Axemen too strong too early?

[Roghar]

surely it makes sense for a mroe advanced unit requiring a building, upgraded by a metal, to be able to defeat a starting unit with no requirements and nometal?

Remember also that the axeman costs more, that an attacking civ needs to build and maintain more units (home defenders plus aggressors), and has a longer time for new builds to reach the enemy. The advantage lies with the defender as long as he is not complacent

 

[thFrgttn]

surely it makes sense for a mroe advanced unit requiring a building, upgraded by a metal, to be able to defeat a starting unit with no requirements and nometal?

Sure but axeman are only one step above the warriors yet beat them far to easily (in vanilla CivIV you'd lose at least one axemen in two, here about one in ten).

Remember also that the axeman costs more, that an attacking civ needs to build and maintain more units (home defenders plus aggressors),

That's far less of a factor than you might think - capturing cities give enough gold reward to mean that maintenance costs are not a problem.

and has a longer time for new builds to reach the enemy. The advantage lies with the defender as long as he is not complacent

Building times are dramatically reduce if building warriors an then upgrading (again the cost of upgrading is cheap for the industrious trait) and Mahala's Axemen have the commando trait they can get to your cities just as fast as you can.

 

[Roghar]

Axemen are only one point stronger than warriors, and their city attack bonus is less than a warrior's defence bonus. Its the double whammy of having found and exploited a metal that gives axemen a significant edge - that is a combination of advantages rather than an intrinsic unit bonus. To be honest I've sometimes wondered that axemen are only marginally better.

Capturing cities to maintain your armies can work for a while, but quickly leaves you in huge trouble if you run out before the next capture. And to have money to upgrade troops as well? I've never had that luxury in an early rush.

Its not just time moving within cultural boundaries that is at issue, but also travel time between civs (unless they start in very very close proximity).

Remember, the rusher is taking a big risk. He is putting his ecnoomy completely on hold to make the endeavour, if he doesn't succeed in taking out a civ or two early, or at least some very good cities, he has put himself way behind the other civs. Its almost all or nothing, it should be nasty if executed well

 

[thFrgttn]

Remember, the rusher is taking a big risk. He is putting his ecnoomy completely on hold to make the endeavour, if he doesn't succeed in taking out a civ or two early, or at least some very good cities, he has put himself way behind the other civs. Its almost all or nothing, it should be nasty if executed well

The problem is that the chance of success is too high. As the axemen take cities they, gain levels, they became better and better city breakers, (levelling up can negate having to wait and heal). Civics like City States and Military State make the maintenance cost a joke.
You don't fall behind - you get in front.

 

[Roghar]

And to get City States you don't have God King, which the defensive civ probably will, racking up a lot more production and commerce. And if you have Miltary State you aren't getting the free promotion your opponent using Apprenticeship probably will. And getting those two civics means time spent up those research paths, not just rushing to bronze working. If the aggressor has the time to get those techs as well as bronze working, then the defender has time to set up something reasonable too. Take a look at pretty much any strategy game - computer, card, board, whatever. Players who execute rush strategies against players who don't gear up militarily will always win. If you DONT prepare well for early defence you are taking the chance that in the longer term your economy will pull your military ahead. That is every player's choice

It doesn't take too much to build up city defence. City walls aren't that tough to acquire, nor is earth 1 magic. Sure there is the pillaging risk, but an enemy rush that only pillages will run out of steam very quickly

 

[thFrgttn]

The techs required to enable the Military State is researched after the conquest has begun & the extra cost of education means that a lot of the defending warriors get made with out that promotion (this is where the khazad axemen rush comes from - they start with crafting and can reach bronze working almost as fast as you can reach education, and then upgrade all their warriors cheaply).

The argument is not that you don't need to prepare a strong defence, but that the only sure defence is to also go for bronze working (forcing you to play their style of early game rather than your own). That's why I think that that changing the axemen city attack back to melee attack might help bring back vanilla civs archery defence.

 

[Silverkiss]

That's why I think that that changing the axemen city attack back to melee attack might help bring back vanilla civs archery defence.

Axeman versus Archer the archers are on the upper hand here... Same defensive strenght than copper-axemen attack strenght, plus cultural defense, plus building defense, plus promotions for defense, plus natural ability to defend...

 

[Nefelia]

Hello.. this is more a versus issue, or a small maps issue, but...

considering how early you can acquire Axemen in the game, I am wondering if they are not too cheap/too strong for their position...

just soliciting thoughts? I play cooperatively and versus with my friends on reasonable game speeds et al, but if I don't hard tech for a strong military unit like axemen I can almost guarantee my khazad friend will show up with a stack of ten or fifteen axemen at my border while I'm studying knowledge of the ether... or worse.. Champions. He just climbs up that one tree with a detour to get Writing, and he wins...

If you play against an agressive player on a small map, you will have to alter your strategy to accomodate an early rush. Studying Knowledge of the Ether while relying on apparently unpromoted Warriors for defence is just asking for elimination.

And yes, you will have to "hard tech" for a military unit like Axemen. By the time your opponent has bronze Axemen with City Raider promotions, you should also have an adequate counter. Archers should be enough, should you adjust your economic strat to include more Councils/Marketplaces and specialists to ride out his seige (while his economy, unable to support itself off of conquest/pillage will run itself into the ground).

P.S. If you are unable to handle an Axemen rush, I would hate to see what happens when a Bambur with City Raider comes knocking at your city gates.

 

[Silverkiss]

Everyone is complaining about Khazad or Doviello Axemen, but guys, you know, being strong at melee is exactly what these two civs are supossed to be. If you start near one of them or, even worse, are playing multiplayer against one of these civs, you better expect an early rush ! x.x'

 

[Cuteunit]

frgttn has a right idea. Why not change axemen more back to how they were in vanilla, bonus vs melee instead of bonus vs city. I've mostly been griping about how good city raider is to those units.

i still say archers shouldnt cost the same as axemen yet still just be str 3 though. archers should be 45 hammers not 60.

 

[Silverkiss]

Changing archers to only 3 str would make them even more useless than they are now. At least now they are decent defenders, if they were pushed back to 3 str and 45 hammers, just protect with warriors, who cost less and have the same strenght (or more, if you have metals).

And I disagree with changing Axeman's bonus back to VsMelee. VsCity makes them more unique and more specialized, better in my opinion.

 

[Cuteunit]

archers are 3/5. Crap unless they're fortified in your city, which means your enemy can merrily pillage all your farms, SR, and cottages while his are running just fine. You've lost the game if you're just turtling behind city def. You have to be able to leave your city and stop the enemy in the field. Only the bonehead AI throws itself against your cities while ignoring your infrastructure.


Let me emphasize that again. a 5/5 ( axeman) for the same 60 hammers is infinitely better than a 3/5. Shock is equal to both sides in this case, so it's no balancing element to say that archers are protected from the shock promo. You're as likely to have C1/Shock as your opponent is.

The only good defense is to play the same way they do, which is lamo. I think that's why they didnt give +city attack to starter axemen in vanilla and why archers are much easier to produce in quantity than axemen in vanilla as well.

It'd work out a lot better if archers were just cheaper, at the very least. They shouldnt be the same price.

 

[Silverkiss]

Right, turtling means defeat. But why would changing 3/5 to 3/3 help in any way ? I'm not saying for you to turtle, but you shouldn't have only archers on defense too. If you have some archers and some counter-attack units, your defense is much better. A tough nut to crack in the cities, and the counter-units don't let your enemy pillage.

Changing the Archers to plain 3 str would take out it's only strenght, which is being powerful in defending cities.

 

[Cuteunit]

I never said turn them 3/3. You misread.

I said they only count as 3 when using them to meet the foe in the field, which makes them inferior to a unit like axeman which is 5 everywhere and for the same hammer cost.

 

[felwar]

I never said turn them 3/3. You misread.

I said they only count as 3 when using them to meet the foe in the field, which makes them inferior to a unit like axeman which is 5 everywhere and for the same hammer cost.

That's because an axeman being strength 5 relies on actually having copper. Granted, it isn't that difficult to find, but your complaint is still dependent on multiple aspects of game type. Maybe you should try playing with different game options or adopting one of the strategies others have suggested already instead of just saying "that won't work".

And I'm sorry, but your initial complaint is the same one that has come up over every strategy wargame, from table-top to computer, since they advanced beyond chess. Every one has a "best" opening move or early strategy that becomes balanced out by players reactions to it, followed by reactions to that, in an endless cycle of complaints and adaptation. Either get on the bandwagon or change your game options.

 

[Cuteunit]

That doesnt have anything to do with what I said, Felwar. If there was a "No Copper" option I'd not use it anyways. I'm trying to drive home the fact that axemen (or the bronze working tech in general) with copper are so much betterthan anything else available at that tier, meaning that you have to fight copper with copper so to speak ( unless you're an elf) and why. Some clearly agree.

 

[eerr]

That doesnt have anything to do with what I said, Felwar. If there was a "No Copper" option I'd not use it anyways. I'm trying to drive home the fact that axemen (or the bronze working tech in general) with copper are so much betterthan anything else available at that tier, meaning that you have to fight copper with copper so to speak ( unless you're an elf) and why. Some clearly agree.

mounted line should get a +meelee for balance?

 

[xienwolf]

What some of the longer time players are not pointing out is that this is actually the result of a balance decision to make it so you COULD have thet combination.

It used to be that you needed a forge to get weapon promotions, and most probably to prevent this very thing from happening. It was a willful decision to move it to running as an automatic promotion, and by and large the opinion has been that it is an improvement.

 

[EverNoob]

How about using hunters? I find they make a good proactive defence. They can have shock yet don't have any counter promotions.

 

[Roghar]

yep, hunters are viable. And in the early game i don't find pillaging troops as disadvantageous as later. You won't have developed that much land, and you won't suddenly hit starvation for it most likely. The enemy's cost of producing and then keeping the troops is likely comaprable at least.

There is an alternate strategy, do a lot of exploring near his lands early and have some units ready to pillage and sit on his copper mine if her gets one. A few archers on a hill (assuming its on a hill, normally is) will cause him no end of grief, and in that instance they will be stronger than the axemen he produces