Problems with the Gallic Swordsman

Sim_One

Emperor
Joined
Jul 28, 2002
Messages
1,073
First time playing the Celts, and I really like the Gallic Swordsman. My only problem is that I think it's just way too expensive for an ancient age unit. I know a swordsman with a movement rate of 2 is a very powerful asset, but does that justify making it cost almost twice as much? I think a cost of 40 shields is a good compromise.

Also would it be a good idea to make them upgradable to knights (or maybe even riflemen) instead of medieval infantry? A medieval infantry is not better than a Gallic Swordsman. In fact I do believe that Gallic Swordsmen continued prized warriors of the Celtic army well into the middle ages. Also the 0 gold "upgrade" is just ridiculous.
 
When I just got PTW , I really liked that unit too. Making it cost less shields would make the celt advantage too strong , imo.

I believe they are worth it , if you go straight for iron-working you can really cripple every civ near you. Making it for them impossible to expand and/or build infrastructure.

None of the ancient units can escape them, nothing bothers me more then see horsemen retreating with 1HP , to come back later.
 
It seems historically inaccurate that a Gallic Swordsman moves two squares. The Gauls never expanded much.
 
I like the GSwords, though they are a bit pricey. It is ridiculous to make them obsolete in favor of medieval inf, though. That second movement point is worth way more than an increase of 3 to 4 attack.

I got so disgusted the first time that happened - I am happily taking out the Egyptian horsemen then the new Fedualism suddenly takes away my best unit? I was set to clear out my continent - Russians and Germans as well.
 
I agree the Gallic sword is expensive. but it also is a good defender as it can retreat and you can use it to grab workers, pull enemy troops out of cover and outflank them. Also, Horsemen cannot retreat against them, now jsut use them on mountains... The price is fair i think.


i would also like to be able to choose what to build GS or Med Inf.
 
Originally posted by puglover
It seems historically inaccurate that a Gallic Swordsman moves two squares. The Gauls never expanded much.

The Gauls "only" spread over all of western europe!! They were by no means the indigenous peoples of their lands, just the latest wave of invaders. They had arrived a few centuries before the Romans.

Having said that, yeah, it's pretty unrealistic for a swordsman to have movement of 2. All other foot units in Civ3 move only one square, including infantry.
 
I don't think the makers of the game meant for it to be historically accurate. I mean, there are a lot of things that could probably be made more accurate.
 
It just occured to me, a Mounted Warrior with only 1 less defense than a Gallic costs only 30 shields. More woes for the Gallic! :(
 
Does anyone have an urge to call Gallic Swordsman, "Phallic Swordsman" ?
 
I don't know if they should cost less. I just finished playing my first ever game as the Celts and I was thinking that the unit might be overpowered. I got Iron Working and just blew through the Aztecs, Persians and the Indians. Then after a very brief pause to heal up troops and bring up reinforcements I attacked Carthage. The major advantage that I had was that the units would retreat so my losses were very low. I had tons of elite units and after I finished the heroic epic I was cranking out great leaders and regularly rushing wonders. Even after I had midevil infanrty I didn't upgrade my swordsmen because they could attack then retreat. This made them optimal for defense where a infantry man would be stranded in the open and succeptable to counterattack. After I took the city of Carthage I rush built the forbidden palace and had an unbelieviable large powerful empire. It was my first time with the Celts so I was only playing on Monarch with a large map but I was a full era ahead in research by the end of the industrial era. I had computers and everyone else was still working on Nationalism. The fact that the Celts are religious and I had so many cities and wonders gave me a cultural victory before I even had a chance to invade the other major continent. In my opinion ALL of my ass kicking was due to the overwheming superiority of the gallic swordsmen early in the game. I was just too huge for anyone else to deal with me after my advantage had ended and the early golden age really helped with my early invasions. I will also say I was uterly dispicable in foreign relations which is very unlike me but I had chosen a total war strategy early on. Granted I wasn't next to the Iriquois or anything but it just seemed WAY too easly.
 
In my opinion the real problem the Celts have is not the cost of the gallic swordsmen, a very powerful unit that rightly costs more shields than regular swordsmen, but the absence of a standardized 3 power unit.
Especially on the higher difficulty levels there are lots of situations where you need a decent-powered unit to force a breakthrough but with the enormous shieldcosts the Celts have to pay for their 3 power unit it's sometimes just not possible to get enough units in the field. When trying to assault enemy cities in a jungle/hills filled world, having 5 regular swordsmen in the field is in my opinion a better buy than 3 gallic swordsmen.
The Celts could well be the only civ that could actually profit from having civ-specific abilities turned off.
 
Originally posted by Kemal
In my opinion the real problem the Celts have is not the cost of the gallic swordsmen, a very powerful unit that rightly costs more shields than regular swordsmen, but the absence of a standardized 3 power unit.

Good point. Plus the GS makes the horseman useless, the only reason to build them would be to plan for future upgrades or to make do until you can secure an iron resource.

I'm finding these PTW UU's that cost more shields tricky. The numidian mercenary (Carthage) is great but I rely on forest-clearing for the 10 shield bonus to get them built. Might be a viable way to build GS too but without industrious workers would take more planning (and of course you need to have forests!)
 
The easiest way to get GS would be by upgrading warriors! Usually when researching Monarchy or Republic you had better maximize your taxrate and set science to 10%. Cash flows in and voila: your bunch of cheap warriors are converted into a real army!
 
I am putting the final touches on a technical assesment article that looks at the Gallic swordsman and all the other UUs and Features in PTW.

The assessment of the Gallic Swordsman is that it is overpriced by 10 shields and should actaully have been implemented as a 40 shield unit instead of a 50 shields unit.

This assessment is based on careful comparative testing relative to the Immortals (4/2/1-30) and the Mounted Warrior (3/1/2-30) and parrallel comparison of the Hoplite (1/3/1-20) and the Numidian (2/3/1-30).

The fact that the unit is over priced and potentially mis implemented is further confirmed by the upgrade/downgrade relationship with the Mace unit (medieval infantry) which is priced and 40 shields and obsoletes the Gallic Swordsman UU and movemnet advantage.

Yes, 40 shields is cheaper and makes the unit more powerful but this is absolutely in line with the Immortals and Wounted Warrior. As currently implemented the Gallic Warrior severly handicaps the Celts in the game when they are played by the AI and up against any experienced human player.
 
Originally posted by André Alfenaar
The easiest way to get GS would be by upgrading warriors! Usually when researching Monarchy or Republic you had better maximize your taxrate and set science to 10%. Cash flows in and voila: your bunch of cheap warriors are converted into a real army!
Yeah, this is the way I get my Swordsmen, and Horsemen/Knight armies anyways... I would use that strategy with the Gallic Swordsmen, and I have, in a MP game against a good friend of mine.

Hed had a lot better terrain then me, and more of it. And he controlled the Intersection which connected our parts of the continent, and it was also a elimination game. And not the least part, he was the Carthaginians...

I built Several G-Swords, and used some of them to attack his units in the intersection and steal workers etc, just to fool him that I wasn't doing something sneaky as I was doing :groucho:

I was building several Warriors, and not researching at all, and then I upgraded them, loaded them on my galleys and brought them over the thin Waterline that was between our two parts of the continent, and massed my troops. Then when I moved to attack, he had no time and no chance to defend his cities, as I was moving from behind his front. I took out one of his less defended cities, and Won the Elimination victory! :)
 
I think you guys are getting too caught up with the attack and defense values. The extra movement is about the most valuable thing you can have. You can move the unit out of harms way or it can retreat. If it saves itself to fight another day when a regular swordsmen would have been killed isn't it worth twice what a swordsman is? Also improved survivability increases the chances of elite units and great leaders. I just don't understand how you guys can be so down on this unit.
 
Jocko,

My comments are based on technical test results of comparing how the AI performs when playing as the Celts.

The Gallic Swordsman (3/2/2-50) compared to the Mounted Warrior (3/1/2-30) has only a one defense point gain on an offensive unit and this in no way justifies the increase in cost from 30 to 50 shields.

It also has to dow with how the AI plays the unit and how the humans can kill them. Basically the 50 shield cost is too much of a handicap an makes the Celts an easy kill for any combined arms attack that would work just as well against the Zulus. Whack em with vet horsemen of a few swordsmen and then finish off the wounded with horsemen. Because the cost in terms of turns required is basically double, the Celts never have enough of these units to be a credible threat to an organized human player.

If we did not have the other examples and the test data this would not be an issue. With this being a UU issue it is not a game breaker, but it definately makes the Celts one of the weakest ancient age opponents in the game. They are only a threat if you sit back and wait for them to kick your buttocks in open and level terrain. Every where else they are a 50 shield swordsman that occurs 50% less often and can sometimes retreat.
 
Top Bottom