Swordsman...?

[player1 fanatic]

As long as AI is the enemy, sure Swords are better.
But that's only beacuse they don't use Axemen as primary defenders (and they are indeed better primary defenders then even archers).

 

[JoeDeep]

I don't have anything much to add about the Swordman argument. I do use then only if they are leveled up, but otherwise I use the Catapult and whatever Horsearchers I have for the first wave, and then Axemen for the remaining waves.

As for the woemn in combat, it's only been since the rise of teh Paternal type lifestyles praticed by the later era Greeks that women have not been combatants. Essentially it was the Romans that made the whole women can't handle combat thing up. Physically it's true, but emotionally it isn't.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

I use mix of them, and it seems to work great. Or with Romans, legions replace that swordman units for uber 8 strength unit to make everything simpler...

 

[lord_graywolfe]

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.

that sounds about right but isnt the axemans bonus only on attack? im not sure about that. i like archers for defending cities, with one promotion a archer defending a city on a hill has a 95% bonus, 2 promos and its a 100% on any terrian vs anything that comes at you. i think the most useless unit is the crossbowman.

 

[beestar]

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.

You're absolutely right - thanks for the correction.

 

[gettingfat]

The game is about mixing your units. Swords take care of archers better, axes are counter of melee units. Both have similar promotions. Make both.

 

[aaronflavor]

I was just reading Wikipedia.. according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persians, "Females were given such status in ancient Persia, that they were the first of their sex to ever serve in a national military." .. just seemed interesting to me.. maybe Persians should have some hot female UU

 

[DeusPopuliPixlm]

I use mix of them, and it seems to work great. Or with Romans, legions replace that swordman units for uber 8 strength unit to make everything simpler...

Yes, Praetorians rock! If you're Roman and rush to Iron Working, you can build 8 ST unit well before anyone else.

 

[Kamamura]

I think they are sexist.

Swordsperson is the proper term.

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

Historically, there were not many swordswomen in regular armies. No swordchildren too - bad luck.

 

[ohioastronomy]

The key point missing in this thread is that archers are not melee units.
In the field, no promotions, the ratios for attacks are
Axe vs archer 5:3
Axe vs axe 7.5:7.5
Axe vs sword 7.5:6

Both axe and sword can get city raider.

In a city (no culture, no hill) the numbers are
Axe vs archer 5 to 4.5 Sword vs archer 6.6 to 4.5
Axe vs axe 7.5 to 7.5 Sword vs axe: 6.6 to 7.5
Axe vs sword 7.5 to 6 Sword vs sword: 6.6 to 6

If you add in 50% culture, hills then archers get nasty:
Axe vs archer 5 to 7.5
Sword vs archer 6.6 to 7.5

Axemen can't reliably take archers on hills or archers with city defense promotions. Swordsmen have a much better chance.

Note that a swordsman attacking another swordsman in a city has an advantage.

Think rock-paper-scissors...
Axe beats sword
Sword beats archer
Archer (with the right defensive terrain) beats axe

 

[player1 fanatic]

Only problem is that Axe beats Axe better then Archer.

-Hills and walls, Attacking axemen has city raider I

Point 1: defending archer has city garrison

Attack Axe:5
Defending Archer: 3*(100+25fortify+50archer bonus+50walls+50hills+20garrison-20city raider)=3*2,75=8,25
So it's 5 vs 8,25

Point 2: defending axemen with combat I

Attack Axe:5
Defending Axe: 3*(100+25fortify+50walls+25hills+10combatI-20city raider)=5*1,9=9,5
So it's 5 vs 9,5

If it was attacking swordsmen, it would even be more badly beaten.

EDIT:
I haven't taken in accound 1First Strike Archer has, but when you compare 9,5 to 8,25, archer is still not better then axemen, it's same at best (on hills). Plus Axmen are even more better against swordsmen.

.

The only balancing point is that AI is using only Archers as primary defense, so human player can get some use of Swordsmen. Otherwise if they used primarly Axemen for denfese, Swordsmen would have hardly any use.

 

[MxxPwr]

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.

By now, I guess you know pretty much everybody's answer: it depends. Having to make situational military decisions is one reason why I love Civ.

Personally though, I don't build Swords...people. If I have horses, then I use the Chariot line of units as my city attackers; supported by the Archer line. If I don't have horses, I just use the Archer line of units. Because of what Spearpeople eventually upgrade into, I use them to defend my cities (old habit from previous Civ games). That's not to say I feel Swordspeople are too weak or that I wouldn't build them if the situation called for it, I just don't favor them.

 

[diablodelmar]

don't dismiss swordsmen! they are good when attacking many units! just because the axeman can defeat it doesn't mean that archers or war elephant will too!

 

[ohioastronomy]

Only problem is that Axe beats Axe better then Archer.

-Hills and walls, Attacking axemen has city raider I

Point 1: defending archer has city garrison

Attack Axe:5
Defending Archer: 3*(100+25fortify+50archer bonus+50walls+50hills+20garrison-20city raider)=3*2,75=8,25
So it's 5 vs 8,25

Point 2: defending axemen with combat I

Attack Axe:5
Defending Axe: 3*(100+25fortify+50walls+25hills+10combatI-20city raider)=5*1,9=9,5
So it's 5 vs 9,5

If it was attacking swordsmen, it would even be more badly beaten.

EDIT:
I haven't taken in accound 1First Strike Archer has, but when you compare 9,5 to 8,25, archer is still not better then axemen, it's same at best (on hills). Plus Axmen are even more better against swordsmen.

The only balancing point is that AI is using only Archers as primary defense, so human player can get some use of Swordsmen. Otherwise if they used primarly Axemen for denfese, Swordsmen would have hardly any use.

EDIT: Zombie69 has pointed out, correctly, that the combat calculations work as described above rather than as below.
This means that Axes are pretty good on defence (against other axes and swords), but the effectiveness of axes on
defence drops faster with City Raider I/II/III than Archers and archers have defence abilities that melee units don't.
Neglect below
---------------
I always understood that modifiers were applied to the unit itself and were additive. This actually changes the math a bit. So if I have an axeman with city raider I, its base attack strength is

5 x (1 + 0.2) = 6 (against archer)
5 x (1 + 0.5 + 0.2) = 8.5 (against melee)

A swordsman with city raider I has attack strength
6 x (1 + 0.1 + 0.2) = 7.8

So an axe is a slightly better attacker against melee and worse against archers.

If the defender is an axeman (in the situation described by you), its defense is the same whether attacked by axe or sword. It is a stiff

5 x (1 + 0.25 (fortify) + 0.5 (melee) + 0.25(hill) + 0.5(wall)+0.1(CombatI),
or a defence of 13.

But swords are pretty stiff too!
A sword on defence would be
6 x (1 + 0.25(fort) + 0.25(hill) + 0.5(wall) + 0.1 (CombatI)),
or a defence of 12.6.

If you bombard down the walls and are not on a hill, axes are better. An axe defender would be at strength 9.25, while a sword defender would be at strength 8.1.

Archers are pretty respectable, but their small base strength means that they don't get quite as tough, topping out about 9 as you note. You've underrated the archers a bit because they can get much better with garrison II and garrison III (in addition to being cheaper); melee units have comparable offensive bonuses but do not have the same defensive bonuses. A maxxed out archer (easy to get in a situation like the one you described, where waves of attackers throw themselves at a city) reaches 10.5.

Neither do do especially well against a stack of horse archers with flank (whittle them down) and shock/cover (finish them off)...but again, that tactics has a counter (spears)...and cover doesn't show up until further up the promotion tree if memory serves. Defending with archers isn't unreasonable at all, but a mixed defense will be much better than any one pure ingredient (stack of doom) until siege comes in.

 

[Zombie69]

I was just reading Wikipedia.. according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persians, "Females were given such status in ancient Persia, that they were the first of their sex to ever serve in a national military." .. just seemed interesting to me.. maybe Persians should have some hot female UU

Females were the first of their sex to do it? Is their anyone of that sex but females? Yet another example why wikipedia sucks.

 

[Zombie69]

I always understood that modifiers were applied to the unit itself and were additive. This actually changes the math a bit.

Bonuses are always added to the defender, except for combat (1 to 5) promotions.

 

[ohioastronomy]

One other note: city raider promotions degrade axemen on defence more than they degrade archers on defence because the modifier is being applied to a large base strength, e.g. the 0.75 for a melee with city raider III reduces the defence of an axeman by 3.75, while it reduces the defence of an archer by 2.25.

 

[player1 fanatic]

I always understood that modifiers were applied to the unit itself and were additive. This actually changes the math a bit. So if I have an axeman with city raider I, its base attack strength is

5 x (1 + 0.2) = 6 (against archer)

Still 5, CR promotions are deducted from defensive bonuses of defender

5 x (1 + 0.5 + 0.2) = 8.5 (against melee)

Still 5, anti-unit promotions are deducted from defensive bonuses of defender. Also in case of defender, his anti-unit abilities are added to his defense.

A swordsman with city raider I has attack strength
6 x (1 + 0.1 + 0.2) = 7.8

So an axe is a slightly better attacker against melee and worse against archers.

Still 6.
Only Combat promotion are added directly to adder. This Combat I sword would be 6.6

If the defender is an axeman (in the situation described by you), its defense is the same whether attacked by axe or sword. It is a stiff

5 x (1 + 0.25 (fortify) + 0.5 (melee) + 0.25(hill) + 0.5(wall)+0.1(CombatI),
or a defence of 13.

It should be:
5 x (1 + 0.25 (fortify) + 0.5 (melee) + 0.25(hill) + 0.5(wall)+0.1(CombatI)-0.2city raider-0.5attacker axemen,

5*1.9=9.5 if attacker is axemen (with total attack of 5)

Or:
5 x (1 + 0.25 (fortify) + 0.5 (melee) + 0.25(hill) + 0.5(wall)+0.1(CombatI)-0.2city raider-0.1sword city attack,

5*2.3=11.5 if attacker is swordsmem (with total attack of 6)

Hey, sword attack is not so bad as I thought.
Still both without catapult support are pretty hopeless.

But swords are pretty stiff too!
A sword on defence would be
6 x (1 + 0.25(fort) + 0.25(hill) + 0.5(wall) + 0.1 (CombatI)),
or a defence of 12.6.

Actually
6 x (1 + 0.25(fort) + 0.25(hill) + 0.5(wall) + 0.1 (CombatI)-20CR-50axe attacker),
or defense of 6*1.4=8,4 (with attacking axe of 5)

Or
6 x (1 + 0.25(fort) + 0.25(hill) + 0.5(wall) + 0.1 (CombatI)-20CR-10sword attacker),
or defense of 6*1.8=10,8 (with attacking sword of 6)


So axe is still better attacker vs both axe or sword defenders. Also swords aren't bad as defenders themself (slightly weaker then axemen).

Archers are pretty respectable, but their small base strength means that they don't get quite as tough, topping out about 9 as you note. You've underrated the archers a bit because they can get much better with garrison II and garrison III (in addition to being cheaper); melee units have comparable offensive bonuses but do not have the same defensive bonuses. A maxxed out archer (easy to get in a situation like the one you described, where waves of attackers throw themselves at a city) reaches 10.5.

Situation is other way around if you are attacker and AI defender.

Then you won't attack city if you don't know you'll take out defender before he promotes.

So most defenders will have just one (barracks) or zero promotions, since they'll all lack any combat experience.

Neither do do especially well against a stack of horse archers with flank (whittle them down) and shock/cover (finish them off)...but again, that tactics has a counter (spears)...and cover doesn't show up until further up the promotion tree if memory serves. Defending with archers isn't unreasonable at all, but a mixed defense will be much better than any one pure ingredient (stack of doom) until siege comes in.

Personally, I think that stack of spear and axmen is better option against mixed melee and horse attackers.

 

[player1 fanatic]

EDIT: Zombie69 has pointed out, correctly, that the combat calculations work as described above rather than as below.
This means that Axes are pretty good on defence (against other axes and swords), but the effectiveness of axes on
defence drops faster with City Raider I/II/III than Archers and archers have defence abilities that melee units don't.
Neglect below

It works other way around too.
If city had big culture bonus not dropped by catapults, and attacker has not sufficient promotions axes get better and better.

 

[thordk]

Females were the first of their sex to do it? Is their anyone of that sex but females? Yet another example why wikipedia sucks.

persian females where the first of their sex to serve in armies. you left the persians