Why all the criticism of the Celts already?

[Nubianmercenary]

Oh man.
:
: How about we just stop arguing about any civilization which none of us have even played yet.
:
:Guys. Thats why we have reviews



NubianMercenary

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by Nubianmercenary
Oh man.
:
: How about we just stop arguing about any civilization which none of us have even played yet.
:
:Guys. Thats why we have reviews



NubianMercenary

I like trying to predict the effects of changes to the game.

[Nubianmercenary]

:I know I do too. But my dear fellow, predicting and what has become of ones inference are OFTEN not the same.
:
:
:But then again one may be right, then again one might be wrong. I would suggest waiting until at least ONE of us had the expansion itself before making obsured remarks about it.
:
:
:Until then. Lets just keep to the Fundamental questions like:

What it would offer to civ4 then just extra leader-heads, civs or units?

Are the UB, really unique ?

Playing as the "Barbs", who really cares?

Whats up with the Impi and his long spear?


:Or something similair along those lines. Not trying to command you to change your way of thinking, just merely suggesting a better path, until we really get the chance to play it.


NubianMercenary

[gdgrimm]

Originally posted by Simplicity
Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't think that was how the combat engine worked...

Axeman 5 +50% vs melee => Axeman = 7.5 always

GS is either 6 or 8.7 (6+45%) on hills.

So then it's 7.5 v 6 (no hills) or 7.5 vs 8.7 (hill defense).

LOL Maybe we both need to chase down one of those threads that details the specifics of the combat calculations.

I thought that the +%Strength modifiers (like Combat I) were applied directly to the strength value, but that all battle specific modifiers (i.e. those based on who's being attacked and on what terrain) were all applied to the defender.

In this particular debate, it makes a bit of a difference.

Axeman vs. Swordsman on hill:
Modifiers applied to specific units -- 7.5 vs. 7.5 (~50% chance of win)
Modifiers combined and applied to defender -- 5 vs. 4.5 (~53% chance of win)

I don't honestly remember with enough detail to say which way it is.

[gdgrimm]

Originally posted by Thedrin
And for an ordinary swordsman on a hill defending against an axeman it'd be:

7.5 vs. 7.5

Gallics are only getting a slight advantage in that area - nothing special.

I somewhat agree.

It doesn't sound like the Celts' UU is going to be as dominant as some others (like Romans/English/Russians/Japanese). But I don't think they'll be as poor as some (like the Incans/Aztecs).

On a somewhat different note, I personally think the better UU's are already too unbalancing. I mean, playing the Romans on Monarchy level is almost as easy as playing, say Germans/Bismark on Prince level. I just don't think a UU should be able to trump a whole level of difficulty, and some of the better one's already do.

[padillah]

Well, with Brennan being Charismatic would you want him to start with an already amazing UU?

I forget the exact points for promos but I think they are 2, 5, 10, 15, etc.

Well, for Celts they would be 2, 4, 7, 11, 15, etc. so after 15 points while a normal civ has 4 promos the celts have 5 (and the free Gur I). This is going to make getting West Point easier as well as some other wonder I can't remember.

It may make getting Great Generals that much easier.

Also, don't discount Spiritual starting with Mysticism. This guy could nab every religion he wanted with little or no problem and still field a relitivly good army.

I don't think this civs strengths come from what it IS, but rather what it can be.

Tom P.

[Azuarc]

2, 5, 10, 17, 28 iirc
which becomes
2, 4, 8, 13, 21

so not quite.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Azuarc
2, 5, 10, 17, 28 iirc
which becomes
2, 4, 8, 13, 21

so not quite.

Well, the numbers were wrong (thanks for that) but the math is still right: after 21 points Celts will have 5 promos (and Gur I) while other civs will have 4 ( and no freebie as the case may be).

Tom P.