Axemen too strong too early?

[Grey Fox]

You don't have to get axemen. Warriors with Shock, Hunters with Shock (harder to get if you are Aggressive leader), Horsemen with Shock.

Catapults, if you go straight for them can come quite early.

 

[Cuteunit]

How does that address what I was saying about military units taking 2-3 turns to build while any structure still takes 12-18-more and because of that, rush play is the best way to get things done?

 

[Silverkiss]

Nope, it isn't. Warriors are cheap as hell, and they give a decent defense. (Hear me, I say decent. They're obviously not the best defense around). If you're playing with more than 3-4 players, you can just defend and invest in research/infra. Then you'l beat everyone who rushed.

If you are playing a versus game... Then it's another story. In a 1x1, it's beat or be beaten. But even in that particular case, a rush (an axeman rush, at least) can be easily countered.

Edit: If you're playing aiming for a quick game and doesn't want to enter the later stages, then that's another case too, 'cause you're almost playing only for rushes.

 

[Roghar]

A khazad player rushing axemen for early attack is probably about as powerful as you can make axemen, I don't think we can assign them as overpowered because there is one very effective strat that uses them. A lot of the time I feel they are a bit of a waste for how little they improve over warriors for the tech required and extra cost. Its nto so much axemen that is killing you as a focused strategy designed to pump out experienced troops at an early stage. From teh point of view of that player the downside is that his economy will likely stall - high maintenance costs and minimal focus on economy techs or buildings.

If an opponent goes aggressive with melee units early you can't afford to ignore him and have to build something up. If he is using City Raider to get past your culture and city defence bonus then his units are vulnerable to other troops, like has been mentioned promote with shock.

In general if opponents play a quick strat then you can't afford to play a slow strat to start with, such as the magic path. You've got to find something quick. Maybe horsemen, for instance, if horses are available? They will have a good shot at killing the axemen, and can quickly head over and pillage his copper mine to weaken the troops against you. Archers would do the city defence job but, as you say , you can't break the siege and stop the pillaging

 

[Cuteunit]

the differrence between 3 str ( let's imagine I went for knowledge of the ether or archery instead of bronze, or my tiles don't have bronze) and 5 str is already vast as it is. Atop that, there's nothing preventing an axe or two with Shock in his stack either. Sorry but 5 str +40%vs warrior is going to /mock and /taunt as many 3 str +40% as you can throw at it. There is no win there. Even if you built 30% more Warriors than he has Axemen, the fact that units HEAL ON PROMOTION only means that his axes have to survive one fight to be just dandy to continue, and thats what it's all about. Everything in combat is based on percentages of the base value in this game.

+1 str alone can make all the differrence in this regard.

Is it not possible to perhaps make Archers able to attack enemies from additional distances when stationed in a city or fort, something like a fireball or the Ranged Bombardment mechanics you see on siege weapons in some of the other mods? Why should archers have the same range as a melee unit and cost just as much when they are in all ways inferior? (Cannot attack to stop pillaging. even versus AI if they're at your walls you're already more than halfway toward a loss)

In fact the more I think about that, the more I like the notion. Click archer, click Ranged Volley, 3x3 white grid appears, click spot.

 

[Blakmane]

I've been analyziing it in single player games

Wait a second.

You haven't even been PLAYING multiplayer games? How can you talk about the power of a strat when you aren't even trying it out in multiplayer? I can assure you, an early, for example, gilden siveric rush will utterly crush any axemen he tries to send against you. A svartalfar hunter rush will similarly cause mass destruction. Ever tried a hippus mounted rush? All of these strats are far superior rush strats to the axeman rush.

Rushing is just another tactic found in civ. Yes, if you are an idiot and go knowledge of the ether first in a 1v1 game, you will die to an axeman rush. Yes, if you go a lategame civ like the sidar or sheaim in a 1v1 game, you will die to an axeman rush. In 1v1 games, rushes are the key to victory, and you should expect them. However, if your opponent axeman rushes you in a 4 way multiplayer game, and you are sensible and have prepared for the possibility of a rush, he will stall his economy and fail miserably later.

Come back after you've actually tried some of these counters in multiplayer and raise the issue again. You got beaten fair and square by a sensible khazad player, adapt and try again

 

[Cuteunit]

I analyzed the Why of it in single player, as that's the most easily repeatable way I could look at it at 3 am.

I'm opposed to rush play in general when it comes to civ, since that makes it play like some really poor RTS instead of a nation building game. Considering that FFH from all I understand is about nation building ( will your kingdom stand the test of time?) I think that encouraging the production of ten-15 units of the same type and going mongol on your neighbor is pretty lame.

 

[Blakmane]

remove early game tactics such as rushing, and you've made some civs (such as the CoE and Doviello) totally obsolete. The game may be about nation building, but it's also about surviving that initial period of hard slog. Think about it- the barbs rush you, don't they?

 

[Cuteunit]

if barbs rushed with ten Axemen ( or hunters, if you like that example more) in stacks, i don't know if I'd have more fun or less. Orthus walking up with +100% str and +80% vs melee along with a swarm of friends ( raging barbs) is sometimes about that way

I don't see how Doviello suffers if the game discourages rushing to end the playsession before 10% of the tech tree is explored.. I've seen a 44 effective odds War Machine unit in latter game.

CoE maybe, I honestly dont have as much experience with them.

IMO I think that military support costs should be higher in the early game and cheaper in the latter, or at least the same as they are now in the latter game. support really is not that bad in early game in FFH, particularly since FFH is so focused on specialist economies instead of cottages, so those diamonds on your cheeks aren't shedding when you change the gold%.

I also think archery units should be significantly cheaper. say 45 hammers versus 60. Isnt it that way in vanilla civ too? Pretty sure I don't remember archers taking as long as axemen to produce.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Ok my two cents on this discussion, granted I don't play much multiplayer but aside from that I can extrapolate from my other experiences in this area.

Myself I primarily play the peaceful builder style and mostly attack when attacked myself. The foundation of a good builder strategy is to have as strong an army as to discourage others from attacking. And crush whatever force happens to wander into my territory.

I do not think that axmen are so overpowered compared to other troop types, but if all you have is Warriors with strength 3 against strength 5 axmen I do understand that you will fail. You need to adjust your builder strategy, it always takes less units and less time to build a defensive army, you also need to position you cites and plan for defending early on when you have an aggressive neighbour you know will attack you sooner or later. You can’t simply ignore the fact that you neighbour is building a strong army to invade; you must adapt to this strategy and use whatever resources you have at your disposal.
If you have horses, then horsemen is very effective at both raiding and attacking melee units, they can also quite effectively acquire a lot of promotion from harvesting experience from barbarians. Attack him early on with hordes of horsemen and pillage his mines, then he can’t build much of an army at all.
It might be required for you to build axmen yourself to defend, if he has bronze and you don’t… but these matters are so circumstantial.
Archers are good for defending cities but as you say, they can’t protect you from an enemy pillaging the countryside, but one or two archers in each city is still a viable option in my opinion if you can spare the production.

If you are playing against an aggressive opponent you need to adapt, you can still be a peaceful builder, but you need to face the fact that there are other strategies to account for.
Use barbarians to build up strong promoted units, keep at least a few units outside your borders to farm for experience all the time, you need at least a core of really powerful elite units to repel strong enemy units in a war.

 

[felwar]

I would think bronzeworking would fall into a builder strategy pretty early on anyway. Being able to remove forests (which I constantly seem to start with over 3/4 of my tiles) is pretty important. Getting axemen or even just copper for defense is a very useful perk.

 

[oyzar]

I analyzed the Why of it in single player, as that's the most easily repeatable way I could look at it at 3 am.

I'm opposed to rush play in general when it comes to civ, since that makes it play like some really poor RTS instead of a nation building game. Considering that FFH from all I understand is about nation building ( will your kingdom stand the test of time?) I think that encouraging the production of ten-15 units of the same type and going mongol on your neighbor is pretty lame.

If you want to play civ as a nation building game then why the "!#¤%&" are you playing 1 vs 1? This is as rts as civ gets.. Putting in house rules in games can stop these things easily if you want. If you disallow combat before turn 100 it just becomes a rush to get archmages or whatever though. There will almost always be a dominant strategy to most other strategies and in mp the game is very rarely about building an empire if you don't have any attention to waring. Peace mongers can't survive in a cutthroat mp environment..

 

[Kalimakhus]

I would think bronzeworking would fall into a builder strategy pretty early on anyway. Being able to remove forests (which I constantly seem to start with over 3/4 of my tiles) is pretty important. Getting axemen or even just copper for defense is a very useful perk.

Well, now this is something that worth mentioning. BW is a tech that is both good for Aggressive/Warmonger and Peaceful/Builder. If you have a copper resource nearby it is all good as well. Extra hammers and +1 str for your warrior. Also BW leads to Warfare. This is a cheap tech that gives you access to City Garrison promotion (not only City Rider). If you adopt City States + Apprenticeship (A nice combo for builders IMO) you get one free promotion with the 2XP from Apprenticeship. So a 4str warrior with CG can hold very well against Axemen. A 4str warrior with shock has a very good chance against Axes in flat unforested (preferably desert) tiles. Sacrifice one and kill with another and gain XPs for further promotions. Actually why don't you build few Axes of your own for defense. You need 1/2 the number the attacker may need and you will keep them in your lands so no extra expenses.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Unlike BTS, axeman are a real focus and not automatic at all. Yes, you WILL get bronzeworking for chopping forests to hurry production, production of anything really, not just axeman. Actually I don't really go for axeman in multiplayer in particular, or really at all. Get bronzeworking, sure, but then once you see bronze, 3+1 strength warriors aren't so bad against 4+1 strength axeman, right? For defensive purposes, warriors may even be more hammer effective.

1v1, yes, it becomes a pillage war, but then horsemen are better pillagers right? And if you have neither horses nor axeman, then well, look, you're as screwed as you are in regular BTS, so FFH definitely did NOT make anyone WORSE off. Plus, 3 strength warriors are still better than 2 strength ones!!!

4 player, FFH or team games, you'll get your ass beat by someone that went for a religion. Prey that religion is not AV, because they can get it faster than you think.

 

[Mesix]

Yes its worth it. Let's say you spend 60 turns building warriors. And 60 Turns building Axemen.

Warriors cost 25
Axeman cost 60

And let's say your production is 15 Hammers per turn. You would produce one warrior every 1.67 turns and an Axeman every 4 turns. This would mean you'd have 36 Warriors vs 15 Axeman. Upgrade the Warriors and you have 36 Axeman vs 15 Axeman.

Now let's say for arguments sake that you build warriors in 3 turns and Axeman in 4 turns, which sounds weird but I think I've remembered something similar myself. You would still have 25% more Axeman by building Warriors that way, and since Khazad has the Ingenuity trait, the upgrade is half-price and not too bad. I mean if you are gonna rush, you won't need to max research during this period anyways.

This may be true, but spending money to upgrade troops would empty the vaults of the Khazad. The more gold you have as the Khazad, the more cities you can support and retain your bonus for full to overflowing vaults. Ignoring the vaults and expanding can lead to empty vaults that give you a -2 happiness penalty for all of your cities.

 

[Cuteunit]

I should point out that Warriors can't get Shock at level 2 unless you're using an Agg leader.

 

[thFrgttn]

I used to have trouble with post human and some AI players rushing me in CivIV - after building lots of units to counter it now I tend be the one doing it.
However with FfH its really is too easy - Example

Using Doviello, leader Mahala (raiders & ingenuity).
At about turn 110 I have 4 cities (2 well established) defended by a beastmen each + two axemen. The all have bronze weapons, commando (from raiders) and most have at least one combat promotion (from apprenticeship).

At this point an opponent starts their fifth settlement, two of which are right on my border. I take my 2 axemen against their city defended by 2 warriors with 40% culture bonus. My axemen have 74% chance of winning, and they both do.
Now I've gained a city + 170 gold, my axemen both level (I give them shock).
Meanwhile in my 2 established cites I can build axemen in 6 and 8 turns or beastmen in 2. I build beastmen. 2 turns later I can upgrade by beastmen to axemen for just 25gp each. Now I have two axemen just a strong as the original 2 (70% chance of attacking a city), those two have healed and can now attack with 97% chance of winning and more gold than I started with.

Repeat this and by turn 150 I've taken all 5 of his cities (include the capital which was on a hill) having only lost 1 unit the whole time, have 12 axemen all with at least two promotions, 658gp and because I've now researched warfare and chosen military state my upkeep is only costing me 1gp with research at 100%.

 

[Cuteunit]

It seems wrong to me that some civs can be such early game beasts like that, what with the slowness of the FFH early game. What's a race like Sidar supposed to do vs such a rush, use harsh language?

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

People, I really don't understand what you're talking about. Bronze working you'll get regardless unless you're elves, but even once you do, one has to carefully consider whether the training yard and the extra hammer cost is worth it. Warriors have 3 strength, axeman have 4, it's the bronze that gives it plus one. Warriors with bronze working in cities are fine, and with hammer advantage, might actually be at a plus.

The correct title of this thead is "bronze working is too powerful", to which I reply: isn't this the same case with regular civ?

Besides, don't forget the religions, everyone. They're faster than you think, and provide you with the hapiness you need for economic advantage, and fast.

 

[thFrgttn]

People, I really don't understand what you're talking about. Bronze working you'll get regardless unless you're elves, but even once you do, one has to carefully consider whether the training yard and the extra hammer cost is worth it. Warriors have 3 strength, axeman have 4, it's the bronze that gives it plus one. Warriors with bronze working in cities are fine, and with hammer advantage, might actually be at a plus.

Training yards are no impediment to the axemen rush when your upgrading warriors with the industrious trait, you only need to build one and have your warriors visit that city. Also the Doviello don't even need to build training yards.

The problem (regardless of what you can the thread) is that if somebody goes straight to bronze working and has copper easily obtainable, then they can quickly produce strength 5 axemen to use against strength 3 warriors. Even with full defence bonus (40% culture + fortification) the axemen will beat the warriors most times.

My solution would be to reduce the strength of axemen back to the same as warriors (meaning that with bronze weapons they only have strength 4) but increase their city attack bonus.

Edit: Actually changing axemen from city attack bonus back to melee unit would make archers a stronger defence.