New Unit Gripe

Ghengis-Sean · November 5, 2002, 03:10

Okay, I know I'm not the first person to say this, but unit strengths are we out of whack with what they should be. Apparently though PTW isn't going to make this situation any better. Take for example the Gallic Swordsman, a 3/2/2 . Excuse me is that "2" for movement? Now I like the Swordsman unit, i like the Roman Legionary, and I like the Persian Immortal, they're all good, tough units that hold their value well into the middle ages. But giving that really nice swordsman unit an extra movement point? I think this is more than a little unbalancing. Extra movement makes a unit much, much tougher than what it would seem to be on the surface. Take the Iriqouis Mounted Warrior, a sweet unit at 3/1/2, poor defense, but great attack, and because it can retreat from combat it has real survivability. Now compared to other "second wave" early era special units (need that second wave of tech to build, Iron Working or Horseback Riding) the Iriqouis Mounted Warrior doesn't stand out as unbalanced. the Roman Legionairy is a 3/3/1, the immortal a 4/2/1. So the new second wave unit will be a 3/2/2, a good attacker, good defenser, and good movement. Basically Gallic Swordsman should be called "Knights Lite" because lets be honest that's what they are.

vondrack · November 5, 2002, 03:33

Seems like you don't mention the last characteristics of the unit. Its cost. I am still waiting for my copy of PtW, but from what I've read and heard, the Gallic Swordsmen are balanced by being more costly to build. You have tougher units, but less of them.

Anyway, this follows the general approach to UUs - they generally get +1 to one of their A/D/M values...

vmxa1 · November 5, 2002, 03:35

At 50 shields they are an expensive unit for what they are. I think it is too soon to mke the call on these new units,

Jon Shafer · November 5, 2002, 04:12

Praises for other units, like the Berzerk and the Numidian Mercenary, are sung much more than that of the Gallic Swordsman, and both of those have hiked costs as well. The extra cost can be quite a liability when a neighbor shows up on your doorstep with 6 or 8 Horsemen...

Ghengis-Sean · November 5, 2002, 05:37

extra costs-schmosts, with swordsmen, the best tactic is to stockpile warriors, or crank out warriors in a city that isn't connected to Iron. Then, when you get the ability to build swordsmen you simply upgrade. Save your pennies early on or cut your science to the bone to get that quick puch of swordsmen out.

As far as most UU's being a simple +1, this for the most part is true, but extra movement should count as +2, since a unit with extra movement is actually more cost effective. Consider this way, if your Legionairy loses out on an attack, he's dead and that's it your out 30 shields. If a unit with a move of 2 loses out most likely it will retreat, so in the long run a 3/2/2 unit, even if it costs 50 shields is a better investment than a 3/3/1 unit. Survivability aside sheer added striking power should make you nervous. Look how well you can do with the Iriqouis Mounted Warrior, and it only has a defense of 1. Usually where you lose most of your Mounted Warriors is when the enemy sorties out of a city with horsemen and catches those little mounted warriors flat footed. With a defense of 2 Gallic Swordsmen can defend pretty well against horsemen so they don't have the same worries. A sudden upgrade of warriors to Gallic Swordsmen could give you a swarm of 5 or 6 of these bad boys, enough to more than maul a neghboring empire (or two)

What I would like to see (like it will ever happen) is asome sort of mailed cavalry with the exact same stats as the Gallic Warrior. right now you go from Horseman 2/1/2 to Knight 4/3/2, with no in between. Somewhere around, say polytheism, but before the middle ages there should be a decent armoured horseman, even if it's only a 2/2/2.

aliatar · November 5, 2002, 05:49

Quote:

[SIZE=1] What I would like to see (like it will ever happen) is asome sort of mailed cavalry with the exact same stats as the Gallic Warrior. right now you go from Horseman 2/1/2 to Knight 4/3/2, with no in between. Somewhere around, say polytheism, but before the middle ages there should be a decent armoured horseman, even if it's only a 2/2/2.

The closest thing to what you want is the Spanish Conquistador 3/2/2 and treats all terrain as roads. The pitty is that it is expensive and only comes after navigation

TacticalGrace · November 5, 2002, 07:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghengis-Sean
A sudden upgrade of warriors to Gallic Swordsmen could give you a swarm of 5 or 6 of these bad boys, enough to more than maul a neghboring empire (or two)

I thought that it would be impossible to upgrade a warrior to Gallic swordsman? When I play as rome I cannot upgrade warriors - I'm stuck with them.

think about it. In the editor the upgrade to field for the warrior is "Swordsman". not "Gallic Swordsman". Not "Legionairy".

Is there a new feature in PtW allowing mulitiple upgrade possibilites?

Ghengis-Sean · November 5, 2002, 07:27

Hmmm are you playing the 1.29 patch? It fixed all of the upgrade problems, now for example you can go warrior-swordsmen (or Legionairy/Immortal), or Horseman--Knight/Chinese Rider--Cavalry/Cossack without any worries.

Yeah, the best way to build up a horde of Swordsman(and Knight too) is don't. Build up a horde of warriors or Horseman, save your money, cut science. and upgrade your meager band into a city stomping horde. Even better, once you get done maiming a neighbor, demand as much cash as you can from them and then repeat the process

TacticalGrace · November 5, 2002, 07:35

I have got 1.29f. Perhaps I've broken the upgrade path tinkering with the units. (my swordsman upgrades to marine)

Ghengis-Sean · November 5, 2002, 08:36

hmmm...my swordsman upgrades to marine..mmmmm..yeah sounds like you broke the old Unit upgrade path. Don't worry too much though.It's a good trick to try, the cheapo-upgrade-blitz, especially if you have Leonardo's workshop.

metalhead · November 5, 2002, 10:36

Slight problem - it's going to cost you 80 gold per upgrade to go from Warrior-Gallic Swordsman, compared to 40 for Warrior-Sword/Immortal/Legionary. Upgrading a measly 5 warriors will cost 400 gold. Unless you are playing regent or below, you won't even have enough gold to buid a decent army this way before Pikemen show up. Gallic Swordsmen are not the juggernauts they appear to be. That increased cost is a REAL limiting factor.

Catt · November 5, 2002, 11:32

Quote:

Originally posted by metalhead
Gallic Swordsmen are not the juggernauts they appear to be. That increased cost is a REAL limiting factor.

I agree. On the face of it, before the game came out, I believed that a 3.2.2 swordsman would be so powerful as to be unbalancing. Now that the game is out, and I've actually played a bit with the GS, my concerns seem to be unfounded (I acknowledge that my play time has been limited and so my sample size is small). Eighty- gold upgrades are killers, and building 50-shield units from scratch is tough in the ancient age (think about that - you can build the Colossus or you can build 4 swordsmen). I actually found myself wishing I had the option to build 30-shield 3.2.1 units (and I didn't care for losing the ability to build them in favor of Medieval Infantry when Feudalism came along and I finally had enough infrastructure to make 50-shield builds not so daunting).

Catt

TacticalGrace · November 5, 2002, 12:00

next question: in history were gallic swordsmen such "elite" units? Or were they just a bunch of crazy-buggers with big swords?

i.e. is there any historical basis for the celts having an ultra expensive unit?

jshelr · November 5, 2002, 14:38

I'm a bit of a history buff in this area and the answer IMO is no, the celts were never famous swordsmen, nor did they feature some feared national champion that could be the model.

werdhertz · November 5, 2002, 15:32

I agree with the Gallic Swordsman not being as unbalancing as you think, as ive played as the Celts a few times (and the Spanish the rest).

The cost of the GS is VERY high, and i find myself with about 3 or 4. They are very nice units, but cost so much when they are in war im afraid of sending them out because i don`t want them to die

If you want a type of horseback rider between Horseman and Knight, mod it yourself, make a unit graphic, or if you cant, find one around here or civfanatics.com, and put it in-game through the editor and adjust the stats to youre liking.

punkbass2000 · November 5, 2002, 16:29

I think the GS might do well in a combined arms situation. You may only have a few, but combining them with some horsemen eliminates the need for those few spearmen to tag a long, plus you still have '3' attackers when you need them. Just a thought, as I don't actually have this game yet...

ducki · November 5, 2002, 20:10

Damn, I lost my cookie and lost a rather long reply.

In short, it's a good, balanced UU that adds a bit of variety to the normal Military-Religious Ancient Age.

Higher cost for both Shields and Upgrades mean you have a slightly smaller military.
A slightly faster (and retreating) unit means you can get by with a slightly smaller military.
2 movement means you can produce these twice as far from the front lines(hopefully in your core, this early) and still get to the front lines in a timely manner.

You're not going to see Arrian-like hordes of these, but you also don't need to use Arrian-like hordes of these.

It's Catch-22, but in a good, balanced way.

Basically, it's a fun unit to start your Golden Age with.
Try taking these along with your Horseman hordes instead of a spearman, he can both defend/fortify captured cities AND attack, will retreat sometimes, AND will start your GA, allowing you to either complete a wonder or create more of these in a timely manner.

I don't think you're going to see stacks of 100 of these, but you don't really need to.

A good, balanced, flexible UU.
A fun change of pace, I say.

DrFell · November 5, 2002, 21:22

I really think they should cost 40 shields. As it is, they offer one defence point more than a mounted warrior - and that's all. That one defence point costs you 20 shields. Nasty.

metalhead · November 6, 2002, 12:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt

I actually found myself wishing I had the option to build 30-shield 3.2.1 units (and I didn't care for losing the ability to build them in favor of Medieval Infantry when Feudalism came along and I finally had enough infrastructure to make 50-shield builds not so daunting).

I, too, found losing the ability to build GS after Feudalism to be extremely irritating and, quite frankly, stupid. I don't think this was intentional on the programmer's part, and will hopefully be addressed in an upcoming patch. Do you know if Legionaries are now unavailable in PtW after Medieval Infantry come around?

I also wish for the option to build regular swordsmen in my games with the Celts. Could mod it, but that may be too unbalancing, as the opportunity cost from losing regular swordsmen for the more expensive unit was probably factored in as part of game balance. I think that Immortals and Legionaries are superior units to the GS. An Immortal GA allows you to crank them out at an astounding rate. Building Gallic Swordsmen during a GA still seems to take way too long.

Jon Shafer · November 6, 2002, 14:30

A combined Horseman/Gallic Swordsman rush is nearly impossible to resist, trust me.

However, the time it takes to create it is somewhat of a liability. You basically have to gear your entire infrastructure and economy towards cranking out a nice-looking force of 'em. But it's like a lot of the other UUs in PTW: hiked cost for extra benefits. If you get the hang of how you have to play the game to use such units, then you can be impossible to beat.