 |
| |
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
There has been some suggestion that we test how much value players can really get out of early colosseums with a Tourist Attraction bonus. In order to facilitate such testing, I put together a quick scenario incorporating the changes to the colosseum that we recently voted on (restoring the cost to 120 and adding the Militaristic flag) as well as the proposed tourist attraction changes (restoring the upkeep cost to 2 and adding the tourism bonus). Settings are continents, middle-of-the-road, restless barbs.
I've left the choice of civ up to players so people can try different things in an effort to "break" the proposed change, with the only unplayable civs being the ones chosen for the AIs (at random but discarding some civs I thought humans might be especially interested in). Players are strongly encouraged to try to build a number of colosseums really early to see how much gold they can get later on, perhaps even modifying their research path to pursue Construction earlier than usual.
I based this scenario on my Mythic Hero mod, with a Mythic Hero difficulty level inserted in between Emperor and Demigod. That way my game here can provide an additional data point on how Mythic Hero plays in addition to examining the colosseum issue. Unfortunately, that means scores and hut results (and conceivably other things) for players playing on Demigod and above will be as if playing a level higher. If anyone wants to play on Demigod or higher and is bothered by that, let me know and I'll see if I can come up with an alternate version without Mythic Hero.
It would probably be best if people who play this scenario (if in fact anyone besides me does) not post anything about their games until a week from now or when a vote on the tourist attraction bonus is about to occur, whichever comes first. That way we won't have as much risk of interfering with the fun of people who start the game a bit later or play a bit more slowly.
 Attachment: nab exploring colosseums as tourists.zip
This has been downloaded 6 time(s).
Last edited by nbarclay on 09-01-2005 at 08:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
(I gave us a relatively good one because a good starting position makes it easier to start building colosseums early, thus increasing the chance of our uncovering balance problems if such problems exist.) |
...or it could cloud our judgement by not being able to differentiate between two UP-type games. Not that big a deal, really, as long as each person plays through the scenario twice: once by prioritizing Colosseums, once by playing "normally".
By the way, are Colosseums 60 Shields in this game, or 120?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Multiple games shouldn't be necessary. We can look at the effect of the tourism bonus on our own civs by going through our cities and seeing what the tourist attraction bonuses are, and on AI civs by using the Espionage system to spy on AI cities.
|
Yes, but you also have to compare the strategy of mass Colosseum beeline (or whatever you want to call it) to a more conservative approach. We know that the human player always exploits things better than the AI, the real question is whether early Colosseums are powerful enough that not going that route is just bad strategy. To show this you need a comparison.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
 |
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Moonbars
No I don't think so, if the objective is to see if lots of early Cols would be game breaking, that's a way of finding out. Sure it's not real-game conditions, but it would let us try the Col out. |
The very point is, that Colosseums come too late, to become game breaking. If you move them to 2000 BC, by assigning them to Ceremonial Burial, then you will naturally get a huge bonus out of them. The same thing would be extremely hard to achieve with Colosseums built around 500 BC, or later, as with Construction. Remember, that one important argument for the change is, that it won't be possible to build many early Colosseums at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Moonbars
I proposed moving them to CB, for this test game only, so as to ensure we CAN build some. If the game breaks, then our assumption that a few early cols is unbalancing is confirmed. If we build lots of early cols and the game doesn't break.. then we've proved there is no problem.
|
Given that we would never move Colosseums to Ceremonial Burial in the AU mod, I agree with Modo that your "extreme" test has no value to us whatsoever; it's pretty easy to break the game when you start modding.
It's the Colosseum's cost, combined with its location in the tech tree, that offsets this powerful new ability we are proposing it have.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
 |
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
The second:
 Attachment: colosseumaztec1750bc.sav
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).
Last edited by punkbass2000 on 10-01-2005 at 00:12
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
|
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rommel2D
If two quality players trying different maps and tribes can't produce one example of an early colosseum bumper crop, it isn't going to happen enough in random games to worry about. I'm not saying we should draw any conclusions at this point, but the burden of proof is on those that suspect it is likely... |
Yes, if they can't. I'm not done yet. My earlier theses have proven fairly false, however my methodology is adaptive. I have tons more to say about the whole issue than I have time for ATM, unfortunately. One thing is I'm (IIRC) 25 turns from Constr. at 1750. I imagine with growth that it will take no more than 20, but we'll see. IINM, that means Constr. by 1250BC. There are some advantages to not being able to build them right away, it would seem, as I think all five of my current cities will not have a huge problem pre-building and completing the turn after I discover it. Also, the way things work with corruption and Marketplaces, only really core cities are going to get early Colosseums and these cities will almost invariably have Markets and little corruption. If I do get them in 1250BC in five cities, by 250BC (with Markets and no corruption, for arguments sake ATM) I will be making 15gpt bonus gpt. By 250AD, 30gpt. This is getting substantial. Not only is this etra gold, it's gold that comes in and gets multiplied even with 0% tax rate. In concert, that means right around the begin of the turning point in most games (the Middle Ages) you will have something almost as good as Wall Street (which won't show up for another age) as well as be in a position to switch over into taking the tech lead. Add in a well-timed GA that nets you plenty of Uni/Banks, and you have a monster of an empire. All this on top of the bonus content citizens in these, the core cities. Not bad, I say, not bad. Perhaps not as profound/shocking as my original hypothesis, but significant, IMO, nonetheless. I will likely continue this game on Tuesday to try and confirm. I also want to try with a few other civs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
|
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
What tech strategy did you use? I tried a couple test runs with the Aztecs on Emperor researching Alphabet as my first tech and America beat me both times. |
Well, you are playing MH, of which the differences I am not familiar with, but at least somewhat harder anyway. I researched Alphabet full bore, traded it to America for Mas. and then went at Math full steam. Later, I met Japan, who didn't have much they wanted from me. Then I ran into Babylon, who was quite happy to sell both of their starting techs and all gold (20?) for Alph. + Mas. With Math. I was able to grab IW from America and the Wheel and Myst from Japan or Babylon, I can't recall. (only America had IW at the time).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Risa
|
|
I don't think TA produce golds. It's raw commerce in my experiences.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
I just found a bug that I hadn't previously known about. When I compared punkbass2000's game with some unsuccessful attempts I made to replicate it, I discovered that his research cost was half of what mine was (with both of us playing on Emperor). On further investigation, it seems that the scenario is calculating tech costs based on the world size for whatever game has been played previously. (I can see the change when I start a new regular game and then reload the scenario.) So even though the map size in this game is supposed to be standard, it looks like I've been playing with huge-map tech costs, making my research costs one and two what they ought to be. Conversely, I'm speculating that punkbass2000 may be playing with small-map tech costs, which would make his tech costs about 17% lower than they ought to be.
In any case, forget everything I said based on my results from my test games thus far. I'll have to start testing over again with the tech costs acting like they're supposed to.
I haven't tested yet to see whether the same bug hits other scenarios with built-in maps. If it does, we need to make sure we release AU games as .sav files rather than as scenarios, at least as the primary format.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-01-2005 07:21
Attachment: 
)
. It makes me wonder how many games I've played with this error 
|
