Gallic Swordsman should be cheaper! (50 -> 40)

And here's why: I'm in a PBEM with 7(!) others and I'm next to the Iroquois. We're at war since 3500 BC or so, but imagine I invent Iron Working and he Horseback Riding. Then it's:

ADM: 3/2/2 for 50 against
ADM: 3/1/2 for 30 .

Without special units it's:

ADM: 3/2/1 for 30 against
ADM: 2/1/2 for 30 .

I can hardly call this fair. I'd say a 50 G. swordsman is as useful as a 30 normal swordsman. Therefore my plee: please make the Gallic Swordsman 10 cheaper.

So your saying your scared of me?



If the gallic swordmen were cheaper, that would be awesome because they are a great UU. Just cost a bundle like the sipahi's do.

Also, this isn't really a 'bug'

Ok, so it isn't a bug, sorry. But it's certainly an error. I don't see how one more defense point can make the GS 5/3 times more expensive than a mounted warrior. It'll still loose when attacked by a mounted warrior. That's my problem. That will be my problem to be exact.

I tend to agree that the Gallic Swordsman is pretty expensive for what it does.

But bear in mind the the Mounted Horseman is one of the very top UUs. That something's worse than that does not necessarily mean it's bad.

Before PTW, all UU's received one extra "point" in either their attack, defense, or movement value. However, they received no increase in shield cost. Then, with the advent of PTW, the concept of shield increase for a UU was introduced, usually used for the UU's that received two or more bonuses (Sipahi, Berserk, etc.) However, the Gallic Swordsman, which received ONE extra point in it's movement value, just as every Vanilla Civ UU got, got an increase in shield cost! How is that fair??? Obviously it would be a great unit without the shield increase... that's the point of a UU!!! I see no reason why the Gallic Swordsman should have its shield cost increased at all from that as a normal swordsman! If 16 other civs recieved a similar bonus with no shield increase, why should the Gallic Swordsman get its price jacked up?

Originally posted by Beanzy
Before PTW, all UU's received one extra "point" in either their attack, defense, or movement value. However, they received no increase in shield cost. Then, with the advent of PTW, the concept of shield increase for a UU was introduced, usually used for the UU's that received two or more bonuses (Sipahi, Berserk, etc.) However, the Gallic Swordsman, which received ONE extra point in it's movement value, just as every Vanilla Civ UU got, got an increase in shield cost! How is that fair??? Obviously it would be a great unit without the shield increase... that's the point of a UU!!! I see no reason why the Gallic Swordsman should have its shield cost increased at all from that as a normal swordsman! If 16 other civs recieved a similar bonus with no shield increase, why should the Gallic Swordsman get its price jacked up?

Click to expand...

Well, consider the Immortal. It's 4/2/1 instead of the normal 3/2/1 swordsman, and costs the same. Pretty sensible. But 3/2/2 is definitely better than 4/2/1. Then again, units like the Rider got an extra movement point without extra cost (albeit it was from 2 to 3, which is less dramatic than 1 to 2). I guess, all in all, I like Matrix's suggestion: make the GS cost 40 shields instead of 50. I think that'd be the most fair.

I agree WillJ. The gallic sword should cost 30 shields.

Originally posted by marceagleye
I agree WillJ. The gallic sword should cost 30 shields.

Click to expand...

Did you mean to say "Beanzy" instead of WillJ or "40 shields" instead of 30?

Oops. I meant Benzy. You were quoting him and I wasn't paying attention.

But I think if it cost 30 shields it'd be way too powerful. The Immortal and Legionary are good UU's, right? And they're 4/2/1 and 3/3/1. If the GS cost the same, it'd probably be the best UU in the entire game (by far)!

Playing with the GS, I'd say its pricing is fairly reasonable, because they are unusually durable offensive units. At that stage of the game, between the good defence and the two movement, they survive like nothing else. They're also very potent as active defenders, especially when you have local roads.

No, IMO the immortals, legionary, and gallic sword should all be the same price. Compared to a standard swordsman, one has an extra offensive point, one has an extra defensive point, and one has an extra movement point. I would consider all three factors to be equally important. Since I am a more defensive minded player I'd probably still choose the legionary first even if the gallic sword was only 30 shields.

Can the gallic sword retreat? If so, this is probably the reasoning behind the extra cost because it also means horsemen and knights can't retreat from it.

I know lots of you will disagree with me about the three unit factors being equally important. Most of you probably have the opinion that either offense or movement is more important. But for UUs I believe an extra defensive point on an offensive unit is better than an extra offensive point on a defensive unit. During a game your offensive units will be attacked way more often than your defensive units will attack.

I'd take the immortals over the gallic sword because of cost only. If they were the same price I'd take the gallic sword first.

OK let me get this right. Is the Gallic Sword a 3/2/2 or a 3/3/2?

Either way 50 shields is still too expensive. It should be 30 shields for 3/2/2 or 40 shields for 3/3/2.

I agree totally. It should cost 30 shields. The Roman legionary, which is a swordsman with an extra point in defence rather than movement costs only 30 shields so the Gallic Swordsman should have the same cost.

The increased movement 1 -> 2 is more valuable than one more attack or defense point. Such units survive more often, reach the front lines quicker, can out-maneuver the enemies and fall back more easily if seriously outnumbered.
At 50 shields, they are costly and that's why they are not 'the best' UU.
Maybe 40 is an option, but then they would be awesome.

Don't think the GS has 1 more movement point, think that he double the movement points of the SwordMan.


EDIT: His price his fair

Those small early wars aren't only about firepower counts. You can win against a stronger enemy if you get swordsmen to his nearby towns before he can get organized against you. Speed matters a lot.

Sudden attacks that take a couple of towns can cripple the opposition, because you've put the enemy in the position of having to mount a successful offensive against those very towns before he can get to you and weaken you. A fast attacker that can take a town and then hold it against that inevitable horseman rush counterattack is worth a lot.

Would you want to be neighbors with the Celts if they could pump out those fast guys as fast as you could make swordsmen?
They can jump your new towns and take them easily, and hold them. And after that, they control where all the open-field battles happen between them and your swordsmen, and they're always attacking. You might get in a few horseman attacks on them, but you'll run out of horseman pretty fast.

If we are consistent then the movement rate ought not to matter here. The Mounted Warrior is 3.1.2 and costs 30 shields. The Gallic Swordman is 3.2.2. Both are UUs. Therefore the cost of the GS ought to be the cost of the Mounted Warrior plus whatever the extra defense point is worth. IMO this should be 40 shields.

HOWEVER, I also think that at 40 shields the Gallic Swordman is too good a bargain. For game balance reasons I think the 50 shields is ok, which is probably what Firaxis figured out in their test plays, too.

But to be consistent: if GS should cost 50 shields then we can't but conclude that the Mounted Warrior is too cheap.

So take your pick:

1) Mounted Warrior is ok, lower the cost of Gallic Swordman
2) Gallic Swordman is ok, increase the cost of the Mounted Warrior.

Any other choice would be "highly illogical".

Perhaps we ought to design a good well-balanced formula for unit costs? I, too, think that the simple A+D+M isn't very good because movement rate is much more valuable than attack or defense.

The simplistic point system doesn't work well with "compromise units" either, because the defense factor is less valuable than the attack factor with attack units and vice versa. E.g.: I would rather have 4.1.1 than 3.2.1 if the cost is the same. Simply because I can accompany the 4.1.1 units with a couple 1.2.1 units to get the same defense effect but the attack power would be better. Same reasoning applies to the mixed-power-defenders: 2.3.1 is less useful than a hypothetical 1.4.1. unit.

The bigger problem is related to how the AI playes the 50 shield Gallic relative to the 40 shield Mace.

In the hands of the human the 50 shield Gallic is almighty powerful. (just see Gotm18 for examlpes: Matrix this would be an example where info you seek has been well worked out and presented but you will have to look to see the obvious).

In the hand of the AI the Celts are always dead and as such the implementation is poorly thought out and poorly tested.