What are swordsmen for?

[Muz]

Swordsmen start off with 6 attack in general with only 6.6 vs a city. However, vs axemen, they're up against 7.5. They also take 40 p to make vs axemen's 35 p (14% longer to make). But in terms of combat they're only 5/4 (25%) stronger vs normal units, giving them a total bonus of only 11% outside cities.

So, why make swordsmen over axemen, when people could just aggressively defend their cities with axemen? Unless playing Roman, of course. I'd rather sell all that iron for fur coats!

 

[Zanmato]

Axemen get a 50% bonus for attacking melee units so that's why Swordmen might have a harder time against them. I prefer to use Axemen to attack other melee units and Swordmen to attack cities. Attacking cities with Axemen don't get their melee bonus against Archers so I use Swordmen instead usually with the extra City Attack or Cover bonus and usually support them with catapults.

Sure Axemen are cheaper but I find abit a variety in my armies helps and Archers are simply superior defenders in cities with first strike.

 

[voek]

agreed,

the chance of losing a city-fight with axemen is to big comparing with using swordmen. Ok, the cost less and you can built (and lose) more, but still. Try beating an experienced archer (city defence lev 2) with axemen....

Besides the upgrade to macemen is cheaper, giving you execellent city raiders.

 

[alco75]

I give some Swordsmen Shock to cope with Axemen.
6 * 1.25 == 5 * 1.5

 

[Kenji]

because swordman with City Raider 2 can beat Archer with City Defend 2, while Axeman may not? =)
3 +50% +first strike can have a higher percentage beat axeman down in a city

 

[ShaLouZa]

Yes, swordmen are city-killers, while axemen are melee units nightmares. Besides, they sure look more stylish than those psycho axe bearers.

 

[DangerousMonkey]

Well, Muz, you're completely right. Swordsmen are pretty much good for being killed by Axemen. They are useful against AIs I guess, as the AI tends to defend heavily with Archers (which isn't a good idea). Basicly you should only build Swordsmen in single player, for use against opponents with too many archers. In multiplayer, build Axemen or perish.

 

[suspendinlight]

They are nice to use against enemies w/o copper or iron. Also, the idea is to have a combined force if possible. Swords, axes and horse archers...

 

[Breunor]

Risght, swords are good AGAINST the mixed force too. If the enemy has a stack with a horse archer, axeman, catapult, archer, and spearman, your swordsman are your best attackers (besides possibly catapults to give colaltereal damage).

If you start with a horse archers, the spearman defends. If you go in with the axeman, the horse archer defends. The swordsman will likely be your best first non-catapult attack.

And if you have Praetorians ....

Breunor

 

[nullspace]

They are nice to use against enemies w/o copper or iron. Also, the idea is to have a combined force if possible. Swords, axes and horse archers...

And swordsmen and catapults can take down longbowmen if you want to fight in the early medieval age. So they do have their uses.

Actually, I think the problem isn't that swordsmen are bad, the problem is that axemen are too good. It seems like axemen need some sort of weakness to be balanced with the other units.

 

[rewster1]

Risght, swords are good AGAINST the mixed force too. If the enemy has a stack with a horse archer, axeman, catapult, archer, and spearman, your swordsman are your best attackers (besides possibly catapults to give colaltereal damage).

If you start with a horse archers, the spearman defends. If you go in with the axeman, the horse archer defends. The swordsman will likely be your best first non-catapult attack.

And if you have Praetorians ....

Breunor

If you've got elephants, then you've at least got even odds, all terrain and promotion modifiers aside. But swordsmen are cheaper, so it's probably less of a gamble to use them (not to mention elephants come later tech wise).

 

[Hans Lemurson]

Yeah, I would agree that Axemen are too strong. Until feudalism (or construction + ivory), the only real counter to Axemen are Axemen. The only thing stronger than an Axe (sword) is weak against it. I think that perhaps Chariots should have an inherent bonus vs. melee, perhaps something on the order of 15%? This would still put them at a disadvantage against Axes (justified due to their lower cost) but would give them a more solid purpose in combat.

 

[ShaLouZa]

Mounted archers do pretty well against axemen, no ? I use these to avoid pillage and they usually do the trick.

 

[nullspace]

Yeah, but horse archers come later, cost more, don't get defensive bonuses, and are easily countered by spearmen, which are easy to get if you can build axemen. It's not a slam-dunk victory. I wouldn't mind if chariots got a 50% bonus against axemen.