 |
| |
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Changes to the UUs really affect gameplay a lot: the French are now a powerhouse, IMO.
|
Perhaps you're right about this. I'm thinking of returning to the original stats for musketeers. It seems that the AI attacks with defensive units more often now (I have been attacked by hoplites many times, including AU 204), so the extra attack would be useful. The main reason for the change was to help the AI, anyway. Anyone object to going back to the original?
quote:
And, by the way, removing the Gallic from the upgrade path is irrelevant to the issue at hand, since the optimal play is to rush with Gallics until Knights arrive, not Medieval Infantry.
|
I think you miss my point. The idea to remove the GS from the upgrade path was to force the Celts to build their GS from scratch, as opposed to upgrading warriors. Having them upgrade to Guerillas was only a secondary change, which seemed logical given that medieval infantry can be used in parallel and costs less.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
It seems that the AI attacks with defensive units more often now.
|
I think the AI now calculates a defense-flagged unit's chances on offense, and if they are good it will attack. In the NIC game I'm trying to finish, my 1HP Knights are being attacked by Pikemen left and right.
quote:
I think you miss my point. The idea to remove the GS from the upgrade path was to force the Celts to build their GS from scratch, as opposed to upgrading warriors.
|
Yup, I missed the point. Competely. Still, I see no reason why the Gallic should be modified. Does the AI suck with the Celts? Are they a really bad civ? Would it add more "strategic options" if the Gallic were removed the upgrade path and had it's cost reduced? Honestly, I think the main reason to change the Gallic is that it's a unit that "could have been so good" but is not. That's fine. I had high expectations for the Mongol UU, and it's still bad, even after our change.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Ask the Spanish what they think about their 3-2 moblile UU that appears in the middle ages! |
Do not knock the Conquistador. That is all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Strategic option #1: Do I build warriors to upgrade to swordsmen, or do I build Gallic Swordsmen?
|
40-Shield Gallic Swordsmen any day of the week. People think these guys are great at 50 Shields, there's no question they're awesome at 40!
quote:
Strategic option #2: I have no horses in the middle ages. Do I build a light mobile force (GS) or a slow poweful force (Med.Inf)? |
If obtaining Horses is the purpose (which it should be, because Knights is what you ultimately want), then the Gallics are clearly the superior choice. Maybe I'm too focused in my playstyle, but I'll take 2 Gallic over 2 Medieval Infantry almost regardless of cost.
quote:
I'm not pushing this change, really! I too am in favor of minimal changes. But I still think you guys are rejecting this one too readily. |
Again, the reasons for changing this unit do not fit the goals of the AU mod:
1. The Gallic does not fit into the cost "curve".
2. The Gallic promises to be amazing, and ends up avergage because of its cost.
To the first point, I say "so what?". To the second, I feel that we should change a lot of units before we change the Gallic (Cossack, Keshik, Musketeer, etc.).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I'm not really sure what the formula for upgrades is, so your example is quite shocking to me. You're saying it costs 40 gold to upgrade a Warrior to a Swordsmen, but 140 gold to upgrade the same Warrior to a Gallic?
Obviously, like you (alexman), I've had very little experience with the Celts. But I'm still puzzled as to why you've not answered my question: are they so weak that they need fixing?
Furthermore, why should the Celts have the option to build the regular-type unit, and the replacement UU? Originally you were selling this as a disadvantage, but basically, with the numbers you're throwing around, the Celts get 1) normal Swordsmen options, plus 2) a reduced-cost Gallic. Why some much attention to this one unit?
As usual, I'm open and willing to test out any change, but I'm seriously puzzled as to why this is being proposed. Seems like a change for the sake of change. And you're considering changing the French UU back to its normal stats...I'm confused.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
After thinking about it a bit, my only real reason to avoid switching the Gallic's cost is that I want to keep the game as close to stock as possible. If the Gallic were originally 40 Shields, I would probably not even blink (maybe once).
I liked the Musketeer change, and it is arguably a bigger change than this. So, I'm arguing in circles here.
alexman, it's up to you. I vote: whatever.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
Dominae, the upgrade cost is 2 gold for every extra shield cost (1 with Leo). In the example I assumed you are building Gallic Swordsmen from scratch, as they would not be in the upgrade path (so you're not using the cash).
I think it would be OK to have both a UU and a regular unit for the Celts because their UU is so different from the regular unit. Actually, I could also make the same argument about Carthage and Scandinavia, but I won't because you'll kill me!
To answer your question, I (actually player 1) proposed to do something about this unit because balanced units make the player's choices between units harder. As it is now, in my opinion, one would be nuts to build a GS army from scratch. Having said that, I could live without changing anything, because Celts have the option of saving cash to upgrade warriors to expensive swordsmen versus building regular Horsemen, so there actually is a choice. I don't like reducing the cost to 40 without changing anything else, because then the upgrade tactic becomes even more powerful, and the horsemen choice less viable. Bottom line: less choice.
But let's hold off making any changes until we decide on the mod's philosophy regarding UUs.
In vanilla civ3 most UUs were as expensive as the unit they replaced. It therefore made sense to remove the standard unit from the build options, since the UU was always worth building over the regular unit.
With PTW, the cost of many UUs were changed compared to the units they replace, so it might sometimes be worth building the standard unit instead of the UU. Should we give the player the additional option to do that? In other words, do we add options, or change as little as possible? As usual, a conflict between the goals of the mod.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
The new upgrade path makes warrior upgrades to GS impossible, which places the Celts at a great disadvantage compared to before. The reduced cost would compensate for that disadvantage. Their extended shelf-life is largely a cosmetic issue, since a 3-attack unit is largely useless against pikemen and musketmen. Ask the Spanish what they think about their 3-2 moblile UU that appears in the middle ages! |
Actually, I didn't think of this, but it's a good point. I still don't favor breaking the upgrade path though.
Though I still maintain that a 3.2.2. unit is useful against pikemen, and en masse against muskets due to the retreat ability, I have to agree that building this force from scratch would pose a problem.
I do think, though, that giving the Celts an ability to build a standard AND unique unit is an unfair advantage. Nobody else gets to build both, why should they? It allows for a swordsman battle, saving the GS for a time when a GA is more acceptable. Since the GS could conceivably win in the industrial age against 1 HP units, that's too powerful.
I'm not in favor at all of chaning the upgrade path.
I would be in favor of lowering the cost by ten, but I'd like to propose that AU instead evaluate the cost of ALL the UUs, and decide which PTW civs should have standard/lower cost UUs and which Vanilla civs should have more or less expensive ones. The GS decision would come naturally from such a discussion.
Possible choices are:
-Touch nothing... certainly viable under AU goals.
-make all UUs cost what the unit they replace costs... back to Vanilla philosohpy.
-apply the curve to everything... works with PTW philosophy.
-Unit by unit. Decide for each and every 24 civs what their UU should cost, and what it's stats should be... this is the route I am most in favor of.
For the record... I think that the musketeer change is perfect, and we'd be the poorer for changing it back. It keeps the spirit of the original, and makes it more strategically viable for both the AI and human to build.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Here's the solution I posted in that thread. Nothing original, but it's what I would be most happy with, if a change had to me made.
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 Gallic. No need to reduce the cost to 40.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BRC
|
|
Gotcha Dom. I wasn't reading closely enough.
Ok. Here's my thoughts, in order.
1) Do nothing.
2) Lower the cost by 10. If nothing else, it's a UU and should be better than the original swordsman.
3) Reevaluate all the UU's and "price" them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
Option 3! Option 3!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
It seems to me that the Gallic Swordsman is a unique case. All of the UUs in the original Civ 3 cost the same as the unit they replaced but were superior in some respect or another. Thus, while in some cases, the special abilities were viewed as essentially useless, none of the original UUs left a feeling of, "I wish I had the regular unit instead of the UU."
PtW UUs range farther afield. Some have a combination of advantages and disadvantages, and come at a reduced price to reflect that fact. Others have a greater margin of advantage than UUs in the stock game did, but come at a higher price. That creates a real potential for UUs that are in fact viewed as inferior to the standard units.
The question is, of those, are there any besides the Gallic Swordsman that faces actual accusations of being an inferior value to the unit it replaces? Not accusations of failing to provide a significant advantage, but accusations that a player might be better off with no UU at all? The question of whether three Gallic Swordsmen are really better than five conventional swordsmen, or even as good, poses a very serious specter that the Gallic Swordsman actually does make the player worse off. (And from strictly an upgrade gold perspective, the situation is worse: the same gold that can upgrade 40 warriors to conventional swordsmen can only upgrade 20 to Gallics.)
I wouldn't be against reevaluating and, where appropriate, rebalancing all UUs. But I don't buy the argument that rebalancing the Gallic Swordsman only makes sense in light of a more massive reevaluation effort.
Nathan
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-02-2003 23:42
The new upgrade path makes warrior upgrades to GS impossible, which places the Celts at a great disadvantage compared to before. The reduced cost would compensate for that disadvantage. Their extended shelf-life is largely a cosmetic issue, since a 3-attack unit is largely useless against pikemen and musketmen. Ask the Spanish what they think about their 3-2 moblile UU that appears in the middle ages!
|