Legion and Ngao Nemba compared to Swordsman

hongyu20

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
86
Since the summer patch , the swordsmen were buffed to 40 strength while the Roman Legion and the Congo Ngao Nemba remained the same , at 40 and 35 combat strength respectively .
The spring patch notes states that the swordsmen would be nerved yet again no mentions of the Legion and Ngao Nemba , is this intentional or did the developers just forgotten about this .
 
Seems likely that only the swordsman is changing, probably exactly because it left the two unique swordsmen in an odd place.
 
I would assume the Swordsman change is to bring them back in line with the comparison you make.
 
If that is the case , the Ngao Nemba would still be 1 combat strength weaker than the normal Swordsmen ,
 
It trades 1 point of combat strength for situational bonuses:

  • +10 Combat Strength when defending against ranged attacks.
  • Can move and see through Woods and Rainforest.

It also doesn't require Iron, which makes them easier to build than a Swordsman. Whether that truly puts them on par with a Swordsman is debatable, but that's the rationale the designers used.
 
There is no proof any rationale was used around Legions, Ngaos and Swordsmen. Please don't assume things just because they match your line of thinking. I saw no official response to Ngaos and Legions concerning the Swordsmen changes.
 
Seems likely that only the swordsman is changing, probably exactly because it left the two unique swordsmen in an odd place.

I think it's more likely the stock unit was too strong relative to other units (and cities) in the timeframe, on average, but we won't know their actual reasoning unless they give it.

Still, GG + battering ram + swords with promotions vs early game cities/most other units...considering the implications of that it seems more likely since it would influence every game w/o exception regardless of UUs being present.
 
Is there a reason why Firaxis doesn't just give horsemen and other cavalry the same nerf it gave them when they were above the power curve in Civ 5? A penalty to attacking cities would make a lot of sense.
 
There is no proof any rationale was used around Legions, Ngaos and Swordsmen. Please don't assume things just because they match your line of thinking. I saw no official response to Ngaos and Legions concerning the Swordsmen changes.

I'm not sure you know what rationale means. They are the "same" unit in the technology tree, so it's logical design with the way it is right now (post-patch).
 
I'm not sure you recognize what's your bias and what is a fact. Please provide facts and not things that seem to appeal to you.
 
Swordmen strength has been changing quite a lot. It was 35 (IIRC), then all out of the blue they suddenly got to 40, and now at 36 (which arguably makes them almost the same as before).

What's been going on the head of the dev responsible for all that is merely speculation, but surely it seems quite weird.
 
Swordmen strength has been changing quite a lot. It was 35 (IIRC), then all out of the blue they suddenly got to 40, and now at 36 (which arguably makes them almost the same as before).

What's been going on the head of the dev responsible for all that is merely speculation, but surely it seems quite weird.
Maybe the developers are trying to find a way to make early game armies more varied instead of everyone going for the heavy chariots into knights beeline
 
Maybe the developers are trying to find a way to make early game armies more varied instead of everyone going for the heavy chariots into knights beeline
By nerfing the swordman and leaving spears in their meh state?
 
I think I can see the thinking of swordsmen being the alternative to cavalry, but making spearmen cheap and pikemen upgrade more convenient (knights are more suitable for a leaf tech) might have had better results.
 
They didn't think that a buff to Spearmen is a nerf to mounted units, which can be an indirect buff to Swordsmen.

But in the end, Archers rule them all.
 
Back
Top Bottom