Do Swordsmen need Catapults?

OTAKUjbski

TK421
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
1,511
Location
not at my post
For reference, my typical game settings are RandomScriptMap, Standard/Large, Monarch, Epic and Random Leader.

(Specifically, this only applies to difficulty level Monarch+.)

When Horses and Copper aren't accessible early and I rely on the much-later-arriving Swordsmen and Iron-Axemen, I very frequently find myself against 60% cultural defense capitals and promoted Archers.

Given the production cost of Swordsmen, I've never found it worth it to throw so many into the fray ... so I wait for Catapults to make my move.


Is this generally how it goes in your games? Do you raid cities (especially capitals) with only Swordsmen? Or, do you tend to wait for Catapults?
 
For reference, my typical game settings are RandomScriptMap, Standard/Large, Monarch, Epic and Random Leader.

(Specifically, this only applies to difficulty level Monarch+.)

When Horses and Copper aren't accessible early and I rely on the much-later-arriving Swordsmen and Iron-Axemen, I very frequently find myself against 60% cultural defense capitals and promoted Archers.

Given the production cost of Swordsmen, I've never found it worth it to throw so many into the fray ... so I wait for Catapults to make my move.


Is this generally how it goes in your games? Do you raid cities (especially capitals) with only Swordsmen? Or, do you tend to wait for Catapults?

I've swordrushed but only when I've beelined IW with the Romans, Celts or Aztecs to try and make the most of their UU but since those Axemen started turning up as defenders I've needed to take Axemen as well so early swordrush is pretty much a Roman only thing for me now
 
60% is pretty late for a rush. Only early religion should give you that problem.
Let's see, swordsmen have 6 strength, so archers need +100% to equal their strength. They get +50%, let's say +25% fortify. So 60%, upgraded archers, probably not worth it, 40%, maybe if you have a lot of city raider 2 or 3's.
 
Even based on my Prince experience, I wouldn't recommend it. Now, if you're talking 1 60% city and a bunch of 20%'s, then yes you can take most of the opposing cities and then just dogpile on the last one. Other factors, such as whether you can actually do anything else while heading for construction, need to be considered too.

Something cynical about me likes slamming tons of low-odds units into cities to take them though. I'm a mean leader.
 
imho, if you're facing only archers/pikes/chariots, you don't need them. But if the opponent has axes, or worse, longbows, then you need cats.
 
I haven´t use early war for some time... somehow in BTS is more easy to settle enough cities without war...
 
Usually yes - if your opponent has copper/iron, he has axes, and axes eat swords for lunch.

60% culture (or 40% on a hill) means you're probably dead meat with swords vs. archers - I'd wait for catapults... unless I can get a 12 v 3 scenario, in which case I'll attack just about anything. :)
 
Phases of war:
1. Chariots/Axemen
2. Catapults vs. archers
3. Catapults or Trebuchets vs. longbows
4. Cuirassers and Calvary vs. longbows
5. Infantry vs. riflemen
6. Tanks vs Infantry

These are how my wars always break down. I will go to war with whomever is the most backwards, generally regardless of diplomacy and location. Success = experience, experience further keeps your hammers in use rather than being sacrificed. Usually by the age of cuirassers my industrial output surpasses my need to keep war weariness down, so I'm more willing to sacrifice units if it means the war is concluded more quickly.

In regards to the original post, I wouldn't use swordsmen without catapults. Too many casualties. I'd rather wait and develop in the meanwhile. However, if I saw myself being hemmed in too early, I would strike sooner with chariots or axemen, of which one is virtually always an option.
 
Unsupported swordsmen only work well if you can keep your opponent off copper.

Pillage mines religiously and you should be fine.
 
Back
Top Bottom