Swords on the attack

alexman · February 25, 2003, 03:30

Here's the situation. You need your neighbor's land ASAP. You have iron and no horses, and a choice between Japan and the Celts. The number and size of your cities is typical for the mid-Ancient Age. What approach do you think gives you the best chance to succeed?

Keep in mind:
Warrior cost = 10 shields
Swordsman cost = 30 shields
Gallic Swordsman cost = 50 shields
Warrior->Sword upgrade = 40 gold
Warrior->Gallic upgrade = 80 gold

Please comment on your answer.

I pose this question because in the AU mod thread we have debating whether the Gallic Swordsman unit is balanced. Are the Celts actually at a disadvantage with such an expensive UU? Would lowering its cost to 40 make a warrior upgrade too poweful? Since the Gallic Swordsman is so different from the regular Swordsman, perhaps it would make sense to remove the former from the upgrade path and allow Celts to build both? If the main way to take advantage of this UU is by upgrading warriors, is the AI (that tries to build it from scratch) at a disadvantage? It all depends on how the unit is used by the experts, compared to Swordsmen.

The Mad Monk · February 25, 2003, 06:45

I'm no expert, but I'll take the swordsman.

Arrian · February 25, 2003, 10:24

Alexman,

Tough call. As you know, I like horsemen quite a bit, and usually do a combination of a warrior -> sword upgrade and a chariot -> horse upgrade. Perhaps 10 swords and 15-20 horses.

Thing is, with the GS, you have to drop the horses, but in this situation, you don't have horses anyway.

However, if horses are within relatively easy reach (neighbor has them), I'd probably rather take the standard swordsman so I a) won't blow my GA unecessarily early and b) can still afford a chariot -> horse upgrade. If the horses are NOT within easy reach, gimme the GS. I've had successful games as the Celts. If you can get into Monarchy and have a FP down (for the "core & a half") prior to launching your attack, you should do well. GS's are hardcore little units, even if they're expensive.

After some thought, I think 40 shields is probably too cheap for GSs. 50 is a tad too much. But there isn't anything inbetween.

-Arrian

Dominae · February 25, 2003, 11:39

Keep the Gallic at 50 Shields, it's way to powerful already. Never mess with a unit's cost; Firaxis knows best.

Ok, just kidding!

I think a solution would be the following: just remove the Gallic from the upgrade path, and leave its cost at 50. This gives the flexibility of having both Warrior->Swordsmen upgrades and the availalbe Gallic. No need to reduce the cost to 40.

Dominae

Fosse · February 25, 2003, 11:50

I voted for the swords upgrade. 80 gold per unit really adds up.

I'm really against messing with the upgrade path. Giving the celts that kind of flexibility seems unfair to the rest of the civs. In the above scenario, if the upgrrade chain were broken, then by the late ancient age you could have churned out a decent number of GS, already had a swordsman offensive war, and now be in Republic and ready for GS offensive war.

I agree that the impossible is the best: 45 shields. Right now I'm voting to leave the GS as is, under the "change as little as possible" AU clause.

Unless we evaluate ALL the UUs' costs and stats, that is.

Catt · February 25, 2003, 12:03

I voted upgrade to swords. But I might change my vote depending on who my neighbor is

. If we're mid-ancient age, then I presume no one has pikes -- swords against spears is sufficient, IMHO.

But is my neighbor Carthage (to a lesser degree Greece)? I would probably change my vote to upgrade to GS -- the retreat might be a net positive, off-setting the cost of the GS.

I really haven't played the Celts enough to say with any conviction -- but in the few games I have played, I haven't had a sense of either "way overpriced" or "no problem whatsoever." The one bit I have taken away is that once the decision to go with a GS attack is made, it seems to make sense to keep the attack going until the continent is clear or the unit is severly outmatched by counter-forces. Building (or upgrading) the little devils and then not sending them into battle at nearly every opportunity is unacceptable

Catt

Arrian · February 25, 2003, 12:08

Catt,

You're right about that last part. The GS is a continent-clearer, and should be used that way. Monarchy, constant/near-constant war until it's all yours. Lots of leaders (hopefully).

-Arrian

Dominae · February 25, 2003, 12:15

I voted for the Gallic upgrade. Sure, you get a bunch more Swordsmen, but in general 2-movement is too good to pass up.

Dominae

DaveMcW · February 25, 2003, 12:23

IMO, the purpose of swordmen is to take out a single neighbor (or trim back 2 neighbors) to set up the continent-clearing knight or cavalry invasion. Gallics are much too inefficient for this task.

Note that this applies to Emperor/Deity. On lower difficulties you can out-produce your enemies so the limiting factor is how fast your units move.

BRC · February 25, 2003, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
Keep the Gallic at 50 Shields, it's way to powerful already. Never mess with a unit's cost; Firaxis knows best.

Ok, just kidding!

I think a solution would be the following: just remove the Gallic from the upgrade path, and leave its cost at 50. This gives the flexibility of having both Warrior->Swordsmen upgrades and the availalbe Gallic. No need to reduce the cost to 40.

Dominae

Sorry Dom, but I really don't think that it would be right to remove it from the upgrade path. It would be way wrong to allow the Celts to build swordsmen. Rome and Persia can't build 'em. Here's my reasoning why the cost should be dropped:

The Mounted Warrior. With 3.1.2, this guy is an animal. The 2 movement points will basically keep him on the attack in every battle. Well, same with the Gallic. 20 shields for an extra defense point is ludacris, especially when you factor in how much it'll be used. Now, I don't really think that Firaxis screwed this up, but this would be the most logical change. However, if we change this, then we should look at every UU. That's not something that I think that we should do with this mod. I like stock!!

player1 · February 25, 2003, 12:36

I would just give cost of 40, keep old upgrade path, and maybe change cost of several other UUs too (Keshik & Conq. to 50shields).

Dominae · February 25, 2003, 12:38

BRC, I like stock too! If you check my comments in the AU PTW mod thread, you'll see we're agreeing on this. My proposal is that, if a change is required, granting the Celts Swordsmen seems like the best option.

But then DaveMcW has a good point. With Swordsmen around, would Gallics be even considered? I mean, you want your civs to use their UUs! Hmm...

Dominae

Dominae · February 25, 2003, 12:39

I'm slowly being convinced that player1's suggestion is good (if anyone is annoyed by sudden changes of opinion, please check the quote at the bottom of my posts).

Dominae

metalhead · February 25, 2003, 12:44

I agree that the Celts should be able to build regular swordsmen in addition to Gallics. If you have fairly unproductive starting terrain, it is pretty much impossible to mount any significant counter attack if you are invaded, as your enemy is most likely coming at you with swordsmen or their UU equivalent. Striking back at this invasion force with archers is impractical, and if your cities are only producing 5-6 shields, you're pretty much toast if you don't have the means to build a sufficient force of Gallics.

The impracticality of building a 50 shield unit in the Ancient Age is simply too much. Perhaps to counteract this, the Celts could have regular swordsmen available to them as well, but at a 40 shield cost. This would take away some of their disadvantage of the expensive GS, while not completely removing the strategic decisions required to navigate the Celts through the Ancient Age.

As it is now, I would stay away from the Celts - the costs involved in building or upgrading are just too prohibitive. Amassing gold for a mass upgrade to regular swordsmen with Japan is the way to go.

BRC · February 25, 2003, 12:46

Quote:

Originally posted by player1
I would just give cost of 40, keep old upgrade path, and maybe change cost of several other UUs too (Keshik & Conq. to 50shields).

I don't know if we should go through all the UU's, but I do like this idea. One thing that I would like to see out of this game is a little stronger advantage for a civs UU. Some (Keshik, Conq, Man O' War) need a little help.

alexman · February 25, 2003, 13:21

OK, enough people have voted in the poll now, so we can evaluate the Celtic options.

We have four options for the Gallic swordsman (note that when swordsmen are allowed, the GS would have to be removed from the upgrade path):

Cost 50, no swordsmen: This is stock PTW. The poll shows that most people prefer using swordsmen over Gallic swordsmen, so the Celts are actually penalized by their UU. Not good, IMHO.
Cost 40, no swordsmen: Player 1's suggestion. The cost reduction would probably encourage people to prefer GS over plain swordsmen (which is a good thing for a UU), but I actually think that this cost reduction is too great. The warrior upgrade to gallic swordsmen would be too powerful, but this option is certainly worth considering.
Cost 50, swordsmen allowed: According to the poll, most people would still upgrade to swordsmen, so the UU would rarely be used by the Celts. Building gallic swordsmen from scratch would be rare. Not a good option, IMHO.
Cost 40, swordsmen allowed: Most players would probably still upgrade to swordsmen, but they would also have the option of building gallic swordsmen from scratch. The lower GS cost would not be exploitable by massive warrior upgrades, but it would not be as prohibitive to build the UU from scratch. An option worth considering, I think.

As you might have guessed, I like options 2 and 4, but I prefer the last option, which has the additional advantage of eliminating the weird upgrade of Gallic swordsmen to Med. Infantry, while still allowing the Celts to build Med. Infantry (GS could upgrade to Guerillas).

Arrian · February 25, 2003, 13:30

Quote:

As you might have guessed, I like options 2 and 4, but I prefer the last option, which has the additional advantage of eliminating the weird upgrade of Gallic swordsmen to Med. Infantry, while still allowing the Celts to build Med. Infantry (GS could upgrade to Guerillas).

Which is kinda appropriate, considering that with those wierd pants, the GS already looks like a guerilla.

Option #4 does sound good.

-Arrian

Dominae · February 25, 2003, 14:56

If it's really between 2 and 4, I prefer 2. We could be creating a monster UU, but weird upgrade paths are not in the flavor of the AU mod.

If you think about it, we would basically have a Mounted Warrior with an extra point of defense for 10 Shields (and different Strategic resources). That sounds okay by me.

Dominae

alexman · February 25, 2003, 15:03

But the difference is the upgrading. For MW upgrades, you have to build 2/3 of the unit before upgrading. For 40-shield GS upgrades, you would have to build just 1/4 or the unit. Just save cash and you'll roll over everyone.

Also, don't think of it as a weird upgrade path. It's just an extra unit for the Celts.

But I agree that it's a big change, and I see the merrit to option 2. Perhaps some test games with 40-shield Gallic Swordsman are in order.

Dominae · February 25, 2003, 15:06

What is the upgrade cost from Chariot to Horsemen?

Can we maybe give the Gallic one fewer HP?

Edit: Why am I asking you, I've got the game and the editor right in from of me...

alexman · February 25, 2003, 15:07

Upgrade cost is 20.
Not sure about the fewer HP. Seems like a big change.

Dominae · February 25, 2003, 15:08

Yup, that works.

How about: 40 Shield Gallic Swordsmen, 1 fewer HP?

Dominae

Dominae · February 25, 2003, 15:10

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Not sure about the fewer HP. Seems like a big change.

Really? We must have different ideas about what constitutes big changes...Giving the Celts Swordsmen seems like a bigger change to me.

Dominae

alexman · February 25, 2003, 15:14

Reducing HP puts you more at the mercy of the RNG. You get more variance in the results when attacking a weaker unit. I would think a 40-shield unit is too expensive to risk that way.

Dominae · February 25, 2003, 15:20

That's the point. If the "save the gold, massive upgrade" strategy is too powerful, then those Gallics had better die off faster than normal. With the retreat ability, they will not die as fast as slow units. What's even more, as a Militaristic civ, those Regulars (assuming you upgrade Vets.) will get promoted often enough.

Dominae

nbarclay · February 25, 2003, 15:20

I like 2 better than 4 as well. I view fast-movers as having only a very limited advantage unless you can build enough of them to have a completely separate striking force comprised entirely of fast-movers. And even at 40 shields, without pre-builds, putting together a big enough force of GS's to build a campaign almost entirely around them would be prohibitively expensive.

I do think option 2 has potential to be a bit overpowering. But I view that as a lesser evil than having a UU that some players regard as being more of a liability as an asset.

But if we do that, we definitely need to keep the rule that GS's upgrade to medieval infantry. Making them available that cheaply and then having them remain available all the way through the medieval era and a bit beyond would be too overpowering.

nbarclay · February 25, 2003, 15:24

Dominae, you're talking a 25% to 33% reduction in hit points in exchange for a 20% reduction in unit cost. That would actually make GS's less cost-efficient than in the standard rules!

nbarclay · February 25, 2003, 15:27

Would it be workable to put Gallic Swordsmen on the archer upgrade path instead of the warrior upgrade path in conjunction with reducing the cost? That would force players to invest twice as many shields, although it has the drawback that players could start with an archer rush more efficiently that way.

Edit: The AI might also possibly have some problems due to being unable to upgrade its warriors until medieval infantry. (Human players would be better at planning for that.)

Dominae · February 25, 2003, 15:30

Nathan, you're right. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but cost-effectiveness is not everything. The fact that a unit gets promoted for free, coupled with the fact that Militaristic civs get higher chances of promotion, sort of tilts the issue away from cost-effectiveness (not to mention the retreat ability). I think the change I'm proposing will force the Celt player to be very careful, instead of just being able to steamroll over opponents with an undercosted unit.

Dominae

nbarclay · February 25, 2003, 15:40

Dominae, you're missing my point. What you're doing is making the unit worse than the standard unit. I'd rather have four 4-HP GS's than five 3-HP ones any day. Four-HP units are more likely to win (a prerequisite for promotions) and less likely to get themselves killed. And minimizing losses tends to be very high on my priority list in battle.

So yes, you succeed in preventing the Celts from steamrolling over everyone, but you do so by (at least in my opinion) actually making their UU worse than it is in the standard rules..

Nathan