axeman or swordsman?

[csar508]

If you goto war early which do you build? Is jaguar better than axeman?

 

[Morgrad]

Build both.

A diverse Stack of Death is a happy Stack of Death.

 

[Galileo44]

I will only build swords if my opponent has no metal, or if the swords are considerable taller and speak Latin. Other than that, axes are the way to go, as they negate the anti-mele abilities of other axemen.

 

[Harbourboy]

Depends on the situation, but axemen are generally slightly more effective because of the +50% against melee, which helps them to survive a bit better against other axes and swords. But swordsmen are better at attacking archers in cities, so you need some of them as well.

 

[DigitalBoy]

I usually use swordsmen with a handful of axemen to defend them from other axemen. Swordsmen are clearly better against archers but have a harder time of it against axemen (effectively 6.6 against 7.5 as opposed to 7.5 against 7.5, ignoring fortify/promos/defense).

Having equal numbers of them can be counterproductive. I prefer to have a bunch of one type. If I have a bunch of swordsmen, the first few may bite the dust against the enemy axemen, but the axemen (hopefully) lose enough health that the archers have to defend instead (and without city defense, they get demolished by swordsmen). If I have a bunch of axemen, they are more effective against axemen but less effective against archers, giving them decent odds against both. If I have axemen and swordsmen attacking, worst case scenario, I attack with axemen and have archers defend and attack with swordsmen and have axemen defend, meaning each unit keeps getting blocked by a kind of unit I don't want to fight. Completely inefficient.

On the other hand, in a best case scenario, the axemen get blocked by the enemy axemen, softening them up so the swordsmen can attack without being blocked by healthy axemen. Hm, when you attack with axemen, do archers or axemen seem to be the first to defend? Obviously, in the face of an enemy axe/sword stack, the smart thing to do would be to save the axemen for attacking swordsmen, but you can't choose which unit defends, right?

 

[Elrohir]

Generally I take along a good mix of both, but with more Swords than Axes. The Axes mainly protect the stack from other axemen and swordsmen and the like, while the Swords cut open the cities. I don't like using Axemen as the main workhorse in city taking, they don't win against Archers or fortified Axemen enough to make it worthwhile. (Assuming you're pre-catapult) If you don't have iron, built Axes. If you have Iron, build both.

 

[lilnev]

Swordsmen are better, if you have them. Build one or two axes to counter opposing axes, but mostly swordsmen. Of course, that requires having Iron and researching IW (a tech that is often better gained in trade for Alphabet). If you're blessed with Copper and a near neighbor, don't wait. And if, as usually happens to me, you have no metal whatsoever... well, that's why God created catapults.

peace,
lilnev

 

[Giaur]

I build swords. They have very long lifespan. They can easily beat longbows (CR3). Axes would fall. But this is because i do not favor cats too much. So experienced swords are my main force. Allways some Axeman and Spears to counter, of course. And moving through rough terrain makes swords immune to enemy troops. Early there are plenty forests in enemy's lands. And if there are no hills or forests i simply risk and AI's usually cannot use that advantage.

 

[kniteowl]

it really depends on the time period when I war, I generally Axe Rush with a couple of Spears to defend against Chariots if I have Copper and a AI nearby, I generally don't use swords until Catapults, But I have used Axes and Swords before Cats, in rare circumstances where I lack Copper, I Hook up Iron to attack my foe when I'm at an Advantage. It really depends on circumstances.

 

[cabert]

I usually build a lot more axes. Not because they are best, but because they are available.
When I finally have iron, the main force is catapults. So I don't need that many swords anyway.

 

[aelf]

Against an enemy with metals, more axemen is better, but you'd still want a few swordsmen to handle cities with archers and no axes. Against an enemy without metals, you probably don't need to waste your time building axemen once you've hooked up iron (assuming you are not under threat from another civ with metals).

Is jaguar better than axeman?

If there's a lot of jungle

You can promote them with shock to help them deal with axes, provided there aren't too many of those.

 

[czechdude]

I go with swords b/c I reaserch IW relatively early and the stupid AI dosen't enough axes.

or if the swords are considerable taller and speak Latin.

Nice line.

 

[UncleJJ]

If you goto war early which do you build? Is jaguar better than axeman?

Regarding normal swordsmen and axes; I build both if I've researched IW. The proportion will depend on what troops the intended target has. If he has melee troops then obviously axe are superior. If he has only archers then swordsmen. If there are chariots axes are rather weaker than swordsmen who don't need the protection of spears.

Swordsmens main role is attacking cities and they do well against any contemporary troops except axes. The 10% city attack bonus is very useful and like half a CR promotion for free.

Jaguars are strange troops to compare with the agressive axes Monte can have. Being agressive means the axes and jaguars get a free combat and therefore get access to a wide range of promotions if built with just a barracks (Combat2, cover, shock, medic, CR1 ). I usually build a mixture of both although the jaguars tend to get CR1 to add to their 10% bonus

The jaguar gets the free 10% city raider which makes it a bit better against archers than the axe. The free woodsman1 the jaguar gets is not very useful unless promoted again to woodsman2 giving faster movement and a purely defensive bonus. The free promotion does carry over if the jaguar is upgraded to a maceman or grenadier but most of the woods and jungles are cleared in the later game.

 

[aelf]

The free woodsman1 the jaguar gets is not very useful unless promoted again to woodsman2 giving faster movement and a purely defensive bonus. The free promotion does carry over if the jaguar is upgraded to a maceman or grenadier but most of the woods and jungles are cleared in the later game.

But Jaguar Paw can run through those forests/jungles and own unsuspecting enemy cities

 

[cabert]

Jaguars are strange troops to compare with the agressive axes Monte can have. Being agressive means the axes and jaguars get a free combat and therefore get access to a wide range of promotions if built with just a barracks (Combat2, cover, shock, medic, CR1 ). I usually build a mixture of both although the jaguars tend to get CR1 to add to their 10% bonus

The jaguar gets the free 10% city raider which makes it a bit better against archers than the axe. The free woodsman1 the jaguar gets is not very useful unless promoted again to woodsman2 giving faster movement and a purely defensive bonus. The free promotion does carry over if the jaguar is upgraded to a maceman or grenadier but most of the woods and jungles are cleared in the later game.

woodsman 2 is only useful if you plan to go for a total rush, with massive losses.
It's a good strat but don't expect to have a woodsman 2 unit take a city as good as a CR1. He is there faster, and dies faster too.
However, it's one of the best strat for super fast rushing.
It's at least better than rushing with impies

 

[Idlenessss]

Well I think horse archers are a lot better than either swords or axes. They are good against archers by ignoring 1st strike, and they can withdraw, and they get 2 moves. They kill axemen almost always. Swordsmen however can do okay against them. Spear of course will nullify them as far as single squares are concerned but you can always blitzkrieg around them and pillage the hell out of undefended places. Since cavalry are actually the 'real' force in wars (tho a lot of ppl dont seem to get that), this increases the importance of swordsmen. Axemen are power 5 with bonus against melee, which is great if the other guy is all melee. But if he is actually a little better at math than that and puts some cavalry/archers in the mix then too many axemen are quite useless. Swordsmen have power 6, and they get bonus against anything at all thats in a city. anything. Including axemen. when u upgrade swordsmen with city raider they will easily beat axemen.
So just going axemen or swordsmen every game is quite silly. But if you had to pick one, id say go swordsmen, cause their bonus is the most flexible.
I voted jaguar as the worst UU in a recent poll. Just terrible. why should jag be punished and lose 1 power. It changes a possible victory agaisnt axemen or horse archer into a no way in hell situation. So the only way they could be useful is if they have very high experience. But how do they get that experience, what are they killing? That 1 point lost in power is actually a very big deal, belive it or not. Even if I didnt have iron, I wouldnt build them, and id resign myself to not havign the option of attacking cities until construction.

 

[manu-fan]

I think you've really got it wrong about the Horse Archer.

What's the point of pillaging when they city will be yours soon?

Also, the AI likes to put Spears in their cities, so attacking with Horse Archers is pointless.

So, Swordsmen all the way, with a few Axemen and the odd Spearman thrown in for good measure.

Get the Swordsmen to CR2 or CR3 and then upgrade to Macemen -> Grenadiers -> Infantry.

Cheers.

 

[Dan Quale]

Axemen, are the best thing ever, no counter as long as you bring 1 spear with you. Just build 80+ axemen and you own the world. Although there are better tactics, once you have cats, axemen still hold their own, unless you have elephants, axemen are the way to go until around 1000 ad, even long bows weakened by cats fall to the might of the axemen.

 

[jeremiahrounds]

Axemen have a counter in warlords: chariots. Though not many people load up on chariots to counter axemen.

I find if your in a defensive mindset axemen + spearmen + horsemen == hard to loose. If your in an offensive mindset I get the swordsmen swarm. Though I get very good results out of a primarily axemen + spearmen set up. I love the way spearmen decimate a more expensive unit. That makes me laugh all giddy like.

Anyway if your just trying to hold your borders axemen + spearmen in equal parts are alot more cost effective than swordsmen. If your just waiting to unleash the swordsmen hoard on someone have at it.

 

[Idlenessss]

Well whats the point in wodering whats the best way to play when you can simply capture a city? If its not that simple, why not just pillage the land to weaken your rival, get instant cash, and make the capture easier later?
Axemen and spear men are both vulnerable to aerchers, especially xbows. by the way.
And huge stacks of anything are vulnerable to catapults, but horse archers have bonus against that, by the way.