08-06-2002 09:32									#31
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Keep in mind, a lot of the late game units require strategic resources to be built. Maybe as a compromise to some of these ideas, these units could be built without the strategic resource, if a certain building is available.

Heck this could be used throughout the game. A laboratory in a city means it doesnt need saltpeter, a coal plant means it doesnt need oil, etc etc.

	08-06-2002 09:57									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I posted this basic topic for discussion back on April 24th over on CIVFanatics.

Here is the link to the original topic post:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showt...&threadid=21122

And since I did not post that info over here on Poly I have repeated the text here for the convenience of those who have not cross registered.

The key points are that the ability to limit units to only being built in a city with a specific improvement/wonder and the ability to limit the number of units that can be built in ratio to the number of cities already exists in the game and has been "well tested" with armies. These features are currently had coded to armies only and should just be converted to being unit setting features that may not be used for most units that have already been released.

-------------- April 24 message text ------

This is an open letter to the Firaxis development team, Sid (the Game God), and all the game players and mod makers who can focus on what we like about Civ3 and how to get the next level of enjoyment with the minimum programming changes and time lag.

I think that most of the key tools and code features are already in the game, it is just that the game is handicapped by lack of a big picture approach to implementation.

Much of this is found in hard-coded “kluges” to problems instead of implementing the same solution with a broader approach that will allow for flexibility, adjustment, and adaptation without each increment commanding programming resources in each subsequent patch.

The best “Worst Example” in the current game is probably found in the implementation of Armies.

Armies are a unique unit in that they are currently the only unit that is limited to the number of cities AND Armies are also unique in that they are the only unit that can be limited to being built in a city that has a specific small wonder or improvement already built.

FLASHING LIGHTBULB AND CLANGING GONG.

Why would someone spend the effort to write these coding constraints and then hardcode the restrictions into the general settings for the game that limits the use of the programming to only one specific unit???

Why not set these choices as options on the units dialog and then make Armies the only current choice where this dialog applies to the unit released in the standard Civ3 product?

Expanding the usefulness of this programming would only require adding a drop down menu to the units dialog page that would let the editor restrict building of units to a city where a specific wonder or improvement has been built. FLASHING GOLD STAR and CASH REGISTER DING.

You would also add a check box to engage a ratio restriction on the units that would let you restrict the number of units that can be maintained relative to the number of cities, or number of improvements, or number of another type of units. For simplicity this Ratio should be implemented per 100 items of the restricting prerequisite. ANOTHER FLASHING GOLD STAR and CASH REGISTER DING.

Implementing these army like features to be potentially applicable to any or all units will give you a set of tools that can be used by the game play balancing Nazis to help control balance without just simply making the units worthless, ineffective, technically and financially inaccessible.

---------
Other simple unit features that should be implemented along the same philosophical approach should include:


A unit support cost multiplier and a transport utilization factor. Both of these factors should be implemented based on a 100 factor being the 100 to 100 ratio.

An “obsolete by upgrade” flag that allows units to be built and then upgraded without eliminating the ability to build the first unit as is the current default implementation.

Units “upgrade cost multiplier” that allows the upgrade costs to be defined as more or less than the standard calculated shield to gold ratio of 100%. This feature will allow units to be built in some towns and cities and then “sent to school” in other cities for the upgrade without making it impossible for towns to build the lower units.

A “targeted unit” selection box and factor that allows each unit to have a defined other unit where its major attack or defense strength is most effective. This last item will have significant impact on letting the game play balance advocates control specific results without creating universal destroyer or universally worthless units. Examples of implementing this set of choices would be perhaps an A10 Warthog against tanks or a machine gun against infantry. These selective choices would avoid the seemingly silly scenarios where a longbow man kills a tank or where galleys can sink privateers 60% of the time.

----------------------

Note that most of these simple drop down box restrictions and other ratio restrictions already exist and have been tested in the game code for units and for improvements/wonders (witness Armies, Wall Street, Battlefield Medicine, and SDI). Just take the coding and tie it to the appropriate drop down boxes and ratio boxes on the units pages and improvement/wonder pages and the result will be 15 orders of magnitude closer to a rave reviewed product by the core group of users that will drive all the market expansion.

This open letter really is meant to focus on encouraging the philosophical shift to make the features of the game more accessible for simple adjustment because we need to recognize that the hundreds of creative minds in the game play and modification community will use features in new and creative ways that may go well beyond anything that the original creators can envision.

Also, this letter should emphasize a need for an approach to game play balancing that does not simply focus on rendering the included unit incapable of reasonable and cost effective functioning. There ought to be a winning game strategy that includes valid reasons for building and using each unit in the game instead of a philosophy that actively tries to prevent the units from being any advantage to the human player if the unit are built and utilized in an appropriate strategy.

... cracker .... (I have a real name and prewritten help files, just email me)

	08-06-2002 19:12									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

cracker:

absolutely.

probably said a million times elsewhere, but its like there's a thought process to CivIII that went to a point and then just stopped.

	08-06-2002 19:25									#34
	Re: Simple Unit Building Idea Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by nato Someone may have thought of this before, but here is a radical idea... How about, except for settlers and workers, cities: 1. Must have a barracks to build ground units 2. Must have a harbor to build naval units 3. Must have an airport to build air units A possible exception might be basic defender units, like spearmen, which might be able to be built by any city. I think this might be very interesting. Even if 1 is too extreme, 2 and 3 make a lot of sense. Just an idea. Any thoughts?

Yes this has been discussed many times before. I suspect that the reason Firaxis doesn't do this now is that the AI is a rather sporadic builder. If the there were a building specific unit like you suggest, the human player would have a huge advantage over the AI. It would make the game very lopsided.

	08-06-2002 19:39									#35
	Inflate your Upload Space

Well, just to be clear, I did not at all expect to be the first to have thought of this ... it seems very intuitive. I just never saw it mentioned before; I must have missed it. It has not come up in Civ3 General recently at least, I don't think.

How well the AI can handle something is always a major consideration, that is a good point. However, I'm not sure why this would be such a huge problem for the AI, at least compared to many things in Civ3. Maybe I'm missing something...

	08-06-2002 20:09									#36
	Tired of ads?

hi ,

Firaxis , please put more buildings in , ......

any comment , .....it will get you freeeeeeeee beer , ....

have a nice day

	08-06-2002 20:13									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by nato How well the AI can handle something is always a major consideration, that is a good point. However, I'm not sure why this would be such a huge problem for the AI, at least compared to many things in Civ3. Maybe I'm missing something...

Have a look around at some AI cities next time you play, especially in the Industrial/Modern eras. You'll see that in comparison to you, it's a really crappy builder. Better yet, play a entire game with the Governor in charge of all production, including structures. By the end of the game, you'll have a hodge-podge of buildings that don't always make sense to have. Tying units to a specific structure would be very detrimental to the AI.

I used to think the same way you do, but I began to realize that it wouldn't be practical. Maybe in Civ IV, after they've made some improvements in the AI.

	08-06-2002 20:22									#38
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Willem Have a look around at some AI cities next time you play, especially in the Industrial/Modern eras. You'll see that in comparison to you, it's a really crappy builder. Better yet, play a entire game with the Governor in charge of all production, including structures. By the end of the game, you'll have a hodge-podge of buildings that don't always make sense to have. Tying units to a specific structure would be very detrimental to the AI. I used to think the same way you do, but I began to realize that it wouldn't be practical. Maybe in Civ IV, after they've made some improvements in the AI.

hi ,

Willem , there are also examples where the comp does not build factories , because the AI does not have the tech's against pollution , .....also , put the default level of the AI at deity , total different gameplay , ...

have a nice day

	08-06-2002 22:56									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Willem Have a look around at some AI cities next time you play, especially in the Industrial/Modern eras. You'll see that in comparison to you, it's a really crappy builder. Better yet, play a entire game with the Governor in charge of all production, including structures. By the end of the game, you'll have a hodge-podge of buildings that don't always make sense to have. Tying units to a specific structure would be very detrimental to the AI. I used to think the same way you do, but I began to realize that it wouldn't be practical. Maybe in Civ IV, after they've made some improvements in the AI.

discouraging to think something this basic has to wait for civ4. On the other hand maybe this the left handed way to cut unit diarhea by the AI - "she's made of wood and therefore she's a witch" have to invoke barracks all the way or it would be 10000 warriors

	08-06-2002 23:14									#40
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by candidgamera discouraging to think something this basic has to wait for civ4. On the other hand maybe this the left handed way to cut unit diarhea by the AI - "she's made of wood and therefore she's a witch" have to invoke barracks all the way or it would be 10000 warriors

There's a very simple way of reducing the number of units in a game. Go to Governments in the editor and increase the basic maintenance costs for each gov. They won't be able to afford as many units, but then either will you.

	08-06-2002 23:19									#41
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Willem There's a very simple way of reducing the number of units in a game. Go to Governments in the editor and increase the basic maintenance costs for each gov. They won't be able to afford as many units, but then either will you.

hi ,

and just why would one do that , this puts all the fun out , .......

have a nice day

	09-06-2002 01:04									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

There are a number of realtively simple things that can be done to limit the number of units that can be built.

Increasing the basic unit support costs from 1 up to 2 or 3 would limit the units built for sure, but it would logically cripple the human player even more than the AIs so that doesn't seem like a very bright idea.

Having all the units have the exact same unit support cost has been another thing that should not be hard coded. It would be very simple to set a unit support cost multiplier on the units page of the editor so that battleships might get a support cost of 400 gold per 100 battleships while mines and missles could have a support cost of 20 gold per 100.

Without implementing alternative methods of controlling the number and type of units that get built in the game, we end up with the bad set of circumstances where the only limiting values that get set are controlled by making the units extra expensive or funcationally handicapped.

In the big picture, these limit changes that let you specify that the number of units of a certain type that can be built should be limited to the number of cities or limited to the number of another type of unit DO NOT have to impact any standard game play issues that already exist. There is just no logical reason to have these program functions available in the code and then hardcode them so that they cannot be applied to more than one unit. Its the logical equivalent of figuring out how to build the Model T car cheaply and then saying, "but Oh by the way, only Henry Ford can drive one."

	09-06-2002 01:19									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Frankly, not only is the airport useless, but air units themselves are quite useless. I never build any. Artillery, with unlimited rail movement, are much more flexible.

	09-06-2002 01:42									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Willem Have a look around at some AI cities next time you play, especially in the Industrial/Modern eras. You'll see that in comparison to you, it's a really crappy builder. Better yet, play a entire game with the Governor in charge of all production, including structures. By the end of the game, you'll have a hodge-podge of buildings that don't always make sense to have. Tying units to a specific structure would be very detrimental to the AI. I used to think the same way you do, but I began to realize that it wouldn't be practical. Maybe in Civ IV, after they've made some improvements in the AI.

Has anyone seen the AI go for the small wonder to build armies? If so that would prove that the AI is capable of understanding the need to complete a building in order to get to a unit.

	09-06-2002 02:28									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by cracker Increasing the basic unit support costs from 1 up to 2 or 3 would limit the units built for sure, but it would logically cripple the human player even more than the AIs so that doesn't seem like a very bright idea.

I've been doing that in my games, and I don't have any problems with it. There's still plenty of units on the map, and I don't feel it cripples me at all. In fact, it probably gives me something of an advantage since I can do a better job of generating revenue than the AI can.

quote: Having all the units have the exact same unit support cost has been another thing that should not be hard coded. It would be very simple to set a unit support cost multiplier on the units page of the editor so that battleships might get a support cost of 400 gold per 100 battleships while mines and missles could have a support cost of 20 gold per 100.

I certainly agree with you there. It makes no sense to me that Modern Armour has the same maintenance costs as an Archer. Each unit should have it's own costs associated with it, not just a blanket rate for everything. At the very least, the cost for a unit should increase in each era. And I agree with your argument, there should be no reason why this can't be adjusted in the units screen, instead of hardcoded.

	09-06-2002 02:41									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by playshogi Frankly, not only is the airport useless, but air units themselves are quite useless. I never build any. Artillery, with unlimited rail movement, are much more flexible.

hi ,

what ya gone do if the AI comes with 25 jet's , and 30 bombers , .....

have a nice day

	09-06-2002 08:52									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Travathian Keep in mind, a lot of the late game units require strategic resources to be built. Maybe as a compromise to some of these ideas, these units could be built without the strategic resource, if a certain building is available. Heck this could be used throughout the game. A laboratory in a city means it doesnt need saltpeter, a coal plant means it doesnt need oil, etc etc.

Hey! Now there's a new idea I haven't seen yet! Cool!

Resources are still important since it takes time (which you might not have) to build the prereq buildings, and the prereq buildings might also have maintenance costs while resources don't.

All the more reason to put in the editor option of having building prereqs for units.

In my view, all Firaxis has to do is give us the tools. Put it in the editor and by trial and error with lots of playtesting, we can come up with something that's balanced. Or everyone can play with their own mod and be happy!

One last reason for adding this:
Create a series of Wonders that replace each other so that you can only have 1 at any time in your possession. (use replacement flag currently used for power/hydro/nuke plants)
Create UUs that have certain Wonders as their prereq building.

Thus, you can dynamically choose what UU you want - and change it in game as long as you're willing to lose the ability to produce your former UU. As a wonder, it will be costly to replace so you have to be sure.

Ex. Find you're on a tiny island early on? build the Maritime Navigation Wonder to get Longship, an early cheap and fast caravel. Later on, when you're in a protracted war with Japan (who built Samurai Tradition to get Samurais), you may find you need a powerful defender to protect your cities. You build the Mercenary Guards Wonder which gives you Halberdiers (stronger pikemen) but lose the Maritime Navigation Wonder. Later on, do you build "Avro Arrow" wonder to get super figher-bombers or build the "Jihad" to get Mujahadeen Anti-Air Rocket troops for that extra edge?

	09-06-2002 10:02									#48
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Captain Later on, do you build "Avro Arrow" wonder to get super figher-bombers or build the "Jihad" to get Mujahadeen Anti-Air Rocket troops for that extra edge?

No point in building the Avro Arrow wonder since you'd just have to dismantle it as soon as it was completed.

You must be a Canuck. Where's my Maple leaf smilie?

PS I like your idea BTW.

	09-06-2002 17:20									#49
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

hi ,

there should be the ability in the editor to let only certain civ's this or that wonder , ....

have a nice day

	10-06-2002 03:52									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: there should be the ability in the editor to let only certain civ's this or that wonder , ....

Maybe only civs with the militaristic trait could build the militaristic wonders, and so on... This would sharpen each trait. It would also definitely increase the value of some traits, especially religious I think. Probably not a great idea, just throwing it out there.

	10-06-2002 04:32									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by nato Maybe only civs with the militaristic trait could build the militaristic wonders, and so on... This would sharpen each trait. It would also definitely increase the value of some traits, especially religious I think. Probably not a great idea, just throwing it out there.

hi ,

or just , wonder this , only that civ , wonder's so and so can be build only by civ delta and civ x-ray , ....

have a nice day

	10-06-2002 06:17									#52
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by playshogi Frankly, not only is the airport useless, but air units themselves are quite useless. I never build any. Artillery, with unlimited rail movement, are much more flexible.

I disagree. The airport is almost unbalancing it is so powerful in a modern war. Invading continents or islands without having discovered Flight is much more difficult than it is with the abilty to rush build an airport in a new city, and then airlift 5 / 10/ 15 / 20 units into the new city across the world from your home continent's cities (all have an airport, right ).

quote: Originally posted by wrylachlan Has anyone seen the AI go for the small wonder to build armies? If so that would prove that the AI is capable of understanding the need to complete a building in order to get to a unit.

I have seen the AI build the Military Academy -- I investigated a Roman city while planning an invasion. I cannot confirm that the AI actually built armies out of that city, but it did build the MA.

Catt

Edit: typo

	10-06-2002 06:56									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Catt I have seen the AI build the Military Academy -- I investigated a Roman city while planning an invasion. I cannot confirm that the AI actually built armies out of that city, but it did build the MI.

But Armies aren't a make or break unit, you can still wage war effectively without one. However, if the AI wasn't able to build Rifleman for instance, because it was to stupid to make a number of the buildings that produce them, it would be at a serious disadvantage. It might build one or two, but that wouldn't be enough to produce an effective military force.

And yes the AI will build Armies if it can, though probably not as effectively as the human. I had a game once where I saw the French with three of them converging on an Indian city. I had raised the limit to 10 units at that time, so it was a pretty formidable force. I was glad it was him and not me.

	10-06-2002 20:02									#54
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Quick replies:

re #1- barracks, would be too severe anywhere before Modern Era. Only rationale for in modern era is training may be needed to run modern weapontry.

re #2- harbors. Actually best solution would be to keep as is but add city improvment ShipYards which would be needed to build any naval unit more advanced than frigate.

re #3- airports. Easiest solution might be to create a new improvement AirStation. An "air station" is a modern airport. An Air Station would be required to build/base any air unit above standard fighter/bomber. A spitfire could land anywhere but not an F-16 or stealth.

Real real frustrated with this type of thread. Firaxis seems to have no interest in improving balance between land/air/sea powers. Their only interest is land. I don't know if the root cause is either reprogramming difficulty, like the air range limit of 8 tiles, or lack of vision. Until I see something from Firaxis, I have learned to think of civ3 as a land based development game.

	10-06-2002 21:43									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

planetfall:

#1-3: pretty much agree. the shipyard I think of as a specialized factory.

share the frustration - thinking on Civ3 seems to proceed to a point and then stops.


Like the idea above on differentiated support costs.


Willem:
Hadn't tried the increased unit cost idea, thanks for the suggestion.

What cost/unit do you use? am thinking 2 maybe for republic, 3 for democracy?

Tried two things also to limit the massive zombie army:
only very few units given ai explore check box - doesn't seem to work in latter game, does some in the early game. And unchecked the "build often" on all units - this doesn't seem to work either in late game. Will try to make no one expansionist next.


Catt:
Somewhat agree on the airports.
A solution for airports of course would be a unit that works a little like the helicopter, but has unlimited range between airports only and can carry one unit - available with advanced flight. I limit what can be airlifted now to infantry, paras, marines, and modern armor (cant recall on tanks) - stuff that really is contempary with airlift.

	10-06-2002 21:52									#56
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Catt I disagree. The airport is almost unbalancing it is so powerful in a modern war. Invading continents or islands without having discovered Flight is much more difficult than it is with the abilty to rush build an airport in a new city, and then airlift 5 / 10/ 15 / 20 units into the new city across the world from your home continent's cities (all have an airport, right ). I have seen the AI build the Military Academy -- I investigated a Roman city while planning an invasion. I cannot confirm that the AI actually built armies out of that city, but it did build the MA. Catt Edit: typo

hi ,

just unflag the option "airlift" on some types of units , ....

have a nice day

	10-06-2002 22:53									#57
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by candidgamera Willem: Hadn't tried the increased unit cost idea, thanks for the suggestion. What cost/unit do you use? am thinking 2 maybe for republic, 3 for democracy?

I have 2 for both, since I figured otherwise there wouldn't be any benefit for switching to Democracy. The reduced corruption is probably not going to make a huge difference as far as revenue is concerned.

Another thing you can do is play with the number of free units per town, city etc. That won't effect Republic or Democracy at all, since they don't get any freebies, but it will with all the rest.

	11-06-2002 21:55									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Willem:

Was thinking some also about variable free units per city too after last post. Am I to understand Republic, Democracy are hardcoded to not allow free units? Looks like you can change that in the editor to me.
Went and changed monarchy way down too, like 1/1/1.

If so I'm going to try this:

Republic:

0/1/1 for freebies, unit cost 2

Democracy:

0/1/2 for freebies, unit cost 3

idea is that later on expansion costs more, promotes taking care of and building what you have. expansion has to be subsidized until it starts to pay off. Democracy in big cities produces enough revenue for some extra revenue.

I allow republic a 1 military police also, none still for demo.

How well does unit cost 2 keep the units down? how many units wandering around?

OT:
Almost done with a game now, can't wait to try this and my carriers as amphib assault ships (think have figured it out: aircraft only, foot only flags, fighters with foot flag, no bombers) Marines with para range 2, suspect they still wont para off a carrier, but will try.

	11-06-2002 22:14									#59
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by candidgamera Willem: Was thinking some also about variable free units per city too after last post. Am I to understand Republic, Democracy are hardcoded to not allow free units? Looks like you can change that in the editor to me.

No, you can change that. Just enter some numbers in the fields. I gave my Republic some free units, though not very many. I was trying to make it a bit different than Democracy, and I kept thinking about the Roman Republic.

	12-06-2002 08:12									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Willem:

good to hear. was worried there for a moment. Am thinking to not over penalize on unit costs for defense, basic city development, just make it more expensive for the units on top of that. Maybe cut down too on the AI paving over everything with railroads and irrigation.
(Already only let hills and mts be mined, and require iron working to do the mine task).