 |
|
ducki
|
|
There seems to be at least some level of concensus that this change did not, does not, and will not help the AI.
If true, (and in light of my current game), I withdraw my support for opening the MA up to all. Should later research show it would, in fact, help the AI, I'm sure we'd all agree that a reevaluation is in order.
For now, though, I'll trust in Theseus and Dominae that the AI does not benefit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Lockstep, there is a huge difference between providing a useful advantage and providing a crucial one. The Military Academy itself costs the shields of about four conventional military units, and each army built with it costs the shields of about another four. (That's before considering the units needed to populate the army.) It may be possible that there are situations where a civ with armies would win a war where one with extra conventional units instead would lose, but my expectation is that such situations would be exceedingly rare. (Consider, especially, the power of artillery-based tactics - something else the AI has "no response or defence" against when properly executed.)
Also consider the fact that armies do not generate leaders, so a civ fighting with conventional forces instead of armies will tend to catch up at least a little in armies as it generates leaders. (That is especially true with tanks and MAs, since their blitz capability makes it relatively easy for them to become elite.) So it's not as if a civ without a Military Academy is doomed never to get a chance to use armies.
As I wrote in one of the messages you quoted, I do regard the military academy as a priority now because I like the power armies provide under the C3C rules. But would I feel like my ability to mount an effective offenseive was critically impaired if I had to do without it in a game? Most emphatically not. Thus, I characterize the Military Academy as providing an advantage but not a "crucial advantage."
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
I've yet to see one. I'll mod my conquests.biq to remove the army requirement from Mil.Acad. as well as the already (in mine) changed SoZ ivory requirement.
As strong as armies are, I'd really like to see the AI getting some and the only times I've every seen them were with the AUPtW mod that had this requirement removed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
vulture - if it was an AU game using the mod, I think someone checked and the modded Mil.Acad. has been in for a long time. If it's not using the mod, or was long enough ago that the Academy had not yet been modded, they are stil very rare it seems, and without the mod I've never seen a single one.
Maybe games with armies are supposed to be rare/random, like SGLs, or maybe now that MGLs have been toned down and tech-leaders/builders/greys have been given SGLs, the attention given to buffing up armies is a sort of consolation prize.
I still contend that hawks reap far more than they sow, above and beyond the doves and that this particular unit should not be locked away from those that want to avoid war - just because you want to avoid war doesn't mean you don't want to defend yourself with the best technology and troops available to you.
I seem to be fighting an uphill battle, though, as most folk either disagree that this change was already in AU or that it had little to no positive effect on the AI or that warmongers should get a special unit as a reward for their efforts(I contend that there are far more than enough (in-game) rewards for making war and too few for keeping the peace) that are not available any other way. With the game as heavily weighted in favor of going to war as it is, I personally think it would be nice to give the doves something to counter this(SGLs are not an analog here) but I also realize and admit that I'm pretty firmly in the minority, at least until someone(me?) does some tests.
On that note, as has been suggested in another thread in regards to the different corruption models, maybe we could have a small group of 2-4 folks that play the AU Courses with any given single rule change that is not in the main mod. The given change could require a sponsor from the panel - sole responsibility here is to say "I think it's worth testing but not yet worth including" - nothing more.
Then again, maybe we'd just end up with 27billion versions of the mod, which would be bad. Harumph.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lockstep
As I said before: A few more games using a 'builder' approach under stock rules - from then on, I'll test a freely accessible Military Academy in my epic games. |
I've also made this change to my .biq(along with no-Ivory SoZ) but with the jump to Emperor forcing me to do a lot of focusing on the early game, I rarely even get to Knights before Ctrl+Shift+Q to try to do even better.
I think I'll drop back to Monarch and actually play one out to try to see the effects of those two changes instead of working so much on the Ancient Age, at least for a little bit.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catt
That seems to me to be a much smaller advantage relating to the availability of the MA than the actual ability to build armies (and would also work only in favor of the human player). How is this pre-build ability any less 'fair' than the ability to build armies offered to the (lucky) warmonger? |
It's a smaller disadvantage, but it is also in addition to the disadvantage of not being able to build armies. Being unable to build armies plus being denied access to a 400-shield non-palace prebuild is greater than being unable to build armies alone.
There are also two philosophical reasons why I attach an importance to the prebuild issue that is out of proportion to its relative impact on gameplay. The first is the issue of how the game was designed. When an effect is intended as part of a game's design, it is hard to argue objectively that the effect is "unfair." Unfair by what standard? Under the rules, it's fair. But when a rule has loopholes or unintended side effects, it is possible to argue that the result is unfair in the sense that it creates a disadvantage that was not intended as part of the game's design. Thus, even if being unable to build armies is assumed to be "fair" because Firaxis deliberately planned it that way, it can be argued that having to do without a useful prebuild option is "unfair" because that disadvantage is (presumably) an additional disadvantage above and beyond what Firaxis intended.
The second has to do with the main argument used to defend the standard rules: "The Military Academy is a warmonger toy, so it is reasonable to require civs to earn the right to build it in battle." That argument holds true for warmonger uses of the Military Academy, but is clearly not valid with regard to the prebuild issue. It turns out that the Military Academy gives warmongers a building advantage that leaderless builders are denied, which is directly contrary to the "it's a warmonger toy" argument.
The way I see it, even purely in terms of the ability to build armies, the situation was borderline. And in borderline situations, I believe very strongly that the AU Mod should leave the default rules alone.
But when something is teetering in the balance, it doesn't take a whole lot of extra weight to shift the balance from one side to the other. And I think the extra weight of the prebuild issue is enough to shift the balance in this case. It's one thing for builders to be denied a warmonger toy, but placing them at a building disadvantage adds insult to injury.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-12-2003 19:20
sounds impossible....
Attachment: 
|
