Gallic Swordsman: Is it overpriced?

Artifex · February 13, 2003, 19:00

Is the gallic swordsman overpriced? Or is the cost about right?

Basically it cost 20 more shields for an extra movement point.

What do you think? Does it need to be modified? Will a cost reduction to 40 points make it too overpowered?

Oerdin · February 13, 2003, 19:17

The short anwser is yes. It ruins an other wise excellent UU; they should lower the price by about ten shields in order to make it more competetive with the other new UUs.

Artifex · February 13, 2003, 19:34

I was considering making a mod and decreasing it's cost by 10 shields. I just didn't want to unbalance the game too much, so I refrained. I'm not too great at numbers crunching.

WarpStorm · February 13, 2003, 19:50

I have tried it at 40 shields and that seems about right to me. I know that it used to be that price and the guys at Firaxis purposefully raised its price because they thought it was too cheap.

player1 · February 13, 2003, 20:46

No, the cost is OK.

Artifex · February 13, 2003, 21:01

Maybe I should make a poll. Seems alot of peeps think it is overpriced.

WarpStorm · February 13, 2003, 22:20

At 30 it would be way underpriced. At 50 I think it is a little overpriced.

Lets look at the price of some of the units in the same rough class:

Swordsman 3/2/1 30 iron
Legionary 3/3/1 30 iron
Immortal 4/2/1 30 iron
M. Warrior 3/1/2 30 horse
Med. Inf. 4/2/1 40 iron
Gallic S 3/2/2 50 iron
Keshik 4/2/2 60 horse
Conquis. 3/2/2* 70 horse
Knight 4/3/2 70 iron+horse
Rider 4/3/3 70 iron+horse

Looking at this table I think some of the original UUs were too cheap.

Artifex · February 13, 2003, 22:38

Looking at your chart your assumption is correct. Take the chinese rider for example. If we used the same rules for the rider it would cost 90 shields instead of 70. Basically the chinese rider gets it's extra movement point for free, while the gallic swordsman is charged 20 sheilds for it's extra point.

That doens't seem fair does it? Or am I missing something here? Explain thier logic in doing that?

monkspider · February 13, 2003, 22:44

I thought 30 was fine, 50 is preposterous!
Compare this to the 30 shield Immortal? The cost is nearly twice as much, is the G. Swordsman twice as useful? Firaxis does silly things sometimes.

Artifex · February 13, 2003, 22:51

Look at the Chinese. Their UU is way powerful as I described in the above thread. They get thier movement point for free, then they have the strongest civ trait (industrius) followed by the strong militaristic trait.

Compare them to the Celts. The Celts have the militaristic trait as well..and a decent trait in religious, although I think industrius is more powerful than religious.

So China wins on traits, then they win on the UU they get an extra movement point for free? So this is balance? It would seem they would have the Celt UU get the price break..not the other way around.

Also add to that the fact that 20 sheilds early in the game is alot of shields for that time period, factor in inflation and it's easily comparable to 30-40 shields on the middle ages once you have your cities grown and infrastructure built up. So really the chinese rider would cost 100-110 shields if applying the logic that firaxis applies to the Celts. Instead you get the devastating Rider for a meager 70 shields.

I am just trying to figure out firaxis logic on this. If it is all about play balance, sometimes it just doesn't make much sense to me.

Player1 explain to me why this makes sense? Since you say 50 shields is good for the gallic swordsman.

WarpStorm · February 13, 2003, 23:01

In general, the original UUs from Civ3 were a bargain compared to the PTW ones. If you assume that UUs get some sort of price break for their value as a unit (it sure seems that the original Civ3 ones did), then most of the PTW units are more expensive for their value.

I'd rather have an 5 Immortals or 5 Mounted Warriors (or 2 Riders) than 3 Gallic Swordmen for the same number of shields.

Well, like Firaxis told me last time I complained about something that can be easily changed in the editor, "Warp, that's why we put an editor in there".

Major Guz · February 14, 2003, 03:52

If you compare the UU from normal Civ3, it seems that all get an extra attribute boosted compared to their "regular" counterparts (Greek hoplite = 1-3-1, Zulu Impi =1-2-2 and spearman from which these units stem = 1-2-1; French musketeer = 3-4-1 instead of 2-4-1 for musketman).

Having said this the cost for the Cartaginan Numidian Mercenary which is 2 -3 -1 (2 attributed boosted instead of 1), has a 10 shield increase in cost and seems logical [1 boost for free, the second at an increase].

What about the impi (which also has 2 movement) it should cost 40 instead of 20 shields? (Off course, I compare a defensive with an offensive unit which cannot honourably be compared so this comparison is slightly off).

I can live with the 40 shields (for the Gallic Swordsman that is, I mean retreat is a sweet thing and counts much more heavy at an offensive unit), but from the "one boost for free" point of view the Gallic Swordsmen should cost 30 (but I agree that that is ridiculously cheap) so I would vote for 40 shields.

Just my 2 (euro)cents

Guz

The Mad Monk · February 14, 2003, 03:59

Compared with other units, and given its UU status, 40 is probably about right, maybe a little on the high side.

player1 · February 14, 2003, 04:36

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
I thought 30 was fine, 50 is preposterous!
Compare this to the 30 shield Immortal? The cost is nearly twice as much, is the G. Swordsman twice as useful? Firaxis does silly things sometimes.

Yes it's twice as useful.

While Immortal is in fact "expendable" (useful only agaianst enemies which have no Horses), Galic Swordsmen is not.

He has enough good attack (attack of 4 is really not too much needed in anicent age), good mobility and vey much needed denfese of 2 (too defend againt Horses).

And to that, good traits of Celts, and plus that it's UU, so it won't be so tough to pay 50 shileld while you'll in GA.

Synergy of bonuses is what makes him most powerful.

.

P.S.
Of course there is another one reson.

Firaxis probably though that maybe it should not be good to make Horsemen useless after you get Galic S. And if GS was 40shileds, producting 30shields Horsmen would surely be waste of time.

This way, with 50 shields, making some 30shields Horsemen could be smart, at least to use against units with defense of 1 and GS against tougher targets.

P.P.S.
Now is this unit fine as it is?
Yes, I plyed games with it and had no real problems.

With 40 cost?
I assume it won't be too much dominating, but you'll never again bother with Horses.

CerberusIV · February 14, 2003, 05:56

I reduced the price to 40 shields in my mod. 50 shields is too much when all the other ancient era units are 30 at most. That is still more than the cost of a horseman so horses are worthwhile for scouting and pillaging.

I also edited the Celts to start with the wheel instead of warrior code. Partly historic as the celts, in Britain at least, were famed for chariot warfare, and partly to make it worth going for horses.

I eventually changed the costs of many units, especially the industrial and modern ones because I wasn't happy with the progression of costs or the cost compared to the shield production of a civ after industrialisation.

Carbon · February 14, 2003, 19:53

Really, the biggest problem I've had with the Gallic Sword is not its cost (I've seen a few games where these things were worth every shield it cost to build them), my gripe is that it "upgrades" into Medieval Infantry. That makes the window of opportunity to use Gallic Swords so narrow (from Iron Working to Feudalism) that the UU doesn't seem to be worth the bother unless you're ready to go right from the point you discover Iron Working.

To be perfectly honest, I think the Romans and Celts should not have their sword UU upgrade into Medieval Infantry, those are the only two upgrades where the upgraded unit has an inferior stat to the "obsolete" unit. Gallic Swords and Legionaries should upgrade directly to guerillas, then allow these two civs to build Med. Inf. in a seperate chain that also upgrades to guerrillas (so you'd have the option of building either 4-2-1 Med. Inf. or your civ's sword UU until replaceable parts).

WarpStorm · February 14, 2003, 23:52

Carbon, that sounds good to me. The upgrade chain may not work though. I'll have to think about that.

Jaybe · February 15, 2003, 01:16

Re Roman/Celt UU upgrades, the "obvious" thing to do is NOT to upgrade them until Guerillas. "Just say NO."

Theseus · February 16, 2003, 16:55

Exactly. Selective upgrading is smart in other situations as well.. for instance Samurai to Cavs.

Ghengis-Sean · February 17, 2003, 01:50

The Gallic Warrior is pretty fairly priced. If you look at the Ancient UU's they are improved by a point, either on defense, midieval units are improved by two points.

Example; the Samurai, an extra point of defense, and doesn't need Iron. The Rider though, is a knight with a move of three, meaning that bonus point of move is worth two points. So the Iriqouis Rider is a 3/1/2 and used to be the fastest meanest thing on four legs until the Gallic Swordsmen came around, so of course Gallic Swordsmen should have a hefty price tag, they're swordsmen AND they're horsemen!

Instead of making the gallic swordsmen cheaper,how about this; why not alow the celts to produce swordsmen AND Gallic swordsmen? When I play the Celts it's a pain when you all you really want is a swordsman but you can't build one. This way you can use swordsmen for the bulk of your army and keep those Gallic Swordsmen on standby for special occasions.

just a thought though

Jon Shafer · February 17, 2003, 20:27

It's way way overpriced. First off, attack of 3 is not dominating in the Ancient Era. Any Spearman in a city can clobber any number of Swordsmen/Gallic Swordsmen, and can also stop Immortals fairly often.

Someone explain to me how adding 1 movement point is worth a 67% cost increase? No unique units had their costs increased in Civ 3, why should this be the case for PTW? Did they just run out of Att/Def/Move/Cost combos so they started tacking on numbers to the latter?

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm Well, like Firaxis told me last time I complained about something that can be easily changed in the editor, "Warp, that's why we put an editor in there".

It also means no one will ever play the Celts in MP games of any kind.

monkspider · February 18, 2003, 01:01

I agree with your strong words Trip.
I feel that the Gallic Swordsman is the only UU that is actually worse than the original unit it is based on (the swordsman).

Sallandair · February 18, 2003, 01:30

Here's an explanation

Someone explain to me how adding 1 movement point is worth a 67% cost increase? No unique units had their costs increased in Civ 3, why should this be the case for PTW? Did they just run out of Att/Def/Move/Cost combos so they started tacking on numbers to the latter?

Because you can save 100% of the cost when the have the ability to retreat, unlike swordsmen. Alot of complaints about adding cash for movement but fail to realize the saving of the ability to retreat.

Just another view on the situation. We start "mod"ing alot of the units - one will begin to throw the balance off even more. Korea being the exception... hehe

Jon Shafer · February 18, 2003, 01:54

The only essential differences between Horsemen and the Gallic Swordsmen is the fact that a Horseman has 1 fewer attack for 20 fewer shields. I would rather have 1.67 Horsemen than 1 Gallic Swordsmen.

Especially considering the fact that Swordsmen and Horsemen are used for entirely different purposes. Horsemen are used mainly for their mobility, and aren't exactly designed for heavy assault, like Swordsmen are. Mixing the unit could be useful... if it was 30 shields.

The final test of all this: if a 3.2.2 unit for 50 shields is so useful, why doesn't anyone play the Celts?

Sallandair · February 18, 2003, 05:20

You forgot to mention the 1 addition defense in your computation. Nor does anyone want to mention that they are militaristic to boot. Reg Horseman vs Reg Spear in town = 45.6% - Reg Galic vs Reg Spear in town = 64.2%. And if they are both vets the Galic's chances increases as the Horseman's decreases. Not to mention that the surviving Spearman has more than a 20% better chance of killing that injured Horsey over the Galic.

As for final test? After 300+ mp games of 4 or more opponents - 20%+ of the games do have the Celts playing.

My arguement is if 2 swords attack a town and lose and 2 galic attack a town with one retreating, you just saved yourself 10 shields. Basic, but you get the idea.

And when one does reach Knights one has the ability of having units that can keep up without spending the money to upgrade. Especially if funds are a factor.

End statement - It's how you play - not what you play

player1 · February 18, 2003, 05:46

The price of GS is designed to give Horsemen a chance.

For example you'll take several GS as your heavy units and several cheap horsemen (built in your low-prod cities) as supprt against enemy 1 defense units).

GS will do most the work, while Horsmen will be in support role.

When 50 shields is not problem buy GS.
When 30 shields is the problem buy Horsemen (or trigger Golden Age).

P.S.
GS is good unit.

One could say, but its not superb unit jike Jaguar Warrior Numidian Merecenary or Mouted Warrior.

But you don't need to make every UU superb.

It's more like that those units are overpwoered, then it's GS underpowered.

Focus more or rrealy bad UUs like Elephant, Keshik, F-15, Man-O-War, Hwacha, etc...

Ancyrean · February 18, 2003, 10:01

Yesterday I started a game with the Celts (monarch, large, raging barbs) and I was on a fairly large continent with the Germans and the English. I waited until I built 6 GS and declared war on the Germans. As soon as my GS stack hit the first enemy town and took out the spearmen inside, I had my GA. Of all my cities, I had 4 cities with production of 6-7 shields per turn and with the GA these had their production jump to higher levels, around 10 per turn. That meant, on average, a GS from each of this 4 cities every 5 or 6 turns, and for the duration of the GA I manufactured an additional 12 GS, while the original 6 held the line

.

I then had the chance to observe how powerful a unit GS is, as it is.

The cool catch about the GS is, obviously, its speed and survivability. My GA provided me with near normal levels of production for a usual unit, and an abundance of GS made such a huge difference. The AI eschewed from taking on my GS stack, and of all GS units I produced I lost only two or three during the entire campaign that followed to annihilate the Germans and the English (that's nearly 30 cities in total).

My GS stack arrived on the battlefields fast, they retreated when they were overwhelmed both in attack and when attacked. Combined with the military trait, 80 % of my GS units were elites, producing 3 Great Leaders (one went for an army, second for Forb Palace, third saved for Sistine Chapel) during the war.

I think we forget the boosting impact of the GA on production. The high price for GS is balanced out by the GA (that's still not as good as a later-era GA but this is a problem for many other ancient era UUs, including the legion and the immortal, and yes in a Legion-induced Roman GA you can produce many many more legions but my point here is the extra speed of GS MIGHT be making up for less quantities. It would still be premature for me to say GS is superior to the Legion).

In my opinion there's no way for any civ to stand in the way of very large numbers of GS with a pricetag as low as 30 or even 40 (Guys who tried 40 in the editor can correct me on this, and anyone who played the Celts in MP are welcome to compare this single-player description with the realities of MP). Maybe I'm still under the influence of the exhilerating experience of having so uncontested a dominance in my recent war, but in light of the above observations, a production price of 50 might be just about right.

CerberusIV · February 18, 2003, 10:23

I am currently playing the Celts in SP. It is hard to judge as I got a good start position and have 10 cities up (regent) but I have easily built 10 GS and am just waiting to research Republic before slaughtering the Vikings for my GA.

I wonder if the Mounted Warrior is a better comparison to the GS than Legionaries - same attack, same move, less defence for less cost.

WarpStorm · February 18, 2003, 11:07

I would rather have 5 Mounted Warriors than 3 Gallic Swordsmen.

Sperricles · February 18, 2003, 12:22

The GS needs to be compared to one of 2 units...the mounted warrior or the impi, which each show the double movement but use it for respectively different attack and defense purposes. 50 shields vs 20 shield impi is simply not cost effective as a defence. And consider that is you match shield for shield...you have 2.5 spearman against each gallic swordsman ( just enough to survive the first attack and and send 1.5 units to chase down the injured GS. Cost for you to send 10 GS to attack me: 500 shields. Cost to match you unit to unit with cheap spearmen: 200 shields. Moral of this story? Anyone with scouts patrolling the borders WILL see you coming and can mobilize a defense very inexpensively and easily.

The closer comparison is the mounted warrior, since a unit with 2 movement is better able to maneuver into which ever position it prefers (which in this case is most likely to be attacking position). Both have double movement, the retreat option, and an attack of 3. So now, remind me again why we are charging 20 shields to give a mounted warrior 1 extra defense that most often will not be used since the unit serves best on offense?

Now to be fair lets look at Carthage...whose UU gets an extra defense and an extra offense. This unit is the reason babylonian bowmen got renamed "poor man's mercenary". Invalidating the bowman only cost hannibal 10 shields or 50% depending on how you view it. Apply the same logic to the GS and it should be 40-45 shields!

Compare to Legion....yes GS should cost more because the extra movement allows them to pick good terrain, retreat, and evade others enough to easily match the 3 defense...but also time a quick surprise attack on a city.

Swordsman to swordsman I also agree any civ can outdo gallic swordsmen. Celts pay 50 shields for 3-4 hit points. I'll gladly pay 60 for 6-8 hp! Dont forget the fact that the GS will only get to attack once, but both of my swordsmen will get to attack (giving me an extra attack each turn)

I have played hundreds of players in MP, and especially in elimination and come to the follwing conclusions. Iroquois will devastate Celts. Zulu mobile defense will handle them just fine. 20 shields of jaguar warrior often means a dead GS. Egyptian Chariots are not afraid of Celts. All other civs simply know to get in the celts face early and pillage pillage pillage since it takes them so long to get a reasonable surprise attack ( or even homeland defense) of GS built, then just match em unit for unit with spearmen (or better yet hoplites), and have your scouting units/outposts tell you when they are coming. If and ONLY if Celts go unchecked for a long time they can be devastaing... and sometimes if they come by boat. Ah yes...and ALL of this depends completely on IRON....unlike some other UU's that are not resource dependent.

In summay...Min price 35 ...Max price 45...(who says it has to be a multiple of 10 anyway?)