Gambling early infrastructure on a nearly-as-powerful unit that takes 1/3 the research as Pikemen and has a better upgrade path is a fine trade. Especially since then you're along the path for other era-appropriate super-units. The problem is that along with making that tech/infrastructure sacrifice, you're also gambling that you have iron, which you may not and won't know until you've completed the gambit. One or the other of those risks would be fine. So you can put me down squarely in the "reveal iron at mining/BW and it'll be fine" camp.
Do you use Swordsman now?
- Thread starter kamikazees
- Start date
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
Swordsmen and pikemen follow two diffreent tech path which means that if you focus on one you basicly do not get the stuff from the other for a while. The swordman path is basicly survalist, expansionist, production and aggresive path while the pickmen path is culture, science, growth and basicly the peacfull path.
Sword do have the advantages of requering alot less science to get then pikes (both the tech and prerequests). It tech path is about making your units better and increasing your production with negates most of the pikes advantage. Swords are cheaper to produce. Sword do have 2 units uppgrades before pikes get to lancer which means that the scenario could be muskets vs pikes. Pikes do have advantage of being resourceless. Stronger. Anti cavalry bonus and its techs help your economy.
A more fair thing is to conclude whats better of beline to civil service or beline to metal casting instead of sword vs pikes because these two techs probably cost about the same amount to get (including all techs needed).
Sword do have the advantages of requering alot less science to get then pikes (both the tech and prerequests). It tech path is about making your units better and increasing your production with negates most of the pikes advantage. Swords are cheaper to produce. Sword do have 2 units uppgrades before pikes get to lancer which means that the scenario could be muskets vs pikes. Pikes do have advantage of being resourceless. Stronger. Anti cavalry bonus and its techs help your economy.
A more fair thing is to conclude whats better of beline to civil service or beline to metal casting instead of sword vs pikes because these two techs probably cost about the same amount to get (including all techs needed).
Udey1
Prince
As pointed out earlier, it is the upgrade path that keeps swordsmen Relevant. Yes, pikes can compete with swords but once upgrades kick in, it is a different story.
An offensive player would be wise to build swords, and would be very poorly served with pikes in the long run. I just completed a Bab/immortal domination:
Swords-longswords-muskets-rifles: this is an army.
Pikemen-lancers: this... Is what i garrisoned for happy points.
The choice should be pretty clear if your are going
Offensive in the long term. The only way i think pikes would be preferable is if you are executing
A one-time medival rush.
(phone post)
An offensive player would be wise to build swords, and would be very poorly served with pikes in the long run. I just completed a Bab/immortal domination:
Swords-longswords-muskets-rifles: this is an army.
Pikemen-lancers: this... Is what i garrisoned for happy points.
The choice should be pretty clear if your are going
Offensive in the long term. The only way i think pikes would be preferable is if you are executing
A one-time medival rush.
(phone post)
Slvynn
Duke Vector fon Pixel
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 2,073
Why should one waste beakers on an overly expensive tech. Even as a warmonger I get catapults + spears and try to get civil service. That way I not only successfully conquer but I also have strong economy & infrastructure. The only exception is when I am playing as a civ with a warrior/sword UU.
There's a ressource that actually is important: coal. And there's never enough of it, to really supply my REX.
kamikazees
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 266
My vote is to reveal iron at mining, and leave swordsman alone. We can see/improve horses at animal husbandry but not actually use the horses until horseback riding. Iron should be the same way. That would take some of the "gamble" out of the mix so players could know what options are available.
If you could improve iron right away, Russia would become OP. Even now, they make tons of money by selling horses (one 4x horse tile = 360 gold on standard). Add iron at mining and you can say gg on turn 30, similar to a lucky Spain start.
No, iron shouldn't be improvable until iron working. Revealed at bronze working is also better because it should be a resource for aggressive play, not something that everyone just gets along their usual research path.
kamikazees
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 266
Hadn't thought about Russia. That's a good point.
Well, the overvalued nature of strategic resources is a separate issue that needs addressing.
Yeah, give me 360 gold for some horses that I can take back and leave you with a major combat penalty. That's a great idea.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
I agree that IW is too expensive now but I still think they are irreplaceable in early wars. You all seem to forget that CS is pretty far away, while iron working has only 2 prereq. Techs.
Udey1
Prince
This issue wont and doesnt need to be addressed, they cant tailor an AI to anticipate an individual's guile. You can always take all AI money and then declare war by trading gpt, exploitive? Yes, but limiting things like this can hinder those who are peaceful builders and who may have just wanted an honest deal.
Uncle Reeno
Lord of the Dreadfort
Maybe this is unrealistic but I have been able to take the liberty great engineer into GL and take iron working instantly, or if its gone take a scientist and rush it. Still a gamble if you don't have it iron, I usually just bank on a sprawling expansion path to off set the risk(potentially timing a settler for the iron reveal to settle it immediately) I feel like for a long term warmonger strat the swordsman is essential, having a solid core of promoted longswordsman, rifles is essential.
Since G&K came out, melee got a huge nerf. Spears/pikes are good anti-infantry units, so why not have swords be anti-spear/pikes? That gives them a purpose, and can make a swordsmen army an actual threat. It's also marginally accurate too.
im guessing a large motivator was the all too-used sword rush strategy. it was so prevalent that it was THE way to go most of the time. if anything, these changes are just to help develop another useful strategy. all the "broken" strategies have been changed on purpose i think. stealth bombers moved much deeper, RAs delayed a few eras and requiring DoF's, swords being less than vanilla, GS bulbs no longer being a full free tech, selling open borders so early, etc. the game was distilled into a few strategies/abuses that i dont think the developers were hoping for. now it probably will be again, but at least they will be different and hopefully less abusive.
afedyuki
Chieftain
Im almost to the point where having ranged is cheating. I play my games on Immortal. First tech i get is archery. Why? because ranged is op against an improved but still sub par AI. Ussually by the time the cpu gets enough horse units (if ever) to become a threat to my overly abundant Archers, i already have composite bowman and am in the process of upgrades.
Properly used archer units backed with a horse is all i need to defend multiple fronts and take the offensive. Sometimes its a slow go inching my archers forward but in the end i can ussually take out or keep my neighbors at bay until i get into gunpowder units.
One solution might be to not allow archers to fire from or into trees. Another might be to have archers in open ground be incredibly suseptible to horse attacks. Im sure there are a million more ways but when a composite bowman can take 2 hits from a horsey and live. Surround a city and take no damage when it attacks. Whittle that city to nothing in no time even with the city attack penalty against it. i cant see why id want melee. They just dont offer enough value for me. A horse can at least sit out of range and wait til the city is 0 and take it or run recon.
If the computer comes with melee they stand no chance. Humans are a different story i can have my units smacked around good by a descent player if i get too archer heavy. The computer is to hesistant though. sometimes moving a unit around for 5 turns before deciding to move in and after the initial attack they rarely come in force making it easy to form choke holds and whittle them down.
game is getting better but AI combat still needs work.
Properly used archer units backed with a horse is all i need to defend multiple fronts and take the offensive. Sometimes its a slow go inching my archers forward but in the end i can ussually take out or keep my neighbors at bay until i get into gunpowder units.
One solution might be to not allow archers to fire from or into trees. Another might be to have archers in open ground be incredibly suseptible to horse attacks. Im sure there are a million more ways but when a composite bowman can take 2 hits from a horsey and live. Surround a city and take no damage when it attacks. Whittle that city to nothing in no time even with the city attack penalty against it. i cant see why id want melee. They just dont offer enough value for me. A horse can at least sit out of range and wait til the city is 0 and take it or run recon.
If the computer comes with melee they stand no chance. Humans are a different story i can have my units smacked around good by a descent player if i get too archer heavy. The computer is to hesistant though. sometimes moving a unit around for 5 turns before deciding to move in and after the initial attack they rarely come in force making it easy to form choke holds and whittle them down.
game is getting better but AI combat still needs work.
slobberinbear
Ursine Skald
About the only thing the AI does right is (a) show up in force and (b) prioritize Civil Service and build a ton of pikes/landsknechts.Similar threads
