G-Max
Deity
- Joined
- May 20, 2006
- Messages
- 2,556
This has probably already been discussed to death, but whatever...
After a series of wars with Montezuma in which he repeatedly tried to attack Dallas with Jags while I systematically razed his cities with a stack of mixed axemen and swordsmen, it dawned on me that Crossbows are MUCH better for city-defense than Longbows are. It's true that it seems counter-intuitive; LBs have a general city-defense bonus, whereas CBs are a special anti-melee weapon, like axemen but with City Garrison instead of City Raider. So why do I give the nod to crossbows for city-defense purposes?
1) In the relevant time period, the only real threat to cities comes from melee and siege units: axemen, swordsmen, macemen, catapults, and trebuchets (and theoretically spear/pikemen, but nobody uses those to attack cities). Mounted units are great at intercepting and killing units outside of cities, or pillaging the improvements around a city, but they lack two very important things: the City Raider promotion and the ability to receive defensive boni. This makes them extremely susceptible to counterattack. Generally speaking, a maceman with City Raider I&II will fare much better against a city than a knight with Combat I&II will, so it's more important to defend against the maceman.
2) It helps to remember that you should defend a city with more than one unit. A crossbow and a pikeman complement each other EXTREMELY well, just in case your opponent is attacking with a LOT of mounted units, but what would you complement a longbow with? Another longbow? Sorry, but a city with a crossbow and a pikeman is much better-defended than a city with two longbows, or one longbow and one of any other unit.
2) I've covered melee and mounted units so far, but what about siege units? Yes, a longbowman will have a better chance of surviving or repelling an attacking trebuchet than the crossbowman will. But are you just going to sit there and take your pounding like a man in the hopes that the trebuchets will all eventually suicide themselves against your longbows? If so, you're the one committing suicide. You need to attack those trebuchets, and chances are high that they're hiding in a stack of melee units with City Raider and no defensive promotions. The longbow's bonus only applies when being attacked. The crossbow's bonus applies whether it's attacking or defending. I used this to devastating advantage as my lone crossbowman in Dallas counterattacked and decimated stacks of enemy Jags. Yes, it's an extreme example, and the valiant crossbowman eventually died, but still... it was AWESOME. Crossbow for the win.
4) Maybe this is just me, but I usually beeline the production and industrial techs. Every civilization, regardless of its path to victory, requires well-functioning transportation, entertainment, and sanitation systems, which means Mathematics for Aqueducts, Construction for coliseums and bridges, and Engineering for faster roads. Machinery is a prerequisite for Engineering but Feudalism isn't, so crossbows get picked up anyway, whereas getting longbows would be a time-consuming detour (later, after doing the Liberalism-Gunpowder double-dip, I go down the Printing Press -> Replaceable Parts -> Steam Power -> Assembly Line -> Industrialism path, stopping for Steel and Railroad along the way; this requires eventually picking up Feudalism, but I'm already using muskets, so it doesn't make a difference).
5) Sometimes, you'll see a n00b defending their cities with melee units and no archers. Attack their cities with crossbows for epic lulz.
In summation: crossbows are better at defending your cities against the units that pose the biggest threat, they work better in stacks of mixed unit types, they're better at counterattacking enemy stacks of doom, they're already on the path to Engineering, and they're hilarious to pwn n00bs with. Longbows are better when your enemy is attacking your cities with either archers or unprotected siege units, in which case they're a n00b and you should pwn them. Or siege units that are protected by archers standing on a hills tile... hmmm... note to self: when building cities next to hills tiles, put archers on said hills tiles before opponents do.
After a series of wars with Montezuma in which he repeatedly tried to attack Dallas with Jags while I systematically razed his cities with a stack of mixed axemen and swordsmen, it dawned on me that Crossbows are MUCH better for city-defense than Longbows are. It's true that it seems counter-intuitive; LBs have a general city-defense bonus, whereas CBs are a special anti-melee weapon, like axemen but with City Garrison instead of City Raider. So why do I give the nod to crossbows for city-defense purposes?
1) In the relevant time period, the only real threat to cities comes from melee and siege units: axemen, swordsmen, macemen, catapults, and trebuchets (and theoretically spear/pikemen, but nobody uses those to attack cities). Mounted units are great at intercepting and killing units outside of cities, or pillaging the improvements around a city, but they lack two very important things: the City Raider promotion and the ability to receive defensive boni. This makes them extremely susceptible to counterattack. Generally speaking, a maceman with City Raider I&II will fare much better against a city than a knight with Combat I&II will, so it's more important to defend against the maceman.
2) It helps to remember that you should defend a city with more than one unit. A crossbow and a pikeman complement each other EXTREMELY well, just in case your opponent is attacking with a LOT of mounted units, but what would you complement a longbow with? Another longbow? Sorry, but a city with a crossbow and a pikeman is much better-defended than a city with two longbows, or one longbow and one of any other unit.
2) I've covered melee and mounted units so far, but what about siege units? Yes, a longbowman will have a better chance of surviving or repelling an attacking trebuchet than the crossbowman will. But are you just going to sit there and take your pounding like a man in the hopes that the trebuchets will all eventually suicide themselves against your longbows? If so, you're the one committing suicide. You need to attack those trebuchets, and chances are high that they're hiding in a stack of melee units with City Raider and no defensive promotions. The longbow's bonus only applies when being attacked. The crossbow's bonus applies whether it's attacking or defending. I used this to devastating advantage as my lone crossbowman in Dallas counterattacked and decimated stacks of enemy Jags. Yes, it's an extreme example, and the valiant crossbowman eventually died, but still... it was AWESOME. Crossbow for the win.
4) Maybe this is just me, but I usually beeline the production and industrial techs. Every civilization, regardless of its path to victory, requires well-functioning transportation, entertainment, and sanitation systems, which means Mathematics for Aqueducts, Construction for coliseums and bridges, and Engineering for faster roads. Machinery is a prerequisite for Engineering but Feudalism isn't, so crossbows get picked up anyway, whereas getting longbows would be a time-consuming detour (later, after doing the Liberalism-Gunpowder double-dip, I go down the Printing Press -> Replaceable Parts -> Steam Power -> Assembly Line -> Industrialism path, stopping for Steel and Railroad along the way; this requires eventually picking up Feudalism, but I'm already using muskets, so it doesn't make a difference).
5) Sometimes, you'll see a n00b defending their cities with melee units and no archers. Attack their cities with crossbows for epic lulz.
In summation: crossbows are better at defending your cities against the units that pose the biggest threat, they work better in stacks of mixed unit types, they're better at counterattacking enemy stacks of doom, they're already on the path to Engineering, and they're hilarious to pwn n00bs with. Longbows are better when your enemy is attacking your cities with either archers or unprotected siege units, in which case they're a n00b and you should pwn them. Or siege units that are protected by archers standing on a hills tile... hmmm... note to self: when building cities next to hills tiles, put archers on said hills tiles before opponents do.
. However, it doesn't really add much to the "which is better?" debate...
