1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Swords vs Axes

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Fall from Heaven' started by WCH, Aug 30, 2009.

  1. WCH

    WCH Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    491
    What's the point of having swordsmen and axemen as separate units in FFH? I never quite got that...
     
  2. JanusTalaiini

    JanusTalaiini Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    340
    Flavor, mostly.
     
  3. WCH

    WCH Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    491
    There isn't much, though, as far as I can tell. Especially since the differentiation only lasts for one tier. If they had a (small) crunch difference I think it'd probably be better... maybe preserve the way they have it in vanilla Civ, where axes get a +% vs melee and swords get a +% on city attack. Or something to that effect.
     
  4. kumquatelvis

    kumquatelvis Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    310
    Axemen used to be able to chop down trees, but apparently that did bad things to the AI.
     
  5. Tasunke

    Tasunke Crazy Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,800
    Location:
    the 1800s
    yea, all AI builder units have to be able to build roads :(
     
  6. Kael

    Kael Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    17,401
    Location:
    Ohio
    Yeah, its just an artistic difference. We didnt want to give all the civs axes and not have any swordsmen in the game, or do the opposite. The best thing to do would be to call them something generic ("Solider" is the best we have come up with so far) and get rid of the unit difference.
     
  7. Keeper_GFA

    Keeper_GFA Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Messages:
    524
    Location:
    Canada
    I like "Soldier". It's certainly better than Solider. :lol:

    Seriously. IMO it fits the progression. Phalanx seems out of place to me though.
     
  8. Kael

    Kael Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    17,401
    Location:
    Ohio
  9. Corlis

    Corlis Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    200
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I suppose you could go with Armsman, but I don't mind having the, be two different units myself.
     
  10. Tasunke

    Tasunke Crazy Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,800
    Location:
    the 1800s
    Yea, I think the current sword/axe implementation is fine
     
  11. thomas.berubeg

    thomas.berubeg Wandering the World

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,961
    Location:
    Ft. Lauderdale
    how about men at arms?
     
  12. Emptiness

    Emptiness []

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,922
    Why is there a problem with having two types of units that are functionally identical but are flavored differently? Is this really an issue?

    Lanun Swordsmen look different from Ljosalfar Swordsmen, for flavor purposes. The equivalent Clan unit, which wields an axe, looks different and is called an Axeman - also for flavor. All the tier 2 melee units could be made to look the same, and called "Tier 2 Melee Unit"; that would have saved a lot of work I'm sure, especially if extended to all the units in the game...

    ...but then the mod would taste like moist cardboard.
     
  13. Avahz Darkwood

    Avahz Darkwood Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,220
    Location:
    Behind You!!!!
    Yea and you could call the Champions He-men :mischief:
     
  14. Kael

    Kael Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    17,401
    Location:
    Ohio
    The only issue, and its a very minor one, is that when you create distinctions that dont have a game effect it blurs all the distinctions that do have a game effect.
     
  15. JonathanStrange

    JonathanStrange PrinceWithA1000Enemies

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,306
    Location:
    TThe Dreaming
    For awhile, I seem to recall seeing swordsmen represented by axemen with macemen graphics. Or something like that. I ended up recruiting archers. And no one say aught of wizards!
     
  16. Tasunke

    Tasunke Crazy Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,800
    Location:
    the 1800s
    well if we HAD to have some difference, maybe 1 first strike for swordsmen, and 5% vs melee for axemen.

    (since its based on what civ, therefore a very hard to control mechanic, less of an impact, but still a slight difference)
     
  17. WCH

    WCH Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    491
    This. Currently it appears on the list of "unique units," which is potentially confusing. Minor, as once you're used to the game you don't even notice anymore, but for someone playing for the first time it's one of the things they're going to see advertising the civs they're looking at. Like, they'll see that Ljos have a unique Swordsman, but they won't see that they can build farms in forests.

    Obviously swords vs axes isn't the only issue there, and as far as issues go it's very minor... but still, if something's going to show up as a "unique unit" it should actually be in at least some minor way different than what it's replacing.

    It'd make sense, of course, to make swords require that you have access to at least one kind of metal... axes can be made from stone, bone or wood, but swords really can't. And then they could be given some minor bonus (like 1 first strike, as suggested above) to balance out that extra requirement.
     
  18. WarKirby

    WarKirby Arty person

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,317
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Did anyone notice that the new Elohim "axeman" is actually a spearman.

    Personally, I say scrap the "axeman" title. Rename it "Fighter" or something similar, and let each civ have whatever art they want for it. Maybe I'll see about doing that for FF
     
  19. Tasunke

    Tasunke Crazy Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,800
    Location:
    the 1800s
    Warrior -> fighter -> champion ... makes sense to me xD

    However, I have gotten so used to the current system that I highly prefer axemen and sworsmen as opposed to a generic fighter (even if they use the same art)

    plus, how much work would it be to merge axes and swords into one unit? (maybe not that hard, but still, I don't think it really needs to be changed)


    (by the way, why were macemen turned into champions?)
     
  20. nihonjeff

    nihonjeff Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    How about "Conscripts"? It's weapon-generic, it gives the impression of a little more organization than "Warrior" (and is therefore appropriate for a Tier-II unit), and it also gives the impression of a lower troop quality than, say, a "Champion".
     

Share This Page