Swords vs Axes

Tasunke

Crazy Horse
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
the 1800s
Actually I prefer Milites, although my pet peeve is Men-at-Arms, unless I can somehow be convinced that they are dismounted Men-at-Arms (but logically should still require warhorses)

Therefore my newest suggestion is

Warrior-> Milites -> Soldier -> Champion
 

mimic

Magic Box
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
460
Location
United Kingdom
Well it would be Milite all units are a single name e.g. horseman not horsemen. And men-at-arm sounds weird :p
 

MagisterCultuum

Great Sage
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
16,467
Location
Kael's head
The singular of Milites is not Milite, but Miles.

The singular of Men-at-Arms is also obviously Man-at-Arms, not men-at-arm
 

NobbynobLittlun

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
30
As far as the swordsmen/axemen having different stats for RL or historical reasons, this is far below game balance in priority.

Also: axes are no less sophisticated than swords - it just so happens that most axes weren't made for warfare. However, when an axe is made for warfare, it requires just as much care in its craft as a sword so as to not fail in combat.

One-on-one, an axe versus a sword... each has its own advantages. Swords are superior in infantry units because they interfere less with ranks and files, while assaulting a city swords and axes only have advantages over each other situationally - axes to break through doors and barricades, swords to advance through tight spaces. But this kind of context is invalidated in Civ4 given that battles resolve as a series of duels, rather than in teams.
 

Tasunke

Crazy Horse
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
the 1800s
I think axe and sword is alot like machine gun vs rifle (or sniper rifle).

One is big, powerful, and makes alot of noise, while the other requires more skill, and goes in for a clean, hopefully quick kill.

Although that is of course an exaggeration, both can kill effectively, again its largely situational. Also, at least in most contexts swords have a lower damage level but are far more precise (more likely to hit) because those using swords, theoretically, are better trained, and for those of equal training, the sword would still have more precision.

Of course, no one is arguing against the stopping power of an axe when it actually connects.

I have two new unit lines thought up

Warrior-> Soldier -> Legionnaire -> Champion (Centurion)

Warrior -> Miles -> Soldier -> Champion
 

WCH

Prince
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
491
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.
Yeah, I agree with this. That you're able to build a 0 XP Champion seems really weird... a unit should become a champion after doing something exceptional.
 

xxHammerxx

rage monkey
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
117
yea, a champion should probably either replace one of the Tier 4s, or be a "seperate" tier 3 unit which requires level 6, and gives a couple first strikes, as well as possibly allowing you to buy the hero promotion at level 10. I'd say national limit of 4 for such champions. For orcs, a champion would be a way for a couple high level axemen to stay useful (as I would think most of their champions would be proper orcs)
 

Tarquelne

Follower of Tytalus
Joined
Dec 8, 2001
Messages
3,715
As I said it's my least favorite, but...

From "The Free Dictionary".
cham·pi·on (chmp-n)
n.
1. One that wins first place or first prize in a competition.
2. One that is clearly superior or has the attributes of a winner: a champion at teaching.
3. An ardent defender or supporter of a cause or another person: a champion of the homeless.
4. One who fights; a warrior.

They all apply, with varying degrees of puffery. (#1 being 100% puffery, and #4 being 0%.) I don't think it's a *good* choice. (Not that I have an clearly-better alternative. ) But I don't think it a misnomer.
 

Neomega

Deity
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
11,261
i think axeman/swordsman are fine. If you want to put maceman in their too, that's fine.
 

Hawkwood

Man-at-Arms
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
235
Location
Denmark
Fighter seems a little too generic.
Fighter definitely seems to generic.
The reason I like Fighter is specifically because it's generic. There may be more evocative and interesting names, but they are usually more specific. You can have soldiers with such names as: Peltasts, Hoplites, Ministeriales, Teulu, Ecuyer, Coustillier, Fianna and other interesting names, but they all refer to either the soldiers equipment or the society he comes from. IMHO the only thing Elohim, Sheaim, Clan, Khazad, Lanun and etc. Warriors, Swordsmen/Axemen and Champions have in common is that Champions are stronger Swordsmen/Axemen, who in turn are stronger than Warriors. That means we that if Swordsmen/Axemen get a new name, it has to be one that applies to all those civilizations, and that means we have to be very generic.
The alternative is of course to just make a new Spearman unit change the civilopedia entries so both Swordsmen and Spearmen are just a flavor unit for Axemen (apart from FF where we could make invisible effect promotions which only change names, but normal FfH doesn't have that capability).
 

Calavente

Richard's voice
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
2,864
Location
France
well IMO, fighter is stricly equal to warrior or to brawler.
a warrior is a fighter, a fighter is a warrior : he fights essentially alone.
it does not contain any notion of fighting as an unit. only a bunch of guys /girls/things advancing roughly in the same direction and somehow avoiding to hit each others.
they are roughly normal people that are assembled together.

axemen/swords : your empire starts producing WAR TOOLS/ WEAPONS (not just clubs or pointy sticks). thus you have the beginning of an organisation. A fighter is not that. A fighter is a guy that may fight in an arena, or a D&D adventurer. It is not the kind of people an empire want as art of its enlisted defense. So I think soldier would be generic enough while effectively showing an improvement of fighting style versus the warrior.

I like the path :
warrior --> soldier --> champion
"soldier" implies fighting as an unit, following orders. It is better that just a bunch of warriors. Those are men that are fighting for a living, bred to fight...

"champion" ... not so good, but I have seen no better proposal. I like this idea of a unit composed of fewer men but much better trained and equiped
For this I would propose "legionnaire" too, but it entiles a profond notion of discipline and of numerous soldiers. It won't work well with the flavor of the clan, the calabim or of the doviello, while champion works well, wether the unit is highly disciplined or wether it is composed of much more powerful soldiers : Ogre / vampires...etc
so champions is still the best IMO even if so-so.

my 0.2

Edit : new idea :

warrior --> guard --> soldier. (bunch of brawlers from your village with tools (axe, hoe, pointy stick...etc) --> guys trained by your empire for fighting (swords /axes / helmet /lances /armor...etc) --> effective disciplined army)

edit 2 : finally it is semantically a bad idea as those "guards" would be principally used for attacking and pillaging...
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
619
Location
Seattle
Lots of arguing over what to call the Axmen/Swordsman units and nobody has suggested what I think is the obvious choice: "Infantry."

Yeah, I agree with this. That you're able to build a 0 XP Champion seems really weird... a unit should become a champion after doing something exceptional.

"Heavy Infantry"
 

Tasunke

Crazy Horse
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
the 1800s
I think Leggionare as perfectly fine replacer of champion, Because all of those units that wouldn't make sense to have Leggionares .... have Unique Units already!! xD
 

Grey Fox

Master of Points
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Messages
8,726
Location
Sweden
Why not Warrior -> Soldier -> Infantry

Champion could be new name on one of the national limit units. Maybe Phalanx could be renamed to Champion, Phalanx name feels so specific to that unit formation.
 

deadliver

Loud Mouth Amateur
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
1,508
Location
Anvilania
i think axeman/swordsman are fine. If you want to put maceman in their too, that's fine.

Yeah I think it's neat to have axeman and swordsman units. The different art keeps the flavor and the proper name just makes sense. Axes, swords, maces, these are all heavy duty killing weapons with similar sizes, similar weights, similar killing points (axe to the head, mace to the head, sword to the head, sword to the heart, axe to the heart mace to the heart (via smashed awful ribs or concussion shock)). Same unit type but different art.

Combat styles were different yes but had the same defensive abilities (parrying) and similar offensive attacks, relied on cutting and crushing. Axes also stopped being commonly used as axe wielders were conquered by sword wielders like the Normans not just because swords could be better weapons than axes but because the conquerors were more advanced, lucky or bastardly. Even then axes were still used as and remain a symbol of strength.

Also remember that swordsman manuals show a very different fighting style than hollywood. Guys with metal gloves could wield the sword like a club or a short spear, really whacky to watch reenactments but the moves work (and show a surprisingly dirty side to sword fighting!)
 

Hawkwood

Man-at-Arms
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
235
Location
Denmark
Also remember that swordsman manuals show a very different fighting style than hollywood. Guys with metal gloves could wield the sword like a club or a short spear, really whacky to watch reenactments but the moves work (and show a surprisingly dirty side to sword fighting!)
some comments:
1. Not all people are interested in historical accuracy, and even ones who know it can sometimes be taken too far (depending genre however, I would really like a completely accurate (and hopelessly complex) strategy game)
2. Not all have more than a minor knowledge about history. If some believe Brigandines to be Studded leather rather than metal plates with studs securing them to cloth, you can't expect them to know about 1200-1500 century fight manuals that are rarely mentioned.
3. Fighting scenes would be much shorter (and therefore less exciting) if they used actual techniques. Not all are interested in fencing scenes that maximum last 30 seconds.
By the way, if anyone are interested in viewing what he talks about, then here are some excellent videos. And if you are also interested in pollaxe, quarterstaff and halberd.
 

Tasunke

Crazy Horse
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
the 1800s
I think it makes perfect sense. I still find it would be much harder to wield an axe than a sword, although those long-swords are fairly unwieldy as well.

In the end, it isn't the size of the weapon, but how tempered the steel is (so it doesn't break or bend excessively) and spacial displacement.

Which is why I prefer the Gladius and the Katana. The Gladius for its quick-curt-to the point, and the Katana for the balance between reach and maneuverability.
 

deadliver

Loud Mouth Amateur
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
1,508
Location
Anvilania
I just don't see what the big deal is. Keep the swordsman, axeman (and perhaps add maceman) as different art for the same unit across the different civs.
 

Snarks

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
30
How about Warriors -> Footmen -> Soldiers -> Champions?

Warriors represent a civilization's first attempt of organizing an armed force. Footmen are a step-up and act as a transition to professional Soldiers who appear when civilizations have refined their military science.

This may be a little extreme, but if Champions are implemented as an upgrade, I'd like to see them available as an upgrade to any veteran melee unit. (Maybe attach a fairly sizable upgrade cost) Champions have risen throughout every war and simply represent a very skilled fighter, usually givened better treatment because of their reptutation. They'll be affected by the weapon upgrades so it's not an anomaly in technology. Gameplay-wise, it'll offer an alternative to units other than a simply linear upgrade.
 

megamanx06

Caswallan
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
322
Location
Orlando
Militia->Regulars->Champion->???

I don't know what to put in for Phalanx... I was thinking Heroes, but that might get noobs confused with the hero units. I also though of Veterans, but that would imply combat experience, and as of right now you can just build them... But I was thinking that since warriors are usually just a bunch of guys with sticks and swords/axes are the first units to look streamlined, it would make sense to show it with their names.

another possibility I just thought of is
Militia->Soldier->Regular->Champion
soldier/regular possibly switched?
 
Top Bottom