Swordsman...?

[SirT]

Sorry if this has already been covered. But currently I see little to no reason to build swordsmen. Even when attacking a city, a swordsman only gets 10% attack bonus vs 50% that a defending axeman gets vs that swordsman. Making swordsmen is failrly worthless if your opponent has iron or copper. The only agruement I CAN see for swordsman is if your opponent is defending with archers. But even then, I would argue that you are safer building axemen, in case your opponenet does suddenly get axemen.

 

[Nilrim]

Sorry if this has already been covered. But currently I see little to no reason to build swordsmen. Even when attacking a city, a swordsman only gets 10% attack bonus vs 50% that a defending axeman gets vs that swordsman. Making swordsmen is failrly worthless if your opponent has iron or copper. The only agruement I CAN see for swordsman is if your opponent is defending with archers. But even then, I would argue that you are safer building axemen, in case your opponenet does suddenly get axemen.

Yes Axemen are the counter to Swordsmen but I find the AI likes to defend cities with archers not axemen. Early on I tend to attack with stacks of 3 or 4 swordsmen 1 axeman and normally bring a spearman or two just incase the AI has charoits or horse archers around.
I was like you in my early game play and only made axemen but I found that it takes a lot fewer Swordsmen to take a city defended by archers.

 

[bigphesta]

Sorry if this has already been covered. But currently I see little to no reason to build swordsmen. Even when attacking a city, a swordsman only gets 10% attack bonus vs 50% that a defending axeman gets vs that swordsman. Making swordsmen is failrly worthless if your opponent has iron or copper. The only agruement I CAN see for swordsman is if your opponent is defending with archers. But even then, I would argue that you are safer building axemen, in case your opponenet does suddenly get axemen.

I think they are sexist.

Swordsperson is the proper term.

Axemen can't get the city bonus though, can they?

 

[Aramazd]

I think they are sexist.

Swordsperson is the proper term.

Axemen can't get the city bonus though, can they?

Women didn't fight in armies in the ancient ages.

 

[al_thor]

I think they are sexist.

Swordsperson is the proper term.

Axemen can't get the city bonus though, can they?

Ummm..............excuse me, but shouldn't you then use the term AXEPERSON?

 

[Kerrang]

Sorry if this has already been covered. But currently I see little to no reason to build swordsmen. Even when attacking a city, a swordsman only gets 10% attack bonus vs 50% that a defending axeman gets vs that swordsman. Making swordsmen is failrly worthless if your opponent has iron or copper. The only agruement I CAN see for swordsman is if your opponent is defending with archers. But even then, I would argue that you are safer building axemen, in case your opponenet does suddenly get axemen.

Surely you aren't sending inexperienced swordsmen to capture cities? With a lvl one city attack upgrade a swordsman is at 30% bonus, and with lvl 2 it is an even match for an inexperienced axeman bonus wise. Given their inherent higher attack value this makes the swordsman superior to the defending axeman, and if your enemy does not have walls, or you have catapults along, the city does not have a chance.

 

[beestar]

Sorry if this has already been covered. But currently I see little to no reason to build swordsmen. Even when attacking a city, a swordsman only gets 10% attack bonus vs 50% that a defending axeman gets vs that swordsman. Making swordsmen is failrly worthless if your opponent has iron or copper. The only agruement I CAN see for swordsman is if your opponent is defending with archers. But even then, I would argue that you are safer building axemen, in case your opponenet does suddenly get axemen.

I agree with some of the former posts - the swords-,uh,swordswielder is more versatile than axeman city raiders because most of the time cities are defended by archers, not axemen.

And it's not quite that bad. An axeman +50% against melee gives 7.5 combat strength, while a swordman's +10% city attack gives 6.6. I find I usually have more promotions than the enemy so it's about equal. The alternative is to attack axeman vs. axeman which is 7.5 vs. 7.5, admittedly still slightly better.

So ... bring both.

 

[vyapti]

Here is a similar discussion.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=145149

 

[player1 fanatic]

The real problem is that Axemen is best ancient age defender, not the Archer as AI thinks.
(even if attacked by other Axemen or with Horse Archers)

So if you defend cities with Axemen, then there is no need for Swordsmen.

But since AI prefers Archers instead, there are good reasons to use Swordsmen.

So, flawed AI makes Swordsmen useful, and thus balanced.

 

[Wolfwood]

Women didn't fight in armies in the ancient ages.

Um... Celts?

 

[Stalker0]

Archers do have the cost advantage. You can build 1.4 of them for every axeman. In general though I agree, the computers use way too many archers, when axeman could serve them a lot better.

 

[Instant_Cereal]

I think they are sexist.

Swordsperson is the proper term.

Axemen can't get the city bonus though, can they?

Women didn't fight in armies in the ancient ages.

If I lived in a trailer in Oklahoma, had boobs, short hair, tattoos, a girlfriend and ate Velveeta and Ramen every night, I'd box you.

 

[zyphyr]

Um... Celts?

Ok, in most civilizations female combatants have been an temporary aberations at best, and as such the use of a male designator is quite reasonable.

If you wish, you can always mod in a Swordswoman UU for the Celts.

 

[aaronflavor]

Many historical and current civilizations use female warriors, of course. The primary skill they are lacking is brute strength, which probably makes them inferior swordspersons--which is probably why there weren't many of them. However, its quite possible that this could have been made up for in agility and sheer hotness if historical societies had not been so male-oriented. In more recent civilizations, women have been found to be excellent archers and riflemen (riflepersons?). Some modern countries, such as Israel, require manditory military service from females as well as males. (In the case of Israel, only jews are required to serve.)

 

[eddie_verdde]

Let's end up with this old "unit" concept...i got tired of it....i would like to see armies like in Rome Total War. Armies with cavalry, spearmen, archers and generals...

 

[Panda]

Um... Celts?

Yelling at your husband from the edge of the battlefield that he ain't getting any tonight unless he storms the city doesn't qualify as fighting.

 

[DangerousMonkey]

Yeah, Swordsman are rarely worth building, especialy in multiplayer. If you build Swordsmen and your opponent builds axemen, you loose. The only reason you ever really have to build them is as a group of specialized city raiders against an opponent that doesn't have axemen. Still, even in that circumstance I probably wouldn't build them as you never know when you'll have to defend yourself unexpectedly.

Also, how did this turn into a thread about women fighting in ancienct armies?

 

[drahnier]

And it's not quite that bad. An axeman +50% against melee gives 7.5 combat strength, while a swordman's +10% city attack gives 6.6. I find I usually have more promotions than the enemy so it's about equal. The alternative is to attack axeman vs. axeman which is 7.5 vs. 7.5, admittedly still slightly better.

Actually it doesn't work like that.
The +10 against cities lowers the defending units strenght rather than increasing the attackers, like all other unit-specific bonuses.

I assume the axeman would get +50 from its own bonus and -10 from the swordsman bonus, so +40%, while the swordsman stays at 6.
So it would be 6 vs 7.

I'm not sure though.

Oh man i feel like such a dork when i make posts like this.
But hey, at least i'm not playing online RPGs.

 

[ZippyRiver]

Both the axe and the sword can have city raider promotions. This promo is not available later on, and a sword is cheaper to make the final upgrades. Short term I like axe better, but I have had a number of battles where the extra 1 point on sword won the day and the axe lost (vs two identical defenders so both battles were full health on both sides).

 

[Vietcong]

Women didn't fight in armies in the ancient ages.

whear the hell did u hear that?? totaly not true