Horsemen? Swordsmen? Stables?

Are horsemen the better military option in the age of swordsmen?

They have an extra movement point, and you can build a stable and a barracks so they get a second promotion swordsmen can't. Does that make Chariot/Horse/Knight/Cavalry the best military?

Also with flanking promotions they have a higher survive rate so will get more and faster promotions , so you can get the Heroic Epic sooner and use your hammers more efficiently.

You can build axes,archers,spears for defense which upgrade to better defensive units over time, or macemen , longbowmen, and pikemen for siege warfare tactics.

So why build swords?

If you don't have horses?

'Cause you don't have horses?

Two more points: horse archers (HA) can't get the city raider promotion - swordsmen can.
HA's are easily countered by a few spears - swordsmen can usually even handle a few axes.

- - -
But basically I agree with you: in the early game, I prefer horses to either metall.

Consider swords if:

1. You have the aggressive trait
2. You are rome or celtia
3. You lack horse
4. You want to use catapults
5. The target has easy access to ivory and the requisite techs

Chariots are an EARLY EARLY rush unit only unless the opponent has metal (but if you do hit fast enough, they're very devastating). HAs are a great unit that really won't slow down until longbows. Pikes stop them cold though (as do castles in general). Generally HAs are going to be better than swords at attacking cities but they're expensive and so require tight controls to field a reasonable stack early.

Knights suck because of tech tree placement usually. Cuirassers/cavalry are very, very strong against previous era units and cavalry remains a solid field presence vs rifles.

Edit:

Two more points: horse archers (HA) can't get the city raider promotion - swordsmen can.

Click to expand...

Horse archers get 5 xp from stables and thus a 2nd promotion. Horse archers ignore first strikes (making them more effective against archers, which always have at least 1). Also, if you're not bombarding the total defense modifiers are high, combat is competitive as a promotion with CR...don't overestimate CR vs combat when not bombarding .

HA's are easily countered by a few spears - swordsmen can usually even handle a few axes.

Click to expand...

On flatland with 0 promos, a sword vs axe is 6 vs 7.5. A HA vs spear is 6 vs 8.

Too bad promos and defensive terrain matter. Both build on the HA's case. Of course, HAs also have an inherent withdraw chance, and so will survive on average more than the swords. A lot more. Swords are cheaper however...you get what you pay for. Swords are generally only good vs archers (aka opponent has no metal) or as part of a cat stack (with some minimal barrage, swords can overpower all classical and medieval defenders until maces).

Different, not necessarily better or worse. You missed out on the big advantage of horse archers: they're fast. (movement-wise)

The drawback to horse archers is that they require a dead-end tech, they're more expensive, take longer to tech to, they don't get the city-raider promotion, require two dead-end techs, and have a more painful counter-unit.

I confess that if I'm fighting early, getting a promoted unit is not the obstacle to getting heroic epic -- it's finding the money/time to research Literature.

MyOtherName said:

Different, not necessarily better or worse. You missed out on the big advantage of horse archers: they're fast. (movement-wise)

The drawback to horse archers is that they require a dead-end tech, they're more expensive, take longer to tech to, they don't get the city-raider promotion, require two dead-end techs, and have a more painful counter-unit.

I confess that if I'm fighting early, getting a promoted unit is not the obstacle to getting heroic epic -- it's finding the money/time to research Literature.

Click to expand...

1. CR is still being ignorantly overrated on this thread as an early promo. CR I on swords is not going to provide much advantage over combat I. Against archers it will occasionally be WEAKER.

Granted, as you get down the CR line it gets stronger, but you won't see that on swords unless you're waiting for theology or feudalism, or simply expose them to combat. Needless to say, the % victory seen in the vast majority of practical cases is NOT going to favor swords, CR or not.

2. Please do explain how HA vs spear is more painful than sword vs axe. Are you comparing the .5 variance in raw strength on flatland without factoring in promotions like shock, withdraw chances, and mobility?

MyOtherName said:

Different, not necessarily better or worse. You missed out on the big advantage of horse archers: they're fast. (movement-wise)

The drawback to horse archers is that they require a dead-end tech, they're more expensive, take longer to tech to, they don't get the city-raider promotion, require two dead-end techs, and have a more painful counter-unit.

I confess that if I'm fighting early, getting a promoted unit is not the obstacle to getting heroic epic -- it's finding the money/time to research Literature.

Click to expand...

I don,t know how to calculate it in hard numbers, but isn't a longer lasting unit less expensive in terms of total hammers spent versus a short-lived unit? In other words isn't the extra survival chance a better investment?

And no tech is dead-end if you trade it for another tech - it still leads to something else you need, but in a different way.

Patronus Potter said:

If you don't have horses?

Click to expand...

I think that is the only reason - to take horses if you don't have them.

I'd say HA are basically better... but it's not like you should only build HA and never swords. Swords do have their advantages. I think the big one that no one seems to be talking about is that HA don't get defensive bonuses. So if you're trying to move your stack forward without it getting clobbered by some enemy counter-stack then moving swords slowly through trees and hills is probably going to be better than charging in with HA. If you want to be able to effectively defend a city after capturing it, swords are going to be a bit better for that as well.

So HA get exp point from barracks???? I obviously know that they do from stables. I just thought that barracks didn't affect mounted units so I've always had one or the other in a city and produced accordingly.

karadoc said:

I'd say HA are basically better... but it's not like you should only build HA and never swords. Swords do have their advantages. I think the big one that no one seems to be talking about is that HA don't get defensive bonuses. So if you're trying to move your stack forward without it getting clobbered by some enemy counter-stack then moving swords slowly through trees and hills is probably going to be better than charging in with HA. If you want to be able to effectively defend a city after capturing it, swords are going to be a bit better for that as well.

Click to expand...

That's the point, well done !

I was scrolling down the thread a little bit astonished seeing that anyone pointed it out (especially TMIT, such a skilled player ). Defense is a key factor, and HAs suck on this, especially with spears around. I always build a diversified stack, each unit has it's pros/cons and there's no way to find the better one, even among UU's.

Copterman said:

So HA get exp point from barracks???? I obviously know that they do from stables. I just thought that barracks didn't affect mounted units so I've always had one or the other in a city and produced accordingly.

Click to expand...

All land units get xp from barracks. One advantage of mounted units is that you can typically build them with more promotions than anything else.

HA's are nice... but if you're going against shaka... I'd be bringing some swords instead

Ha's I use as shock troopers to soften up any large stack. With their movement speed and withdrawl chance (most often they get double withdrawl promo first). They are very good for defensive purposes with the flanking as they will whittle down the enemies siege very easily. That and the computer doesn't know how to build very good stacks, so they mop them up niceley.

That said I typically use swords more often in an early war than HA's. I'll bring a couple HA's along with my stack for open field assaults and withdrawl fodder on a really nasty defensive city. The bulk of my army though is going to be swords, and some support units to protect the stack.


But I really don't like going to war until I get macemen, makes things quite a bit nicer

Stables are a little deceptive, though. Those +/- 50 (? not sure and no time to check) hammers could have gone into more Horse Archers. You really need to build the HAs consistently over a long period of time to get a significant benefit from them. When using Combat 2, there is also the fact that the promotion only raises your units' strength by 1/11 rather than 1/10 of it's initial value (from 110% to 120% instead of the 100% to 110% of Combat 1).

Not saying building stables is a bad idea, just that there is a risk of overestimating it's effects. Stables do not equal "free second promotions".

On non-swords:
CR1 = C1 when
defensive bonus=120%

On swords, it will be 130% (obviously)

CR2 = C2 when
1.2/(1+d)=1/(1+d-0.45)
d=170%

CR3=C3 when
d=225%

And in case you're interested about mixing promotions to get a multiplier effect:
CR1C1=CR2 when
1.1/(1+d-0.2)=1/(1+d-0.45)
d=195%, so C2 is better than CR1C1

CR2C1=C3 when
d=192.5%

CR1C2=C3 when
d=160%

C1Cover=CR2 when
1.1/(1+d-0.2)=1/(1+d-0.45)
d=145%

C2Cover=CR3 when
d=225%

C2=C1Shock (spears/pikes) when
d=200%

Ringo Kid said:

So why build swords?

Click to expand...

Short version: Because.

Long version:

Horseback riding is an expensive tech for its era.
Iron working provides an additional (and very critical) resource pop.

A good military campaign involves logistics (roads, medics), combined arms (spears, archers, swords, catapults(?), axemen) and strategic planning.

On the other hand, mounted units (represented by Horse Archers in this game) are either used as flanking units or "special hit&run forces". Obviously, one can build an army out of purely HA's, but spears are cheaper and they defend pretty well. If the enemy doesn't have metal, it doesn't really matter what you hit him with, he's gonna die anyway.

When it comes to taking cities (which is the whole point most of the time), it's the Chariots that prep./pillage the way for your Swords, and the Horse archers are the ones doing it for your Macemen.

Also, HA intiative can be lost on many things: rivers, forests, jungles, hills, beach landing, just to name a few.

the metal route for certain civs/conditions may be superior for a variety of factors

Fact- early iron location for settling, and for specific units/techs such as crossbow, Machinery, ect.

Fact- Bowmen, Spear. can stave off just about anything afor siege making horse cry home to mama

Fact- Jaguar (and as mentioned Celts unique unit) is/are superior to horse archer

Fact- Barbarian event with a stack of spear


the evidence is clear- Stable- extra building- tech time ect- at times makes sword the optimal choice.

Hard to beat horse archers for a good backstab/dogpile early war. When a neighbor is already engaged in war, chances are he'll have some nice soft targets for you to quickly claim and less ability to counterattack before you can get some defenders forward to protect your new cities. It's always nice to have a fast-moving stack around in games where you might have an opportunity to do this.

sword with woodsman can do the same- with added defense bonus


here's a cool stunt i pulled off in multiplayer in a sword vs horse duel
(a draw- the game crashed or something- good opponent tho- he wrote - "well played" which was kinda nice considering multiplayer anger....)

at any rate i took a sword- attached a great genral to it alone- gave it moral
leadership formation and whatever else and pulled a sneak attack (wait til the timer is about done- double move- and destroyed his capital defended by a horse.)

the evidence is clear- one dimensional players with certainties- fodder for glorious me.

I must admit I have a new found love for mounted units after the latest NC game. Never used to bother with them much. I was surprised how long you can keep warring with just horse archers even against nieghbours with high cultural defence and metal as the AI doesn't tend to build too many spears and dislodging one or two isn't a problem with flanking.

The speed at which you can cripple an opponent is their true advantage but can also be their downfall they are almost too quick and it's really easy to cripple yourself in the early game if you keep too many cities.