 |
| |
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
Elucidus
gramphos's tool will do this for you
techwins
thanks for the link
________________________
anyways...about my latest game
apolyton was down on sunday so i have been doing EXTENSIVE play testing, and this has been one of the most frustrating civ experiences ever, yet the one more turn feeling IS SO there
some of these things are my causing
the governments aren't balanced, monarchy needs improvement, as does communism, and fascism needs to be toned down some
then here are the most frustrating parts of the game
#1
i don't have any libraries, schools, or any science buildings or wonders, and i have set my tax as high as possible (i have to spend some on happiness) but i am able to buy a new tech about every 8 turns because of devaluation and tech whoring
#2
there is something wrong with airmissions, when attacking units inside of a city about 4 out of 5 missions say "bombardment failed" and don't inflict any damage, this appears only to happen when units are in a city though, it is very frustrating!
i'll write more in depth later on today
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elucidus
|
|
Yeah, I found this out a little earlier today. Thanks though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
Ok when i typed my first post i had yet to fall asleep, so if it is being understanding forgive me
anyways to the more detailed post
I was playing as the Americans on a standard sized world, a pangea map, deity/raging, against Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, French, Germans, Indians, Egyptians
The map was roughly doughnut shaped, with the following starting positions: me at 11 o'clock, french at 12, greece at 2, germans at 4, babs at 5, indians at 6, persians at 7, and egyptians at 9
Until MPPs the game played out as an AI gangbang, Persian declared war on Egypt and soon the rest of the world was also at war with egypt, and while from time to time egypt would make peace with one or two of those civs they stayed at war constantly with Persia who took over all of their cities, i was too small and weak to intervene so i helped egypt by supplying them techs but they took out the egyptians, with no wars breaking out amongst any of the other civs, just the world vs. Egypt, then after Egypt was dead there was a short period of peace and the the world declared war on India, and no other wars broke out until india was dead, then as soon as MPPs came into play germany declared war on me and then i managed to get the other civs to gang up on germany and then they went and destroyed germany
By this point in the game Persia was enormous, with Greece being almost as large, but with more wonders and it had the tech lead, france had lots of cities but most were on the smaller end, with me and the babs having compact fairly well developed empires, so i used MPPs to arrange a war between the rest of the world and persia, and then greece started chewing persia up and just running out to a very large lead, and being the first civ to hit the modern age by a wide margin
As far as my civ went, i did not build any libraries or science buildings at all, just market places, banks, and stock exchanges along with happiness buildings and i bought all of the techs i needed, in the first part of the game i was always the last civ to buy techs, but by the industrial age basically greece discovered the tech first, then i would pay the babs or france a large sum (mostly the babs in the later stages) for older tech and then they would buy new tech off of greece then i would buy that tech off of them
without diverting any resources to science it is 1090ad and i am in the modern age being only one tech (fission) behind every civ except for greece
As far as governments went, the greeks or persians discovered republic first and then all of the civs switched to republic without a single one switching to monarchy when it became available, even when they were at war, then the greeks discovered democracy and all of the civs switched to it, upon entering the industrial age and the scientific civs discovered Fascism most of the civs switched to that, a few stayed in democracy for a while, but once they were at war for a few turns everyone (including me when i was at war with persia) switched to Fascism, even after discovering communism none of the civs switched to it, and all have remained in Fascism
well my basic strategy was to make it fairly intact until the modern age, then use F-15's to seize control of the skies then to pound civs from the air and then let my ground troops follow close behind
well that was what my strategy WAS going to be until i found that there is something very wrong with airpower, it seemed like i was getting WAY too many "air bombardment failed" messages, so i went into the editor and changed the bombardment value of a F-15 to 1000 i changed its RoF to 10 and i lowered the building and citizen defense of the city to 1...even then i still had way too many failed airmissions
my first little test was this, i had five F-15's in a city that was close to a size 1 city that didn't have any building in it and it had three military units in it: one elite infantry unit, one veteran infantry unit and a damaged partisan, but you cannot bomb a partisan since it is invisable, though i would imagine if you had a unit that could see invisable units then airpower would be able to attack it
out of my 15 bombing missions, 12 of them failed...and this is with intentionally overpowered airunits used as a test
i cannot explain why this happened, except that something is amiss with the air bombardment system in civ3
i then rebased those 5 F-15's to a different city, and then attacked a size 7 city 10 times with the following results
*killed citizen
*killed citizen
*no report (probably damaged a unit)
*no report (probably damaged a unit)
*killed citizen
*failed mission
*failed mission
*failed mission
*failed mission
*killed citizen
again this is with 1000 bombard strength 10 RoF F-15s attacking 1 defense strength buildings and citizens, so i should have experienced a failed air mission 1 time out of 1001 tries, instead of 4 out of 10 tries
now i have a feeling about what was happening in the size 1 city, air bombardment can target units, citizens, or buildings; however it cannot damage the last citizen since air units cannot kill cities, since this city didn't have any building and it was only size 1, the air units were most likely trying to attack buildings or citizens, yet since they couldn't inflict any damage on these it gave the bombardment failed reply; however, this is a very poor implementation of bombardment rules, all bombard units should always attack targets that can actually be damaged first, my F-15's should have attacked units until they were down to 1hp first, and then the best implementation would be that since aircraft can't damage 1hp units, nor destroy size one cities without any buildings in it that those targets shouldn't be targetable, but even barring that, actual targets (building, pop, units with more than 1hp) should always come first
however the second situation i cannot explain, statistically the attack should not have failed that many times unless something else determines the success of an air mission, and if something else determines the overall chance of having a successful air attack then that should be in the editor
one of the big parts of the blitz mod is making airpower more powerful but as it is now we might need another patch before that is possible
________________________________
anyways for those of you interested in how the buying tech only strategy worked out
the tech cost for the map was 150 and the tech cost for fission was 280
to purchase the tech from the French who were in awe of my culture (gracious) would have cost my world map and 1806 gold, originally they asked for my world map and 1990 gold
to purchase the tech from the babylonians who were unimpressed with my culture (gracious) would have cost my world map and 1830 gold, originally they asked for my world map and 2020 gold
i was fascism in a golden age (one of my F-15's had just should down a bomber) and my income breakdown was the following
2906 gold in reserve
7.0.3 tax rate
+774 gold from cities
+50 gold from interest
-113 gold for entertainment
-66 gold from corruption
-167 gold from building upkeep
total: +478 gold per turn
or at that rate i was able to buy techs about every 4 years (3.77~)
just for a test i changed the world size tech rate to 1 and the tech cost for fission to one and the french wanted 17 gold, or my world map and 10 gold for fission
anyways i will post again soon
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
Lockstep
i looked over your excel spreadsheet (i actually have it open right now) and i'm not sure about reducing maintence costs from there current levels, though i loved your suggestion about more expensive stock exchanges, and that IS going to be part of beta7.3 (which was delayed because of play testing but i will have it out either tonight or midday my time tommorrow)
first off, i don't think that a straight 1.17f to beta7.1 can be made, and this is why
in 1.17f most of the buildings are essential because many buildings have overlapping functions, like science and culture, air trade and air military units, etc. in the blitz mod you can build the proper set of buildings for each city you need (but now suddenly i realize that i need to do something to airports to make them slightly more useful) so it is less likely that each city will have every improvement, and then on top of that the stock exchange does increase gold output by 50%, so when you figure that in, the relative upkeep rate rose by roughly 22%, and if i used the lower upkeep figures then the relative upkeep rate would have rose by only about 4%, compared to like you said a about a 45% increase in shield costs
i think that the higher upkeep levels force the player to make tougher choices in which strategy to pursue so for now i'm going to leave it
also i was thinking about how to improve monarchy compared to republic and i think i have finally came up with a good way of doing this...monarchy needs better support compared to republic, so instead of bumping up it's city by city support, i have instead opted to change it's upkeep to 1 gold per unit and to keep the 2/3/4 city support system
so that and switching their corruption rates should make monarchy perform better
one kind of crazy idea i've been thinking about is to switch the republic support system to 12-15 free units per civ with 1/1/1 cost 2 support, what this would do would make republic much better in smaller more compact civs where their corruption rates and unit per city rates would be much more favorable, while in larger more spread out civs monarchy would be a better choice with its better corruption rates and support rates when you had more cities, so what does everyone think of that
additionally two other areas of government that we haven't mentioned are the resistance rates, propaganda rates and the the entire cultural menu
right now there are six entries under the cultural menu
in awe of 3:1
admirers of 2:1
impressed with 1:1
unimpressed by 3:4
dismissive of 1:2
disdainful of 1:3
what i am going to do is add in at least one more section, called either equal to or on par with and set it at 1:1
then i will probably switch around the rest like so
4:1
3:1
2:1
*1:1
2:3
2:5
1:4
so does anyone have any thoughts on that?
as far as CSU balance goes i think the only two onits i'm going to change right now are the war chariot and the legionair
i am afraid that at 10 shields and horses a 2.1.2 unit is too powerful, so i think i am going to change the war chariot to 1.1.3, which would still make it a good unit
ok here is a little quote from the civilpedia
quote:
Nearly unstoppable on the attack, the legion was relatively weak on defense. |
uh, and they get +1 to defense?
what i'm trying to decide between is +1 movement or treat all terrain as roads to simulate the quickness of the legions
both choices have their ups and downs, +1 movement wouldn't make them as fast as all terrain as roads, so that is a good thing, but it would give them the ability to retreat and it would prevent mounted units from retreating, which would make them completely overpowered
so i am seriously leaning towards treat all terrain as roads, which would make the roman legion much more dangerous than it currently is
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
Lockstep
i loved your suggestion about more expensive stock exchanges, and that IS going to be part of beta7.3 |
Glad to hear that. 
quote:
now suddenly i realize that i need to do something to airports to make them slightly more useful |
I was going to comment on the airport's current uselessness. Time saved. 
quote:
the stock exchange does increase gold output by 50%, so when you figure that in, the relative upkeep rate rose by roughly 22%, and if i used the lower upkeep figures then the relative upkeep rate would have rose by only about 4% |
Umm ... no. The stock exchange adds another +50% to the marketplace's +50% and bank's +50%, therefore increasing the total tax multiplier for a city that has built them all from 2.0 to 2.5. This results in a gold output that is 1.25 times (2.5/2.0) higher. The relative upkeep rate rises by a factor of 1.83/1.25 = 1.46. With the reduced upkeep costs I suggested, relative upkeep would rise by 1.56/1.25 = 1.25.
quote:
i think that the higher upkeep levels force the player to make tougher choices in which strategy to pursue |
Relative building upkeep costs of +25% plus support costs of 2 or more per unit sounds tough enough to me.
quote:
right now there are six entries under the cultural menu
in awe of 3:1
admirers of 2:1
impressed with 1:1
unimpressed by 3:4
dismissive of 1:2
disdainful of 1:3
what i am going to do is add in at least one more section, called either equal to or on par with and set it at 1:1
then i will probably switch around the rest like so
4:1
3:1
2:1
*1:1
2:3
2:5
1:4
so does anyone have any thoughts on that? |
First, I really like the idea of an 'on par with' cultural level. Please adopt it.
Second, I suggest threshold values of
3:1
2:1
5:4
*4:5
1:2
1:3
1:10
This will result in symmetric judgements of cultural levels. If civ A is impressed by civ B's culture, B is unimpressed by A's culture. If civ C is in awe of civ D's culture, D is disdainful of C's culture. Last, but not least, if E is on par with F, F is also on par with E.
('1:10' is the lowest value possible with the editor and stands for the fact that there is no level below 'disdainful'. I'm note sure what Firaxis was thinking when they defined a positive threshold for 'disdainful'.  )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
I was going to comment on the airport's current uselessness. Time saved. |
well i have been thinking of exactly what airports could do and i have came up with the following options
*+50% Luxury Output, ie it increases the amount you spend on happiness output...this could represent vactions and tourism (notice this is not the same effect as market places)
*Reduces Corruption, this would represent all of the modern advances in transportation and communications
*+50% Tax Output, this could represent the economic benefit of business travelers and things like airfreight ect.
which one would work best? i put them in the order i prefer them, i especially like +50% to Luxury output since it isn't used by any other building but the downside of that would be it would only come into effect if you actually had to spend on luxuries, and i could even go for a combination of that and reduces corruption, but that could be too powerful
quote:
Umm ... no. The stock exchange adds another +50% to the marketplace's +50% and bank's +50%, therefore increasing the total tax multiplier for a city that has built them all from 2.0 to 2.5. This results in a gold output that is 1.25 times (2.5/2.0) higher. The relative upkeep rate rises by a factor of 1.83/1.25 = 1.46. With the reduced upkeep costs I suggested, relative upkeep would rise by 1.56/1.25 = 1.25 |
sorry i was still in a state of sleep deprevation today from setting up all night sunday play testing, and i think i was dividing by 1.5 instead of 1.25, but still i think that most cities are going to have less of the total number of buildings in the blitz mod than what is in 1.17f so i am really hesitant to lower upkeep costs, just because it seems so easy to generate cash
quote:
First, I really like the idea of an 'on par with' cultural level. Please adopt it. |
it is as good as in, but i am going to put it in beta8, so as to maintain savegame compatablity in the beta7.x series
quote:
Second, I suggest threshold values of
3:1
2:1
5:4
*4:5
1:2
1:3
1:10
|
Civ A: 100
Civ B: 80
of with those statistics it means that the message Civ A would get in reference to Civ B would be they are impressed with our culture, but the message Civ B would get in reference to Civ A would be that they are on par with our culture, so wouldn't 1:1 be a better fit?
also here is a little bit more about those percentages
In awe of
culture ratio 3:1
Chance of Successful Propaganda 30%
Resistance Chance 40% Continued 30%
Admirers of
cultural ratio 2:1
chance of successful propaganda 25%
resistance chance 50% continued 40%
impressed with
cultural ratio 1:1
chance of successful propaganda 20%
resistance chance 60% continued 50%
unimpressed by
cultural ratio 3:4
chance of successful propaganda 10%
resistance chance 70% continued 60%
dismissive of
cultural ratio 1:2
chance of successful propaganda 5%
resistance chance 80% continued 70%
disdainful of
cultural ratio 1:3
chance of successful propaganda 3%
resistance chance 90% continued 80%
i agree when you say that we need to keep the levels symetric so wouldn't that mean the following
10:3
9:4
3:2
1:1
2:3
4:9
3:10
or
8:1
4:1
2:1
1:1
1:2
1:4
1:8
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
_____________________
beta7.3
Changes
*Incorporated Sevorak's Name Change Mod
Government Changes
*Changed Monarchy's corruption rate to Nuisance
*Changed Monarchy's support cost from 2 to 1
*Changed Republic's corruption rate to Problematic
*Changed Communism so that it no longer requires building upkeep
*Changed Communism so that it now has the standard tile penalty
*Changed Communism so that it's support rate is now 4/5/6 2
*Changed Fascism so that it's support rate is now 3/4/5 2
Unit Changes
*Moved Privateer to Navigation
*Changed War Chariot's stats to 1.1.3 10 horses
*Changed Legion's stats to 3.2.1 30 iron treat all terrain as roads
*Changed Cossack stats to 7.4.3 80 horses saltpeter
*Changed Tanks, Panzers, Mech Infantry, Modern Armor, and Radar Artillary to wheeled units
*Increased artillary's movement to 2
Building Changes
*Increased cost of Stock Exchange to 240
*Changed Airports so they Increase Luxury Output by 50%
Tech Changes
*Testing in the Ancient era only having the bare minimum tech as required techs
_____________________
this is only a small update, but it should really make the governments much more balanced
 Attachment: blitz1.06beta7.4.zip
This has been downloaded 5 time(s).
Last edited by korn469 on 12-03-2002 at 20:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn 469
i agree when you say that we need to keep the levels symetric so wouldn't that mean the following
10:3
9:4
3:2
1:1
2:3
4:9
3:10 |
According to the editor help file, culture ratio 'determines the ratio of culture points required for a civilization to have the selected opinion of another civilization'. IOW, the ratios are lower threshold values. Therefore, if there are seven cultural assessment levels (with the addition of 'on par with'), one has to define six lower threshold values - one for every level but the lowest (disdainful of). The threshold value for 'disdainful of' has no meaning whatsoever IMO.
Accordingly, if one wants symmetric cultural assessments, the threshold value for the first level must be the reciprocal value of the last but one level, and so on. Therefore my suggestion of
3:1 minimum ratio for 'in awe of'
2:1 minimum ratio for 'admirers of'
5:4 minimum ratio for 'impressed with'
4:5 minimum ratio for 'on par with'
1:2 minimum ratio for 'unimpressed with'
1:3 minimum ratio for 'dismissive of'
1:10 (lowest possible editor value) for 'disdainful of'
E.g., civs with a cultural ratio between 4:5 and 5:4 would be 'on par with'.
quote:
Civ A: 100
Civ B: 80
of with those statistics it means that the message Civ A would get in reference to Civ B would be they are impressed with our culture, but the message Civ B would get in reference to Civ A would be that they are on par with our culture, so wouldn't 1:1 be a better fit? |
This effect will only occur if the cultural ratio of two civs exactly equals a defined lower threshold value; this should happen only seldom because typical cultural values (from the late ancient age onwards) have four or five digits. Also note that this minor 'glitch' is necessarily part of any symmetric layout of cultural ratios.
BTW, congratulations for updating to 7.3.!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
lockstep
shouldn't a symetric system work like this
in awe of ---> disdainful of
admirers of ---> dismissive of
impressed with ---> unimpressed with
on par with ---> on par with |
Yes, a symmetric system should work excactly that way.
quote:
3:1 minimum ratio for 'in awe of'
2:1 minimum ratio for 'admirers of'
5:4 minimum ratio for 'impressed with'
4:5 minimum ratio for 'on par with'
1:2 minimum ratio for 'unimpressed with'
1:3 minimum ratio for 'dismissive of'
1:10 (lowest possible editor value) for 'disdainful of'
now if we take your ratios and say that civ A has 200 points, civ b has 400 and civ c has 600 points then civ a is admirers of civ b and in awe of civ c while civ b is unimpressed with civ a and impressed with civ c and civ c is dismissive of civ a and unimpressed with civ b |
A vs. B and A vs. C don't work as they should because 400/200 and 600/200 are exact threshold values. These effects cannot be avoided with the current editor. (There's no way to define the threshold value for 'in awe of' to more than 3:1, e.g.) However, change A's points from 200 to 201, and it will become only impressed with B and admirers of C. (You could also change A's points to 199, so that B will become dismissive of A and C will become disdainful of A.)
quote:
10:3
9:4
3:2
1:1
2:3
4:9
3:10
if we tke my ratios and say that civ A has 300 points, civ b has 450 points and civ c has 675 points then civ a will be in impressed with civ b and admirers of civ c, while civ b will be unimpressed with civ b and impressed with civ c and civ c will be dismissive of civ a and unimpressed with civ b |
Everything seems to work correctly, but this is due to a weird combination of a) threshold values that aren't truly symmetric and b) the 'exact threshold' effect I've mentioned above. Test 1: Change A's culture point to either 299 or 301, and the comparisons won't work anymore. Test 2: Leave civ A as it is and add a civ D with 350 points. Under your system, A is on par with D (because 350/300 is higher than 1:1, but lower than 3:2). On the contrary, D is unimpressed with A (because 300/350 is higher than 2:3, but lower than 1:1).
P.S.: Sorry if I can't put my reasoning across. This is the first time as a member of these forums that I'm actually feeling the limitations of writing in a foreign language. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
lockstep
we are both right and we are both wrong
a symetric system DOES work like this
in awe of ---> disdainful of
admirers of ---> dismissive of
impressed with ---> unimpressed with
on par with ---> on par with
however, what we both have is actually this
in awe of ---> disdainful of
admirers of ---> dismissive of
impressed with ---> unimpressed with
on par with --->
it should be this
in awe of
admirers of
impressed with
on par with
on par with
unimpressed with
dismissive of
disdainful of
or something like this
EDIT: hmmm after some more thinking
10:3 Civ A 340
9:4 Civ B 230
3:2 Civ C 155
1:1 Civ D 105
2:3 Civ E 70
4:9 Civ F 50
3:10 Civ G 35
1:10 Civ H 15
so that would mean
Civ A is
on par with Civ B
unimpressed with Civ C
dismissive of Civ D
disdainful of all the rest
Civ B is
on par with Civ A
on par with Civ C
unimpressed with Civ D
dismissive of Civ E
disdainful of all the rest
etc...
so as long as it is the threshold number and above wouldn't all of those ratios work out?
Last edited by korn469 on 07-03-2002 at 17:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kettyo
|
 |
Budapest, Hungary
Mar 2002
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
now i have a feeling about what was happening in the size 1 city, air bombardment can target units, citizens, or buildings; however it cannot damage the last citizen since air units cannot kill cities, since this city didn't have any building and it was only size 1, the air units were most likely trying to attack buildings or citizens, yet since they couldn't inflict any damage on these it gave the bombardment failed reply; however, this is a very poor implementation of bombardment rules, all bombard units should always attack targets that can actually be damaged first, my F-15's should have attacked units until they were down to 1hp first, and then the best implementation would be that since aircraft can't damage 1hp units, nor destroy size one cities without any buildings in it that those targets shouldn't be targetable, but even barring that, actual targets (building, pop, units with more than 1hp) should always come first |
I don't know but it could be solved with precision bombing ability given to all bombers and coming with flight. Sorry I don't know how precision bombing actually works because I never reached that far I'm not so stupid just got Civ3 recently. 
In that case some other advantage should be given with smart weapons technology...
It would be nice to post some kind of tactical comparison between the changed governments. (Which one's recommended in which circumstances)
I played 7.2 and had a treasury growth of around 0 and upgraded to 7.3 now I have +85 growth (using monarchy). Wow!
Korn
I never created mod so I ask you if it's possible to set a land/not carrier naval unit to aircraft carriers? Could this unit be destination of a rebase mission? It would make airdefenses possible when the AI could use it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
I don't know but it could be solved with precision bombing ability given to all bombers and coming with flight. Sorry I don't know how precision bombing actually works because I never reached that far I'm not so stupid just got Civ3 recently. |
as far as i know, precision bombing targets buildings first, the population, then units...i haven't used it that much against units in the field but i will try it
also i forget if it destroys as many targets as RoF, if so i may have to completely disable it or completely rework the air game
quote:
I played 7.2 and had a treasury growth of around 0 and upgraded to 7.3 now I have +85 growth (using monarchy). Wow! |
did changing the corruption rate have that much of a change? could you please post a save of that game
quote:
I never created mod so I ask you if it's possible to set a land/not carrier naval unit to aircraft carriers? Could this unit be destination of a rebase mission? It would make airdefenses possible when the AI could use it. |
as far as i know you can make ground units function as aircraft carriers, as they have done in the air bases mod, but since no proper AI type exists for it, i doubt that the AI is going to haul around fighters to protect its land units, we tried making landmines that functioned similarly and the AI didn't use them
quote:
It would be nice to post some kind of tactical comparison between the changed governments. (Which one's recommended in which circumstances)
|
anarchy: you NEVER want to be in anarchy
despotism: your starting government, decent for control and support, horrible for production, it's best to get out of this asap
republic: excels for small peaceful empires
monarchy: a good middle of the road empire, not the best at anything though not particularly horrible at any thing either
communism: corruption and poor economic planning plauge them, but they don't worry about building upkeep, they have the best spies in the game, they can support large armies, they have fast workers, they have a good assimilation rate, and lower resistance rates than fascism, so they are good at building up infrastructure and a military
fascism: good at generating science, good at maintaing control, good support, workers are slower than democracy or communism, not as powerful economically as a democracy, will meet fierce resistance when they start their blitzkrieg
democracy: the ultimate in peaceful builder governments, as far as the economy goes no government is better, though militarily they aren't nearly as good fascism or communism
hope that gives you some insight
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
korn,
I just started my first game using your mod and have a few preliminary impressions to share. I tried a start as the Greeks with a standard map (with archipelago, minimum water, and wet options), 7 AI, and a restless barb setting. Here are some things noticed so far:
1) Barbarians are tougher, and even with a restless setting, seemed more aggressive. I was quite happy to be able to build hoplites as the Greeks, as I do not think weaker defensive units would have had much of a chance against barb swordsmen or knights, which I had to face before having the technology to build stronger non-UU units.
2) Having outriggers immediately available is a great idea, and I built some as soon as I could to make earlier contact with other civs, but each one was almost immediately sunk by barb privateers. After losing three this way, I just gave up trying with some more.
3) At deity level the human player has enough of a starting handicap the way things are, so I thought the added 20 shield cost of settlers, their -3 citizen cost, plus the 50 turn research limit have served to increase the early AI advantage at this level. In my game I built a settler as soon as possible in my capital, and founded a coastal city in 2270 BC, where I started to build the Colossus. A few turns later, this wonder had already been completed by one of the AI. In previous deity games, I have almost always been able to complete this wonder first. The 50 turn limit left me with nothing other than settlers, workers and hoplites to build early on, and also delayed my arrival to Literature, which I researched after Alphabet. By this time, the AI were all at, or in the Middle Ages, so I decided my only good chance for catching up was to try for the Great Library, which I was able to complete in 290 AD. I think the only reason I was able to build it first was because of the 2 library pre-requisite, because in many other deity games, I had to complete this one by around 1500 BC, in order to beat the AI to it. In this game, the GL was so late it also gave me Printing Press, Gunpowder, and Astronomy, techs that are 1/2 way through the Middle Ages. Although, I had a very playable game with the help of the GL, I feel that the mod has increased rather than diminished a poor feature of CivIII, 1.17f, which is the ridiculously rapid pace with which the AI make it through the first half of the tech tree.
4) Except vs. barbs, I did not have much opportunity to observe combats, but it looks like you have modified hit points and that this has improved the way battles are resolved. More hit points all around tend to diminish the wild swings in fortune due to “lucky” hits.
5) Under Despotism, the extra policing ability was a welcome feature, as was the 70% cap on science level settings. However, when setting my science very low to avoid a deficit, the game kept resetting it up to 30% every turn! I do not know whether this is a problem with the mod or with 1.17f, but having to reset the science slider every turn was enough of an irritation, that I did not want to continue my game any further until this quirk is resolved.
6) The observations above should not be taken as complaints, since your mod has increased the challenge of trying to beat the AI on deity level. However, I feel that some of the changes you have implemented have also limited the player’s options and have magnified, rather than corrected, some weaknesses in the game’s design.
That’s it for now. I'm very much interested in your reaction to these initial impressions.
solo
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kettyo
|
|
Budapest, Hungary
Mar 2002
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
as far as i know you can make ground units function as aircraft carriers, as they have done in the air bases mod, but since no proper AI type exists for it, i doubt that the AI is going to haul around fighters to protect its land units, we tried making landmines that functioned similarly and the AI didn't use them |
It isn't possible to hack the bic file for this landunit to have the AI flag "naval carrier" what I know is impossible with the editor?
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
fascism: good at generating science, good at maintaing control, good support, workers are slower than democracy or communism, not as powerful economically as a democracy, will meet fierce resistance when they start their blitzkrieg |
I think fascism should be good for smaller empires eager for conquest such as nazi germany and imperial japan in WWII.
Although I could easily exile fascism at all from the game I'm just so sick with fascists. (There are quite some here in Hungary)
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
anarchy: you NEVER want to be in anarchy |
dammit I'm an anarchist (in real life)
I'll send you the savegame in e-mail I don't know how to attach file to the post.
Thank You for the always fast response and govt comparison !
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
solo
i'm getting ready to leave but here is some quick feedback
quote:
1) Barbarians are tougher, and even with a restless setting, seemed more aggressive. I was quite happy to be able to build hoplites as the Greeks, as I do not think weaker defensive units would have had much of a chance against barb swordsmen or knights, which I had to face before having the technology to build stronger non-UU units. |
barbarians can be very dangerous now, what i found to work is actively seeking out their camps with archers, chariots, or preferably horsemen before they can start generating knights, you cannot afford to let them come to you, you have to disperse them or you will suffer, early on though if you set up kill zone usually two warriors (especially if they are veteran) can take out a barbarian conscript swordsman
although the great wall is now a wonder players might actually consider building
quote:
2) Having outriggers immediately available is a great idea, and I built some as soon as I could to make earlier contact with other civs, but each one was almost immediately sunk by barb privateers. After losing three this way, I just gave up trying with some more. |
yeah other have had problems with this, it isn't so much their attack, but its their movement which lets them rapidly close in and kill your ships, i am going to most likely add in the fire galley and make that the barbarian ship
quote:
3) At deity level the human player has enough of a starting handicap the way things are, so I thought the added 20 shield cost of settlers, their -3 citizen cost, plus the 50 turn research limit have served to increase the early AI advantage at this level. |
i really haven't talked much in depth about this because it doesn't seem that most people are playin on diety, but i am going to try and make emperor correspond to civ3's diety, then make the blitz mod diety a far greater challenge, then make chieftan basically a sandbox mode
quote:
In my game I built a settler as soon as possible in my capital, and founded a coastal city in 2270 BC, where I started to build the Colossus. A few turns later, this wonder had already been completed by one of the AI. In previous deity games, I have almost always been able to complete this wonder first. The 50 turn limit left me with nothing other than settlers, workers and hoplites to build early on, and also delayed my arrival to Literature, which I researched after Alphabet. |
i have found that with AI tech whoring if you get cut off from other civs you are in SERIOUS trouble, but that if you can get contact it's not so bad
quote:
By this time, the AI were all at, or in the Middle Ages, so I decided my only good chance for catching up was to try for the Great Library, which I was able to complete in 290 AD. I think the only reason I was able to build it first was because of the 2 library pre-requisite, because in many other deity games, I had to complete this one by around 1500 BC, in order to beat the AI to it. In this game, the GL was so late it also gave me Printing Press, Gunpowder, and Astronomy, techs that are 1/2 way through the Middle Ages. |
hmmmm, i was hoping that the AI would be smart enough to build at least 2 libraries, especially with it's production bonuses, i might have to drop that feature
quote:
Although, I had a very playable game with the help of the GL, I feel that the mod has increased rather than diminished a poor feature of CivIII, 1.17f, which is the ridiculously rapid pace with which the AI make it through the first half of the tech tree. |
besides increasing the minimum amount of time to research a tech to either 4 or 6 turns i'm not sure how to slow properly slow them down, especially since they only pay half what the human does for tech, this problem vexed me as well...i am hoping that the next patch addresses this as well
so should i increase the minimum?
quote:
4) Except vs. barbs, I did not have much opportunity to observe combats, but it looks like you have modified hit points and that this has improved the way battles are resolved. More hit points all around tend to diminish the wild swings in fortune due to “lucky” hits. |
the most outrageous combat result i've seen so far is a regular rifleman 6.8.1 6hps lose to an elite jag warrior 1.1.2 12hp, other than that while there have been a few surprises combat results are much better and the level of frustration is much lower with it
quote:
5) Under Despotism, the extra policing ability was a welcome feature, as was the 70% cap on science level settings. However, when setting my science very low to avoid a deficit, the game kept resetting it up to 30% every turn! I do not know whether this is a problem with the mod or with 1.17f, but having to reset the science slider every turn was enough of an irritation, that I did not want to continue my game any further until this quirk is resolved. |
yeap i noticed this as well, it's a bug with rate capes, if you give your government a ratecap then it reset the levels every turn which is very annoying especially under despotism where it goes back to 30% science spending every turn, it goes to 20% under monarchy and republic, and since i was usually running 10% luxuries it would only go to 8.1.1, if you open up the blitz mod you can turn this off by going under the government tabs and setting rate caps to 0, and i will add this to the bug list
quote:
6) The observations above should not be taken as complaints, since your mod has increased the challenge of trying to beat the AI on deity level. However, I feel that some of the changes you have implemented have also limited the player’s options and have magnified, rather than corrected, some weaknesses in the game’s design. |
well i'm glad you have taken your time to play and report back, i too ran into the AI techwhoring, and it ended my first diety/raging game because it armed the aztecs, who were already thrashing me with ancient units, with industrial units compared to my early middle ages units, and i noticed the rate cap bug as well, since i didn't invest anything into science my last game and just bought tech, so i had to fight with it every turn until i discovered democracy, thought i didn't really think about what an annoyance it was till you mentioned it  (and it is REALLY annoying)
though besides those three problems (AI tech whoring, rate cap bug, barbarian control of the seas) what did you like, what did you hate, and what took you off guard? did any strategies that normally work prove useless and did any new strategies open up? did you notice the difference in expansion rates?
anyways i hope you play some more and report back
kettyo
quote:
It isn't possible to hack the bic file for this landunit to have the AI flag "naval carrier" what I know is impossible with the editor? |
no a land unit must have a land AI
quote:
I think fascism should be good for smaller empires eager for conquest such as nazi germany and imperial japan in WWII. |
hmmmm...that gives me an idea, i could change their support to x free units per civ and then lower their city by city support to simulate this
quote:
I'll send you the savegame in e-mail I don't know how to attach file to the post.
Thank You for the always fast response and govt comparison ! |
ok that'll do i'd like to look at it
no problem
ok guys i'm gone for now i'll be back later tho
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Seems that solo has taken the lead in playtesting for now. O well ... back to cultural levels. |
no please continue to test, the more people we have who discover the same flaw means the more reason we have to fix that flaw
also i figured out what the problem was, it was the thresh hold values cause the error where one civ is in awe of another and then the other civ is simply dismissive instead of disdainful, and this was throwing me off, but i dodn't think we can avoid that, this was making me think that the whole system was suspect, but after more computations it seems that other than that it works out, and also that is why my system was having the problems where i needed to introduce the other row, but since your ratios seem simpler and we would only need one new level we'll go with them...hehe though i think that besides the threshold problem both systems actually work
but so, as far as you know...there shouldn't any places besides the transitions where two civs won't have the appropriate attitude towards each other right?
though i am going to tweak the propaganda, resistance, and continued resistance values
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
 |
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
About the whole technology situation, basically just forget everything I was saying before, except the model I gave you for the Ancient era.
quote:
i am going to most likely add in the fire galley and make that the barbarian ship |
To even further support the idea of adding the fire galley. Right now the whole early naval units thing is messed up. Too much of the map is uncovered too early. One of the reasons is that the outrigger allows for quite a bit of uncovering of the map with the 2 mov rate. Back in 4000 bc no boat could move an equivalent of 2 tiles. The outrigger (at least this is what I assumed) is only there to help you compensate for the wheeled settler, so why is it important for the outrigger to move fast? The outrigger should primarily be to help you move a settler around a large jungle/mountain area. I think a 1 mov rate would be much more fitting for the outrigger. * Now once you discover you Map Making you receive the first and last attack capable ship until you get to Magnetism (or now Navigation with the move of the Privateer). So once you discover Astrononmy and can start building caravels you no longer can build an attacking boat. This is also very problematic if you get in a war like I did. I hadn't built many galleys because I didn't have much reason to look to expand on a different continet. Once I got in war, though, I needed some boats that could attack, but I was unfortunate enough to already had discovered Astronomy, so I was stuck without any boats being able to attack the AIs galleys that were transporting units over to my continent. Unless you decide to make a few more changes to the naval units it seems as if adding the firegalle is a must.
* = The other reason is that map trading takes place at too early of an age for gameplay reasons. I suggest that you move map trading capabilities to navigation instead of map making. This will increase the potentcy of the colonist because there will be more unknown land.  I hope you see the benefits of this move, or maybe I'm just not seeing the downfalls of this move. Also, communication trading shouldn't come till later in the game, as well. Possibly even as late as radio, however, that might be way too late, so maybe an earlier tech would be better.
If the two things under * are implemented I think this might actually help solve tech whoring. Since it seems that the more land you have discovered the more civs that become visible. Being able to communicate with other civs enables you to trade more. Now if both of these things were restricted a bit, then less trading will take place. If less trading is taking place then less techs are being swapped around. If less techs are being swapped around then that means less "whoring" is taking place and more individual learning is taking place. This might be a nice little solution to AI tech whoring, IMO.
You know, I thought I noticed something strange occurring with my science/luxuries settins when I was in earlier govs.
Just a thought but what about making a modern day palace as well. This could give you your old historical palace in one city, the forbidden palace in another city, and a modern day palace (building) in another city. However, I can see a few problems that could take place because of this. Civ3 may not allow for two center of empire buildings? Too little of corruption?...
About building costs and terrain changes: As of right now Korn wants to have Anarchy require maintenance (to make revolutions a big decision) but because of strong criticism he decided against it (simply to destructive is Anarchy with it). Well, if building costs are lowerd it has no effect on Anarchy, but if the terrain is changed it will. So to make Anarchy more destructive, while keeping it balanced the following should be done (yes I have proposed most of this before except this time I'm proposing them for dfferent reasons ), as well as keeping the income for other govs balanced.
1) Use Lockstep's suggest building costs.
2) Take away the road commerce bonus from forest, mountains, tundra, and jungle.
3) To compensate for the lack of gold output by mountains, mining should give mountains a 3 shield bonus. To compensate for the lack of gold output by jungle, jungle should start off with either 1 gold commerce or 1 shield.
Doing this will also have other effects that I've stated before, but this time I think I have a better argument.
One more thing, it is nice to see other people comment on this mod, because the more input there is the better this mod can become. And the better this mod becomes the more fun I have playing Civ3.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2002 22:03
|