 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
pvzh
|
 |
Canada
Aug 2002
time: 01:18
|
|
But with base 3 instead of base 2, unit quality has LESS impact! Barracks gives 33% increase from 3 to 4, but with a base 3 the increase will be only 25% from 4 to 5. That is the whole point of suggestion, since human player is using vets! And more importantly vets only 66% better (5 to 3) instead of 100% (4 to 2), since humans almost never use conscripts as a fighting force unlike AI.
I have not thought about horsemen, but:
* AI prefer swordsmen to horsemen anyway
* we can increase retreat chances
PS. I do realize it is a bold change that can be considered "outside of the scope of AU", but have not "we" mangled armies?
----------------
About weak militaristic trait:
I think we need to do something to militaristic trait anyway, since we mangled armies, and armies were the main advantage of being militaristic.
Some thing to consider:
* Colliseum could be 120 shields and made militaridtic (other stats like AU mod), so militaristic civs will have them for 60 shield. Roman republic with colliseums everywher 
* same as above, but +1 to upkeep and add flag reduce war weariness.
* Police Stations: add flag militaristic, and reduce upkeep to 1 gpt.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
The reason why we considered such drastic changes to armies acceptable is that AI use of armies had equally drastic bugs in it. AIs don't use armies at all under the stock rules because they don't build armies with leaders (and remember that the Military Academy requires a victorious army under the stock rules). Further, even with the Military Academy providing free armies periodically (and not requiring a victorious army before it can be built), AI armies can end up sitting in a city with just one unit in them. And even when AIs use armies in spite of those obstacles, the bug in how AIs use armies tends to result in sub-optimal unit mixes such as one infantry and two cavalry (thus not getting either the firepower advantages of an all-infantry army or the movement advantages of an all-cavalry army). Addressing such drastic bugs requires a drastic solution.
In contrast, while the AI tendency to build so many regular units certainly reflects sub-optimal gameplay, it is hard to characterize that behavior as constituting a bug. The advantage human players get from a higher proportion of veterans is merely incremental, not a case of humans' having a weapon so powerful that AIs are completely incapable of coping with it. Indeed, on higher difficulty levels, AI advantages in production costs and free unit support go a long way toward offsetting the human advantage of a higher proportion of veterans.
Also note that although our change to armies was drastic, it affected only a peripheral element of the game. In contrast, adding a hit point across the board would affect every unit in the game, and would make the feel of every single combat different in the AU Mod from what the same combat would be like under the stock rules. Indeed, for players who switch back and forth, AU Mod regulars would look like veterans and AU Mod veterans would look like elites. The potential for confusion inherent in such a situation is more than just minor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pvzh
|
|
Canada
Aug 2002
time: 01:18
|
|
quote:
Consider a human veteran Swordsman attacking an AI regular Spearman. |
Alexman, your numbers are wrong  you forgot to fortify that regular spearman 
Ok. More seriously. I ran numbers through Civ III Combat calculator to get victory odds (see tables below)
1. Archer Rush. Archer rash becomes harder, because archers indeed get reduction in odds by ~ 4 - 5% assuming grassland town (see table 1) and fortified regular spear, and for town on the hill things become nasty ~ 6 - 7.5% (see table 2). But, guess who is doing archer rushes? Not the AI 
2. Swordsman. Human swordsmen are either vets or elite and AI defends mostly with regular spears (fortified on grassland: see table 1; or fortified on hill: see table 2). For grassland adopting new system will lead to reduction of swordsman odds by ~ 2 - 3% (grassland) and by ~ 3.5 - 4% (hill).
3. Horseman. Human horsemen are vet and elites as well, and AI does not use horseman much unless it has no iron, but has horses.
Horses suffer considerably in the odds of winning (as bad as ~7%: see tables 1 and 2), but almost all is recovered in increased retreats (not great, but AI does not use horsemen much)
4. AI counter attacks on advancing human swordsman. As slowmover advances in the enemy territory it can be easily counter-attacked by AI archers, and surprise (!), adopting new system will slightly improve odds of AI archers (same will apply to counter-attacking horsemen).
5. Conscripts. The main point of this new system was to improve odds of conscripts, because AI drafts units relentlessly when city is threatened albeight conscripts have low chance to do anything. However, under new system human chances to defeat conscript will drop by ~ 5 - 10% (see table 4).
So, Human tactics suffer more than AI ones
Edit: to Nathan
quote:
AU Mod regulars would look like veterans and AU Mod veterans would look like elites. The potential for confusion inherent in such a situation is more than just minor. |
Well, indead it might be a problem, but would it be more problem than Light and Heavy Cavalry confusion? 
code:
ExpLevels
NB:
number in brackets is % retreated for fast unit
Table 1. Spearman is fortified
and on grassland
|
|
Swordsman
vs
Spearman
|
Archer
vs
Spearman
|
Horseman
vs
Spearman
|
| Stock
(2/3/4/5)
|
New
(3/4/5/6)
|
Stock
(2/3/4/5)
|
New
(3/4/5/6)
|
Stock
(2/3/4/5) |
New
(3/4/5/6) |
| Vet
vs Reg
(attacker win%)
|
70.4%
|
69.3%
|
50.85%
|
46.6%
|
48.9%
(25%)
|
45.6%
(28.5%)
|
| Elite
vs Reg
(attacker win%)
|
81.4%
|
79.5%
|
63.4%
|
58.1%
|
61.9%
(19.4%)
|
57.3%
(24.1%)
|
Table
2. Spearman is fortified and on hill
|
|
Swordsman
vs
Spearman
|
Archer
vs
Spearman
|
Horseman
vs
Spearman
|
| Stock
(2/3/4/5)
|
New
(3/4/5/6)
|
Stock
(2/3/4/5)
|
New
(3/4/5/6)
|
Stock
(2/3/4/5) |
New
(3/4/5/6) |
| Vet
vs Reg
(attacker win%)
|
58.2%
|
54.9%
|
38.1%
|
32.3%
|
36.6%
(31.3%)
|
31.7%
(35.9%)
|
| Elite
vs Reg
(attacker win%)
|
70.6%
|
66.5%
|
49.9%
|
42.5%
|
48.6%
(26.6%)
|
42%
(33%) |
NB: advancing
units in the enemy territory is not fortified
Table 3. Regular Archer on
counter-attack vs Swordsman
| |
Swordsman
(grassland)
|
Swordsman
(hill)
|
|
|
Stock
(2/3/4/5) |
New
(3/4/5/6) |
Stock
(2/3/4/5) |
New
(3/4/5/6) |
| Reg vs Vet
(attacker win%) |
30%
|
31.3%
|
17.9%
|
17.4%
|
| Reg vs
Elite
(attacker win%) |
18.9%
|
20.9%
|
9.6%
|
9.9%
|
Table 4. Conscript fortified in
city on grassland
|
|
H.Cavalry
vs
Rifleman
|
Tank
vs
Infantry
|
|
|
Stock
(2/3/4/5) |
New
(3/4/5/6) |
Stock
(2/3/4/5) |
New
(3/4/5/6) |
| Vet vs
Cons
(attacker win%) |
55%
(18.9%)
|
45.7%
(29.5%)
|
74.1%
(10.6%)
|
69.4%
(16.3%)
|
| Elite vs
Cons
(attacker win%) |
66.5%
(14%)
|
56.35%
(24.9%)
|
83.9%
(6.5%)
|
79.1%
(11.6%)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
The catch to making conscripts more useful is that if we make them more useful, human players will use them. Right now, I don't draft units for offensive use because even against enemies weakened by artillery, the result is about as likely to be a promotion for the enemy as it is to be a victory for me. But if conscripts were more powerful, the idea of drafting troops for offensive use (especially providing infantry for infantry/artillery tactics) would be a lot more attractive. Thus, a rules change intended to help the AI could easily end up working more to the advantage of human players instead.
Also note that when human players use artillery, the only difference extra hit points for AI troops would make is that we'd need to bring along more artillery to get the same effect. Against a sufficiently large bombardment stack, an AI conscript defender has just as high a chance of victory as an elite because both will be knocked down to one hit point by artillery. The fact that humans often use large bombardment stacks while AIs don't makes it highly unlikely, in my view, that any increase in hit points could benefit AIs more than it would humans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
 |
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:18
|
|
To me, having drafted units that actually do something, would be quite iteresting. But don't forget that a human has limited possibilities regarding this, because his cities are often without much food surpulus. I tried once to use Conscript Riflemen as the main attack force (5/6/1 Riflemen, in that game), because I didn't have enough production to keep up attacking a KAI. But they just kept dying in huge numbers, so I had to stop when my Veteran troops died or got damaged. Just about the only thing Conscripts were good at were last-minute defences, and not even that made sense if the enemy was numerous. All in all I'd appreciate the change, because it would make using Conscripts a new strategic choice, not just something you do (face it) out of boredom. Even more so for the Human, who often just doesn't build non-Veteran units. 
And what about the AI? Well, if you'd be attacking those Conscripts, just having to bring that bigger Artillery stack is a difficulty in itself, IMO. Right now the drafted units the AI uses are a laugh, nothing more, while Regulars can give you some fights. The point is, current Conscripts can be easily attacked and killed by an qeual unit without additional bombarding. Add to that the fact, that those suicide defenders actually help the conquerors, by reducing the population in the city (less trouble with resisters). Here too, this added HP would definately do more good than bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
To me, having drafted units that actually do something, would be quite iteresting. But don't forget that a human has limited possibilities regarding this, because his cities are often without much food surpulus. |
If drafting were more worthwhile, good human players would make more effort to have a food surplus. In many cases, a city that's producing units could irrigate a tile or two instead of mining without hurting its production speed. In outlying cities, running a food surplus for the explicit purpose of drafting could be attractive if conscripts were more valuable. And note that with Longevity, in a government with a draft limit of two, it is possible to draft two units and grow back to full size the following turn. (I've done that a few times in Communism.) So even though human use of drafting tends to be rather limited at present, the possibilities are far more extensive if drafting were more worthwhile.
quote:
I tried once to use Conscript Riflemen as the main attack force (5/6/1 Riflemen, in that game), because I didn't have enough production to keep up attacking a KAI. But they just kept dying in huge numbers, so I had to stop when my Veteran troops died or got damaged. Just about the only thing Conscripts were good at were last-minute defences, and not even that made sense if the enemy was numerous. |
Conscripts are also useful as military police to free up more powerful units, and can provide additional defensive depth so an AI would need more attacking units to take a tile. I don't use them often, but there have been games where I've used significant numbers of them for those purposes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:18
|
|
If you draft, you don't get the production for this turn for this citizen, so it's not a simple thing to do in your core. Also, after a while, you'll get unhappy citizens, which will hurt the city - especially those with weak infrastructure. It's one of the elements of a war - you can use it well, but you can also make it hurt you too much. Personally, I think it's useless with the current weakness of drafted units.
I agree it's not hurting in the short run, and in big empires, which can spread out the effects. The problem is, virtually nothing hurts in short wars and with big empires (in Civ3), so the whole discussion becomes kind of pointless, if you base it on them.
Take the current AU course, where your land is small and you need every shield and very gold coin you can get. Heavy drafting would give you many weak units, while stripping your production capabilities badly. Personally, I don't feel like using it here, because I won't get much out of those 2HP units. I'll probably draft fake defenders in colonies, but that's about it. The (realatively) small empire just doesn't have a use for such weak units, IMO. Especially if the war lasts long.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
If you draft, you don't get the production for this turn for this citizen, so it's not a simple thing to do in your core. |
Incorrect, at least insofar as shields are concerned. New citizens appear before shields are calculated, so as long as there isn't a problem with the wrong tiles being worked, no production is lost drafting when a city is ready to grow back the next turn. (And with coastal cities, the tiles that laborers disappear from aren't tiles that produce shields to begin with.) So the shield situation is not a real deterrent to well-timed drafting.
quote:
Also, after a while, you'll get unhappy citizens, which will hurt the city - especially those with weak infrastructure. It's one of the elements of a war - you can use it well, but you can also make it hurt you too much. Personally, I think it's useless with the current weakness of drafted units. |
The value of drafting is inversely proportional to a civ's military power. For a civ with a strong military, conscripts have little value other than as military police. But for a civ that finds itself under heavy attack when it has a very small military, drafting can be a life-saver.
In my view, that is exactly as it should be. Conscripts can help a civ that's in trouble survive, but are of less value in helping to make a strong civ even stronger. I view that as good for game balance.
In regard to the effect on happiness, yes, it limits the number of units a player can get from drafting a bit. But a few units per city from several cities can still add up to a considerable force. Even a small empire of only ten cities could get forty units by drafting four units each from those cities. (Edit: Not four units all at once, but, say, one unit every ten turns over a period of forty turns.)
quote:
Take the current AU course, where your land is small and you need every shield and very gold coin you can get. Heavy drafting would give you many weak units, while stripping your production capabilities badly. |
Heavy drafting would. But more modest drafting, especially in cities that run a food surplus even when maximizing production, can provide a few extra units with no significant adverse consequences. The trick is to use drafting the right amount.
I just finished the game a little while ago, although I'm way behind on my DARs. If I'd thought about it, I could have gotten a modest advantage out of drafting, thereby letting me build fewer infantry and more Heavy Cavalry and/or artillery. Unfortunately, I have a bit of a blind spot where drafting is concerned: a lot of the time, I just don't think about whether or not it would be useful.
Last edited by nbarclay on 03-12-2004 at 23:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Incorrect, at least insofar as shields are concerned. New citizens appear before shields are calculated, so as long as there isn't a problem with the wrong tiles being worked, no production is lost drafting when a city is ready to grow back the next turn. (And with coastal cities, the tiles that laborers disappear from aren't tiles that produce shields to begin with.) So the shield situation is not a real deterrent to well-timed drafting.
|
But only if you get to draft, once the food box is full. That doesn't happen very often in big cities, so if you'll have to use it (not out of bordeom, but out of desperation), shields will get lost. And for long - because of the same large food box. Or am I missing something, again?
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
The value of drafting is inversely proportional to a civ's military power. For a civ with a strong military, conscripts have little value other than as military police. But for a civ that finds itself under heavy attack when it has a very small military, drafting can be a life-saver.
In my view, that is exactly as it should be. Conscripts can help a civ that's in trouble survive, but are of less value in helping to make a strong civ even stronger. I view that as good for game balance. |
Exactly that is my problem here. The conscripts can only help you survive a bit, they can hardly win a war. But two World Wars saw exactly that - most soldiers sent to fight weren't crack troops, they were drafted men with simple training and not the greatest weapons (yes, I mean the very cheap tanks too). Only small forces (of the winning side...) were really trained veterans/elites. After trying those drafted Riflemen in Civ3, I can hardly imagine wins like that happening in civ. 
I was hoping a change to the rules could help this, and I think this one just might.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
In regard to the effect on happiness, yes, it limits the number of units a player can get from drafting a bit. But a few units per city from several cities can still add up to a considerable force. Even a small empire of only ten cities could get forty units by drafting four units each from those cities. (Edit: Not four units all at once, but, say, one unit every ten turns over a period of forty turns.)
|
Except that during a war, you don't get to wait 40 turns. If you get pinned to the wall, you will draft, and you will be hurting your cities big time. And you will still lose, because the units you draft in Civ3 are extremely bad soldiers.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Heavy drafting would. But more modest drafting, especially in cities that run a food surplus even when maximizing production, can provide a few extra units with no significant adverse consequences. The trick is to use drafting the right amount. |
Yes, I know. But it just doesn't work in a war, when units are needed NOW, not in 5 turns, when drafting them can be optimal for the city. I agree that if you draft before the war, you can get those units without much problems. Only thing is, that doesn't make them attack any better, does it? Unfortunately, if you have 2 HP, then a 1 HP unit in a big city can still kill loads of your soldiers without a scratch. If you have the same units on both sides (usually Riflemen or Infantry) the numbers needed to win can get extreme. I won't even mention trying to win without completely bombing the opponent. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
But only if you get to draft, once the food box is full. That doesn't happen very often in big cities, so if you'll have to use it (not out of bordeom, but out of desperation), shields will get lost. And for long - because of the same large food box. Or am I missing something, again? |
A city with only mined grassland tiles for a non-agricultural civ has a food surplus of two per turn. With a granary, if the city maxes at size 12, it could draft every ten turns and grow back to size 12 the turn after each draft. That draft rate also wouldn't produce significant happiness problems unless the situation is borderline. That's not a fast rate of troop production, but the city can keep it up while at the same time focusing its production on city improvements.
Note that this type of tactic is something a good human player can take excellent advantage of but, to the best of my knowledge, that the AI has no awareness of at all. Thus, making such tactics more powerful could easily shift the balance of advantage in a way that favors humans.
quote:
Exactly that is my problem here. The conscripts can only help you survive a bit, they can hardly win a war. But two World Wars saw exactly that - most soldiers sent to fight weren't crack troops, they were drafted men with simple training and not the greatest weapons (yes, I mean the very cheap tanks too). Only small forces (of the winning side...) were really trained veterans/elites. After trying those drafted Riflemen in Civ3, I can hardly imagine wins like that happening in civ. |
The issue you speak of is really a symptom of a much larger issue: Civ's entire model of military operations is hgihly unrealistic. In the real world, a military unit essentially has to be built over and over as people leave and are replaced, and as equipment breaks and is replaced. But Civ units are built once and then maintained indefinitely for a relatively small (or, under some governments, nonexistent) maintenance cost. That's why we still have spearmen wandering around in the modern era.
As part of that model, one of the key tradeoffs of the game is whether to build city improvements or military units. But for that tradeoff to be important, the bulk of the units used in wars need to be conventionally built units, not units built in a special, faster way during a war.
Would it be possible to come up with a better military model for a Civ-type game? Maybe. But the kind of change you're talking about here would alter the feel of the game in a way that is far beyond the scope of the AU Mod. Worse, human players could tailor their strategy to fit the major rules changes, while the AIs would be stuck with programming oriented toward the standard drafting model.
quote:
Except that during a war, you don't get to wait 40 turns. If you get pinned to the wall, you will draft, and you will be hurting your cities big time. And you will still lose, because the units you draft in Civ3 are extremely bad soldiers. |
True. But anything that makes the draft more powerful when used in an emergency also makes it more powerful when used over a longer period in preparing for future warfare.
It is not the job of conscripts to win a war single-handed. What conscripts can do, though, is to provide additional defensive depth at critical points in order to buy time. Even though they're likely to lose most of their battles (depending on the comparative strength of the attackers and defenders), they can buy time to build additional forces to try to tip the balance of power. That doesn't make a lot of difference in the ultimate fate of AIs, since they mostly just draft in whatever city is being attacked at a given time. But a human player, who can (assuming railroads are available) draft from half a dozen or more cities and concentrate the conscripts at the one or two most critical points, can get major assistance in buying time to get out of a tight spot.
quote:
Yes, I know. But it just doesn't work in a war, when units are needed NOW, not in 5 turns, when drafting them can be optimal for the city. I agree that if you draft before the war, you can get those units without much problems. Only thing is, that doesn't make them attack any better, does it? Unfortunately, if you have 2 HP, then a 1 HP unit in a big city can still kill loads of your soldiers without a scratch. If you have the same units on both sides (usually Riflemen or Infantry) the numbers needed to win can get extreme. I won't even mention trying to win without completely bombing the opponent. |
The trick is not to use conscripts offensively, but rather to use the conscripts defensively to free up more powerful units for offensive use. If ten conscripts can take the place of five veterans in defensive roles, that makes five additional veterans available to participate in an offensive. Or the shields for the five defensive units that the conscripts make unnecessary might instead be used for additional artillery or offensive units. And for military police duty in places where an enemy attack is impossible, the tradeoff is even better because conscripts can replace other units on a one-for-one basis.
That's not to say that conscripts should never attack. Under the right conditions, especially trying to pick off badly wounded enemy attackers, taking a chance that a fight will get a conscript promoted can be worthwhile. But mostly, the job of conscripts is to free more powerful units for offensive operations.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-11-2004 23:53
|