axeman or swordsman?

[Yakk]

CRII Sword vs CDII Archer
6 = 3+65%+Def% => Def=35%
CRII Sword vs Shock Axe
6 = 5+55%+Def% => Def=-35%

CRII Axe vs CB Archer
5 = 3+75%+Def% => Def=-5%
CRII Axe vs Shock Axe
5 = 5+15%+Def% => Def=-15%

If you plan on parking your stack next to an enemy city, note that the enemy under Blake Feb-12 will constantly whip archers.

 

[cabert]

CRII Sword vs CDII Archer
6 = 3+65%+Def% => Def=35%
CRII Sword vs Shock Axe
6 = 5+55%+Def% => Def=-35%

CRII Axe vs CB Archer
5 = 3+75%+Def% => Def=-5%
CRII Axe vs Shock Axe
5 = 5+15%+Def% => Def=-15%

If you plan on parking your stack next to an enemy city, note that the enemy under Blake Feb-12 will constantly whip archers.

I'm not sure I understand your table well.
So here is mine :
CR2 sword vs CD2 archer : 6 vs 4,2
CR2 sword vs shock axe : 6 vs 6,5 (don't forget the combat promotion needed for shock!)

CR2 axe vs CD2 archer : 5 vs 4,2
CR2 axe vs shock axe : 5 vs 4,5

So really, if you're opponent loads up on axes, you should do the same.

 

[slowcar]

axes. of course. iron working is too expensive to research if you have copper, absolutely no need for it. you can trade for it, given alphabet, or research it after your initial war. the first war needs to come quick, 2 spears and 6-8 axes are all you need to get a whole enemy empire down. If you have horses add 2 chariots to get rid of lonely enemy axes.

 

[Giaur]

I'm not sure I understand your table well.
So here is mine :
CR2 sword vs CD2 archer : 6 vs 4,2
CR2 sword vs shock axe : 6 vs 6,5 (don't forget the combat promotion needed for shock!)

CR2 axe vs CD2 archer : 5 vs 4,2
CR2 axe vs shock axe : 5 vs 4,5

So really, if you're opponent loads up on axes, you should do the same.

CR2 sword vs CD1 longbow : 6.6 vs 6.0
CR2 sword vs shock axe : 6 vs 6.5

CR2 axe vs CD1 longbow : 5.0 vs 6.0
CR2 axe vs shock axe : 5 vs 4.5

 

[cabert]

CR2 sword vs CD1 longbow : 6.6 vs 6.0
CR2 sword vs shock axe : 6 vs 6.5

CR2 axe vs CD1 longbow : 5.0 vs 6.0
CR2 axe vs shock axe : 5 vs 4.5

that cannot be right (bolded part)
And attacking LBs with axes is suicide .

 

[Yakk]

Archer CD2:
3
+50% city defense
+25% foritfy
+45% promotion
+X% cultural defense

Sword CR2:
6
(-10% defender)
(-45% defender promotion)

Axe CR2:
5
(-50% melee defender)
(-45% city defender)

Axe Shock:
5
(+10% combat 1)
(+25% fortify)
(+75% vs melee)
(+X% culture)

Longbow CD2:
6
(+25% city)
(+25% fortify)
(+45% promotion)
(+X% culture)

Any errors?

My table is intended to indicate the amount of culture (postive or negative) required to win. Negative culture defense doesn't happen, as a note.

 

[Giaur]

that cannot be right (bolded part)
And attacking LBs with axes is suicide .

It's right. You have to divide both numbers by 11/10 I think. And you will get the same result. I am not good at floatpoint mathematics, so used simpler calculation. The only number that matters here is that after dividing one by another.

 

[Giaur]

My intension was to show that swords are better. They don't get obsolete so quickly. In real circumstance even swords won't beat longbows, but you will have to sacrifise one catapult. When attacking with axes you will have to sacrifise at least two. And swords attacking longbows and swords attacking axes have similar odds.

Usually unit with higher strength is better cause it can manage anything. Swords are similar to Praets. Both have no bonuses, but both have improved strength. Many players found Praets overpowered.

 

[DigitalBoy]

It's funny, but I've never even contemplated attacking with swords after longbows show up. As soon as they do, I revert completely into builder mode until I can get macemen or muskets. I might have to rethink this.

 

[Yakk]

Random number crunching seems to indicate to me that a 25% damaged longbow with CD2 is matched with a undamaged CR3 sword.

Swords work well with catapults.

 

[Giaur]

Of course you have to take the defence down first. I wonder how many of you do that? I usually do, but it also depends on the particular situation.

 

[cabert]

Of course you have to take the defence down first. I wonder how many of you do that? I usually do, but it also depends on the particular situation.

Of course I do, if I can (meaning attacking after catapults are available)

 

[Yakk]

*nod* -- axemen vs archers is doable without defense.

Swordsmen vs Longbows requires defense to be blasted away.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

If you are talking about blasting away defenses and fighting longbows, won't you be using catapults rather than swords for attacking? A CR catapult has exactly the same odds as a CR axeman attacking a city plus it does collateral damage - so there is no reason to use CR axes. And I would argue that the collateral damage makes it better than swords. So your armies at that point are catapults en-masse, plus axes and spears for stack defense and maybe a few swords to suicide the top defender if the catapults aren't injuring it or mop up poorly defended cities.

I am not sure there is much value in comparing swords/axes vs longbows. To kill longbows by then you must wipe out the cultural defense - and you must therefore have catapults. In which case you war with catapults anyway.

Swords and Axes vs archers/axes/chariots/spear and cultural defense (but not walls) is a much more reasonable comparison. If I found copper, I would just war immediately with axes. But if I had to tech to Iron to get any melee units then you have the choice. Then I would base the decision on what I thought the opponent had in the way of resources:

- Horses - build swords only (+ a few spears)
- Copper - build axes only
- Neither - build swords only
- Both - build axes (+ a few spears) - because the chariots are quite likely to defend after the archers anyway, in which case your escorting spearmen can take them out.

Either way I agree with the idea of building a lot of one of them rather than a mix.

 

[30+]

Take hammers into consideration. You can get rougly 4 Axeman OR 2 Swordsman. I'll take the 4 any day.

 

[scooter]

FYI, if you play multiplayer, you should almost never build swords, because human players tend to use mostly axeman to defend their cities, as opposed to the AI's mostly archers, at least in my experience. Against the AI, balance it though, you need both.

 

[aelf]

Either way I agree with the idea of building a lot of one of them rather than a mix.

Really strange logic you have there. Assuming you have iron, why not build at least a couple of swords? No matter what the AI loves to spam archers/longbows, and swords are much more efficient at taking them out. Do you really want to sacrifice so many catapults to deal enough collateral damage for axes to mop up?

 

[UncleJJ]

Take hammers into consideration. You can get rougly 4 Axeman OR 2 Swordsman. I'll take the 4 any day.

Did you mean this? An axeman costs 35 hammers and a Swordsman costs 40. So the ratio would be 8 Axemen to 7 Swordsmen not 4 to 2.

Or did you mean something else?

 

[anglosaxon]

A swordsman with combat 1 and shock promotion has good chances against an axeman if he is in a forest or on a hill.

 

[Yakk]

Really strange logic you have there. Assuming you have iron, why not build at least a couple of swords? No matter what the AI loves to spam archers/longbows, and swords are much more efficient at taking them out. Do you really want to sacrifice so many catapults to deal enough collateral damage for axes to mop up?

It is the mechanics of defense in Civ4. If you have a mix of attackers, each one ends up fighting the unit best suited to defend it. If you have a concentration of attackers, you overwealm the "best suited" opposing units, then you get to chew on the soft underbelly units that are bad at defending against your unit.

Archers are weak -- so much so, that an axe with combat II or CR II is more than enough to take them out.

Swords have serious pain problems against axemen. A single axeman can require your stack to be much larger, and cause lots of casualties.

Once you reach catapults, using they become seriously optimal for taking cities. Promoted with city raider, they are as strong as axes directly (which is almost as strong as swordsmen), and they do boatloads of collateral damage.

Only in the mopping up phase, after every enemy unit has been collateraled down to roughly half health, do swords start becoming better than catapults.

And it doesn't take many swords at this point for the mopping up. Many other units work perfectly well for this as a bonus: elephants, horse archers, knights.

The point is, the nearly-all-axe-army with spearmen to defend against chariots is an efficient way to conquor in the pre-catapult era. Play for the now, not for the then -- because after you conquor territory and double your land area, your poduction just went through the roof, and replacing your army for the next era's wars got much easier.