1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

best new unit in ptw

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Vietcong, Jun 1, 2003.

  1. Grandraem

    Grandraem Alchemist

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    2,101
    Location:
    Below.
    My favourite new units from PTW aren't even included in the game. I like the Medieval Japanese units from the extras folder.
     
  2. Gen

    Gen Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2002
    Messages:
    518
    Location:
    Arcanus
    Well, even in vanilla there were worse, better and "overpowered" unique units (given their historical timeframe, usefulness and stats of course). For example, F-15 is considered to be the worst, Immortal or Rider one of the best. In PTW we have the same thing (compare Hwacha or Conquistador to Sipahi or Berserk). I'd be rather surprised if Conquest units will be exception.
     
  3. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    I agree with Gen; the best Vanilla UUs whip the floor with the worst PTW ones. The best UU may be a PTW one (Sipahi, in many's opinion), and the worst one a Vanilla one (F-15, it's widely believed), but I don't think average quality of the PTW ones are much higher than that of the Vanilla ones. It's certainly not the case that the Sipahi is way better than the best Vanilla ones either.
     
  4. JonathanValjean

    JonathanValjean Porschephile

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,458
    Location:
    Charlottesville, VA, USA
    Sipahi, followed by Gallic Swordsmen.
     
  5. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    I've never seen what's quite so terrific about Gallic Swordsmen. Mounted Warriors are almost as strong, and much cheaper.
     
  6. Civrules

    Civrules We the People

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Messages:
    5,621
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    US
    So what if Gallic Swordsmen have one extra move? Not a big deal but they are kind of cool. :cool:
     
  7. squeaky

    squeaky Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Messages:
    41
    Wow, I'm surprised that not a single person mentioned the Ansar Warrior.

    They're my personal fav. Fast, cheap, look cool... :)
     
  8. Penguin Glory

    Penguin Glory Aquatic Pigeon

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    126
    Location:
    Miami Beach
    less defense, very vulnerable in between moves...

    and they don't look cool
     
  9. Tonsoffun

    Tonsoffun Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 30, 2003
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Sipahi then Numedian Merc.

    Sipahi are just beastly.
     
  10. Gen

    Gen Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2002
    Messages:
    518
    Location:
    Arcanus
    Forgot to vote in last post, but they are actually my favourite units too! :goodjob:
    Lowered defense is a non-factor to me. Have yet to see when enemy catch and attack them, with such mobility that's me who decide when and where to fight.

    Typo edited.
     
  11. Nad

    Nad Known Troublemaker

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    London, UK
    I don't particularly like the way the PTW UU's have been handled. I much preferred the standard +1 in attack/defence/move that appears in Civ3. In PTW you've got super-UUs that have had their costs modded for some element of balance, but IMO, the balance is not correct.

    Take, for example, the gallic swordsman. IMO, this the worst UU in terms of cost/benefit. 50 shields?!? That's an absolute joke. I can get immortals, 4/2/1, truly the granddaddys of the ancient age, at 30 shields; I can get the Mountie, 3/1/2, at 30 shields. But I have to pay an extra 20 shields for another defence point?! You can just about get away with this on the easier difficulty levels, but try an emperor or deity game where you get sneak attacked early by an enemy that can produce normal swords at 24 or 18 shields, while your gallics cost 50.

    Think about the comparative UUs; the gallic sword is to a swordsman what the Jag is to a warrior, the rider is to the knight, and the panzer is to the tank: simply a UU with 1 more move point. The Jag, the Rider and the Panzer all cost the same as their base model. Why should the Gallic swordsman be any different? I don't agree it would be any more overpowerful than the immortal. My opinion is that the designers have screwed up.

    Then the Sipahi. I love this unit, as everyone seems to. The attack 8 is simply devastating, but the balance issue is that it costs 100 shields. Same as a panzer! So the Sipahi's usefulness really only lasts for an age, because if you had a choice between an 8-3-3 unit and a 16-8-3 unit, same cost, which would you choose? Conclusion: the balance is just about right overall, for the Sipahi, but it is still overpowerful in its period; I would have much preferred the sipahi to be 7-3-3, 80 shields, ie, a cavalry with an extra attack point, which is the purpose of UUs.

    My rank of PTW UUs:
    1) Sipahi
    2) Berserk
    3) Ansar
    4) Numidian
    5) Keshik
    6) Gallic
    7) Conquistador
    8) Hwacha
     
  12. RegentMan

    RegentMan Deity

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,951
    Location:
    Washington State
    I'm sure you meant movement point, and yes I agree; it is joke to pay nearly 100% more for a movement point. I was going to post something similar to your opinion on the PTW UUs, but my computer crashed :( . I agree that UUs need to just have one point added, not cost reduction/increase, adding/subtracting a resource, or adding/subtracing more than one A/D/M point.
     
  13. Nad

    Nad Known Troublemaker

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    London, UK
    20 shields for an extra move point compared to the swordsman, 20 shields for an extra defence point compared to the mountie
     
  14. Gen

    Gen Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2002
    Messages:
    518
    Location:
    Arcanus
    True. But many players miss the point that Celts are the only civ which has two main fast ancient attack units (I'm ignoring chariots) for their disposal (well, Aztecs have Jaguar Warriors...), thus are much less independent on resources availability and having both iron and horses presents them interesting alternative: cheaper and weaker or more expensive but powerful "cavalry".
    Having said this, I think Gallics are overpriced, too. 40 shields would be about right for them.
     
  15. Vietcong

    Vietcong Deity

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,570
    Location:
    Texas
    :D thank u every one for posting.. i never thot my thread whold stay so close to the top for so long.... tnak u every one for postin and plz contiune
     
  16. SirPleb

    SirPleb Shaken, not stirred.

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,415
    Location:
    Nanaimo BC Canada
    I don't have a single best unit, there are a number that I rate highly. I don't think the new PTW units are imbalanced, some are quite nice, some ho-hum.

    I'd like to say a bit in defense of the Gallic Swordsman. I think this unit is among the best in the game.

    The full degree of their strength isn't immediately obvious. Some ways to compare them:

    1) Vs. Mounted Warriors. One way to look at it is that the GS has just 1 extra defense point. But another way is to say that the GS has twice the defense. This translates into a huge difference. For example, if we have the following fights, with all units veteran and the defender not fortified, here are the chances of MWs surviving an attack vs. GSs surviving (before allowing for retreat roll - the combat calculator I'm using doesn't allow for that):
    archer attacking, defender in forest: MW 26%, GS 62%
    swordsman attacking, defender on hills: MW 17%, GS 50%
    swordsman attacking, defender on mountain: MW 29%, GS 65%
    What it adds up to in play for me is that Gallic Swordsmen can, by using their extra movement point to boost their defense (selecting the terrain), defend quite well. They don't need hit and run tactics and they don't need to wait for slow support troops to accompany them. Mounted Warriors do need these things.

    2) Vs. Immortals. I'll take the extra speed any time. The retreat roll is also an advantage. I'd consider 15 GS's a very nice trade for 25 Immortals (which is what the shield difference works out to.)

    3) Vs. Medieval Infantry (which is what the Gallic Swordsman "upgrades" to.) MIs are the same as Immortals but at a later date and a 40 shield price. I wouldn't consider swapping a Gallic Swordsman for an MI - the GS is more powerful.

    To my mind, the comparison with MIs establishes that the Gallic Swordsman is worth over 40 shields if considered as a regular unit instead of a UU. So 50 shields seems an acceptable number. But of course as a UU its powers should be discounted from the regular price. Is it discounted? Yes, I'd say it is, by how early it is available. I'd pay 50 shields for a regular unit with these attributes at the beginning of the Middle Ages and consider it about right. Surely it is worth more again to have it available early in Ancient Times when there's less defense possible against such a strong unit.

    Another advantage of GS's over MW's, which some would consider an exploit and therefore not consider a legitimate advantage: After learning Iron Working you can continue to build Warriors in unconnected towns and then upgrade them to GS's using cash. This can be quite powerful. There's no equivalent technique for MW's.

    Putting it all together I find these guys to be very strong. The ability to move 2 tiles allows them to be rapidly deployed or repositioned. It also allows you to choose the terrain fights occur on, increasing their 2 point defense to a good level. This allows them to be a general purpose unit, handling offense and defense. I think they're more powerful than any other Ancient Times unit and that their price is reasonable for such strength.

    One more way to look at them: Horsemen are 2/1/2 units at 30 shields, Knights 4/3/2 at 70 shields. GS is 3/2/2, halfway between (but more than half if considered in percentage increments) at 50 shields.

    The only things I think are really wrong with Gallic Swordsmen:
    1) The AI is incapable of using them to full potential. They're overpriced at 50 shields for the AI.
    2) The so called "upgrade" path for them is plain silly. They're much stronger than the unit they upgrade to and the shield costs of the two units even reflects that.
     
  17. Nad

    Nad Known Troublemaker

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    London, UK
    you make some good points there, but I'm not entirely convinced. You make an example there of mountie vs Gallic on defence, which tells us what we already knew, that the gallic is better on defence...you would expect it to be, it has an extra point, just as the swordsman is better at defence than the horseman, the base models. Moreover, it would be useful if we could find a calculator that does factor in retreat, as that is a crucila part of any mobile unit's defence.

    What I would like to see is a comparison on attack, which is the main function of these units. Ceteris paribus, the mountie and the gallic would perform identically, since they are both attack 3, move 2. How about the gallic vs the immortal? If the typical scenario is attacking a spearman, fortified on flat terrain (defence 2.7), how would ther immortal fair and how would the gallic. My instinct says that the immortal would fare far better - the gallics might get some retreats, but I can't imagine an immortal losing too many battles. If someone does have a proper, tried and tested, combat calculator, I would be very interested to see the results.

    On the point about the Gallic's upgrade, although it's not relevant to this discusiion, I do agree with you that it is absurd that the gallic "upgrades" to a unit that costs less. IMO, units that are "superior" to their upgrade in any of A/D/M, should not upgrade, eg, I do not think impi should upgrade to muskets, I do not think jags should upgrade to swords, I do not think samurai should upgrade to cavalry, I do not think legions should upgrade to medieval infantry.

    I still maintain that if the jag costs the same as the warrior, the rider costs the same as the knight, and the panzer costs the same as the tank, the gallic should cost the same as a sword. Anything else is completely illogical.
     
  18. Vietcong

    Vietcong Deity

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,570
    Location:
    Texas
    all of u have very good point. i like the (forgot its name) the ottoman calvery, the numidian mercanry, and the (i call it this) celtic swords man...(the celtic swords man combind with hores men makes a fast and moble army) inthe origanle civ 3 i like the panzer, jag. warrior(i make lots of them and trow them at the enamy untill thay are advicaly "overwlemed" be the shear number of jag warriors) i allso like the imp. but thers one thing wrong with the imp.. the imps saposed to be ofensive!!!! thay wher in history... the imp's spear proves its ofensive. look at it its a very short spear with a browod spear head.... but i think the beast unit and most usefull is probly the ottoman calvery unit...

    the most useless unit in the game i think whold ehter be the f-15 or the (forgot its name) korean rocket artilery thing..
     
  19. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    Re: the Gallic Swordsman, at 30 shields it would be too good. Nad's comparisons with Jaguars and Riders don't wholly bear out, since the former aren't very hard attackers, whereas the Swordsmen have 50% higher attack than the best defense (UUs excepted) available when it comes around, and the Rider is an upgrade from the Knight, which alread is move two, which means that the Rider isn't getting its retreat for free, and the difference between move three and move two is less than that between move two and move one in itself.

    I'd think 40 shields would be about right.

    The Ansar Warrior, as some have already mentioned, is pretty ace. Faster and cheaper than reg'lar Knights.
     
  20. Andropov

    Andropov Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    31
    Sipahi in PTW
    Panzer and Immortal for regular civs.

    I haven't heard anyone mention the Korean UU, either good or bad...any opinions?
     

Share This Page