Swords vs Axes

[Tasunke]

But then its an alliteration thing. which isn't all that bad, but names for units are highly cosmetic, and as a combined unit name is concerned, Fighter has been the best one so far, imho

 

[Dumanios]

Point taken Tas.

 

[Fafnir13]

Conscript seems to work, although I do like having different names for the units. Kind of tricks my head into believing I'm making different units.

 

[ExMachina]

I definitely think they should be combined into one unit. Though I'm not really sure what to name them (maybe a poll?).

 

[Exsequien]

Anybody played Fire Emblem? In that game, swords beat axes, axes beat spears and spears beat swords.

Every unit could get a "Axe" or "Sword" promotion that gives a minor bonus against the weapon type it's good against.

I know, stupid idea.

 

[Hawkwood]

I also think Fighter would be a good name.

how about men at arms?

Not to appear like someone who thinks historical accuracy is better everything else, but I really wouldn't want to sacrifice it something so insignificant, since Men-at-Arms means something completely different.

 

[Lord Tirian]

+1 for fighter!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Lone Wolf]

If we introduce Fighters, we also have to introduce Bombers.

 

[Beamed]

What's wrong with Swordsmen and Axemen?

 

[Onionsoilder]

If we introduce Fighters, we also have to introduce Bombers.

Wrong. If we introduce Fighters, we need to introduces Thieves. Thankfully we already have Mages, though they lack various colors.

 

[Yaguer - Niome]

I think we should either keep it Warrior or change it to Soldier, because I find Fighter to be to bland. Seems more professionally-inclined to call the soldiers of your nation, Soldiers instead of Fighters, which has this mercenary-esque feeling to me going on.

 

[Senethro]

Militia?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Honestly, I like the system as it is.

 

[PanzerWolf]

What's wrong with Swordsmen and Axemen?

Don't understand this either... I think it's a nice flavour. In fact, I find it strange that in vanilla Civ, civs like Aztecs, Zulu etc. have the same units as Europeans when it comes to units like Maceman. It's ok to have basically the same unit when it comes to strength, but have different units depending on the Civ, is just cool.

In short, my comment is KISS with flavour

 

[Calavente]

The Guard ?
Armymen ?

IMO, the great change of axemen/swordmen vs warriors is that your units are beginning to fight as soldiers, with discipline vs the free-for-all kind of figth of the warrior militia.
IMO fighter is the same as warrior : there is no sense of discipline in it.
(well, maybe the doviello won't have any army ever.. )

BUt really, I'd rather have swords and axemen instead of a bland "armymen /soldiers "...

 

[thomas.berubeg]

I also think Fighter would be a good name.

Not to appear like someone who thinks historical accuracy is better everything else, but I really wouldn't want to sacrifice it something so insignificant, since Men-at-Arms means something completely different.

Thank you, that was interesting.

 

[WCH]

My opinion is still that the name should be kept as is but some small differentiation should be introduced... that way only one (or possibly two) things need to be changed, not one for each civ effected.

 

[Hawkwood]

Thank you, that was interesting.

Nice to see my "educational" posts aren't aggressive as they seem to me. I'm always worried about that.

 

[Tasunke]

I also appreciated the proper definition to Men-at-arms. On another note, was Men-under-arms the proper term for a run of the mill soldier?



As a separate add-on, since Axemen/Swordsman are probably the last of the regulars/mass war-fare that their name could be based on a number as opposed to a weapon type? (assuming Champions are individual men, or smaller more elite units)

In this case, I think the soldiers of the empire could be referred to as Platoons. So a platoon is the unit name, and a given platoon will wield sword, spear, or axe, whatever the stylings of their civ will dictate.

This however, is a tricky concept because 1) the numbers of each unit are not defined, and 2) someone could easily wish to consider their archers, horsemen, and mages to be platoons as well (although I honestly prefer "wings" to refer to horse-crews)

It is true that many times a unit is named after the weapons they wield, although often (and in this case it may be preferable) it is wise to name the unit after "how" they fight, or something specific to that unit.

Currently I have always found the term warrior to be misleading, as many cases the name warrior is used in heroic context, while other times it is a general term, although it is never a grunt unit's term, unless its Civ (by the meaning of being the lowliest of units)

There fore, I would propose removing the term "warrior" entirely, and replacing it with grunt. It is hard to say how the switch would be accepted, as warrior being a lowly weakling is probably ingrained into every civver, although it would remove the potential inter-changability of fighter/warrior.

This proposal does keep the previous fighter suggestion, so that it would be Grunt -> Fighter -> Champion.

This is simply my opinion of how a merge should be done if a merger is decided upon.

Personally I quite prefer the current axeman/swordsman, with the Caveat that you add a spearman UU for the Elohim.

 

[Emptiness]

My opinion is still that the name should be kept as is but some small differentiation should be introduced... that way only one (or possibly two) things need to be changed, not one for each civ effected.

It seems to me that the most efficient way to eliminate potential confusion about why Swordsmen and Axemen are the same but yet different is to put a note in the 'pedia entry for each one to explain that it is functionally identical to the other one.

This also has the added benefit of not introducing an actual difference, which would have the potential to either be large enough to disrupt balance or small enough to spawn discussions about whether the difference should be increased.