Swords on the attack

[CerberusIV]

I play using 40 shield GS and am fairly happy with that. I really have a major problem with a 50 shield GS upgrading to 40 shield med. inf. However they can be very strong (as a UU should be IMHO).

One change I have made was to move berserks from being based on longbowmen to based on med. inf. and added iron as a required resource (for the axes ). I wondered if something similar would work for the GS?

Is there merit in allowing the Celts ordinary swordsmen and switching the GS to substitute for horsemen instead? After all the Japanese get a knight unit that doesn't require horses. The GS would then be an upgrade from chariots and upgrade in turn to knights.

I haven't tried this yet but it seems feasible.

[BRC]

I hate the idea of removing a HP. Don't do it.



I can see why some may think that the Gallic will be a bit too powerful at 40 shields, however, look to follow up wars. Once the Medieval Age hits, wars of conquest will be much harder. Opposing Medieval Infantry, which the AI will bring out early, will still be able to make 3 moves on a good road network. The ideal way to attack would be with Knights. Most of us get our Knights through Horseman upgrades. If the Celts want to build Gallics, they will just have to take the risk of not having as many Knights around later. It's a tradeoff that I think deserves to be in the game.

[nbarclay]

Gallics and knights could work together very nicely, with knights going after pikemen (if any) and Gallics going after spearmen who haven't been upgraded yet. So I don't think Celts lose a lot from their UU's being unable to upgrade to knights.

[BRC]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Gallics and knights could work together very nicely, with knights going after pikemen (if any) and Gallics going after spearmen who haven't been upgraded yet. So I don't think Celts lose a lot from their UU's being unable to upgrade to knights.

I agree that they would work together ok. Not as well, but still ok. But what about Cavs? That's when you'd feel the pinch.

[nbarclay]

Granted, Gallics have little role in the era of cavalry. They're too slow to keep up and too weak to operate independently. (Although Gallics might still be useful to pick off units outside cities after cavalry punch their way in.) The inability to upgrade to cavalry is a big issue if a player does a lot of fighting in the late ancient and early medieval eras but little afterward, because there could be a lot of obsolete Gallics left. But if a player does a lot of medieval fighting, new-build knights would replace lost Gallics in the force mix over time, leaving few Gallics alive when the time for a cavalry upgrade comes. In other words, the issue is big in some situations and minor in others.

Nathan

[player1]

You pay 20gp and from attack 1 Chariot (20shields), you gain attack 3 Mounted Warrior.

For Galic Sw. you would need to pay 60gp, if price is changed to 40 (and you would need 10shields Warrior).

20shields+20gp vs 10shields and +60gp sounds like good balance.

You basicly pay 40gp for those extra 10 shileds you don't need to build.

[BRC]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Granted, Gallics have little role in the era of cavalry. They're too slow to keep up and too weak to operate independently. (Although Gallics might still be useful to pick off units outside cities after cavalry punch their way in.) The inability to upgrade to cavalry is a big issue if a player does a lot of fighting in the late ancient and early medieval eras but little afterward, because there could be a lot of obsolete Gallics left. But if a player does a lot of medieval fighting, new-build knights would replace lost Gallics in the force mix over time, leaving few Gallics alive when the time for a cavalry upgrade comes. In other words, the issue is big in some situations and minor in others.

Nathan

I guess it depends on playstyle. I like to secure my continent with Knights and Cavs. Some choose not to, others do it earlier.

[nbarclay]

It definitely does depend on playstyle, but the interaction between playstyle and UUs is more complex. A good ancient UU argues for engaging in more early conquest (perhaps in the late ancient era) than a player would normally consider optimal, and if I had a bunch of Gallics I wanted to use up, I'd probably be more inclined to build (or upgrade) knights than I would be otherwise once they become available.

[BRC]

Originally posted by nbarclay
It definitely does depend on playstyle, but the interaction between playstyle and UUs is more complex. A good ancient UU argues for engaging in more early conquest (perhaps in the late ancient era) than a player would normally consider optimal, and if I had a bunch of Gallics I wanted to use up, I'd probably be more inclined to build (or upgrade) knights than I would be otherwise once they become available.

I usually choose my civ based on what style of game I will be playing. I forget that many here choose their style based on what civ they randomly draw.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by BRC

I usually choose my civ based on what style of game I will be playing. I forget that many here choose their style based on what civ they randomly draw.

Or are assigned in the latest AU game.

[BRC]

Originally posted by nbarclay


Or are assigned in the latest AU game.

I don't even know why I try to argue with you.
Good point though!

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Or are assigned in the latest AU game.

This is Nathan's way of saying he wants to play the Celts in the next AU...



Nathan, about the 1HP loss, I understood your point, and countered by saying that I'm not sure the unit is less efficient than its more expensive cousin (I gave my reasons, so I'll avoid repeating them). Not really that important anyway, since no one likes the idea but me.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Or at least that I'm intrigued with the possibility of experimenting with the modifications to the UU. (I haven't played the Celts thus far because I'm not enough of a warmonger to love the Religious/Militaristic the way some do and haven't found the UU particularly intriguing under the standard rules.)

I fail to see how promotions make the kind of difference you attribute to them when comparing the standard Gallic with a cost-40 variant with one less hit point. Even at elite, four 5-HP units would be only equal to five 4-HP units in total hit points, and I suspect that the fewer, stronger units would survive better. (Or are you assuming that units that start with fewer hit points would still go to five eventually? Even if that were, true, which I'm pretty sure it's not, the units with fewer hit points would have to get one promotion more before they would have a chance to generate leaders.)

Nathan

[Fosse]

The hitpoint idea... Sorry Dom, looks like you'll be alone on it. It just feels wrong to me.

And I'll stress again that I think breaking the upgrade path is a mistake, because I haven't done that since the last time I posted.

As for the options... I'm most happy with 40 cost, swords not allowed.... IF we change it at all.

Let's try to design an AU game, all civs have dubious or debated UUs (America, Celts, Korea, England, Spain, Persia, Iroquois, Scandanavia... who else?), and we can attempt to alter the UUs to be better or more balanced.

If we learn that lethal keshiks and 40 cost Gallics are too powerful, then we don't make the changes. If the changes add to the fun, usefullness or whatever then we can consider making them permanant.

[nbarclay]

Here's something to think about. Compared with an archer, a swordsman costs 50% more, has 50% more attack, and has 100% more defense. Comapared with a horseman, a Gallic Swordsman has the same advantages in attack and defense but costs 66% more. For a conventional unit, that might be considered reasonable. But for a UU, where you're supposed to get some extra capability for free, it seems a bit outrageous.

The more I think about it, the more I think the combination of reducing the cost to 40 and changing the upgrade predecessor from warrior to archer would be the best way to provide appropriate checks and balances. The cost of the unit would be reasonable, but the ability to do upgrades with lots of gold and few shields would be less overpowering.

I'm not quite sure what effect this change would have on early archer rushes. On one hand, players would have a quick, effective upgrade path for whatever archers survive. But on the other, each archer lost in combat would be one less available for upgrade, and players couldn't count on building and upgrading a bunch of cheap warriors afterward to get their Gallic Swordsmen. Overall, I at least hope the balance would tend to be reasonable in that regard.

There are two other catches to changing the upgrade path. (1) AIs might have a little trouble with the fact that they can't upgrade warriors until medieval infantry. (2) Celts who don't have iron would be in a bit of a pinch because they can't upgrade their archers to longbowmen.

In any case, the idea seems worth considering.

Nathan