09-08-2002 01:16									#271
	Got spare money?

I had the same thought, with prices of 240/480/960 (+50% from the original). I'll give it a try.

	09-08-2002 01:22									#272
	Put an end to popups!

Then I'll reconsider about adding this change.

(I don't have time to playtest it myself, and I would hate to add something like that without additional playtesting)

	10-08-2002 00:18									#273
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Finished my test game with PS 1.32, SS part costs +50% (240/480/960). Monarch, Babylonians, standard map, archipelago, diplomatic victory disabled.

Summary: The AI still aims VERY agressively for space victory. I was able to lauch my SS, but at that time 5 of the 6 remaining AI civs had started their ship, 3 of them had finished at least 7 parts, and one AI civ already had finished part 9. I won't go into details right now, but it was close. (E.g.: Shortly after I had finished Apollo Program, one of the main AI rivals landed a tank army on my shores, and another one sabotaged my production and actually expelled my spy.)

Conclusion: Increasing the SS costs by 25% or 50% is a thing the AI can cope with, so I suggest to adopt it and to restore the original prereq tech (Space Flight) for SS Docking Bay. Should make researching Robotics an interesting strategic choice.

Savegame is enclosed. Load, investigate the SS screen (F10) as long as you like, then fortify the waiting mech infantry and watch history unfolding.

Attachment: hammurabi of the babylonians, 1928 ad.sav
This has been downloaded 3 time(s).

	10-08-2002 01:53									#274
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Seen the game.

It looks like it worked well.
(with +50% cost increase)


One thing about that Docking Bay preq.

Somehow I realy don't know, if I took out Robotic preq. how much "aim for Robotics" stratgey would be viable.

Since two most expesive parts require Space Flight and Synthetic, and Space flight is first most important tech since it's needed for Apollo, and Synthetics are just one tech away (assuming that you got Ecology earlier, since Mass Transits are realy importatnt).

Now, after that moment, best thing to do is to start builid those two parts as quickly as possibile, without waiting for Robotics, since you'll need a lot of time to research it, and you don't have time to waste (960 shields! or maybe I'll need a leader).

Since Manuf. Plants costs 320 shields, and that gives 25% increase in production (base shields (100%) + factory (50%) + plant (50%) = 200%, with added manuf. plant (+50%) = 250%, 25% increase), building them is realy not cost effective then building other lower cost (480 and less) SS components.

Even if you have Robotics tech. best thing is to build all available SS parts first.
(240 SS part vs 320 manuf. plant (SS wins), 480 SS part vs 320 manuf. plant, building SS finishes job quicker)

So, at the end, best optimal stratgy is to research Laser the last and skip Robotics entirely.

	10-08-2002 02:48									#275
	Suffering from ads?

One thing that would favour the 'get manufactuing plants ASAP' strategy is that you can rush-buy them as soon as you get Robotics, which saves some precious turns. In my game, I built the SS parts that come with Space Flight very soon, but ignored the Ecolgoy branch of the tech tee for the moment and went for Laser - Robotics. Unfortunately, I didn't have aluminum in my territory, and the only AI with surplus aluminum would - naturally - only trade it to me for the Laser. From then on, I traded SS prereq techs vs. cash like mad - I even got Synthetic Fibers from the 5th civ that started building its ship. With aluminum within my borders, I would have researched Robotics about a dozen turns before everyone else. Also, in my test game there was virtually no war from the middle age until the modern age and nearly every civ was at least able to start their own space ship. With only two or three major civs, the optimal research strategy for the space race may be different.

In the end, the whole Robotics issue may be a matter of taste. At least, we know now that increased SS costs add to the fun and addiction of Civ3. Hell, I was glued on the screen when my last SS part needed still 10 turns to be finished and two other civs fiddled about with THEIR last part!

	10-08-2002 03:34									#276
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by lockstep In the end, the whole Robotics issue may be a matter of taste. At least, we know now that increased SS costs add to the fun and addiction of Civ3. Hell, I was glued on the screen when my last SS part needed still 10 turns to be finished and two other civs fiddled about with THEIR last part!

Yes, a matter of taste.

In one case, you'll go to Robotic, ignoring Ecology.
In other case, I'll go Ecology and Sythetics first, and Robotics later.

So there are already different startegies, without removing Doking Bays preq. from Robotics.

It already works well (various strategies), no need for additional Doking Bay tech changes.


P.S.
I'll incorporate incresed cost in next MOD's version.
I'll make them 250, 500, 1000 (rounded numbers, just like for Wonders).

	11-08-2002 15:24									#277
	Got spare money?

Here are 2 things I am thinking about:

First,

I wanna make Jets a little bit more unique then fighters.
So I would give them bombard strenght of 3.
To make F-15 and stl. fighter still worth builing I'll give them bom. str. of 5.
I don't think that this would be unbalancing since they all still have ROF of 2 (compared to ROF 3 of bombers)

While higher ROF I gave them in one of older version was too much, maybe this small change with bombard str. would be OK.
(I'm pretty sure this would be OK)


Second,
Isn't Cr. Missile range of 6 a little bit too high?
Since you can move them by rails, and then attack from border. Then range becomes...

Maybe change of range to 4 tiles.
(I'm not sure about this "second" change too much)

	11-08-2002 18:48									#278
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by player1 Isn't Cr. Missile range of 6 a little bit too high? Since you can move them by rails, and then attack from border. Then range becomes... Maybe change of range to 4 tiles. (I'm not sure about this "second" change too much)

I like the idea very much.

	11-08-2002 21:13									#279
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I like the idea very much.

Thanks!

Now I'm sure that both idea will be fine.

Expect them in next version in several days.
(including SS cost too)

	11-08-2002 21:32									#280
	Put an end to popups!

player1, you may want to check out some suggestions I made in alexman's AU mod thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...571#post1202571

	11-08-2002 22:37									#281
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by player1 To make F-15 and stl. fighter still worth builing I'll give them bom. str. of 5.

I would give them a strength of 6.
ROF is more powerful than strength, so it still won't be unbalancing. However, there will be enough of a difference to make the F-15 better than the Jet Fighter (since they now have the same ROF, which is not the case in the original rules)

quote: Isn't Cr. Missile range of 6 a little bit too high? Since you can move them by rails, and then attack from border. Then range becomes...

That's a good point. Doesn't the tactical nuke also move on rails though? Why does it have a range of 6?

I like the SS component changes. It should make for a better space race.

	11-08-2002 23:16									#282
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by alexman I would give them a strength of 6. ROF is more powerful than strength, so it still won't be unbalancing. However, there will be enough of a difference to make the F-15 better than the Jet Fighter (since they now have the same ROF, which is not the case in the original rules)

I've done some mathematical calcualtions, by which bom. str. of 6 would give some Bombarding advantage to Stl. Fighter compared to Stl. Bomber, good enough to make them more cost effective, which would make Str. Bomber much less usefull.
It's would make Str' Fighter better "Bombard choice".

So I would keep 5 instead.

quote: Originally posted by alexman That's a good point. Doesn't the tactical nuke also move on rails though? Why does it have a range of 6? I like the SS component changes. It should make for a better space race.

That's default value for Nukes, and they need some better range in order to make succesfull Nuclear Subs raids (range of 4 would sometimes prevent Subs from targeting some inland cities completly).

	11-08-2002 23:55									#283
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by player1 I've done some mathematical calcualtions, by which bom. str. of 6 would give some Bombarding advantage to Stl. Fighter compared to Stl. Bomber, good enough to make them more cost effective, which would make Str. Bomber much less usefull.

You're right! As you have it, two Stealth Fighters have exactly the same expected damage as one Stealth Bomber when attacking a defender of strength 10.

Anything lower than 10 for the defender, and it's better to attack with fighters. Anything higher than 10 and it's better to attack with bombers. Good job!

	12-08-2002 00:26									#284
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by alexman You're right! As you have it, two Stealth Fighters have exactly the same expected damage as one Stealth Bomber when attacking a defender of strength 10. Anything lower than 10 for the defender, and it's better to attack with fighters. Anything higher than 10 and it's better to attack with bombers. Good job!

Thanks!

	12-08-2002 01:21									#285
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Major differences between the AU mod and the PS mod and how to resolve them

My take:

quote: Because I'd really like to see the best mods out yet converge into an 'Apolyton Standard mod', here are some thoughts about differences between AU and PS: Musketeer stats - 2/4/2 in AU, 4/4/1 in PS. The AU mod's version is probably better for the AI, but results in a somewhat inconsistent upgrade chain. I guess only playtesting will resolve this issue.

My version isn't bad for AI.
Yes, human player can attack with Musketmen, but maybe using Longbowmen or Knigth is better.
Also, only defese AI falg units do attack, but only if it's HEAVILY in their favor.
Like attack on 1hp Knight.
And 4/4/1 cost 50 Musketters look COOL.
(they do have AI offense flag)

quote: Inclusion of zero range bombardment - AU yes, PS no. I'm with alexman on this one because the feature is 'realistic' and the AI can actually cope with it.

Yes, it's iteresting. But needs lots of playtesting and balaning.
And leaves a question: Why more modern units hhave not such feature?
I stay closer to "core" (conservative) Civ3 .
Anyway, it's still good feature.

quote: EDIT: Lethal land bombardment for some air units - AU no, PS yes. I'm with Alexman on this one, because IMO lethal land bombardment is a 'change for the sake of change'. (Lethal sea bombardment is also debatable in terms of playbalance, but at least it makes 'Pearl Harbor'-type air attacks possible.)

From playbalance point, lethal naval compensates to low bambard rate of those units, and makes stratgey a little bit deaper for human player, without unbalancing AI too much.

As for lethal land for some of them, it's done mainly to represent those units as TACTICAL bobers. Since bombard rate of those units is still poor, you can only hope that you can take out 1hp Tanks or Infantry, which is not owerpowered in any way (not to say that you have 50% miss chance when bombing cities). Generaly, Cr. missles are better in that role, but if you have several availible jets, why not try that too.
It also represents use of Civ1 & Civ2 fighters as weak unit killers (although it's far from perfect, it still can take out spearmen).

quote: Movement rate of Frigate/Man-O-War and Privateer - AU adds +1 (so that it is 5 resp. 4), PS leaves them at 4 resp. 3. I'm with alexman on this one, because it adds a strategic choice of building Frigates (faster) vs. Ironclads (higher bombard strength).

I think that preq. of Industralization for ironclads, and their new cost of 100, is enough to give strategic choice.
Later age ironclads were not slower then Frigates, and that makes Firagtes way to fast for sailing ships.

quote: Ironclad upgrade path - AU to Battleship, PS to Destroyer. No strong feelings here, but upgrading to the Battleship would be in accordance with the Ironclad's civilopedia entry.

This just weakens Ironclads too much.
And historicaly, Destroyers are succesors of ironclads.

quote: Longevity tweaks - AU: available with Medicine instead of Genetics, PS: additional happy faces. I'm with alexman on this one, because it makes Longevity's original effect (faster city growth) actually useful.

What to say?
I'm just conservative.
Since that's more like removing one wonder, and adding new Industrial wonder.

	12-08-2002 02:43									#286
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by player1 My version isn't bad for AI. Yes, human player can attack with Musketmen, but maybe using Longbowmen or Knigth is better. Also, only defese AI falg units do attack, but only if it's HEAVILY in their favor.

I didn't say that your version is bad for the AI. I just think that the AI will profit much more from a defender with a movement rate of 2, because this won't allow attacking Knights or Cavalry to retreat.

quote: Yes, it's iteresting. But needs lots of playtesting and balaning. And leaves a question: Why more modern units hhave not such feature?

I still think zero range bombardment isn't too unbalancing, but you have a point here.

quote: As for lethal land for some of them, it's done mainly to represent those units as TACTICAL bobers. Since bombard rate of those units is still poor, you can only hope that you can take out 1hp Tanks or Infantry, which is not owerpowered in any way

My problem with lethal land bombardment is that this feature was deliberately left out by Firaxis when they designed Civ3, and - contrary to lethal sea bombardment (Pearl Harbor) - doesn't make the 're-creation' of a major historical battle possible.

quote: I think that preq. of Industralization for ironclads, and their new cost of 100, is enough to give strategic choice. Later age ironclads were not slower then Frigates, and that makes Firagtes way to fast for sailing ships.

Not sure about that one. Maybe the solution is to view Civ3's Ironclads as 'early' ones, move them back to Steam Power and make them slower than Frigates? (Hmm ... this is becoming a 'realism' vs. 'gameplay' argument.)

quote: What to say? I'm just conservative. Since that's more like removing one wonder, and adding new Industrial wonder.

I understand your concern. In the beginning - when I browsed Monkspider's Balancer readme -, I was also very reluctant to the idea to move a wonder to another age. But on second thought, I had to admit that Longevity is absolutely useless on its current tech tree position. Not weak, or a second-rate wonder, but absolutely useless. If one wanted to change that, there were two possibilities:

1. Ignore Longevity's original effect and add something useful (as you did with +2 happy faces), or
2. Look out for a tech tree position where accelerated city growth becomes an interesting choice and where a 'Longevity' wonder wouldn't be plain ridiculous. Hmm .. yes, Medicine was indeed an option.

	12-08-2002 02:52									#287
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by lockstep My problem with lethal land bombardment is that this feature was deliberately left out by Firaxis when they designed Civ3, and - contrary to lethal sea bombardment (Pearl Harbor) - doesn't make the 're-creation' of a major historical battle possible.

I doubt that when Civ3 designers were thinking about lethal bombards that they were ever considering for it to be selective to just several particular units.

It was more ON ALL vs OFF ALL desicion.

Strategicly speaking, lethal land for Jets is not unbalnced in any way, and gives an extra level of strategy.

And gives extra DEPTH to units which were useless before that.

Now you could try, bomb to hell with bombers, take out 1hp tanks on grassland with Jets, and use Land units for 1hp, but hevility foritifed units.

P.S.
Or just use Cruise missiles.

	12-08-2002 03:42									#288
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I think what we will do in the AU mod will be to adopt your 5-bombard strength for F-15 and St. Fighters. The problem is that now that we added bombard capability to Jet Fighters whereas before there was basically none, the F-15 becomes an even more lame UU.

The solution would be to add lethal land bombard to the F-15 but not the Jet Fighter. It would make the unit valuable again. It's a good compromise, I think. I'm not sure about lethal ground bombard for stealth fighters. If we add lethal to St. Fighters, we have to add it to St. Bombers, otherwise it will be better to build Fighters for bombing. Also, I'm afraid that if we add lethal bombard to too many air units, the cruise missile will become useless. (I know you increased its ROF, but it still gets destroyed after use).

As for zero-range bombard, you don't give it to modern units because modern units ALL have ranged attack. In modern warfare the range has increased. So what was ranged before, now is now not considered long range. The "ranged" unit is now artillery, which has this benefit in the game. OK, so it's not fair to the modern unit if an archer gets a free shot when a modern unit is attacking. But how often does a 4-bombard unit damage a 10+ defender anyway?

As for the ironclad, I think the battleship upgrade actually HELPS it. Nothing like an instant battleship navy while the Frigate fan has to build it all from scratch! It also makes more sense in terms of upgrades. The destroyer and the Frigate are both light fast ships. The ironclad and the battleship are both heavily armored ships. If the destroyer made the ironclad obsolete, then didn't the ironclad make the frigate obsolete before that? But they both exist at the same time because for gameplay it's nice to have options. It's like saying that the swordsman should upgrade to a knight. Who uses swordsmen in the middle ages? But they don't because there are two kinds of land units: the slow strong ones, and the fast ones. The Navy should be the same.

	12-08-2002 11:40									#289
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by alexman The solution would be to add lethal land bombard to the F-15 but not the Jet Fighter. It would make the unit valuable again. It's a good compromise, I think. I'm not sure about lethal ground bombard for stealth fighters. If we add lethal to St. Fighters, we have to add it to St. Bombers, otherwise it will be better to build Fighters for bombing. Also, I'm afraid that if we add lethal bombard to too many air units, the cruise missile will become useless. (I know you increased its ROF, but it still gets destroyed after use).

Difference between 3 & 5 bom. str is significant.
It would usuly mean that you'll need a froup of 2 F-15 to destory 1hp unit, instead of force of 3 or 4 Jets.

As for Stl. Bom. vs Stl. Fig. it's on the border line.
If I add any kind lethal to stl. bombers, stl. fighter won't be used at all.

On the other hand Stl. Fighters are better for bombing less then 10defsense targets.

But, Stl Bomber also have THE range of 8.
And one Stl bomber has upkeep of 1gp.




P.S.
And lethal land to these units keeps thier usability on pangea maps.

	12-08-2002 11:49									#290
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Just a though:

SInce two Bomb. Str. 5 ROF2 units vs one Bomb. Str. 8 ROF unit is on the borderline, what about decreasing price of Stl. Bomber to 200shields (instead of 240).

That could fix this.

	12-08-2002 14:18									#291
	Put an end to popups!

Decreasing the costs of the Stealth Bomber is a good idea.

About lethal land bombardment for some air units : You may be right after all.

About denying lethal land bombardment to Jet Fighters: Alexman's idea seems reasonable to me - after all, they also don't have the ability for precision strikes, while the F-15 does.

	12-08-2002 15:00									#292
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I am really interested to know how you are finding the tank to paratrooper AI choice in your mods?

Here's some findings from some tests i did recently...

Standard amphibious Marines are never preferred over tanks.

As soon as you add an operational range, they are preferred over tanks. This i have tested sufficiently.

When you keep the regular paratrooper available under Advanced Flight this still appears to be preferred, although only marginally, over the tank as an offensive unit. Now this is a problem. The standard para is not and should not be a preferable unit, but rather a specialised unit built under certain occasions only.

Now this is where i have had a brainstorm, albeit as yet untested.

Why not make the paratrooper a defensive unit?

It seems so obvious...! This way they would tend to remain in cities (nearer the airport for the airdrop) since at the moment the AI uses them as mobile ground attack units, rather than airdropping them behind enemy lines. When used by the AI in an offensive manner like spearmen or pikemen sometimes are, they'd be used for pillaging resoucres not assaulting cities. I'm mean lets face it, with stats like 6,8,1 they are never going to be effective offensively!?

In both your mods, you give the para 8,10,1 stats, perfect for a defensive unit?!

WHat do you reckon?

	12-08-2002 16:22									#293
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

DrJambo,

I'm not sure about defense flag.
Maybe it would make AI use them to much passively.
Or maybe just for defense of cities?
I don't know.

I (and Firaxis too) had no problem with thier offense flag, so I'll try not to mess with that too much.



Lockstep,
Idea of using lethal land for just F-15 and Stl. Fighter could be resonable, even from gamebalance point.

But I just think that other civs, exept Americans, should have some sort of tactical bomber (lethal land) before Stl. Flight.

And I think that 3 vs 5 bombard range could make enough good difference (it's somewere about 50% more efficiency) for Americans (no need to experiment with lethal land flag).


Anway, Stl Fighters NEED lethal land to make them distincive.
Loweing cost of Stl. Bombers would prevent their domination.
F-15 is supposed to be non-stealth Stl. Figher in it's stats.

And Jet fighter is much weaker then F-15.
I think that 50% better efficieny for F-15 is enough.
And it doesn't weaken a power of F-15 (I would call it Stl. Fighter before Stealth).


To alexman:
I doubt that anybody would pay more them 200gp for Ironclad upgrade to Battleship.
It' cheaper to disband Ironclad and build battships form scratch)

So such upgrade is realy not an benefit.

	12-08-2002 17:09									#294
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by player1 Idea of using lethal land for just F-15 and Stl. Fighter could be resonable, even from gamebalance point. But I just think that other civs, exept Americans, should have some sort of tactical bomber (lethal land) before Stl. Flight. And I think that 3 vs 5 bombard range could make enough good difference (it's somewere about 50% more efficiency) for Americans

You may be right here.

quote: Anway, Stl Fighters NEED lethal land to make them distincive.

I agree. If lethal land bombardment is included, then Stealth Fighters should have this ability.

quote: I doubt that anybody would pay more them 200gp for Ironclad upgrade to Battleship. It' cheaper to disband Ironclad and build battships form scratch) So such upgrade is realy not an benefit.

I disagree. Obviously, it can be advantageous to spend a lot of cash to upgrade units instead of spending shields to build new units from scratch. Otherwise, many expert players wouldn't do mass-upgrades of Warriors to Swordsmen for 40 gold each, although building Swordmen from scratch would only cost 30 shields (or 28 if you disband a warrior before).

	12-08-2002 21:32									#295
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by lockstep I disagree. Obviously, it can be advantageous to spend a lot of cash to upgrade units instead of spending shields to build new units from scratch. Otherwise, many expert players wouldn't do mass-upgrades of Warriors to Swordsmen for 40 gold each, although building Swordmen from scratch would only cost 30 shields (or 28 if you disband a warrior before).

Ok.

Then what would your rather choose:
40gp to get upgrade to Destroyer or 200gp to get upgrade to Battships.

First option is better IMO, both for human players (if they made fleet of Ironclads) and AI (since they realy don't have money for 200gp upgrades).



P.S.
Of course my biggest probelm is with having Ironclads and Destoyers in same time in build queue
(especialy since I made Ironclads cost 100 shieds so, they are better in every way).


P.P.S.
You can say (by using same logic) that having both Firgates and Ironclads in same time is strange.
But, I made Ironclads cost 100 shields compared to Frigates.
And English need more time to play with Man-O-War.
They with cost of 60 shields are more cost effective in attack (but not in defense) against Ironcalds.

I think I've balanced that pretty well.

	12-08-2002 22:01									#296
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by player1 Then what would your rather choose: 40gp to get upgrade to Destroyer or 200gp to get upgrade to Battships. First option is better IMO, both for human players (if they made fleet of Ironclads) and AI (since they realy don't have money for 200gp upgrades).

I'd have to choose between 40 gold + 200 shields (for building a battleship from scratch) and 200 gold + 120 shields (for building a destroyer from scratch). If I had gold in abundance, I might well choose the latter option. But you are right about the AI.

	12-08-2002 22:17									#297
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Gold in abudance!

Not always possbile.

Especily if you have fleet of 10-15 Ironclads.
(like AI prefers)

	12-08-2002 22:24									#298
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I'm by no means saying that this proves anything, but look at what this guy did by upgrading ironclads to battleships...

Just thought it was relevant to the discussion.

	12-08-2002 22:35									#299
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

If just AI could to that...

	13-08-2002 01:03									#300
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Version 1.33 is OUT!
Download from top of the thread.

Changes in ver 1.33

Some playtesting showed that range of 6 for Cruise Missiles was too much.
Especialy since you can easily move them near borders by using railroads.
So their range is lowered to 4 tiles.

Jet Fighters get bombard strenght of 3, to make them more distinctive from Fighters.
Still, not to much to make them unbalanced.

Since it would lead to less powerfull F-15 & Stealth Fighter, these units also get increased bombard strenght of 5.

In order to balance out increased Stl. Fighters bombard efficiency (compared to Stl. Bombers), Stl. Bombers get reduced cost of 200 shields (was 240).


Increased cost of Spaceship Components is back!
They will be aprox. 50% more expensive compared to original prices.
This is done, in order to prolong (and make more enjoyable) space race.

New costs for SS components are 250, 500 and 1000 shields (compared to old costs of 160, 320 and 640 shields).