Is there a point to swordsman now?

[Stalker0]

I have noticed that in BTS, the computer has wised up and actually uses axemen to protect cities....which makes the swordsman completely worthless when attacking cities. For the cost I'd rather have archers attacking, with first strike I might actually kill something

So is there any real use for the swordsman now?

 

[paydro]

What difficulty level? As far up as Monarch I haven't really noticed a big swing to axemen, unless they're just building them randomly to attack with.

 

[IronCrown]

I never build swordsmen... can't think of a scenario where they are useful.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm on prince, and definately see axemen in the bases.

 

[Refar]

The AIs main defensive units are still Archery. One or a couple of Axes do not make Swords useless.

If you are going to rush, you should do it with the unit that you can have fast - this will usually leave you with Axes, as IW just takes too long for a good rush.

In a medieval War you will see some Axes in the cities. By that time you shouldn't attack with a single unit type anyway. Besides better defensive Units also Cultural Defenses are higher. The cost of a "pure" rush would probably become too high. Mixed stacks from Swordsmen supported by Axemen and Catapults (if avaiable).

 

[King of Town]

I agree with refar, by the time you get to swordsmen the time for a one unit rush has passed.

 

[GIO888]

one swordsman, one catapault. That's my rule.

I take out 2 Axmen defending a city with 2 swordsmen and two catapaults no problem, early game - as long as the swordsmen have city attack I and the Cats have Collateral I, both very easy with two cities with barracks.

 

[Iranon]

In that case, however, you will do better with Axemen on your own. If the opponent has a mixed force, Axemen vs. Archer is better for you than Swordsman vs. Axeman...

Swordsmen are the city attacker of choice only if defending Archers are a lot more numerous than Axemen. Sometimes you can ensure this by pillaging, sometimes you're better off with a pure Axeman horde (and siege once you have that)

 

[troytheface]

i read a thread somewhere that stated something to the effect of higher level (MP/SP?) players build sword over axe.

When playing Montezuma or Rome or Celts i build almost all sword UU's, with a chariot escort if possible.

You can draw the AI's axe out of their cities onto a pillaged tile, while heading to destroy any enemy metal resources.

 

[noto]

It depends. If your neighbour lacks a metal, swords are better vs. archers. If your neighbour has metal...swords aren't going to be as useful.

 

[Rusty Edge]

The AIs main defensive units are still Archery. One or a couple of Axes do not make Swords useless.

If you are going to rush, you should do it with the unit that you can have fast - this will usually leave you with Axes, as IW just takes too long for a good rush.

In a medieval War you will see some Axes in the cities. By that time you shouldn't attack with a single unit type anyway. Besides better defensive Units also Cultural Defenses are higher. The cost of a "pure" rush would probably become too high. Mixed stacks from Swordsmen supported by Axemen and Catapults (if avaiable).

I'm in his camp. It's meant to be a mixed forces game in the Iron Age and beyond. Before that you can take your enemy apart with a hammer, after that you need a tool box. Swordsmen are one of the tools.

 

[AfterShafter]

If you build nothing but axemen, the moment your defensive spearmen go down, your axemen are utter bait for chariots. I always mix in a few swords... A) they're better against anything from their era barring other axemen and spearmen, and B) they're not as vulnerable against chariots or even horse archers.

 

[Supr49er]

If you build nothing but axemen, the moment your defensive spearmen go down, your axemen are utter bait for chariots. I always mix in a few swords... A) they're better against anything from their era barring other axemen and spearmen, and B) they're not as vulnerable against chariots or even horse archers.

That's the way I see it. Mix in some of every unit into your SOD.

 

[Armorydave]

Swordsman are still my primary city takers in the pre-Civil Service era unless a UU is better. Axeman alone is at best a heavy attrition strategy if you plan on taking cities before catapults. This is true ven after catapults if you only have a couple and need them purely for knocking down cultural defenses (i.e. you cannot suicide them because you only have 1-2 and aren't a very productive society yet).

The most simplistic example is that City Raider 2 and 3 swordsman can mow through weaker cities, lower cultural defense cities (0% or 20%) with relatively unpromoted archers defending. CR2 and CR3 Axeman have a much tougher time of it under the same (relatively common for me) scenario.

 

[gettingfat]

If you only use swords exclusively for attacking cities, not field battles, the odds are actually not too bad vs axes. A CR1 sword has 20% + 10% bonus so its strength becomes 7.8. With CR2 there's another 25% bonus. Axe has no CG promotions so most of the time you're seeing combat I axes. So even the swords still have a disadvantage it's not as bad as chariots fighting spears. Just build a few combat axes to escort them. Also, the AIs also still tend to build mostly archers. So most of the time you'll see a couple axes per city at most.

The only problem is facing aggressive leaders particularly Boodica. They love shock axes and without cats they are hard to handle.

 

[gomms]

I think CIV4 has greatly neglected swordsmen all together...

I dont expect a game to be perfectly accurate, but swordsmen played such a huge role in combat... from 1,000bc right up to 1,800ad... how can they only have a attack of 6?

Maybe have 2 types of swordsmen, or when u discover guilds swordsmen get +2 attack???

either way its lame that their so useless