Units stats after the patch on 30/11/2017 (Steam version)

[Hydrall]

From testing with the Indian mace / sword infantry versus some roman praetorians, I found that, despite both getting a charge off against the Romans who were charging them, the mace infantry did significantly worse against the heavily-armored enemy than the swordsmen - they both lost, but the latter inflicted about 25-50% more casualties. Roughly 30-40 for the maces, and 45-55 for the swords. Fairly consistent, too. Given that they both have the same melee offense, a single point difference in melee difference, and the difference in normal damage versus AP... You'd think the maces would have done better, with (5+4), while the swordsmen had (12+0). That's a pretty high base damage to begin with, admittedly, but is it actually high enough to the point that they'd always be the better choice?

Edit: Actually, armor is effectively an average lowering of damage by half its value, right? So for the Romans with 10 armor, and their damage values... I guess it comes out about even (6.5 versus 7), so I suppose them doing roughly equal in terms of performance is to be expected, and the swordsmen doing slightly better... Also sensible, too. It just seems weird that they're the same price, then, apart from macemen having encourage while the swordsmen don't for some reason.

Edit 2: Weirdly enough, both also take out Nakharar Thorax Swordsmen (the heaviest armor infantry in the game, as far as I can tell) with half their number remaining. I suppose the natural next step is to try them against cataphracts...

Edit 3: Somewhat predictably, they were both beaten handily by Parthian Late Cataphracts - whether I counter-charged, stood my ground, etc. The macemen did seem to do noticably better - 15 kills, versus 7. So it seems it is working, these two just have weapons that do roughly the same damage.

[Blothorn]

If I am doing the math right, 5/4 and 12/0 cross over at 15 armor, substantially more than any infantry in the game. Right now AP weapons seem rather pointless unless justified by other stats: Spears (10 damage, typically 5 BvC) beat all other weapons against all cavalry--the 11/2 falx is worse against even the top cavalry armor (15). Against infantry, the basic 11/0 sword beats both the 5/4 and 7/3 axe against even top armor (11), and the 10/0 spear beats the 5/4 axe against almost infantry (tying at 9 armor, losing against the 21 units with 10+). About the only interesting AP weapon is the falx/rhomphaia/greatsword, which matches the best swords against infantry while beating them against cavalry (albeit still not matching spears).

Granted, weapon damage does not exist in a vacuum, and some of these units do have a place. (Note that the following is mostly based on spreadsheet analysis, most of my playing time has been vanilla ED since it came out).
- Most club units are absolute bottom-tier price, and probably justifiably horrible--the biggest exception I see are the Indian Macemen, who have above-average upkeep, below-average durability, and whose weapon holds them back from being an effective damage dealer (below-average even against 10 armor) despite their high MA.
- Most axemen have below-average upkeep, average MD, above-average MA, and below-average armor. This makes them decent flankers against heavy infantry. One exception I would call out is the Ethiopian Shock Infantry, which like the Indian Macemen is too expensive and fragile to justify merely-average damage. (Really, all 7/3 infantry costing more than 0.5/turn/man seem dubious except perhaps the Nakharar Thorax Swordsmen, who at least have durability in their favor).
- The Greatsword/falx units I think actually work--while their deadliness is of no benefit against infantry, they all have great MA and a top-tier weapon. The expensive ones are very much overshadowed by bonus-versus-infantry infantry that can match their offensive performance with better durability, but the cheap ones are very efficient in their role.

[projectcorner]

If I am doing the math right, 5/4 and 12/0 cross over at 15 armor, substantially more than any infantry in the game. Right now AP weapons seem rather pointless unless justified by other stats: Spears (10 damage, typically 5 BvC) beat all other weapons against all cavalry--the 11/2 falx is worse against even the top cavalry armor (15). Against infantry, the basic 11/0 sword beats both the 5/4 and 7/3 axe against even top armor (11), and the 10/0 spear beats the 5/4 axe against almost infantry (tying at 9 armor, losing against the 21 units with 10+). About the only interesting AP weapon is the falx/rhomphaia/greatsword, which matches the best swords against infantry while beating them against cavalry (albeit still not matching spears).

Granted, weapon damage does not exist in a vacuum, and some of these units do have a place. (Note that the following is mostly based on spreadsheet analysis, most of my playing time has been vanilla ED since it came out).
- Most club units are absolute bottom-tier price, and probably justifiably horrible--the biggest exception I see are the Indian Macemen, who have above-average upkeep, below-average durability, and whose weapon holds them back from being an effective damage dealer (below-average even against 10 armor) despite their high MA.
- Most axemen have below-average upkeep, average MD, above-average MA, and below-average armor. This makes them decent flankers against heavy infantry. One exception I would call out is the Ethiopian Shock Infantry, which like the Indian Macemen is too expensive and fragile to justify merely-average damage. (Really, all 7/3 infantry costing more than 0.5/turn/man seem dubious except perhaps the Nakharar Thorax Swordsmen, who at least have durability in their favor).
- The Greatsword/falx units I think actually work--while their deadliness is of no benefit against infantry, they all have great MA and a top-tier weapon. The expensive ones are very much overshadowed by bonus-versus-infantry infantry that can match their offensive performance with better durability, but the cheap ones are very efficient in their role.

So based on your testing, 11/0 sword is still more powerful than 7/3 axe even against the most heavy infantry in the game due to a lack of base damage of axe. If that is true, I think there would be further tweaks of stats since it makes the axes useless.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

So based on your testing, 11/0 sword is still more powerful than 7/3 axe even against the most heavy infantry in the game due to a lack of base damage of axe. If that is true, I think there would be further tweaks of stats since it makes the axes useless.

Keep them coming guys. Shoot reports.

[KAM 2150]

Great reports, keep em going!

[KAM 2150]

Yes, like I said, current axe/maces values are just for testing purpose. The more reports I get, the better it will be.

[Blothorn]

So based on your testing, 11/0 sword is still more powerful than 7/3 axe even against the most heavy infantry in the game due to a lack of base damage of axe. If that is true, I think there would be further tweaks of stats since it makes the axes useless.

Well again, stats do not exist in a vacuum. The 12/0, 0 BvI sword is strictly worse than the 12/1, 1 BvI sword--but you do not choose weapons, you choose units, and units do not exist in a vacuum. There are many possible reasons to choose a unit with a weapon that is technically dominated by some other weapon:it might be available earlier or cheaper or have a lower population class, or have better other stats.

I highlit such units as the Indian Macemen because there is almost no situation in which it makes sense to use it--the Indian Heavy Swordsmen has slightly better stats at roughly the same price and availability, with a weapon better against almost all targets.

This would be different, of course, if players had the ability to customize unit equipment--then there would need to be some advantage (even if still just price/availability) for every weapon. But as interesting as such a game could be, it is not the Total War we have.

[projectcorner]

Well again, stats do not exist in a vacuum. The 12/0, 0 BvI sword is strictly worse than the 12/1, 1 BvI sword--but you do not choose weapons, you choose units, and units do not exist in a vacuum. There are many possible reasons to choose a unit with a weapon that is technically dominated by some other weapon:it might be available earlier or cheaper or have a lower population class, or have better other stats.

I highlit such units as the Indian Macemen because there is almost no situation in which it makes sense to use it--the Indian Heavy Swordsmen has slightly better stats at roughly the same price and availability, with a weapon better against almost all targets.

This would be different, of course, if players had the ability to customize unit equipment--then there would need to be some advantage (even if still just price/availability) for every weapon. But as interesting as such a game could be, it is not the Total War we have.

Oh definitely stats do not exist in a vacuum. However, to be historically accurate (and in common sense as well), axes should be more effective against heavy armor comparing to swords for sure.
I think KAM also intends to have axes being more effective against heavy armor than swords in the gameplay(while swords being much better against light and no armor as well), but he does need more reports to tweak the values since we are now moving to AP attributes (which is proven to be useless) to AP damage.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Oh definitely stats do not exist in a vacuum. However, to be historically accurate (and in common sense as well), axes should be more effective against heavy armor comparing to swords for sure.

That's correct and maces were more effective than both of them.