On the (un?)usefullness of the Gallic Swordsman

[metalhead]

At first glance, this guy appears to be a monster. In practice, he is a monster, able to stomp over any other unit in the ancient era. His speed allows for some quick strikes on enemy border towns by units built in your most productive core cities. His withdrawal ability will allow for him to get back to a city very fast to heal, as is the benefit of all fast units. Perhaps the best unit in the game, when just looking at his stats.

However, this guy has a couple of major drawbacks, the first being his price. 50 shields is a BIG price to pay for a unit in the ancient age. It seems that all but the first couple of cities can build these guys in under 10 turns - most seem to be in the 12-17 turn range for building these guys. Mounting a sufficient invasion force of these guys can be a big challenge. The Golden Age will help you build these guys in a reasonable time, but it has been my experience that they are simply too expensive, and are really only feasible during your GA. You can take several cities in this time, but will be hard-pressed to overrun an enemy civ with them - you're better off with a horsemen horde, and maybe using a couple Gallic Swordsmen as a defensive force that can keep up with horsemen. But, the horde of fast swordsmen that we were all drooling over is just not practical.

The other drawback is that, once you discover Feudalism, you can no longer build them! Medieval Infantry are all you can build, which is really crappy, considering that, by the time you are finished early expansion and your cities are getting productive enough to build them, they are unavailable. 3/2/2 is superior to 4/2/1 in a lot of situations, but the most opportune time to have the Gallic Swordsman, and you are unable to use them. Maybe this is just my game that does this, but if anyone else has seen this, please chime in.

The bottom line - DON'T pick the Celts just because of their UU. If you prefer Mil/Rel, then by all means, go for it, but don't rely on what at first glance seems like a killer unit. It's not nearly as good as you may think. Well, in my opinion, anyway

[Athitis]

I thought one can build his UU even after it is made obsolate. I was at the year 1976 and I could still build my Hoplites.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Athitis
I thought one can build his UU even after it is made obsolate. I was at the year 1976 and I could still build my Hoplites.

You can build your UU even if it has become obsolete only if you haven't had your golden age yet.

metalhead: I agree with you. The cost seems to be well balanced for the stats of this unit. Look at it this way: The Gallic Swordsman is a Mounted Warrior (3-1-2) and and Impi (1-2-2) combined, and it costs as much of one of each of these units, with double maintenance and double HP cancelling out

Actually, given the great variance of the Civ3 combat results, I would prefer to have many cheap mediocre units than few expensive good ones.

[jshelr]

Another thing is realism. I'm a Celt. So, I'm free to say that we've always been much too drunk to be fast enough to have retreat capability.

[Arrian]

I don't have PtW yet (I'll probably get it for Xmas), but I'm pleased that Firaxis made the Gallic warrior cost 50 shields. That's an 80 gold upgrade, which was the key for me. If they were much cheaper than that, the mass upgrade would really be viable. Now I see them as spearhead units leading a stack of horsemen.

I like Mil/Rel, and will probably play the Celts when I get PtW, but I'm no longer really concerned that the unit is unbalancing. If it had been 30 shields... or even 40, it would have been.

Now that Turkish 8/3/3 Cavalry unit, on the other hand...

-Arrian

[metalhead]

Not only is it not unbalancing, I don't even think it's that good. Immortals are still a better UU, the Gallic Swordsman has very limited application due to its outrageous cost. I would have much rather seen it be 2/2/2 and kept at 30 shields.

[badman]

actually, I don't care too much about the 2 defense points. When you have 2 movement points, you don't need the 2 defense IMHO. That's why I rather have the MW instead of the GS, because to me he is nearly as strong but you get him for nearly half the price.

[korn469]

metalhead

i completely agree with you (except for the 2.2.2 30 comment, i think 3.2.2 40 would have been just fine)...it doesn't pack nearly as much firepower as any of the other swordsmen UUs

as far as the Siphai goes, yea it is 8.3.3 but it also costs 100 instead of 80 for normal cavalry, so yea it is better on offense than normal cavalry, but it's not that much better

think about it like this, the mounted warrior is 50% than horsemen on attack for the same cost, while the Siphai is only 33% better on attack than cavalry for 25% more cost

though on the other hand cavalry is one of the best units in the game, so any upgrades just make them that much better

[vmxa1]

I did not play long enough to make Siphai, but 20 extra shieldsis not bad, if it means keeping them alive longer. I would think 833 beats 633 more often than not. The real value to me is the lesssor units it will be sent to fight. Spearmen in cities or pikemen and swords (legions/immortals) will win a lot less, I would expect. There by saving a fair sized investment. Fights that you sent 8 calv into and lost 3, may now fare much better. If so, the 20 shields will pay a nice return by saving the 80 shiled cost of the what would have been a dead calv.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I did not play long enough to make Siphai, but 20 extra shieldsis not bad, if it means keeping them alive longer. I would think 833 beats 633 more often than not. The real value to me is the lesssor units it will be sent to fight. Spearmen in cities or pikemen and swords (legions/immortals) will win a lot less, I would expect. There by saving a fair sized investment. Fights that you sent 8 calv into and lost 3, may now fare much better. If so, the 20 shields will pay a nice return by saving the 80 shiled cost of the what would have been a dead calv.

That's basically my thinking too. Also, 8/3/3 has two other key advantages. (1) Elites are more likely to live long enough to produce leaders. (2) 8/3/3 would attack riflemen almost as easily as 6/3/3 attacls musketmen, making the age when cavalry reigh supreme last longer if you're willing to accept the higher cost when units die.

Nathan

[korn469]

don't get me wrong, i agree that the Siphai is a better unit than the normal cavalry unit, but it's not that much better, shield for shield it gives you about 7% more firepower, and i'm sure that an argument can be made for have one 100 attack unit that cost x number of shields instead of having ten 10 attack units that cost the same thing, but although a higher attack unit has a greater chance of winning each individual round of combat, it has less hitpoints which should balance it out to an extent

as far as UUs go, if the Siphai got the same upgrade as the Mounted Warrior did then it would be 9.3.3 and still cost 80 shields, this won't happen because cavalry dominate the game far more than horsemen do

the number one reason why Cavalry dominates the game isn't cavalry...instead it is musketmen, they are one of the most hapless units in the game, they cost double what a pikeman does, but they only give you 33% more defensive power, compare that with riflemen which cost 33% more than a musketman but give you 50% more defensive power, or infantry which cost about 13% more than a rifleman but gives you about 66% more defensive power

[nbarclay]

The cost/performance ratio of musketmen against knights is actually better than that of riflemen against cavalry. Musketmen are cheaper than knights, while riflemen are the same cost as cavalry. (Granted, a musketman attacking a knight doesn't do as well as a rifleman attacking a cavalry, but neither of those units is a cost-effective attacker.)

The real problem with musketmen is that they're so often forced to fight opponents that are totally out of their league. Depending on the research paths taken, cavalry can show up a couple dozen turns or more before anyone figures out how to make riflemen, and musketmen, for all their power against knights, can't cope with their more modern adversaries.

As for the relatively high cost of going from pikemen to musketmen, consider how fantastic a bargain pikemen are against horsemen: same cost, but a defense value half again the enemy's attack value. When going from a paradigm where defenders have a huge advantage over equal-cost mounted attackers to one where performance is about the same at the same cost level, it was inevitable that either knight upgrades would be a real bargain or musketman upgrades would be a real rip-off (or maybe a little of each).

Nathan

[vmxa1]

I would submit that the no 1 reason that calv rule so long it that they have 3 move points. This lets them do a lot of things and get out of trouble.

[korn469]

nbarclay

you're on to something

chariot vs. spearman: same cost, spearman has a 2:1 advantage

horseman vs. pikeman: same cost, pikeman has a 1.5:1 advantage

knight vs. musketman: musketman has a 7:6 cost advantage, 1:1

cavalry vs. rifleman: same cost, 1:1

tank vs. infantry: infantry has a 10:9 cost advantage, 1.6:1 advantage for tanks

modern armor vs. mech infantry: mi has a 12:11 advantage, 4:3 advantage for ma

so it goes from a complete defense advantage up to where tanks can push infantry around with ease...but while that is the pattern, i still think that musketmen are a weak link in the defensive unit upgrade chain, because against cavalry any other defensive unit will outperform it

while horsemen don't have very good odds against pikemen, 2 horsemen versus one musketman isn't that bad

[monkspider]

A interesting discussion brewing here.
Korn: One variable that isn't included in these figures however, is hitpoints, and a plethora of horsemen attacks against fortified musketmen are sure to cause some promotions.

[metalhead]

A couple comments regarding the discussion that has sprung up.

First, I think you have to look at more than just pure cost when you analyze Cavalry/Muskets. To relate it to the original post, the reason 50 shields is so prohibitive is because, in the ancient era, you lack the productivity to use Gallic Swordsmen to their full potential - you simply can't build enough of the quickly enough.

By the time you are getting Cavalry, a 20 shield increase in cost is probably a 1-3 turn increase in build time. In the ancient era, it is more like a 4-10 turn increase. Paying all of those extra turns in the ancient era for an extra movement point is too much. By the time you have MT, you are productive enough so that the extra 20 shield cost is almost negligible.

It would appear that I am one of the few who thinks muskets are suitable defenders against Cavalry. When weighing the stats, you have to take into account the fact that most cities are over size 6, which puts a defending musket at a slight advantage, even in a city on open terrain. I can tell you from personal experience that defeating an opponent that is well-fortified with musketmen using Cavalry is NOT easy, and you really need to bring some heat.

This makes the Siphai a very good UU. His 8 attack gives you a good offensive edge on all but the most heavily fortified musketmen. Plus, the 2 extra attack will make your Siphai's much better at getting through those Riflemen. All at a time when increased cost isn't much of a deal. A MUCH better UU than the Gallic Swordsman.

Korn, I just think 40 shields is too much for an ancient unit. I think a 2/2/2, maybe that doesn't require Iron, and is 30 shields would be better.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by korn469
chariot vs. spearman: same cost, spearman has a 2:1 advantage

horseman vs. pikeman: same cost, pikeman has a 1.5:1 advantage

knight vs. musketman: musketman has a 7:6 cost advantage, 1:1

These combat situations rarely happen in my games. I've never been attacked by a Chariot, and I've never launched my Chariots at Spearmen. Horsemen sometimes take out the odd Pikeman, but that's only a last resort. Knights versus Musketman is the most common occurence, but even then it's rare (although I do concede could be a very real possibility if someone beelined for Gunpowder).

I have difficulty believing that the game designers thought that these were the standard "match-ups". In playtesting it must have been obvious that Spearmen are most often defending against Horsemen or Knights.

The fact that offensive capability finally outmatches defensive capability in the late Industrial age (Tanks versus Infantry) is simply explained by the fact that you've lumped the right units together.

As for the Sipahi debate, the added cost is annoying, but an attack rating of 8, coupled with retreat, means that these guys will reliably conduct offensives against Infantry. Cavalry versus Infantry is possible, but certainly difficult. Not so with Sipahi.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

The reason cavalry trump musketmen is that cavalry can often retreat if they're losing, while musketmen can't. Bring in enough cavalry for local superiority, take the city, and then let more cavalry take over the offensive while the wounded from the first attack rest. I've launched such offensives in a great many games, and while I don't especially like seeing musketmen to resist my cavalry hoardes, they certainly don't scare me.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

These combat situations rarely happen in my games. I've never been attacked by a Chariot, and I've never launched my Chariots at Spearmen. Horsemen sometimes take out the odd Pikeman, but that's only a last resort. Knights versus Musketman is the most common occurence, but even then it's rare (although I do concede could be a very real possibility if someone beelined for Gunpowder).

They rarely happen because people (and AIs) know better. When a defender of equal cost class to your mounted attacker shows up, you generally wait for the next technological advantage to attack again unless you're willing to take pretty heavy (or, in the early cases, truly horrible) losses.

As for the Sipahi debate, the added cost is annoying, but an attack rating of 8, coupled with retreat, means that these guys will reliably conduct offensives against Infantry. Cavalry versus Infantry is possible, but certainly difficult. Not so with Sipahi.

That would be a bloody, expensive proposition for both sides. I really prefer not to send cavalry against riflemen, and sipahi against infantry would be worse. But yes, it should be doable if you really want to take on an infantry-armed opponent and you have sufficient production to afford the losses. (And Sipahi would definitely be useful against an enemy infantry attack, especially on open terrain.)

Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
They rarely happen because people (and AIs) know better.

Agreed. But I still don't think it's fair to claim that "defenders have the advantage until Tanks"; the way the game plays, this simply isn't true. The only time that I actually feel this is the case is with Infantry (against Cavalry).

Then again, maybe my judgement is clouded from being a bloodthirsty Mongol warmonger ever since PTW was released...

In AU 107, I did some Cavalry versus Infantry offensive, and it wasn't too too bloody. With some good Artillery support, I think Sipahi have a shot at cracking any Infantry defense, without too many losses. I'll get back to you when I try it out.


Dominae

[Arrian]

All I'm saying is that this thing is Cavalry on steroids, and Cav is already a very powerful unit.

Granted, in order to get this juiced up Cavalry unit, one must play the Turks. If I'm not mistaken, they have the same trait combo as the Zulu (Exp/Mil). Personally, I view traits as more important than UUs, particularly so if the UU comes late. Therefore, perhaps the unit isn't really overpowered, when one views the Civ in question as a whole.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Actually, the Sipahi is the Ottoman UU, and the Ottoman traits are Scientific and Industrious (like the Persians). Not a bad little civ, I'd say.


Dominae

[korn469]

Arrian

the turks iirc are sci/ind which is the same set of traits as the Persians

but i still disagree with everyone that the Siphai is cavalry on steriods, i'll give you that it has been hitting the gym alot lately but it's not on the juice
the Siphai is better than cavalry, but 5 Siphais don't destroy the world while 6 cavalry do nothing, as far as UUs go, war chariots, mounted warriors, immortals, Ansar Warriors, and keskiks give you a bigger attack advantage over the normal version of the units than Siphais do...but i don't think that any of the other normal units have as much of advantage over the defensive units of the time as cavalry does over musketmen