This makes no sense to me. It's the AXE stack that needs to pad their numbers with spears,
not the Phalanx stack (since Phalanx has nothing to fear from Chariots).
The difference between Axes and Phalanxes is that Axes need to diversify in order to protect themselves, while Phalanxes do not. And a Phalanx + Chariot army would simply pwn any army built around Axes.
oooh... unless you were talking about the
Warlords version of the Phalanx. That unit
does suck.
I'm talking about BTS but ready my post carefully i can see how one can asume "mere axes" to mean axes without spears.
I am obviously comparing a stack of phalanxes/spears to one of axes/spears trying to estimate how handy the UU bonus is.
Assuming decent stack sizes of say 5+ total units including at least 1-2 spears the axes/spears stack is practically as strong defending vs combinations of chariots/axes as the phalanxes/spears one, unless the attack stack consists entirely of chariots.
Keep in mind defenders are likely to benefit from defensive terain as the chariot only get a bonus attacking and that phalanxes barely top attacking chariots while spears are X2 str vs chariots.
I.E. its wise to include at least one spear in a phalanx stack if you know there are chariots lurking.
Plus any decent player is very likely to know what he'll be facing and include more or less spears accordingly.
To think the same thing from a different perspective, would you ever attack such a stack of axes+spears with mostly chariots or mostly axes? If you knew of course that your opponent is watching you build your force and adjusts the axe/spear ratio accordingly.
Axes remain the counter of choice vs both an axe/spear stack and a plalanx/spear stack unless those stacks are owned by an inadept player. And we 're talking about how usefull palanxes are for the human not the AI.
I liked warlords phalanxes better. Not a record breaker by any means but you could use the hill bonus early on when stack defending to counter non melee units well , face HA much easier and maybe postpone pikes a bit without fearing knights.
I'm not so sure about that.
Archer defending against Axeman: STR 3 + (50% City Defense + 25% Fortification Bonus) = 5.25 STR (+ First Strike) for 25
Bowman defending against Axeman: STR 3 + (50% City Defense + 50% vs Melee + 25% Fortification Bonus) = 6.75 STR (+ First Strike) for 25
Axeman defending against Axeman: STR 5 + (25% Fortification Bonus) = 6.25 STR (no first strike) for 35
I've ignored promotions, but keep in mind that CG counters CR exactly, and defensive Axemen can't get CG at all, so they would actually fare worse than these calculations show.
When defending against incoming Axemen, the Bowman comes out way ahead of the Archer, and still comes out ahead of the defensive Axeman, even before taking into consideration the extra hammer cost and resource requirements of Axemen.
In the field, Bowmen lose their City Defense bonus and a lot of their value (but still can get a +25% from hills). However, they are still a solid, solid unit.
When playing with Raging Barbarians, I find that Archers are almost mandatory (barbs can overwhelm you before hooking up copper or horses), and Bowmen are just that much better.
You 're ignoring culture that will give a defending axe more str than a bowman and axes are very often promoted as CI/shock after a single battle while a brand new bowman may be well stack with CGI alone.
Bowmen ARE doing marginally better but the point is axes STILL do well (i.e. they top both attacking axes and ofcourse swords by quite a margin).
@Innawerkz:
No city is mentioned anywhere. My point is excactly that. How often do you expect to desperately defend in your cities in a single player game.
Most battles should take place either at AIs cities or countering AI in the open stacks. Otherwise you re very open to pillaging and the BTS AI can use cats to good effect unlike before.
In all the events you describe you are while defending. Why would you be at war that early if you were without a strategic resource.
I do apreeciate Guerilla promotions however, its just that they feel much more meaningful on a lbow/xbow.
All in all, the problem for me is the too defensive practical approach of using bowmen. One can simply avoid wars that early.
Plus archers in forests or cities do fine vs barbarians very early anyhow.
. Sometimes I can build jaguars before copper is linked up for axemen! That can make conquest or fending off barbarian incursions really easy. I like a few barbarians around to get some of my jaguars up to woodsman 3 before going to war. Then it is case of conquering your neighbours. I agree that jaguars are not the best city attackers but who cares? They are cheap and expendable, the ones that survive are superb woodsman 3.
