 |
| |
|
|
lockstep
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
The problem
While C3C has changed the balance between 'builders/researchers' (who are more likely to get the new Scientific Great Leaders) and warmongers (who are more likely to get Military Great Leaders), in my opinion there is still a kind of 'design flaw':- On the one hand, SGL's can rush Great Wonders and temporary boost your scientific research, but there are other strategies to achieve these ends (developing a high-shield city that is able to rapidly build wonders, building a bunch of libraries/universities).
- On the other hand, MGL's can rush Small Wonders and build armies, but for the latter ability there is no substitute strategy. (Yes, you can churn out a lot of units instead, but I assert that there is no subsitute for an army's attack/defense and movement bonuses.)
I still believe that getting a MGL in the early game (ancient or early middle ages) and using him to create an army should confer substantial bonuses (as it currently does in C3C), but having to wage war to be able to build armies even in the industrial or modern age just doesn't feel right to me.
Possible Solution
Change the Military Academy Small Wonder so that it does not require a victorious army. With this change, 'builders' are able to produce armies by researching (or trading for) Military Tradition. If a player - builder or warmonger - happens to get a Military Great Leader in the early game, the strategic question of what to do with this leader still is: Get an army (and the possibility to build the Heroic Epic) now and for free, or wait till the end of the middle ages and invest 800 shields (400 for the Military Academy and 400 for the actual army). Note that this is more than the shield costs of Great Wonders of this period. I am aware of the possible objection that my suggestion would still take away some important decisions, but in my opinion a player simply shouldn't be forced to wage war to gain access to a core game feature (armies).
The suggested change was part of former versions of the AU mod, and this was Theseus' comment on it (note that this was before C3C):
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
Re Military Academy, I sorta like the idea of not requiring a victorius Army, as this lets late warmongers, of which there are many, still commence, say, a Tank period intercontinental invasion, with an Army of Infantry as part of the invasion force. |
As an additional 'cosmetic' change the 'new' Military Academy could require five barracks (just like Wall Street requires five stock exchanges etc.). This feature wasn't implemented in the AU mod until now because of a PtW bug that didn't accept 'free' barracks (the ones provided by Sun Tzu's) as prerequisite for any other building or wonder. This bug has been fixed in C3C.
What do you think about a Military Academy that doesn't require a victorious army?
Last edited by lockstep on 12-12-2003 at 03:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kwpulliam1973
|
|
I would WELCOME this mod. As a builder / Late warmonger, I can count on 1 hand the games where I have gained a MGL prior to Tanks. (2 of 3 times IIRC was a defensive MGL, and this is across C3, PTW, and C3C).
I have no problems with any other limitations ala 5 barracks or other suggestions. It shouldn't be easy, but it should be possible. Armies are just to powerful to ignore. I have already found myself being more aggressive in my gameplay just to get an Army earlier. I would rather it work in reverse so that I would get the ability to build Armies and this ability cause me to take a more aggressive stance.
Thanks for Listening
Kevin P.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
I haven't tested it with barracks - Military Acadamey, but I know from reports from other forum members that building a Civil defense (which requires a barracks) in a city with 'free' (Sun Tzu) barracks a) wasn't possible in PtW b) is now possible in C3C.
I guess Firaxis/Breakaway had to correct that bug because otherwise the new Temple of Artemis wonders ('free' temples) would have really messed up building cathedrals.
EDIT: Nevertheless, the 'five barracks' requirement would have to be tested before implementing it in the AU mod.
Last edited by lockstep on 12-12-2003 at 04:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
in my opinion a player simply shouldn't be forced to wage war to gain access to a core game feature (armies). |
Especially in light of the boost to armies in C3C.
EDIT: Forgot to add that the reliance on the RNG to allow the building of an important military unit is - IMO - a bad design decision. Are there any other example of this in the game - rare RNG event required to build something?
I liked this in PtW and I'm sure to like it in C3C.
I am with Nathan, though - I don't think the barracks requirement is necessary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I dislike this whole idea.
Armies are strong enough that they should not be standard-fare. Playing a Builder game then conquering the world with Armies when come the right time seems wrong to me. Sounds like the Builders what some of the Warmonger goodies without doing some amount of work.
Looking at this another way, there does not seem to be a genuine problem here. Warmongers get rewarded for warmongering with the ability to build MGLs; Builders get rewarded for building with the chance to get SGLs. Seems fair to me.
Although I do not like the luck factor in SGL and MGL generation, I would be more unhappy if Armies were so freely accessible.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Maybe we should increase the number needed. Maybe 10-15? |
Why? That would only possibly have an effect on small and tiny maps. Otherwise (at least in my experience) you will have no trouble meeting a requirement for something as basic as barracks unless it's huge.
Last edited by Kuciwalker on 12-12-2003 at 08:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Looking at this another way, there does not seem to be a genuine problem here. Warmongers get rewarded for warmongering with the ability to build MGLs; Builders get rewarded for building with the chance to get SGLs. Seems fair to me.
|
The difference is, the warmonger can still build every wonder that the builder can.
The builder is barred from building Armies because you have to have one to be able to build one.
quote:
Although I do not like the luck factor in SGL and MGL generation, I would be more unhappy if Armies were so freely accessible.
|
I forget what we did in PtW. Maybe double the shieldcost to build them?
The warmonger STILL has the advantage here - his armies likely take ZERO turns to build. A builder is probably spending about 30 turns(in a pretty good city) to build an empty army - tack on time to build units to fill them.
I hardly think this means we will see games where there are suddenly 50+ armies running around in a purely peaceful civ.
The issue I have with it, though, is this:
There is an entire unit that is unbuildable unless you already have one.
It's bad design, IMO.
Every other piece of knowledge in the game is tradeable, but this one thing requires first hand knowledge? And a lot of luck?
IIRC, Dom and I had to just agree to disagree last time on this one. I forget the final outcome in the PtW mod.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
Sorry for the separate post, but I feel this is distinct enough from my other ramble.
I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall that the most convincing argument in favor of this change from PtW was that it helped the AI. Removing the need for convoluted pandering to the RNG that the players do on the meta-game level in order to generate leaders so they can build armies would help the AI and we will see the AI actually building armies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ducki
The difference is, the warmonger can still build every wonder that the builder can.
The builder is barred from building Armies because you have to have one to be able to build one.
|
Yes, and the Warmonger needs to spend more Commerce on upgrades and less on research keep ahead to get a shot at those SGLs, not to mention more Shields on military units.
Warmongers should be rewarded for warmongering. Builders should be rewarded for building. A Builder should not be rewarded for turning into a Warmonger whenever he or she sees fit, with no consequence.
quote:
The warmonger STILL has the advantage here - his armies likely take ZERO turns to build. A builder is probably spending about 30 turns(in a pretty good city) to build an empty army - tack on time to build units to fill them.
|
Huh? The Warmonger will be building Armies in the Military Academy city too! Just because he or she is labeled a "Warmonger" does not mean his or her MGLs will come for free. What the Military Academy does is reward serious warmongering in the earlier stages of the game. Just building 10 Barracks does not seem like "serious warmongering" to me.
quote:
The issue I have with it, though, is this:
There is an entire unit that is unbuildable unless you already have one.
|
Kind of like the Heroic Epic? Should we make that available to everyone too? How about making Armies buildable right from the start, while we're at it (reducing their cost to a more "reasonable" level, of course)?
quote:
It's bad design, IMO.
|
IMO, it's rather good design. MGL generation is based on luck, but players can put the odds in their favor if they put enough effort into it, and the rewards are unique.
On the other hand, SGL generation is IMO bad design, because if you're researching techs first, you're usually winning, and the benefits just make you win more. While you can warmonger the whole game (perhaps getting MGLs out of it) and still not be in a clear lead, if you reach the point where the odds are in your favor to get SGLs, it's not like you need them. And the rewards are not unique, because as you point out both Warmongers and Builders can secure Wonders (and it's not like anyone ever uses the 25% research boost option!).
That was a big tangent, sorry.
We did not touch the Military Acadmey in the Play the World mod. I'm against changing it here, too.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Kind of like the Heroic Epic? Should we make that available to everyone too? How about making Armies buildable right from the start, while we're at it (reducing their cost to a more "reasonable" level, of course)?
|
No, the HE is a building that requires a victorious unit that does not allow you to build that unit.
quote:
On the other hand, SGL generation is IMO bad design, |
I agree SGL is bad design. Different issue.
quote:
We did not touch the Military Acadmey in the Play the World mod. I'm against changing it here, too.
|
I did a forum search.
We did allow this. Maybe it was pre-PtW. I remember it was controversial, maybe someone can remind us the eventual outcome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
A short reply (the longer will have to wait for some hours): The AU mod did include this change since version 1.00.
|
That's good to know, but this change (as with most) needs some rethinking with C3C, no?
quote:
Originally posted by Stuie
I think this change is needed more than ever given the increased strength of armies. If a player is unlucky/peaceful enough to have no MGLs, they will be a sitting duck to any Civ that can field multiple armies later in the game.
|
That's just tough luck! It's in your hands whether or not you want to partake of the sweet fruit that is the C3C Army.
Are Armies so powerful that every civ will then have to do a little warmongering in order to remain competitive after Military Tradition? In SP, clearly not, because we can all defend against AI Armies quite well, and they're nice but not necessary in our offensives. What about MP (PBEM games, I mean)? There, it's a lot harder to generate an MGL in the first place. And when/if you do, you should be rewarded with something for putting so many resources into combat (the "reward" may not be so sweet when you realize that other players are ganging up on you before you reach Military Tradition!).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
Just to reiterate, if the AI is no longer require to:
1. Generate a MGL
2. Decide against all odds to create an army instead of rush a wonder.
3. Actually USE this very rare army in battle(and win, which as you've said is no mean feat against a human)
then:
This change helps the AI and presents the player with an interesting choice - do I spend all that time building both the Academy AND an Army AND take potential leader generating units out of circulation, do I ignore Armies like I have always done as a builder, etc.
I seem to recall this change helping the AI, but maybe others have a clearer memory of this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ducki
1. Generate a MGL
|
In general, the AI is better at generating MGLs than you are. It builds more units, and puts them into battle more often.
quote:
2. Decide against all odds to create an army instead of rush a wonder.
|
The AI does indeed create Armies with MGLs. I'm not really sure if it rushes the FP or any other Small Wonder.
quote:
3. Actually USE this very rare army in battle(and win, which as you've said is no mean feat against a human).
|
The AI does in fact love to use Armies, and does so at the first opportunity.
---
The real problem for the AI with respect to the Military Academy is that Armies cost a lot, and the AI only "spares the Shields" for them once in a while (and never switches to a Wonder if one becomes available). Human players use the Academy a lot better, usually transforming the city it's in into a production powerhouse in order to pop those suckers out fast.
So, it seems to me like the AI would not benefit from having the Military Academy as a requirement-free Small Wonder.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
ducki actually stated the main reason for a change to the Mil. Ac. in a better way: At the moment, the warmonger can still build every wonder that the builder can, but the builder is barred from building armies.
ducki also gave a second reason that I completely forgot about : This change is likely to help the AI by making it build armies more often. (I don't have any hard evidence to offer, but when I started playtesting korn's blitz mod* about two years ago, I did notice an increased frequency of AI armies.)
As for my additional suggestion of a 'five barracks' requirement: The idea was only to bring the Mil. Ac. in line with other small wonders who require five buildings of a certain kind (e.g. Battlefield Medicine - 5 Hospitals, Wall Street - 5 Stock Exchanges, Strategic Missile Defense - 5 SAM Missile Batteries). I labeled this feature as 'cosmetic', and it may as well not be included.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Armies are strong enough that they should not be standard-fare. |
IMO, C3C armies are too strong that they should not be standard-fare.
quote:
A Builder should not be rewarded for turning into a Warmonger whenever he or she sees fit, with no consequence. |
Yes, but IMO the consequences should be investing a lot of shields into building a Mil. Ac. and then (some) armies rather than not being able to get armies at all.
quote:
The Warmonger will be building Armies in the Military Academy city too! |
Yes, but IMO the major part of warmonger armies will not be built, but created by a MGL.
quote:
Kind of like the Heroic Epic? Should we make that available to everyone too? How about making Armies buildable right from the start, while we're at it (reducing their cost to a more "reasonable" level, of course)? |
This is quite a bit of sarcasm, but anyhow:- I'm against making armies available for everyone right from the start, because warmongers should get substantial advantages from creating armies in the early game. I already stated this in the first post.
- I'm all for a discussion if a generally available Mil. Ac. should come later in the tech tree, e.g. at Nationalism. Also, the 'resonable' level of shield costs for this 'new' Mil. Ac. may well be above the current level of 400.
- I didn't even think about dropping the victorios army requirement for Heroic Epic - this small wonder should come early only for warmongers. And if a proposal would come up to change Heroic Epic to a Great Wonder, I'd vote for yes.
quote:
We did not touch the Military Acadmey in the Play the World mod. I'm against changing it here, too. |
As I already said, the change to the Military Academy was included in every version of the AU mod from 1.00 (vanilla civ) to 1.17 (PtW), and I created this thread for the very reason to rethink the feature.
* EDIT: (the blitz mod included this feature)
Last edited by lockstep on 12-12-2003 at 22:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
In regard to the claim that warmongers can build the same wonders as builders, I disagree, at least in practice. In previous versions of Civ 3, warmongers could do great with wonders because they could use the great leaders they gained militarily to rush them. But in C3C, military great leaders can no longer rush great wonders. Warmongers now have to build them the hard way just like builders, and to the extent that their warmongering hurts their standing in the tech race, it hurts their chances of winning races for wonders. Prebuilds can help, but there is a limit to how many prebuilds a civ can have going at once. That makes wonder cascades a serious thrat for a civ that falls behind in the tech race due to its warmongering.
Also note that the Military Academy becomes available with the same tech as cavalry, so players who delay their fighting until the cavalry era can still generally get a leader and build a Military Academy in a timely manner. The players with a really high chance of missing out on the Military Academy are those who wait until tanks or modern armor to do serious fighting, and I'm inclined to agree with Dominae that letting players stay peaceful until they can send out half a dozen four-unit tank or modern armor armies is not a good thing.
In regard to the use of scientific great leaders, while using them for wonders makes perfect sense in the early game, I've used all three I got in (or just before) the industrial or modern era to boost research. If the FP bug didn't make corruption such a huge problem, I might have made different choices. But even if I'd been able to do four-turn research without the help of an "Age of Scientific Discovery," using an SGL to boost research and using the gold saved as a result to rush buildings in outlying areas would at least be tempting in the absence of a hotly contested wonder race.
One other point regarding SGLs: a civ does not have to be leading the tech race overall to get them. All that's required is a branch lead. So while a civ with a clear tech lead has the best chance of getting SGLs, a civ that follows a strategy of researching and trading techs that the AI tends to put a relatively low priority on also at least has a chance.
In previous versions of Civ 3, the ability to build the Military Academy was yet another advantage for warmongers on top of all their other advantages. With warmongers' advantage of being able to build great wonders with MGLs eliminated and with SGLs now available for builders, I think the balance is enough more favorable for builders in C3C that changing the rules for the Military Academy is no longer warranted.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Warmongers now have to build them the hard way just like builders |
That's exactly my point. The emphasis, I added, but it's the important part of that. I should not be forced to change my philosophy just to build one SW that's a gateway to possibly the single strongest unit in the game.
quote:
, and to the extent that their warmongering hurts their standing in the tech race, it hurts their chances of winning races for wonders. Prebuilds can help, but there is a limit to how many prebuilds a civ can have going at once. That makes wonder cascades a serious thrat for a civ that falls behind in the tech race due to its warmongering. |
This bit truly confuses me.
Just about every high-level strat(high-level=tech deficit) entails warmongering in order to catch up in tech. I've yet to see anyone complaining that they fall behind in tech by fighting(and winning) wars. Many people use extortion instead of researching on their own.
Maybe I just missed the complaints about warmongering making you fall behind in tech. If warmongering really does somehow impede the player from keeping up in tech, I still say that closeting the most powerful unit in the game is not the answer to balancing out the Warmonger's Disadvantage(I'm sorry, no offense, but I just can type that without giggling to myself. Is warmongering really a tech race disadvantage?)
Edit: Typo.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ducki
This bit truly confuses me.
Just about every high-level strat(high-level=tech deficit) entails warmongering in order to catch up in tech. I've yet to see anyone complaining that they fall behind in tech by fighting(and winning) wars. Many people use extortion instead of researching on their own. |
I view tech extortion as something to settle for if you can't build up a tech lead in your own right, not as the ideal path to ultimate power. If you're extorting techs, that means someone else is getting them before you are, which in turn means you're probably at serious risk of losing wonders in a cascade. In games (and on difficulty levels) where a good enough REX is not possible, that may be the best a player can do, and I've been known to do it myself when I had to. But when possible, I prefer to be the one who is out front in tech.
At every stage of the game, warmongering has its price. An early archer rush means building fewer granaries and settlers, and thus building fewer cities of your own. A swordsman rush with upgraded warriors diverts a lot of gold from research to pay for upgrades. Building swordsmen, knights, and/or MedInfs from scratch diverts shields away from libraries, marketplaces, and aqueducts. Fighting as a Monarchy means foregoing the gold bonus for Republic, and fighting as a Republic means higher unit upkeep costs and likely a higher luxury slider setting part of the time to combat war weariness. In the meantime, trade is cut off while you're at war, which especially helps the relative standing of overseas civs.
If I have a good enough REX to have enough territory to develop a tech lead (and if I don't have a UU that cries out to be used earlier), I often play essentially a pure builder game until Military Tradition. Of course once I get that...
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
In previous versions of Civ 3, the ability to build the Military Academy was yet another advantage for warmongers on top of all their other advantages. With warmongers' advantage of being able to build great wonders with MGLs eliminated and with SGLs now available for builders, I think the balance is enough more favorable for builders in C3C that changing the rules for the Military Academy is no longer warranted. |
In vanilla Civ3 and PtW, the 'builder' typically had no chance to rush a Great Wonder or the Forbidden Palace. The 'warmonger' had a fair chance at rushing a few Great wonders and the FP. Additionally, he could use leaders to create armies, which essentially meant up to 4 units sharing their hitpoints.
In C3C, the 'builder' now has a slight chance to rush a Great Wonder or the FP. Alternatively, he can use his Scientific Great Leader for a temporary research boost. The 'warmonger' typically doesn't have a chance to rush Great Wonders or to boost his research, but still has a fair chance of a) rushing the FP and b) using other Military Great Leaders to create armies. These armies still share their units' hitpoints, but additionally they confer +1 movement (which, besides other things, means an ability to retreat for slowmovers) and an attack/defense bonus of up to 50% (without Mil. Ac./Pentagon) or 100% (with Mil. Ac./Pentagon).
Without C3C's army bonuses, I possibly would agree that the new balance between builders and warmongers doesn't warrant a deviation from stock rules for the Military Academy. However, given these army bonuses, the change to Mil. Ac. still seems to be in order.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Yes, armies are a lot more potent in C3C. But is that a reason to make them more accessible to civs that haven't done any significant fighting, or does it provide a greater reason why the ability to build them is something civs should have to earn through bloody experience? |
If technologies - especially the ones that enable Great Wonders - were untradable so that civs would have to do some significant researching to build them, your argument would be more persuasive to me. As it is now, I'll just quote ducki about armies: 'Every other piece of knowledge in the game is tradeable, but this one thing requires first hand knowledge? And a lot of luck?'
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
If I were convinced that armies were a genuine necessity for successful warfare in the late industrial and modern eras, I would be all for eliminating the victorious army requirement from the military academy. But while armies definitely help, none of the changes in C3C make them truly necessary. |
In other words, 'Armies are not that important, and therefore must be denied to builders.' 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lockstep
As it is now, I'll just quote ducki about armies: 'Every other piece of knowledge in the game is tradeable, but this one thing requires first hand knowledge? And a lot of luck?'
|
When everything is tradeable, it benefits the Builder (because he or she is more often at Peace with other civs). Like I've said in previous posts, I think it's acceptable to give the Warmonger some unique "toys" to play with.
You must choose the Light Side or the Dark Side...stop trying to be Grey!
Dominae
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-12-2003 03:26
|