Most usefull---Swordsmen or Horsemen?

[Yoda Power]

Weel what do you think, i´ll go for Horsemen.

 

[farting bob]

what are the horsemans stats?
swordsman is 3, 2, 1 but i'm pretty sure horseman is better, and it moves twice as fast.

 

[Yoda Power]

Originally posted by farting bob
what are the horsemans stats?
swordsman is 3, 2, 1 but i'm pretty sure horseman is better, and it moves twice as fast.

Horseman= 2.1.2 cost 30

 

[DaDoo]

swordsmen are 3.2.1 I think

Horsemen are 2.1.2

I vote for horsey coz I can cover more territory with them.

 

[WildFire]

I voted for neither cause i like to play with the numidian dudes, Mounted Warriors, Celts, or Persians. Plus i rarely attack during the ancient age.

 

[cromagnon]

I voted swordsmen. My horsemen just don't knock out city defenders reliably enough to be worthwhile. Plus, swordmen can hold a city (defense of 2) much better than a horseman.

That said, I almost always have a mixed force of both. Invariably, it's because my core cities are far from the front (hopefully ) and it takes horsemen less time to get there. Thus, I use the swordmen for the initial assault, and horsemen to mop up.

 

[SanPellegrino]

The mixed combo rules, too bad you didn't include such an option.

 

[Kevinicus]

Swordsmen!

 

[Phantom Lord]

Horsemen, not because I use them often in combat but because I build tons of them to upgrade them to knights (or the civ-specific equivalent) once I have chivalry.

I also like gallic sworsmen a lot, but once you have feudalism you can't build them anymore, which is a pity because they're better than their follow-up unit (medieval infantry).

 

[jpowers]

Depends entirely on the size of the battlefield. Swordsmen are certainly much better attackers, but if my enemy is too far away, by the time my swordsmen get down there, they've got pikemen and I need to wait for knights. Horsemen upgrade along a more useful path, too, so you can get lots of cavalry.
Swordsmen -> Mideval Infantry -> Guerilla
3.2.1 -> 4.2.1 -> 6.6.1
Horsemen -> Knights -> Cavalry
2.1.2 -> 4.3.2 -> 6.3.3

 

[Bamspeedy]

PTW has made the swordsmen more useful because of the upgrade path.

Like jpowers said, the size of the battlefield is the most important thing. Large-huge maps=horsemen. Tiny-small maps=swordsmen. Only on deity and maybe emperor levels, do I really need to worry about an AI counterattack so I may lean towards swordsmen on those levels.

On the lower levels, you can continually capture AI cities with a small stack of horsemen (unless your facing Greece or Rome or a civ that has a unit with 3 defense). AI cities are guarded usually by just 2 spearman (sometimes just 1 in the border cities) and there is little or no threat of the AI counter-attacking the city you've just captured.

 

[Adm. Hunter]

I like to use both when I begin my assult on other civs. I tend to use swordsmen as the main body of the assult and horsemen on the flanks to counter any reinforcments. To me there is nothing like 4-6 swordsmen hitting a city headon and a stack of horsemen on each flank to head off any reinforcments the enemy might try to send.

 

[Silverflame]

Both have their uses, and I usually try to use both. But I tend to like horsemen more, especially for clearing out those annoying barbarians camps

 

[planetfall]

Mixed.

Swords alone move too slow and upgrade to guerrilla is a joke. Horses are not powerful enough very, very quickly. Best value of horse is upgrade to cavs and retreat ability. Cavs are also a dead end.

I prefer a mixed force something like this:
20 % swords
30 % horse
40 % spears
10 % catapults

== PF

 

[Chieftess]

Horsemen do upgrade to knights, and are good if you're in a tight spot..One GOTM I played (12? 13? The one with Japan on the huge island), I couldn't take it... my 30 swords were SLAUGHTERED by the horsies! Horses en masse can be a nightmare.

 

[kojimanard]

This is a good poll. The result, after my vote for swordsman, is even. I much prefer swords; the better offense and defense, to me, usually outweigh the movement advantage. With the new upgrades, swords are even more valuable. (If you're the Persians, then its not even close.)

 

[troytheface]

Voted Sword. Large Map, max civs (random) Monarch.
Why? Because nuth'n can take a city like a stack of swordsman. No upgrade.
'course I don't mind chariots and everyone seems to hate them. Fast attack and cool graphics when they die.
jpowers ADR list says it all..Swordsman
(with or even without PTW)

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Depends on what I want to use them for. Generally a mix betw the two; but I'd lean towards swordsmen if I'm in an offensive mind-frame.

Horsemen are good for future upgrading and also 'sweeping the borders'. Swordsmen are good for actually taking out cities.

 

[pompeynunn]

I prefer swordsmen, beause when you've actually taken the city, they can act temporarily as defenders too, whilst the horsemen wouldn't last very long. Much better offense too - much better chance of taking out a fortified spearman in a city built on hills.

Swordsmen are only any good in the very early stages of the game fighting against near neighbours on a huge map (because of the large distances), but by that time, I've normally destroyed my 2 nearest neighbours and I'm set up for the rest of the game.

 

[Darkness]

Horseman!

They're faster and they upgrade all the way up to cavalry...