Does anyone like playing as the Celts?

[CivDude86]

The Praetorian, while great while it lasts, has a limited lifespan

I wouldn't call ancient age to gunpowder limited, more like if I haven't won by then I did something wrong.
As for the Gallic, I switched them to axes since that is what they are holding, makes them a bit better since axes are field units can make some use of the bonus.

 

[Thedrin]

I think you missed Wodan's point.

The praetorian lasts from the ancient age to gunpowder (if you're willing to use them against macemen and crossbows). Free promotions for unique units last the entire game, e.g. the berserkers amphibious promotion passes from the berserker to riflemen/grenadiers to infantry and so on as the unit is upgraded. The same goes for the numidian cavalry's flanking I and the impi's mobility (less useful until mechanised infantry).

Speaking of which, the Gallic swordsman's Guerilla I lasts through to gunpowder units also - a weak promotion which lasts the entire game.

 

[Landmonitor]

I can tell you from experience you are wrong. They are swordsmen you're going to buy CR, and then go for upgrading thier combat skills, like any other swordsemen. ... except I might have been more successfull with my first go with them in the early wars because I wouldn't have even bothered trying the whole shoot for GIII thing, which I did with a couple of the gallic warriors. Just a waste of promotions is all that is.

But the effectivness of a UU is not going to be the main atraction for me to a civ. It's the traits that grab me. A UU only makes 2 civs, the Redcoat and the Pret, every other UU is just butter. So the Celts don't have any quality butter, no deal thier core traits rock hard, and that's what really defines a civ.

Yeah, that is a good point, about the GIII being a waste of promotions; getting shock and cover would probably be a better investment of experience. Having said that, in the one Celts game I played, the higher hill mobility contributed a lot to quickyl overunning a Civ that was fairly far away. I could also see one Gaelic Warrior per stack having GII and eventually shock being potentially useful for defensively repelling axemen... maybe... although not as good as those crossbowmen being trained in a Dun city. I think my last argument about trying to justify them is that their tatoos and that axe-kinda-weapon look cool.

Having said all that, their trait combination is, as you say really strong, and I also tend to pick Civs based primarily on traits.

 

[drkodos]

Praets are powerful until Gunpowder? Have you forgtten about Maces and Knights?


I like the Celts. A lot.

I think their trait combo mixes powerfully and with mysticism as a starting tech their traits can be levied into producing a long lasting synchronicity of tech discoveries, significant GP's and Wonders. They are equally adept in taking the warmongering route or teching into the more peaceful building pathways.

I look at the UB/UU issues from this perspective: I am not a wall builder. I do not see where the UB takes anything away from Celts. One can choose to not build Duns and no harm is incurred. One is still free construct barracks and stables and grab all the normal promotions. Adding another promo is hardly a bad thing, especially when it carries over with uprgrading. And since I don't find any of the UB's to be game breaking, unless they are variants on buildings I normally go for, they make little difference in most games I played.

The Gallic Warrior is limited in scope and a regular Swordsman would be a better attacking unit, no doubt. But, I like the variety that not all UU's are THE dominant unit of their respective Civ. It creates game dynamics that get the player looking outside their normal scope of vision to acheive success. Instead of building an entire game strategy around a single unit and using it to enforce a theme, the Celts deeply reward a type of play that matches up long-term trait synergies with long-term strategies.

First go through with the Celts I got pummeled & humbled. I found out that I needed to become a better player, one that did not have to rely solely on tactics such as CS Slingshots or brute force conquesting, in order to maximize the Celtic experience.

 

[Thedrin]

As I see it, the Gallic swordsman is a regular swordsman with the option for added speed if the terrain is suitable (and an ordinary map would have to be unusually flat to not allow for extra speed). Since Brennus is charismatic guerilla II doesn't cost as much as it would for other leaders. Guerilla III has its uses but I wouldn't go for it immeadiately.

a regular Swordsman would be a better attacking unit

How is a Gallic swordsman worse at attacking?

 

[Wodan]

I think you missed Wodan's point.

The praetorian lasts from the ancient age to gunpowder (if you're willing to use them against macemen and crossbows). Free promotions for unique units last the entire game, e.g. the berserkers amphibious promotion passes from the berserker to riflemen/grenadiers to infantry and so on as the unit is upgraded. The same goes for the numidian cavalry's flanking I and the impi's mobility (less useful until mechanised infantry).

Speaking of which, the Gallic swordsman's Guerilla I lasts through to gunpowder units also - a weak promotion which lasts the entire game.

Yes, what he said.

In addition, I wouldn't even say the Praetorian lasts until Gunpowder. Its effective advantage last only until Civil Service. After that, they're weak Maces.

(You gain some slight advantage in not having to pay to upgrade your Axes and Swords, but unless they have good promotions they're not going to survive your opponent's Maces.)

As for Guerilla the entire game, whoop de doo.

Although... there was one game, just one, couple of months ago where I had a bottleneck single city between me and I think it was Monty. It was all hilly. We were fighting all game. I was going for a cultural victory, so that's why I didn't build up to go clean his clock.

Anyway, I ended up specifically promoting a couple of units to Guerilla II so that they could jump out, kill somebody, and have the movement to get back in my city walls.

Wodan

 

[karr1255]

Nobody needs a UU that's as powerful as the praetorians. But heres the problem: If the UU replaces the swordsman you will always get the comparison between those two. It's the same for the aztec jaguars. The UU should get at least guerilla II with Duns and even then guerilla just blows.

 

[JMaltman]

I've been the Celts once, and I found them a lot of fun. I got a lot of cheap promos from barb hunting, and my land was just hilly enough for the dun to be worthwhile. Having stacks of Gallic Swordsmen and free GI Archers on your metal sources is a really nice combo. I warred my way through my first half-continent (one of those odd setups with 2 half continents linked by 2 tile bridge blocked by peaks), then peacefully teched and built for a while, finally heading south to vassalize Hatty, and then sit back for a cultural win (Prince... where I was just trying out a bunch of different things).

Yes, the Dun would have been less useful if my metal wasn't on hills - but it very often is, so its very often useful in that stage of the game. And metal and walls both get devalued/outdated around the same time.

I think they're balanced - but to stack the UB/UU trait would be an improvement.

 

[Lucky Charms]

Ever try the Celts on Highlands or Rocky Climate? I'm telling you, Gallic Warriors are fantastic there, super mobile troops....
Also, I love the Spiritual/Charismatic trait combination, it's brilliant, I love the blend.

On normal maps, Gallic Warriors are nothing special, but in the right situation, they certainly have their uses.

 

[RobertTheBruce]

I don't mind the dun, guerilla longbows are great defenders if you build your cities on hills. Not worth building walls everywhere but okay.
I would propose replacing the gallic warrior with a classical era chariot unit. Replace the swordsman with a 6str, 1move unit requiring iron and horse and give it a small bonus against melee units. You can keep it as a melee unit to allow CR promotions and have a nice but not too overpowered attacker.
I originally thought of giving a swordsman 2 movement like the musketeer but a 2move CR unit would just be too powerful.

It would give the Celts a more useful bonus for their UU and a fearsome chariot would be a good historical fit.

 

[CivDude86]

There is the gallic chariot in the Rise of Rome scenario you could use too.
I don't think 2 move gallic are overpowered since you can't bring axes,spears, and siege with you so it should easily countered.

 

[Xanikk999]

I don't mind the dun, guerilla longbows are great defenders if you build your cities on hills. Not worth building walls everywhere but okay.
I would propose replacing the gallic warrior with a classical era chariot unit. Replace the swordsman with a 6str, 1move unit requiring iron and horse and give it a small bonus against melee units. You can keep it as a melee unit to allow CR promotions and have a nice but not too overpowered attacker.
I originally thought of giving a swordsman 2 movement like the musketeer but a 2move CR unit would just be too powerful.

It would give the Celts a more useful bonus for their UU and a fearsome chariot would be a good historical fit.

Anything slightly good is being called overpowered in the civ4 forums. It makes me sick.

 

[BomberTank]

Also the Celtic swordsman looks so much nicer in civ3, as well as the many other units ( I despise the archer graphics -- so bad/usless lol )

 

[wioneo]

Defensive swords are useless. Hands down. I personally use more axe city raiders because they can be used as defenders and are cheaper. I think that the moronic Guerilla promotin should be removed from the Gallic Warrior, and that it should be given 15% hills attack(no promos) as its special ability. The duns are fine, but the warriors are pathetic. A Gallic Warrior on a hill would still be bulldozed by a good ol' Praet.

 

[wioneo]

Anything slightly good is being called overpowered in the civ4 forums. It makes me sick.

Your attackers shouldn't be able to take cover after they raid a city. I think that its fitting that the AI has its revenge at least once before they die.

 

[cthom]

the dun seems to quite unpopular as a UB, so i decided to look at the firaxis website to see what they said about it.
it's a wall...
i live within a few miles of several dun sites, and they were all hill forts. i can see where the guerilla promo fits in, but 'wall'?
btw i haven't got warlords yet, maybe next month.

 

[BomberTank]

UU's and Unit choice balance might have been better in civ3 -- especially the UU which wasnt usless most of the time like in civ4 -- Unit choice structure looks ok but it isnt as great as civ3 was by far.

 

[BomberTank]

If i was fraxis i would go back to civ3... and take all the good parts of civ4 and put them together they took sooo many good things from civ3

 

[Meatbuster]

Essentially when you build a Wall you are fortifying your city. If you build a city on a hill with a wall it is making it a hill fort. So yeah, Dun.

It could be worse, they could make the Dun replace the Castle but that will make it even more useless.

UU's and Unit choice balance might have been better in civ3 -- especially the UU which wasnt usless most of the time like in civ4 -- Unit choice structure looks ok but it isnt as great as civ3 was by far.

You're kidding right? Tell me, what is the American unique unit in Civ 3 and is it useful?

 

[pukii]

you can always make a great game worse

i must confess i've never build the UB of isabella because i found it to be not enough useful when i have closed borders and often war.