More unit types?
There have been many suggestions here for more unit types, & a fair amount of resistance to the idea. Looking back over some of them, I have to say that those of us advocating more, haven't done a very good job of making the case. The problem is that most of us have talked a lot about what the units were, but haven't really related that to the battle system. I certainly haven't helped.
I'd like to look at it the other way around, start with the battle system, & see where historical differences in arms would naturally fit in. I'm going to try to be undogmatic about it, too (fat chance). Logically, it would seem that there would be a case for 6 basic types of land units, given that each of the 3 existing types has 2 roles to play, over the course of the game. Both Cav & Inf have fire and shock, Art is negligible in shock, but replaces that with its siege ability. Therefore it would seem the place to start would be by distinguishing those arms which emphasized one factor or the other. The increase in effectiveness of each factor (or it's relative decrease) could still be a function of tech level; but the distinctions of type would remain constant.
With Art, it's easy, there are siege guns from the start, & field guns come increasingly into play. I cannot see a good reason to go beyond that, though--field & siege.
With the other arms, it's more complicated. Inf is the next simplest, in that there was, from the start (1419, 1453, or 1492 -- doesn't matter here), a distinction between the bow- or firearm-based troops, & the shock (spear or sometimes sword armed) troops. This remains true until about 1700, when bayonets replaced the spear (at some cost in shock, but a big gain in cost-effectiveness). So, for the 15th - 17th C's, it would seem easy to make a case for 2 Infantry arms.
Is there a strong reason to distinguish the bow & the firearm? The strongest case I can see is that 2 majors, England & Turkey, did retain the bow much longer than others, & the Turks, at least, continued to be successful with it. (And IIRC, the problem with the longbow was cultural/economic, rather than a matter of effectiveness in the field.)
With Cav we have the strongest problem, in that we have a very clear difference between cultures, in the time when fire becomes an issue. In W Europe horse archers just weren't really a factor. (It is true, however, that archers were very often mounted infantry; so perhaps they should have Cav movement rates, but be treated as foot in battle.) But again, if you look East, you see the dominance of the horse archer, from the start of the period, as had been the case for many centuries. This, IMO, is the very clearest case for a new unit type; it is simply absurd to have 0-fire cavalry as the dominant arm of the Ottoman Empire. IIRC, the crossbow was ubiquitous in the Chinese army, until very late in the EU period.
In Europe, the picture is murkier. In the late 16th/early 17th C, there was a trend toward a more fire-oriented cavalry, but after the 30 Years War, the trend varies, again, for each country. Frederick even took pistols from his heavy Cav, entirely.
This line of reasoning leads to more types, as we now have to look at national differences. Perhaps the simplest way to handle it would be heavy-medium-light, representing all-shock, mixed, & (almost) all-fire Cavalry. (I'm not going to even think about dragoons).
At sea, I have less to say, for 2 reasons. (1) The naval system is very much the poor relation here, as is the case with most games which are not explicitly naval games, & (2) I'm a naval buff, & am well aware of my inclination to want more detail than a normal person would. However, there is one area where I do see a distinction to work on, that of the difference between the battle fleets & the trade/imperial fleets. This distinction already exists in embryo, in the handling of pirates & privateers, and in the way galleys are pretty much limited to battle fleet roles. In so far as this could be extended, the distinction is between numerous, mostly smaller (=cheaper) ships on the high seas, and big expensive ships in the battle line. By the 18th C, this takes the form of frigates and sloops, versus ships of the line.
Beyond that, I don't want to go, & I'll refrain from my personal hobby-horse of building obsolescence into the system. What I'm trying to do is switch to a bottom-up, or minimalist approach; to try to bridge the gap between those who want lots of types to build, & the "stick with 3" school.
.
