06-12-2003 03:59									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Still not sure how I feel about barring travel in certain terrains for the curragh -- probably, IMHO, worth some individual play testing.

I would be strongly against barring travel for galleys. My most recent C3C epic game, random map, turned out to be an archi map with no sea passages to other islands -- every trip abroad required an ocean crossing. If galleys couldn't risk the ocean, it would have made for an interminably dull game (whereas the AI doesn't care if the game is dull ). Eliminating ocean travel for curraghs but not galleys would only delay "risking the high seas" until Mapmaking - perhaps not a big change. Until I played with it several times though, my gut tells me an increased movement cost for ocean, but still allowing the chance to risk it, would just "feel right." Again in my current game (not trying to make it, one sample, be determinative in my own mind), even with stock rules it presented an interesting choice of whether to keep pumping out curraghs in the hopes of surviving through the oceans and seas, or cease all suicide attempts until the extra movement point of galleys would increase my odds and hopefully cost less lost shields in the long run.

Catt

	07-12-2003 00:19									#32
	Full PM-box? Change here!

So, if I understand correctly, I would recommend minimal changes for now:

1) Re AI use of Curraughs: Give them 1 unit transport capability.

2) Re exploration: Curraughs - 2mp for both sea and ocean, Galleys - 2mp for ocean.

Let's play with that for a while, and see how it goes.

	07-12-2003 05:14									#33
	Support Apolyton

quote: 1) Re AI use of Curraughs: Give them 1 unit transport capability.

If you only give them 1 unit transport the AI won't actually use them to transport. It's either 2 unit transport if you feel they should be used for settling, or no unit transport for purely exploration purposes. Just give them the load flag without any transport capacity and the AI will build them and use them to explore.

quote: 2) Re exploration: Curraughs - 2mp for both sea and ocean, Galleys - 2mp for ocean.

How about 3mp for oceans so that seafaring civs can move 2 while non-seafaring restricted to 1 movement per turn (with galleys).

	07-12-2003 09:12									#34
	Tired of ads?

I don't know if this will be helpful, or even if it has been done before, but I calculated the sinking percentages for seafaring and non-seafaring civs and the likelihood for them to survive different lengths of oceanic crossings. I did 1500 tests (125 galleys * 12 runs) for a galley in an ocean square for seafaring/non-seafaring. This was able to give me a pretty good idea of their sinking rate. I ran a series of tests to compare the difference between sea and ocean tiles but did not observe a significant difference between the sinking rates for those squares, so I deem the results of this test the "general" sinking rate.

I was hoping that this would give us a basis to make an informed decision in regards to how much movement it should take for ocean/sea travel in order to balance out the advantage that humans get from suicide runs. I don't know what we should consider the "average" suicide run to be, but from the chart it is dramatically clear what kind of advantage seafaring has in this department.

It seems to me that the break-even point for benefits might be galleys surviving 25-20% of the time? That way it would take 4-5 galleys to make it across an ocean which is a decent investment to make early in the game. If that's the case, then seafaring can survive 5-6 turns at sea while non-seafaring only gets 2-3.

Exploring with galleys under the current system seafaring can expect to make it 20 - 24 (!!) squares 25% of the time; non-seafaring only gets 6 - 9. Needless to say that is a *big* difference, and I didn't realize how huge it was until this test. Here's a quick breakdown how different changes would affect galley travel distance assuming 20-25% survival:

Ocean travel rate ---- Seafaring Distance - Non-Seafaring Distance
-------- 1 --------------------- 20-24 --------------------- 6-9
-------- 2 --------------------- 10-12 --------------------- 4-6
-------- 3 --------------------- 10-12 --------------------- 2-3
-------- 4 ---------------------- 5-6 ----------------------- 2-3

In light of this, it appeas to me that the only real balancing thing to do would be to make oceans cost 2 or 4 movement points or at *least* to have sea and ocean movement both cost 2 movement to make seafaring and non-seafaring burn a turn while moving into the ocean initially. If ocean costs 2 movement points then seafaring gets about double odds when trying to cross a large body of water. Also, keep in mind that the longer travel estimate is more likely for seafaring to achieve than for non-seafaring due to an 8% increase in the likelihood of achieving this distance (I couldn't do a straight 25%/20% comparison due to the unevenness of the survival odds - see the chart at the bottom). Ultimately, I recommend 2mp for sea and 2mp for oceans in the AU mod, at least where galley exploration is concerned.

Any changes made to ocean travel is going to affect non-seafaring profoundly while not changing seafaring all that much. Whatever the solution is, I don't think seafaring will have any problems suiciding during the game unless a hard limit is imposed on the oceans. Just keep in mind how changing ocean travel will monopolize suicide galleys for seafaring when deciding what values to use.

Attachment: survival.jpg
This has been downloaded 154 time(s).

Last edited by donZappo on 07-12-2003 at 09:31

	07-12-2003 10:17									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Those numbers are as good as any I have seen.

	07-12-2003 18:01									#36
	Get a bigger avatar today!

nice stats, donZappo!

going from this, it's clear that non-seafaring have a survival rate of 50% and seafaring civs 75%... which - as you chart shows, makes seafaring more likely survive 5 rounds than non-seafarers survive round 2 !!!

in addition: that one extra move of seafarers (eg. +33% (4 instead of 3) or 25% (5 instead of 4)) makes the travellable distance long and a purely human exploit trait (i don't favour exploits)

p(NS) = 0.5^teas
p(S) = 0.75^teas

p : probablity to survive
teas : turns ended at sea


donZappo: were your tests oceanic or sea tiles?

	07-12-2003 23:10									#37
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The biggest difference to me seems like 3 turns at sea. 43.67 compared to 11.43 is HUGE when we talk about suiciding.

	08-12-2003 00:12									#38
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by sabrewolf donZappo: were your tests oceanic or sea tiles?

The results posted are for oceanic tiles. After I finished those tests I started a comparison of sea tiles but the results seemed to be exactly the same. From the handful of tests I ran (5-10) the sinking percentages were within 1% of each other for both seafaring and non-seafaring.

	08-12-2003 01:17									#39
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

How about if we:

1) Make curraghs seafaring only
2) Give curraghs a transport of 2
3) Remove the ability for seafaring to build galleys
4) Maybe up the cost of the curragh a bit

This would just make the curragh an early galley replacement and help to reduce the overwhelmin advantage that seafaring has in ancient era suicide runs. Here's the previous chart redone with these changes:

Ocean travel rate ---- Seafaring Distance - Non-Seafaring Distance
-------- 1 --------------------- 15-18 --------------------- 6-9
-------- 2 --------------------- 10-12 --------------------- 4-6
-------- 3 ---------------------- 5-6 ----------------------- 2-3
-------- 4 ---------------------- 5-6 ----------------------- 2-3

Then, if you make the ocean cost 2mp you have a much closer balance between seafaring and non-seafaring civs. Either that, or make it 3mp and really bring the two traits closer to each other, but then you really do monopolize suicide galleys for seafaring on any map with a significant amount of water.

Of course, these arguments or only valid if we do indeed want to preserve the suicide tactic exploit for the human. From what I was reading in this thread it seemed like that's what the AU was leaning towards. If you guys want to cut suicide runs altogether then please don't let that part of the debate die in light of other analysis.

	08-12-2003 01:34									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The problem with your idea, donZappo is that the changes are quite large compared too other changes. Maybe others view it differently but this is just my opinion as a Civ 3 player not as the AU Dean.

	08-12-2003 03:27									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Don't let this conversation drift into any balance issues associated with the seafaring trait -- to my mind, the issue here should be focused on the capabilities of curraghs and galleys; if a resoultion seems appropriate for the naval units, there may still be a further desire for addressing the seafaring trait in some way, but I would hate to focus a decision on naval units based on the seafaring trait's effects.

I don't see any need to provide transport capacity to the curragh - I thought the only reason to explore that option was to stimulate AI exploration? If merely adding the load flag stimulates AI exploration with curraghs, then adding transport capacity to the curragh simply remakes the unit into an entirely different beast.

Without trying to cut off any debate, is my reading of the thread correct in summarizing: (1) adding the "load" flag without any transport capacity results in AI use of curraghs for coastal exploration; and (2) the only remaining balance issue is the utility of curraghs / galleys / caravels for suicide runs?

Catt

	08-12-2003 04:28									#42
	Support Apolyton

I don't have a strong opinion about this, but making Oceans and Seas cost 2 MP seems reasonable.

My big question is how to you Mod the game so that more advanced ships aren't impacted by the change.

Do you make Frigate, Destroyers etc. ingnore the movement penalty for oceans or Seas or is their some other way of doing it.

	08-12-2003 04:51									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I say the AU makes ocean travel cost 2mp and removes the ability of curraghs to travel in ocean squares. Since the curragh could still travel 10-12 squares before 25% sinking chances start to come into play I believe that this ability to suicide run is imbalanced so early on. I guess it would be tempered by the fact that early game resources would have to be spent on such runs, but I still feel that suiciding should really come into play when galleys are available.

That being said, I still believe that curraghs and galleys should be restricted from ocean travel altogether. Am I right in believing that this idea has been rejected already, or is it still on the table for discussion?

	08-12-2003 04:53									#44
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Strollen My big question is how to you Mod the game so that more advanced ships aren't impacted by the change. Do you make Frigate, Destroyers etc. ingnore the movement penalty for oceans or Seas or is their some other way of doing it.

Making later ships ignore movement costs in sea and ocean would be the easiest way of doing it. If you make ocean completely impassable, then you just add the "wheeled" flag to certain ships in the editor then make ocean "impassible to wheeled units." Only wheeled units would then be affected.

	08-12-2003 05:11									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Catt, I can confirm that the AI will build curraghs much sooner if they are flagged as naval transports, even if they can't carry any units, and I think this is what we should do. It seems that there is a minimum ground unit requirement for the AI to build a "naval transport", but for a "naval power" unit there seems to be a minimum city requirement as well as a minimum unit requirement.

The AI might still not build curraghs as soon as the human, but that's OK because ground units should be the #1 priority of the AI anyway. It's the best we can do, I think.

As for limiting suicide missions, I'm for 2MP for curraghs in non-coastal tiles, but I wouldn't object to barred ocean travel. I would definitely like suicide galleys to stay, albeit weakened (2MP in ocean).

With reduced sinking chances, there's no stopping a determined human seafaring civ from getting contacts with another continent. We just have to accept it. The question is whether this civ will decide to use curaghs or galleys to get contact. With one fewer MP and double movement penalty in sea tiles, I bet human seafaring players will decide that it's better to wait until galleys, when their own REX will have slowed down and they can afford to spend some shields for suicide missions. Barring travel in ocean for curraghs may not be necessary, but it wouldn't hurt.

Last edited by alexman on 08-12-2003 at 05:19

	08-12-2003 09:09									#46
	Full PM-box? Change here!

If the AU makes it cost 2mp in ocean squares then should the cost of The Great Lighthouse be reduced by a tad as well? Part of the function of that wonder is to make it easier to suicide galleys, and a large part of that is through crossing oceans. If oceans cost 2mp then seafaring civs would be able to move 3 times through ocean whereas non-seafaring would still be stuck at 2 movement points. Granted, it allows for safe sea travel but the +1 movement would no longer be as valuable to the majority of civs.

	08-12-2003 20:53									#47
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I'd like to propose a course to be used in testing this mod - a 'pelago map with large islands as a seafaring nation. I think making it harder to pass over ocean is good, but I fear that we may be concentrating a bit much on the "typical" scenario of two big continents and a player wringing exceeding advantage out of a potential contact monopoly.

I kinda think we could fix the monopoly problem by moving Contact trading back to Writing like it was before, but I could be wrong.

	08-12-2003 22:12									#48
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by ducki I'd like to propose a course to be used in testing this mod - a 'pelago map with large islands as a seafaring nation. I think making it harder to pass over ocean is good, but I fear that we may be concentrating a bit much on the "typical" scenario of two big continents and a player wringing exceeding advantage out of a potential contact monopoly.

The reason that I've always referred to the 'typical' situation of two big continents was that I needed an average situation to base the comparison off of. If you have a pangaea map, then the oceanic movement penalty doesn't matter; if you have a archipalego map, then the oceanic movement penalty might be a little bit too painful. Since this change would be so hugely map dependent I was hoping to find a solution that would be the best for all situations and thats why I took the continental world approach.

I do think it would be interesting to try out the changes on a massive ocean map, though, just to see if it *is* imbalancing or not. I just incorporated the suggested mod into my last game (small, 60% archipalego apparently) and they all worked out quite well on there. I drew Carthage and was able to suicide my galleys and it was more costly and delayed because of these changes. It wasn't too much of a problem to do it, though, and I was still successful in getting the contacts before too long. I wish that I had transport capacity on my curraghs to settle the large island just off the coast of my capitol, though!

quote: I kinda think we could fix the monopoly problem by moving Contact trading back to Writing like it was before, but I could be wrong.

I don't think this would solve the problem since the only way for the AI to get those contacts would be to extort them from the human. They still wouldn't be able to find each other, and I'm pretty sure that the human will never release their stranglehold on the contacts. "You can talk to the Egyptians when you pry their contacts from my cold, smoldering city-states!"

	09-12-2003 06:13									#49
	Tired of ads?

Why are we talking about balancing both Galleys and Curraghs anyway? If we are going to err on the conservative side, as we may be doing for the Cavalry change, why not here too? Just change the Curragh. The Galley is a separate issue, IMO.

If the proposed way of preventing later ships from experiencing the move cost of sea/ocean works then fine, but I still think it would be simpler just to remove ocean travel capability for curraghs altogether. Whether we add the transport capability or not, oceanic travel should NOT be permitted that early in the game - I dont care if it is a fluke one game in 20 where you get lucky and it happens. Galley suicide runs are less unbalancing, so surely we can treat them in isolation, once the new unit is dealt with.

	09-12-2003 07:22									#50
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I was about to say, MWIA, that I totally agree, especially in the interest of conservatism...

But I think nerfing Galley suicide runs a LEETLE bit would be a good thing (while preserving that advantage if in possesion of the GLight, and especially so if seafaring to boot).

	09-12-2003 07:40									#51
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I didn't think that galleys came at a time that was significantly far enough away from curraghs to seperate them in the discussion of early contacts. I also think that they were being lumped together in the debates to try to address both problems at once.

	09-12-2003 09:28									#52
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I don't think they (curraghs and galleys) come far enough apart to make a strong logical case for separating them either, except as a stop-gap to making too dramatic a change to the base game. The power of the suicide naval unit is roughly proportional to the number of civs isolated by sea and ocean. Finding the last civ that has been isolated from others offers much less opportunity than finding each of the other X civs in the game, all of which are isolated or semi-isolated. When suiciding becomes a seeming imperative (archi maps, min land, for example), the human is likely to prioritize MM and galleys in any event. Perhaps paradoxically, I think suiciding might offer the most benefit in a continents map where roughly half the civs each collectively share half the explorable world.

My conservatism wrt suiciding comes mostly from the strategic choices involved. Where only one or two civs are isolated, the benefits aren't great (unless the human is one of the isolated) and the risk to shields offers less potential return. Where everyone is isolated, the benefits are greater, but not overwhelming. Where there is plenty of land for each civ but groups are isolated, it begins to be easier to sacrifice some shields in suicide attempts which can pay decent rewards. But if suiciding galleys are ruled out, a strategic choice -- risk shields for contact -- is removed; and I for one believe that the "assistance" to the AI by removing the human suicide ability is not great enough to remove the interesting strategic choice. So, while I don't favor removing completely the ability to suicide curraghs, I could live with that implementation; removing the ability to suicide galleys strikes me as a real step backwards in terms of engaging gameplay and strategic choice.

Catt

	09-12-2003 09:50									#53
	Inflate your Upload Space

I have seen that if you have two contients with more or less 4 civs on each that the human can make some headway with curraghs. It does not even have to be a true suicide run. I had a map where I could go from my lannd to theirs and not end in an ocean tile. or Maybe one turn. The AI did not build curragh and would wait to have galley and the tech needed to cross the ocean.
So you get a long time with all contacts, while the AI's each have only half of them.

	09-12-2003 12:13									#54
	Put an end to popups!

I do think Curraghs and galley are slightly seperate problems. A human with seafaring has a reasonable chance of making contact with another continent. (in my last game large map, 60% water, continents their was a sea connection, and I found a one square ocean connection early on)

Most humans don't make researching a map making a high priority items (especially now that you can't trade maps with it.)
Therefore eliminating suicide curragh runs delays the period of time when a human can have a monopoly trading establishment.

So my suggestion is to make ocean squares impassable, for curraghs. For galleys make ocean squares take 2 MPs.

Not sure if we should make sea squares 1 or 2 MPs I am inclined to leave them alone.

	10-12-2003 07:41									#55
	Support Apolyton

I don't know if this has ever been proposed, but...

What if (This isn't something we could do but Firaxis could) the map generator looked at the map after it was done, and took the terrain into consideration when distributing civilizations. Have seafaring civs in the starting points near water, agricultural ones near deserts, commercial ones near rivers, expansionist farther from the rest, industrial in areas that will need lots of working (jungles...), militaristic ones in between the rest, and religious/scientific ones... unweighted.

If that were done, I guess it could be easily expanded by them to consider placing the Indians always in areas farther from iron, etc.

	10-12-2003 10:25									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hmm, I don't suppose I have the power to call for a vote on this, do I?

Seriously, though, I don't know how much new discussion is being generated on this subject. It seems like either people are for or against making ocean movement 2 points, and barring ocean travel altogether from curraghs. Other ideas aren't seriously being considered (it seems) or are better left to a "power of seafaring" thread.

Oh, I almost forgot about the "trick" to make the AI build curraghs to explore early on. I guess that leaves three points to vote on...

	10-12-2003 16:51									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Aside from a vote (which we could in principle have, if that's what we want for AU decisions), we could try to 'beta test' the AU mod. There will undoubtedly be changes made after the first iteration, so what if whoever gets around to being motivated enough to make the mod makes the decision, and we adjust what we need to based on our post-game experiences?

Beta test AU. After all, we will be playing the first game or two with the Beta patch. It's almost fitting.

	11-12-2003 19:42									#58
	Increase Your PM Length

Time to vote!

AU mod panel, you have 24 hours to decide:

1. Yes/No: Should Curraghs be given the AI Naval Transport flag, instead of the AI Naval Power flag?
   
2. Yes/No: Should Curraghs be made wheeled, with Ocean unpassable to Wheeled units?
   
3. Yes/No: Should Galleys be made wheeled, with Ocean unpassable to Wheeled units?
   
4. Yes/No: Should Sea and Ocean tiles cost 2 MP to enter for Curraghs?
   
5. Yes/No: Should Ocean tiles cost 2 MP to enter for Galleys?
   

	11-12-2003 21:46									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I agree!

1. Yes (I assume this means Curraghs get a transport capacity of 1 too).
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.

	11-12-2003 22:34									#60
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Dominae I agree! 1. Yes (I assume this means Curraghs get a transport capacity of 1 too). 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. Yes. 5. Yes.

From my understanding of this vote, it still means a transport capacity of 0. If you make it so that the AI thinks that they're building them for Naval Transport then the AI will use them to scout like the human does. If you actually give them a transport of 1, then they won't use them to carry settlers, and will rarely use them for military units.