axeman are too powerful

[Hauptman]

the whole point of the CS sling is that all those early techs come REAL fast after Buerocracy. 15+ turns for code of laws, oracle completes same turn, welcome to classical, welcome to midevel, all in the same turn... then trade for ironworking/ metal casting. 8 turns for machinery and whalla!

I set up a "agressive ai" map using japan, and i started every war prior to Industrialism... Noone wanted to take on samurai with swords and axes i guess.

[afrodius]

To those of you who said that swords are historically better weapons than axes I have to ask you for some evidence to back that statement up. In the hands of a skilled warrior both are equally deadly. A sword is a weaopn designed for speed whereas the axe is designed to deliver a powerul blow. A sword can easily be deflected with a shield but a powerful axe blow is still likely to break your arm even behind a shield. This is why the axe remained a favorite on the battlefield in one form or another untill the advent of firearms.

As far as whether or not its overpowered in the game, that really depends on how you use em, and what units your enemies are using. I havent gotten in many pre catapult wars yet but I will try it next time and see.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Tau
Axemen are just plain silly. Guys, don't defend them on the grounds that you can beat them with this unit and that; the point is that they're too powerful for their cost and tech level. They also make no sense: on a historical battlefield, swordsmen beat axemen any day of the week.

Hm, what's the quibble over a name? If you don't like the name, change it to Vopal Rabbit or something.

[Enigma_Nova]

I don't care if it's fortified in a hilly city, a Vopal Rabbit should not be able to defeat my Flying Nether Rhinocerous!

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Hm, what's the quibble over a name? If you don't like the name, change it to Vopal Rabbit or something.

Quite.

[Wildbore]

Stop complaining, the axeman is fine how it is. So is every other unit in the game.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Wildbore
Stop complaining, the axeman is fine how it is. So is every other unit in the game.

Not the ICBM

[Silver14]

Actually the ICBM is fine, its the nuke shelters and SDI that are over powered. If you can actually use ICBMs before the target builds those improvements it can be quite effective. 2-3 nukes can kill every unit in a city and really reduce the city size.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Hills give only +25% defense, while jungles and forests give +50%.

Out in the open, forests and jungle rule for defense, but when attacking cities, there are no forests or jungles, but there are hills. A fully fortified archer, on hills, and with city defense upgrade is quite a challenge. For axemen, it depends on how many you're willing to lose, and how bad you want the city. Unless you've got catapults, of course, but they come later, when the first war is about over.

Axemen are not over powered in my opinion. You defend against them with archers, which I believe with 50% city defense, 20% city garrison I upgrade, 25% fortify, yields a strength of 5.85. So an axeman with combat I or city raider I promotions is about even with an archer, as long as he isn't on hills, or a highly promoted battle veteran. Seems like it's balanced to me.

[DrSpike]

I agree axes aren't overpowered. However, I find myself curious as to what you will do with your archers whilst my small stack of axes is going around your empire destroying it tile by tile.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I agree axes aren't overpowered. However, I find myself curious as to what you will do with your archers whilst my small stack of axes is going around your empire destroying it tile by tile.

The unspeakable horrors of a pillaging unit too strong to do anything about.

But unlike the AI, I want those improvements for my newly conquered cities. I rarely pillage, except occasionally out of retribution for past AI violations.

[DrSpike]

But what will you do.

I only being awkward because I agree with your conclusion, but your reasoning is wrong.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Why should axemen have an attack bonus vs anyone? I'd much rather have a sword or a spear than an axe. Consider the encounters between the early Conquistador's and the native americans. The native's were largely armed with axes while the Spanish were armed with swords and spears (pikes), Their matchlock guns were largely 'fire once and throw away', yet the Spanish whooped the natives easily despite incredibly adverse odds. Let's face it, most cultures probably had axes first, but they threw them away in favor of the length of reach of the spear and the manuverability of the sword.

Actually, if you look at early, history like, say, Anglo-Saxon England, axemen really were one of the most powerful millitary units, especally against spearmen or your basic swordsmen. They didn't do so well against knights on horseback, though, and you can't use an axe from horseback. The game has axemen doing better against meele fighters, (with a 7.5 vs a 6) and swordsmen doing better against archers and mounted units, (with a 6 vs a 5), which sounds historically pretty accurate to me.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by DrSpike
But what will you do.

Bribe you to stop the war and then stab you in the back at the earliest opportunity.
Then later scold myself for not hooking up (and defending) those damn horses so I could build some counters.

[player1]

The only overpowered part of Axeman is that they are actually better defenders then archers, and not just against swordsmen, but against other units too.

And that leaves a question why AI does not use them more of defense?
And if AI was really modified to use them more often on defense, then what would be point of swordsmen?