Right now I'm about to attack a city. I have a swordsman, an axeman and a spearman. The defenders arew two archers and a warrior. Judging from the alt-mouseover, the one with the highest chance of victory is the swordsman, with 6 againts the archer's 6.4. Are archers really this strong at defending?

Archers are city defender, the have a +50% City defense bonus, as well as +25% hills and first strike.

Yes. Archers enjoy a nice +50% to defense when they're in cities. Count in walls and you can count on a few good losses if you try to take cities too early with them in it.

Wow. Well, looks like I'll need to reinforce my offence.

If you promote your swordsman/axemen, you will be in MUCH better shape; try to get City Raider II on both of them, you should them be able to handle most archers easily.

BTW: when attacking a city without catapults... have at least 2:1 odds, meaning; have 2 units for every one in the city, usually in bronze age I will use lots of swordsman with CRII.

For me, pre-catapult wars involve only pillaging, no attacking. It's just not worth the unit cost to try and take a city until you have catapults.

Pretty much, yes. Plus they have a first strike (or two) thrown into the mix.

Archers are to Civ IV as Spearmen were to Civ III.

I disagree. Early wars are when you can take cities. Unless the city is on a hill with more experienced troops you have great odds, unlike later in the game. Once you get Longbowmen and Pikemen things start getting rough and better tech or vastly superior numbers is the only way to win wars.

Early taking of a city, not on a hill can be accomplished with warriors, against warriors. I have done it when France tried to settle his second city where I wanted to settle. This did put me at eternal war with him, but that is all good.

To take archers out, is much more difficult, and takes two to three times the number of attackers, as defenders, until the advent of catapults.

I disagree. Early wars are when you can take cities. Unless the city is on a hill with more experienced troops you have great odds, unlike later in the game. Once you get Longbowmen and Pikemen things start getting rough and better tech or vastly superior numbers is the only way to win wars.
This is all true... but, YMMV... (I prefer the Ancient Wars, myself :lol: )

There is a promotion for swordsmen of +25% against archers, IIRC. Works better than the city raider for attacking cities garrisoned by archers.

anyone having success on early war?

Keshiks have a nice anti-seige promotion that does wonders against cats.

Many ancient-age UU's have anti-archer traits that are really useful.

I must be playing the wrong civs. which ones are anti archer?

I can't name them all off of the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure that the Incan UU is anti-archer. There's at least two or three IIRC.

I wish there was a Civilopedia in the manual. I mean, 200 pages and not a single, whole list of units and their stats?

Yeah, Quechas get +100% vs. Archers, in addition to the warrior city defense bonus.


You don't have an appendix? Pg. 204?

Yeah, Quechas get +100% vs. Archers, in addition to the warrior city defense bonus.


You don't have an appendix? Pg. 204?

Ah, yeah, didn't see that :)

So, yeah, the Incan UU has a 100% bonus, which is the biggest bonus. Compare that to the Archer's 50% bonus and it evens up the odds a bit.
And I found the Persian UU (Immortal), which has a 50% bonus AND it's mounted. There's probably some more that I'm missing.

I usually don't go to war until I do have catapults since archers with their own city defense promotion make fighting them while they're garrisoned near impossible without bombardment first. I generally use a stack of 2 swordsmen, 2 horse archers, 4 catapults to take cities that are heavily defended with archers. Catapults bombard the city defenses to 0% then the catapults kinda sacrifice themselves by just causing collateral damage to everything in the city. Then the swordsmen and horse archers clean up the weakened archers without too many casualties.

I usually don't go to war until I do have catapults since archers with their own city defense promotion make fighting them while they're garrisoned near impossible without bombardment first. I generally use a stack of 2 swordsmen, 2 horse archers, 4 catapults to take cities that are heavily defended with archers. Catapults bombard the city defenses to 0% then the catapults kinda sacrifice themselves by just causing collateral damage to everything in the city. Then the swordsmen and horse archers clean up the weakened archers without too many casualties.
That's exactly how to do it :D .... unless you get Swords/Barracks VERY early and can buld up some extra Swordsmen to throw at the enemy...

Strength of 6 vs 6.4 with 1 first strike gives the swordsman a 28% chance of winning, so not that good. Without the first strike the swordsman would win 34% of the time... still not that good.

Strength of 6 vs 6.4 with 1 first strike gives the swordsman a 28% chance of winning, so not that good. Without the first strike the swordsman would win 34% of the time... still not that good.Where did you get 6.4 from?

Archer has 3 ... +50% city defense, plus, let's say 60% city defense...
Swordsman has +10% city attack

That equals a modified archer strength of 6. And that's with neither side having been created in barracks...

50% of 3 is 1.5 and 60% of 3 is 1.8 so total bonus of 3.3 but doesn't civ round down always or something? Even if they didn't thats 6.3 which I think is rounded to 6 period..........dammit lol mujadaddy is taking this math war to two fronts!

Hehe, when an attacker has a Bonus, it takes away from the defender's defense bonus, so it rounds back down to +100%, which is 6 total :crazyeye:

Oh ok! That makes so much more sense, thank you.

Archers are ok early defenders, there best when paired with spearmen or else youl get torn up horses, especially immmortals(which thus far people have been underating). The immortals(I used them alsmost soley in a war against egypt) tear down archers with ease, as I didnt have to use a single catapult yet still managed to whack the egyptians.

I mentioned the Immortals before in the thread. For my first ever random-civ game I got the Persians, which I before underestimated. But once I playd them for the first time...I soon saw things under a new light :)

I hadnt underestimated them I had just ignored them in general until a player on the forum said thats who he uses now so I thought "why not?". Although he was saying that there traits were awesome and made no mention of there UU which I thinl tops the praetorian by far in terms of timing and usefullness.

Get swordsmen with City Raider.

If you use the Romans, and rush towards Iron Working, the Roman UU has a strength of 8. This guy, the Praetorian, is very good against archers, especially if given the city raider promotion. Unless the archer is in a city with a strong defense bonus, on a hill, your 8 strength unit should be in good shape, without using catapults. Plus, if you win a few times, and can upgrade to City Raider 3, the 75% attack against city bonus is a real treat. It'll allow you to take on longbowmen, too. Great units.

Thanks for the info! This will help a lot when I go warmongering!

As for where the 6.4 vs. 6 came from, my swordsmen had a combination of city raider/cover, and were attacking from a hill at a size 3 non-hill city.

OK, now you're switching where the numbers are, :lol: ... initially you said 6vs6.4 ... now you're saying 6.4vs6 ... which is it?? :D

IF the Swordsmen have Cover...then that's 7.5 Sword attack vs. 6 Archer defense....IF the Cultural bonus is 60% ...

SUMMARY: We need all the information to get the numbers right :crazyeye:

just a side question - what level is everyone playing?

I'm still on Noble till I get Perfect at it :)

Everybody's forgetting the chariots.. 50% (or 25%?) against archery units.

I've wasted many cities defended solely by archers with my chariots. In fact even when horse archers come around I don't upgrade my chariots in case I face archers or longbowmen...

And yeah those immortals got me out of a rough spot once when the Arabs decided to capture 2 of my poorly defended cities (but my only source of copper, poorly defended because I had recently captured them from barbarians). I was despairing because I couldn't build axemen to face his armies.. But then I saw the Immortals' bonus against archers.

Buh bye Saladin!!! ;) Love the immortals.

Immortals were one of the best Ancient Age UU's in Civ III too. When I first saw their stats in Civ IV, I was disappointed to see their dynasty fail. But then I realized how useful they really were.

Right now I'm about to attack a city. I have a swordsman, an axeman and a spearman. The defenders arew two archers and a warrior. Judging from the alt-mouseover, the one with the highest chance of victory is the swordsman, with 6 againts the archer's 6.4. Are archers really this strong at defending?

Archers and longbowmans are excellent defenders. They could "easily" take out tanks and gunships. I recently sent out a group of four gunships and a tank against a city defended by 3 longbowmans and a spearman. I figured...it's a sure thing...my three gunships would take out 3 longbowmans then my tank to run over the spearman to capture the city. Guess what? I lost two out of four gunships and my tank had to retrieve from battle; the defenders lost only 1 longbowman. Here is a screenshot of that:

Many ancient-age UU's have anti-archer traits that are really useful.

Not many? Just 2: Persian immortal (+50%) and Incan quechua (+100%).

I mean, out of all of the ancient age UU's available.

Archers and longbowmans are excellent defenders. They could "easily" take out tanks and gunships. I recently sent out a group of four gunships and a tank against a city defended by 3 longbowmans and a spearman. I figured...it's a sure thing...my three gunships would take out 3 longbowmans then my tank to run over the spearman to capture the city. Guess what? I lost two out of four gunships and my tank had to retrieve from battle; the defenders lost only 1 longbowman. Here is a screenshot of that:

:lol: How much is the city defense bonus?

Archers and longbowmans are excellent defenders. They could "easily" take out tanks and gunships. I recently sent out a group of four gunships and a tank against a city defended by 3 longbowmans and a spearman. I figured...it's a sure thing...my three gunships would take out 3 longbowmans then my tank to run over the spearman to capture the city. Guess what? I lost two out of four gunships and my tank had to retrieve from battle; the defenders lost only 1 longbowman. apparently, you're playing on a much higher level than noble. I had a grenadier shoot down a chopper. Fortunately, the modern armor was there to clean up.

Not to diverge too much, but has anyone figured out how to best use the artillery? (not the cats, not the cannons, the artillery)

Use it the same way as the cats and the cannons - bombard to reduce the city defence bonus, then attack to do massive collatoral damage before the main army attacks... At least, that's what I do :-)

Archers ? Ha :) !

My Roman theocracy goverment trains Preatorians that runs them over without any losses in a city with +60%, no siege equipment needed ;) (Mixed Cover, strenght, city attack and medic training).

Artillery is only useful for reducing city defense bonus. The tanks handle the collateral damage, since they actually survive doing it.

Archers taking out tanks? Longbowmen taking down choppers? So many complaints about that but I look back at my own life and the years I spent running around for Uncle Sam.

Seen and been in so many countries like Somalia where there is ZERO industry and goverment. How the hell where these 6 year olds shooting at us with RPGS and AK47's???

Simple, we or other nations sold our excess weapons to nation X in the hopes of counterbalancing superpower Y. The results as we all know never where what was expected. Instead you ended up with tons of warlords running amok, attacking eachother, cruiseships, damn near anything.

So in CIV the next time a English Knight takes out your American Gunship, blame the Chinese or Spanish for selling covert explosives to the English :crazyeye: Better yet blame your corporations for seeking that extra dollar by doing illegal arms deals :rolleyes:

So in CIV the next time a English Knight takes out your American Gunship, blame the Chinese or Spanish for selling covert explosives to the English :crazyeye: Better yet blame your corporations for seeking that extra dollar by doing illegal arms deals :rolleyes:Nice! Five stars :D