What's the point of Warriors and Swordsmen?

[Circlet the Zen]

Spearmen and Pikemen are better, they have greater combat strength, don't cost a strategic resource, and have increased damage against mounted units. So what is the point of Warriors and Swordsmen? They're available a tech or two sooner?

Should be:
Horsemen and Knights > Warriors and Swordsmen > Spearmen and Pikemen > Horsemen and Knights

 

[Montov]

Warrior is available from the start, and cheap.
Swordsman is only 3 techs away in Classical era, Pikeman is >10 techs away in Medievel era.

So Swordsman is still a big player, Warrior lifespan is a little short yes.
But you need to compare Spreaman with Swordsman, and Pikeman with Longswordsman.

 

[The QC]

They're available *numerous* techs sooner.

Warriors are the earliest unit and of course that anything coming after it will be stronger.

Pikemen are a medieval unit, coming a long way after swordsmen, which is why they are stronger.

I think it's:
Anything>Warrior
Swordsman>Spearman>Horseman
Longswordsman>Pikeman>Knight

So, the rock paper scissors rule is respected, but at the same time the superiority of later technology is respected.

 

[apocalypse105]

Yeah try to defend you'reself from a swordsman rush with only spearman..

 

[R17MCMLXXIX]

Not only whats been mentioned, but by the time you upgrade your warriors to swordsmen, they should have 30experience, either drill-II or shock-II, if you've taken advantage of the barbarians. All of this without wasting hammers on barracks and and armory.

 

[headcase]

Swords are not only earlier but they are also cheaper.

 

[therottweiler]

I always train at least 2 warriors early and send them out against the barbs to get gold and promotions. You can then spend gold to upgradethem later.

 

[Matjillam]

Let us play a MP-game where you spearmen/pikemen and I go warrior/swordsmen

Whoopsie, you dont have any pikemen by the time I hit you with my 5 swordsmen + backup.

I think I'm gonna win that pretty easily

 

[Khadroth]

Spearmen and Pikemen are better, they have greater combat strength, don't cost a strategic resource, and have increased damage against mounted units. So what is the point of Warriors and Swordsmen? They're available a tech or two sooner?

Should be:
Horsemen and Knights > Warriors and Swordsmen > Spearmen and Pikemen > Horsemen and Knights

I'm of the reverse mentality. I have a hard time understanding the point of building spearmen/pikemen.

Anti-mounted? Ok sure, but they're never built in great amounts by the Enemy AI so at most you're typically facing 1-2 per wave, at which point they avoid your spears/pikes like the plague because they're not completely idiotic.

Stronger? Sure, only temporarily until you get the next Warrior upgrade path tech, and lets not forget what the pike upgrade is... the Lancer, which means it gains mobility and loses it's ability to defend. Even if you somehow like the Lancer, you're still screwed by the simple fact that you won't get another upgrade along this path until the Atomic Age and Combined arms. Enjoy two eras without an upgrade while infantry receive 2 upgrades and mounted units receive 3 upgrades (since they also upgrade again with Combined arms). This in turn causes another problem, because you're getting far more use and constant tech upgrades for your other units, you're carrying their combat upgrades forward, unlike the lancer who's probably sitting at the back of your lines afraid to be used for fear of getting one shot when you can't hit a swarm of great war infantry and get far enough away to escape or dive-bombed after the onset of aircraft.

 

[Flaviusx]

Frankly, I think you can take a pass on all the infantry until rifles, and focus on mounted units, archers, and siege weapons; you can take cities with this mix and dominate the open field as well.

I hardly build any the infantry types early on now. The new and stronger cities have seriously devalued them (while at the same time making siege weapons much more important. Cavalry can take a city reduced by siege weapons without exposing itself to their fire.) They are what you build when you run out of horses, basically.

 

[bcaiko]

Well said, Khadroth!

 

[RealHuhn]

Iron Working is in a weird spot, indeed.

You pretty much need catapults for an early war and mathematics is closer to horseback riding than to iron working, it's on the way to currency and closer to the science techs, and you get archery as well. Iron Working is a dead-end tech, really.
Also catapults don't need iron anymore so what's the point? Horse/cata/archer combo is just better.

The Huns are a different story though. xD

 

[jimbbq]

Yeah try to defend you'reself from a swordsman rush with only spearman..

Well said! SOmehow I never quite like spearman or any mounted units (including tanks). my favourite unit is actually long swordman/samurai

 

[PhilBowles]

Spearmen and Pikemen are better, they have greater combat strength, don't cost a strategic resource, and have increased damage against mounted units. So what is the point of Warriors and Swordsmen? They're available a tech or two sooner?

Should be:
Horsemen and Knights > Warriors and Swordsmen > Spearmen and Pikemen > Horsemen and Knights

Warriors require no resources...

Most importantly, it's the upgrade path. Warriors upgrade to Swordsmen, then to Longswords (which are substantially better relative to pikes than pikes relative to swords, and can be reached soon after pikes), and ultimately to your standard late-game infantry units. Pikemen upgrade to ... Lancers. Early in the game you generally want to minimise your use of spearmen and maximise warriors, because in the long term they're the ones that will carry their promotions through to become riflemen, infantry etc.

 

[Gali]

The swordsmen line is great for tanking city damage. With defensive bonuses and access to cover they can get 50% plus more defense versus cities with just 2 promotions I believe. When they unbug cover 2, infantry will be best meatshields.

For spear line they need to fold them into swordsman line at rifllemen. Lancer is comparable to musketman and probably a bit too good there, but it would solve the problem of them dead ending and really make the branch useful.

 

[Big J Money]

Weird, I must be the only person who agrees with the OP.

I just find the Iron line to be mostly useless for peaceful starts, and would rather beeline for pikemen, getting a lot of very useful techs for growing my empire along the way. And if there is a warmonger far enough away, I'll have pikemen before his swordsmen reach my cities in plenty of time, because I'm buffing my ability to research fast.

However, the one exception I do see to this is when I have a close neighbor and want to either attack or feel an attack coming. In that case, having swordsmen/LS is just necessary, and growing my civ's tech becomes a luxury (pun intended).

 

[AfterShafter]

Early game war with spearmen is a lot tougher than early game war with swordsmen, that much I know. I like the stronger spearmen as they are now, making having iron not a necessity for a front line assault. If I'm playing a warmonger game, I'll almost always go for iron working though. On top of them being easily the strongest front line unit you get at the time, if you nurture them with good upgrades, they'll stay front line units for the rest of the game, whereas spearmen fall into more of a support role as they turn into lancers.

Oddly enough, even with the hit to archers attacking cities, I've found that well upgraded archers are more than enough to conquer cities with in all but really unfavourable terrain situations. On an Emperor game with Hiawatha I'm running right now, I just upgraded my three core composite bowmen to crossbowmen, and I have conquered the Huns, the Dutch, and the Ottomans, and have yet to build a siege unit. Got that wonder from Chivalry that gives you drill 1 and I'm busy building up a host of drill 3 Mohawk warriors before they go out of style for upgrade purposes..

 

[Barghaest]

Actually warriors are meant to be trash units, they're just the first you have available. Swordsmen PREVIOUSLY had a bonus vs cities (making them appealing enough for sieges).

Swordsmen do have slightly more strength than spearmen, but yes in a standard game speed you can beeline Civil Service and ignore swords.

They are far more useful in slow research games.

 

[Khadroth]

Weird, I must be the only person who agrees with the OP.

I just find the Iron line to be mostly useless for peaceful starts, and would rather beeline for pikemen, getting a lot of very useful techs for growing my empire along the way. And if there is a warmonger far enough away, I'll have pikemen before his swordsmen reach my cities in plenty of time, because I'm buffing my ability to research fast.

However, the one exception I do see to this is when I have a close neighbor and want to either attack or feel an attack coming. In that case, having swordsmen/LS is just necessary, and growing my civ's tech becomes a luxury (pun intended).

If you're starting peacefully then you're far better off just playing defense against a warmonger with a catapult/composite bowman and some city walls. No need to meet him in the field, just flank his ranged units with your warrior while his melee get mopped up by your city.

 

[AriochIV]

I'm glad that Pikemen are more useful now, but it's disappointing that they upgrade to a mounted unit (and not a very useful one, at that), and that they now obsolete Swordsmen, which are the only thing left to spend Iron on until the late Medieval. Civil Service isn't quite as easy to get to as it used to be, but it still comes very fast. Then you'll need Iron again for Longswordsmen, but they are replaced by Musketmen just one tech later.

It's just kind of sad that such a crucial resource as Iron has become so unimportant.