Apolyton University Mod (PTW version)

[player1]

Call it "the dark age".

In same way as Cavarly is sometimes bad for Samurai, or Med. Inf for Legions.

[Mazarin]

not that bad actually because the speed of the units remains. I wouldn't mind giving a defense point for an attack point, but the difference in speed really hurts the SODs you form during ancient age: would you combine swordsmen and horsemen in a SOD...or knights and MI?

[player1]

Wouldn't a little cheaper cost of 40 shields counterbalance that a little?

[Mazarin]

yes, it would...but I think, the AU-mod should try to fix things that don't make sense and not to counterbalance them. I do think that the GS is too expensive compared to many other UUs -such as immortals/MWs or ansar warriors (+1 movement and +1 attack for 10shields), but I'd start with the upgrade path that is really nonsense rather that with the costs. If they aren't balanced by then, the reduction should be considered,

[Fosse]

Originally posted by alexman
The new upgrade path makes warrior upgrades to GS impossible, which places the Celts at a great disadvantage compared to before. The reduced cost would compensate for that disadvantage. Their extended shelf-life is largely a cosmetic issue, since a 3-attack unit is largely useless against pikemen and musketmen. Ask the Spanish what they think about their 3-2 moblile UU that appears in the middle ages!

Actually, I didn't think of this, but it's a good point. I still don't favor breaking the upgrade path though.

Though I still maintain that a 3.2.2. unit is useful against pikemen, and en masse against muskets due to the retreat ability, I have to agree that building this force from scratch would pose a problem.

I do think, though, that giving the Celts an ability to build a standard AND unique unit is an unfair advantage. Nobody else gets to build both, why should they? It allows for a swordsman battle, saving the GS for a time when a GA is more acceptable. Since the GS could conceivably win in the industrial age against 1 HP units, that's too powerful.

I'm not in favor at all of chaning the upgrade path.

I would be in favor of lowering the cost by ten, but I'd like to propose that AU instead evaluate the cost of ALL the UUs, and decide which PTW civs should have standard/lower cost UUs and which Vanilla civs should have more or less expensive ones. The GS decision would come naturally from such a discussion.

Possible choices are:
-Touch nothing... certainly viable under AU goals.
-make all UUs cost what the unit they replace costs... back to Vanilla philosohpy.
-apply the curve to everything... works with PTW philosophy.
-Unit by unit. Decide for each and every 24 civs what their UU should cost, and what it's stats should be... this is the route I am most in favor of.


For the record... I think that the musketeer change is perfect, and we'd be the poorer for changing it back. It keeps the spirit of the original, and makes it more strategically viable for both the AI and human to build.

[alexman]

Please vote and comment in the poll about sword units.

[Dominae]

Here's the solution I posted in that thread. Nothing original, but it's what I would be most happy with, if a change had to me made.

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 Gallic. No need to reduce the cost to 40.


Dominae

[BRC]

Gotcha Dom. I wasn't reading closely enough.

Ok. Here's my thoughts, in order.

1) Do nothing.
2) Lower the cost by 10. If nothing else, it's a UU and should be better than the original swordsman.
3) Reevaluate all the UU's and "price" them.

[Fosse]

Option 3! Option 3!

[nbarclay]

It seems to me that the Gallic Swordsman is a unique case. All of the UUs in the original Civ 3 cost the same as the unit they replaced but were superior in some respect or another. Thus, while in some cases, the special abilities were viewed as essentially useless, none of the original UUs left a feeling of, "I wish I had the regular unit instead of the UU."

PtW UUs range farther afield. Some have a combination of advantages and disadvantages, and come at a reduced price to reflect that fact. Others have a greater margin of advantage than UUs in the stock game did, but come at a higher price. That creates a real potential for UUs that are in fact viewed as inferior to the standard units.

The question is, of those, are there any besides the Gallic Swordsman that faces actual accusations of being an inferior value to the unit it replaces? Not accusations of failing to provide a significant advantage, but accusations that a player might be better off with no UU at all? The question of whether three Gallic Swordsmen are really better than five conventional swordsmen, or even as good, poses a very serious specter that the Gallic Swordsman actually does make the player worse off. (And from strictly an upgrade gold perspective, the situation is worse: the same gold that can upgrade 40 warriors to conventional swordsmen can only upgrade 20 to Gallics.)

I wouldn't be against reevaluating and, where appropriate, rebalancing all UUs. But I don't buy the argument that rebalancing the Gallic Swordsman only makes sense in light of a more massive reevaluation effort.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

To reiterate my objections in the other thread, removing Gallics from the warrior upgrade path seriously undercuts the ability to build them in adequate numbers to make good use of them. I'll grant that the "Save cash and upgrade warriors to Gallic Swordsmen" idea is in a distinct minority. But people who hold that view are almost certainly disproportionately likely to choose the Celts in a non-random game. And seriously disrupting the value of the Gallic Swordsman for that group does not seem like a good thing for the AU mod to do. Further, at best, such an approach leaves the Gallic Swordsman as a marginalized UU that costs too much compared with its capabilities for people to use it much.

[Jaybe]

Obviously, it is time for an AU game where you play the Celts. I am sure that will "clarify" the issue of the GS. THEN you can decide whether to change the unit.

[player1]

Just be aware that the game in which your opponents have no Iron or Horses while you have GS can skew your reasoning.

Since in such scenario, SG is supreme, even with cost of 50.

P.S.
Better be a game with Romans, Persians and Iroques as your main opponents.

[player1]

Since 1.21f patch is out here is one interesting link:
civ3x.bix history

[Panag]

Originally posted by player1
Since 1.21f patch is out here is one interesting link:
civ3x.bix history

hi ,

great stuff , thanks for the link

have a nice day