[C3C] Bloody Celts

[darski]

I absolutely hate the Celts in any game.

Cathy was always annoying but Bren is bloody annoying.in my current game they were alone on a continent with France. they declared war twice. the second time I just left them to it; my dromons destroyed all coastal development and I finally got cavs and MT.

I went over there with armies as quickly as I could make them (caravels notwithstanding) I did wipe them off the planet but it annoys me that my entire game had to work towards their demise. Well I just got on with my game but I kept them in mind all the way through.

More times than not I just quit a game when I start next to them; they get GS's and then own the world so why put off the inevitable?

 

[Lanzelot]

There must be something else besides the Gallic Swordsmen that causes this?!
It could be argued that the combination of a very good early attacking UU with the agricultural trait (which is the most powerful trait and at the same time the trait the AI can use best) is what turns the Celts into a strong and dangerous AI, but then consider: the Iroquois have a very similar (in my opinion even better) UU, and they are also agricultural (plus the Iroquois' second trait - commercial - is much more useful than the Celts' second trait - religious). But you don't seem to have the same problem with the Iroquois, do you? So there must be something else, that makes the Celts so dangerous.

I just checked the editor and noticed two significant differences between the Celts and the Iroquois, which might explain your observation:

1. The Celts' aggression level is 4 (on a scale from 1 - 5), while the Iroquois aggression level is only 2.
2. The Celts have the "Offensive land units" flag activated in their "Build Often" governor settings, which the Iros have not.

Looks like these two settings have more impact than the UU and the traits?!

For me, the Aztecs and the Zulus are often the most annoying opponents, and sure enough: their aggression level is 4 and 5, respectively. And they also have an early (but not necessarily good) UU, which guarantees them an early Golden Age. (The Germans, on the other hand, are not nearly as annoying in my games, despite the fact that they also have an aggression level of 5. I assume this is due to the fact that their UU comes much to late (end of industrial age) to have any impact on the outcome of the game: so no early GA for them, and usually the game is already over (or at least decided) before we get to tanks.)

Spoiler Why is the MW superior to the GS? :

I think there are two reasons:

1. The Mounted Warrior has the same attack value and speed as the Gallic Swordsman, but costs only 30 shields whereas the GS costs 40 shields!
2. And on top of that, the MW upgrades to Knight and finally to Cavalry, which is a formidable attack unit at an early time period (end of the middle ages), while the GS is more or less a dead end: the first upgrade (Medieval Infantry) is not really an improvement (too slow), and the later upgrades (Guerilla and TOW Infantry) come much later (middle of the industrial age and early modern age, respectively) and turn the unit from an attack unit into a useless defense unit.) The AI usually overbuilds on defensive units anyway, and the GS upgrade path makes the problem even bigger for the Celts...

BTW: have you ever tried playing the Celts yourself? That might be an interesting experience (and a 100% fireproof way of avoiding to having to fight them... )

 

[darski]

I did try them a couple of times but I could never get more than a few GS units before I got to Middle ages. Actually, my complaints about Celts lead to a sort of training day game - I only lurked for that one.

I know that the AGR trait is a major factor in their growth but growth has nothing to do with their constant warring - I appreciate your notes on the aggression levels. they had a run away opportunity it that particular game but they will war with 2 cities or 20.

 

[Kirejara]

My "Celts" are the Indians in both modded and unmodded games.

If they are in the game, I am constantly on red alert waiting for their (non) surprise attack (KI marching into anothers territory and attack without further notice is legit, but if a human player does the same it ist outrageous ).

And both Ghandi and Rudrama have the lowest aggression level (at least on the paper ).

They are followed by the Hittiities and the Dutch.

Surprisingly I usally have been on good terms with the aggressive Mongols, Zulus and Germans (the Germans have switched their traits with the Ottomans and are now scientific and industrial).

A long time ago I shared my start island with the Zulus, but Shaka did not attack once, instead he was over the complete course of the game a surprisingly reliable ally against nearly every one else.

 

[Spoonwood]

Looks like these two settings have more impact than the UU and the traits?!

Perhaps.

But also, the AIs are temple builders. Since the Celts have the religious trait, and the agricultural trait, they build temples earlier than other AI tribes. That might make it so that The Celts use fewer clowns/entertainers, and consequently have more citizens working on tiles (in addition to the agricultural trait). That could increase their productivity. So, they can produce more units earlier.

 

[Lanzelot]

That might make it so that The Celts use fewer clowns/entertainers, and consequently have more citizens working on tiles (in addition to the agricultural trait). That could increase their productivity. So, they can produce more units earlier.

Good point! So it might indeed by a combination of several factors, that gives the Celts the potential to become a powerhouse: agricultural trait for faster growth, early temples for more productive citizens, a strong early UU and a high aggression level. If this is then fueled by a good starting position and a well-timed GA, you have the ingredients for a run-away AI...

I did try them a couple of times but I could never get more than a few GS units before I got to Middle ages.

At 40 shields they are indeed a bit expensive, and it's hard to build a big number via shields alone. The trick is to not connect iron too early and build Warriors instead of GS. Concentrate on Republic, trade Iron Working and other needed techs from the AI, then with Republic well-established and a decent number of Warriors built, turn off research, collect a big sum of cash (on higher levels you can even get big amounts of gpt and cash from the AI by trading Republic around), and then do a mass-upgrade of Warriors.

In the Asterix game (which had only an average start position) I had 14 Warriors and 648 gold in the bank account by 1000 BC. In 775 BC I was ready for the first war. Unfortunately the turn logs don't have any details about this, but I would estimate that at that point I had around 20 Gallic Swordsmen: the upgraded Warriors plus a couple of hand-built ones. That should be good enough to steam-roll anyone at that time.

 

[Dishpan_Hans]

Celts can be a big problem in some games. Iroquois can be too, unless they get stuck on an isolated land mass.

Dutch are ones that I find tough. Their two traits make them a menace on large land masses or small land masses. They can bounce back, too. Plus their Swiss Merc makes them a tough one to take out in medieval times. My last game had 9 turns left to mandatory retirement, and I was gonna lose anyway, but the Dutch decided to declare war and were more advanced than me. I just retired the game rather to watch them take my cities. They weren't even the leading civ, the Americans were (whom I fought long costly wars with) but shot ahead mid-game and kept going.

Other things I notice. The English can do well and then fall apart for some reason. The Romans usually flounder more than they succeed. Theodora cannot be trusted at all. Mongols will attack you even if they are weaker.

 

[vorlon_mi]

My pet peeve is the "not so random" selection of AI opponents. I'm going through all the civ's just to see what they can do, and I usually choose "Random" opponents for all the rest. I keep seeing the same group of Agri opponents, including the Inca, Maya, Iroquois. I'm willing to deal with one rapid-growth opponent, but when I get all 3 in multiple games in a row, I got frustrated. I've started picking at least 3 of my opponents, just to mix things up. When I have chosen the Celts, I've been fortunate enough not to start next to them.

 

[tjs282]

I have a feeling that the Random opponent-selection is not so Random as we might like.

Spoiler Whinge'n'moan :

I've noticed, for example, that when I pick (or am Randomly assigned) a Seafaring Civ with 'all-Random' opponents, there are usually 2 or 3 other Seafarers on the board (i.e. 3-4 Civs out of the 8 on a Standard sized map have 'my' trait), thus somewhat nullifying any particular advantage that trait might have given me. e.g. In my first All-Random Emperor game (Small 60% Continents), I rolled the Dutch as my Civ, and got Carthage and Byzantium (plus Arabia, Korea, and Japan) as opponents. And in the Vikings-SG I ran last year (on a Std 60% Archi map), I set all-Random opponents, and we got Carthage, Byzantium and Holland (plus Russia, Ottos and Arabs); in one of the other potential starts using the same conditions (which I played as a solo-game), I got Portugal and the Byzzies (plus France, Germany, China, Japan and Babylon).

Admittedly I haven't done any detailed analysis, but given that the game has 30 potential opponents to choose from, it feels like 37-50% of opponents sharing my trait(s) on a 'regular' basis is more than would be expected if it was truly Random.

But there is also a known bug with Culture-linkage, whereby if you have it switched on and choose all-Random opponents (not sure if you also have to Randomise your own Civ?), the American Civs will all be picked 'Randomly' as the first Culture-group placed. i.e. on a Standard map, if you aren't one of the American Civs, at least 5/7 opponents will be (and 4/5 of those Civs are also Agricultural!).

Since I prefer to play mostly Randomised games, I therefore never switch on Culture-linkage for any map-size smaller than Huge (which I rarely play).

 

[Theov]

Somehow the Iroquois, Chinese and Aztecs are consistently good in my games.
The Dutch are always dangerous, as are the Germans.
The others dont bring many mental notes

 

[vorlon_mi]

I have a feeling that the Random opponent-selection is not so Random as we might like.

Spoiler Whinge'n'moan :

I've noticed, for example, that when I pick (or am Randomly assigned) a Seafaring Civ with 'all-Random' opponents, there are usually 2 or 3 other Seafarers on the board (i.e. 3-4 Civs out of the 8 on a Standard sized map have 'my' trait), thus somewhat nullifying any particular advantage that trait might have given me. e.g. In my first All-Random Emperor game (Small 60% Continents), I rolled the Dutch as my Civ, and got Carthage and Byzantium (plus Arabia, Korea, and Japan) as opponents. And in the Vikings-SG I ran last year (on a Std 60% Archi map), I set all-Random opponents, and we got Carthage, Byzantium and Holland (plus Russia, Ottos and Arabs); in one of the other potential starts using the same conditions (which I played as a solo-game), I got Portugal and the Byzzies (plus France, Germany, China, Japan and Babylon).

Admittedly I haven't done any detailed analysis, but given that the game has 30 potential opponents to choose from, it feels like 37-50% of opponents sharing my trait(s) on a 'regular' basis is more than would be expected if it was truly Random.

But there is also a known bug with Culture-linkage, whereby if you have it switched on and choose all-Random opponents (not sure if you also have to Randomise your own Civ?), the American Civs will all be picked 'Randomly' as the first Culture-group placed. i.e. on a Standard map, if you aren't one of the American Civs, at least 5/7 opponents will be (and 4/5 of those Civs are also Agricultural!).

Since I prefer to play mostly Randomised games, I therefore never switch on Culture-linkage for any map-size smaller than Huge (which I rarely play).

This. Happens. A. Lot. I consistently see the Agricultural Civs. I need to make sure that Culture linkage is turned *off*, every game.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

Somehow the Iroquois, Chinese and Aztecs are consistently good in my games.
The Dutch are always dangerous, as are the Germans.
The others dont bring many mental notes

I've never really had serious trouble with the Dutch. I like playing Aztecs, and am about to play the Iroquois in my next game. I agree, though, the Germans are killers, and I hate playing against them, though it's fun to play Germans because they're perfect for playing for a Space Race.

 

[Theov]

The

I've never really had serious trouble with the Dutch. I like playing Aztecs, and am about to play the Iroquois in my next game. I agree, though, the Germans are killers, and I hate playing against them, though it's fun to play Germans because they're perfect for playing for a Space Race.

I will add that the Dutch need water to be extra dangerous, yes. But when they make it out if the AA, they can play a great comeback especially when in war during the medieval times.

 

[Theov]

The

I've never really had serious trouble with the Dutch. I like playing Aztecs, and am about to play the Iroquois in my next game. I agree, though, the Germans are killers, and I hate playing against them, though it's fun to play Germans because they're perfect for playing for a Space Race.

I will add that the Dutch need water to be extra dangerous, yes. But when they make it out if the AA, they can play a great comeback especially when in war during the medieval times.

 

[lummoxybez]

Going back to the OP, I had a recent game that I was convinced I’d won.
Germans, Continents, Large, Regent, 9 other civs.

I was way ahead on points and 1 or 2 techs ahead of everyone, and I wasn’t far off spamming more knights to attack the Russians, when I noticed the map was different. Where there should’ve been the orange of England and the yellow of the Mongols, there was nothing but dark green. The Celts had taken most of the continent with CWs.

Their units poured into my lands so they could get to an isolated English city so I had no choice but to ask them to leave, confident that I could take their CWs with my knights. Of course Brennus DOWs me and then about 40-50 more CWs flood across the border the next turn.
My knights fight bravely, but even rushing more units results in Brennus taking 5 of my cities after a dozen turns or so. Brennus then finishes off the English and Mongols and gets the French to DOW me too. At the point where he is at the walls of my second city I gave up.

The lessons learned are to keep an eye on world events, monitor power levels, and make sure one’s military is healthy.

 

[robbus]

My most fun game ever... Monarch level. I am defending my only source of saltpeter.

I have tanks infantry bombers artillery you name it. (no radar).

This turn took about 15 minutes to play. They attacked , I defended.

"it was a close run thing"

 

[darski]

View attachment 501201 My most fun game ever... Monarch level. I am defending my only source of saltpeter.

I have tanks infantry bombers artillery you name it. (no radar).

This turn took about 15 minutes to play. They attacked , I defended.

"it was a close run thing"

not a situation I envy...given my combat history I would probably just retire at that point

 

[gozpel]

I tried out a few civs and I picked the Babs, one city challenge.

Win on turn 1872, not good, but a win. 20k challenge.

 

[darski]

I tried out a few civs and I picked the Babs, one city challenge.

Win on turn 1872, not good, but a win. 20k challenge.

I've never been good at 20K as it needs at least an extra large map to get the one city vs Civ culture victory. I still prefer my small maps.

 

[Spoonwood]

I've never been good at 20K as it needs at least an extra large map to get the one city vs Civ culture victory. I still prefer my small maps.

No, it does not require such a map. Not if you play pangea or continents.