AU 206: Gallic Glory - Stories and Strategy Tips

[Arrian]

Dominae,

It should be the second thing you mentioned. In CivII, when you destroyed a civ early, they respawned as a totally different civ, often on another continent.

In CivIII, for whatever reason, the respawned civ is the same, and they remember you and still have contact with you. Bizarre.

I had a game once where I tried an early rush (this was back on Regent, maybe even Warlord) and succeded in nailing Babylon. Yet, they lived! But I couldn't find them, and they wouldn't make peace. 20 turns later a stack of bowmen showed up (given free by the respawn) and whooped my ass. The civ had actually gotten STRONGER by repopping.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Arrian
The civ had actually gotten STRONGER by repopping.

India got a tech lead on me under 30 turns after I razed their capital and took all their free goodies. Sigh.


Dominae

[Arrian]

Gotta love Emperor, huh?



Another thing I forgot to mention: I had some trading luck. After I beat up India the first time, I got contact with Rome. I established an embassy and then called them up to chat. I discovered, much to my surprise, than they had built up over 120 gold and didn't have alphabet or pottery. I traded them those two for all their gold. I later gave them Mysticism or something equally unimportant for 55 more gold and a world map. Poor, nice, accomodating Caesar.

-Arrian

[Artifex]

One thing I have noticed about the gallic swordsmen and ancient units in general is that they are rendered much less useful on high levels like emperor. I play emperor and this units window of oppurtunity is miniscule before the AI reaches feudalism and fortifies its cities with tons of pikemen.

On high levels the AI will reach feaudalism lightning quick. Once feudalism is reached any AI with any sort of decent power or land will render this unit useless, pretty much.

The point is the window to use the GS on emperor level for me at least is always so small I am lucky to conquer one little civ and secure maybe 1/3rd of the continent with it (standard map large landmass).

Then I am basically looking at a couple of real powerful neighbors and I have a useless army I might as well disband. Sorry but Swordsmen going up against 2-3 fortified pikemen in cities get slaughtered. By the time oen civ gets feaudalism (usually frighteningly quick) then trades it to every other civ the same turn..your army goes from being powerful to a joke.

So this unit would be powerful on lower levels when your oponents don't gain techs lightning quick and reach feudalism in no time at all.

On emperor it is weak, by the time you get a good force of them (they aren't cheap) and are ready to go on a spree..opps the ai gets feaudalism. Game over.

Never forget how quickly the AI gains and trades techs on emperor....they get feudalism very fast.

Anyone else see this?

[Arrian]

I was toying with an idea as I was trying to fall asleep last night... and I'd like to know what you guys think.

The only scientific civ I know is Persia. They have 2 cities at this point. They are behind me in tech, as I am on the cusp of the Medieval Age.

I know that there is something like a 90% chance that they would get Monotheism free upon entering that age. I, meanwhile wish to research feudalism so my next leader may rush Sun Tzu. But I'm vaguely concerned about America "over there" builing the Sistine - so I want Monotheism quickly too.

What if I gift Persia the techs needed to get to the middle ages, and then try to extort Monotheism? Do you think it would work? Or, after two wars with me and the high price of that tech, would they just go out fighting and refuse to fork it over?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Artifex,

Yeah, that's a problem on Emp.

The only solution I see is to try targetted archer strikes to prevent as many neighbors as possible from hooking up iron. No iron, and feudalism is useless.

I know it isn't an easy thing to do by any means, but it's the only thing I can think of.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Arrian, re: giving techs to Persia, it depends. Is Persia weak? If so, beat them down real small, gift them the techs, then extort Monotheism (your original plan). If you're not going to deal with Persia fast, though, I would recommend against ushering them into the second age.

Artifex, I disagree with your point. I'm playing Emperor and I think my Gallics will be plenty useful. My AAR will tell. You can attribute this to my lucky start, but the fact is that early units are still useful on Emperor. In the 'Son of SVC' AU, most people played Emperor and had to use Legions to fight their way up the tech tree (it's a metaphor, if you know what I mean - Ani reference). Anyway, in general, it is not the case that mid-early UUs get the shaft at Emperor because the AI is so quick. And if your nearest neighbor is overly powerful, that's the nature of the game; you cannot expect your UU to run over the opposition every single game (unless you're play the Germans...that's different).


Dominae

[Arrian]

Dominae,

As my (rather long-winded, I admit) earlier post explained, the Persians have 2 cities. That qualifies as weak, I think. At the very least, I figure I can renogotiate a peace treaty and get the tech on the cheap.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to play any more until Sunday, since I'll be away for the weekend.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

I didn't have nearly Dominae's luck with archers. I actually went with a very early archer rush strategy trying to take out China instead of my usual granary-REX strategy, but China had good luck with promotions when my archers failed to kill their spearmen and it was my third war with China before I could accomplish anything more than razing a city too small to survive (per war) and a bit of extortion. (My losses were simply too high for my attacks to continue.) In the end, I did take Beijing and extort a couple cities, albeit cities far enough away for corruption to be a big deal. That also bought me some room to expand.

I researched most of the way to Pottery and then ended up trading for the rest of it plus ten gold. Next, I researched Mysticism at maximum rate before settling back going for Polytheism and Monarchy on the 40-turn plan. That left me with enough gold to upgrade 15 of a little over 25 vet warriors I'd built. (I also had an unconnected city in the jungle that had a barracks and could keep building vet warriors.) Unfortunately, Rome was the only one of my three significant rivals that hadn't gotten Monarchy yet, so I couldn't trade it for nearly as much as I'd hoped for.

With Monarchy in place and Iron connected a turn later (I got the supply along the former Chinese border), it was time to do some damage with GS's. I sent my archer force with a spearman to deal with China's cities on the north of the continent and used GS's to take their capital. I then had a brief war with Persia to take a city they'd founded near the Chinese iron and one other city before making peace to acquire Literature so I could build the Great Library with a newly acquired leader. (GS's are fantastic against immortals!)

Next, it was India's turn. I switched to Republic when I got it from the Great Library, and war weariness started causing problems before I could finish them off, but they're down to three cities. And my Gallic Swordsman force is up to 38 after focusing my production on them for an entire GA. (I even have a handful of warriors left.)

I think it's time to gamble on an Arrian Deception attempt in an effort to take out Persia before they get Feudalism (or at least before they can do much upgrading with it). My war with India only lasted halfway through the peace treaty with Persia, and I really don't want to give them extra time. Of course that does mean I'll have to make heavy use of suicide galleys trying to meet the other continent so I can make use of the Great Library (making sure not to trade contact with the civs on my own continent, of course), but once I capture Persia's Great Lighthouse, that should be at least a little easier.

My preliminary analysis of Gallic Swordsmen is that they are definitely worth using. Their speed makes for quicker wars and rapid movement from one front to another, and their ability to retreat makes their survivability a good bit better when they lose. And after my archer campaigns in the early game, having enough vet warriors just for my initial upgrade would have been a problem with conventional swordsmen, but GS's give a lot more mileage out of each warrior upgraded. (Not to mention the effect larger numbers of conventional swordsmen - and the warriors to upgrade to them - would have had on my budget.) I think given the choices available, 50 is the right cost for them; drop it to 40 and they'd be too overpowering when used correctly. (If only the cost were changed, I'd have more than 50 of the things ready to rampage over the rest of the continent at this point, albeit at the expense of completely ignoring marketplaces and libraries thus far.)

Here's the southern part of my empire in 190 AD.

Nathan

[Dominae]

I would like to support one of Nathan's comments: the Gallic is well-priced at 50 Shields, because any lower and it would be a no-brainer to just put all cities on Gallics until the continent is secure. They're the best unit of the era in terms of stats, which means they trounce the AI in open combat. At 50 Shields, however, they force the player to seriously commit to using them, at the expense of other projects. Any lower and it would quickly become obvious that a NIC-type game is all that's required.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

They trounce conventional AI units in open combat. Hoplites, Numidians, or Legionaries could be a whole different ball game. My plans for Rome involve large-scale horseman-to-knight upgrades (once I take a horse city from Persia), using knights against legionaries and my surviving Gallic Swordsmen against lesser units. Edit: If things work out right, I may try to use a leader to rush Leo's before doing the knight upgrades, though.

[Arrian]

Nathan,

Good work. Especially in light of poor luck with your archers. 38! GS's, huh? Wow. I used a good chunk of my GA to get marketplaces & libraries down in my core cities, so my troop strength is lower. Is Persia your next target? Or are you saving everything you've got for Rome, and mop-up later?

Damn, your screenshot gave some geography away (I see brown in the SE). Luckily, I will most likely have forgotten all about that by Sunday, when I can play again.

Dominae,

At 50 Shields, however, they force the player to seriously commit to using them, at the expense of other projects.

Seriously. Also, losses are excruciatingly painful. When you lose a unit worth 50 shields to a regular archer (GS attacking), it hurts. I'm used to campaigns as Japan or China using hordes of horsemen, where losses are somewhat higher, but sooooo much easier to replace. I still prefer those civs to the Celts.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
They trounce conventional AI units in open combat. Hoplites, Numidians, or Legionaries could be a whole different ball game.

By "open combat", I mean non-siege combat. In my experience, defeating an AI civ involves routing its standing army. Once they go into "defense mode", you've won the war. All you need to do is amass sufficient units at each city to overcome the standard number of defenders (typically 2 plus an Archer/Catapult, more in a capital or Wonder city).

I believe this still applies to the units you mentioned. A human player can run circles around 3-defense units (sometimes literally), waiting for the right moment to attack with minimal losses. Gallics have almost a 50% chance of defeating these units in clear terrain. Add in the retreat ability and the AI's poor tactics, and even those scary UUs fall pretty quickly. So I think I'm justified in saying that the Gallic trounces all AI units in open combat.

And this is why I think the cost is balanced at 50 Shields.


Dominae

[BigDork]

Hi everybody...

It was definatly not a good start for me. I started out making a few warriors and sending them off to explore. I popped a few huts but nothing too good. I did get Pottery.

I was focusing on getting as many cities out there as possible while still maintaining a usable army. I had no intentions of an early war before the GS but still wanted to not appear too weak. Well that didn't work.

First Mao demands some money and a tech from me. I didn't think much of it. I figured he was bluffing. Nope. So now I'm at war with China. A few turns later Julius wants some gold from me. Whatever, he's kinda far away, he won't declare war. Wrong. Next turn China talks peace-loving Ghandi into the war on his side. WtF? This wasn't the Ghandi I learned about in school.

So anyway I'm fighting three civs all before 1000BC. I'm now falling far behind in tech. I've lost two cities to the Chinese. I'm managing to hold off the Indians in the south. Mao keeps sending in archers one or two at a time so it's not too hard to fend him off but still a pain. Rome has only made one apperance so far but thanks to the RNG I almost lost my capital. I did manage to grab one iron so now I'm building some GS. But I'm more focused on spearman for defense. I tried to attack with a few archers and a few GS on different occasions but all my attempts at an offensive have been thwarted. Friggin' AI. And the worst they will take peace but are asking for a lot for it. Not worth it yet. If I lose one or two more cities I may have no choice.

And through all of this the stupid Greeks(or is it Persians) are grabbing up unused land left and right. They aren't in the war so they are focusing on building up their empire. Not a good start at all. I got fed up and switched to a different game. I'm finishing up my second Regent game. That's going a lot better I'm not winning but I'm not getting stomped either.

I plan on playing some more tomorrow. I hope to turn this around somehow. And in the end Mao will pay. Maybe not for 1500 years but he will pay.

BigD

[alexman]

Let me just add my vote to keep the Gallic Swordsman as it is, and here's the reason:

A Veteran Gallic Swordsman attacking a fortified regular spearman wins 66% of the time, and retreats 18% of the time. The expected loss of shields is 0.16*50=8.

A Veteran Swordsman attacking a fortified regular spearman wins 70% of the time. The expected loss of shields is 0.3*30=9

So on average, you lose more shields by attacking with regular swordsmen than you do with Gallic Swordsmen, even if the latter cost 50 shields compared to 30!

What about 3-defense units? Same story. GS against fortified hoplite wins 54% of the time and retreats 24% of the time, for an expected 11 shield loss. Swordsmen win 58% of the time for an expected 12.6 shield loss.

I am amazed at the good job Firaxis has done balancing most of their units.