 |
| |
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
I've just been thinking, and there may be some reasons to leave the GS as he is in the stock game after all. (When I debate, I always have part of my mind thinking about how the other side ought to be arguing, and sometimes I'm better at convincing myself than my opponents are at convincing me.  ) When comparing the GS and the MW, consider the following:
1) The Iroqouis traits do not mesh well to improve the potency of their UU. They don't get the cheap barracks of a militaristic civ, nor do they have the improved overall productivity of an industrious civ. Further, while MWs are certainly potent in battle, the lack of the Militaristic trait limits the Iroquois' ability to parley that advantage into lots of elites and, eventually, leaders. It is this lack of synergy that prevents the Iroquois from being the hands-down favorite as a warmongering civ. In contrast, the Celts' militaristic nature gives them cheap barracks, quicker promotions, and indirectly a much better chance of great leaders. Cost for cost and stat for stat, the same offensive UU is worth much more in Celtic hands than in Iroquois hands.
2) The prebuild for the MW is less practical. It comes later. It's more expensive in shields (which is especially problematical for a civ without cheap barracks). And worst of all, the prebuild requires the same resource as the main unit, so you can never use a prebuild after you research or acquire Horseback Riding.
3) MWs are vulnerable while getting ready to attack. Even a warrior has a reasonable chance to beat one on open terrain. Enemy horsemen can pick off MWs with ease. And archers or especially swordsmen can usually either kill them or drive them off. Worse, the elite MWs are the first to be hit in such strikes, undercutting the opportunity for leaders (since odds of a defensive victory are so small). The fact that Gallic Swordsmen provide both mobile defense and mobile offense is worth more than the stats alone might imply.
In summary, the Gallic Swordsman, especially when coupled with the Militaristic trait, provides a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Now, comparing Gallic Swordsmen to conventional swordsmen:
1) Gallic Swordsmen cost 5/3 as much, but they probably have at least close to a 40% chance of surviving losing a battle. (Keep in mind that units fighting a 1-HP enemy never retreat, which reduces the retreat chance a bit from its nominal value.) So as long as you have enough of them to do the job, even at a cost of 50, the cost of replacing lost units isn't necessarily higher for Gallic Swordsmen than for their conventional counterparts.
2) When an elite swordsman loses a battle, he dies. That tends to limit opportunities for leaders even for militaristic civs. In contrast, a losing Gallic Swordsman is likely to retreat, so any given elite GS is likely to have about twice as many chances to generate a leader before he dies. Since the number of elite units generated is limited by the number of battles fought rather than by the total number of units produced, that makes the Gallic Swordsman exceptionally potent as a leader factory - especially when coupled with the Celts' militaristic trait. And the fact that elites survive better also gives a little extra combat value that isn't reflected in the stats.
So the question is, is the Gallic Swordsman in the stock game a bad UU, or just a horribly underrated one?
Nathan
Edit: Corrected a miscalculation.
Last edited by nbarclay on 27-02-2003 at 03:15
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I missed this whole discussion.
As usual, let me say that I'm against any change that deviates significantly from stock Civ3. I'll stand for a reduction cost, or a minor change in stats, but a complete shift in upgrade path is too much (for me).
Imagine the AAR's we're going to hear now:
1. "In my game, I researched The Wheel right away, built up a few Chariots/Horsemen, and got Iron Working just at the tail end of my Archer rush. Wow, everything is so synergistic."
2. "In my game, I had to research Bronze Working, then trade for Iron Working. I've avoided The Wheel completely, so as to get more money to upgrade those few Warriors I can afford to upgrade. Geez, things seem a lot easier with the AU mod, but I hate mods. Sign, this is dumb, I'd rather play with the 3-trait civs mod."
Ok, ok, I went a bit far in the second quote. 
And, finally, might I add that there is no way of testing out whether this change is good or not with a single AU scenario. The point is not that the unit is not "fixed" by being a Horseman upgrade, the point is that the change radically alters a civ. And of course people are going to like it, because the unit is obviously more powerful with the change.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
midterms end this week: Bring on 206!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-02-2003 01:53
I spent the last 200 years building up 20 of them! 
I am a weak loser nation now. 
|