Swordsmen vs axemen

[Simon Appleton]

This is probably a dumb question, but what's the point of swordsmen? I have axemen (strength 5) and am being attacked by a civ with swordsmen (strength 6). Won't my axemen win due to the 50% bonus vs melee? If so, what's the point of swordsmen - I know they get 10% bonus against cities but that does not sound like much of a benefit, especially if the cities are held by melee units.

Am I missing something? e.g. do axemen only get a bonus if they are the attackers?

 

[Chumba]

No, the bonuses apply attacking or defending. Your totally right in thinking theres utterly no point in fighting an axeman with a swordsman.

The point in swordsmen, is attacking cities that don't have axemen
Apart fromt their initial City attack bonus, your also able to stack an extra 20% bonus with their first promotion, which makes them the best Ancient Era City takers (except when fighting axemen).

So in conclusion: Cut off your targets bronze supply

 

[Nil_The_Frogg]

And iron (it allows for axemen IIRC).

 

[LostKing]

Swordsman exist to take out those initial archers. However, If you can get them shock they can be pretty effecient with Axemen as well. On the other hand, an axeman with shock is pretty sick. Your best bet their is to try to enduce them out of a city and run them over with some form of mounted unit- or just catapult them a few times. (Am I the only one that find catapults often withdraw in such situations?)

 

[narmox]

Two words:

combined. arms.

They kept harping on this during the previews/development on the game, that you cannot fight everything with a single unit type, you need variety.

 

[Phyr_Negator]

i'll make it even shorter - in one word:
Archers

 

[Simon Appleton]

Thanks for the replies. Sounds like axemen are the business in the early game. Looking at the numbers, I am tempted to agree that they seem to break the rock-paper-scissors concepts. I should be ok relying on them unless my attacker (the Japanese) starts producing Samurai!

 

[Astax]

Swordmen are better at dealing against Horse archers. You might think that why use swordmen then if u can use spearmen. Well spearmen are deffensive unit. You use swordmen when you are going on offensive and you are not sure what you might run into. Axemen are awsome at raiding barb cities, but they can get out manuvered by horsemen archers and rightly devistated.

 

[Arathorn]

Well spearmen are deffensive unit.

That's Civ3 thinking. Spearmen are an anti-mounted unit. They attack just great. And I've used many of them on chariots, war chariots, horse archers, and war elephants. They're not even too bad against knights on the attack, but that's a bit harder to successfully do (need a number of promotions, generally).

That said, a stack of 2-4 swordsmen, an axeman, an archer, a spearman, and a chariot is pretty scary if Construction hasn't been discovered yet. It's a city-taking machine that's hard to deal with.

Arathorn

 

[Astax]

Problem is defender advantage so you can attack a stack of mounted units yes, but firstly anyone using cavalary wont give you the option to attack him, especially not with a 1 movement point unit, they wont leave their moutned stack next to you. Secondly, They will use a mixed stack so you will be attackign essentially with a 4 str unit since they wont probably be defending with a mounted troop but rather an archer or axeman.

Maybe its my personal preference but I would rather take a swordman than a spearman. Spearman are just food for axemen, whereas a swordman can handle itself agianst an axeman and horse archer.