08-03-2002 14:12									#421
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by korn469 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

seems a nice idea

	08-03-2002 18:00									#422
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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.

i agree, so it seems to fix the naval situation here is what needs to be done

*change outrigger to 0.1.1 10|2 basically for a little early naval exploration but mostly to help with wheeled settlers, though i'm still wary of this making the outrigger useless
*add in the firegalley, or wargalley, or *insertbada$$galleyhere* so there is a naval power unit in the early game, stats will be in the general area of 3.2.3 30, or 3.3.2 30 or possibly 3.3.3 40
*change the barbarian naval unit to this new naval power unit, because barbarian privateers are too powerful (this means for beta7.4 barbarians will go back to galleys)

that might not fix it, but it should go a long ways toward helping with it

quote: 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.

awsome idea! i love this! consider it adopted

quote: 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

another great idea, but radio?
historically, china and rome traded goods, yet their governments were not in communication, same thing with europe and china until marco polo...so how about astronomy for communication trading? how does that work for everyone? i agree with all of the reasons you gave, and why i don't feel that this is a perfect solution, it should help somewhat

quote: You know, I thought I noticed something strange occurring with my science/luxuries settins when I was in earlier govs.

yeap it's the ratecap thing, i think i will change it for now till firaxis fixes it in a patch

quote: 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.

changing terrain will have no effect on anarchy because all shields and gold collected under anarchy are lost to corruption, you could take away the standard tile penalty and give anarchy +1 gold to all squares but it would still lose all of that to corruption

having anarchy require unit upkeep but not building upkeep seems to work, also i found out from soren that anarchy is random not set at 4 turns like i suspected

it works like this for nonreligious civs
the game pics a random number between 1-5
then depending on your civs size it adds a number between 1-3 (it could possibly be 0-3) so for nonreligious civs the amount of time they spend in anarchy can vary between 1 or possibly two turns up to a maximum of 8 turns

quote: Take away the road commerce bonus from forest, mountains, tundra, and jungle.

besides the fact that dan mentioned firaxis was going to make setting roads equal to 0 would prevent a player from building a road on that terrain in a future patch, desert should also fall under your list of terrain


however lets take mountains with a mine on it for example...

i live in the Appalachian mountains in Virginia (they are more like hills compared to the rockies) but this area has coal mines in it. This area had hundreds of coal mines in the 70's and early 80's then they mined most of the good easy to reach coal and the energy market also changed as did the labor market. Now while they don't mine as much coal as they did before they are begining to mine more right now, however mines are using more automation and far fewer workers. One of the biggest mining companies in the region is Consol, which buys alot of mining equipment from companies like Ingersol-Rand, Siemens, Caterpillar, Volvo etc. So these areas aren't exactly void of commerce.

Then take for example an old folk song that went like this "Sixteen tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Tell Saint Peter that I can't go, because I owe my soul to the company store."
That too implies that there was some sort of commerce going on.

Besides historical reasons for this, which are not that in importan in civ. On the gameplay side, another effect of taking away the bonus from those squares is that iirc governments that add +1 to commerce only add that bonus commerce to squares that already produce commerce, so this would hurt all of those governments.

however the extra production for mines on mountains sounds like a good idea

quote: this time I think I have a better argument.

i'm still not convinced, but i'm still open to further arguments

quote: 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

i completely agree with you on this!

quote: seems a nice idea

kettyo

thanks, it's going in beta7.4

_____________________________

so has anyone experienced any strange things going on in beta7.3? any bugs or anything of that nature?

and would anyone be interested in playing a blitz mod succession game? we play ten turns then pass it on to the next person, and write a little summary, we could post this over in the story forums

i understand if you nobody is interested or has the time, but it could be fun!

	08-03-2002 21:49									#423
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Korn
Have you received my email with the savegame?

	08-03-2002 22:05									#424
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

kettyo

no not yet

you can post it in the thread as an attachment if you want

	08-03-2002 22:07									#425
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by korn469 it seems to fix the naval situation here is what needs to be done *change outrigger to 0.1.1 10|2 basically for a little early naval exploration but mostly to help with wheeled settlers, though i'm still wary of this making the outrigger useless *add in the firegalley, or wargalley, or *insertbada$$galleyhere* so there is a naval power unit in the early game, stats will be in the general area of 3.2.3 30, or 3.3.2 30 or possibly 3.3.3 40 *change the barbarian naval unit to this new naval power unit, because barbarian privateers are too powerful (this means for beta7.4 barbarians will go back to galleys)

How about simply dropping the unit with the original galley stats? Then there would be two units:

• A no-prereq unit with 1 or 2 movement points (not sure about this one), no attack capability and weak defense. It could be named either outrigger or galley.
  
• A unit with the prereq of mapmaking, 3 movement points, attack capability and stronger defense than unit no.1. It could be named either galley or war galley. This would also be the barbarian's sea unit.

TechWins' idea is interesting, and we should give it a try. However, we should also not hesitate to drop it again if unwanted side-effects are detected - after all, this is a large change to gameplay.

quote: yeap it's the ratecap thing, i think i will change it for now till firaxis fixes it in a patch

With the AI's current tech whoring, I never felt any urge to increase my science rate, therefore ratecaps are of no effect. So I'm glad they are gone.

quote: the extra production for mines on mountains sounds like a good idea

Yes, we should test it. But I'd rather set the initial shields of mountains to 2 than giving mines +3 shields. In the latter case, mining mountains would be too attractive compared to other tile improvements.

BTW, I definitely second TechWins' suggestion to change jungles to 1 food/1 shield. That way, they still entail the risk of desease and are worse than forests, but they aren't completely useless anymore. (IIRC, this is already a feature of the LWC mod.)

quote: i'm still not convinced, but i'm still open to further arguments

All terrains yielding gold when roaded is a change compared to Civ2, and Analyst Redux has pointed out that this is a vast effiency increase to an AI that would have built roads everywhere anyway. So, don't change it unless there's a definite improvement in gameplay that can't be created in another way. Rebalancing gold supply is an issue of Civ3, but I'm sure there are many ways we haven't tried yet.

quote: would anyone be interested in playing a blitz mod succession game? we play ten turns then pass it on to the next person, and write a little summary, we could post this over in the story forums i understand if you nobody is interested or has the time, but it could be fun!

As a matter of principle, I'd be interested and yes, it could be fun. OTOH, I haven't got that much time now, and want to concentrate on improving this mod by rethinking its features (yes, I'm a theorizer ) and doing at least some playtesting by completing single-player games.

On second thought, if there are many participants for a succession game (so that everyone would have to play fewer turns), I'd probably join in.

Edit: My 500th post! Time for a custom avatar!

Last edited by lockstep on 08-03-2002 at 22:12

	08-03-2002 22:18									#426
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by korn469 you can post it in the thread as an attachment if you want

Korn
So here is it...

Could you tell me what "ranged attack animation" and "turn to attack" options mean? They are not covered in helpfile.

	08-03-2002 22:31									#427
	Remove this text

quote: How about simply dropping the unit with the original galley stats? Then there would be two units: *A no-prereq unit with 1 or 2 movement points (not sure about this one), no attack capability and weak defense. It could be named either outrigger or galley. *A unit with the prereq of mapmaking, 3 movement points, attack capability and stronger defense than unit no.1. It could be named either galley or war galley. This would also be the barbarian's sea unit.

hmmm...i certainly hadn't thought of this before, but it sounds like a good idea

like if the no prereq transport unit was 0.1.2 20|2 sink in sea, sink in ocean, then on continent maps you would not be able to use it to colonize other continents except possibly with the great lighthouse, which is a good thing

then like a 2.2.3 30 sink in seas, sink in ocean, naval power unit that comes with map making would allow you to explore, especially with the great lighthouse, but you couldn't colonize, which would be more like history, coupled with tech wins suggestions this should work out pretty good

quote: TechWins' idea is interesting, and we should give it a try. However, we should also not hesitate to drop it again if unwanted side-effects are detected - after all, this is a large change to gameplay.

we'll try it, tweak it, but if it doesn't work then we'll drop it

quote: With the AI's current tech whoring, I never felt any urge to increase my science rate, therefore ratecaps are of no effect. So I'm glad they are gone

well if between our tweaks and another patch tech whoring becomes a thing of the past and firaxis fixes the bug with them then they'll come back

quote: Yes, we should test it. But I'd rather set the initial shields of mountains to 2 than giving mines +3 shields. In the latter case, mining mountains would be too attractive compared to other tile improvements. BTW, I definitely second TechWins' suggestion to change jungles to 1 food/1 shield. That way, they still entail the risk of desease and are worse than forests, but they aren't completely useless anymore. (IIRC, this is already a feature of the LWC mod.)

both of those ideas sound good

quote: All terrains yielding gold when roaded is a change compared to Civ2, and Analyst Redux has pointed out that this is a vast effiency increase to an AI that would have built roads everywhere anyway. So, don't change it unless there's a definite improvement in gameplay that can't be created in another way. Rebalancing gold supply is an issue of Civ3, but I'm sure there are many ways we haven't tried yet

i thought we had rebalanced it to a fairly large extent...hehe weren't you just telling me that gold was too hard to come by?

quote: On second thought, if there are many participants for a succession game (so that everyone would have to play fewer turns), I'd probably join in

i was hoping on getting between 5-8 people, in the first round everyone would play ten turns then pass it on, then in the next round everyone would play 6 turns then pass it on, then in all other rounds everyone would play three turns and pass it on, so it shouldn't be too much of a burden on anyone, and if i can get interested people we'll play a game

quote: My 500th post! Time for a custom avatar!

i can't wait to see it

EDIT:

ranged attack animation means it shoot i think
turn to attack means it pivots i think

thanks for the save i'll check it out

	08-03-2002 22:54									#428
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by korn469 i can't wait to see it

At least it should straighten out that one of my interests is dancing - not exercising.

	08-03-2002 23:17									#429
	Increase Your PM Length

lockstep,

The more testers and opinions the better. As of now, my tests are confined to only deity games, where the human’s goal is a peaceful game, using only a few cities, which hopefully results in a spaceship win.


TechWins,

I very much agree with your ideas for delaying trading of maps and civ contacts, until Navigation and Radio, respectively.

I really like what you HAVE been able to do with 80x80 pixels!


korn,

For “just a minute“, your responses to my first post were quite complete!

Having two computers makes it not a problem at all keeping your mod installed and to continue tests on it. I did continue my game, and after switching to Republic, did not have a problem keeping science at 10%. Since my first report, the game has progressed to the middle of the Industrial Age, where I was able to build Theory of Evolution. During this period there are only a few new observations, as the game has played about the same as my one and only previous 1.17f effort.

1) I finally noticed the increased unit support cost. I don’t like paying 2 gold instead of 1 to support units, but have to admit that having it this way does improve the game. Before it was just too easy to accumulate gold. One suggestion is that the cost be reduced to 1 gold for non-combat units, such as workers, and maybe increased for higher tech military units, to reflect relative maintenance costs.

2) Though I was not intending to build one, I found myself storing shields towards the purchase of other wonders in the Military Academy wonder. I thought a leader and army were a pre-requisite to building this, neither of which I have come by in my game? If this change is on purpose to make army production less a matter of chance, then I think it was a very good one.

3) I am definitely liking the extra city improvements that can be built. Having more ways to improve culture, science, etc. allow players to explore strategies based on maximizing these things.

4) You asked about expansion rates. Those of all the AI dwarfed my own at deity level. I’ll say again that the human player is handicapped by increased settler costs enough that I would want to try my chances with an Expansionist civ next, hoping for free settlers from huts, and also for quicker AI contact with scouts.


I do have responses to some of your earlier comments:

1) I think the 2 library requirement to build the Great one is a good idea, but suspect the reason why the AI did not build it is because that is the first thing they probably are programmed to check when discovering a new tech. Can I start another wonder now? Without 2 libraries (which can not have been built yet), the answer for each AI has to be “no”, and it is possible the same question is never asked again. I would keep the 2 library pre-req, but allow construction of libraries to begin after the discovery of Writing, and leave Lit as the pre-req for the GL.

2) I have followed and agree with proposed barb and sea unit changes, suggested above.

3) Tech rate progression, especially at higher levels is a major problem. A part of the solution might be to slow down the rate of tech accumulation by making it take longer to learn all techs, rather than increasing the 2 turn cap. For example, doubling all tech costs using the map size modifiers might slow down the early AI tech pace to a more reasonable level. This would slow down the human’s ability to research techs, too, so a compensation might be to double, or at least increase, the bonuses for scientific city improvements and wonders and/or add more of them as you have done already to some extent with Public Schools. Given the AI tendency to prioritize building units over city improvements, the human would again have an incentive to concentrate on science and research ability, and still have the chance of learning techs every 2 turns.

4) Another simple parameter in the editor can be adjusted to limit the overkill of early AI contact and tech trading. Just increase, and I mean at least double or even triple, the minimum starting separation distances between civs for each map size. Having every civ start in a more isolated position could make a big difference.

That’s it for now.

	08-03-2002 23:47									#430
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by solo lockstep, The more testers and opinions the better. As of now, my tests are confined to only deity games, where the human’s goal is a peaceful game, using only a few cities, which hopefully results in a spaceship win.

I have started the blitz mod on regent, recently moved up to monarch and am still nervous about the AI gaining bonuses.

quote: TechWins, I very much agree with your ideas for delaying trading of maps and civ contacts, until Navigation and Radio, respectively.

Navigation/Astronomy (or any other middle age tech) sounds better to me. With contact trading delayed till Radio, I'd rather sail to any civ I had no contact yet as soon as I knew their position (which I would from trading maps). So contact with all civs wouldn't be delayed further, but tied to micromanagement.

quote: One suggestion is that the cost be reduced to 1 gold for non-combat units, such as workers, and maybe increased for higher tech military units, to reflect relative maintenance costs.

IIRC, this is not possible with the current editor.

quote: I found myself storing shields towards the purchase of other wonders in the Military Academy wonder. I thought a leader and army were a pre-requisite to building this, neither of which I have come by in my game? If this change is on purpose to make army production less a matter of chance, then I think it was a very good one.

This change is on purpose, and it's my favourite feature of this mod.

	09-03-2002 02:10									#431
	Increase Your PM Length

Lockstep's idea for early naval units seems very good.

quote: and would anyone be interested in playing a blitz mod succession game? we play ten turns then pass it on to the next person, and write a little summary, we could post this over in the story forums

I like this idea, but I have very little time nowadays. Altough, since I'm now on spring break I should have more time.

quote: I really like what you HAVE been able to do with 80x80 pixels!

Thanks! I have a new avatar, but I think this new one looks a lot better. It's supposed to depict a spaceship going through space, then the ride starts to get a little shaky with a incoming star appearing, next even more stars appear, and finally the spaceship blows up.

Well, I would said more, but I pretty much agree with everything else that has been said.

	09-03-2002 18:04									#432
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

kettyo

i checked out your save game, and the reason you went from around 0 income to around 85 income was because i think you had about 50 more units that your unit allowance, so by lowering monarchy from 2 to 1 gold upkeep your support costs went way down...it should now be a less clear cut choice between republic and monarchy

quote: 1) I finally noticed the increased unit support cost. I don’t like paying 2 gold instead of 1 to support units, but have to admit that having it this way does improve the game. Before it was just too easy to accumulate gold. One suggestion is that the cost be reduced to 1 gold for non-combat units, such as workers, and maybe increased for higher tech military units, to reflect relative maintenance costs.

solo

as of now this isn't possible to do in the editor, and that is one of the reasons i gave republic and democracy some support, is so that they could have workers without having to pay for them...but as you mentioned the increased support costs are there to force the player to choose between guns and butter instead of having it all

if they ever add in an "all units of this type in free under x government" flag i will make republic and democracy have free workers

quote: 2) Though I was not intending to build one, I found myself storing shields towards the purchase of other wonders in the Military Academy wonder. I thought a leader and army were a pre-requisite to building this, neither of which I have come by in my game? If this change is on purpose to make army production less a matter of chance, then I think it was a very good one.

besides the military academy not requiring a victorious army, i have also made a number of changes to armies, they come in two type, the first type called just army costs 100 shields and can hold 2 units (3 with pentagon), and it has blitz and pillage...the second type called modern army, comes with radio cost 130 shields and can hold 4 units (5 with pentagon) and it too has blitz and pillage, also i have doubled the number of armies your civ can have by lower the cities need for an army from 4 to 2, and the AI builds some armies, just not enough

quote: 3) I am definitely liking the extra city improvements that can be built. Having more ways to improve culture, science, etc. allow players to explore strategies based on maximizing these things.

good, that was exactly what i was hoping for

quote: 4) You asked about expansion rates. Those of all the AI dwarfed my own at deity level. I’ll say again that the human player is handicapped by increased settler costs enough that I would want to try my chances with an Expansionist civ next, hoping for free settlers from huts, and also for quicker AI contact with scouts

besides only needing half the shields to build a settler, and only half the food to grow its pop, on diety the AI also gets a free settler to begin with in addition to more workers, so that really helps speed up its expansion rates

quote: 1) I think the 2 library requirement to build the Great one is a good idea, but suspect the reason why the AI did not build it is because that is the first thing they probably are programmed to check when discovering a new tech. Can I start another wonder now? Without 2 libraries (which can not have been built yet), the answer for each AI has to be “no”, and it is possible the same question is never asked again. I would keep the 2 library pre-req, but allow construction of libraries to begin after the discovery of Writing, and leave Lit as the pre-req for the GL.

sounds like a good idea

quote: 3) Tech rate progression, especially at higher levels is a major problem. A part of the solution might be to slow down the rate of tech accumulation by making it take longer to learn all techs, rather than increasing the 2 turn cap. For example, doubling all tech costs using the map size modifiers might slow down the early AI tech pace to a more reasonable level. This would slow down the human’s ability to research techs, too, so a compensation might be to double, or at least increase, the bonuses for scientific city improvements and wonders and/or add more of them as you have done already to some extent with Public Schools. Given the AI tendency to prioritize building units over city improvements, the human would again have an incentive to concentrate on science and research ability, and still have the chance of learning techs every 2 turns.

ok i went and got a bowl of instant oatmeal for breakfast and i was going to tell you why this wouldn't work, basically because it only takes the AI half as much tech as the player to research, but that's not the reason it won't work...i'm going to go test something right now, and i will be right back with the results, and if they are what i think they will be, then i will completely understand why the tech system is broken

brb

	09-03-2002 19:26									#433
	Support Apolyton

ok here are some tests results

*i set the tech cost on masonry, alphabet, and the wheel to 100, and i then set the world tech cost modifier to 10
*i set the minimum number of turns to discover a tech 1 and the maximum number 100
*i then gave masonry to the egyptians and the greeks
*i then gave alphabet to the egyptians
*i changed the tile bonus so i could allocate up to 20 gold per turn to science
*i changed the starting treasury to 10,000
*i then gave roman uberscouts
*on 3950 i made contact with both the egyptians and the greeks, and i hadn't accumulated any science yet
*i played this on diety

at 2 gold per turn to science
to research masonry would have taken me 33 turns (66 gold)
to research alphabet would have taken me 67 turns (134 gold)
to research the wheel would have taken me 100 turns (200 gold)

at 10 gold per turn to science
to research masonry would have taken me 7 turns (70 gold)
to research alphabet would have taken me 14 turns (140 gold)
to research the wheel would have taken me 20 turns (200 gold)

so this means that the techs actually cost 66, 134, 200 gold

to buy masonry at offered price would have taken me 22 gold
to buy alphabet at offered price would have taken me 80 gold

to buy masonry at lowest negociated price would have taken me 20 gold
to buy alphabet at lowest negociated price would have taken me 73 gold

conclusion:

the AI sells tech too cheap, and that the optimal strategy is to always buy devalued tech

__________________________

now in a OCC if you can get either CO or NU along with a library and a university then the dynamic will change, but in the large majority of situations buying tech will be a better use of gold, and changing the tech rate won't change this, only firaxis can fix this behavior, which appears to be one of the most serious flaws in civ3 right now, because this means pursing a science strategy is not as good as pursing a gold strategy

quote: 4) Another simple parameter in the editor can be adjusted to limit the overkill of early AI contact and tech trading. Just increase, and I mean at least double or even triple, the minimum starting separation distances between civs for each map size. Having every civ start in a more isolated position could make a big difference.

that along with techwin's awsome suggestion could have many positive side effects

lets say there are seven civs on a map, the humans are the aztecs and they don't have contact with any other civs,

then the indians have contact with the chinese, japanese, and persians, and the persians have contact with the greeks and romans but other than the indians and persians no other civ has contact with each other

before as soon as it was possible they would all trade contact and maps, now here is how that destroys the game

lets say that the chinese discover gunpowder, and the only civ rich enough to buy gunpowder at its high rate is rome, under the new system this wouldn't happen and since the only conduit from china to the other civs is india if they aren't rich enough to buy it then gunpowder doesn't spread, but before if rome buys it then it devalues and japan then might be able to buy it then it devalues again and before long all of the civs will be able to buy it

while the first example won't happen in every circumstance it does mean that tech trading is less efficient and that it will spread slower, so while it is not a fix to tech whoring, it is a partial solution, and the further between civs the longer it will take for them all to meet so the better this partial solution will work so i like it

quote: Navigation/Astronomy (or any other middle age tech) sounds better to me. With contact trading delayed till Radio, I'd rather sail to any civ I had no contact yet as soon as I knew their position (which I would from trading maps). So contact with all civs wouldn't be delayed further, but tied to micromanagement

lockstep i agree with you, i am going to certainly put map trading at navigation, and then i am leaning towards putting communication trading at magnetism

anyways here is the current list of changes i'm going to make in beta7.4

*move map trading to navigation
*move communications trading to magnetism
*change the outrigger/galley stats to 0.1.2 20|2 {NONE}
*change the galley/war galley stats to 2.2.3 30 naval power {map making}
*move libraries to writing
*change fascism's support to 15 free 2/3/4 2 upkeep
*double starting distances on all map sizes
*drop rate caps
*change barbarian naval unit to galley/war galley
*tweak difficulty levels slightly (ie emperor=1.17f diety)

anything i left out?

	09-03-2002 19:35									#434
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This is a great MOD. Thanx.

I would lke to post some advice/requests

Late on in the game the number of Nukes that you have become very important to the powergraph and how the AI react when you make them give you money etc.

In thought that since thay are so important, perhaps you could make some more and add them to your MOD. Do a bit of research, there are loads of different types of Nukes. For example, there is one which wipes out the whole population of a city but causes a tiny explosion, not destroying any buildings. You could incorporate that.

Fascism rocks, the more government types the better. I have an idea for a government type, Militaristic (you don't have to call it that) it could be when the people are ruled by the military, like in Pakistan. You could make it be like Martial Law, no corruption, loads of unhappiness, no war weariness, wartime mobilization, forced labour, no support from Towns or Cities.

Is there some way to increase the number of resources on a map? That would be usefull. THANX.

	09-03-2002 21:33									#435
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

korn,

I finished my game, and when looking over the replay, I noticed that each AI had about 5 cities laid down by the time I had my second, and by the time my third was ready, they had their continents filled up. I would call that a starting advantage! Increased settler costs really hurt the human player in deity, but perhaps the advantages to this in lower levels overweigh this concern. Deity is supposed to be impossible, anyways, and I don't want to become known as a whiner! In this first game, it took me a loooong time, though, to get all my cities really going, as I found myself building things in the Industrial Age that should have been completed in the middle of the previous one.

I like the proposed changes. Inceasing unit support in Republic and Democracy would allow even more workers. Moving contact from Radio to Magnetism is probably better, too. Radio seemed a little late for this. I'm afraid I may have been bitten by the mod bug, after seeing how much the game can be enhanced, even with the limits imposed by the editor. One question, in this regard, was about your new city improvements. None had icons, so I was wondering whether they were just omitted or if it was just to difficult to add them in. Are they are 80x80 pixels?

Your analysis about tech costs was right on, and confirms my early 1.17f impressions about how to most efficiently get to the new techs, i.e. save cash and just BUY them when they are cheap. There is a problem, though with doing this, and it surfaces later in the game when techs are more expensive and also when the AI start fighting each other. Sooner or later, one or more of the AI are subdued and fall behind techwise, making discounted tech costs a thing of the past. This is when having a capability to learn techs quickly may prove to be more efficient for moving through the tree even faster, which most players want to do.

For the moment, I will get back to regular OCC for I see that Toe Truck has beaten me again to the first OCC win with 1.17f! I suppose I'll just have to try for an earlier launch using his start.


TechWins,

I was kind of partial to the scenic tree, and was hoping to borrow it for my SimGolf games!

	09-03-2002 21:54									#436
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by lockstep At least it should straighten out that one of my interests is dancing - not exercising.

lockstep,

are you a member of a group of dance performers?
we run a dance/cultural association here in Hungary. (not for making Austria flip )

korn,

got a look at modern naval units and have some thoughts:

-destroyers should have zoc to counter passing shipping (they are fast)
-aegis AI could be set at naval power+missile
-nuclear sub has an attack of 10 equal of ironclad
it's quite strange, why not the same 16 as (diesel)submarine
i'm not naval warfare expert only played "harpoon" game sometimes it seems authentic. modern guided torpedoes could do serious harm to any vessels. it should also have a zoc to attack passing shipping. could have naval power+missile AI.
- carriers should carry tactical missiles, intruders and the such can launch cruise missiles can even carry nukes. according to this and because I think it's recommended to carry 3 helicopters for antisub-recon, a carrier should carry 12 units or so (i'm not sure but 5 planes,3 helos, 4 missiles seems real). It should also require some cost increase, now it costs just 33% more than a nuclear sub it's irreal I think. AI could be set to naval carrier+missile. anyways the picture shows a nimitz class so make it really dangerous.

	09-03-2002 23:32									#437
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by solo korn, I finished my game, and when looking over the replay, I noticed that each AI had about 5 cities laid down by the time I had my second, and by the time my third was ready, they had their continents filled up. I would call that a starting advantage! Increased settler costs really hurt the human player in deity, but perhaps the advantages to this in lower levels overweigh this concern.

IMO, 3 pop point settlers are a massive change to gameplay. To slow early expansion, I'd rather change the food bushels required to growth for the different city levels from 20/40/60 (IIRC) to 40/50/60 (or to 40 for all city levels ) ... but it's not possible with the current editor ...

quote: Originally posted by kettyo lockstep, are you a member of a group of dance performers?

No, ballroom dancing is just a hobby of mine, with quickstep being one of my favourite dances. (At this moment, I'm listening to Louis Prima's 'Sing, sing, sing' and practicing locksteps. )

	09-03-2002 23:52									#438
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by lockstep No, ballroom dancing is just a hobby of mine, with quickstep being one of my favourite dances. (At this moment, I'm listening to Louis Prima's 'Sing, sing, sing' and practicing locksteps. )

Fine.
Mine are paso doble and the such although I'm not dancing much mostly organizing shows and running the organization.

	10-03-2002 18:25									#439
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Korn, some impressions from my second blitz test game on monarch (which ended with a diplomatic defeat, although I was no. 1 at the histograph):

• At the beginning (3500 BC), I got a settler from a goody hut although I wasn't expansionist (I was playing as the Chinese). With settlers costing 3 pop points, this made for a huge headstart. I'm really hoping that the next version of the editor allows to change the food box size, so that it is possible to delay early expansion in a more balanced way.
  
• One AI (the Indians) stopped expansion for a long time after founding its second city. (It didn't get wiped out in the later game for some strange reason, but also was never a power to be reckoned with.) I suspect that the modified AI building traits caused this.
  
• Some stats regarding AI government choice: 5 Rep, 2 Mon (Middle Ages); 1 Dem, 1 Comm, 5 Fasc (Industrial Age). The Indians, which were a rather small civ (see above), choose Communism.
  
• Whenever a catapult fired a successfull free shot at my attacking veteran/elite riders (9 resp. 12 hitpoints), I lost only 1 hitpoint, which makes defending bombard units rather pointless IMO. IIRC, you doubled RoF - shouldn't this affect also free shots?
  
• The Romans used their 'treats-every-terrain-as-roads' legions to attack me across a mointains/jungle border. Whenever I tried to kill their legions with my riders, they retreatet the wounded units and sent fresh ones to the front. I was able to stave them off from my border cities, but only barely. Technology-wise (given the current tech-whoring), the Romans should have been able to built knights (and they built cavalry a few decades later), but they choose to build legions nevertheless. I'd say, drop this feature from your mod - legions are more unbalancing than the jaguar warriors of Civ3 v1.07/v1.16.

	10-03-2002 19:31									#440
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Tridotan1

i'm glad that you are enjoying the mod
thanks for taking the time to post feedback


unfortunantly the editor doesn't allow modmakers to change the damage of nukes, so your ideas aren't possible to implement

as for different types of governments i am only trying to add governments that are balanced and provide different ways of playing the game, also in gameplay terms many of the governments are quite broad, democracy in civ3 represents everything from the Italian multiparty system to the US two party system, everything from federalism in Germany, to the centralized state in france, from the UK parliment to the US Congress

that being said, the present government of Pakistan is most likely a despotism or a Fascist state in civ3 gameplay terms, and incorporating a specific militarist government wouldn't really distinguish itself from fascism

most of this arises from limitations of the editor, so if in future versions of the editor more ways of distinguishing different forms of government becomes possible, then i will add in more types of governments

solo

i am going to set emperor to have the exact same level of difficulty as Deity in Civ3, because Diety challenges good players, not great ones...

what i mean by this is that a good civ3 player which a normal starting position playing without reloads might feel the pinch everyonce in a while but they are going to usually win, while the very best civ3 players out there will only lose in the most extraordinary of circumstances

i'm sure that you and toetruck have both lost many games in your quest for a launch in a OCC, however you are purposely handicapping yourselves by playing to less than your ability...i'm sure if you two (or other players of your caliber) tried to play the perfect non OCC game that with a decent starting position you would most likely lose 1 out of 100 games, maybe even less...in SMAC after a while i knew that i was not going to lose, i even proposed something called the Messiah Challenge, where you would play as a green faction, then capture a worm then capture an opponents base, then begin a zero facility OCC game, win by transcend...i don't think anybody ever won that, by that point i wasn't as interested in SMAC as what i had been and didn't make anyserious attempt at it, and zso zso (he was quite possibly the best SMAC player) had already left the forums and he never attempted this, but i do know that zso zso won a zero facility OCC, and i do know that he beat me in the fastest transcend game (i think i had a 72 or 73 turn transcend, and that he had like a 68-70 turn transcend) but challenges like that require the player to heavily handicap themselves, what i want is a situation where the player tries there very best without any handicaps and that they lose the majority of the time, and while they player will still have serious handicaps, their play style won't...so if you are finding diety difficult that is a good thing

quote: I'm afraid I may have been bitten by the mod bug, after seeing how much the game can be enhanced, even with the limits imposed by the editor. One question, in this regard, was about your new city improvements. None had icons, so I was wondering whether they were just omitted or if it was just to difficult to add them in. Are they are 80x80 pixels?

getting all of the stupid files to work correctly has been a pain, i thought i have done everything i needed to make things work correctly but for some reason they still aren't working, personally this doesn't bug me as a player, however as a mod maker trying to put out a quality mod this frustrates me to no end, i am going to ask a few of the other mod makers for some help on fixing this

also when it comes to new artwork, i have zero artistic ability, stickmen are almost beyond me and while i have probably the greatest group of playtesters/idea people of all of the mods (which is the most important thing anyways), i don't seem to have much of a following with artist

quote: There is a problem, though with doing this, and it surfaces later in the game when techs are more expensive and also when the AI start fighting each other.

even in the later stages of the game the AI will still sell you every tech as long as you accumulate enough gold, AI die, and other become too weak to buy techs, but although i would have to do more testing to prove this, even in a game with you and four or five AIs, even if only one AI discovers a tech, you could still probably buy it for less than you could research it if you hadn't snagged a research wonder, there might be an age/date modifier to what the AI will sell a tech for, but in my game it took me about 5 turns of running high economy to be able to pay for a tech, which couldn't be that much worse than running a high tech rate, plus if you are in a gold rush government like democracy, this gives you flexability, because why you may discover a new tech every five turns, if an emergency arises you can't do anything with the tech you have stored, while the gold you have stored could save your civ, but i am probably wrong

quote: For the moment, I will get back to regular OCC for I see that Toe Truck has beaten me again to the first OCC win with 1.17f! I suppose I'll just have to try for an earlier launch using his start.

no problem, though i hope you will do some more play testing soon, i also think i am going to send toe truck a pm and see if he will playtest the blitz mod a little

kettyo

*hmmm, maybe all modern naval ships with the AI power setting should have a zoc?
*the editor says that setting a unit with more than one AI setting will make the game unstable

quote: nuclear sub has an attack of 10 equal of ironclad it's quite strange, why not the same 16 as (diesel)submarine i'm not naval warfare expert only played "harpoon" game sometimes it seems authentic. modern guided torpedoes could do serious harm to any vessels. it should also have a zoc to attack passing shipping. could have naval power+missile AI.

ok i will explain myself in some depth

my take on the units in civ3 is the following:
units in civ3 are military units and not vehicles, the a.d.m values not only represent the qualities of their vehicles but it represents the qualities of their tactics, training, support, etc.

in my opinion the submarine that comes first is not a diesel submarines, but it is an attack submarines, so it includes everything from the german U-boats of WW1 to the USS Seawolf class nuclear attack submarine, to recent diesel powered submarines built by Soviets/Russians, not only does it include those vehicles but it includes the tactics as well, which means that its basic job is to seek out targets and to sink them in times of war, and to track them in times of peace

the nuclear submarine to me is a ballistic missile submarines, and it would also include the proposals to turn older ballistic missile submarines into subs that carry a large amount of cruise missiles, the SSGN class sub

you can find out more about it here

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib...sue_6/ssgn.html

however, there primary mission is to hide and be ready to launch missiles, not to attack, that is why i gave them a good defense

though i would be willing to increase the submarine's movement to 10 and the nuclear submarines defense to 14 if you think that would better balance the naval model

and as far as ironclads go, to me they not only represent the ships of the civil war, but they go all the way up to at least the ships used in the Spanish American civil war, so to me the USS Maine would be an ironclad...so i might need to do some more tweaking to get the balance better, i just wanted you to know that its not 688 class attack submarine going up against the Monitor

also i think normal submarines have a zoc, but the nuclear subs don't because again it is to help them hide

quote: carriers should carry tactical missiles, intruders and the such can launch cruise missiles can even carry nukes. according to this and because I think it's recommended to carry 3 helicopters for antisub-recon, a carrier should carry 12 units or so (i'm not sure but 5 planes,3 helos, 4 missiles seems real). It should also require some cost increase, now it costs just 33% more than a nuclear sub it's irreal I think. AI could be set to naval carrier+missile.

ok yes a carrier does represent the core of a carrier battle group, however a typical carrier battle group only carries a little over a hundred planes, about 100 on the carrier, and then helicopters on the escorts, and according to that site it only carries 120-180 cruise missiles (and i don't think that the actual carrier has any ship launched tomahawks on it)

first thing if you have a carrier and an Aegis cruiser stacked together you can have 5 planes and 3 missiles (along with the ability to see subs), and that is what i see as a typical US style carrier battle group as being, and it is close to your stats

secondly you can use the foot soldier trick to allow one type of ship carry two different units while another can only carry one type like how i did with Aegis Cruisers and Nuclear Subs, but you can't set a ship to carry 3 cruise missiles, 2 helicopters, and 1 one jet for example...it is simply beyond the capabilities of the editor

last thing is i think that if you compared 2 ballistic missile submarines to a carrier and a few escort ships then the cost should be about right

quote: No, ballroom dancing is just a hobby of mine, with quickstep being one of my favourite dances.

until lockstep explained what a lockstep was to me, i thought it was a kind of military march, so i imagined him going out on the weekends in camo and being part of a US style militia
i don't think i could have been more wrong

anyways i'm working on beta7.4 and as always it will be out tonight or early in the morning

	10-03-2002 21:05									#441
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: At the beginning (3500 BC), I got a settler from a goody hut although I wasn't expansionist (I was playing as the Chinese). With settlers costing 3 pop points, this made for a huge headstart. I'm really hoping that the next version of the editor allows to change the food box size, so that it is possible to delay early expansion in a more balanced way

right now the food box is size 20, the extra food costs of a 3pop settler therefore is between 10-20 for a town depending on if it has a granary or not

if we increase the size of the food box to 30 and changed the cost of a settler back down to 2 pop, then finding a free settler is still just as unbalancing, if not moreso...because while a city can accumulate around 80 shields in a normal starting location, bigger foodboxes would mean slower shield accumulation rates since workers don't appear as quickly, so getting a free settler would mean a greater percentage wise amount of shields

if we doubled the size of the foodbox to 40, then it would take between 20-40 extra food to build a 2 pop settler, and finding a free settler would be even more unbalancing because that would mean each shield it generated would be worth even more

so while a size 30 foodbox with 2 pop settlers could possibly be the best overall way to go since it would slow down all parts of the game slightly, free settlers would be just as unbalancing, and it would be better if we could cut them off if they are deemed to be too much of an advantage (though personally i don't find the occasional one to be completely unbalancing)

quote: One AI (the Indians) stopped expansion for a long time after founding its second city. (It didn't get wiped out in the later game for some strange reason, but also was never a power to be reckoned with.) I suspect that the modified AI building traits caused this.

did it have bad terrain? was there any other apparent reason why it did so bad?

quote: Some stats regarding AI government choice: 5 Rep, 2 Mon (Middle Ages); 1 Dem, 1 Comm, 5 Fasc (Industrial Age). The Indians, which were a rather small civ (see above), choose Communism.

well at least we are seeing some monarchies, this could possibly be a first
again it is also good to see a communist civ, but i wonder why the Indians decided to go commie since they are so small?

quote: Whenever a catapult fired a successfull free shot at my attacking veteran/elite riders (9 resp. 12 hitpoints), I lost only 1 hitpoint, which makes defending bombard units rather pointless IMO. IIRC, you doubled RoF - shouldn't this affect also free shots?

a bug with the game

quote: The Romans used their 'treats-every-terrain-as-roads' legions to attack me across a mointains/jungle border. Whenever I tried to kill their legions with my riders, they retreatet the wounded units and sent fresh ones to the front. I was able to stave them off from my border cities, but only barely. Technology-wise (given the current tech-whoring), the Romans should have been able to built knights (and they built cavalry a few decades later), but they choose to build legions nevertheless. I'd say, drop this feature from your mod - legions are more unbalancing than the jaguar warriors of Civ3 v1.07/v1.16

i'll fix this, but a question...did the legions retreat like fast units, or was it simply units that survived the attacks that retreated?

a couple other questions

*which civ won the game?
*what year did they win?
*did you notice anything in the modern, or industrial eras?

besides communication/map trading MPPs seem like the are very unbalancing and destructive to the AI and MPPs seem like the #1 reason the AIs are at war so much in the industrial era

	11-03-2002 00:12									#442
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by korn469 *hmmm, maybe all modern naval ships with the AI power setting should have a zoc? *the editor says that setting a unit with more than one AI setting will make the game unstable

*destroyers definitely should have but battleships I would say not, they are not the pursuit kind of ships.
*sorry just a wrong idea

quote: Originally posted by korn469 the nuclear submarine to me is a ballistic missile submarines, and it would also include the proposals to turn older ballistic missile submarines into subs that carry a large amount of cruise missiles, the SSGN class sub

for a ballistic sub (ssgn) the stats are ok just for me and I think also generally nuclear sub means a (attack)sub driven by nuclear reactor which is a good thing because it makes the sub much quieter which is essential for survive.

quote: Originally posted by korn469 though i would be willing to increase the submarine's movement to 10 and the nuclear submarines defense to 14 if you think that would better balance the naval model

I like the idea
And also decrease ballistic sub movement to 9. They are slow beasts.

quote: Originally posted by korn469 also i think normal submarines have a zoc, but the nuclear subs don't because again it is to help them hide

of course

quote: Originally posted by korn469 ok yes a carrier does represent the core of a carrier battle group, however a typical carrier battle group only carries a little over a hundred planes, about 100 on the carrier, and then helicopters on the escorts, and according to that site it only carries 120-180 cruise missiles (and i don't think that the actual carrier has any ship launched tomahawks on it) first thing if you have a carrier and an Aegis cruiser stacked together you can have 5 planes and 3 missiles (along with the ability to see subs), and that is what i see as a typical US style carrier battle group as being, and it is close to your stats

agree but I have some more idea about that
see end of post

quote: Originally posted by korn469 secondly you can use the foot soldier trick to allow one type of ship carry two different units while another can only carry one type like how i did with Aegis Cruisers and Nuclear Subs, but you can't set a ship to carry 3 cruise missiles, 2 helicopters, and 1 one jet for example...it is simply beyond the capabilities of the editor

I've got your savegame with americans on deity and I use it for testing purposes.
I found that with carriers set to carry footunits only you cannot rebase to the carrier. I think you've done that to make stealth craft unable to use carriers (unfortunately now no one can). I've done it another way and this works. Set stealt craft to tactical missiles. This makes them unable to rebase to carrier while other planes can and isn't changing the stealth's behaviour at all.

So the summary of changes we got together:

-give destroyer zoc
-carrier carry not only footunits
-set nuclear sub defense 14, movement 9
-submarines move 10
-set stealth fighter+bomber to tactical missiles

And I also have some new ideas:

-I should lower the movement of partisans to 3.
The equal of the modern armor and mech inf is too much I think.
And the way the AI uses it it's much more a paramilitary unit (which often uses landrovers nowadays) then a partisan (civilian force for active defense and sabotage) so 3 is ok but 4 is much I think.
And I would set leg/light infantry units to see subs. It likely comes to attention for the troops when a group of armed bandits assaulting civilians and pillaging. I'm not sure which units but probably some of these: scout,explorer,grenadier,rifleman,infantry,partisa
n ,marine,paratrooper.
Mech inf and armor units must not see them.

-We could add in a recon plane, would be very useful.
There's graphic also for an e3c-sentry plane at some other mod.
Comes with electronics or something else. Cost around 10. immobile air unit with 10 oprange with 2 defense and radar + see sub ability. Requires oil+rubber or else. recon+rebase mission only.

-I still need the air-to-surface missiles, especially on carriers.
I made this unit and tested and it works great.
An immobile airunit with oprange 8 and 1 defense. It's being set to cruise missile but NOT tactical missile in order to use with carriers. Cost and power is half of the cruise missile. It could be invented with rocketry as the cruise missile and also require aluminium to build. AI set to air bombard. rebase andbombing missions. loadable and airliftable.
This one (unlike the cruise missile) could be shot down by enemy interceptors-airdefenses. This adds more tactical versatility I think.

-According to above changes the carriers capacity should be extended.
I think carry 10 is optimal in the new circumstances.
A standard aerial contingent would be 3 recon - 3 interceptor (you have to defend against missiles too!) - 4 bomber (12 bombing runs in a turn which is nice). And you can carry missiles too so you need the room.

-I would change the building costs to following:
carrier: 33 (stealth bomber is 30 and it's now much powerful than before)
battleship: 27
aegis cruiser: 22
nuclear (ballistic) sub: 14
submarine: 11
destroyer: 11

Quite some changes but give it a thought.

	11-03-2002 01:28									#443
	Support Apolyton

quote: destroyers definitely should have but battleships I would say not, they are not the pursuit kind of ships

ok so naval ships with ZOC in the blitz mod are

Privateer
Destroyer
Submarine (attack)
Aegis Cruiser

how does that sound?

quote: for a ballistic sub (ssgn) the stats are ok just for me and I think also generally nuclear sub means a (attack)sub driven by nuclear reactor which is a good thing because it makes the sub much quieter which is essential for survive.

actually from what i've read a modern diesel powered sub is quiter since it runs off of battery power, and you can't detect it from space since it doesn't have a nuclear reactor, but it can't run as far or as fast as a nuclear sub...either way they are dangerous

quote: And also decrease ballistic sub movement to 9. They are slow beasts

ok so that means we'd have the following

attack sub
16.6.10 zoc
ballastic missile sub
10.14.9

quote: I found that with carriers set to carry footunits only you cannot rebase to the carrier. I think you've done that to make stealth craft unable to use carriers (unfortunately now no one can). I've done it another way and this works. Set stealt craft to tactical missiles. This makes them unable to rebase to carrier while other planes can and isn't changing the stealth's behaviour at all.

may i see the save game? because only fighters were supposed to rebase to the carriers and not bombers

but if not the tactical missile thing sounds like it will work

quote: should lower the movement of partisans to 3.

then they can't retreat from tanks, cavalry, or riders...i gave them such a high movement because there isn't a retreat flag for so units, so this means that guerrilla units need high movement to retreat

also considering that turns are a year long, and they don't have much of a supply infrastructure to worry about, maybe on the operational scale they can move as fast
maybe not though

quote: And I would set leg/light infantry units to see subs. It likely comes to attention for the troops when a group of armed bandits assaulting civilians and pillaging

helicopters can see subs, so air mobile infantry can counter partisans
also i'm thinking of making a commando/special forces unit made to counter these units

quote: We could add in a recon plane, would be very useful. There's graphic also for an e3c-sentry plane at some other mod. Comes with electronics or something else. Cost around 10. immobile air unit with 10 oprange with 2 defense and radar + see sub ability. Requires oil+rubber or else. recon+rebase mission only.

i have already thought about this, but there isn't an air recon AI type, and with those stats it wouldn't have an AI type and the AI wouldn't use it
one other thing the editor limits op range to 8

quote: I still need the air-to-surface missiles, especially on carriers. I made this unit and tested and it works great. An immobile airunit with oprange 8 and 1 defense. It's being set to cruise missile but NOT tactical missile in order to use with carriers. Cost and power is half of the cruise missile. It could be invented with rocketry as the cruise missile and also require aluminium to build. AI set to air bombard. rebase andbombing missions. loadable and airliftable. This one (unlike the cruise missile) could be shot down by enemy interceptors-airdefenses. This adds more tactical versatility I think.

uh, i might be missing something, but why not just switch cruise missiles over to air units? i don't see the niche that this unit would fill if we leave cruise missiles unchanged

quote: According to above changes the carriers capacity should be extended. I think carry 10 is optimal in the new circumstances. A standard aerial contingent would be 3 recon - 3 interceptor (you have to defend against missiles too!) - 4 bomber (12 bombing runs in a turn which is nice). And you can carry missiles too so you need the room.

ok even if recon units would work, why would you need 3? most players would just load in 3 extra bombers, also the units are fighter bombers, so they can do both...and as it the carrier currently carriers 5 units, those units should either be fighters, jet fighters, or F-15's so with fighters you can do 7 bombing runs and still have 3 fighters on air superiority, and with jet fighters/F-15's you can do 12 bombing runs and still have 3 units on air superiority...so i don't see the need for carriers that carry a ton more units

quote: I would change the building costs to following: carrier: 33 (stealth bomber is 30 and it's now much powerful than before) battleship: 27 aegis cruiser: 22

the thing about a carrier is that it doesn't have any natural attack ability, so it is going to take you between 500-750 shields to load it with aircraft, and a battleship at those cost would be ineffective against destroyers, ie 2 battleships would cost about the same as 5 destoyers or 5 submarines, and i'm fairly certain that the 5 destroyers would come on top most of the time and that 5 submarines would always come out on top...and again the Aegis cruiser needs to carry 180 shields worth of cruise missiles before it is effective

the reason why a stealth bomber costs so much is that in a single turn a stealth bomber can rebase to virtually anywhere in the world, and launch two attacks that are virtually impossible to stop, so it has more verstillity and is less vulnerable than an aircraft carrier, that is also why they require so many resources

still though, good ideas thanks for the comments

i'm going to go test aircraft carriers right now

	11-03-2002 01:30									#444
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by korn469 while a size 30 foodbox with 2 pop settlers could possibly be the best overall way to go since it would slow down all parts of the game slightly, free settlers would be just as unbalancing, and it would be better if we could cut them off if they are deemed to be too much of an advantage (though personally i don't find the occasional one to be completely unbalancing)

You're completely right, and I stand corrected.

quote: did it have bad terrain? was there any other apparent reason why it did so bad?

Neither bad terrain nor any other apparent reason. I might add that the Greeks, which were nearly bottled in by jungle, managed to found 8 cities (6 in the area around their starting position, 2 in leftover spots).

quote: i'll fix this, but a question...did the legions retreat like fast units, or was it simply units that survived the attacks that retreated?

Simply units that survived. Sorry for the mistakable wording.

quote: a couple other questions *which civ won the game? *what year did they win?

The game ended in 1968. Of the original 8 civs, 3 were eliminated during the game: the French (conquered by the Russians), the Greeks (portioned between the Romans and me, playing as the Chinese), and the Japanese (portioned between the Romans and the Indians after sneak-attacking me while I had numerous MPP'S). When I managed to build the U.N. with a slight tech lead (thanks to the Theory of Evolution), the Romans and the Russians were eligible beside me, and the two small civs still present (the Indians and the Zulus), although plenty presented by me, voted for Catherine.

quote: *did you notice anything in the modern, or industrial eras?

Nothing special in this game. But I'd like to mention that in my second monarch game with the regular version 1.17f, I witnessed an AI civ using espionage for the first time. Playing as the Chinese and having conquered a tiny Japanese civ, the English were my new neighbors to the north. Suddenly my foreign advisor told me that 'The production of Kyoto has been sabotated'.

	11-03-2002 01:45									#445
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Neither bad terrain nor any other apparent reason. I might add that the Greeks, which were nearly bottled in by jungle, managed to found 8 cities (6 in the area around their starting position, 2 in leftover spots).

in my last games the greeks spread like weeds, since the greeks and the indians are both commericial, i am wondering if the indians low aggression has something to do with this...though in my last game they didn't have this problem

quote: Simply units that survived. Sorry for the mistakable wording.

no problem, i have been doing research on the roman legion today and have been thinking about special units in general

roman legions were one of the most dominating military forces of the ancient world, and yet in civ3 with their increased defense they certainly aren't feared throughout the world

here is a quote from the historian Josephus who saw them in action first hand

quote: Their perfect discipline welds the whole into a single body; so compact are their ranks, so alert their movements in wheeling, so quick their ears for orders, their eyes for signals, their hands for tasks

plus we know they provided the bulk of the labor for road construction in the empire...so if i has the proper tools i would make legions have the following special abilities

*they would start at veteran instead of regular, and if built in a city with a barracks they would be elite
*they could build roads
*they would have double movement on roads

however that isn't possible, so i am looking at other ways to make them feared yet in CSU balance

quote: I'd like to mention that in my second monarch game with the regular version 1.17f, I witnessed an AI civ using espionage for the first time. Playing as the Chinese and having conquered a tiny Japanese civ, the English were my new neighbors to the north. Suddenly my foreign advisor told me that 'The production of Kyoto has been sabotated'.

the greeks tried to plant a spy in my empire on several occasions when we were at war...so the AI does use espionage with the new patch

	11-03-2002 02:30									#446
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by korn469 the greeks tried to plant a spy in my empire on several occasions when we were at war...so the AI does use espionage with the new patch

AI's trying to plant a spy (and failing) was already a feature of v1.07f IIRC. What was absolutely new to me was an AI dealing with 'active' covert action.

	11-03-2002 21:02									#447
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

korn,

Well, I managed an OCC win in the regular game with 1.17f, so I am back. Winning these OCC games at deity are still pretty much the exception rather than the rule, although Toe Truck and I have made some of progress refining our strategies for doing it.

As for the missing icons question, it was just out of curiosity, as playability matters much more to me than looks, too. Don't look to me for any artwork either!

When I spoke about needing research capability from the mid Industrial Ages and onwards, it was from the prospective of an OCC deity player. One city does not provide enough income to make the purchase tech strategy work, later in the game. A lot of the income generated goes out for rental of strategic resources and luxuries, too. Also, at this time the AI are able to pay pre 1.17f gold/turn amounts for new techs, too. In the game I just completed, I gained around 100 gpt from the AI in payment for each free tech that I got from Theory of Evolution. It was just like the good old days, prior to 1.17f, as I was able to max out science afterwards and still be making a profit of over 100 gpt! In addition, the carrying costs of a library and university are only 3gpt, and building science wonders still seems to be a very profitable investment of shields, as there are times when you want to hurry up the acquisition of some techs.

Now with more cities to multiply income, plus the stock exchanges in your mod and the added income from Wall Street, I would surely agree that maximizing income would be the most efficient way to proceed, and would give it the priority. I think there would be enough profit to engage in hobbies, such as building scientific wonders, too, rather than just trading shields for coins and counting up all my gold.

	11-03-2002 22:14									#448
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by korn469 ok so naval ships with ZOC in the blitz mod are Privateer Destroyer Submarine (attack) Aegis Cruiser how does that sound?

sounds good

quote: Originally posted by korn469 actually from what i've read a modern diesel powered sub is quiter since it runs off of battery power, and you can't detect it from space since it doesn't have a nuclear reactor, but it can't run as far or as fast as a nuclear sub...either way they are dangerous

It seems you're more up-to-date in warfare technology.

quote: Originally posted by korn469 ok so that means we'd have the following attack sub 16.6.10 zoc ballastic missile sub 10.14.9

Absolutely.

quote: Originally posted by korn469 may i see the save game? because only fighters were supposed to rebase to the carriers and not bombers but if not the tactical missile thing sounds like it will work

OK I attach it. It's your game I just renamed it. You have a carrier outside New York and also an F15 there.

quote: Originally posted by korn469 then they can't retreat from tanks, cavalry, or riders...i gave them such a high movement because there isn't a retreat flag for so units, so this means that guerrilla units need high movement to retreat

Ok.

quote: Originally posted by korn469 i have already thought about this, but there isn't an air recon AI type, and with those stats it wouldn't have an AI type and the AI wouldn't use it one other thing the editor limits op range to 8

I understand. The point of this unit would have been to search for submarines/partisans. The problem with recon mission is that it takes up all your movement points, that's why helicopter is not very useful because it could find the partisan but can't airdrop in the same turn so the partisan will leave. Another problem is that carriers can't hold helicopters. I think carriers must have long range antisub aircrafts. Just think of the p3c-orion, it searches for subs far away from the carrier (as in "harpoon"). It's important because you need not to clear every parts of the surrounding waters with destroyers as you advance with the carrier force and you will probably be unable to do that when you're a relatively small civ (for instance living on an island). And when you search with planes you don't have any risk, when with destroyers there's a big chance that the sub will sense the destroyer first which is most likely the doom of the ship (it's real). Aircraft carriers are also deadly subhunters. Another thing I feel partisans are too powerful now not mainly because of speed but invisibility. And still no ground forces can see them I recommend set fighters, jet fighters, and f-15s to see subs. This helps with carriers against subs and also with finding partisans.

quote: Originally posted by korn469 uh, i might be missing something, but why not just switch cruise missiles over to air units? i don't see the niche that this unit would fill if we leave cruise missiles unchanged

The tactical difference between the two missile units in my mind would have been the doubled range of the air version but the disadvantage of being shot down. So land version is useful against close units with air support (on offense) and air version is useful for attacking enemies unreachable with land missiles (4-8 tiles away) most notably escaping damaged enemy units which are generally out of range of land missiles, and enemy cities (without air support) which otherways could only be lowered by bombing because of the city bombing bug, units inside will remain relatively untouched while the city collapses around them. I tested that and the air missile hits the units so bombing bug worked around somewhat. Although you might be right that half cost/power is pointless. They could be same as land missile.
Do You think that advantage of doubled range is on par with disadvantage of being shot down?
When you find this a good idea we could rename the missiles to "surface-to-surface missile(SSM)" and "air-to-surface missile(ASM)" but that's not necessary.

quote: Originally posted by korn469 ok even if recon units would work, why would you need 3? most players would just load in 3 extra bombers, also the units are fighter bombers, so they can do both...and as it the carrier currently carriers 5 units, those units should either be fighters, jet fighters, or F-15's so with fighters you can do 7 bombing runs and still have 3 fighters on air superiority, and with jet fighters/F-15's you can do 12 bombing runs and still have 3 units on air superiority...so i don't see the need for carriers that carry a ton more units

You can oversee your entire mod which i can't i usually just see one section.
When we add in the airmissiles there might be need for some more place on the carrier but regarding cost and everything you know the balances.

	11-03-2002 22:31									#449
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

solo and kettyo

i'm editing the mod and doing some play testing so beta7.4 will be out in about an two hours unless i run into something unforeseen

one thing is i think i proved the air bombard bug exists...100 attacks with 1000 strength bombers vs. 80 hp of 1 defense units in a size 1 no facility city, and i had 67 failures...so it looks likes air bombards always uses a random number to decide if the bombard is going to strike buildings, population, or units...no matter if one or more of those aren't in the city

the hoover dam bug means that a hoover dam is in all cities no matter if you have a factory and even if you build another type of powerplant

hehe and it looks like bombard won't destroy an aqueduct for some strange reason

anyways back to work, thanks for the comments, i read them and pretty much agree with what you said, more depth later

	11-03-2002 23:04									#450
	Get a bigger avatar today!

korn,

regarding partisans they tend to roam through our territory unimpeded in peacetime as well because of invisibility. it's not good i would tell their leaders not to do so but stealing plans everytime for that reason isn't working.
I suggest also for this reason leg infanrty units see partisans so i can see them at least when they pass by our cities at peacetime then i could sit on their leaders.
Armor and mech.inf. must not see them for interesting gameplay.