Skirmisher or Longbowman?

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

After feudalism, and before engineering (?), I found I could build skirmishers for about half the cost of longbowmen. As city defenders, skirmishers base about one less strength than longbowmen, with a potential extra first strike. Given that I could enlist two of them in the time it would take to enlist a single bowmen, it seemed a reasonable way to go. Is it? or am I missing something?

Epic, standard, prince, fractal... Mali, natch.

 

[Galileo44]

Skirmishers are only strength 4 and Longbows are strength 6, so 2 more. This depends on the situation. If the AI has maces and other medieval units, then don't try with the Skirmishers, as they may not survive. However, if they don't, then the skirmishers are cheaper, and therefore give you more hammers for offensive units or infrastructure.

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

But for city defense, the skirmisher is 4 + 50% vs. 6 + 25%, which is closer to 6 vs. 7, or two 6 units vs. one 7 unit.

 

[Validator]

Skirmishers may well be more cost effective at defending cities from the standpoint of construction costs (i.e. hammers). But you also have to consider that if you're paying for unit support those extra skirmishers will be costing you additional gold each turn.

Also if you ever need to use those units outside cities then the Longbow will be sufficiently more effective to justify its higher hammer cost.

 

[CivDude86]

Its 6vs7.5 but once you pile on CG is gets worse (6.8vs8.7 for CG1 and 7.8vs10.2 for CG2/CG1+fortify bonus).

 

[cabert]

use skirmishers if you run HR
else promoted LB are much better.

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

Thanks, all. Unit cost is something I definitely overlooked; and the increasing disparity between the two units resulting from promotions is worth noting. So much for that idea...