13-12-2003 19:48									#31
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dominae You must choose the Light Side or the Dark Side...stop trying to be Grey! Dominae

Now you're trying to dictate playstyle, albeit I believe half-jesting. I don't think the AU mod or the gameplay and rules should deny different playstyles.

And in fact, forcing the builder to warmonger long enough to get a leader encourage, forces even, people to play Grey.

	13-12-2003 22:37									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I strongly disagree with the word "forcing." That word would be appropriate if armies were truly necessary to win wars. As it is, playing styles that build all game and then turn conquistador when tanks or modern armor become available are still very much possible. They just have to do it without armies from a military academy (at least at first), although the blitz ability of tanks and MAs makes generating leaders with them to build new armies a lot easier than it is in earlier eras. (One of the ironies about attacking with a force consisting almost entirely of armies is that you don't generate leaders with it, so a certain amount of catching up in number of armies in the field is definitely possible.)

Nathan

	13-12-2003 23:35									#33
	Full PM-box? Change here!

So army's aren't good enough to be necessary for wars?

Thus, army's aren't good enough to warrant being a warmonger-only bonus.

	13-12-2003 23:46									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

My core position is that armies aren't vital enough to be worth changing the rules just so civs that have done little or no fighting (or possibly just been unlucky until at leader generation) until tanks or modern armor can suddenly go on a rampage with them around the dawn of the modern era. I would not have minded at all if Firaxis had made armies something available to everyone rather than requiring a victorious army, but I don't consider the issue one where a change is necessary.

By the way, it occurs to me that changing the Military Academy also changes a strategic choice when a civ does get a leader: do I use my leader to rush a Forbidden Palace (or possibly move my palace), or do I use my leader to build an army so I can build the Heroic Epic and Military Academy? Heroic Epic + Military Academy is worth a lot more than Heroic Epic alone.

Nathan

	14-12-2003 06:05									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by nbarclay By the way, it occurs to me that changing the Military Academy also changes a strategic choice when a civ does get a leader: do I use my leader to rush a Forbidden Palace (or possibly move my palace), or do I use my leader to build an army so I can build the Heroic Epic and Military Academy? Heroic Epic + Military Academy is worth a lot more than Heroic Epic alone.

With the proposed change, the strategic choice to use a leader to rush a Forbidden Palace OR create an army and get the Heroic Epic is still there in the early game, when the Military Academy isn't available. And at the time it becomes available (late middle ages), your Forbidden Palace is hopefully up and running (that is, if you want to win your game), so I still don't see a strategic choice being changed.

	14-12-2003 10:46									#36
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If a player is willing to count on getting another leader later, nothing's changed. But if a player uses a ldeader to rush a palace or FP and does not get another leader later, no military academy under the default rules. Make the military academy available for everyone and the risk of losing out on the military academy because you used your only leader to rush a palace or FP instead of to build an army goes away.

	14-12-2003 16:36									#37
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by nbarclay Make the military academy available for everyone and the risk of losing out on the military academy because you used your only leader to rush a palace or FP instead of to build an army goes away.

You're right in this respect. Nevertheless, I'm for the change to the Mil. Ac. because

1. there would be still the strategic choice to either rush your FP or create an army in the early game (the latter being a temporary, yet huge military advantage),
   
2. it is quite possible currently - im my experience - to play a hybrid 'builder-warmonger' game (engaging in limted warfare to control 'your' continent) and ending up with no MGL at all.

	14-12-2003 22:32									#38
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The question is, are armies from the military academy a "core" game feature? If AIs follow a strategy of building the military academy, cranking out a number of armies, and swarming their opponents with those armies, then the ability for the human player to do the same is a core feature needed to compete with AIs militarily on a roughly level playing field. But if AIs do not follow such a strategy (and I have seen no evidence that they do in my admittedly limited experience with C3C), I argue that the ability for the human player to pursue such a strategy is a peripheral feature, an extra toy to play with that is nice but not necessary, rather than a core feature.

Nathan

	14-12-2003 22:58									#39
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

What about MP? I bet that this is necessary for MP.

	14-12-2003 23:10									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The AI seems to build the Military Academy when it can, but it's reluctant to build armies for the most part.

Besides removing the victorious army build condition, I also made it so that the MilAc will produce an army every 15 turns. It's something to think about, though I'm sure you guys will probably shoot that idea all to hell

	15-12-2003 01:49									#41
	Suffering from ads?

Maybe a way to secure substantial advantages for warmongers while still making armies available to builders eventually is to make a 'new' Military Academy (that doesn't require a victorious army) available at a later date, e.g. in the early industrial age. How about Fascism as a prereq for the Mil. Ac ? Currently, this tech isn't required for Hoover, tanks or anything else of value to the human player, but is likely to be researched by the AI.

	15-12-2003 02:36									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by korn469 The AI seems to build the Military Academy when it can, but it's reluctant to build armies for the most part. Besides removing the victorious army build condition, I also made it so that the MilAc will produce an army every 15 turns. It's something to think about, though I'm sure you guys will probably shoot that idea all to hell

Would that cause a problem if you went over the max army limit?

Also, remember this would be the same as 100 free shields anywhere every 15 turns.

	15-12-2003 03:43									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

skywalker,

I need to run more tests, but if you were at the max army limit it wouldn't build anymore armies, and i lowered the amount of shields armies cost from 400 to 200, plus made armies slightly better

	15-12-2003 04:42									#44
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by lockstep I think it's a bad idea to force the player into a certain playstyle because otherwise he would be denied access to a core game feature.

Like force them to be a Builder in order to get a tech lead and therefore a shot at SGLs?

This is what the game is missing IMO. Everything is too accessible in Civ3, the result being that it's easy to figure out the best strategy and never have to stray too far away from it (can we say Republic, Cavalry rush, Toe, etc.?).

Splitting Great Leaders into MGLs and SGLs supports the delineation of the two big playstyles in Civ3 (the Builder and the Warmonger), which actually adds to strategy (think SMAC).

---

It seems to me that the arguments in favor of changing the Military Academy are all over the place: "It helps the AI!", "Armies are too important!", "It creates more strategic decisions!". This only so solidifies my opinion that you Builders just want access to the Warmonger toys without doing any of the work (I'm only half-joking here).

Dominae

	15-12-2003 05:46									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Like force them to be a Builder in order to get a tech lead and therefore a shot at SGLs?

The 'toys' a SGL offers (Great Wonders, research boost) can be achieved by other means. The MGL's main toy - armies - can't.

quote: This only so solidifies my opinion that you Builders just want access to the Warmonger toys without doing any of the work (I'm only half-joking here).

This may be a crucial point. You seem to imply that the typical builder who ends with zero MGL's per game hasn't engaged in warfare worthy of mention, and that serious warmongering offers a fair chance at at least one - and normally more - MGL's. This is contrary to my experience. For me, it is quite common to engage in a number of limited wars, eventually to control about 40% of a standard map's land mass, to destroy about two other civs in the course of events and still to end up with no MGL at all. In other words, getting armies is a matter of chance even for the hybrid player, and this is what - in my opinion - needs to be changed.

	15-12-2003 05:53									#46
	Remove this text

MGLs and Armies are not meant to be commonplace in the game. That's why their appearance ratio was designed to be so low (just like SGLs).


Dominae

	15-12-2003 06:21									#47
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

OTOH, the typical warmonger will get a good deal more MGL's than the typical builder will get SGL's.

	15-12-2003 09:28									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Ok I did some testing, by setting the Military Academy to build an army every turn it will despite the army limit, so do you think that is a bug or design feature?

	15-12-2003 10:05									#49
	Tired of ads?

In synthesizing the arguments here, as well as I can, I reduce it all to the following:

* Will providing the ability to build Armies just from building the MA help the AI? No.

* Does *leaving* the current structure force a significant strategic choice onto the player? Yes. Is that good? Yes.

Leave it alone, for now at least.

	15-12-2003 18:15									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Having read and digested all the arguments for and against a change to the Military Academy, I now have to agree with Theseus: if the feature is forcing a strategic choice on the player, then it must be a good thing. So leaving it alone for now would probably be a good idea; if it appears problematic going forward, we can revisit the issue later.

	15-12-2003 18:31									#51
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by korn469 skywalker, I need to run more tests, but if you were at the max army limit it wouldn't build anymore armies, and i lowered the amount of shields armies cost from 400 to 200, plus made armies slightly better

How'd you make armies better?

	15-12-2003 18:33									#52
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by korn469 Ok I did some testing, by setting the Military Academy to build an army every turn it will despite the army limit, so do you think that is a bug or design feature?

I wouldn't call it quite a bug. It is merely an inintentional consequence of a combination of settings that were never intended to be together

	15-12-2003 22:04									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: How'd you make armies better?

I added some bonus hitpoints to armies

	15-12-2003 22:20									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

As there have been no new proposals, is it time to consider the proposal to remove the victorious army requirement from the Military Academy as "under consideration" before voting next week?

I think so.

	15-12-2003 22:43									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yup.

	16-12-2003 01:03									#56
	Got spare money?

Yes.

	16-12-2003 01:40									#57
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Like force them to be a Builder in order to get a tech lead and therefore a shot at SGLs?

if eschewing warfare was the way to get SGLs, I'd be with you on that.

quote: This is what the game is missing IMO. Everything is too accessible in Civ3

and if the builder had semi-exclusive access to a Mil. Acad. analog, I'd feel the semi-exclusivity of Mil. Acad. was balanced.

As it stands, the builder doesn't have an exclusive toy like the warmonger. In fact, beyond Monarch, I'd venture to guess warmongering is a key to getting tech parity, and therefore a branch lead, and therefore, access to what is supposed to be the "builder's toy"

All I'm looking for is balance. If you think the warmongers need an exclusive toy, why then do you not think the builder should have one? Peaceful building offers nothing that can't be achieved via Warmonger building, save, perhaps, a bit of extra goodwill at the UN. Hardly a balance for the power of the army.

quote: Splitting Great Leaders into MGLs and SGLs supports the delineation of the two big playstyles in Civ3 (the Builder and the Warmonger), which actually adds to strategy

I disagree. I think it encourages playing grey, not strategic choice.

quote: It seems to me that the arguments in favor of changing the Military Academy are all over the place: "It helps the AI!", "Armies are too important!", "It creates more strategic decisions!". This only so solidifies my opinion that you Builders just want access to the Warmonger toys without doing any of the work (I'm only half-joking here). Dominae

Actually, two points:
1. I was pretty sure it had been shown during Vanilla and PtW that this change DID help the AI, that it DID build armies. If it didn't, how/why did it remain in the mod for so long?
2. I love warfare. I'm still very grey, though. I don't just war so I can get access to the Warmonger toys. What I would like, and why I support this change - as much as my honest belief that we originally added it based on testing showing it helped the AI - is that it has no builder analog. Having MGLs and SGLs merely balances out the great leader situation. Not the exclusivity factor.

Here's a thought. This would make me happy and likely dissipate the whole issue.
Give an SGL exclusive opportunity to lead to a building. No, it's not semi-controllable the way MGL generation is. No, it shouldn't be something as silly as that little science boost.
Yes, it should be something significant, even if it is only the ability to create an army.

That still doesn't dissolve my support for this based on old tests showing it helped the AI, but it does remove my dislike for the requirement based on exclusivity of strategy.

	16-12-2003 02:41									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by ducki 1. I was pretty sure it had been shown during Vanilla and PtW that this change DID help the AI, that it DID build armies. If it didn't, how/why did it remain in the mod for so long?

I was the one who argued in favour of this feature when creation of the AU mod started in August 2002. After Theseus supported my suggestion (see the quote in my first post), it was adopted for version 1.00 and has been in the AU mod ever since. After the changes introduced in C3C, I was hesitant to promote the Mil. Ac. change again, but decided that it was still in order after the new army bonuses were revealed.

As far as I know, there haven't been any thorough tests regarding AI behaviour with this change. I can only pass on my personal experience that once this feature was adopted in korn469's blitz mod (this was in December 2001, when Civ3's v1.16 editor introduced the 'requires victorious army' flag), I witnessed a notedly increase in the number of AI armies.

quote: 2. I love warfare. I'm still very grey, though. I don't just war so I can get access to the Warmonger toys.

quote: Here's a thought. This would make me happy and likely dissipate the whole issue. Give an SGL exclusive opportunity to lead to a building ... Yes, it should be something significant, even if it is only the ability to create an army.

I'm afraid Great Leader effects are pretty much hardcoded.

	16-12-2003 10:12									#59
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Do others feel like AI armies were more common under the AU Mod than under vanilla PtW? Personally, I ran into them only rarely under either set of rules (and certainly never enough to get a feeling that an AI was using a military academy to crank them out), but my playstyle may not lend itself to AIs' having "good opportunities" to build armies as well as playstyles with slower tech paces would.

I would be strongly against increasing the power of SGLs even if someone could find a way to do so. When and whether a player gets them is too much a matter of chance, and the ability for players to improve their odds is too limited. (For example, in Dominae's Chasqui Scout game, I was setting the tech pace in one branch or another of the tech tree through most of the game and held a significant tech lead overall, but I didn't get a SGL until at least around halfway through the industrial era.)

Nathan

	18-12-2003 14:16									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by lockstep Maybe a way to secure substantial advantages for warmongers while still making armies available to builders eventually is to make a 'new' Military Academy (that doesn't require a victorious army) available at a later date, e.g. in the early industrial age. How about Fascism as a prereq for the Mil. Ac ? Currently, this tech isn't required for Hoover, tanks or anything else of value to the human player, but is likely to be researched by the AI.

Just felt the need to support this idea. Leave the current MA as is and add a 'Modern Military Academy', available to everyone, but later and at twice the price.