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
    Warrior as weaker than Fighter is a D&D third edition thing. Warrior is an NPC class that generally sucks, Fighter is a PC class that... well according to most people it still sucks, but a hell of a lot less.
     
  2. Tasunke

    Tasunke Crazy Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,800
    Location:
    the 1800s
    personally if their were any differences, I dont think any should be vs melee in general, that is the champion's job.

    Instead (and I don't want this to be added, I am only speculating for fun) I think Spearmen (Elohim UU yet to be created) should have +10% city defense and +10% vs mounted and +10% vs swordsmen. While Axemen should have a 10% vs spearmen (and if possible an extra +10% vs units with the formation (anti mounted) promotions, and swordsmen should have a 10% vs axemen, as well as perhaps 1 first strike.

    The caveat of course is the I DONT ACTUALLY WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, but its a bit of micromanagement loosely styled upon fire emblem, which happens to strengthen the elohim, and unfortunately weaken the orcs and doviello ... so It would definitely ruin the game for alot of people :/

    Conversely!! If we wanted to take a slightly different approach, spearmen would be kept the same, but axemen would have 10% vs spearmen and an Additional!! 10% city attack. (this is mainly because the axe civs are the more looting city raider style civs) and meanwhile swordsmen only get the 10% vs axemen. (while this is quite contrary to vanilla, it is still justifyable, and to represent axes being good vs armor, you could have an additional 10% bonus if the enemy has bronze or mithril weapons, and a 20% bonus vs iron weapons)

    Although this was just an example to show why the unit is better when it is effectually the same.

    Given that ... having the Elohim UU "spearmen" giving either a city bonus or a vs mounted bonus would be appropriate. (although I think each withdraw promo the mounted unit has should lessen that bonus, as its called FLANKING, which implies not charging head-on into the spears xD)

    Personally, I would rather keep it the way it is now. (although some axemen being spearmen is kind of odd ;) )
     
  3. WCH

    WCH Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    491
    I still think swords should require metal to build, but be given a bonus to make up for that.
     
  4. Beamed

    Beamed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    64
    Why should there be a change, I must reiterate? The status quo is fine, and none of the suggestions are necessarily for the better.
     
  5. megamanx06

    megamanx06 Caswallan

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Orlando
    W00T for FE (best game ever), but it then makes civs with swords automatically better than those with axes, which is not good. If there were separate units for swords, axes, and spears, then maybe... but that would be a lot more artwork and programming for little effect.

    One this I'd like to say about axes vs swords is about the elohim... if they capture a city from a civ that has swords, the swords are vanilla civ swords. I personally think the cities should build their own units (so a bannor city would build bannor axemen and not elohim spear/axemen). Currently that only happens for civs with races (meaning ljos swords look like ljos swords and not svart swords). Just my 2 cents.
     
  6. Tasunke

    Tasunke Crazy Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,800
    Location:
    the 1800s
    Would be quite interesting is if its civpedia said fighter and mentioned swords, axes, and spearmen, however IN GAME the names were the respective swords (civilized), axes (barbaric), and spearmen (Elohim). This might could be connected to making tolerant work better .... ^_^
     
  7. WCH

    WCH Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    491
    Grigori are barbaric?
     
  8. Tasunke

    Tasunke Crazy Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,800
    Location:
    the 1800s
    it was a generalization >_> .... and actually, the grigori unit art is filled with uncivilized rabble. As you know, they have no official organization, and so therefore ARE rabble when you think about it, which can be connected to barbarism. But yes, philosophically the Grigori are highly sophisticated.

    anyways, you are focusing on the most petty point of the article.
     
  9. MagisterCultuum

    MagisterCultuum Great Sage

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    16,061
    Location:
    Kael's head
    Don't accuse the Dwarves of barbarism either.

    Axes aren't barbaric, just less specialized for warfare. The civilopedia clearly says that swords are the first weapons made purely for warfare, while axes also serve purposes like chopping wood ans spears were first used more for hunting. In societies that are not striated enough to have much of a martial class, it makes more sense for the citizen soldiers to use the peacetime tools with which they are familiar, or weapons made and operated in a similar fashion. In more militant and hierarchical civs the soldiers would devote much more of their time to weapons training rather than honest labor and so would be better with swords but worse with more versatile tools.
     
  10. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    9,865
    Neither are Bannor for that matter.
     
  11. Tasunke

    Tasunke Crazy Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,800
    Location:
    the 1800s
    Before this all gets hijacked ... is there a way to merge the unit while STILL keeping seperate names for the Elves, Orcs, and Elohim? A simple generalization of course, (and yes swords are a more sophisticated weapon than axes, don't try to say otherwise).

    But asides from the fact that axes generally represent large groups of unorganized soldiers, and swords generally organize more fully specialized units (although Dwarven Axes are of course a cultural thing, a Dwarf would no more wield a sword than suddenly hate gold, no matter how specialized he is, so the Khazadi are different) also axes can be organized, although its only a product of a large government choosing the simpler weapon to be made and trained in. (if we wanted to reflect how easier axes could be wielded we would have a separate unit, instead it is representing the units that do not wish to invest the extra time and effort to train swordsmen, whether it is b/c they think axes do just as well (Dwarves, Bannor?) or because cheaper is better (Hippus, Bannor? everyone else)

    If you ignore this silly argument that was birthed from me lumping those using swords/axes into their separate groups in order to better refer to them.

    Ok, so lets make an assumption that it works. The unit is merged into fighter, but only for the Civilopedia. In game, axe civs have their units called axemen, sword civs have their units called swordsmen, and elohim have their units called spearmen. The civpedia could probably have strategy text to say that all the tier II melee units are the same stat, simply divided for flavor, and it would be impossible for an Elohim with Tolerant to build a vanilla sword from an Alphar city because it would end up calling to the same unit, which would give the "UU" (which would only be linked to name and art, somehow) swordsman, with alphar art.

    ((HINT: only important part of this post.)) Now, My REAL question is can a unit be referred by the civpedia as one name, and be called multiple other things by other civs, or do you HAVE to have a unique unit.

    If you would HAVE to have a unique unit, then it might as well be easier to go ahead and merge tier II melee into one unit, only separated by art, because you might have civs like the elohim, to use spearmen or some other melee tool (like a scythe) which is even MORE obscure and uncovered by current names. This is why I like the strength of Fighter, because their weapon would be culturally based, and upon the foundations of how that particular civ wages war.

    (essentially cheap = axe, imo, because you either have cheaply bought militia, or you have large governments funding the cheapest weapons available, which are still effective, to be issued to massive numbers, like the bannor. Additionally, more traditionally barbaric civs like the Orcs and the Doviello culture, dont need to have a government to buy their weapons. They make their own weapons, and the orcs, through cultural fiction, typically use that which enhances their brawn, as opposed to organization. The Doviello to me, seem to have a sophisticated, wolf pack nature to their battle, which seems to focus more on skill and teamwork than pure strength of arms, although due to charadons barbaric nature, in the end a doviello axeman isn't all that surprising. However, under mahala, I could see hunters generally wielding swords in addition to the usual fare (probably bows as well), and melee reforms for specialized melee units to be sword wielding. While sometimes swordsman vs axeman can represent greater organization over pure strength and brawn, I feel this is not always the case, and I will give two good examples. (before that though Dwarves are immune because they will only and always wield axes). The Bannor and the Hippus are great examples of axes being used with a larger degree of organization than the archetype portrays. The bannor, of course, have the superior organization by far, and are probably fielding the most organized and possibly well trained armies (no natural talents, but trained to the best of a conscripts potential, essentially. Of course the proud and arrogant hippus are simply better at horseback riding, but that is partly to do with the fact that, no matter how much the bannor try to posture and organize, cavalry are simply better when given a little more flexibility than pure rank and file, although the Bannor would theoretically have the best military, and Bannor vs Orcs would be much like Rome vs Gaul. Its possible that historical Bannor counterparts never used axes in large numbers, and the Bannor axemen are simply a "what if" scenario for organized axes, however I have no evidence of this. Meanwhile, the hippus axemen, purely from their art, as well as from their lore, simply look trained not for strength but for mobility. Leather Armor, helmets sure, but probably just as protection from archer/projectile fire. The hippus axeman looks like a swift raiding party built for mobility 1. I feel any axeman that starts off being promoted to mobility 1 would look much like a hippus axeman. As such, their axes are not Ghastly large, brutish things, but cheaply bought weapons only used when absolutely necessary, mainly only to convince a farmer to give up his stores, before the enemy military arrives. A hippus army does not march a massive force of axemen against a city on purpose, they have their horses for that. Although If a city needed to be taken badly, I see the axemen being good at scaling walls to meet with the enemy, although that would only happen if the horsemen had the city surrounded/under seige for at least several days, if not weeks. Longer still if no wall-climbers were readily available. Ironically I see assasins as being the most adept at sneaking into cities, atlhough it is right and proper that a city should not be able to be captured and conquered by assasins alone (the city penalty) ... although inside a city, assasins can realistically do alot more damage than outside the city gates. Well, unless at night and in the woods, but thats the Svartalphar's job xD. I must say, while on the topic of unit art depicting how the nations would ACTUALLY FIGHT in a more realistic version of the setting (say a total war mod) I absolutely LOVE the ljosalphar assasin art. Its simply too fitting that ljos assasins are only marksmen in training. I simply cannot get over how awesome it is ^_^

    Which also brings up an interesting point. Assasins can look dramatically different and yet have the same name. The only reason, that I can think of, why Tier 2 hasn't been merged into Fighter (or some other name) is because Swordsmen and Axemen are such an integral part of Vanilla civ, and the smoother the transition from vanilla to FFH the better for new players, right?

    Well, I'm not saying either way, although as time passes, and I contemplate it more, an actual merger might in fact be an improvement. Although, with only one current odd-duck being the Elohim spearman axeman, its kind of hard to justify implementing such a radical change just yet.
     
  12. Tasunke

    Tasunke Crazy Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,800
    Location:
    the 1800s
    Then why would bannor use axes as opposed to swords?? They are certainly marshall and dedicated, and even have been said for its citizenry to be useful with all kinds of weapons.

    Simple answer? to cut costs

    Alternative answer? it could be cultural, like the dwarves, only related to their escape from hell.
     
  13. MagisterCultuum

    MagisterCultuum Great Sage

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    16,061
    Location:
    Kael's head
    Alternate answer 2: a simple oversight on the part of Kael and the art team

    Alternate answer 3: it could be that swords are seen as a symbol of the knightly orders and that common recruits using them is seen as feigning a higher rank and is this a serious breach of protocol. Or maybe there are really strict regulations about how to keep a sword clean and the angle at which to hold it so it is just easier for most soldiers to save their swords for purely ritualistic purposes.
     
  14. Milaga

    Milaga Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    470
    Warrior -> Soldier -> Champion

    This makes the most sense to me, as each increase in tier implies a higher degree of training, devotion to combat and better equipment. Fighter seems a little too generic.
     
  15. MagisterCultuum

    MagisterCultuum Great Sage

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    16,061
    Location:
    Kael's head
    Fighter definitely seems to generic.

    I personally never liked the name Champion for the 3rd tier unit. Being able to make a whole army of champions does not make sense. Champions seem to be by definition a small group of the most elite who have proved themselves in combat and overcome extraordinary odds. If you are going to have unit called a Champion, it should really be a national unit with a level requirement. I would suggest renaming the Phalanxes Champions, and calling the current Champions Men-at-Arms.
     
  16. nihonjeff

    nihonjeff Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I concur.

    My ideal would be to keep Swordsman, Axemen, and Spearmen as separate units, each with slight bonuses to offer a little variety (Swordsmen: +5% City Attack, Axemen: +5% vs Melee, Spearmen: +10% vs Mounted), then renaming Champions to Men-at-Arms, and Phalanxes to Champions.

    If the team does merge Swords, Axes, and Spears into a single unit, I would push for: Warriors -> Conscripts / Soldiers -> Men-at-Arms -> Champions
     
  17. mimic

    mimic Magic Box

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    460
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I would suggest Militia for a name but I think its fine as it is...
     
  18. Tasunke

    Tasunke Crazy Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,800
    Location:
    the 1800s
    alternatively it could be Grunt -> Warrior -> Soldier -> Champion

    where the axe/swords would be called warriors. However, I will reiterate my question, as to whether you can make a single unit in the game, and alter not only its art, but ALSO its name depending on the civ that uses the unit. (this has not been done before, so I am wondering if it is possible)
     
  19. MagisterCultuum

    MagisterCultuum Great Sage

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    16,061
    Location:
    Kael's head
    Yeah, Militia, Militiaman, or Militiamen sound good. I was thinking Miles/Milites, but that is probably too Latin. Its derivatives are probably better.

    How about Warriors -> Militiamen -> Men-at-Arms, -> Champions?
     
  20. Tarquelne

    Tarquelne Follower of Tytalus

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,715
    Of all the suggestions I've seen, I still favor the current names. I think they strike the best balance of descriptiveness vs. flavor.

    The connotations of "Warrior" fit the unit well, and IMO "Warrior" itself is somewhat flavorful.

    Axeman/Swordsman seem merely descriptive, but I think the names are reasonably cool. (Maybe too many movies.)

    Champion is my least favorite. I think it's all flavor. But I like it more than the (IMO) generic and awkward "Man-at-Arms". (And that's my favorite from the replacement suggestions.)

    Phalanx, despite probably being an anachronism, has a balance between description and flavor a I like quite a bit.

    I can see where the criticisms vis a vis accuracy or descriptivness are coming from. But I don't think there's a problem that's worth the sacrifice of any flavor. Flavor - after civ uniqueness - is what attracted me to the mod in the first place. Historical or semantic accuracy were both fairly far down on the list. (#s 16 and 43, IIRC.)
     

Share This Page