The Best Swordsman UU

[Teabeard]

In most of the games I've played the Persians and Celts end up with huge empires. Romans do about average, though.

 

[hoplite505]

I played Demi-God as Persia 4 times before i got iron. I was doing pretty good until the GL went obselete. Then they had swarms of knights, i lost badly. igot a second militery GL but couldn't build an army because i only had 4 cities. I hate Demi_god

The gallic sword is ok but at the rate of technology above emperor they go obselete fast. by the time i connect iron i have feudalism usually.

Legionaries are good because you can use a huge stack of them and their resitstance might not hurt you very much unless fighting persia

 

[Chieftess]

Try building tighter on that game. You really only need cities with 5spt, 10spt, 15spt, and maybe even 20spt if you get lucky with one. (that's a sword - or Immortal every 6, 3, and 2 turns, respectedly).


BTW, in a game I tested, the Gallics did pretty good against the Legions. Main reason being that 1/3rd of the Gallics retreated and were able to heal. (granted, throw in some streaky RNG and AI stupidity too...).

But, the Immortals just tore through both of them.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

Indeed the best two swordmen in Ancient Age are the Immortals and the Gallic Swordman, but this isn't right. The roman legionares is the unit that should have that ranking....

 

[Cataphract887]

why?legions stink verus horse archers or cavalry

 

[Comrade Pedro]

But in many years they were the best unit in History, almost invencible...

 

[Jopedamus I]

Immortals are best, easily. They are lethal and long-lasting unit. Gallics are expensive and don't last as long. I also would have liked to see Legionares made better because of their history. But really, no contest here. Immortals are best in any difficulty level or map type.

 

[Tomoyo]

Welcome to CFC, Jopedamus I!

I agree. Legionaries should have the stats of the Immortal, and the Immortal should have an extra hp.

 

[Cataphract887]

but carthage defeated them on the battlefield by using cav,only with an untrained army and poor HQ choices did the romans win that war.horse units can annihilate massed formations of foot troops,particulary light cav\horse archers for taking out their cav and then cutting supply lines.when the troops are sick and weak,pounce

 

[Comrade Pedro]

Horse units can annihilate massed formations of foot troops,particulary light cav\horse archers for taking out their cav and then cutting supply lines.when the troops are sick and weak,pounce

I disagreed with you. If you take Alexander's great conquest, you'll realized his army was based on greek phalanxs and their faced a lot bigger persian armies, that were composed by cavalry....

The Roman Empire's army was essentially legionares, and they were good because of their good weapons and discipline. When it began to fel, the material they used for helmets, for example, weren't the same. In the weakest times the Roman Army used caps instead of metal helmets. Also, their discipline began to fel, and mostly roman army has barbarian recruits....

 

[Jawz II]

ive tried the celtic swordsman

i found the immortal to be alot better, heres why

on emperor level for every unit you have, the AI has 2 or more, with the added 10 shield cost you get even fewer units

and so few units you CAN NOT get into a war of attrition of any kind, and you cant afford to lose many units, not if you wanna win wars
thats where arty comes in

you destroy AIs stacks on the field and then go for their cities, the catapults make sure you will only have to fight damaged units, and therefore your units survive to fight another day

the celtic swordsman are good for attacking stacks, only downside would be, the cost means they are fewer than for example immortals or regular swordsmen

but when you are attacking AI cities, if you wanna take full advantage of their 2 movement, you cant wait for the catapults (and spearmen and bowmen etc) to catch up, and if you dont wait, you run out of celt swordsmen real soon, you get to discover how often they dont retreat from fights and die

and if you do wait, your 40 shield swordsmen are exactly like the regular 30 shield ones

 

[punkbass2000]

"on emperor level for every unit you have, the AI has 2 or more, with the added 10 shield cost you get even fewer units"

What?! AI only has an 80% advantage at emperor. What you describe might be deity (60% + 1 extra starting settler) and applies well to Sid (40% + other insane advantages0.

 

[Tomoyo]

You would be surprised how that compounds. The extra worker(s) that the AIs get are also very important.

However, warfare in Civ is all about having the right force at the right place at the right time, which the Gallic is better at, because of it's increased mobility.

 

[Chieftess]

I just did a test scenario with Persia, Rome, Celts, and a 4th "wildcard", Carthage. I gave them equal land (10x10grid, all bonus grassland), and put chokepoints between each area so that I could block them with a modded unit. I let them attack each other (after they were fully developed) in a play-off fashion.

Rome vs. Celts -

They both had 100 UUs going into the battle. Rome looked like they were getting the upper hand for awhile (defeating many Gallic Swords and Celtic spears - they love building those things!). But, Rome eventually lost.

Persia vs. Carthage - Really no contest here. After Carthage's sneak attack (100+ Numidian Mercs, and 76 swords), Persia was all over them like a swarm of angry bees.


Championship Match

Persia vs. Celts - It was a stalemate for the first couple of turns (Celts 440 Gallics to the Persians 400 Immortals), with the Celts actually losing ground a little bit. Then came the Celtic Spears. The Immortals were so busy attacking the swarm of units, that the retreated Gallics were able to heal, and come right back in. It wasn't long before the Celts made a swift advance.

Conclusion?

The Celtic civ as a whole is the best suited for the ancient era. Reason? Mobility. In the Persian war, it seemed like 1/2 of their troops retreated. That's like 100 out of 200 that the Persians could have defeated. Same was true with the Romans. The Celts were also able to quickly reach problem areas, unlike the Persians, or Romans.


The one thing I noticed though, is that the Celts were the only ones who used 350 spears enmasse as one huge pillaging machine. That might have played a part in it too, but that wasn't what this scenario was about. It was seeing how the civs do in a normal game with equal starts. (Also, ships were taken out in this test, as well as wonders). This was done on Regent level to give the AI a normal build time. (no bonus/penalties)

 

[Tomoyo]

Bah. Those AIs don't know how to use Legions or Immortals.

 

[punkbass2000]

^ IF there's anything that the AI uses poorly, it's fast movers. The GS suffers the most in this experiment.

I'd like to see the consolation match between Persia/Rome. I bet on Rome.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

Immortals. Such high attack power for such a low price

 

[Tomoyo]

^ IF there's anything that the AI uses poorly, it's fast movers. The GS suffers the most in this experiment.

I'd like to see the consolation match between Persia/Rome. I bet on Rome.

Against the human, yes. However, if a human were using those Immortals, or especially those Legions, against another human, the outcome might have been very different.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

Yes, the Immortals had passed the Gallic Swordamn.....

 

[Yuri2356]

It doesn't matter what unit you use. In the end, it all comes down to how many virgin workers you sacrafice to the god of pseudo-random numbers.