For this week I decided to adopt some advice from the original post by sveinung and do some comparisons between the civ1 ruleset and the wiki.
What actually prompted this was the observation that in civ1 the calvary (= horsemen) was made obsolete by musketeers. This did not seem right. One would have expected that knights would have done the job but the wiki says somethng else again: riflemen (actually conscription). Now, surprising as this may be, it actually 'rang a bell' - as they say. But now, in addition, it was clear from the wiki
that obsolescence in Civ I is actually due to technology, not a new unit as such. In Civ I (and the civ1 ruleset) there is no ambiguity, but it leads me to this observation: The fc paradigm of obsolescence by unit may have been a Civ II innovation to create a new feature of "upgrade" - something I do not remember from Civ I
, and of marginal use if you only have the one veteran level (above green). So if this 'no upgrade' paradigm is correct for Civ I (or just desirable as an option) then one could solve this problem with a simple new field in [unit_*] sections - 'upgrade_to = "<unit>"'. For convenience the default should be the unit defined in the field 'obsolete_by = "<unit>"', if present; = "None" otherwise. In any event the change to current fc2.6 civ1 units.ruleset is to replace in the section [unit_cavalry]
I think this may have been a mistake in Civ I. I'm in two minds about this: I would not shout "blue murder" if it was changed to what is more obvious:
To confuse matters even more, the civilopedia for knights
states "they dominated the battlefield until the development of firearms. They remained the primary offensive weapon of war until the day arrived when they could be shot out of the saddle from a distance." I think the general grasp on history (by Sid M. & co.) was not quite what it could have been. The last successful calvary charge showed that they could easily hold their own against rifles, and even machine guns, the former because they were moving too fast for the rifles to be "aimed" and had to be just "pointed" losing the prime advantage of the rifles being rifled. As for machine guns it may have been just the rapidity of the charge limiting the amount of casualties. In my view, the real reason was the mud. Beersheba
was dry desert: artillery in France turned the wet fields into a deadly quagmire. Meanwhile, the tracks on 'tanks' were actually lubricated by the mud - ironically making them less suitable in sandy deserts where the tracks were (originally but even in WWII) super quick to wear out.