Swords on the attack

[alexman]

OK, enough people have voted in the poll now, so we can evaluate the Celtic options.

We have four options for the Gallic swordsman (note that when swordsmen are allowed, the GS would have to be removed from the upgrade path):

1. Cost 50, no swordsmen: This is stock PTW. The poll shows that most people prefer using swordsmen over Gallic swordsmen, so the Celts are actually penalized by their UU. Not good, IMHO.
2. Cost 40, no swordsmen: Player 1's suggestion. The cost reduction would probably encourage people to prefer GS over plain swordsmen (which is a good thing for a UU), but I actually think that this cost reduction is too great. The warrior upgrade to gallic swordsmen would be too powerful, but this option is certainly worth considering.
3. Cost 50, swordsmen allowed: According to the poll, most people would still upgrade to swordsmen, so the UU would rarely be used by the Celts. Building gallic swordsmen from scratch would be rare. Not a good option, IMHO.
4. Cost 40, swordsmen allowed: Most players would probably still upgrade to swordsmen, but they would also have the option of building gallic swordsmen from scratch. The lower GS cost would not be exploitable by massive warrior upgrades, but it would not be as prohibitive to build the UU from scratch. An option worth considering, I think.

As you might have guessed, I like options 2 and 4, but I prefer the last option, which has the additional advantage of eliminating the weird upgrade of Gallic swordsmen to Med. Infantry, while still allowing the Celts to build Med. Infantry (GS could upgrade to Guerillas).

[Arrian]

As you might have guessed, I like options 2 and 4, but I prefer the last option, which has the additional advantage of eliminating the weird upgrade of Gallic swordsmen to Med. Infantry, while still allowing the Celts to build Med. Infantry (GS could upgrade to Guerillas).

Which is kinda appropriate, considering that with those wierd pants, the GS already looks like a guerilla.

Option #4 does sound good.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

If it's really between 2 and 4, I prefer 2. We could be creating a monster UU, but weird upgrade paths are not in the flavor of the AU mod.

If you think about it, we would basically have a Mounted Warrior with an extra point of defense for 10 Shields (and different Strategic resources). That sounds okay by me.


Dominae

[alexman]

But the difference is the upgrading. For MW upgrades, you have to build 2/3 of the unit before upgrading. For 40-shield GS upgrades, you would have to build just 1/4 or the unit. Just save cash and you'll roll over everyone.

Also, don't think of it as a weird upgrade path. It's just an extra unit for the Celts.

But I agree that it's a big change, and I see the merrit to option 2. Perhaps some test games with 40-shield Gallic Swordsman are in order.

[Dominae]

What is the upgrade cost from Chariot to Horsemen?

Can we maybe give the Gallic one fewer HP?


Edit: Why am I asking you, I've got the game and the editor right in from of me...

[alexman]

Upgrade cost is 20.
Not sure about the fewer HP. Seems like a big change.

[Dominae]

Yup, that works.

How about: 40 Shield Gallic Swordsmen, 1 fewer HP?


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
Not sure about the fewer HP. Seems like a big change.

Really? We must have different ideas about what constitutes big changes...Giving the Celts Swordsmen seems like a bigger change to me.


Dominae

[alexman]

Reducing HP puts you more at the mercy of the RNG. You get more variance in the results when attacking a weaker unit. I would think a 40-shield unit is too expensive to risk that way.

[Dominae]

That's the point. If the "save the gold, massive upgrade" strategy is too powerful, then those Gallics had better die off faster than normal. With the retreat ability, they will not die as fast as slow units. What's even more, as a Militaristic civ, those Regulars (assuming you upgrade Vets.) will get promoted often enough.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

I like 2 better than 4 as well. I view fast-movers as having only a very limited advantage unless you can build enough of them to have a completely separate striking force comprised entirely of fast-movers. And even at 40 shields, without pre-builds, putting together a big enough force of GS's to build a campaign almost entirely around them would be prohibitively expensive.

I do think option 2 has potential to be a bit overpowering. But I view that as a lesser evil than having a UU that some players regard as being more of a liability as an asset.

But if we do that, we definitely need to keep the rule that GS's upgrade to medieval infantry. Making them available that cheaply and then having them remain available all the way through the medieval era and a bit beyond would be too overpowering.

[nbarclay]

Dominae, you're talking a 25% to 33% reduction in hit points in exchange for a 20% reduction in unit cost. That would actually make GS's less cost-efficient than in the standard rules!

[nbarclay]

Would it be workable to put Gallic Swordsmen on the archer upgrade path instead of the warrior upgrade path in conjunction with reducing the cost? That would force players to invest twice as many shields, although it has the drawback that players could start with an archer rush more efficiently that way.

Edit: The AI might also possibly have some problems due to being unable to upgrade its warriors until medieval infantry. (Human players would be better at planning for that.)

[Dominae]

Nathan, you're right. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but cost-effectiveness is not everything. The fact that a unit gets promoted for free, coupled with the fact that Militaristic civs get higher chances of promotion, sort of tilts the issue away from cost-effectiveness (not to mention the retreat ability). I think the change I'm proposing will force the Celt player to be very careful, instead of just being able to steamroll over opponents with an undercosted unit.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Dominae, you're missing my point. What you're doing is making the unit worse than the standard unit. I'd rather have four 4-HP GS's than five 3-HP ones any day. Four-HP units are more likely to win (a prerequisite for promotions) and less likely to get themselves killed. And minimizing losses tends to be very high on my priority list in battle.

So yes, you succeed in preventing the Celts from steamrolling over everyone, but you do so by (at least in my opinion) actually making their UU worse than it is in the standard rules..

Nathan