all your Pikemen for Sappers and all Halbs and Grenadiers for Line Grenadiers. And obviously enabling the new units at the Artillery Foundry.

2 Likes

It’s true that sappers appeared long before grenadiers. Historically, sappers were responsible for both the demolition of enemy structures and the construction or repair of allied structures. However, it’s difficult for me not to see the resemblance that sappers share with grenadiers, especially in the 19th century.

(German)

(French)
image

(Minute 1:35)

Well, I suppose this is truly an “analogous evolution”, considering that a soldier must have a significant amount of physical strength, whether it’s to demolish structures with an axe or to throw grenades or excel in combat during an era when edged weapons caused more fatalities than musket bullets (approximately 10% of casualties were attributed to musket bullets at Waterloo, or at least that’s what I read)

I hope not to deviate from the main topic, but I believe that Sappers have significant potential if included in Age of Empires 3. In fact, a Sapper could be more efficient at demolishing structures than a Grenadier and be more versatile than cannons.

Focusing on real history, during the 16th to 19th centuries, grenades were primarily intended for anti-personnel use. While there were specialized groups that used grenades (among other explosives) for structural demolition, it was common to rely on other more specific tools and tactics, such as rams, controlled explosives, and siege weapons. However, for Age of Empires 3 players, we could easily explain that Grenadiers are a siege unit, as we could justify that they threw grenades through doors and windows to subdue defenders.

We can also justify, if Sappers are included in Age of Empires 3, that this unit has the special ability to “convert buildings to your side”, since Sappers served as support and breached structures to facilitate the capture of those buildings. (I know that many might find it curious to convert a building with axes, but we’ve been seeing monks converting stables to Christianity in Age of Empires 2 for over two decades, and no one has complained :laughing:).

I also find the idea of Sappers having some kind of ‘Aura’ that increases the building repair speed interesting :thinking:

I appreciate your input, and I find the idea of having the “Army Reformer” politician transform melee infantry into Sappers or Line Grenadiers interesting. However, I believe this could complicate the cost calculations (as a Sapper can be much more expensive than a Pikeman, and there are also special units like the Rodelero and the Doppelsoldner). Perhaps the most convenient approach would be to simply disable their creation and upgrades. This would also make players think more carefully about whether they want to choose that politician.

2 Likes

Yea it definitely shouldn’t replace your Current units in those situations. Also, in Christianity there is an idea of “redeeming” buildings, so the idea of monks converting them really isn’t all that strange.

1 Like

If the problem is the Heavy Infantry tag, and the Light Infantry tag is also unacceptable, why not just let they have Infantry tag without Heavy or Light Infantry tag?

1 Like

that is an option but that would also make them basically unkillable tanks to all range damage, imagine haud manlet with splash damage

1 Like

Then let some kind of unit like skirmishers have a multiplier against units having Grenade trooper tag?
The multiplier can be greater than 1.0 but less than the one against heavy infantry.

Or, lower their HP/resistance in exchange?

1 Like

Mmm, like Heavy infantry tag??:joy:

The issue with infantry tag is that some civs with low acces to artillery have a hard time vs them. Reason Zouaves is a bad design for example

1 Like

Yes, I suppose it’s kinda boring, however it does make sense. The current Grenadiers however need a refresh as their niche role is underused by way of using cheaper infantry with reasonable siege damage or using more expensive cannons with much better siege damage. Having a Heavy Infantry unit with great siege and a (mediorce) ranged attack raises the profle of the unit.

However, they wouldn’t take the same niche - let’s look at Giant Grenadiers and Highlanders as merc proxies of the new and improved grenadiers vs Musketeers. Highlanders have far more ranged attack damage (63 attack) than the Giant Grenadier (36 attack) - this would be the same for the standard Musketeer and Grenadier, witth the Grenadier have a much reduced (musket) ranged attack. They keep their current identity of sieging meatbags, and don’t lose their unique role. In comparison Pikemen and Halberdiers wouls still seem much more similar in role than Muskets and Grenadiers.

The inadvertent Musketeer for non-musk civ isn’t really an issue. They get a Grenadier with a musket who’s ranged attack is mediorce at best compared to a normal Musketeer. It may help them in a bind at the absolute best, however a non-musk civ pouring their pop and resource into Grenadiers in lieu of a Musketeer will find that they will fare horribly.

In my opinion, the whole purpose to giving Grenadiers a musket is to:

  • Give them a little survivability - currently compared to other proper siege units they lack power and incur the penalties of Heavy Infantry.
  • Give them better readability and uniformity with a merc unit that shares similar naming (Giant Grenadier)
  • Fit them in better with their Heavy Infantry-tagged brothers.

As for my Sapper suggestion for Artillery Foundry grenadier-slot replacement, again I’d keep it simple. Melee (axe) siege only unit with utility (wooden walls + Stockade) is straight-forward, has a niche far greater than the current Grenadier, seeing that Euros do not siege units damage via melee. I would steer clear of of buildings being ‘converted’/captured as a unit that can be trained in large numbers and far cheaper than a building being able to take and use an enemy building just seems unfair and easily spammed.

With that in mind, a Sapper unit can easily be used for most civs as most nations had some kind of siege engineer/ Sapper / Pioneer / proxy unit. Even the Aztecs had Commoners / Youth Warriors on siege duty, armed with Digging Sticks to undermine or directly damage walls/structures. These Commoners would also be used as a labour force should leaders require construction.

2 Likes

I have stated that it will be different from Heavy Infantry tag.

That is, the archers and riflemen can cause bonus damage on them but not such many like on heavy infantry.

1 Like

They already do by having 50% ranged armour unlike “actual” HI with melee one

1 Like

I really like the idea of replacing the siege factory grenadier with @SirBarnzy1’s sapper unit, and changing exisiting grenadiers into super-musketeer/soldado call-in only units!

2 Likes