Yet Another Celtic Thread

Yahweh Sabaoth · August 25, 2003, 11:10

Sorry to add yet another thread about the Celts and the Garlic Swordsmen. I am now playing as the Celts for the first "official" time (i.e., not just screwing around to see how the UU is animated), and I must admit that I'm damn frustrated by the GS.

The reason I started this thread is that, after reviewing AU 206: Gallic Glory, I noticed that most of the players got ahead of their game using archer rushes, against atypical neighbors - I might as well have read a good general archer-rush thread (no offense meant to the brave men and women who designed and played AU 206). Other discussions of the GS involved its modification. This thread is meant to discuss its effective use as it stands in the current game.

First of all, I notice that the GS is replaced by MI with the advent of feudalism. Has this ever been fixed in a patch, or is this just a major flaw of design?

Secondly, isn't the GS just too damn expensive? Sure, sure, it's a "powerhouse," but I've still lost a few of my GS to spearman defenders - not the most likely outcome, but likely enough to occur with some regularity. Building a unit that takes 4-6 turns to build during a golden age is ridiculous, IMO. I want to use my GA is either build a massive army or loads of city improvements/wonders. I'd be happy if my 15 or so cities (I play a huge map) could build a massive army, but the most they could really get would be around 45 GS, and those UUs are going to upgrade to Medival Infantry?!?

I'm not saying the GS isn't a great UU, even the best UU of the ancient age. I'm just saying I don't know how to play the Celts properly and I need some advice.

Thank you everyone.

GhengisFarb™ · August 25, 2003, 18:19

There was a first one?

OPD · August 25, 2003, 18:57

If you consider that you can get an immortal for a meagre 30 shields GS aren't really worth the bother. 5 immortals or 3 GS? Only a game where 30 shield units wastes alot of the your shield production could they be worthwhile. Perhaps in a game with accel prod where you have alot of size 12 cities in a GA producing 25+ sheilds they may be a good idea but otherwise I wouldn't bother. I've never played as the Celts, but in theory you should really recieve money when you upgrade them

Harovan · August 25, 2003, 18:59

Quote:

There was a first one?

Some time ago there was a discussion about the Gallic Swordsman. "Clipping the Celtic Wings" was the title, IIRC.

Gufnork · August 26, 2003, 03:51

The key to win with celts is to never have a GS die. They reach the enemy fast and kick butt. But you can't afford to lose any of them, since reinforcements are few. I much prefer MW:s, who cost less than half as much and only lack 1 def, which isn't that important when you can retreat. The cost is simply too steep for them to be that good. Your point about hopeless upgradepath is very valid as well.

I might miss something though. Early wars isn't exactly my strong side.

CerberusIV · August 26, 2003, 06:20

Exactly the thoughts I had some time ago. I gave up on stock PTW about a week after I first got it and generally play a version with modded units, particularly the less good UU's.

I ended up reducing the cost of the GS to 40 shields. The AI can cope with that when it has the Celts and it isn't overpowering with my style of play if I have them. It also means that the upgrade to Med Inf is free, rather than a loss, if you want to take it.

That still leaves the GS as the most expensive ancient era unit.

50 shields would be reasonable if the Celts were industrious and could get mines done to generate the shields needed - the reason Carthage can handle a 30 shield spearman replacement. The Celts aren't industrious so it is too expensive and the flawed upgrade just adds insult to injury.

The Berserk is the other dodgy PTW UU. Great if it works and you are on the right map, useless against knights if you have to fight on land. I cut their cost to 60 shields, require iron, and have them substitute for Med Inf, not Longbowmen.

OPD · August 26, 2003, 08:14

If I was to mod the UU the main thing I'd do is swap Immortals and Legions around so that the Romans get the 4 attack unit. 4 attack sword is huge and IMO the Romans having it is more historically pleasing as the Legions were the big fighting force of the time. Also immortals would still be strong and the stats would match the name more

GS costing 40 sounds alot nicer also if it were up to me I'd give berserkers a free boat for every 2 built

Yahweh Sabaoth · August 26, 2003, 10:10

Well, bad unit or no, I want to learn how to play the Celts as is. I seem to start relatively isolated quite a bit (only 3 or 4 neighbors) which suits me fine. That makes use of the GS actually practicable. I only have to build about 15, maybe 20, to take out 3 neighbors (on regent mode). Of course, I need to accompany them with other units, esp. spearmen to occupy and pacify my newly conquered cities. That's the only way I can see use of the GS effectively.

In my current game, on a mini-continent with England and Germany, I wiped out the English with archers already and have not built a single GS (though I've got iron hooked up). I'll probably do culture early this game (normally I put that off as long as possible) and then take out the Germans with 15 or so GS and trigger my GA to coincide with the early medival era (my favorite time. Sun Tzu's, Sistine, and Leo's, anyone?

)

Still, I don't see how the Celts could really rock it on higher difficulty levels, other than through archer rushing and horseman wars - i.e., with skill and a fair dose of luck. Those GS just seem too damn pricey. If they didn't upgrade to MI, that'd be one thing.

Arrian · August 26, 2003, 10:50

Yahweh,

The concensus of those of us who played AU206 was that the GS was not, in fact, overpriced. Or rather that 40 shields would be too cheap (personally, I think it's probably "worth" 45 shields, but there the game uses 10 shield increments, so that's out).

The keys, for me:

1) Archer wars/disruption. You were right about this. Archers are important for the Celts. Don't worry about conquest - your aim is to hurt the AI. Set them back. Maybe take a city or two. Fish for leaders if you can. But more importantly - deny the AI iron if at all possible.

2) 40-turn research, hording cash. The aforementioned archer wars should get you tech from your bruised opponents, which helps. Your own research (once you have a couple of the essentials early on) should be done at 40-turn pace, focusing on things like Polytheism so you can trade those to the AI for the ones you are missing. Horde that cashola, and head for Monarchy.

3) Upgrading. DO NOT BUILD GSs FROM SCRATCH!!! Warriors -> GS's. 80 gold a pop. Which means that you will need 1200 gold for 15 Gs's. So aim for 1200 gold, 'cause 15 is plenty. The best way to do this, IMO, is to build a solid core group of cities and then stop REXing and allow them to grow and work high commerce tiles (better unit support numbers, more commerce coming in from relatively uncorrupted towns). You may want to micromanage a bit more than normal. For instance, a city that produces between 5 and 9 shields/turn is going to build a warrior in 2 turns. Therefore, if you have a city that produces 7 shields/turn, but you can drop it to 5 or 6 in exchange for an extra commerce or two, do it. That extra gpt will pay off.

4) Your GA. Don't build more GSs in your GA. Build horsemen. The GSs are shock troops for the ancient age. After that they lose much of their edge, and as you've noted their upgrade path sucks. Usually, my GS force is either dead or elite* by the time my ancient wars wind down.

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · August 26, 2003, 10:57

Hehn. Well, thanks for the advice. I've already connected iron as I had previously built about 30 warriors without doing simple math and realizing how freaking expensive an upgrade would be. In this game, I softpedaled money and kept up with tech (I have lots and lots of rivers), so I figured I'd build what GS I need from scratch. Probably not the right approach, but then again, with only the Germans left, this will give me the opportunity to try out a "you're isolated on this one-luxury island and you're militaristic and religious" game. That'll give me the opportunity to see if I can rock an overseas invasion - a challenge I've never met successfully, partially because I've never needed to.

None of my overseas competitors seem too advanced - only the oracle has been built, I believe. I've got the GL and the GL

both under my belt most likely.

Doubtless, another (non-Celts specific) thread will emerge soon, asking for advice re: isolation and overseas conquests.

Next time I play the Celts, I will follow your advice, though...

UnOrthOdOx · August 26, 2003, 11:12

I see Arrian beet me to the punch here.

I played a series of Celtic games a while back testing them out as well.

I agree that 10-15 is probably a max you should shoot for above Monarch. Even with a relative small number of GS, you can deal enough death and destruction while utilizing your GA to make a nice transition into knights, and onto REAL conquest.

Arrian · August 26, 2003, 15:44

Quote:

Doubtless, another (non-Celts specific) thread will emerge soon, asking for advice re: isolation and overseas conquests.

First thought that comes to mind: avoidance of chivalry (impossible w/the GL, though) for a horseman -> cavalry mass upgrade. This allows a nation that has spent the entire game building to suddenly field a huge number of cavalry (size 12 medieval cities building horsemen = lots of horsemen, fast).

I usually invade with about 1 musket for every 3-4 Cav I bring. They serve as stack defense in the beginning, and city defense as I capture cities.

I will typically pick on some weak targets first if possible, to grab luxuries so I can keep my people happy through a real war.

If you can take advantage of AI-AI wars by slipping cities in gaps in cultural borders to snag luxuries (or resources, should you need them), DO IT. Just be sure to defend those cities. Don't build them, stick 1 defender in them, and forget. They each should get walls, barracks, harbor, temple, 3-4 defenders, and some attack troops. They make great staging points for future invasions, so they have double value.

EDIT: In order to take proper advantage of the gaps opened up by AI-AI wars, it is best to have a couple of ships loaded with settler + garrison waiting off the coast. It's not always easy to remember to have that all set up, and I too sometimes forget, concentrating on my own lands, but if you're not prepared, you may miss excellent opportunities to steal other people's resources/luxuries

-Arrian

Arrian · August 26, 2003, 15:49

Oh - one other thing about the Celts & their UU: the Colossus, already one of my favorite wonders, makes even more sense to build. Since you don't have to devote many shields to prebuild a GS force (warriors), you surely can afford a 200 shield wonder that pumps your commerce (which, of course, is what you really need in this case).

[/Colossus plug]

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · August 26, 2003, 16:10

It's doubtless too late for me to get the Colossus, but hopefully I'll be building the lighthouse. That'll let me find the other dang continents, wherever they are...

Gufnork · August 26, 2003, 17:03

A sufficiently large continent means you can turn builder using your isolation as an advantage (democracy, minimal defense). That's my ideal scenario for me now that I'm working on beating deity on a standard map.

Yahweh Sabaoth · August 26, 2003, 17:05

I'm sure I'll head for Republic/Democracy as soon as the Germans are crushed. I haven't seen their map but I'm sure they're not too big as they have little activity of any kind near my borders.

Who knows? I might stow a couple of GS + a settler on a caravel and try to trigger my GA when I build a new city somewhere. It's concievable - I haven't attacked the Germans yet.

Yahweh Sabaoth · August 29, 2003, 10:54

I started several new games. I believe I quit the game in which I had crushed the limeys because someone else got the GL. In my current game, I have incredibly lush land and a good position in the tech race. My REXing has been some of the best I had ever done, and my neighbors (Germans, French, Vikings and Spaniards) haven't seem to have kept up. Haven't got their maps, but I've gotten every single city position I've wanted so far.

My cities are terribly underdefended - some are UNdefended - but I've got about 1400 GP under my belt already. I'm now building scores of barracks and vet warriors - I have plenty of iron ready to connect. That'll bring me about 18 GS if I save a little more money.

I'm not sure I'll get the Great Library (probably some nook overseas will), but I'm going to hold off my invasion of the nearby lands until right before feudalism, so I'll be able to keep up in tech and get the wonders I want built, most likely.

Still, I have to say, I doubt I could make it without this incredibly lush terrain. Numerous other Celtic games I have started up recently have landed me lush terrain but too many hostile expansionists to keep up, or survive, or wide open but worthless spaces... whole continents that can be mine, but only 1 luxury and a crippled position in terms of tech and infrastructure.

These Celts seem pretty damn hard to play as, for a militaristic/religious combo...

Arrian · August 29, 2003, 11:07

I think part of the problem here is that you see the GS as your primary attack unit.

It doesn't have to be. Sure, it's a hefty advantage to have, and should be used. However, I would advocate trying to build a force of about 10 GSs, along with some horsemen (chariot -> horse upgrade is good here too) and spearmen.

If you go in with 10 GSs, 10 horsemen, and 5 spearmen, you're liable to friggin' waste whomever you're fighting. Your GA will allow you to build up a large horseman force, and maybe replace a few fallen GSs (I would only do that if a city, during your GA, can produce a GS in 2-3 turns. However, if a city has that type of production, you may wanna ask yourself why it isn't building a wonder). Horsies work fine, especially in large numbers.

Your elite GSs should be babied. They make excellent leader generators because of the 3 attack combined with the retreat ability. Just try to avoid allowing them to be attacked (hence the spearmen). GSs are great for "lazy war."

While they do their work, you concentrate on setting up for a transition to a knight-based force - by building horsemen.

-Arrian

Theseus · August 29, 2003, 11:14

Excellent advice from Arrian, as always. Also, pay attention to shield production... task certain cities for Horse, and the appropriate cities for GSs with minimal waste.

Yahweh Sabaoth · August 29, 2003, 11:44

With so few neighbors, I may use 15+ GS to waste whoever's the most threatening, and use my GA to build libraries and marketplaces... then just build knights from scratch. Otherwise, I would take your advice.

Still, I just don't know about that GS unit. Even an elite 2-defense unit with retreat ability can die. Sure, it's good for something, but I'm inclined to wish it cost less. (I have read the numerous threads at this point, and concur that 45 shields would be the best, if possible, but c'est la vie).

Arrian · August 29, 2003, 12:51

Of course you wish it costs less! So do I when I play the Celts!

It's not one of my favorite units, let's put it that way. I'd MUCH rather have Mounted Warriors (but keep the militaristic trait. Oh, the damage I'd do!).

Your point about an elite 2-defense unit w/retreat dying is valid, which is why I say baby your elites. Hold them back and bring 'em forward to kill off easy targets, then pull 'em back again. Don't let them get attacked. The number of times I've lost vet or elite GSs to swordsman attacks (with the attacking swordsman down to 1hp, of course)! Taking a 50-shield hit like that hurts, I know.

This is why I encourage you to use more horsemen instead.

With one neighbor, you probably want to hit them several times. Each time, take a city or two max, while slaughtering their spare troops (everything not nailed down to a city). Then make peace for whatever they have (or, if you're a despot or monarch, just keep the war running). This way, you can fish for Leaders and maximize the tech/gold/workers you can beat out of them.

A unit like the GS, of course, is best suited for a starting spot with multiple AI neighbors to beat on. That AU course we played was a good example (China, Persia, India, Rome... was that all?

Crushed 'em all).

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · August 29, 2003, 15:18

Well, I've got 4 neighbors, which I think is a good amount. Anymore, my REXing wouldn't have been so spectacular, and with all the expanionists floating around (GOD I hope C3C fixes that irritating state of affairs) I was generally out-researched. Only 2 or 3 neighbors, we weren't getting enough techs in the mix. I fear the "advanced" continent is not ours, but nonetheless, I have enough luxuries and a good enough infrastructure that I had pretty much wage any type of war I want: leader-fishing, total extermination, you name it... and still have time to switch to Rep/Dem and build the strongest continent empire in the world.

What was my original point? I forget. So sue me. I'm working late on an early dismissal day and with all this coffee in my system I can't seem to stay "OT".

Last Conformist · August 30, 2003, 12:14

Arrian, when I read your upgrade -15-Warriors-to-Gallic-Swords post, the thing that occurs to me that those 1200 gold could by 30 Immortals. GAK!, if you take my point ...

Ironically, the GS would have been markedly more deadly (in the hands of a reasonably competent human player) in the early versions of Vanilla, wherein retreat was automatic. The things would've been immortal ...

Paddy · September 1, 2003, 02:02

Thanks all for some great advice on GS. I will need to look at how I treat them next time out myself.

Yahweh Sabaoth · September 2, 2003, 10:12

I have to revise an earlier post and pitch my vote for the GS costing 40. Is that the cost of the Mounted Warrior? Then make the warrior cheaper, I guess, or make the only diff between the GS and the MW be that the GS requires Iron and the MW requires Horses...

...I did not enjoy seeing my 3/2/2 units NOT retreat 50% of the time... I did not enjoy building so few, even after saving massive amounts of cash for the upgrade... and I definitely did not enjoy the tiny window of time in which I could build the damn things.

I won as the Celts this weekend, and well enough by my standards, but I owe the success to horsemen and pikemen, not the GS.

Yahweh Sabaoth · September 2, 2003, 10:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Then make the warrior cheaper, I guess, or make the only diff between the GS and the MW be that the GS requires Iron and the MW requires Horses...

Clarification: By this I mean make both units 3-1-2.

Arrian · September 2, 2003, 10:51

The MW is 30 shields. It is, therefore, one of the very best UU's in the game. At least on the face of it...

However, the MW is given to a non-militaristic (40-shield barracks) and non-industrious (slow starter) civ - the Iroquois. This means that setting up your civ's core and fielding a reasonable number of vet MWs takes time.

I would LOVE to have the MW while playing a militaristic civ. Oh, the power!! But the MW's dominance is at least partially blunted by the time it takes for the Iroquois to field a good number of them. Believe me, I've tried, and it just takes too damn long.

Last Conformist: yeah, the Iroquois were really hardcore before Firaxis changed the retreat rules (well, any civ using mobile units was).

-Arrian