The questionable ineffectiveness of Axe/Club units

[Tactics Mayers]

This has been a nagging issue regarding my experience with Axe/Club Units. They are in my opinion near-worthless units. Can't perform their roles as Anti-Armor infantry very well even when attacking a preoccupied enemy from behind as they suffer more casualties while dealing even less. Most Axe/clubmen have a measly atk of 5 or 7 at best, laughable when comparing them to even the levy spearmen with 4 atk or the sword units with 7 or 14 atk. The only plus they have is that at least better than nothing.

Are they really that poor of a weapon when compared to a spear or a sword?

[hlidskjalf]

i believe the "effective against armor" function just halves the enemy's armor - and, being that most units in this game have fairly low armor already (most of the numbers come instead from defense skill and shield), the bonus doesn't amount to much

i may be in the wrong here, though

[IGdood]

i believe the "effective against armor" function just halves the enemy's armor - and, being that most units in this game have fairly low armor already (most of the numbers come instead from defense skill and shield), the bonus doesn't amount to much

i may be in the wrong here, though

You're correct. I chuckle a little bit when the Nabatean (or was it Sabean?) elite guards with axes get steamrolled in melee by basic troops of other factions

[Kravixon01]

Most Axe/clubmen have a measly atk of 5 or 7 at best, laughable when comparing them to even the levy spearmen with 4 atk or the sword units with 7 or 14 atk.

From what I've gathered, the attack and defense values on the unit cards are unreliable or totally meaningless. Direct comparisons with units using the numbers is difficult. Just kind of use them to get a general sense of what units are better at defense or attack.

I'm not arguing that axe/club units are okay now or don't need fixing, but just keep that in mind when thinking about units.

[HarkonRules]

Yeah, Kravixon definitely has a point. This is why using the recruitment viewer for instance helps a lot in knowing the whole story about a unit. It often makes a big difference how cohese the unit's formation is in battle, its morale, it's discipline and training, and this is affected by stats that just aren't visible in the in-game unit info, and make a big difference in practice. This is why you'll sometimes see units with similar apparent stats but different costs, too.

[Tactics Mayers]

Looking at the text files again here are stat differences.

Clubmen have 3 atk. The Clubmen have the highest number of men (240 at large unit size) and have high attack charge.
The Eastern Axemen have 5 atk but low charge power, they do have the advantage of javelins though.
Both the Elite Axemen (Phaezaegashka and the Nabatean Royal Guard) have the highrst atk power for axes (7) and are blessed with high stats befitting of elites.


Doesn't change the fact how abyssmal their battlefield performance in opinion. Most of the above are cheap alternatives to swordsmen due to their low cost and upkeep and if you have no swordsmen to recruit.

[QuintusSertorius]

Effectiveness is not as simple as stats alone. Thanks to CA in their infinite wisdom deciding WYSIWYG should apply to the combat engine, animations are a significant element of performance. One of the big changes to 2.3 was the revision of overhand spear (overpowered -slowed down) and sword/axe (underpowered - sped up) animations to balance them better.

There are properties relating to the weapon itself which bely whatever the attack number is as well, such as spears getting bonuses against cavalry and being worse against infantry (part and parcel of the light_spear attribute).

Most of the clubmen and axemen are levies or at best highlanders/semi-professionals, which is reflected in their overall stats. Clubs are not a great weapon, which is why their attack is so low. I'm not really concerned with how some cheap units perform, for the most part.

The Nabatu Royal Guard are a smaller unit, which can have a big impact on performance in melee. The Phaezaegashka are regular-sized. The two use different animations, though one is derived from the other. So the real question is what test did you perform, and what was the outcome?

[athanaric]

Most of the clubmen and axemen are levies or at best highlanders/semi-professionals, which is reflected in their overall stats. Clubs are not a great weapon, which is why their attack is so low. I'm not really concerned with how some cheap units perform, for the most part.

Well yeah, but if clubs (and axes) were pointless, those guys would have used spears instead, no?

The Nabatu Royal Guard are a smaller unit, which can have a big impact on performance in melee. The Phaezaegashka are regular-sized. The two use different animations, though one is derived from the other. So the real question is what test did you perform, and what was the outcome?

I haven't performed any tests, but the Phaezaeghashka seemed to perform pretty well in my experience (M/M). Though that could also be related to their generally high stats.

[Tactics Mayers]

Effectiveness is not as simple as stats alone. Thanks to CA in their infinite wisdom deciding WYSIWYG should apply to the combat engine, animations are a significant element of performance. One of the big changes to 2.3 was the revision of overhand spear (overpowered -slowed down) and sword/axe (underpowered - sped up) animations to balance them better.

There are properties relating to the weapon itself which bely whatever the attack number is as well, such as spears getting bonuses against cavalry and being worse against infantry (part and parcel of the light_spear attribute).

Most of the clubmen and axemen are levies or at best highlanders/semi-professionals, which is reflected in their overall stats. Clubs are not a great weapon, which is why their attack is so low. I'm not really concerned with how some cheap units perform, for the most part.

The Nabatu Royal Guard are a smaller unit, which can have a big impact on performance in melee. The Phaezaegashka are regular-sized. The two use different animations, though one is derived from the other. So the real question is what test did you perform, and what was the outcome?

I was pretty much proven wrong about my earlier assumption about how axe/clubmen aren't good at defeating the enemy in the back.

a I tried 2 Indian Clubmen/Eastern Axemen/Sabean lowlanders and 4 spearmen vs 4 thorakitai and they managed to not only give the armored spearmen much casualites but they also forced them to rout by the time their men dropped to 142-132 while the captain is still alive. The Elite Axemen were able to do similar outcomes but faster.

The Germanic Clubmen have abosulutely no hope. They failed horribly despite attacking the Thorakitai from Behind amd being preoccupied.

[athanaric]

I think the Indian guys are elites or at least a high-tier unit though, so they are quite different from the other club units. Also, their clubs are more mace-like, with iron spikes etc.