Axemen over Swordsmen

[DeltaV]

Yup Axemen are better at attacking other Axemen in cities..

FFIW, the attacker's strength is never modified by the bonus, other than Combat I, II, etc, only the defender's.

Regular Axeman Attacker str 5.
Regular Swordsman str 6.
Regular Axeman Defender against Axeman: Strength 5 + 50% vs melee bonus - 50% Attacker's bonus vs. melee. Final strength 5. Final A/D ratio: 5:5
Regular Axeman Defender against Swordsman: Strength 5 + 50% vs melee bonus - 10% Attacker's inherent City attack bonus. Final strength 7. Final A/D ratio: 6:7

With City I promotion which adds 20%

Regular Axeman Defender against Axeman: Strength 5 + 50% vs melee bonus - 50% Attacker's bonus vs. melee - 20% Attacker's City I bonus. Final strength 5/1.2=, Final A/D ratio: 5:4.17
Regular Axeman Defender against Swordsman: Strength 5 + 50% vs melee bonus - 10% Attacker's inherent City attack - 20% City I bonus . Final strength 6, Final A/D ratio 6:6

With City II promotion which adds 25%

vs. Axeman 5/1.45 = 3.45 strength, A/D ratio 5:3.45
vs. Swordsman 5/1.05 = 4.76 strength, A/D ratio 6:4.76

With City III promotion which adds 30%

vs. Axeman 5/1.75 = 2.86 strength, 5:2.86
vs. Swordsman 5/1.35 = 3.7 strength, 6:3.7


Doesn't change the outcome, just the numbers...axemen still beat swordsmen when attacking axemen (or attacking Swordsmen, for that matter).

Edited to correct math....defensive strength is D*(1+m) when the sum of modifiers, m, is positive, and D/(1-m) when m is negative.

 

[vyapti]

It seems to me that swordmen aren't much use until longbowmen come into the picture, especially if you have an archer killer like the immortal or even quechua. I'm wondering if it's even worth reseraching Iron Working unitl you need it as a prereq.

Warmomgering didn't excite me in past Civ games, so I'm not terribly experienced, but once early on, I noticed that swordmen didn't seem to do as well as axemen, and certainly are not as versatile.

 

[Xarathas]

An attacking stack with a few swordsmen & few axemen is still better than only axes or only swords....

plus.. swordsmen makes better defenders than axemen when the opponents got chariots and horse archers

They all got their uses... just that swordsmen aren't always the better option compared to axemen like some people may think.

 

[onedreamer]

FFIW, the attacker's strength is never modified by the bonus, other than Combat I, II, etc, only the defender's.

really and how do you apply this to a spearman with combat 2 and vs mounted bonus ? if his inherent bonus plus the vs mounted bonus are subtracted from a mounted defender, that unit will have strength under zero. Probably inherent bonuses are not subtracted from the defender.

 

[onedreamer]

It seems to me that swordmen aren't much use until longbowmen come into the picture, especially if you have an archer killer like the immortal or even quechua.

you can't compare an immortal or quechua vs archer to a swordsman. A swordsman is way better and yet you managed to state the contrary...

 

[Kylearan]

Hi,

It's an easy thing to program into an AI; i don't know why they didn't bother to do it.

You don't have a clue about programming AIs, do you?

-Kylearan

 

[onedreamer]

Yeah I am referring more towards multiplayer games against other people... Yes, the AI is very predictable and would not think to build up a large stack of axeman defenders.

they would be defeated by horse archers.
The only way to effectively defend in the ancient age is to have cities defended by archer, axeman and spearman, none excluded.

 

[DeltaV]

really and how do you apply this to a spearman with combat 2 and vs mounted bonus ? if his inherent bonus plus the vs mounted bonus are subtracted from a mounted defender, that unit will have strength under zero. Probably inherent bonuses are not subtracted from the defender.

Ok, fixed it...didn't check my work. When the sum of the modifiers (m) is positive, it works the way I had it...the defender's strength is multiplied by (1+m). But, when the sum of the modifiers (m) is negative, the defender's strength is divided by (1-m). That's where my math was off. So if the spearman is attacking a horse archer (+100% vs mounted for the spearman, no defensive modifiers for the HA), the horse archer's modified strength is 3 (6/(1-(-1), or 6/2). The spearman's strength is still unaffected.

The numbers are based on this link.

 

[vyapti]

you can't compare an immortal or quechua vs archer to a swordsman. A swordsman is way better and yet you managed to state the contrary...

Absolutely. A Swordman will beat a Quechua every time. But 3 Quechau (45 hammers) will fare better against an Archer than 1 Swordsman (40 hammers). Same with Immortals. A combination of Axemen for Melee Units and cheap archer killers may be better (at least that's my proposition).

The AI has archers defending cities until they build longbowmen, and usually has some melee units also. Axemen do better than Swordsmen against melee (and they usually defend before archers) and the early, obsolete units can still take out archers. That really diminishes a Swordsman's usefullness (IFF your UU kills Archers). They are then only effective between Longbowmen and Macemen.

 

[onedreamer]

Absolutely. A Swordman will beat a Quechua every time. But 3 Quechau (45 hammers) will fare better against an Archer than 1 Swordsman (40 hammers). Same with Immortals.

LOL, on the paper it's true, but overall it's a completely wrong assumption and strategy, for 2 main reasons:

1) 3 units cost more support than 1
2) of the 3 Quechua only 1 would maybe survive, which means for the next attack you need to spend an additional 30 hammers+wait for them to arrive to the front. On the other hand, you'd only need to wait for a swordsman to heal and he would also retain the experience and become exponentially more powerful than the Quechua counterparts, since promotion bonuses work on percentages of strength.

 

[onedreamer]

Ok, fixed it...didn't check my work. When the sum of the modifiers (m) is positive, it works the way I had it...the defender's strength is multiplied by (1+m). But, when the sum of the modifiers (m) is negative, the defender's strength is divided by (1-m). That's where my math was off. So if the spearman is attacking a horse archer (+100% vs mounted for the spearman, no defensive modifiers for the HA), the horse archer's modified strength is 3 (6/(1-(-1), or 6/2). The spearman's strength is still unaffected.

The numbers are based on this link.

makes more sense but why m=1 in this case ?

 

[seraphism]

I find that in ancient warfare i very very rarely use swordsmen (unless i'm rome ). Normally because i try to attack before i get ironworking. Bronzeworking is researched almost immediately for quick chopping and in fact i very rarely research ironworking myself but use the oracle to snag alphabet and get ironworking that way. Unless i'm short on bronze or there's lots of jungle ironworking just doesnt' seem that essential. Plus that way i can get an attack force out the gate a fair bit earlier which is always handy. Wars for me consist of large groups of axeman in the ancient age and then large groups of catapults in the classical.

 

[zafyro]

axeman as defender might be a good idea, but... they cannot get promotions as that so an experienced swordman would have quite some chance against them [city raider x 3 vs any 3 upgrades of the defending axeman]

About the axeman better city atacker than swordman, well just against melee. everything else is worse. Far worse. So if you´re atacking spearmen or axemen try axemen atacking, but to me it´s a waste of upgrades to dedicate one of those to city raiding when i have more specific and more powerfull to the task units.

I tend to specialice a lot my units [spearmen usually get formation, axemen usually get shock swordmen usually get city raider] horse archers usually flanking

 

[zafyro]

to prevent my swordman getting beated by defending axes i usually pack a horse or some archer with extra first strikes of hill or forest defense depending on the map.

 

[rabottens]

I often use a nice little 10 stack consisting of:
2 axemen
2 swordsmen
2 horse archers
2 longbowmen
2 catapults
this usually will even the odds on just about any type of opponent

 

[DeltaV]

makes more sense but why m=1 in this case ?

m = -1, actually. The defender (horse archer) has no modifiers at all. The attacker (spearman) has +100% against mounted units. Since you subtract the attacker's modifiers off the defender's, 0%-100% = -100%, and -100% = -1 (1% = 0.01, by definition). and 1 - (-1) = 2. So the defender's strength is D/2.

 

[ShortBus]

For me, it depends on whether or not I have horses on my tiles. If I do, then I'll blitzkrieg with horse archers, if not, then I'll use Swordsmen because of thier city attack bonus. Also, I like to have iron working early even though it's expensive so I know which cities the AI owns have the best resources. Take away their iron and your good for a long time since they can't make the more advanced units.

 

[Shillen]

I usually have about 10 swords, 2 or 3 axes and 1-2 spears when I declare war early in the game (unless I play Rome then it's all praetorians). I play on standard maps. Declaring war before I have this size army means the war will take a lot more turns and the AI will have much longer to build extra units of its own. Declaring war after building more than this number of units generally means you finish the war and have too many units leftover OR it means that you waited too long and the AI has feudalism and/or too many cultural defense bonuses requiring catapults.

I don't buy the only axemen strategy. About 50% of the AI's units are archers. Swordsmen are clearly favored over axemen when attacking a city defended by an archer. Axemen are great for protecting your swordsmen and killing any axemen that the AI sends into your territory, but other than that you want mostly swordsmen. Likewise you want a couple spears for dealing with any chariots/horsemen. This is of course affected if the AI does not have horses or iron/copper. If he has no iron/copper then screw axemen. If he has no horses then don't build spears.

 

[Zombie69]

Hi,


You don't have a clue about programming AIs, do you?

-Kylearan

You're talking to someone who has personally programmed AIs before, and has taken a university course on the subject.

 

[Lmtoops]

Since axemen are available first, I start with them. Then I know more about me oponents situation, I will diversify my army based on the oponents situation (does he have iron, horses, etc.). I always try to mix in 3 - 5 catapults, when they are available.

Against the AI, his outer cities are lightly defended. You can get by with just axemen. Usually, the objective of the first war is to grab the AIs 2 - 3 outer cities and then make peace. So for the initial stage, axemen alone (with city raider bonus) is more than adequate.