Does anyone like playing as the Celts?

[Thedrin]

I think the problem I have with the UU is that a) for a swordsmen of any type - UU or otherwise - to be effective against cities, it needs to go down the City Raider path.

An unpromoted swordsman is a better city attacker than a city raider I axeman (6.6 vs. 6). A city raider I swordsman is a better city attacker than a city raider II axeman (7.8 vs. 7.25). A city raider II swordsman is a better city attacker than a city raider III axeman (9.3 vs. 8.75)*.

This means you can afford to give Gallic swordsmen guerilla II and they will still be better city raiders than axemen. The speed boost of guerilla II is very often a good enough bonus in itself. You'd need bad luck with hill placement for it not to be.

As for guerilla III. An axeman with two more city raiding promotions than a swordsman is a better city attacker. Before 2.08 I considered it a niche trait. I did not agree with the idea that Gallic swordsmen should be given this promotion unless circumstances (attacking hilled cities) required it.

Post 2.08, sending the majority of your Gallics all the way down the list of guerilla promotions is a useful strategy. The 30% withdrawal bonus applies to all terrain (I give it to my crossbows - particularly cho-ko-nus - as well). While the withdrawal chance doesn't improve your Gallics city raiding abilities it does improve their chances of surviving all attacks and increases their chances of reaching higher experience levels (especially since Brennus is charismatic). For me, this is quite often worth the detour from the city raiding promotions.

* Assuming melee units aren't defending.

Edit:

*Now, pop rush the Dun (50 hammers - 2 pop). Then pop rush an Archer (or chop with the captured workers). Forget about the Barracks: An Archer with Guerilla I on a hills defending a city with the Dun is more powerful than an Archer with City Garrison I (from the Barracks), Guerilla I (Barracks) or even Guerilla I and 2 (without the Dun).

This is the only part of your strategy that I'd disagree with. Pop rushing walls is fine but I'd have one of my core cities pumping out archers with 3/4 XP and guerilla II and sending them to defend your newly conquered cities, leaving the newly conquered city to work on improving commerce or culture. Alternatively, if a hilled city needs defending, have the core city producing Gallics with guerilla II to be your city defenders (a task you already know they're good at). They can also double up as emergency attackers.

 

[Watiggi]

An unpromoted swordsman is a better city attacker than a city raider I axeman (6.6 vs. 6). A city raider I swordsman is a better city attacker than a city raider II axeman (7.8 vs. 7.25). A city raider II swordsman is a better city attacker than a city raider III axeman (9.3 vs. 8.75)*.

Those numbers are off. An unpromoted swordsmen (with a 10% city attack) doesn't have an adjusted strength of 6.6. An unpromoted swordsmen vs a city raider axemen is 6 with 10% city attack vs 5 with a +20% city attack. The city attack bonus is used to deduct from the defenders defense bouses.

This is the only part of your strategy that I'd disagree with. Pop rushing walls is fine but I'd have one of my core cities pumping out archers with 3/4 XP and guerilla II and sending them to defend your newly conquered cities, leaving the newly conquered city to work on improving commerce or culture. Alternatively, if a hilled city needs defending, have the core city producing Gallics with guerilla II to be your city defenders (a task you already know they're good at). They can also double up as emergency attackers.

I was after a strategy that takes advantage of the UU/UB and their bonuses. The strategy you described whereby you would have one of your core cities produce better archers is a strategy that is really universal - any leader can do it. What I was after was a rush where each city conquered can be looked after and protected by its attacking units without needing any any support from the core cities. It makes for a self sufficient quick rush which makes use of all of the Celtics UB and UU bonuses (Gallic Warrior with G1, Dun giving G1 to archers, etc). I had a feeling it was there, I just couldn't see it. If that isn't the intended strategy, then the bonuses don't make sense for a rush. Capture a hill defended city, build the Dun, build an archer (with Guerilla I), capture a hill defended city, build the Dun, build an archer, etc, etc, etc. It makes use of all the bonuses.

Rushing the Dun or Archer isn't nessercery though. You can just keep a Gallic Warrior defending there until it can defend itself. When I saw the Celtic bonuses with the Dun initially, I saw a potential hit and run strategy whereby the attackers would also be good temporary defenders too. Anyway, it works rather nicely... a little like a Jag rush.

 

[gdgrimm]

I was after a strategy that takes advantage of the UU/UB and their bonuses. The strategy you described whereby you would have one of your core cities produce better archers is a strategy that is really universal - any leader can do it.

Not quite. Any leader can build an Archer and slog it to the front line.

Only Brennus could build an Archer that moves twice as fast while getting to the front line (provided adequate hill coverage). Which is especially nice for him, because his front line troops will also be moving twice as fast (Gallic Warriors with GII+).

 

[Thedrin]

Those numbers are off. An unpromoted swordsmen (with a 10% city attack) doesn't have an adjusted strength of 6.6. An unpromoted swordsmen vs a city raider axemen is 6 with 10% city attack vs 5 with a +20% city attack. The city attack bonus is used to deduct from the defenders defense bouses.

True, assuming the defender has any bonuses. The attacker and defenders' bonuses are subtracted from each other until only one unit has any bonuses. If the defender were an unpromoted horse archer and the attack wasn't across a river, the attacker would have his bonus applied to himself. As for the usefullness of the numbers:

Take an unfortified drill I, city garrison I archer (since archers are the most common form of non-melee city defender each unit can expect to face) in a flat land city with no cultural expansions (1-2 first strikes, 70% defensive bonuses).

Unpromoted swordsman: 67.1% chance of victory.
City raider I swordsman: 83.9% chance of victory.
City raider II swordsman: 94.7% chance of victory.*
City raider I axeman: 59.9% chance of victory.
City raider II axeman: 70.9% chance of victory.
City raider III axeman: 94.9% chance of victory.*

An unfortified drill I, city garrison II archer in a flat land city with no cultural expansions (1-2 first strikes, 95% defensive bonuses).

Unpromoted swordsman: 58.1% chance of victory.
City raider I swordsman: 65.1% chance of victory.
City raider II swordsman: 83.9% chance of victory.
City raider I axeman: 26% chance of victory.
City raider II axeman: 59.9% chance of victory.
City raider III axeman: 82.6% chance of victory.

An unfortified drill I, city garrison III archer in a flat land city with no cultural expansions (1-2 first strikes, 135% defensive bonuses including 10% versus melee).

Unpromoted swordsman: 22.5% chance of victory.
City raider I swordsman: 27.3% chance of victory.
City raider II swordsman: 59.9% chance of victory.
City raider I axeman: 16.3% chance of victory.
City raider II axeman: 21.9% chance of victory.
City raider III axeman: 55.8% chance of victory.

* highlights the only case where the city raider X axeman has an advantage over the city raider (X - 1) swordsman and it's not a very big advantage; 0.2%.

I did a quick, similar test comparing guerilla III city raider X swordsmen to guerilla II city raider (X + 1) swordsmen. Results weren't in favour of guerilla III. I may well return to using it just for attacking hilled cities and Gallics designated for field combat.

 

[EditorRex]

I still like some things about the Celts, but I wonder whether there isn't a significant need to upgrade them a bit in the next patch. Perhaps a way to make the UU/UB synergy less redundant? Let the Dun do something special for Gallics.

 

[abuaftab]

After all the whinging and whining about how lame the Gallic Warrior is, I suggest that we modify them to be Str 9 with CRIII at the top, then we can start complaining about how overpowered they are. I think they are fine as is, and you just need to think out how to use them well.

 

[Watiggi]

@Thedrin: Nice stats . Yeah, it is pretty obvious though that the G1-3 isn't better at attacking cities than CR1-3, but I like the Gallics with Guerilla series. It's the same strange thing I am having with the Jags: Now that they have a free Woodsmen I promotion, it is tempting to give them a Woodsmen II promo too. The problem there is that they become next to useless when taking down a city. But I am happy with Gallics with G1-G3 first. a) With this strategy I will be taking down hilled cities, b) I like the speed and defensive bonuses - the AI will not attack a G1 & G2 Gallic Warrior that is on hills with an Axemen much less a forrested hills.

I do like the rushing Dun then Archer and then moving on: It gives a good follow on, kind of a good self sufficient quick conquest rush feel to it that takes advantage of the Dun's ability to a) defend the city and b) build units that can have the Guerilla I promotions. In the early era, what other military unit can have it besides the Gallic Warrior (who already has it)? The Archer. This strat makes use of that fact.

Not quite. Any leader can build an Archer and slog it to the front line.

Only Brennus could build an Archer that moves twice as fast while getting to the front line (provided adequate hill coverage). Which is especially nice for him, because his front line troops will also be moving twice as fast (Gallic Warriors with GII+).

Nice point. Never considered that before. It doesn't really make maximum use of the Dun though imo.

I will also say that in my game, I had the time to pop rush the Dun, then pop rush the Barracks and then finally chop an Archer. The city was being defended by a lone G1-G2 Gallic Warrior during this time. It worked well too. The core cities would be doing something else (like building wonders or building more Gallics).

I still like some things about the Celts, but I wonder whether there isn't a significant need to upgrade them a bit in the next patch. Perhaps a way to make the UU/UB synergy less redundant? Let the Dun do something special for Gallics.

Well, if Gallics were built with G2 instead of G1, then the Dun could give G1. Hmmm. Actually that wouldn't happen as G1 couldn't be given to the Gallic Warrior.

Maybe:
The Dun:
Guerilla II promotion for all elegible units

Then the Gallic Warrior - with the Dun - can be built with G1-G2. A Barracks and they can have G1-G3. The problem here is that if the Dun gives G2, then all melee units will get G2 and probably be able to get to G3. That wont work so well..

 

[Thedrin]

I still like some things about the Celts, but I wonder whether there isn't a significant need to upgrade them a bit in the next patch. Perhaps a way to make the UU/UB synergy less redundant? Let the Dun do something special for Gallics.

The Dun only applies to recon, archery and gunpowder units. The Gallic swordsman is none of these units. There is no redundancy.

 

[Blake]

I really like Celts since the patch. The Gallic Swordsman is a very nasty piece of work against hill cities, G2+G3 gives a +25% attack bonus against hills, which is 15% less than CR1+CR2, but you ALSO get the +30% retreat AND +30% hill defense AND double move on hill. What these means is if the enemy builds cities on hills - especially also next to hills, the Gallics can sweep in quickly, the Gallic's cannot be countered on a hill, an Axeman has feeble odds against them - Axe = 5, Gallic = 7.5, with Shock they can bring that to 5 vs 6, but it's still not great. Stacks of Gallics really are murder in the hills. Now when it comes to holding the cities, you can either use Gallics, which enjoy their massive strength on hills (with fortify bonus it's str 9 against axes once fortified), with a Dun and Archers the enemy odds are simply horrible.

I would say that given the impossibility of defending against a Gallic choke, the enemies best bet is to avoid hills like the plague - especially avoiding "on a hill next to a hill". G3 Gallics have the exact same odds attacking a hill city as a non-hill city (with the exception of hill defense units like Archers/Phalnaxes which are stronger, or NDB units like horse archers which are weaker), but the main difference is once they TAKE the hill city, it ain't being taken back - the massive defense bonus from GII and Celtic hill mobility ensures that.

Another thing which is cool about Gallics is that they can be built with copper and Brennus is Cha, that means that with a barracks they only need to win any fight vs barbs to get GIII, or even without a barracks they only need to win two 98% odd fights vs archers to get GIII, with some barbs for target practice an elite core of GIII Gallics can be generated very quickly.

I do tend to think that Brennus is a better leader in most ways than Monty - I've warmed up to Cha a lot for it's flexibility and Brennus has all the other benefits of Monty, along with a more powerful UU (the option of building with copper makes Gallics nearly as accessible as Jaguars). Brennus also enjoys Spiritual+Mysticism+Charismatic which means +1 happy monuments from the start and the easy option of getting a religion for more happy. He has a lot of happy synergy and some decent military synergy.

 

[Watiggi]

Q: Does the Dun's Guerilla I bonus applied even when the Dun becomes obsolete (with Rifleing, I think). I seldom get a game that far up the tech tree.

...

Blake, the Jags get Woodsmen I now, so technically they can pretty much get Woodsmen II out of the (cheap) Barracks. I would rather give them Combat II or City Raider I personally, but they have the potential to have just as quick attack. Mind you, with the reduced strength, giving it a Woodsmen II would be like bugs hitting the windscreen when you attack a city with them .

The thing that seperates Jags from Gallics is the Jags resourcelessness: When pushed to its limits, it can make for a much, MUCH faster conquest... especially with the Sacrificial Altar and Slavery.

 

[WilliamOfOrange]

No, charismatic does not build monuments faster.

Yes, my apologies, I was overdosing on crack when I typed that.

Just wishful thinking I guess.

Anyway, I played a game with them the other day and man the happiness cap is sweet to say the least.

I was trying for a Quick Settler Cultural, the bane of my existence these days, trying for a sub-1300 finish. I got 1405AD, my best yet, but have a question.

What would you have done in this situation. I popped two settlers with such timing that I had three cities at 3400BC each with a religion.

Bibracte: Founded 4000BC, Founded Buddism 3880BC
Vienne: Founded 3700BC, Founded Hinduism 3700BC
Tolosa: Founded 3580BC, Founded Judaism 3340BC

I had all three cathedral resources and was whipping missionairies like nobody's business. I eventually had 4, 7 and 6 cathedrals respectively in the three cities, plus hermitage in the third. Vienne founded, Confucianism, Toaism and Christianity while Tolosa got Islam. I had 9 GAs, and 2 GEs from the pyramids and I used one to rush the Taj Mahal in 500AD.

My question is: Should I have had the 4th, 5th and 6th cities sooner to each have a religion or was it good to have the big 3 do the founding of religions? I tend to switch to Free Religion near the end to get the +5 culture working for me. This time, rather than stop after liberalism, banking and democracy I avoided the Statue of Liberty and tried for Radio to build the Eiffel Tower since I was further in tech than normal. I didn't finish before the end...but figure if I had just cranked the culture switch earlier I would have finished earlier.....

Any thoughts?

 

[Greybriar]

Does anyone like playing as the Celts?

Yes, I do.

 

[Kartik]

no, I hate them.

 

[HUSch]

Now, i know after reading this fred more in the next play with Brennus, i ve lost the last 2.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

AI also used Gallic Warriors against me quite nicely one time. Brennus was on galley sail away from my island (or continent, dont remember anymore). War -> he lands few boatfuls of those and puts them on hills next to my cities (w/G2). Of course, that was the most logical terrain to put them put anyways. What followed was more disappointing since it felt like he just tried to choke me by standing there (not much attacking, really). Getting rid of them was.. painful.

Then, later when playing celts i used same tactics against Frederick but did actually take his cities. G3 units are nice on rocky terrain (big surprise!). I do like playing Celts, but only if actually choose them (if i start as celts on random, i usually start again to get another civ.. dunno really why). This makes me actually wish that i could exclude some of civs from random pool on both opponents / my 'semi'random civ. There are few civs/leaders that i just hate.

 

[majk-iii]

Does anyone like playing as the Celts?

Not really... no.

 

[Smellycowsquid]

Try a highlands map with them. I bet the uu would be very good on that type of map!

 

[abuaftab]

I played Kai's huge map and used them well. I found that Guerilla 3 longbows, x-bows and gallics made a mess of even Roman Prats! The best thing about Celts is the Charismatic trait so you can get promotions quickly. Gallic swordsman with Guerilla 3 and City Riader 3 is nasty against hill cities, especially when upgrades to mace or further.

 

[bovinespy]

Wow! I can't believe this thread is still going! I don't I've ever started a thread here that kept going this long. Glad to see the good discussion going.

On a personal note, I must concede that I was wrong about Brennus. After trying him out since the 2.08 patch, I think I might put him up in my top half dozen or so favorite leaders!
Why?

1. Gallic Swords don't need Iron. Now, most games Iron is fairly common, but the game I played with Brennus, all the Iron was off in crappy desert sites. So, since I already had Copper hooked up, I didn't need to waste building a crappy city just to snag some Fe.

2. The new Guerrilla 3 promtion is sweet. Because Brennus is Charismatic, making a detour to pick up G2 and G3 promotions before the City Raider line isn't that much of a sacrifice. The 30% withdrawal rate almost makes a G3 Gallic Sword feel like a partially mounted unit. I gave the Gallics the G3 first, then when Civil Service/Machinery rolled around, upgraded them to super Maces, with new Maces given the City Raider promos. This produced a very formidable army...

3. Because of the Spiritual trait, I was able to effortlessly slide between Brennus the Builder and Brennus the Destroyer. He's great for doing the whole war/peace cycle thing.

4. In addition to the military benefits of Charismatic, I could also maintain larger, more productive cities because of the extra happy faces.


So, while I still think his UB is weak (otherwise he'd be in my top 3), to answer the question I posed several weeks ago:

I DO!!!

 

[smatt834]

yeah having super tough hill takers a short time before getting catapults sucks. a unit that double moves across hilly terrain sucks. getting an early religion sucks. getting faster generals sucks. have any of you NOOBS ever even played a game of civ? i could pick brennus 10 times and I'd wager 8 to 9 of those times you would be choked off and die. Lets see you get high numbers of spammed triple and even quadruple upgraded units off your hills. NOOBS.