Evonypedia > Combat >

From Evonypedia

This is one of the only guides that promotes the building of swordsmen, and I have to say I believe this is wrong on many levels.  Clearly building warriors for fodder is a better way to go according to this article.   

Sword vs Warrior for fodder.  

It is generally accepted that everyone will attack with archers, so to defend against 4,000 archers, the following is needed

Unit	Amount Needed	Build Time	Wood	Iron	Food Eaten	Speed	Load
Warrior	15000	4hr 8min	1,500,000	750,000	45,000 per hour	200	300,000
Pikemen	8000	10hr 45min	4,000,000	800,000	48,000 per hour	300	320,000
Swordsmen	8000	16hr 35min	1,250,000	3,250,000	56,000 per hour	275	240,000
Archers	4000	12hr 45min	1,400,000	1,200,000	36,000 per hour	250	100,000
Cavalry	4000	18hr 10min	2,400,000	2,000,000	72,000 per hour	1000	400,000
Ballista	1300	36hr 5min	3,900,000	2,340,000	65,000 per hour	100	0
Catapults	1000	516hr 30min	5,000,000	1,200,000	250,000 per hour	80	0

• Assumes 6 barracks, a hero with 132 attack, and all technologies researched
• Catapults also cost 8,000,000 Stone

So if you follow this chart, you will see that its actually better to stick with warriors over sword because: 1)  Faster to make the equivalent 2)  Sword are resource hogs, especially when it comes to iron.  (better to save your iron for your archers) Most guides I've read, and in personal practice, don't ever mess with swords.  As ground units are mostly fodder in the grander scheme of things, so you are better off bulking up the warriors.  I am in a high level alliance, and we are always caught in the middle of wars, and I have to say, I have never seen anyone use sword for anything.   Even defense its better to just bulk up the warriors, as they are easier to feed. 

You can start discussing Swordsmen Vs Warriors For Fodder by clicking the POST button below.

See the forums help for complete information on how to set your profile image and use the forums effectively.