axeman are too powerful

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by TheHateMale
...but the walls only come up to their ankles.

Not when they are crouching.

[Dracleath]

I think axemen should be made to be more like spearmen. As of now they're at 5 str base and 7.5 vs melee (sort of).


Why not make them 4 str base and 7.5 vs melee? Give them about an 85% melee bonus with 4 strength and leave them at the current price. This way chariots, archers, and horse archers will properly eat them alive sheild for shield, as they should.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DrSpike
This is a game balance discussion. Take it to OT please.

I'm argueing that the macemen and possibly even the axemen are superfluous. They're units that essentially never existed in history really, unless you consider Viking Berzerkers to be a unit. They could have made the axeman into a Berzerker as a special unit for the Germans.

[DrSpike]

Yes, and it's entirely irrelevant as this is a game balance discussion, not a history forum.

[Enigma_Nova]

History shows that people will whine about Game Balance, History, and anything else that stands between them and the perfect Civ they'd like to build.

...

Set me up for 100 copies of your "Sim Civilization" game, please.

[Chemical Ollie]

I rarely build axemen. But on a second thought, perhaps I should focus on Bronze Working and get a ton of Berzerk axes for early conquest?

But it doesn't suit my play style at all. I usually try to get myself on a solid ground of peaceful expansion before pumping out units en masse. At least 4-5 cities before I do anything else, and if there's more untaken land, I continue the peaceful way.

[Urban Ranger]

Axemen are excellent against barbarians too. You need them if you play with the "raging barbarians" option on.

[Badtz Maru]

I think Conquistadors are one of the most overpowered units in the game...what's the first unit that can effectively counter it? Riflemen? You get Conquistadors with Guilds. Knights can be countered with Pikemen, but the Conquistador +50% vs. Melee means nothing can beat Conquistadors on open ground.

[Urban Ranger]

Knights aren't melee units...

[sovietwaffle]

Elephants should take them down.

[xxFlukexx]

Conqs aren't that big of a problem, now Praets and Cossacks, now those you should be worried about.

On the defensive side, axemen are a tiny bit too strong. You can't beat a fully fortified Axeman without more promotions than the axeman. But isn't an axeman with Combat II fully foritified dead even odds with an axeman with City Raider II? Combat I + Shock axemen would probably be the best defender vs axemen but would get beaten by Combat II (or Combat I + shock) horse-archers. I don't think there is a problem with say axemen behind walls being monsters, they are supposed to be monsters, you need siege weapons to take out stuff behind walls, that's part of the game I believe.

[player1]

Horse Archers are no problem is having few spearman spare.
So Shok Axemen and evertually spearmen against HA is best ancient defense.

[DrSpike]

That's what I usually use.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Knights aren't melee units...

Wasn't saying they were...I was saying that Knights (the non-UU version of the Conq) can be taken down by Pikemen (12 to 10 after the Pikeman's bonus), but since the Conq gets the bonus vs. melee, the Pikemen are S.O.L.

[Mujadaddy]

try (gasp) TWO pikemen, next time...