 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
My attack is going nicely although it would have become expensive with only two Viking cities taken (1 GS lost so far for killing 4 spearmen and two others retreated).
Conclusion - 40 shields GS is right for SP.
MP is another matter. My only iron is right on the border with the Vikings and a human player would have pillaged it many turns ago, probably archer rushing at the same time.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
My invasion of the Viking lands went well. I took 8 cities for the loss of 3 Gallic Swords and the Vikings are history. However time has passed and all civs have Feudalism and most have Chivalry so the usefulness of any attack 3 unit is almost over.
The biggest objection to 50 shields for Gallic Swords just occurred to me. It upgrades to a unit that only costs 40 shields so you can upgrade to med inf for free but presumably then pay 80 gold to upgrade to guerilla, not 60 gold. I can't think of another unit where the upgrade unit is cheaper to produce so it is unreasonable to charge more than 40 shields for GS.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
anarres
|
|
I've had a couple of big arguments about the price of GS.
I started by arguing that they should be 40 shields. Someone else defended the 50 shield price tag by comparing to Immortals, 10 Immortals to 6 GS.
We set up a simple scenario and did lots and lots of maths, the conclusion we came to was that at 50 shields Immortals were the better buy. At 40 shields the GS becamse the better choice. I can find the link to the cfc thread if anyone want more detail, but the servers are down atm.
So what would I do if I could? Set them to 45 shields. The editor however doesn't allow this, the only way to implement would be to double the cost of everything in the editor (yeah - like that's going to happen...). The result is that I have used GS as Celts and they kick ass. Retreat abillity is worth *much* more than the extra movement point, this should be obvious.
The only other relevant point is that the AI is *really* bad at using them effectively. The best way to get a GS army quicklyis to do upgrades, and the AI just doesn't understand how to pillage it's own resource and reconnect it to good use. Add to that the fact that shields are at a premium in the ancient era and the AI falls apart. Concerted, cohesive attacks are needed, and the AI just seems lame at this when they are low on shields, as they always spread the units too thin.
So, good idea for humans to play Celts, bad idea for the AI to so so. 50 shields is a little pricey, but not massively overboard.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Artifex
|
|
Kentucky USA
Apr 2002 time: 05:25
|
|
The overaul impression I get here is that the GS is basically a broken unit..kind of like the man o war. It's kind of sad because it could have been a great unit.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002 time: 23:25
|
|
I think that the GS is powerful enough in the early middle ages and late ancient ages that waiting until in Republic or Monarchy won't actually hurt the player who is dead set on having a non-despostism GA and nothing else. 3-2-2, bearing in mind that the unit may retreat, is useful against anything up to musketmen, after all.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
I agree, it is an expensive unit. But that's to stop it from being a game winning unit.
I've only played with them once and totally failed to upgrade (had to build them ALL from scratch) - and they still kicked Roman butt. The battles they lost, enough retreated to counterattack a couple turns later.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|