1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

immortal Vs gallic swordsman

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by ThePrankMonkey, Feb 9, 2006.

  1. ThePrankMonkey

    ThePrankMonkey mowing em' down!

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Messages:
    702
    i'm xerxes! the celts declared war on me and i had no iron but...there was a source of iron i sent a settler to. they destroyed two of my cities and that was it. they never took the city that had iron and slowly, turn by turn i made more and more units.

    i made a couple immortals when i used them it was like i was using a warrior!

    it has a better attack rating than a gallic swordsman but they didnt stand a chance.

    im now in the industiral age and have rifleman as i havent researched replaceable parts yet.

    but im wondering....is the immortal better than the gallic swordsman.

    i might have played it all wrong but i felt like the immortal wasnt giving me the bang for the buck like the gallic swordsman was giving the celts.

    im building up a large number of cavalry and i'm going to lay waste to the entire celtic empire. attacking me for no reason was a huge mistake. i am vindictive and cruel. god forgives, i dont!

    first time playing persia in a LONG time...so im probably persia ******ed or something.
     
  2. vmxa

    vmxa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    13,613
    Location:
    Oviedo, Fl
    I am not a big fan of Immortals. 4/2/1 Vs 3/2/2. So if the GS or any 2 defense unit is attacked and has been forted, it is mostly Immortals 80/20.

    Add in a river and it goes 60/40. If the defender is on flatland, is it 50/50.
    Change to a hill and it flips 20/80 the defender wins.

    Given the RNG, it could go very badly. IOW when you are attacking and the defender has a lot of bonus things in its favor, you want more than 4 Vs 2.

    The real reason I am not a big Immortal is they have a poor defense and need to have something to cover them, but they can really rip if this go right.
     
  3. Lord Emsworth

    Lord Emsworth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,951
    Location:
    On a shipchain
    Question. What is the cost of a Gallic swordman? It surely is more expensive than an Immortal, right?

     
  4. BCLG100

    BCLG100 Music Master

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    16,650
    Location:
    Lahndan
    i prefer immortalshowever might be because i prefer the traits of persia more.
     
  5. vmxa

    vmxa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    13,613
    Location:
    Oviedo, Fl
    GS is 40 and Imm is 30.
     
  6. Raiju

    Raiju Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    43
    i prefer immortal because theyre only outclassed (by common infantry) with the advent of guerrillas

    but, speed is something nice to have. i think your immortals we f*cked up because they were defending, not attacking
     
  7. Empiremaker

    Empiremaker Human Fish

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Location:
    The Northwest of the USA
    Immortals. -1 attack and +10 shields isn't worth +1 moves. For a fast attacker use horsies or MWs. 4 attack can plow through all AA units except Legionaries. Plus Immortals really aren't obsolete until rifles. 30 shields for an Immortal vs 60 for a Musket. That means a 2:1 ratio. Effective.

    Only downside is that they're slow and if not protected counter-attacks can be a problem. Early GA may also be a disadvantage.
     
  8. vmxa

    vmxa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    13,613
    Location:
    Oviedo, Fl
    I am a big fan of horses, but the GS is the real terror of AA. Maybe MW are on par, I will take either before Immortals. Immortals are not going to scare me in the hands of the AI, but MW's and GS could.
     
  9. Desertsnow

    Desertsnow πr²

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,794
    I like the Gallic Swords. I usually do well with them.
     
  10. Tone

    Tone Chieftain Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,548
    Location:
    Singapore
    It's worth pointing out that in PtW the cost was 50 shields therefore pre conquests there is no competition IMO-Immos all the way.

    In C3C I have enjoyed playing with both. I find myself playing with differing styles with these two civs. However I tend to prefer fast moving units so (attempting to move off the fence) I prefer playing with the GS. Add in the Agri trait and it swings it for the Celts. OTOH (moving a little bit closer to that fence again), Immos are just MDIs in different clothes and seem to have greater longevity as front line troops, plus Persia can continue to build them until Rep Parts for less shields than MDIs so I'm not unhappy with them either.

    (MWs are my favorite AA UU though. High speed and attack values for only 30 shields outclasses the GS. The extra 10 shields for a 2nd defensive point when comparing GSs and MWs is not worth it in my book.)
     
  11. ac196nataku

    ac196nataku Noob

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    366
    Location:
    Riverside, CA
    Are you joking? I'd easily take a movement point over an attack point anyday. Maybe even over two attack points. Mounted Warriors are really the best though. The defense point is not necessary, they are cheaper, and the upgrade path is far more useful.

    Exception- Horsemen vs. Swordsmen is a tough decision for me sometimes depending on how deep + strong the opponents garrison is.

    EDIT:
    I don't see what advantage Legionaries have over Hoplites and Numdian Mercenaries. Was going to say Pikeman and Swiss Mercenaries as well until I realized that they actually were MA.
     
  12. vmxa

    vmxa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    13,613
    Location:
    Oviedo, Fl
    The only advantage of a Legionare is it can kill Immortals on offense and Hops/Nums won't be used to attack. Legionare's are the most veritile unit in the AA as they are as good as any on defense and are almost as good as any on offense. They do not need defenders to cover them.
     
  13. ThePrankMonkey

    ThePrankMonkey mowing em' down!

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Messages:
    702
    well i'm using infantry geurillas and cavalry.

    i waited until replacable parts and upgraded all the trebuchets to artillery and then started blasting at the celtic cities on my borders and destroyed them. burned about ten to the ground, even disbanding the workers i get. i am THAT angry at the celts. i pounded them until i freed up the area around a source of rubber made peace and i am building my forces back up and going to make another big push before they get replacable parts because they actually have one more source of rubber.

    everyone else WAS polite to me but since i surprise attacked the celts they're all furious or annoyed. well they're next if they dont stay on my good side. i am luxury deficient in my lands so the odds of them getting raped pillaged and burned to the ground are good with the mood im in thanks to the celts. this time i am a war monger and my thirst for blood will not be slaked until the celts are wiped off the map.

    and i think that extra movement is what makes the GS so good, it can attack and then retreat to heal if need be. and oddly enough that was the first thing i destroyed a stack of them right outside my territory.

    so my next problem is the type of government, demo isnt gonna work. communism or facism? i have communism but not facism.
     
  14. Mr David

    Mr David Civ-free

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    173
    Location:
    I've quit civ! Bye
    Communism is better than fascism in 99 percent of all situations. Your best bet is communism
     
  15. ThePrankMonkey

    ThePrankMonkey mowing em' down!

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Messages:
    702
    then i wont bother reseaching facism.
     
  16. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    But if you can micro manage your cities and schedule your wars, Republic rocks all the way to the bank with about 2x productivity over Communism in C2C. You use city specialists to offset corruption or just create tax dollars or science. If you have enough food, you can turn all your unhappy folks into tax dollars and buy your units. You will have to manage your cities and citizens carefully.
     
  17. FlowKey

    FlowKey Dark Lord

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    Netherlands
    That is one valid consideration, but I tend to choose one or the other on grounds of strategy and map conditions. Horses are ideal for a defensive strategy in a rather stretched empire: they are faster at the place to be when some nutcase decides to attack and have a better survival rate as a result of retreat. If you want to run over a few cities of your neighbouring civ, nothing beats a good stack of Swordsmen.
     
  18. gunkulator

    gunkulator Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,265
    Location:
    NH, USA
    No gov't outproduces Communism unless you have a small empire. Commerce is generally higher with Republic but if your empire is large and/or you have a lot of units to support, Communism can be a better deal. Taxmen only produce 2 gpt and rushing costs 4 gold/shield. Even with 30 taxmen, that's still only 15 shields/turn you can buy with specialists. You'll easily surpass those 15 shields with Communism since every city is productive. Communism is best if you're religious and you want to win by domination or conquest. For all other situations, stick with Republic.
     
  19. AutomatedTeller

    AutomatedTeller Frequent poster

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7,529
    Location:
    Medford, MA
    Immortals are awesome. Dominant in the ancient age and useful until cavalry.

    Gallic swordsmen are awesome too - no need for horsemen. But you need a lot to take on pikes.

    My guess is that the RNG was not kind to you - but it usually evens out, and we don't always notice it. I remember one game, I got pissed cause swordsmen would attack my fortified spears on a mountain and win!! Then I had two enemy archers attack my lone warrior in a strategic spot... and both lose with hitting the warrior, so things even out.

    Remember - archer on warrior sounds great - but it's 2 on 1.1, so the archer should win a little less than 2/3 of the time per combat. it's not uncommon for the archer to lose...
     
  20. BuckyRea

    BuckyRea Boldly Going

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,415
    Location:
    Texas
    That needs to be on a tee-shirt
     

Share This Page