20-01-2005 12:51									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by joncnunn I believe the whole point of the AU mod is to make things easier for the AI and not the human.

Not entirely. Changes that work slightly in the human's favor can be acceptable if they make the strategic choices the human faces enough more interesting to outweigh the change in balance. Giving Sumeria the ability to build warriors would bring back the question of whether to build offensive forces from scratch or to build and upgrade warriors, a choice that's missing from Sumeria in the stock rules. It would also, somewhat in connection with that, add the interesting question of how to balance Enkidus against warriors when building MPs, since they would cost the same but Enkidus would be better defensively while warriors would be upgradable to offensive units. I'm not ready to take sides on the proposal yet, but I don't dismiss it as clearly incompatible with the goals of the AU Mod.

	20-01-2005 20:44									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I think that the proper way to fix the Enkidu is as stated in the initial post of this thread. It balances this strong unit without really weakening the civ, it adds choice to the human, and it helps the AI compared to stock.

The current change was voted in because it was more conservative.

	20-01-2005 22:01									#33
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

*reads initial post*

Ups.. I toataly forgot about it. I remember reading discussion about the flag change

	20-01-2005 22:23									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by alexman It balances this strong unit without really weakening the civ

It balances the unit both the human and the AI, but strengthens the civ for the human player only. So essentially the AI gets nothing out of the deal: its Enkidus cost more to build, and it's forced to build Warriors that may or may not be upgraded.

quote: ...it adds choice to the human...

True enough, but as I stated above I doubt Sumeria really needs all that much help.

In stock, the Enkidu can be used in two ways: as a deterrent, or as an offensive tool. It does both these things extremely well (better than the Greeks, for sure, and they're not even Agricultural). The price to pay for being offensive is a lost GA, but the gains are potentially drastic. Does Sumeria have game after Enkidus? Well, unlike the Zulus that have absolutely nothing to back up their Impi jump-start, Sumeria can benefit from cheap Libraries (and all the other Scientific freebies) and continue exploiting the Agricultural trait. So I'm not really seeing how Sumeria's available strategic options are so narrow that it needs the Warrior-Swordsmen upgrade. Nor do I see how it's available strategies options are not powerful enough as is.

Personally I do not feel that removing an ability granted by a standard unit in order to balance a UU is such a bad thing (like the Hittites, for instance).

quote: ...and it helps the AI compared to stock.

How?

quote: The current change was voted in because it was more conservative.

And because the stock version is not so broken (some would argue it's not broken at all) that it requires attention.

	20-01-2005 22:43									#35
	Increase Your PM Length

I have succesfully used the Enkidus to form lines of defenders, whereas with any other civ, I'd have to make offensive units to keep the enemy at bay. This unit (along with the Swiss Mercenary) is the much needed exception to the rule, that offense is more efficient than defense in Civ3. If it would become more expensive, that strategic possibility would cease to exist. Granted it's only a choice when selecting the civ to play, but it's still an interesting one.

And, of course, the mass upgrade strategy is used only by humans, so taking it away doesn't hurt the AI at all. Even better, the AI is forced to build the better unit (Enkidu: 1/2/1, not Warrior: 1/1/1), while paying the same shield price. I think the current fix the AU Mod has (adding AI offense flag to the Enkidu) was the right way to go here. Why change it again?

Last edited by Modo44 on 20-01-2005 at 22:51

	20-01-2005 22:43									#36
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Dominae It balances the unit both the human and the AI, but strengthens the civ for the human player only. So essentially the AI gets nothing out of the deal: its Enkidus cost more to build, and it's forced to build Warriors that may or may not be upgraded.

First of all, I don't agree that a human Sumerian civ is strengthened if you increase the cost of its UU by 50%. With the increased upgrade costs in C3C, the Swordsman upgrade path is not going to make up for it, IMO.

The AI does get a benefit compared to stock and compared to the human, because they get to start with a bunch of Warriors in the beginning of the game at the higher levels. In stock, Sumerians start with only defensive units, because they don't have an offensive unit.

Compared to the current version of the AU mod, the AI gets an advantage because it will not be building offensive units with a strength of 1 that cannot be upgraded until the Middle Ages.

	20-01-2005 22:55									#37
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by alexman Compared to the current version of the AU mod, the AI gets an advantage because it will not be building offensive units with a strength of 1 that cannot be upgraded until the Middle Ages.

Only problem is, the AI seldom upgrades units at all. Even in relatively peaceful games, you can often spot Spearmen sitting in some cities long into the Industrial Age. This means, that the upgrade path is of much less importance in helping the AI. Actually, it seems that losing obsolete units is the way the AI uses to get better ones (making upkeep available again). Yes, I know this sounds silly, but it's just observation of how the AI acts.

	20-01-2005 23:01									#38
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by alexman First of all, I don't agree that a human Sumerian civ is strengthened if you increase the cost of its UU by 50%. With the increased upgrade costs in C3C, the Swordsman upgrade path is not going to make up for it, IMO.

That's why I said that the unit is balanced (i.e. weakened) for both civs, but that the added advantage is only really available to the human player. We may have very different playstyles, but the Swordsmen upgrade is much more important in my games that the cost of early explorers (which I only build a couple of, anyway). Contrast this to the AI that does not make use of the upgrade chain all that effectively, and that does take into account upgrades when selecting units to build. I would rather the AI be stuck with a bunch of Enkidus if it lacks Iron than a smattering of both Warriors and Enkidus.

quote: The AI does get a benefit compared to stock and compared to the human, because they get to start with a bunch of Warriors in the beginning of the game at the higher levels. In stock, Sumerians start with only defensive units, because they don't have an offensive unit. Compared to the current version of the AU mod, the AI gets an advantage because it will not be building offensive units with a strength of 1 that cannot be upgraded until the Middle Ages.

I agree that adding the Offensive flag to Enkidus was a good idea. But I'm still not convinced that it's better for the AI to have 10 Warriors and 10 Enkidus rather than 20 Enkidus until the Ancient era, given that both cost the same amount but one is strictly superior to the other (some of the Warriors in the first case would actually be Archers, I presume). Again, the only reason Warriors are preferable is if the AI upgrades them, and so my question is: does it do so reliably? In my experience, definitely not.

	20-01-2005 23:04									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The AI does fine in upgrading its units, as long as it has the cash, as long as it has the resources, and as long as it has a barracks within range. Trade your cash to an AI with Iron and Warriors, and watch them burn it all for upgrades.

	20-01-2005 23:05									#40
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

At cost 15, the Enkidu would be almost completely uninteresting as a UU in SP play. The "pillaging Enkidu" strategy would lose half its cost advantage over using spearmen as pillagers, and that's before factoring in the fact that pillaging Enkidus are all but certain to trigger an early GA. And Enkidus really don't have that much value for humans in SP play other than through their pillaging potential. They offer no capabilities that standard units don't have; just a cost savings. How many humans (especially among the more highly skilled players) use enough spearmen in SP play for a savings of five shields per spearman-equivalent unit to make much difference?

	20-01-2005 23:07									#41
	Increase Your PM Length

The Sumerians don't need an uber UU. They are Agricultural. It's more than enough that you have a UU to trigger your GA, and thay it's better than the unit it replaces.

	20-01-2005 23:09									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by alexman Compared to the current version of the AU mod, the AI gets an advantage because it will not be building offensive units with a strength of 1 that cannot be upgraded until the Middle Ages.

1. Stock+Iron: AI builds Swordsmen and Enkidus until Medieval era
2. Stock+Nothing: AI builds Enkidus until Medieval era
3. Proposal+Iron: AI builds some Warriors, but mostly Swordsmen and Enkidus until Medieval era
4. Proposal+Nothing: AI builds (expensive) Enkidus and Warriors until Medieval era

IMO, both 1 and 2 are better than 3 and 4, respectively.

	20-01-2005 23:11									#43
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by alexman The Sumerians don't need an uber UU. They are Agricultural. It's more than enough that you have a UU to trigger your GA, and thay it's better than the unit it replaces.

So why give them the Swordsmen upgrade path? It seems you just want to raise the cost 15 Shields (a big point of contention during the beta, I might add - still not sure how I feel about it...you know, bad memories and all).

	20-01-2005 23:17									#44
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by alexman The Sumerians don't need an uber UU. They are Agricultural. It's more than enough that you have a UU to trigger your GA, and thay it's better than the unit it replaces.

I don't view it as the AU's Mod's proper role to go around saying, "This civ doesn't need an uber UU, so weakening its UU is fine," or, "That civ needs a good UU, so lets make its UU better." Once we go down that path, the feel of the stock game goes completely out the window - not to mention all the time we'd have to spend trying to choose which civs "ought" to have how powerful UUs.

	20-01-2005 23:19									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Dominae 1. Stock+Iron: AI builds Swordsmen and Enkidus until Medieval era 2. Stock+Nothing: AI builds Enkidus until Medieval era 3. Proposal+Iron: AI builds some Warriors, but mostly Swordsmen and Enkidus until Medieval era 4. Proposal+Nothing: AI builds (expensive) Enkidus and Warriors until Medieval era

Aren't you forgetting about archers???

	20-01-2005 23:28									#46
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by nbarclay I don't view it as the AU's Mod's proper role to go around saying, "This civ doesn't need an uber UU, so weakening its UU is fine," or, "That civ needs a good UU, so lets make its UU better." Once we go down that path, the feel of the stock game goes completely out the window

Adding strategic options can take the form of making the weaker civs more attractive. This involves either making them better or by reducing the power of the stronger civs (yes, reducing the power of one thing can make another thing more attractive). There's no strategic decision in picking Agr. civs 19 times out of 20. When was the last time we saw someone post an example of a Mil. Archer-rush?

quote: - not to mention all the time we'd have to spend trying to choose which civs "ought" to have how powerful UUs.

Civs with powerful traits ought not to have the most powerful UUs. Otherwise there are de facto most poweful civs, and that is bad for strategy/variety. Identifying these cases should not be too difficult because we can restrict our search to a subset of all the civs, namely the Agr. ones.

	20-01-2005 23:32									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by nbarclay Aren't you forgetting about archers???

It is my understanding that the AI would build Archers in all four cases. And IIRC its Archer production would cut into both its Warrior and Swordsmen production (in a proportion I'm admittedly not too familiar with). So I do not think that the fact the AI would build Archers undermines my point.

	20-01-2005 23:46									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Duplicate post

	20-01-2005 23:50									#49
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Adding strategic options to the game involves making the weaker civs more attractive. This involves either making them better or by reducing the power of the stronger civs (yes, reducing the power of one thing can make another thing more attractive). There's no strategic decision in picking Agr. civs 19 times out of 20. When was the last time we saw someone post an example of a Mil. Archer-rush? Civs with powerful traits ought not to have the most powerful UUs. Otherwise there are de facto most poweful civs, and that is bad for strategy/variety. Identifying these cases should not be too difficult, because we can restrict our search to a subset of all the civs, namely the Agr. ones.

I could accept an argument that in MP games, the choice of civs can constitute a strategic option that needs to be balanced (at least within any given game). But in SP play, the choice of civs is a set-up option for determining the flavor of game a player wants, not an option of what strategy to use within the game. Players who want the power of an Agricultural/Commercial civ with Mounted Warriors can play the Iroquois, and players who view that combination as too powerful to be interesting can choose other civs. If we try to improve the balance, we actually reduce the range of choices players have available for what kind of game they want.

If we were the game's original designers, I would favor having the civs balanced against each other a bit better. But the advantages and disadvantages of such rebalancing are mixed enough that I don't think it's something the AU Mod should come in and do after the fact - especially since such changes would tend to undercut the desirability of using the Mod in the eyes of players who enjoy using powerful civs in their full glory.

	20-01-2005 23:56									#50
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by nbarclay If we try to improve the balance, we actually reduce the range of choices players have available for what kind of game they want.

Exactly. There's no way I would want all civs to be middle-of-the-road. In that case, one wouldn't get much fun out of using the random civ choice.


What's this about making one civ stronger than another, Alexman? Somehow this resembles my argument to strenghten the Panzer, as it is a weak UU. I've been told this is not a change for the AU Mod, so I don't suppose, that seriously weakening an UU is either.

	21-01-2005 00:06									#51
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dominae It is my understanding that the AI would build Archers in all four cases. And IIRC its Archer production would cut into both its Warrior and Swordsmen production (in a proportion I'm admittedly not too familiar with). So I do not think that the fact the AI would build Archers undermines my point.

From my experience, I get the very strong impression that once archers are available, AIs would build very few warriors or Enkidus for offensive use. Players who don't recognize that fact (assuming it is indeed a fact) could easily come away from your post exaggerating the degree to which AIs would build warriors or Enkidus "until Medieval era."

	21-01-2005 01:23									#52
	Inflate your Upload Space

IME, the AI is programed to only be building the best defender and best attacker at a time. (Defined using AI defense / AI flags and the largest offense & largest defense)

The AI will upgrade units that are located in tiles with Baracks as money becomes adviable. What it won't do that a human would is rotate the military force around for upgrades.

	21-01-2005 02:41									#53
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by nbarclay From my experience, I get the very strong impression that once archers are available, AIs would build very few warriors or Enkidus for offensive use. Players who don't recognize that fact (assuming it is indeed a fact) could easily come away from your post exaggerating the degree to which AIs would build warriors or Enkidus "until Medieval era."

Players who don't recognize your very strong impression...?

Anyway, I understand what you mean. But the point you're making is tangential to mine; if the AI does not have Iron, I would think 10-Shield Enkidus and Archers would be a strong alternative to 20-Shield Spearmen and Archers (or, 15-Shield Enkidus, Archers, and the possibility of a few Warriors for unit variety).

	21-01-2005 02:42									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by joncnunn The AI will upgrade units that are located in tiles with Baracks as money becomes adviable. What it won't do that a human would is rotate the military force around for upgrades.

Nor aggressively take all the money out of the other civs' coffers in order to do mass upgrades.