 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
This isn't my first attempt, but it shows what can be done with the right civ and a bit of luck. The game is Aztecs, Emperor level.
In this particular game, I had the good luck to get a settler from a hut near my capital about 2950 BC, and to have my nearest neighbor not REX particularly well. But I also had the bad luck to get beat to Alphabet so I had to research Masonry myself instead of being able to trade for it. I ended up getting Construction in 1200 BC, with two cities with prebuilds that I could switch in order to complete colosseums the same turn and a third that could do the same with a rush build. The following turn, I used pop rushes to finish another four colosseums. Then more pop rushes and a couple forest chops in 1150 gave me another three. So as of 1150 BC, I now have ten colosseums.
Now, what can each of those colosseums be projected to do later in the game?
130 BC: Tourism bonus will kick in at 2gpt
360 AD: Increases to 4gpt
610 AD: Increases to 6gpt
730 AD: Increases to 8gpt
860 AD: Increases to 10gpt
1110 AD: Increases to 12gpt
1355 AD: Increases to 14gpt
And that's before marketplaces, libraries, and so forth kick in.
Note the role that pop rushes played in doing what I did. With a Militaristic civ, a size 4 city can build 20 shields toward a colosseum, rush the other 40 shields at the cost of two citizens, and be back to the happiness situation it was in before it started. Or with 40 shields (possibly some of them from forest chops), a pop rush only costs one citizen. That makes it easy for a Militaristic civ to get early colosseums even in cities with significant corruption. And a Militaristic civ can also use rushes to reduce the amount of time settler or worker pump cities lose slipping a colosseum into their build queues.
 Attachment: bc 1150 ten colosseums.sav
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).
Last edited by nbarclay on 11-01-2005 at 17:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Risa
|
|
Indeed. Once you get the tech early enough, it isn't that hard to rush a 60-shield building.
But it will be a lot harder to rush a 120-shield building. That is, if the TA feature would be kept, the militaristic flag so probobly be removed.
Edit: One more point: If there is a 40-shield building (like scientific library) as stepstone, the town will only need to grow to 3 population to rush that colosseum.
Last edited by Risa on 11-01-2005 at 19:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
 |
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
Not a lot of time ATM, but I think this will be more powerful on smaller maps as well. TEch rate will be faster, and those ten cities that have Colosseums are fairly likely to be the only cities you were able to REX as well, if that. This is pretty much every useful city and then some (double OCN is eight and around where cities start going useless, correct?) This makes the Colosseum at least on par with the Marketplace, if not more important. And you're next stop probably will be Currency, since you're already down this way. And the AI doesn't even know to research that way, so they will both be highly tradeable (I assume Constr. and Curr. are the last two techs in the AA almost all the time, when played "normally". That the Militaristic civs get it at half-price is clearly game-breaking (can you imagine a half-price MArketplace?), but I think the whole concept, even if not inherently ruining game-balance, definitely deviates too far from stock. Good choices are nice, but ones the comp can't follow and that drastically change a traits value (Mil. jumping from, IMO, 7th/8th to 1st/2nd) are simply too far from stock. The entire dynamic of the AA would be irreparably altered; I would completely change my strategy for the game. It wouldn't be, 'Oh look, I happened to throw up my first Col. at 10BC. Now I'm making an bonus 2gpt, offsetting the maintenance cost, eventually breaking even!) It would be, 'My proverbial Wall Street of Colosseums is now creating ~130bpt. Who needs Copernicus and Newton?' If we want these choices, we should play RaR, a mod dedicated to the concept. I say, vote 'No on proposition 'Tourist Attraction'!  
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
|
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
To make any sort of conclusion about nbarclay's 10-Colosseum game, you have to play it out (including the free Settler) by building units instead of Colosseums, and conquering your continent in the BC.
My guess is that playing the Aztecs with an militarily aggressive strategy like that will achieve ultimate power sooner and easier than a with colosseum approach. |
Yes, of course. But the militaristic approach is almost universally better in this game, so I think that's not really a valid criticism. If you're even considering building Colosseums, regardless of any change we're likely to make, you're clearly not very dedicated to war already. I'm planning to try Carthage on a Tiny, Random Deity map shortly. If I can get half as many Cols by 1000BC without seriously falling behind, I think this will show, even without the Miltaristic thing, that this change is over-powered.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
To make any sort of conclusion about nbarclay's 10-Colosseum game, you have to play it out (including the free Settler) by building units instead of Colosseums, and conquering your continent in the BC. |
In my view, the fact that we even have to ask the question is troubling. Traditionally, changes in the AU Mod have been aimed at relatively minor tweaks to the game's balance. If something is overpowering, we try to make it a little weaker, and if something is too weak to be interesting, we try to make it a little stronger. But the basic, fundamental nature of the choices remains pretty much the same.
In contrast, the tourist attraction proposal introduces an entirely new element almost as if we were introducing an entirely new building or unit - something we've always very clearly viewed as beyond the scope of the AU Mod.* It could be argued that adding new buildings and units could add interesting strategic choices, but we don't do it because it alters the game too much compared with stock rules. Similarly, while giving the colosseum a tourist attraction bonus can be regarded as creating interesting strategic choices, it does so by altering the dynamics of the game in a deep and fundamental way. It does not merely improve the balance of existing choices, but opens up the possibility of an entirely new strategy that did not exist before for the ancient era. That, in my view, goes beyond the proper scope of the AU Mod.
*While technically, we added a new unit splitting cavalry into light and heavy cavalry, our goal on a conceptual level was something else entirely. On a conceptual level, splitting one unit into two gave us a way to implement the goal of, "Let's weaken cavalry during the time when they're overpowering but give them back their power around the time riflemen become available to provide a counterweight."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
|
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
Well, here's my Carthage run. Not a great, but not too good a start either. Third colosseum will be ready next turn. Was easily able to get tech parity minus Monarchy (plus peace with all civs, one of whom had declared war after a tribute rebuff and then signed MAs.) Generally bad luck with barbs, losing many a Warrior on Forest, but oh well. Not doing too bad, have been able to settle as well as improve virtually all the "good land" available and near my capital, all ready getting cites with only 1spt and 2 wpt. Generally second or third in the important demographics. All in all, I don't think building them has really hindered me, and trading for tech parity has been abnormally easy; enough so that I am vaguely considering heading up the Constr. route even in games without this Tourist attraction. All opposing civs happen to be Sci., BTW (Babylonians, Ottomans, Persians). Babylon, surprisingly, IMO, is dominating. The Persians are behind me in tech, down Myst. and Constr. This is Tiny map, 70%/Continents, "Average" Climate, etc., Deity, random opponents and Restless barbs.
Attachment: colosseumcarthage800bc.sav
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
In this particular game, I had the good luck to get a settler from a hut near my capital about 2950 BC, and to have my nearest neighbor not REX particularly well. But I also had the bad luck to get beat to Alphabet so I had to research Masonry myself instead of being able to trade for it. I ended up getting Construction in 1200 BC, with two cities with prebuilds that I could switch in order to complete colosseums the same turn and a third that could do the same with a rush build. The following turn, I used pop rushes to finish another four colosseums. Then more pop rushes and a couple forest chops in 1150 gave me another three. So as of 1150 BC, I now have ten colosseums.
|
Hm, let's see how "typical" this game was:
1. Free Settler
2. Agricultural civ and Rivers as far as the eye can see.
3. Militaristic civ - half-cost Colosseums
4. Multiple Wine resources in close proximity to starting location.
5. Multiple Cattle resources accessible from starting location.
6. Multiple Bonus Grasslands around starting location.
7. Chokepoint to major trading partners.
8. Knowledge of map (Nathan's second or third attempt)
I agree with alexman: with that kind of setup, why do you need to wait until ~1300AD to the Tourism bonus to kick in!?
This is the example game of what you can do with an ideal setup. Nonetheless, it makes me think that the Colosseum should either have the Tourism or be Militaristic, but not both (I prefer Tourism). This way we could be confident that, despite our best player's best efforts, the new Colosseum would not be imbalanced save in the most favorable circumstances (and then, again, why would you need Colosseums in those circumstances?).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by punkbass2000
And what about my game? Non-Mil, Deity, fairly poor start, IMO, non-Agr. I still got 3 Colosseums by 800BC on a Tiny map and have tech parity. Perhaps not game-breaking, but this Tourism change still has a major effect on the fundamental core of the game.
|
Not only are three Colosseums in 775 BC not game breaking in the late-game, but you sacrificed REX big time in order to get those Colosseums up and running. Pretty soon you will have Babylonian Settlers on your island, stealing your silks and gems. You also sacrificed early gold from Marketplaces, Libraries (or even the Great Library), and Colosseum upkeep, for late-game gold that may never come into play on a tiny map.
I'm not saying you made the wrong choice, but at least you had a tough choice to make, which is a good thing. That's exactly what the tourism bonus was supposed to achieve: an incentive (but not a no-brainer) to build colosseums when they become available, instead of building them after Cathedrals, centuries after they are available.
So to me, your game shows that the early Colosseum is a viable choice, but it's nowhere near having a "major effect on the fundamental core of the game".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joncnunn
|
 |
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
Collosums build actually varies by AI
Those with "Build culture often" and "Build Happinesses often" will build it much earlier.
What the AI has no understanding of though (when playing a non-Relgious civ) is that Catherdrial is always the better choice if you have Monotheism.
Edit: Fix typo
Last edited by joncnunn on 14-01-2005 at 23:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by punkbass2000
The tourism bonus would kick in long before then.
|
Yes, I know, my point is that you could "win" the game around 1000AD with this setup without prioritizing Colosseums (in fact, without building them at all).
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2005 19:47
|