14-12-2004 21:48									#1
	A neat bug Suffering from ads?

I found one neat bug in the editor. It is possible to enable improvements with Tourist attraction flag. Tourist attraction is allowed for Small/Great Wonders. However, if you switch a desired improvement to a wonder, check the flag, and then restore improvement status, this flag is actualy works despite being greyed out.

No other option of wonders works for improvements the same way though.

Anybody wish to put something like this in AU mod? Like tourist attraction on palace to increase a peanlty fo palace jump.

	15-12-2004 01:12									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Personally, I think that losing your palace by any means ought to throw your govenment into anarchy.

	15-12-2004 01:24									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Cool bug.

But why do we need an extra penalty for Palace jumping? If you jump by abandoning your capital, then there is already a penalty because you lose your city and its improvements. If you planned it well enough not to lose city improvements, then you paid the price already by not building any improvements in your capital, and you deserve to get the benefits of the jump, IMHO. If you jump with a leader, then you sacrifice a Wonder or Army, so there is an even higher penalty there.

Also, with the C3C corruption model, the Palace jump is much less beneficial.

By the way, pvzh, check the AU mod panel thread.

	15-12-2004 16:50									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In reality goverments often change their centre of government, and monarchy's often change their palaces.

	15-12-2004 20:28									#5
	Suffering from ads?

I can't really think of any regular improvements that would need the flag added to create any sort of balance/benefit in the mod. However, from a purely amusing standpoint, it might be fun to tack it on to a few things

	15-12-2004 21:48									#6
	Support Apolyton

we could add it to the Colleseum, boost for Mil civs if we make the Coll. military.

	15-12-2004 21:54									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Instead of reducing its upkeep, like we have now! That's a great idea.

That way you get (a small) motivation to build this expensive improvement early, when it's available, and you eventually (after 1000 years) get a more efficient happiness improvement than even Cathedrals.

	15-12-2004 22:07									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Cool idea. But it needs some testing, because the cash could become really big over time. Meaning, that building Colosseums might become a no-brainer for some civs.

	16-12-2004 00:01									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The maximum is 14g per turn, which happens only after 2500 years. That means you would need to build your Colosseums by 500 BC in order to get that bonus by 2000 AD.

Let's see an example. Say that you build a Colosseum by 510 BC, which is quite early, given other early-game concerns. Then you would be paying 2 gpt maintenance for 1000 years. You would need until about 1100 AD just to break even with the current version of the AU mod (1 gpt maintenance). You would get your full maintenance money back by 1400 AD. That's an pretty long time to wait to get your money back. Still, it's an option you might want to think about.

If you delay building the Colosseum until 500 AD, then you cannot get your money back before the game ends. See the graph below.

Of course, a Militaristic civ would be crazy to build a Cathedral before a Colosseum under these conditions, but I think that's no different than it is for Religious civs now, who would be crazy to build a Colosseum before a Cathedral.

A non-Militaristic, non-Religious civ would probably choose to build a Colosseum as a happiness building early in the game (say, in the BC years), but would probably choose a Cathedral later in the game instead. That's a nice balance, I think.

Attachment: touristcolosseum.jpg
This has been downloaded 173 time(s).

Last edited by alexman on 16-12-2004 at 00:11

	16-12-2004 00:16									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I see. Basically it would depend on the impact the reduced cost will make. It will change the number of cities that can build it early. We don't know exactly how this works, because the changes are new.

	16-12-2004 00:20									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

We kind of know. There is no change for non-militaristic civs. For militaristic civs, a half-price Colosseum is as expensive as a full-price Temple. Of course, you need to have Construction, so you would not be able to build it as early as you can build a Temple.

	16-12-2004 01:07									#12
	Inflate your Upload Space

Alright, but what about a massive Colosseum build, if both changes apply (cheap Colosseum, cash-giving Colosseum)? To see what I mean, check your last game with a Scientific civ and count how many Libraries you have built BC. I just did on my part, and it was quite a few. Now, if the same thing was done with Colosseums, and all of them would start giving you cash over time... the effect could be game breaking IMO.

Last edited by Modo44 on 16-12-2004 at 01:57

	16-12-2004 01:30									#13
	Increase Your PM Length

So we agree that the change is no problem for non-militaristic civs, who get full-price Colosseums? Good.

For militaristic civs, I'm not sure scientific-civ Libraries are the item to compare. Half-price Colosseums are 50% more expensive, and they require 5 techs instead of 3. Also, building the Colosseum in the BC is not really enough. You would have to build it before 500 BC to make any sort of impact (see graph above). I may be wrong, but I doubt you would be able to build more than 5 Colosseums before 500 BC without seriously sacrificing other important early-game priorities.

Finally, note that with a tourist attraction Colosseum, you need to invest gold early in the game (maintenance) in order to get your rewards later. That gold might be used more effectively by upgrading troops and acquiring more territory, for example (especially with militaristic civs), so it is by no means a no-brainer.

	16-12-2004 01:55									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by alexman So we agree that the change is no problem for non-militaristic civs, who get full-price Colosseums? Good.

Yes, we do. They'd have too much to lose by investing so many shields early on.

quote: Originally posted by alexman For militaristic civs, I'm not sure scientific-civ Libraries are the item to compare. Half-price Colosseums are 50% more expensive, and they require 5 techs instead of 3. Also, building the Colosseum in the BC is not really enough. You would have to build it before 500 BC to make any sort of impact (see graph above). I may be wrong, but I doubt you would be able to build more than 5 Colosseums before 500 BC without seriously sacrificing other important early-game priorities.

Those 5 colosseums would do how much? 50gpt by 1000 AD? Not bad. And, if I use my Philosophy beeline in a more creative way, I'll get more of those and/or earlier. Remember that, even though they are more expensive than Scientific Libraries, the Militaristic Colosseums are still well within reach for big and medium cities. This is the point I am not so certain about, as the recent change to the Colosseum has not been explored in-depth yet.

quote: Originally posted by alexman Finally, note that with a tourist attraction Colosseum, you need to invest gold early in the game (maintenance) in order to get your rewards later. That gold might be used more effectively by upgrading troops and acquiring more territory, for example (especially with militaristic civs), so it is by no means a no-brainer.

Pfft, I say to this. In my experience, building those Libraries as a Scientific civ, doesn't hurt me at all. Sure, the benefits are different than those of a Colosseum, but in this case you get the cash back by lowering the lux slider earlier than normal.

But what it really comes down to, is, that I don't consider building upkeep as something to be worried about. In almost all of my civ games so far, the only real problem about city improvements was, that they diverted my production from units. The cash they required almost never became important - if I could build them, I had the gold to sustain them.

However, getting cash from structures can be very powerful, and that's why I see those Colosseums as dangerous. Just think of them as a free Smith's Trading company for Militaristic civs.

	16-12-2004 02:20									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Modo44 Those 5 colosseums would do how much? 50gpt by 1000 AD? Not bad.

In order to get 5 colosseums give 50 gpt by 1000 AD, you would have to have them all complete by 1250 BC.

quote: In almost all of my civ games so far, the only real problem about city improvements was, that they diverted my production from units.

OK then, what would you rather have by 1000 BC as a militaristic civ? 5 Colosseums or 10 extra Swordsmen? At the very least, it's an interesting choice.

quote: However, getting cash from structures can be very powerful, and that's why I see those Colosseums as dangerous. Just think of them as a free Smith's Trading company for Militaristic civs.

And since when is Smith's dangerous? It's a nice Wonder, but not dangerous. With the changes to Armies, Militaristic civs might need such a boost in the AU mod. And it's not really free, you still have sacrifice something significant to build those early Colosseums.

	16-12-2004 02:44									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by alexman In order to get 5 colosseums give 50 gpt by 1000 AD, you would have to have them all complete by 1250 BC.

Uh, that is early, my bad. How much would they make, if built around 500 BC?

quote: Originally posted by alexman OK then, what would you rather have by 1000 BC as a militaristic civ? 5 Colosseums or 10 extra Swordsmen? At the very least, it's an interesting choice.

Yes it is. However, many players will have 10 Warriors and 4 Colosseums, right? I'm talking about a deliberate aim for this, of course. That's something that simply hasn't been explored.

quote: Originally posted by alexman And since when is Smith's dangerous? It's a nice Wonder, but not dangerous. With the changes to Armies, Militaristic civs might need such a boost in the AU mod. And it's not really free, you still have sacrifice something significant to build those early Colosseums.

Same goes for Smith's - building a wonder is a lot of shields that could go into units. The point is, every Militaristic civ could get it, so it would be something like a cash-giving Small Wonder, considering the overall effect. Hey, now that I said that, I'm starting to actually like the idea...

	16-12-2004 07:04									#17
	Support Apolyton

i like moon's proposal, but i think main focus is being missed in the current discussion.

imho, it does not matter whether colosseums cover their own maintenance costs over time or not. as alex calculated, break even is at 1050AD if you build a colosseum early in the game. by then you're usually calculating in hundreds. and if you think about it: abandonning a londbow or medinf (let's say, when cavalry/riflemen come along) saves you 1gpt for a far longer period of time.

the emphasis should imho be on: "does the colosseum/militaristic trait need more improvement, and if so, how much?" and less "if i build the colosseum, when will i start getting cash from it?"

	16-12-2004 09:05									#18
	Remove this text

I still think halfprice is too cheap for Colloseums. It should be 80 or 90, especially if we're going to grant them this tourist thing. Yes, you won't break even for a long time if you're just comparing maintenance to gpt, but you're still getting a potentially wise investment in content citizens, an advantage which is immeasurable. This is far greater than the Religious advantage, IMO, with the tourism bonus, and on top of the other Mil. traits. Yes, I know, I and others often malign Militaristic (and for good reason), but this really jumps out as a whole new type of advantage for Militaristic. It would really devalue Religious too, which is no longer a particularly strong trait, IMO, and I have seen many pro-Japan arguments centered around its ability to warmonger yet maintain high culture/happiness as well as culture in recent conquests. This change would give that ability to all Mil. civs. Beyond that, increasing the cheap colosseums to 80 or 90 shields would probably increase the number of turns a city that would be likely to be building this by anywhere from 2-8, making the tourism slightly less impactful and also make the decision further strategic.

	16-12-2004 14:14									#19
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: [SIZE=1] the emphasis should imho be on: "does the colosseum/militaristic trait need more improvement, and if so, how much?" and less "if i build the colosseum, when will i start getting cash from it?"

It does. the AU Armies nerf the Mil. trait.

	16-12-2004 22:36									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I'm torn here ... On the one hand, the change would open up interesting choices, and also boost the Militaristic trait. On the other hand, I regard the change as rather big, even given its positive effects.

The 'tourist flag' for wonders (introduced in Conquests) simply gives a motivation not to raze cities that contain old, obsolete wonders. This was a logical addition to Civ3's gameplay, but I'm not sure if we should use this flag to boost a 'weak' improvement.

	17-12-2004 08:59									#21
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by punkbass2000 ...I have seen many pro-Japan arguments centered around its ability to warmonger yet maintain high culture/happiness as well as culture in recent conquests. This change would give that ability to all Mil. civs.

That's a good thought, but it's not quite true, because a full-price Temple gives as much culture as a half-price Colosseum, and they cost the same. So the only difference is the extra content person, but you pay for him by double maintenance cost. So Colosseums don't add value to militaristic civs for border expansions in recent conquests.

The happiness/culture effect is not nearly as good as it is for religious civs for core cities either: Religious civs get a 110-shield discount to make 4 people content and to produce 5 culture. Militaristic civs get a 60-shield discount to make just 2 people content and produce just 2 culture.

	17-12-2004 09:09									#22
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Yes, but this isn't Mil's specialty in any way. Religious is good at that specific thing, while Mil has other advantages. Between harbours, barracks and (in theory) a colosseum Mil also receives 110-shields of discount with arguably better buildings. Many people still currently question whether Cathedrals or even Temples are worth building.

	17-12-2004 14:07									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by punkbass2000 Yes, but this isn't Mil's specialty in any way. Religious is good at that specific thing, while Mil has other advantages. Between harbours, barracks and (in theory) a colosseum Mil also receives 110-shields of discount with arguably better buildings. Many people still currently question whether Cathedrals or even Temples are worth building.

Rel. civs have other benfits as well. And I am not sure harbours are military?

As to cathedrals not being worth building.. that's a rather odd argument, as the Colosseum is the least built building in the game!

	17-12-2004 21:04									#24
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Yes, Rel has one other benefit, two-turn anarchy. This is not relevant to this discussion. And harbours are indeed military. In fact, there are several other Mil. improvements that I didn't mention as they're not too important (coastal fortress is useless, airport is good but comes late in the game, etc.)

I didn't say Cathedrals aren't worth building. I wouldn't say Colosseum is the least built building in the game, but semantics aside, I think you're presuming stock. This is part of the problem, and the confusion. I;m making several comparisons in my arguments, though I'm not sure I'm being clear enough with their distinctions. I'm good with analogies, etc., and tend to have this problem in arguments as people often don't follow (understandably). For example, my comparisons between Mil and Rel and between Mil and non-specified traits has gotten rather muddled, AFAICT. I'll try to itemize my points:

1. Colosseum, under stock rules, is, quite admittedly, on the erge of useless.
2. Militaristic, under stock rules, has no advantages over other civs in terms of either culture nor happiness.
3. Giving Militaristic half-price colosseums would seriously undermine both of the above points.
4. Giving Colosseums a tourism bonus in addition to #3 would further undermine #1 and #2.
5. It is now established, with #3, that, in many respects, Mil has gained characteristics similar to that of Rel. In fact, much like Moonbars appears unclear as to whether or not Harbours are Mil, I've seen many a newb presume that Colosseums are Rel.
6. Though still not as directly advantageous as actually having the both Mil and Rel as one's traits, a Mil civ still now has advantages which are similar enough, under #3, that to have such an advantage with a single trait may be unbalancing, as there is will be another trait to be had. Less importantly, this also reduces the value of Japan.
7. #6, in and of itself, might not be so bad if it were not for #4. Not only is one getting two content citizens for the shield investment of a Temple for non-Rel civs, one is potentially breaking even and eventually making money. This offsets the 2gpt maintenance, which isn't a bad deal in the first place, as two content citizens for 2gpt, per se, would be fine.
8. alexman's most important point, IMO, is that half-price Colosseums produce no more cpt/shield than Temples. This true.
9. However, the idea that one is not gaining any real benefit from the tourism bonus when conquering is not true, IMO. I believe the best strat for any Mil civ (up to Deity, anyway, which, IMO, is good enough) is an Archer rush. Having Colosseums in these conquered cities for the same shield cost as Temples would be unbalancing, not even counting the ones that would also be up in your core.
10. As a result of all of the above, I think the idea, as a whole, is unfair. Colosseums are weak under stock, so giving them a tourism bonus sounds like a good idea, to me. Similarly, Mil is weak under stock and giving it half-price Colosseums sounds like a good idea. Doing both, however, seems unbalancing to me. The Aztec, particularly, would become unstoppable, especially on Pangaea. Vikings would become further invincible on Arch maps.

There, how's a nice syllogism work for everyone?

	17-12-2004 21:34									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I want to bring to attention of everybody that we must not forget of AI and how it makes its decisions. For example, attaching tourist attraction flag on stock colloseum will do no good, because AI will not recognise a need to build several of them early just for tourist attraction and forget about this structure. AI does not build stock colleseum often (as far as I know unless temple+cathedral is not enough).

The flag could be attached only to buildings that AI is willing to build as fast as the opportunity present itself, small wonders (FP, heroic epic, others make either no sense or availabel too late), or palace (you have it regardless).

	17-12-2004 21:48									#26
	Put an end to popups!

I recently tried 3 games with the AU Mod, but using the debug feature. This was with the version which has a reduced cost for Colosseums, not the one with the Military flag. For some reason I can't explain, in all 3 games, many AIs would build Colosseums even before Temples. Perhaps some more testing should be done, to see how consistent that is. No, I don't have the saves anymore, but I can make some. Just give me something heavy for the Enter key.

	17-12-2004 22:30									#27
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Cool little feature.

	20-12-2004 02:59									#28
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Modo44 I recently tried 3 games with the AU Mod, but using the debug feature. This was with the version which has a reduced cost for Colosseums, not the one with the Military flag. For some reason I can't explain, in all 3 games, many AIs would build Colosseums even before Temples.

The reason is probably that in happiness terms, for nonreligious civs, a colosseum is more cost-effective than a temple in those versions of the Mod. It costs only 55 shields per happy face instead of 60 shields per happy face. (Also, the AU Mod gives colosseums a lower maintenance cost per happy face than temples, although I don't know whether AIs consider that.)

	20-12-2004 03:37									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Yup, you are probably right.

Of course, the AI did build Temples in core cities, because Construction is not exactly a cheap tech. But, once it was there, almost all new AI cities would build Colosseums, often as the first structure.

Then, I tried it with the proposal: Colosseum back to 120 shields, but Militaristic. Non-Militaristic AI would build Temples first, Militaristic AI would go for Colosseums in new cities.

It's hard to find out, when those Colosseums become active. Loading archived games, Construction was around from 500 BC (new games, Emperor, AU Mod), to 500 AD (very old, Monarch, stock rules). It seems, that 1000 year old Colosseums should be pretty common. Depending on the game progress, they might even cross the 1500 year mark, making a civ quite rich.

This really needs playtesting, IMO. It's not explored enough, and the Debug games won't help much more.

	19-01-2005 21:49									#30
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Dominae in the Colosseum thread What about making the Palace a Tourist Attraction, or has that been implemented already?

That would dramatically increase the amount of commerce available early in the game. The bonus would start to kick in around 3000 BC and would max out around 1500 BC, a time when civs are generally still in Despotism and still REXing. In most cases, the capital would be getting more commerce from the palace as a tourist attraction than from the tiles it is working by that point.

I think we need to be careful that we don't fall into the trap of looking for excuses to use a feature just because it's available. It may actually be that Firaxis (or their partners) knew what they were doing when they tried to make the tourist attraction bonus available only for great wonders.