I feel like the newly introduced muskets don't really stack up properly against rifles?
Like, here's a stat comparison:
Piercing Damage: 11
Reload time: 2 seconds
Clip size: 12 rounds
Fire arc: 160 degrees
Maximum accurate range: 230 metres
Shoots troops and planes within 42 metres
Operators: one crew member
Recommended crew: one
Piercing Damage: 5
Reload time: 1 seconds
Clip size: 20 rounds
Fire arc: 240 degrees
Maximum accurate range: 1900 metres
Shoots troops and planes within 57 metres
Muskets have more than twice the damage (11 vs 5), cost less than half as much ($7 vs $17), and have three and a half times as much HP (140 vs 40). Their weight is only two higher (10 vs 8), and while they have twice as much reload time (2 vs 1), their clip size is only eight less (12 vs 20). A musket that lands every round in its clip will do 32 more damage than a rifle that manages the same feat (132 vs 100).
Meanwhile, rifles have a little over 8 times the range (1900 vs 230), and can shoot planes and troops a -little- further out (57 vs 42).
While I can sort of understand giving muskets some advantage over rifles in order to give players a reason to use them, I feel like they were maybe given -too much- of one? I dunno... Maybe I'm just not good at comparing how big an advantage the extended range of rifles is, but it just doesn't seem like a fair tradeoff?
That HP value is definitely a mistake. But note that Musket range is so so terrible that they're useless at anything other than point blank range.
Please allso note that muskets don't have the same arc of fire, so they're not just point-blank only weapons, they're forward-only point blank weapons.
This right here is part of the reason that Bomb-bay airships are being such a problem.
(the other part being the well armored ones, and your unit's inability to target specific modules)