Swordsmen versus Archers

**machowner** · 04-01-2008, 03:12 AM

I've been thinking about firing my swordsmen and replacing them with Archers. Archers are 2x greater on the defense and assault. The upgrades for Archers provide +10 while the swordsmen only get +4. Just seems that Archers with a cook or doc is the way to go.

Atomic Dog · 04-01-2008, 03:15 AM

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing Mach....Archer's do seem more powerful. I keep thinking there has to be some kind of drawback to doing that though. It doesn't really make sense.

**machowner** · 04-01-2008, 03:27 AM

It just seems too obvious doesn't it? Like we have to be missing something. The only thing I could think of is that the swordsmen have the assault attribute, not sure it that would lvl them up and then also by how much? Archers provide a much better defense unit though.

Atomic Dog · 04-01-2008, 03:28 AM

Yeah, and when you do the math...even with the assault bonus...Archers still come out on top.

**Tarenth** · 04-01-2008, 03:56 AM

Phalanx are still the top defense unit actually.

The trade off between swordsman and archers is that you can produce more swordsmen faster and cheaper than archers for less resources.

2 swordsmen (46.8 offense/28 defense on attack) cost 94 wood, 32 sulfur, and 32 minutes to build. They will also cost 32g/hour in upkeep.

1 archer (40 offense/40 defense) costs 172 wood, 86 sulfur, and 49 minutes to build. They have an upkeep of 32g/hour as well.

Theoretically speaking the swordsmen might have less health so the odds of reducing your offense and defense by half with a casualty are greatly higher than losing the archer.

If you have the resources to convert to an all archer army you should do so. If you want to keep cranking out troops and constantly attack people all around you then the swordsman's lower cost and higher production rate might be the unit you want to hold on to for a bit longer.

**machowner** · 04-01-2008, 04:03 AM

I tend to send Archers to do my pillaging. They cost about half as much as the swordsmen do while pillaging for some reason. For instance if I want to pillage a town on the 63:90 island:
8 Swordsmen = 7730 gold
8 Archers = 3093 gold

Not sure why this happens, but I take advantage of it.

**Tarenth** · 04-01-2008, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by machowner

I tend to send Archers to do my pillaging. They cost about half as much as the swordsmen do while pillaging for some reason. For instance if I want to pillage a town on the 63:90 island:
8 Swordsmen = 7730 gold
8 Archers = 3093 gold

Not sure why this happens, but I take advantage of it.

Those numbers seem off a bit because you've sent twice the number of archers as you did swordsmen (its 2:1 ratio upkeep and offensive power wise) and there's still such a cost difference.

Another setup where swordsmen shine over archers is inactive farming. Its nice paying for 1 swordsman instead of an archer and even better for 1-2 slingers.

**machowner** · 04-01-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Those numbers seem off a bit because you've sent twice the number of archers as you did swordsmen (its 2:1 ratio upkeep and offensive power wise) and there's still such a cost difference.
Another setup where swordsmen shine over archers is inactive farming. Its nice paying for 1 swordsman instead of an archer and even better for 1-2 slingers.

I'm not sure what your saying about twice the number of archers to swordsmen. I sent exactly 8 of each.

Not that is what I am saying, its cheaper to send Archers. Another example, pillaging an inactive with 1 unit:
Estimated cost to send 1 Swordsmen = 1070
Estimated cost to send 1 Archer = 429

These are cut and paste from the pillage screen. An Archer cost approximately half.

**Tarenth** · 04-01-2008, 05:05 PM

I was talking in terms of 'equivalent numbers' actually which is why I said you sent twice the number of archers in terms of strength as you did swordsmen.

1 swordsman = 23.4 offense and 16g/hour
1 archer = 40 offense and 32g/hour
Therefore 2 swordsmen (46.8 offense and 32g/hour) is equivalent to 1 archer.

If you sent 8 swordsmen (128g/hour) and 8 archers (256g/hour) then the 'double upkeep' for military units on missions would drive it up to 256g/hour for swordsmen and 512g/hour for archers. Ergo, you sent twice the number of archers you would've needed to equal your swordsmen.

Because the swordsman's upkeep is exactly half of that of an archer's it just becomes odd that while on ops the reverse becomes true.

Nero · 04-01-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by machowner

...
Estimated cost to send 1 Swordsmen = 1070
Estimated cost to send 1 Archer = 429
...

Just checked this out with my own forces and found it is the same (not exactly because I sent them a shorter distance, but the relative values are the same!)

Must be a bug that archer upkeep is cheaper than swordsmen when pillaging. All the more reason to use archers until they fix it!

RedTalon · 04-01-2008, 05:17 PM

Ya it seems they just smooched two swordsmen together. Except the archer has slightly better D out of the deal. Not sure if it warrants a complete overhual of your army, but I would start creating archers instead of swords. Still in the long run I would still keep some swordsmen in my army for those quick undefended pillage runs

**machowner** · 04-01-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

I was talking in terms of 'equivalent numbers' actually which is why I said you sent twice the number of archers in terms of strength as you did swordsmen.

1 swordsman = 23.4 offense and 16g/hour
1 archer = 40 offense and 32g/hour
Therefore 2 swordsmen (46.8 offense and 32g/hour) is equivalent to 1 archer.

If you sent 8 swordsmen (128g/hour) and 8 archers (256g/hour) then the 'double upkeep' for military units on missions would drive it up to 256g/hour for swordsmen and 512g/hour for archers. Ergo, you sent twice the number of archers you would've needed to equal your swordsmen.

Because the swordsman's upkeep is exactly half of that of an archer's it just becomes odd that while on ops the reverse becomes true.

Ok, I understand what your saying about strength wise. You cost to send out an Archer versus a Swordsmen is off though. The Archers are half of what the swordsmen cost.

Here are a couple screenshots of pillaging an inactive:
Swordsmen

Archer

You can the archer is half of the cost of the swordsmen.

I'm not sure but I suspect that the movement stated in the library are wrong. Meaning that an archer requires less, I don't know just a shot into the dark as to why the cost is a lot less.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 04-01-2008, 06:09 PM

They can't multiply.

**Rincewind** · 04-01-2008, 06:18 PM

Someone needs to watch the actual pillage in progress, do the math and make sure this is the case. It could simply be an error in the interface code and not the backend....

**Kulmar** · 04-01-2008, 06:48 PM

Those screenies say that the additional upkeep for the archers is double the amount, yet the estimation is flipped. Nice bug you found if the estimation is the one they take the math from.