Samurai replace Swordsman?

[zwei833]

Spoiler :

According to the picture above, the Japanese Samurai will replace Swordsman. So, this may suggest that there would be no Medieval infantry like Maceman(Civ4) or Longswordsman(Civ5) in Civ6?

Source: http://imgur.com/a/UxiFY

 

[Gorbles]

Given how fast the upgrade process was from Swordsmen to Longswordsmen, I'm happy with this. Lot of the CiV upgrades were very badly-paced.

 

[kaspergm]

It might. It could also just mean that they find that the distinction between "Swordsman" and Longswordsman" is lost on the average reader. Or they might not even have been aware of it themselves.

 

[Plus Ultra]

The "Age of the Samurai" is between 1185-1868 (source)

Having them be a replacement for the Swordsman, like the Roman Legion, which covers an earlier period (30 BC–284 AD, Source) seems wierd.

Therefore, I think the article might have confused Longswordsman with Swordsman, as kaspergm points out, or in Civ VI, the unit "Swordsman" appears in the medieval era, with some other melee unit available in the classical era.

 

[masda_gib]

I think that the article just wants to say that Japan has Samurai as a special sword-wielding-unit and is not saying which one gets replaced exactly.
Those sidebars are written very... not-rules-specific but as flavor text in everyday speech.

EDIT: And since they just plainly guess which unit the conquisadore replaces it is clear that they don't even have all the information on all UUs they present there.

 

[killmeplease]

i'd be happy if there were no longswordsman in the game
samurai should replace knight though

 

[stealth_nsk]

i'd be happy if there were no longswordsman in the game
samurai should replace knight though

Samurai in Civ6 is foot soldier. While it could replace Knight, this could be quite weird replacement. They did this in Civ3 and Samurai moved as Knight, but didn't require horses. The Knight replacement is logical, though.

 

[killmeplease]

Samurai in Civ6 is foot soldier. While it could replace Knight, this could be quite weird replacement. They did this in Civ3 and Samurai moved as Knight, but didn't require horses. The Knight replacement is logical, though.

samurai are japanese knights dont know why they should be foot soldiers.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Samurai in Civ6 is foot soldier. While it could replace Knight, this could be quite weird replacement. They did this in Civ3 and Samurai moved as Knight, but didn't require horses. The Knight replacement is logical, though.

samurai are japanese knights dont know why they should be foot soldiers.

In Civ V and Popular Culture:
Knight = Cavalry
Samurai = Melee Infantry

In Reality:
Knight ≈≈ Samurai. Both are land owners, the name references their social status, not a military unit.

Ed and his team can turn both of them into whatever unit they like, almost everything is fair game. They seem to go with the popular culture version, which of course makes sense.

 

[killmeplease]

i just hope there will be no longswordsmen or macemen or anything like that
with all that popular culture we could have barbs replaced with dinosaurs and pyramids built by aliens..

 

[JtW]

I don't see why a replacement for a cavalry unit shouldn't be a melee unit. If it's strong enough, the additional hitpoints or abilities could offset the lower mobility.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think killmeplease's point is more that samurai, as men of status, were very likely to own and use horses in battle, despite their common portrayal (at least in civ) of being foot soldiers. Hence why they should replace knights.

In terms of gameplay, however, it makes sense, especially if, like Civ V, there are umpteen unique cavalry units.

 

[zwei833]

i just hope there will be no longswordsmen or macemen or anything like that

reason?

 

[stealth_nsk]

samurai are japanese knights dont know why they should be foot soldiers.

I'm not saying they should be foot soldiers, I'm saying they are in Civ6. We've seen them already.

 

[killmeplease]

reason?

its a historical nonsense

 

[stealth_nsk]

its a historical nonsense

They were used because term "medieval infantry" is too dull. But the infantry existed and was widely used in the time. Maces were in Civ4 were at least better than axemen

 

[Martin Alvito]

Simply being a melee replacement for a mounted unit could render the Samurai a powerful unit in its own right.

Tack on unique abilities, and it could be a juggernaut. No guarantee of that, but I can easily see how being a high power unit that isn't vulnerable to cheap units with pointy sticks could be a big plus.

 

[killmeplease]

They were used because term "medieval infantry" is too dull. But the infantry existed and was widely used in the time. Maces were in Civ4 were at least better than axemen

medieval infantry were spearmen and then pikemen. there were no "macemen" or "longswordsmen" units (though some soldiers mixed into pikemen formations used longswords and other weapons). spain had rodeleros - but it was pretty a single instance, and they used ordinary swords, not longswords (and not maces!)

 

[Haig]

They might have mixed the unit list a bit, like we are going to have slingers right from the start which is pretty cool.

I also like how normal warrior has a bonus against spearmen and pikemen.

 

[Haig]

Here are basic infantry units by eras in Civ 5 and Civ 4

Ancient era: warrior
Classical era: spearman, swordman (also axeman Civ 4)
Medieval era: pikeman, longswordman/maceman
Renaissance: musketman (also grenadier in Civ 4)
Industrial: rifleman

If we leave just pikeman in medieval era I'm ok with that, we'll see what Civ 6 has in store.

Would love some sort of "assault" line of berserker -> grenadier -> flamethrower