 |
| |
|
|
ducki
|
|
Quoting alexman from the MilAcad thread - warning, this is out of context, go read the original for all tidbits, but I felt responding to it belonged here.
quote:
The proposal in the government thread makes the AI unlikely to choose Fascism, so they will usually not get the Army bonus. |
And now noone will get the SPHQ - this seems a big move for something we are actively trying to prevent the AI from using.
quote:
Fascism will become a non-factor in the AU mod for the AI, as it is for the human. |
If so, why try to fix it? Why not really make it a non-factor? If it's so bad that the AI should never use it and we're tweaking things to try to prevent just that, why not get rid of the Government altogether?
quote:
But even if the AI does choose Fascism (because they don't know Communism yet), double Armies are a good thing! Since the AI doesn't use leaders properly, it needs as many Armies as it can get, especially if it's unfortunate enough to choose a terrible government like Fascism. |
This seems like an odd way to address it as noted above. If Fascism is so bad that the AI should - really - never use it, then let's make it so that the AI never can use it instead of simultaneously giving Fascism a boost and ensuring that the AI prefers Communism.
It seems an odd way to go about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
The change is so that Fascism is not entirely worthless. It can actually be worth it for small empires, or for someone who doesn't know Communism.
If you remove Fascism, it's a highly visible change from stock (tech tree graphics downloads again anyone?) that I'd rather avoid.
What you see as "odd" was my best attempt at a compromise between a) helping the AI, b) keeping the strategic choice of Fascism under certain special cases, while c) changing as little as possible. I think it is a good solution.
Nevertheless, I suppose we could split the proposal in two and see what happens:
- Yes/No: Increase Fascism corruption level to problematic.
Restore Feudalism unit support cost to stock level.
All AIs favor Republic and shun Fascism.
Remove SPHQ from Communism.
- Yes/No: Only if 1 results in a Yes:
Add SPHQ to Fascism.
SPHQ spawns an Army every 20 turns.
Last edited by alexman on 23-04-2004 at 16:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cryptor
|
|
It seems to me that there is constant debate over whether fuedalisms unit suport should be one or three? Why not just make it two? This preserves the fact that fuedalisms should not have extremely large armies, whilst allowing them to support a few more units over their support limit. I don't see the problem with unit support 2, just like republic, but for some reason this proposal is usually ignored.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
It's true that an AI in Republic will have a minus 5 attitude adjustment towards you when you are in Republic, whereas normally the AI adjustment is minus 1 when you are in the same government as the AI.
A difference of 4 attitude points, or 40% of the range of "Polite", is considerable, but then again who here knows the current favorite/shunned governments of the AI civs, and adjusts their strategy accordingly? I would guess nobody.
Anyway, here is the new proposal, even more split-up:
- Yes/No:
- Increase Fascism corruption level to problematic.
- All AI civs shun Fascism.
(Both are required for the AI to choose Communism over Fascism).
- Rank the choices, to make the AI choose Republic over Feudalism more often:
A: No change
B: Restore Feudalism unit support cost to stock level, all AIs favor Republic.
C: Change corruption and unit support cost of Feudalism back to stock levels.
- Yes/No: Remove SPHQ from Communism.
- Yes/No: If 3 results in a 'Yes', add SPHQ to Fascism.
- Yes/No: If 4 results in a 'Yes', SPHQ spawns an Army every 20 turns.
Last edited by alexman on 28-04-2004 at 19:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nor Me
|
|
1. Yes
2. BCA
3,4,5: Yes
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
1. Abstain. I'm really not sure whether pushing AIs to choose Communism over Fascism would be a good thing or not. AIs tend to have relatively small empires, which suggests Fascism, but also often relatively widely spread ones, which suggests Communism. There are also some other complications that give me additional mixed feelings.
2. BCA (mostly because I'm nervous about how our reduced unit support for Republic might interact with the standard rules for Feudalism in regard to AI government choices).
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. No, at least for the moment. If we find the AIs still making significant use of Fascism, I'll reconsider, but if AIs almost always choose Communism instead (which, if I understand correctly, is Alexman's goal), free armies from a Fascist SPHQ would not help with the problem of AIs' not getting armies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Strollen
|
|
I realize this subject has been discussed a great deal, but....
After playing a handful of games with the AU mod 1.04/1.05 (and starting dozens more) I think we still have some work to do in balancing the governments.
First the good news, I think the changes to Republic and Democracy have significantly improved the game. From a human perspective I no longer research Republic ASAP, switch to it and stay there. Sometimes I am Monarchy sometimes Republic, the benefits of Democracy are sufficient that I almost always try to research it and switch to it. But the timing of the switch depends on many factors.
I more of an builder than a war monger, so I don't use Communism. If the consensus is Communism is too good with SPHQ, than probably removing it makes Communism a good, but not always better, alternative to Democray.
Unfortunately, we are still left with 2 goverment Feudalisms, and Fascism which good humans players don't use but hurt the AI if the switch to them and in the case of Fascism by researching them.
I'd like to see the next AU mod address the government rebalancing. I don't think it is necessary to have a new course but rather just make a mod that we can play with a give feedback about how the new goverment work out. Of course if somebody would like to do the AI research that would be invaluable.
It seems to me we have several choices.
1. Do nothing
2. Make some minor tweaks.
3. Remove Feudalism and Fascism a suggestion made by ducki a while ago.
quote:
Originally posted by ducki
r
Otherwise, really, honestly, no tongue-in-cheekiness, it would be better(help the AI) if they [inferior goverments] were removed.
|
4. Make some major changes to the governments.
Along the lines of #4. I advocated switching the effects of Monarchy and Fuedalism.
So Monarchy support is now 5/2/1, corruption Problematic, war weariness=low and Rush building requires population.
Fuedalism is 2/4/8 corruption problematic (or perhaps minimal) war weariness=none and rush build require cashs.
It is still worth while to research Monarchy because it allows the building of a very good wonder, and switching from Despotism to the new Monarchy makes sense if it is done by either
A. A religious goverment
B. Very early
C. by the AI under higher playing level.
The new Feudalism is good solid middle of the road Government which is superior to Depotism and almost always better than Monarchy. Researching Republic is slightly more expensive (34 vs 32) than Feudalism but can generally be acquired faster than Feudalism.
My suggestion for Fascism is to combine it with Communism and call it totalitarism. Perhaps we can figure out some way of making Fascism a good goverment for either Humans or the AI to play but it in the meantime, the AI won't waste research points going after it.
Any thoughts?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Strollen
|
|
If Feudalism or Fascism aren't so bad, than how come we haven't seen KAI win the game using those govt types?
In fact, my DAR is one of the few (only?) I've read where a human player used Feudalism. In hindsight I would have been far better off in either Republic or Monarchy. The only reasons I didn't switch was because I wanted to see how Feudalism fared,and secondly I didn't have access to Republic for a long time, and Monarchy while better than Feudalism isn't sufficiently superior to endure 6 or so turns of Anarchy.
Not having played Facism I can't really comment about how suitable it is, but I would be curious to hear of players who have played at Emporer and above level who used Fascism extensively in their games.
However, Feudalism is a losing govt. because the longer you stay in it the worse you get. Pop rushing + war weariness leads to a very unhappy people, requiring a 20-30% luxury setting, and/or a large number of MPs.
Plus each person you pop rush is one less person producing for your empire. The 20 turns of unhappiness means you typically have to assign an entertainer for every 2 pop rushes you do.
Even for maximum corrupt cities, you are generally better off assigning tax collectors or scientists and paying for rush build than using pop rushing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Strollen
If Feudalism or Fascism aren't so bad, than how come we haven't seen KAI win the game using those govt types?
|
I don't think we see KAI win very often at all, let alone with certain governments, but I know I'm playing below my ability for the sake of a higher fun factor.
quote:
The only reasons I didn't switch was because I wanted to see how Feudalism fared, |
To get the most out of Feudalism, you have to make a serious effort to "fit the mold" - scads and scads of small towns, lots of units, and lots of very short wars against different opponents. It's really well suited to cramped, dry environments, and Firaxis have stated that the only real reason for a human to use it is if they are playing catchup.
quote:
However, Feudalism is a losing govt. because the longer you stay in it the worse you get. Pop rushing + war weariness leads to a very unhappy people, requiring a 20-30% luxury setting, and/or a large number of MPs. |
Keeping your wars short, your pop-rushes strategic, and your towns small can offset a lot of this. Maybe not all, but with the huge support of towns size 6 and under, you can have a lot of MPs and still have enough of a force to fight short, decisive, oscillating wars, assuming your units are not woefully obsolete.
I do wish the F governments were more compelling for the human, but they have their niches for now, and are not necessarily the kiss of death for the AI that stock rules were.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
I'd like to propose increasing the flat free unit support for Republic in the AU Mod from 12 to 18. That way, Republic won't be quite so painful when civs first transition to it, but building enough units for large-scale fighting under Republic will still eat heavily into Republic's commerce bonus.
As a background note, I originally picked the number 12 almost out of thin air when I proposed it, using my REX in AU 501 where we started confined to a relatively small island as a data point. But in AU 502, 503, and 504, I averaged about 18 cities per game that I built myself before I started conquering additional territory, so replacing one unit support per city with 18 flat support seems reasonable. For me, anything less than 18 flat support would average making me worse off than 1/2/2 even before I start conquering other civs, and that goes farther in nerfing Republic than I'd intended to go when I suggested the 12+0/1/1 support model.
For players who don't claim as much territory and build as many cities REXing as I do, 18+0/1/1 would provide a small advantage before they start conquering additional territory, but that advantage would quickly transition to a disadvantage as they claim additional territory. Also, the times when 18+0/1/1 would work most in players' favor in the early game compared with 1/2/2 wold be the times when players need the help most.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
I don't like 1/1/1 + 12 for three reasons.
1) It takes away the tradeoffs inherent in getting extra unit support when cities grow to size seven or larger. I think that would make the strategic choices a bit less interesting.
2) It actually makes Republic better than even under the standard rules (which have Republic 1/3/4) until a civ grows six cities to size seven or higher, and better than 1/2/2 until a civ grows twelve cities to size seven or higher.
3) It gives Republic back a large percentage of its value to warmongers at least until the late medieval era. During that period, a significant number of AI cities haven't grown past size six and even those that have tend to starve back down below size six rather quickly. With 0/1/1 + 18, captured cities don't start contributing to unit support until they grow back to size seven, probably after the war in which they were captured is over. (Those size eight or higher when captured - seven after the pop point lost during capture - do contribute until they starve down to size six.) In contrast, with 1/1/1 + 12, captured towns would start contributing to unit support immediately regardless of their size. That makes the 1/1/1 + 12 configuration, in my view, a stronger one for using Republic in a heavily warmongering style of play.
By the way, if it looks like 0/1/1 + 18 is stronger than 1/1/1 + 12 in the long term, that appearance is a bit misleading. The 0/1/1 + 18 configuration is stronger only when a civ reaches a point where no more than five of its cities are size six or below. Reaching that point isn't too hard for builders, or for players in the build stages of a "build first, then fight" strategy, although it will generally take a while even for them. But for civs that have engaged in significant conquest, getting distant, highly corrupt cities to size seven or higher can be a lot more difficult - and, for genuine warmongers, perhaps impossible because wars keep adding new small towns faster than old ones grow.
In regard to support for workers, remember that prior to C3C, Republic had no free unit support but had a unit support cost of only one gold per unit. So the break-even point between C3C's version of Republic and the previous version comes when a civ's free unit support covers [b]half[/i] its units. Also keep in mind that in the original and PtW versions of Civ 3, we tended to regard Republic as a bit overpowered compared with Monarchy.
With the current 0/1/1 + 12 configuration, that break-even point can be as low as 24 units for a civ with no cities size 7 yet, which I agree can pose a huge problem for a civ that needs a lot of workers. But with 0/1/1 + 18, break-even compared with earlier versions of the game would climb to a minimum of 36 units. A civ with ten cities size seven or higher would have a break-even point of 56 units, while one with fifteen would have a break-even point (compared with earlier versions of the game) of 66 units.
So while paying 2 gpt per unit for units not covered by free support might seem painful, the reality is that a civ can pay support for quite a few units and still have Republic work out very nicely.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-04-2004 02:11
).
|
|