PTW- Celtic Strategy Thread - Page 2

Aeson · November 2, 2002, 00:18

I think the Zulu Impi are actually the best counter for them from a defensive perspective. Fortified Impi have better defense on any terrain than the offense of the Gallic Swordsmen. The Impi's extra movement means the Celts won't be able to retreat either. So the Zulu's should be able to at least hold their cities (and any important terrain), as the Impi cost 2/5 the shields, and the battles should be at least slightly in favor of the Impi. The expansionist/militaristic trait combination looks like the best in early warfare games as well. Expansionist/industrious would beat it, but the American UU comes a bit late...

Hoplites are nice, but the Gallic Swordsmen will be able to retreat when they are losing against them, probably a bit more than half of the time as the Greeks aren't militaristic, and so their units will be on average less well trained. Hoplites aren't as capable of responding to an invasion as the Impi either, you would expect 2x the number of Impi to be able to be at a critical location, or half as many overall needed to cover the same area, freeing up the other half to go pillaging.

Dominae · November 2, 2002, 23:49

Impi rule (although I wish I could "put off" my GA...).

Dominae

Theseus · November 3, 2002, 02:37

It's a new ballgame...

vmxa1 · November 3, 2002, 04:34

I think the control of the GA is so important that I dislike Impi. I am playing Arabs now and was able to wait and time my GA due to the UU being basically a knight.

Theseus · November 3, 2002, 17:41

Objectivist,

Your analyses were pretty much on target, but I like the phrase Catt uses in the first post on this page: Gallic Swordsmen represent the 'end of tactics,' at least in SP.

Admittedly I've only been playing PTW since yesterday, and still have much experimentation to do, but 3.2.2, even as expensive as they are, is unstoppable by the AI civs, though they seem improved. With a GA going... forget about it. Basic warmongering, pruning, and extortion ... that's all there is to it.

Dominae · November 3, 2002, 17:58

I remember similar comments being made about the MWs when Civ3 first came out. Don't get me wrong, they're both great UUs, but they are costly, and do require strategic resources to build.

Dominae

nbarclay · November 4, 2002, 04:51

I'm far from convinced that three Gallic Swordsmen would be a more potent force than five Mounted Warriors. Yes, the Mounted Warriors would lose more of their numbers to counterattacks, but they wouldn't lose any more on the offensive. And unless the AI is a lot better at preemptive counterattacks in PTW, on the offensive is where a majority of the losses tend to be.

The rest comes down to militaristic versus expansionist as a second trait, and to how willing a player is to sacrifice science to do 80-gold upgrades. The secondary traits issue would tend to favor the Celts on smaller maps and the Iroquois on larger ones.

Nathan

Dominae · November 4, 2002, 10:06

Gallic Swordsmen also upgrade to the very-average Medieval Infantry, while MWs go all the way to Cavalry. Given how rapidly one gets to Feudalism, this is a serious drawback.

Dominae

Catt · November 4, 2002, 10:44

I'm still too d*mn busy with RL issues to get much playing in, but did play into the Industrial Ages on a tiny map as the Celts (shared my landmass with the Scandanavians (Vikings) and the Mongols.

I do like the feel of PTW - the barbs, the new units / improvements, etc. - and although it's obviously too early to say with any certainty, in my mind, there have been definite changes to to the AI in general which makes for a more challenging game.

My concerns regarding a potentially "unbalanced" Gallic Swordsman didn't necessarily prove true -- it is a powerful unit (the retreat makes it so, IMHO), but at 50 shields a pop, I actually found myself wishing I could build a 30-shield 1-move unit on occassion. I think Nathan had a very smart insight -- against the AI the attack value of the unit is more important than the defense value, and so the 3.2.2 GS doesn't seem to pack a much larger wallop than the 3.1.2 MW.

To second Dominae's point, the upgrade path is less than ideal ('tho at least we now have a swordsman upgrade path). In most cases, I didn't want to upgrade my 3.2.2 for a 4.2.1 -- when I play them again I may very well avoid researching Feudalism for a bit (I got it right away in my game) just so I can still build GS's instead of MI's.

Catt

nbarclay · November 4, 2002, 14:59

One caveat to what I said earlier: if an AI does build a hoarde of horsemen (or War Chariots in Egypt's case), that's a Mounted Warrior's worse nightmare. That doesn't happen often, but it's been known to. Gallic Swordsmen have a chance of defending themselves, especially on favorable terrain.

On the other hand, I don't think I'd want to be the Celts going up against the Iroquois in MP. I seriously doubt that 3-attack vs. 1-defense has enough better odds than 3-attack vs. 2-defense to make up for being two thirds more expensive.

Nathan