Swords on the attack

[Arrian]

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

Good point. So yeah, a 2-2-2 horseman. Tough, but not overpowering unit at standard cost.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

I don't like the idea of completely replacing one UU with another. By the time we change (1) the stats, (2) the cost, and (3) which entire upgrade chain the UU is a part of, we might as well be inventing a new religious/militaristic civ instead of playing the Celts.

[alexman]

The horse->GS upgrade is a solution which changes relatively few aspects of the game, yet completely balances the unit. I like it. And I can actually buy into the image that the Gallic Swordsmen use horses to ride into battle and then dismount to fight.

Thanks to everyone's input (especially CerberusIV, DaveMcW, and Nathan) I think we may have a solution for the AU mod.

[Panag]

Originally posted by alexman
The horse->GS upgrade is a solution which changes relatively few aspects of the game, yet completely balances the unit. I like it. And I can actually buy into the image that the Gallic Swordsmen use horses to ride into battle and then dismount to fight.

Thanks to everyone's input (especially CerberusIV, DaveMcW, and Nathan) I think we may have a solution for the AU mod.

hi ,

why not try with two UU's , ...... one on a horse and one not on a horse , ..... see what comes out as the most stable , .....

have a nice day

[nbarclay]

I've just been thinking, and there may be some reasons to leave the GS as he is in the stock game after all. (When I debate, I always have part of my mind thinking about how the other side ought to be arguing, and sometimes I'm better at convincing myself than my opponents are at convincing me. ) When comparing the GS and the MW, consider the following:

1) The Iroqouis traits do not mesh well to improve the potency of their UU. They don't get the cheap barracks of a militaristic civ, nor do they have the improved overall productivity of an industrious civ. Further, while MWs are certainly potent in battle, the lack of the Militaristic trait limits the Iroquois' ability to parley that advantage into lots of elites and, eventually, leaders. It is this lack of synergy that prevents the Iroquois from being the hands-down favorite as a warmongering civ. In contrast, the Celts' militaristic nature gives them cheap barracks, quicker promotions, and indirectly a much better chance of great leaders. Cost for cost and stat for stat, the same offensive UU is worth much more in Celtic hands than in Iroquois hands.

2) The prebuild for the MW is less practical. It comes later. It's more expensive in shields (which is especially problematical for a civ without cheap barracks). And worst of all, the prebuild requires the same resource as the main unit, so you can never use a prebuild after you research or acquire Horseback Riding.

3) MWs are vulnerable while getting ready to attack. Even a warrior has a reasonable chance to beat one on open terrain. Enemy horsemen can pick off MWs with ease. And archers or especially swordsmen can usually either kill them or drive them off. Worse, the elite MWs are the first to be hit in such strikes, undercutting the opportunity for leaders (since odds of a defensive victory are so small). The fact that Gallic Swordsmen provide both mobile defense and mobile offense is worth more than the stats alone might imply.

In summary, the Gallic Swordsman, especially when coupled with the Militaristic trait, provides a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Now, comparing Gallic Swordsmen to conventional swordsmen:

1) Gallic Swordsmen cost 5/3 as much, but they probably have at least close to a 40% chance of surviving losing a battle. (Keep in mind that units fighting a 1-HP enemy never retreat, which reduces the retreat chance a bit from its nominal value.) So as long as you have enough of them to do the job, even at a cost of 50, the cost of replacing lost units isn't necessarily higher for Gallic Swordsmen than for their conventional counterparts.

2) When an elite swordsman loses a battle, he dies. That tends to limit opportunities for leaders even for militaristic civs. In contrast, a losing Gallic Swordsman is likely to retreat, so any given elite GS is likely to have about twice as many chances to generate a leader before he dies. Since the number of elite units generated is limited by the number of battles fought rather than by the total number of units produced, that makes the Gallic Swordsman exceptionally potent as a leader factory - especially when coupled with the Celts' militaristic trait. And the fact that elites survive better also gives a little extra combat value that isn't reflected in the stats.

So the question is, is the Gallic Swordsman in the stock game a bad UU, or just a horribly underrated one?

Nathan

Edit: Corrected a miscalculation.

[Arrian]

Nathan,

You've hit upon my reason for liking the Celts, despite the high cost of the UU.

I would LOVE to combine the MW with a militaristic civ. Oh my, would I!

The Celts essentially do that, but at higher cost. The cost is so much higher, though, that it takes away much of the benifit.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

But if it only takes away "much" of the benefit, how much room is there to improve the UU without making it too good?

I would suggest that we play an AU game with the stock GS and discuss our results before we try any modifications. If we see that the people who figure out how to make good use of them can get a lot out of the stock version, that will argue against changes as both unnecessary and unbalancing.

We might, perhaps, combine our efforts to evaluate the standard Gallic Swordsman with experiments in Ralphing. Granted, the Celts' militaristic trait would tend to make Ralphing more potent than it would be in other situations, but even if we're just seriously injuring two birds with one stone instead of killing them outright, maybe that's good enough.

Nathan

[Catt]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I would suggest that we play an AU game with the stock GS and discuss our results before we try any modifications. If we see that the people who figure out how to make good use of them can get a lot out of the stock version, that will argue against changes as both unnecessary and unbalancing.

May I suggest that a humam-made map would be a requirement for any such AU game? The good ol' random civ and map generator blessed me with the Celts in my current game, quite well-timed for this discussion. A Pangeae, max water apparently, and one of those winding, snake-like maps. the nearest enemy capitol must be at least 15 - 18 tiles away, and a large, uninhabited island just off my coast offered still further REX room. With much land to settle and the fairly rapid tech pace offered by early contact, my peaceful REXing ended in the age of Knights and almost Muskets. Such a map for a "test the GS" AU game would be a little counterproductive

Catt

[nbarclay]

So who wants to set up the map?

I propose the name, "AU 206: Celtic Militarism - Studies in Ralphing and Gallic Swordsmen"

(Yes, it's a bit long-winded.)

[alexman]

Sounds good, I'll do it. I haven't set one of these up lately, and I have no time to play anyway.

[Dominae]

I missed this whole discussion.

As usual, let me say that I'm against any change that deviates significantly from stock Civ3. I'll stand for a reduction cost, or a minor change in stats, but a complete shift in upgrade path is too much (for me).

Imagine the AAR's we're going to hear now:

1. "In my game, I researched The Wheel right away, built up a few Chariots/Horsemen, and got Iron Working just at the tail end of my Archer rush. Wow, everything is so synergistic."

2. "In my game, I had to research Bronze Working, then trade for Iron Working. I've avoided The Wheel completely, so as to get more money to upgrade those few Warriors I can afford to upgrade. Geez, things seem a lot easier with the AU mod, but I hate mods. Sign, this is dumb, I'd rather play with the 3-trait civs mod."

Ok, ok, I went a bit far in the second quote.

And, finally, might I add that there is no way of testing out whether this change is good or not with a single AU scenario. The point is not that the unit is not "fixed" by being a Horseman upgrade, the point is that the change radically alters a civ. And of course people are going to like it, because the unit is obviously more powerful with the change.


Dominae

[alexman]

Dominae, I think you misread Nathan's post. The AU game will have no change to the unit at all.

[Dominae]

Heh-heh, how embarrassing! So we're going to try out a Celtic AU to test out the Gallic? I'm in!

(But if ever we decide on any of the altered upgrade-path changes...read the post above ).


Dominae

[Dominae]

Oh and alexman, please avoid punishing all the AU regulars with a tough scenario next map. It was my fault, and no one else's, that you got placed next to the Greeks on a little island in AU204. I accept full responsibility, and will do my best to lose AU206 at a similarly early stage.




Dominae

[Fosse]

midterms end this week: Bring on 206!

[player1]

By the way, if anybody is interested I finished v1.14 of my PS MOD.

[Artifex]

What really kills me so bad about the GS is when I finally get up a good force of them and Germany is on the other end of my continent..really powerful and a threat to me..but I can tear thru them..just wait till my GS armies gets over there mwahaha I spent the last 200 years building up 20 of them! They will crush you!

But wait what was that? The GL told me a discovered feaudalism? Nooo? Germany? NOooo. Say it ain;t so Joe..:checks berlin: 3 pikemen? Waaaaaaaaaaahh

Now I feel like the threatened one and an entiire army of mine is rendered useless. I am a weak loser nation now.

All my best laid plans laid to waste. I did conquer Russia and England, and secured the left half of the continent..but germany foiled me. Now I guess they are in the drivers seat.

The continent split right down the middle now.

[nbarclay]

Would you have been any better off with regular swordsmen? Or are you just expecting more than is reasonable in terms of the amount of territory conquered before Feudalism?

[Harovan]

I like the Gallic Swordsman as it is, if playing the Celts. True, it's expensive, but nothing can stop it when it is used right.

However, in my Ultima mod, where I made the Britannians out of the Celts, I changed the Celtic UU. My new Britannic UU is a 5/2/1 +1hp replacement for the Medieval Infantry and called Paladin. Using the graphics of the GS, of course.

[Panag]

Originally posted by player1
By the way, if anybody is interested I finished v1.14 of my PS MOD.

hi ,

excellent


say guys , can someone do a good run down on a mod with cheap gal swords , ......

all kind of funny outcomes on this side , ....

still "my kingdom for a horse" until a good solution comes up , .....

have a nice day

[player1]

Originally posted by panag
still "my kingdom for a horse" until a good solution comes up , .....

Kindom for a Mounted Warriors.

[Panag]

Originally posted by player1


Kindom for a Mounted Warriors.

hi ,

huh , okay , celts with mounted warriors , why not , .... we have romans with Icbm's so why not , ......

have a nice day