On the (un?)usefullness of the Gallic Swordsman

[metalhead]

A couple comments regarding the discussion that has sprung up.

First, I think you have to look at more than just pure cost when you analyze Cavalry/Muskets. To relate it to the original post, the reason 50 shields is so prohibitive is because, in the ancient era, you lack the productivity to use Gallic Swordsmen to their full potential - you simply can't build enough of the quickly enough.

By the time you are getting Cavalry, a 20 shield increase in cost is probably a 1-3 turn increase in build time. In the ancient era, it is more like a 4-10 turn increase. Paying all of those extra turns in the ancient era for an extra movement point is too much. By the time you have MT, you are productive enough so that the extra 20 shield cost is almost negligible.

It would appear that I am one of the few who thinks muskets are suitable defenders against Cavalry. When weighing the stats, you have to take into account the fact that most cities are over size 6, which puts a defending musket at a slight advantage, even in a city on open terrain. I can tell you from personal experience that defeating an opponent that is well-fortified with musketmen using Cavalry is NOT easy, and you really need to bring some heat.

This makes the Siphai a very good UU. His 8 attack gives you a good offensive edge on all but the most heavily fortified musketmen. Plus, the 2 extra attack will make your Siphai's much better at getting through those Riflemen. All at a time when increased cost isn't much of a deal. A MUCH better UU than the Gallic Swordsman.

Korn, I just think 40 shields is too much for an ancient unit. I think a 2/2/2, maybe that doesn't require Iron, and is 30 shields would be better.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by korn469
chariot vs. spearman: same cost, spearman has a 2:1 advantage

horseman vs. pikeman: same cost, pikeman has a 1.5:1 advantage

knight vs. musketman: musketman has a 7:6 cost advantage, 1:1

These combat situations rarely happen in my games. I've never been attacked by a Chariot, and I've never launched my Chariots at Spearmen. Horsemen sometimes take out the odd Pikeman, but that's only a last resort. Knights versus Musketman is the most common occurence, but even then it's rare (although I do concede could be a very real possibility if someone beelined for Gunpowder).

I have difficulty believing that the game designers thought that these were the standard "match-ups". In playtesting it must have been obvious that Spearmen are most often defending against Horsemen or Knights.

The fact that offensive capability finally outmatches defensive capability in the late Industrial age (Tanks versus Infantry) is simply explained by the fact that you've lumped the right units together.

As for the Sipahi debate, the added cost is annoying, but an attack rating of 8, coupled with retreat, means that these guys will reliably conduct offensives against Infantry. Cavalry versus Infantry is possible, but certainly difficult. Not so with Sipahi.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

The reason cavalry trump musketmen is that cavalry can often retreat if they're losing, while musketmen can't. Bring in enough cavalry for local superiority, take the city, and then let more cavalry take over the offensive while the wounded from the first attack rest. I've launched such offensives in a great many games, and while I don't especially like seeing musketmen to resist my cavalry hoardes, they certainly don't scare me.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

These combat situations rarely happen in my games. I've never been attacked by a Chariot, and I've never launched my Chariots at Spearmen. Horsemen sometimes take out the odd Pikeman, but that's only a last resort. Knights versus Musketman is the most common occurence, but even then it's rare (although I do concede could be a very real possibility if someone beelined for Gunpowder).

They rarely happen because people (and AIs) know better. When a defender of equal cost class to your mounted attacker shows up, you generally wait for the next technological advantage to attack again unless you're willing to take pretty heavy (or, in the early cases, truly horrible) losses.

As for the Sipahi debate, the added cost is annoying, but an attack rating of 8, coupled with retreat, means that these guys will reliably conduct offensives against Infantry. Cavalry versus Infantry is possible, but certainly difficult. Not so with Sipahi.

That would be a bloody, expensive proposition for both sides. I really prefer not to send cavalry against riflemen, and sipahi against infantry would be worse. But yes, it should be doable if you really want to take on an infantry-armed opponent and you have sufficient production to afford the losses. (And Sipahi would definitely be useful against an enemy infantry attack, especially on open terrain.)

Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
They rarely happen because people (and AIs) know better.

Agreed. But I still don't think it's fair to claim that "defenders have the advantage until Tanks"; the way the game plays, this simply isn't true. The only time that I actually feel this is the case is with Infantry (against Cavalry).

Then again, maybe my judgement is clouded from being a bloodthirsty Mongol warmonger ever since PTW was released...

In AU 107, I did some Cavalry versus Infantry offensive, and it wasn't too too bloody. With some good Artillery support, I think Sipahi have a shot at cracking any Infantry defense, without too many losses. I'll get back to you when I try it out.


Dominae

[Arrian]

All I'm saying is that this thing is Cavalry on steroids, and Cav is already a very powerful unit.

Granted, in order to get this juiced up Cavalry unit, one must play the Turks. If I'm not mistaken, they have the same trait combo as the Zulu (Exp/Mil). Personally, I view traits as more important than UUs, particularly so if the UU comes late. Therefore, perhaps the unit isn't really overpowered, when one views the Civ in question as a whole.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Actually, the Sipahi is the Ottoman UU, and the Ottoman traits are Scientific and Industrious (like the Persians). Not a bad little civ, I'd say.


Dominae

[korn469]

Arrian

the turks iirc are sci/ind which is the same set of traits as the Persians

but i still disagree with everyone that the Siphai is cavalry on steriods, i'll give you that it has been hitting the gym alot lately but it's not on the juice
the Siphai is better than cavalry, but 5 Siphais don't destroy the world while 6 cavalry do nothing, as far as UUs go, war chariots, mounted warriors, immortals, Ansar Warriors, and keskiks give you a bigger attack advantage over the normal version of the units than Siphais do...but i don't think that any of the other normal units have as much of advantage over the defensive units of the time as cavalry does over musketmen