Swords on the attack

[alexman]

Here's the situation. You need your neighbor's land ASAP. You have iron and no horses, and a choice between Japan and the Celts. The number and size of your cities is typical for the mid-Ancient Age. What approach do you think gives you the best chance to succeed?

Keep in mind:
Warrior cost = 10 shields
Swordsman cost = 30 shields
Gallic Swordsman cost = 50 shields
Warrior->Sword upgrade = 40 gold
Warrior->Gallic upgrade = 80 gold

Please comment on your answer.

I pose this question because in the AU mod thread we have debating whether the Gallic Swordsman unit is balanced. Are the Celts actually at a disadvantage with such an expensive UU? Would lowering its cost to 40 make a warrior upgrade too poweful? Since the Gallic Swordsman is so different from the regular Swordsman, perhaps it would make sense to remove the former from the upgrade path and allow Celts to build both? If the main way to take advantage of this UU is by upgrading warriors, is the AI (that tries to build it from scratch) at a disadvantage? It all depends on how the unit is used by the experts, compared to Swordsmen.

[The Mad Monk]

I'm no expert, but I'll take the swordsman.

[Arrian]

Alexman,

Tough call. As you know, I like horsemen quite a bit, and usually do a combination of a warrior -> sword upgrade and a chariot -> horse upgrade. Perhaps 10 swords and 15-20 horses.

Thing is, with the GS, you have to drop the horses, but in this situation, you don't have horses anyway.

However, if horses are within relatively easy reach (neighbor has them), I'd probably rather take the standard swordsman so I a) won't blow my GA unecessarily early and b) can still afford a chariot -> horse upgrade. If the horses are NOT within easy reach, gimme the GS. I've had successful games as the Celts. If you can get into Monarchy and have a FP down (for the "core & a half") prior to launching your attack, you should do well. GS's are hardcore little units, even if they're expensive.

After some thought, I think 40 shields is probably too cheap for GSs. 50 is a tad too much. But there isn't anything inbetween.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Keep the Gallic at 50 Shields, it's way to powerful already. Never mess with a unit's cost; Firaxis knows best.

Ok, just kidding!

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 availalbe Gallic. No need to reduce the cost to 40.


Dominae

[Fosse]

I voted for the swords upgrade. 80 gold per unit really adds up.

I'm really against messing with the upgrade path. Giving the celts that kind of flexibility seems unfair to the rest of the civs. In the above scenario, if the upgrrade chain were broken, then by the late ancient age you could have churned out a decent number of GS, already had a swordsman offensive war, and now be in Republic and ready for GS offensive war.

I agree that the impossible is the best: 45 shields. Right now I'm voting to leave the GS as is, under the "change as little as possible" AU clause.

Unless we evaluate ALL the UUs' costs and stats, that is.

[Catt]

I voted upgrade to swords. But I might change my vote depending on who my neighbor is . If we're mid-ancient age, then I presume no one has pikes -- swords against spears is sufficient, IMHO.

But is my neighbor Carthage (to a lesser degree Greece)? I would probably change my vote to upgrade to GS -- the retreat might be a net positive, off-setting the cost of the GS.

I really haven't played the Celts enough to say with any conviction -- but in the few games I have played, I haven't had a sense of either "way overpriced" or "no problem whatsoever." The one bit I have taken away is that once the decision to go with a GS attack is made, it seems to make sense to keep the attack going until the continent is clear or the unit is severly outmatched by counter-forces. Building (or upgrading) the little devils and then not sending them into battle at nearly every opportunity is unacceptable

Catt

[Arrian]

Catt,

You're right about that last part. The GS is a continent-clearer, and should be used that way. Monarchy, constant/near-constant war until it's all yours. Lots of leaders (hopefully).

-Arrian

[Dominae]

I voted for the Gallic upgrade. Sure, you get a bunch more Swordsmen, but in general 2-movement is too good to pass up.


Dominae

[DaveMcW]

IMO, the purpose of swordmen is to take out a single neighbor (or trim back 2 neighbors) to set up the continent-clearing knight or cavalry invasion. Gallics are much too inefficient for this task.

Note that this applies to Emperor/Deity. On lower difficulties you can out-produce your enemies so the limiting factor is how fast your units move.

[BRC]

Originally posted by Dominae
Keep the Gallic at 50 Shields, it's way to powerful already. Never mess with a unit's cost; Firaxis knows best.

Ok, just kidding!

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 availalbe Gallic. No need to reduce the cost to 40.


Dominae

Sorry Dom, but I really don't think that it would be right to remove it from the upgrade path. It would be way wrong to allow the Celts to build swordsmen. Rome and Persia can't build 'em. Here's my reasoning why the cost should be dropped:

The Mounted Warrior. With 3.1.2, this guy is an animal. The 2 movement points will basically keep him on the attack in every battle. Well, same with the Gallic. 20 shields for an extra defense point is ludacris, especially when you factor in how much it'll be used. Now, I don't really think that Firaxis screwed this up, but this would be the most logical change. However, if we change this, then we should look at every UU. That's not something that I think that we should do with this mod. I like stock!!

[player1]

I would just give cost of 40, keep old upgrade path, and maybe change cost of several other UUs too (Keshik & Conq. to 50shields).

[Dominae]

BRC, I like stock too! If you check my comments in the AU PTW mod thread, you'll see we're agreeing on this. My proposal is that, if a change is required, granting the Celts Swordsmen seems like the best option.

But then DaveMcW has a good point. With Swordsmen around, would Gallics be even considered? I mean, you want your civs to use their UUs! Hmm...


Dominae

[Dominae]

I'm slowly being convinced that player1's suggestion is good (if anyone is annoyed by sudden changes of opinion, please check the quote at the bottom of my posts).


Dominae

[metalhead]

I agree that the Celts should be able to build regular swordsmen in addition to Gallics. If you have fairly unproductive starting terrain, it is pretty much impossible to mount any significant counter attack if you are invaded, as your enemy is most likely coming at you with swordsmen or their UU equivalent. Striking back at this invasion force with archers is impractical, and if your cities are only producing 5-6 shields, you're pretty much toast if you don't have the means to build a sufficient force of Gallics.

The impracticality of building a 50 shield unit in the Ancient Age is simply too much. Perhaps to counteract this, the Celts could have regular swordsmen available to them as well, but at a 40 shield cost. This would take away some of their disadvantage of the expensive GS, while not completely removing the strategic decisions required to navigate the Celts through the Ancient Age.

As it is now, I would stay away from the Celts - the costs involved in building or upgrading are just too prohibitive. Amassing gold for a mass upgrade to regular swordsmen with Japan is the way to go.

[BRC]

Originally posted by player1
I would just give cost of 40, keep old upgrade path, and maybe change cost of several other UUs too (Keshik & Conq. to 50shields).

I don't know if we should go through all the UU's, but I do like this idea. One thing that I would like to see out of this game is a little stronger advantage for a civs UU. Some (Keshik, Conq, Man O' War) need a little help.