Swordsmen vs. Warband...

[LittleRaven]

I finally got some Swordsmen in my Britain campaign last night. After toying with them for a bit, I began to wonder what set these guys apart from the Warband...

I'm going from memory here, but this is what I recall: A Warband has attack 7, Swordsmen have attack 10. Booyah for the Zerks. Swordsmen have defense 5, Warband has defense 4. Again, Swords take it. Both units have the Warcry. I'm not sure how much this affects things, but at any rate it's a tie. Both units gets bonuses in Woods/hide/ambush well. Another draw. The Warband has a charge bonus of 8. The Swords have a charge bonus of 5. Point to the Warband. The Warband has 40 more people in it at large. Another point to the Band.Hmm...so far, I'm not seeing how Swords are noticeably better that Bands. I don't know that they should be...but I suspect that a Warband might beat a Sword straight out, which would seem a little odd, given that Swords are higher up the tech tree.

But there are some things I don't know or didn't think about. Are Warcry bonuses different? Are the costs different? Does the Warband get a bonus against Cav for using spears? (I doubt it, as they are short spears, but I don't know.) Does the fact that one is 'heavy infantry' and one is 'light infantry' make a difference?Does anyone have any insight into how a Sword can be used more effectively than a band?

[TinCow]

Haven't played with either of them (slaughtered plenty though) so I can't comment based on experience. However, from the stats you came up with, they seem like they might work well together rather. The Swordsmen would last longer and do better in a straight-up fight, but the Warband has a better charge. I would say use the Swords to hold the line and use the Warband to flank.

[andrewt]

No offense, but what do you mean by "are the costs different"? Shoudn't you know if you could build both?

[LittleRaven]

No offense, but what do you mean by "are the costs different"? Shoudn't you know if you could build both?I should, but I'm at work now and didn't think to look last night. ~:)

[LittleRaven]

Haven't played with either of them (slaughtered plenty though) so I can't comment based on experience. However, from the stats you came up with, they seem like they might work well together rather. The Swordsmen would last longer and do better in a straight-up fight, but the Warband has a better charge. I would say use the Swords to hold the line and use the Warband to flank.But given that the Sword have 50% fewer people per unit, I'm not sure that they would hold the line better. Yeah, each individual will do better, but there are a lot fewer of them. Since morale is heavily related to casualties, I suspect the Band may actually do better through sheer numbers.

[Kraxis]

Haven't played with either of them (slaughtered plenty though) so I can't comment based on experience. However, from the stats you came up with, they seem like they might work well together rather. The Swordsmen would last longer and do better in a straight-up fight, but the Warband has a better charge. I would say use the Swords to hold the line and use the Warband to flank.

No don't... The swords have an attack of 10 with the Warband with 7, now add 5 to 10 (15) and add 8 to 7 (15)... They even out at the same, so they have an equally powerful charge. The Wardband is also larger and can thus sustain heavier losses before routing, so they are better at holdign the line. Further the smaller size of the swords makes them more maneuverable and therefor better at flanking.
The Warcry adds to attack, how much I don't know, it could be a percentage or a set number. Percentage would give the Swords an advantage and a normal number would be even.

All in all the Warband might be better in a cost/benefit (I take it they are cheaper) but often we have to consider the ultimate benefit instead, and there the Swords seems better.