Swords on the attack - Page 2

CerberusIV · February 25, 2003, 15:57

I play using 40 shield GS and am fairly happy with that. I really have a major problem with a 50 shield GS upgrading to 40 shield med. inf. However they can be very strong (as a UU should be IMHO).

One change I have made was to move berserks from being based on longbowmen to based on med. inf. and added iron as a required resource (for the axes

). I wondered if something similar would work for the GS?

Is there merit in allowing the Celts ordinary swordsmen and switching the GS to substitute for horsemen instead? After all the Japanese get a knight unit that doesn't require horses. The GS would then be an upgrade from chariots and upgrade in turn to knights.

I haven't tried this yet but it seems feasible.

BRC · February 25, 2003, 16:42

I hate the idea of removing a HP. Don't do it.

I can see why some may think that the Gallic will be a bit too powerful at 40 shields, however, look to follow up wars. Once the Medieval Age hits, wars of conquest will be much harder. Opposing Medieval Infantry, which the AI will bring out early, will still be able to make 3 moves on a good road network. The ideal way to attack would be with Knights. Most of us get our Knights through Horseman upgrades. If the Celts want to build Gallics, they will just have to take the risk of not having as many Knights around later. It's a tradeoff that I think deserves to be in the game.

nbarclay · February 25, 2003, 17:00

Gallics and knights could work together very nicely, with knights going after pikemen (if any) and Gallics going after spearmen who haven't been upgraded yet. So I don't think Celts lose a lot from their UU's being unable to upgrade to knights.

BRC · February 25, 2003, 17:16

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay
Gallics and knights could work together very nicely, with knights going after pikemen (if any) and Gallics going after spearmen who haven't been upgraded yet. So I don't think Celts lose a lot from their UU's being unable to upgrade to knights.

I agree that they would work together ok. Not as well, but still ok. But what about Cavs? That's when you'd feel the pinch.

nbarclay · February 25, 2003, 17:28

Granted, Gallics have little role in the era of cavalry. They're too slow to keep up and too weak to operate independently. (Although Gallics might still be useful to pick off units outside cities after cavalry punch their way in.) The inability to upgrade to cavalry is a big issue if a player does a lot of fighting in the late ancient and early medieval eras but little afterward, because there could be a lot of obsolete Gallics left. But if a player does a lot of medieval fighting, new-build knights would replace lost Gallics in the force mix over time, leaving few Gallics alive when the time for a cavalry upgrade comes. In other words, the issue is big in some situations and minor in others.

Nathan

player1 · February 25, 2003, 18:43

You pay 20gp and from attack 1 Chariot (20shields), you gain attack 3 Mounted Warrior.

For Galic Sw. you would need to pay 60gp, if price is changed to 40 (and you would need 10shields Warrior).

20shields+20gp vs 10shields and +60gp sounds like good balance.

You basicly pay 40gp for those extra 10 shileds you don't need to build.

BRC · February 25, 2003, 18:44

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay
Granted, Gallics have little role in the era of cavalry. They're too slow to keep up and too weak to operate independently. (Although Gallics might still be useful to pick off units outside cities after cavalry punch their way in.) The inability to upgrade to cavalry is a big issue if a player does a lot of fighting in the late ancient and early medieval eras but little afterward, because there could be a lot of obsolete Gallics left. But if a player does a lot of medieval fighting, new-build knights would replace lost Gallics in the force mix over time, leaving few Gallics alive when the time for a cavalry upgrade comes. In other words, the issue is big in some situations and minor in others.

Nathan

I guess it depends on playstyle. I like to secure my continent with Knights and Cavs. Some choose not to, others do it earlier.

nbarclay · February 25, 2003, 19:26

It definitely does depend on playstyle, but the interaction between playstyle and UUs is more complex. A good ancient UU argues for engaging in more early conquest (perhaps in the late ancient era) than a player would normally consider optimal, and if I had a bunch of Gallics I wanted to use up, I'd probably be more inclined to build (or upgrade) knights than I would be otherwise once they become available.

BRC · February 25, 2003, 19:31

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay
It definitely does depend on playstyle, but the interaction between playstyle and UUs is more complex. A good ancient UU argues for engaging in more early conquest (perhaps in the late ancient era) than a player would normally consider optimal, and if I had a bunch of Gallics I wanted to use up, I'd probably be more inclined to build (or upgrade) knights than I would be otherwise once they become available.

I usually choose my civ based on what style of game I will be playing. I forget that many here choose their style based on what civ they randomly draw.

nbarclay · February 25, 2003, 19:48

Quote:

Originally posted by BRC

I usually choose my civ based on what style of game I will be playing. I forget that many here choose their style based on what civ they randomly draw.

Or are assigned in the latest AU game.

BRC · February 25, 2003, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay

Or are assigned in the latest AU game.

I don't even know why I try to argue with you.

Good point though!

Dominae · February 25, 2003, 20:52

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay
Or are assigned in the latest AU game.

This is Nathan's way of saying he wants to play the Celts in the next AU...

Nathan, about the 1HP loss, I understood your point, and countered by saying that I'm not sure the unit is less efficient than its more expensive cousin (I gave my reasons, so I'll avoid repeating them). Not really that important anyway, since no one likes the idea but me.

Dominae

nbarclay · February 25, 2003, 21:53

Or at least that I'm intrigued with the possibility of experimenting with the modifications to the UU. (I haven't played the Celts thus far because I'm not enough of a warmonger to love the Religious/Militaristic the way some do and haven't found the UU particularly intriguing under the standard rules.)

I fail to see how promotions make the kind of difference you attribute to them when comparing the standard Gallic with a cost-40 variant with one less hit point. Even at elite, four 5-HP units would be only equal to five 4-HP units in total hit points, and I suspect that the fewer, stronger units would survive better. (Or are you assuming that units that start with fewer hit points would still go to five eventually? Even if that were, true, which I'm pretty sure it's not, the units with fewer hit points would have to get one promotion more before they would have a chance to generate leaders.)

Nathan

Fosse · February 26, 2003, 02:28

The hitpoint idea... Sorry Dom, looks like you'll be alone on it. It just feels wrong to me.

And I'll stress again that I think breaking the upgrade path is a mistake, because I haven't done that since the last time I posted.

As for the options... I'm most happy with 40 cost, swords not allowed.... IF we change it at all.

Let's try to design an AU game, all civs have dubious or debated UUs (America, Celts, Korea, England, Spain, Persia, Iroquois, Scandanavia... who else?), and we can attempt to alter the UUs to be better or more balanced.

If we learn that lethal keshiks and 40 cost Gallics are too powerful, then we don't make the changes. If the changes add to the fun, usefullness or whatever then we can consider making them permanant.

nbarclay · February 26, 2003, 05:15

Here's something to think about. Compared with an archer, a swordsman costs 50% more, has 50% more attack, and has 100% more defense. Comapared with a horseman, a Gallic Swordsman has the same advantages in attack and defense but costs 66% more. For a conventional unit, that might be considered reasonable. But for a UU, where you're supposed to get some extra capability for free, it seems a bit outrageous.

The more I think about it, the more I think the combination of reducing the cost to 40 and changing the upgrade predecessor from warrior to archer would be the best way to provide appropriate checks and balances. The cost of the unit would be reasonable, but the ability to do upgrades with lots of gold and few shields would be less overpowering.

I'm not quite sure what effect this change would have on early archer rushes. On one hand, players would have a quick, effective upgrade path for whatever archers survive. But on the other, each archer lost in combat would be one less available for upgrade, and players couldn't count on building and upgrading a bunch of cheap warriors afterward to get their Gallic Swordsmen. Overall, I at least hope the balance would tend to be reasonable in that regard.

There are two other catches to changing the upgrade path. (1) AIs might have a little trouble with the fact that they can't upgrade warriors until medieval infantry. (2) Celts who don't have iron would be in a bit of a pinch because they can't upgrade their archers to longbowmen.

In any case, the idea seems worth considering.

Nathan

Panag · February 26, 2003, 07:41

hi ,

"my kingdom for a horse" , asap , ......

have a nice day

Arrian · February 26, 2003, 10:35

Ooh... Celtic archers upgrading to 40-shield GS's? Me likey.

See, having played the Celts, it is my opinion that the "best" approach is an early archer rush (perhaps oscillating) to grab some land, manually build the FP while researching toward Monarchy at 10% and building warriors (in this case, more archers) and then upgrading as many GS's as possible and wasting the rest of the continent. During the GA, build a few more GSs, but mostly horsemen (to give you a solid horseman force for later upgrading).

So the archer -> GS upgrade path fits right in. But it does require more shield input up-front, which is a good thing. Upgrade cost would then be... 40 gold, just like warriors -> standard swords.

-Arrian

Artifex · February 26, 2003, 11:00

I am playing a game as Celts right now on emperor. I have a city founded right on top of a hill with iron..and every few turns i pillage the road right outside the city gates..put warriors in all my build q's then upgrade to GS..rinse,wash, repeat. woot! Seems to be working good.

alexman · February 26, 2003, 12:12

I agree that the best balance for the Gallic Swordsman would be a 40-cost Archer (or Chariot) upgrade.

However, in that case, Celtic strategy is seriously changed from stock. I addition, I think not having a Warrior upgrade in the ancient age would be as great a departure from stock as allowing swordsmen in addition to Gallic swordsmen for the Celts.

Perhaps just decreasing the cost without messing with upgrade paths, with a AU game to test it out, is the way to go.

nbarclay · February 26, 2003, 15:14

I seriously doubt that you can change the cost of the Gallic Swordsman from 50 to 40 without creating a major change in Celtic strategy. That change transforms the Gallic Swordsman from a UU that's value compared with the regular swordsman is marginal at best into one of the best UUs in the game, and that can hardly help but have an enormous effect on strategy. Unfortunately, there seems to be no middle ground.

And given the enormous impact that the cost reduction is almost certain to have in any case, I don't view the additional issue of changing what it upgrades from as all that big a deal in comparison.

Nathan

DaveMcW · February 26, 2003, 15:38

What about making the GS a horseman UU at 40 shields?

alexman · February 26, 2003, 15:41

I would be all for that, provided of course that Celts can build regular swordsmen (but not horsemen).

[Edit: of course there are a few issues:
Do they require iron, horses, both? Are they available with Iron Working or Horseback riding? Is the GS-to-Knight upgrade too powerful? Is this too big of a change from stock?]

Arrian · February 26, 2003, 15:56

Horse-based, huh? Prolly best to make available with HBR but have them require horses and iron. But then again, one would want to have horsemen available in case you're without iron (because otherwise no iron = archers as best offensive unit).

Would you allow the chariot upgrade or not?

-Arrian

alexman · February 26, 2003, 16:11

As if we didn't have enough suggestions, here's another one:

Make it a 4-3-1, cost 40 (or 50?) unit, and leave the upgrade path as is. Celts would not be able to build Medieval Infantry in this case.

BRC · February 26, 2003, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
As if we didn't have enough suggestions, here's another one:

Make it a 4-3-1, cost 40 (or 50?) unit, and leave the upgrade path as is. Celts would not be able to build Medieval Infantry in this case.

I personally would like to try and find a solution that keeps it at 3.2.2 Have we determined that 40 shields is game-breaking?? I believe that a UU should be somewhat poweful when compared to the "base" unit.

alexman · February 26, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Would you allow the chariot upgrade or not?

The Chariot upgrade was actually the reason to suggest the change, so yes. That way you get a 40-gold upgrade cost (like for the sword-level units), but you have to make a 20-shield investment (like for horse-level units).

Arrian · February 26, 2003, 16:26

Ok, if we're going really radical here, I'd suggest a totally different UU for the Celts.

What were they famous for using? Chariots!

Give them a 2-2-2 "chariot" that costs 30 shields. Stronger than horsemen, but no prebuilding chariots to upgrade to them. Upgrade from them to Knights.

-Arrian

DaveMcW · February 26, 2003, 16:35

Why not a 2-2-2 horseman? Everyone agrees that the chariot->horseman upgrade is not unbalanced.

nbarclay · February 26, 2003, 16:47

I don't recall ever associating Celts with chariots, not that I know much about them. And in any case, I prefer to keep the stats and just find a way to make them work. I dislike the 4.3.1 idea for similar reasons of not wanting to completely redo the unit's stats.

A Chariot->Horseman->Gallic Swordsman upgrade path would make Gallic Swordsmen available (and horsemen unavailable) if and only if iron is hooked up, right? Of course it would also have the interesting effect that either chariots or (in the absence of iron) horsemen could be used as prebuilds. And if Gallics require both horses and iron, that would partly offset the lower cost. (Presumably, they get their extra mobility from riding to the scene of the fight before dismounting for actual combat?)

The down side is that with that upgrade path to them, there would be no real choice but to have Gallics upgrade to knights. That would provide players with a major advantage compared with the current upgrade path (although no more of an advantage than the Iroquois have with their Mounted Warriors). Compared with the MW, the revised GS would cost 10 more shields and require an extra resource in return for one point better defense.

And, of course, with this modification, conventional swordsmen would also be available to Celts.

My own feelings about this concept are rather mixed, but I figured I'd explore the issues a bit.

player1 · February 26, 2003, 16:47

But Galic Swordsmen is Swordsmen, not Horsemen.