Do you like to fight more with Swordsmen or Horsemen?

to be competetive in the HoF or GOTM one must learn the benefits of using horsemen.

assuming the defender is a regular spear fortified in a town on grass the regular swordsman will win 55% of the time and lose 45%; while the regular horseman wins 34% of the time, but only loses 36%, the remaining horsemen retreat. thus, around 64% of the time a horseman will survive the battle, slightly more than the swordsman. factor in moving twice as fast, the production to replace the 10% extra swords (along with the lost promotion) and quickly it is simply mathematics that horsemen will conquer more territory faster.

taking a few turns to heal is not nearly the set back that producing a replacement unit and getting it to the battle is. the higher survival rate also means a more experienced force (a veteran horseman is a 49% winner, elite is 61%). considering all of this and the horseman is clearly better.

i used to use swordsmen all the time too until i read from the more experienced players and my games improved alot.

as for MPP, you should almost always be playing as a republic anyway, but that is another topic.

if going for a fast military victory on demigod or below artillery will just slow you down. i will build artillery in the IA, but my domination and conquest games are usually over before then.

MMP? IA?

Theres HoF games? How does that work?

"assuming a regular swordsman fortied on a grass town"
Is this a town with a wall/pop of 7+? Well what about a vet? Does that change the numbers for or against the swordsman? Also if the enemy takes the town, thats pretty costly in its own right. Something to consider as well as unit replacement costs. Also the AI can just kill a horseman whos retreated if it has superior numbers at the location its attacking..

Also hills/mountains obviously make a difference, they multiple as a function of a units base defence.

What about on the attacking side of it? A swordsmans attack might claim the town where a horseman attack might fail, leaving a pile of retreated horseman to be destroyed the next turn.

What are the numbers for horseman defending against swordsman attack? I can't imagine they'd be good (for the horseman) retreat or not. Doesn't a greater difference between attack and defence reduce the chance of a horsemans etc retreat?

BTW, where did you derive these numbers?

People, people, lets get back on topic. If you have any HoF questions, PM someone in the HoF staff.

you can find a combat calculator here on the forums. i think in the utility section.

@truepurple: you list valid variables.

MPP: i meant MP, military police. IA: industrial ages

an important factor is experience. if attacking into a more experienced unit your chances are much lower (obviously). that same swordsman attacking a vet spear only has a 39% kill rate. 61% die. the horseman wins 20%, but only 40% loss. vs elites a sword: 27% / 73% , horseman 12% / 46%. unit experience is an important factor to consider when deciding tactics. with more horsemen surviving they will on average be more experienced, leading to more eventual victories and more leaders.

an effective attack vs. the AI leads to little ability for it to counter-attack, and it definately doesn't have the units to knock out a stack of retreated horsemen. (deity and sid will rush a strong initial counter attack and i have not mastered battle at these levels)

i think experience might also effect retreat percent, but i am not sure.

as for defense, if i were defending a resource or something i would build a spearman because its cheaper. i don't defend captured cities. i might leave a unit for garrison, but i keep pressing the attack and the AI eventually wilts.

there are other tactical considerations when using a two move unit. like strike and retreat to a safer square. sword wins, but is vulnerable to a counter-attack. i use this tactic alot to take out a lone AI unit with a horseman.

basically i used swords exclusively when i first started playing. i had the same question about which was best. i read alot on the forums from successful players and the concensus was horsemen over swords. Eman states it well. i started using the horseman strategy and have been more successful. it didn't seem logical, but these are some reasons why i think it works. it's about speed, and retreat.

download the calculator, learn the AI defensive tactics, properly stack your units, and attack with horsemen. resist the urge to use swords. go as far to set-up a scenario, i think you will be surprised. i was.

Horsemen, because I can eventually upgrade them to cavalry and destroy all of my neighbors.

Perhaps in my next game I should try horses instead. I usually go for Swordsmen, the attack value is yay.

Of course Mounted Warriors and Gallic Swordmen make this decision a no brainer

Look here for a more detailed explanation of retreat (defender's experience matters, too). Actually, I'll just give the formula: (100 * attacker retreat bonus)/(50 + defender retreat bonus)

I have to answer Sword over Horseman; but, the way I usually play its never an issue as I would prefer to wait until Knight (or equiv) to build up a mobile attacking force, and from then on I will never bother with foot units again. Mobility (or manoeuvre) is critical to a sustained attack - by the time footmen get to the next city the enemy has time to muster reinforcements, especially with roads. Equally, mobile units can harass slow moving footmen as they approach the city and weaken all but a really strong attack.

Civ really doesn't take into account the critical "tactical" element of warfare, it is a strategic game so, as Rusty has posted above its a numbers game! very much like in real life (at the strategic level).... I'm still disgusted from the first time I heard that general's do a "cost-benefits analysis" of battlefield losses...I mean we're talking about real people here (sorry off topic !).

To the original question, if it were strength vs. mobility I would take horse ... but since I mostly build Swords early on and nothing but mobile units later, I have to say Swords.

I almost voted "tie", because I really like the combined arms stacks...
catapults to take a few HP off (when they hit ) , horses to further
soften them up and retreat when redlined, and swords to actually
take the city.

Having said that, I value the upgrade path for horses in Vanilla and PTW.
If I'm not engaged in an early war, I will build horses in the AA solely
for the purpose of upgrading them in the Middle Ages. Plus, offensive
units are better deterrents to the AI, even if their sitting in my cities,
munching oats As others have noted, swords upgrade in PTW and
C3C, so that advantage is lessened.

So how does one know how accurate this calculator is?

I'll ask again " Doesn't a greater difference between attack and defence reduce the chance of a horsemans etc retreat?"

Also you never answered whether that town you mentioned had walls/pop 7+

Or put another way, does a horseman attacking a warrior or another horseman on grassland stand the same chance of retreating if losing, as a horseman attacking a pikeman on a mountain?

Does a horseman attacked by a swordsman stand the same chance of retreat as one attacked by a warrior?

strike and retreat to a safer square.

Click to expand...

Only if the enemy moved next to your horseman but didn't attack or you have roads to use. (unless your talking about the autoretreat thng)

if i were defending a resource or something i would build a spearman because its cheaper.

Click to expand...

Only 33% so, Its useful to be able to attack a stack of units pilled up outside your town, especially if they are horseman And the AI respects attack value on a unit so swordsman instead of spearman will reduce your chances of being dogpilled.

Its one thing to say horseman are more useful/should be built more, its another to say never build swordsman. You don't see any value in building any swordsman under any circumstances?

TruePurple said:

Or put another way, does a horseman attacking a warrior or another horseman on grassland stand the same chance of retreating if losing, as a horseman attacking a pikeman on a mountain?

Does a horseman attacked by a swordsman stand the same chance of retreat as one attacked by a warrior?

Click to expand...

Yes, Yes.

BUT remember, Horsemen NEVER retreat against other fast-moving units! (viz. Horsemen v Horsemen.)

TruePurple said:

...You don't see any value in building any swordsman under any circumstances?

Click to expand...

$0.02: Basically, NO, I don't. But if you don't have access to horses.........then you HAVE to think about those slow-moving, non-retreating foot soldiers!

I prefer Horsemen, but that's because I usually play with Iroquois. Go Mounties!

@TruePurple: i have not done the calculations myself, but in practice they seem to be right.

the town in my example had no walls/below size 7. add walls and success decreases for both. doing this actually benefits horsemen.

since deciding to use horsemen i only built swords once (other than when i didn't have horses). i was attacking a town on a hill being defended by three spears (with possibly more arriving) and one i knew was elite. the town was right on my borders. the horsemen where having too much difficulty and i was tired of waiting for them to heal, so i decided to up the firepower. even the swords where dying and i was getting pi**-off. as it turned out i over built them and after taking a few more towns my horsemen where taking most cities faster than the swords could get to the battle. i started using them as garrisons.

strike and retreat only works like you say, but this situation happens alot especially if the AI doesn't have a fast moving unit because they have to get that close to attack.

if you are defending use spears. you can put 3 on a square for every 2swords. they then can upgrade along a superior defensive path. if i am attacking an AI i rarely face a stack against me that i cannot reach and destroy with fast attackers. i only place defenders in towns that i cannot afford to lose for even one turn. the rest i just retake, and then make the AI pay for its foolishness. (but swords vs. spears is for a different thread.)

when deciding to attack i think the AI only cares about hp, and defense value. i've never seen them avoid attacking a higher offensive unit. in fact i think if facing two units with equal defense they will attack the unit with higher offense. i do the same thing.

[tab]Well defensive use of swordsman is worth mentioning since we are talking total use in the game. It adds to the units versatility. To be able to attack those outside the city then defend from them during the AI's turn.

[tab]Also its interesting tactic to have swordsman patrolling a mountain range, scouting around, taking out enemies, or defending a position.

[tab]As far as taking on a town, I don't know. Artillery can be useful. But it does mean a slower conquest as you have to widdle down the enemy. You also need alot of them to be effective, which can be another drawback. But it also can mean a more sure conquest in the long run, less units lost when your attacking red lined spear man with a swordsman.

when deciding to attack i think the AI only cares about hp, and defense value. i've never seen them avoid attacking a higher offensive unit. in fact i think if facing two units with equal defense they will attack the unit with higher offense. i do the same thing.

Click to expand...

[tab]You misunderstand, I speak of war starting, not unit targeting. I'm told that the AI puts the most weight on the attack of your units when its weighing your military strength in a decision to threaten you for goods/money or go to war with you. So having swordsman in reserve might mean better peace from the neighbors you aren't fighting. No idea if the AI weighs in unit movement in consideration of military strength. Or even if they are right about the attack strength thing. I'd think the AI would likely weigh shield cost, since thats the easiest way for a programmer to factor in all a units strengths. But I don't know.

IIRC, when calculating your strength, the AI only considers the attack strength of offensive units and the defense strength of defensive units. Your total strength is the sum of all your defender's defense strength plus 1.5 times the sum of all your attacker's attack strength. So a Medieval Infantry is considered the equivalent to a Rifleman.

Rustwork said:

assuming the defender is a regular spear fortified in a town on grass the regular swordsman will win 55% of the time and lose 45%; while the regular horseman wins 34% of the time, but only loses 36%, the remaining horsemen retreat. thus, around 64% of the time a horseman will survive the battle, slightly more than the swordsman. factor in moving twice as fast, the production to replace the 10% extra swords (along with the lost promotion) and quickly it is simply mathematics that horsemen will conquer more territory faster.

Click to expand...

can't check the numbers, but assuming they are right:
i'd like to take cities when i'm offensive. so, it's nice that more horseman survive the first attack, but that does not give me the city.

vorlon_mi said:

I really like the combined arms stacks...
catapults to take a few HP off (when they hit ) , horses to further
soften them up and retreat when redlined, and swords to actually
take the city.

Click to expand...

Great strategy, but Horses have 2 movement while Swords have 1. You have to move 1 tile/turn with Horses to be able to attack in the same time.

I dont rememeber the last time I built a horseman...

@nicci: it's not about taking one city. of course a stack of swords can take one city easier. it's about winning the war, and horsemen will ultimately lead to faster success and achieve victory sooner. the one time recently that i built swords to take a difficult city nearby i later switched to horsemen and they eventually where out front conquering before the surviving swords even made it to the battle.

there is nothing else i can really say about this subject. i gave plain evidence for the superiority of horsemen. anyone who likes swords should continue using them. my vote is and will remain for horsemen.

i understand what u are saying and if ur math is right it will be a cheaper war ur way, but in a lot of cases it is about taking cities. with the cities u take he is paying his army, maybe there is an important resource, etc. u are saying it is more important to aliminate his army. my view is that he is suffering equally if i take a number of his cities fast. once i take a few cities i turn the war into a defensive one and the numbers favour the defender in civ. the cost for that is a few swordsman more.