axeman are too powerful

[TheHateMale]

Could the bonus against melee units work only when attacking?

[player1]

That would unbalance combat on open.
Attacking axeman would kill another axeman, just becuse it his turn.

[TheHateMale]

Stack them with a defensive unit. Currently they're good attackers and defenders.

Not that I have a problem with that, but the starter of this thread does. It would make them a bit like the swordsmen or Immortals from Civ3, and solve the exploit of using them as defenders when the AI doesn't.

Or you could just give them the 'Doesn't receive defensive bonuses' attribute. It doesn't really make sense, but would balance them a little. Or a lot. Or unbalance it. Playtesting would be required.

[DrSpike]

There is no A/D distinction in Civ4, save for city defenders.

[TheHateMale]

Cavalry/knights/tanks etc. have the attribute I mentioned. Axemen seem to be unique in being a great attacker that don't have it.

As I said though, I have no problem with axemen the way they are. Just trying to solve the problems presented using the tools that are currently given...

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by 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?

I think it would be great to have an axeman to defend against melee units along side the archers, but they get no 50% city defense bonus or the city garrison defense promotion, and cost 35 hammers vs. 25 hammers for archer. I think the archer wins overall as the best defender, particularly if nonmelee units like horse archers are attacking, unless they are immortals.

[TheHateMale]

Good point there. Why would axemen get defensive bonuses from walls? They still fight hand-to-hand (unless they're hurling axes... that would be awesome to watch) whereas archers can attack relatively safely from behind the wall.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by DrSpike
But what will you do.

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

My axemen, after taking your capital, return home to find your axemen pillaging in the Eastern Townships. Luckily, they have just been awarded combat II promotions, and are looking forward to a chance to flex their new muscles.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by TheHateMale
Good point there. Why would axemen get defensive bonuses from walls? They still fight hand-to-hand (unless they're hurling axes... that would be awesome to watch) whereas archers can attack relatively safely from behind the wall.

Shall we request that axemen hurl their axes when behind city walls in the expansion pack? How about two out of the three swing there axes and the third throws his axe? It would make for a dramatic effect, especially if it finds it's target.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by TheHateMaleWhy would axemen get defensive bonuses from walls? They still fight hand-to-hand (unless they're hurling axes... that would be awesome to watch) whereas archers can attack relatively safely from behind the wall.

Walls give defenders the height advantage. Attackers need to cross moats and climb walls, while the defenders could do all kinds of interesting things, such as pour down boiling oil.

[Enigma_Nova]

... Even before they have the pottery in which to store that oil or the forges with which to heat that oil.

[Urban Ranger]

Sure. You put them oil in a large iron kettle and light a fire underneath it.

[Enigma_Nova]

If you had an Iron resource connected you wouldn't need the kettle.

[player1]

Originally posted by Shaka II


I think it would be great to have an axeman to defend against melee units along side the archers, but they get no 50% city defense bonus or the city garrison defense promotion, and cost 35 hammers vs. 25 hammers for archer. I think the archer wins overall as the best defender, particularly if nonmelee units like horse archers are attacking, unless they are immortals.

Do the math, take archers with a few city defense vs axes with a few combat promotions, do defense on hill calculation in city with some culture and axemen will still be the best defender even against non-melee targets.

Now, mixing is still useful sometimes, for example against shock troops, but saying archer is best defender is a myth.


EDIT:
Although they are few cases when archer would have better defense bonus that axes (like cities with no culture defense and defenders with lots of promotions)

EDIT2:
Axe + spear combo for defense is better.
Axes vs melee, spear vs mounts, archers completly unneeded.

In these situations it best attacker would also be axeman.

[Last Conformist]

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.

I quite agree. Swordsmen should have been the anti-melee unit.