06-08-2002 18:10									#31
	Remove this text

How about starting another AU scenario with the new settings? I think further testing on different types of maps will give us some more data to discuss about, especially with the building preferences changed. Anybody who's got a good idea?

	06-08-2002 18:25									#32
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Theseus asked my opinion for the next AU, and I'll tell you what I told him:

I want a low-landmass archipelago, w/less than max civs (standard/arch/80%, 5 rivals). I've been toying with those settings lately.

-Arrian

	06-08-2002 19:27									#33
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Lockstep, I think I was the one who argued for "wealth" instead of "culture" for the Egyptians. They produce plenty of culture anyway, but we're after getting them to build marketplaces and banks. At least, that's the theory. -Arrian

Thanks for the hint, Arrian. To be honest, I'm tinkering with the idea of additional city improvements that yield a large amount of culture per turn but do nothing else. What I'd like to make feasible is a distinct strategy of cultural dominance that also involves opportunity cost, and AI's that go for a cultural victory. In addition to the Babylonians, the Egyptians seem to be a good choice for this kind of strategy, and so I'd like to keep their 'culture' build priority.

BTW, 'culture-only'-improvements were already introduced in korn469's blitz mod, and the AI DOES build them. (Naturally, you have to tweak their costs, upkeep and culture production per turn so that they are a reasonable choice.)

	06-08-2002 19:29									#34
	Re: Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by lockstep If you really want to make riflemen and infantry wortwile as attackers (which is discussible IMO), adopt player1's solution of an 8/10 infantry.

Let's go with the smaller change for now. After the first AU game, we can decide if we want to further increase the attack of Infantry.

quote: lethal land bombardment is a 'change fore the sake of change' IMO.

You're right. I will keep the increased ROF but remove lethal land bombard.

quote: YES to more powerful battleships. OTOH I'd say leave Destroyers as they are now, leave the AEGIS cruiser's RoF at 2 and increase its bombard strength to 6. Finally, you could make Destroyers upgrade to AEGIS Cruisers.

We need to keep Destroyers a cheap alternative to Battleships. Firaxis has them well balanced now. If we boost Battleships we should boost Destroyers too. AEGIS was not meant to replace Destroyers, but to complement them.

quote: As for the Docking Bay, I'd rather leave it as it is now, because this makes researching Robotics (and therefore the ability to build manufacturing plants) more of a strategic choice.

Okay. Again, going with the least amount of change.

quote: A radical solution to make Longevity useful: Move it to Medicine instead of Genetics.

That's an interesting idea. What does everyone else think? Is it too big of a change? We would remove the happy faces.

quote: Hmm ... why not 5%, 10% or even 50%? I'd leave research costs alone for now and change them accordingly to reports from test-games.

My pesonal taste is to have more time to do battle with your units before they become obsolete. But since it is just that - a matter of taste - I will restore the original costs.

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Not a whole heckuva lot of difference was noted between the standard AI and the "killer" AI games in AU102.

That's not exactly true. There definitely was a difference in the build preferences. Just look at their culture. It just didn't make a big difference in AI power until 510 A.D. The main reason for the similarity was that until the AI stops expanding, it is hardcoded to build a minimum of improvements, no matter what the build-often preference. Last night I started a game against AI Rome, and I was amazed to see that they started building cultural buildings before me!

	06-08-2002 19:41									#35
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I was just reading the Great Wall thread in this forum.

What do people think about boosting the Great Wall Wonder to give walls in every town?

	06-08-2002 19:44									#36
	Re: Re: Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by alexman That's an interesting idea. What does everyone else think? Is it too big of a change? We would remove the happy faces.

The idea to move Longevity to Medicine was, IIRC, first adopted by monkspider in his 'balancer' mod. Most of his other changes were quite far-fetched, but this one is a winner IMO. Makes Longevity actually useful, and establishes a strategic choice of accelerated city growth, similar to the Pyramids.

	06-08-2002 19:46									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

Alexman: That would be slightly better, but still lame. The Great Wall can be built with Construction. So can Aqueducts, and after they are built, the Walls become quickly obsolete anyway.

	06-08-2002 20:31									#38
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph The Great Wall can be built with Construction. So can Aqueducts, and after they are built, the Walls become quickly obsolete anyway.

Agreed, for the core of your empire. But its real value would be to protect your newly-founded or conquered cities at the edges of your empire.

	06-08-2002 21:09									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph That would be slightly better, but still lame.

OTOH, not implementing this change would be slightly worse and still lame. (Better a small strategic choice than a completely useless wonder.) I second the change!

EDIT: And if anyone fears that walls in every city on the continent are too unbalancing, we could drop the 'doubles defense' ability instead. It's a strange thought anyway that a city that grows from size 6 to size 7 has a smaller defense bonus than before.

	06-08-2002 21:47									#40
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by lockstep It's a strange thought anyway that a city that grows from size 6 to size 7 has a smaller defense bonus than before.

I don't think that's bad. If you assume that your newly-founded or conquered cities at the outskirts of your empire during late-Ancient and Middle Ages are towns, it acts just like the real Great Wall did. It protects border cities!

	06-08-2002 22:28									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by lockstep It's a strange thought anyway that a city that grows from size 6 to size 7 has a smaller defense bonus than before.

Why not? Think of the small towns as primarily military encampments, with walls, a building code adjusted to military needs, etc. Once the town grows into a city some of these extra defense measures are abandoned and civil matters take priority, hence the drop in defense value.

I'm all for trying it!!

	06-08-2002 22:37									#42
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Oh, and I like the idea of moving Longetivity to Medicine. It's the most expensive wonder in the game, hardly gives any culture, so building it say, instead of ToE should be an interesting choice. We should give it a try as well.

And remove the happy faces, of course.

	07-08-2002 00:04									#43
	Inflate your Upload Space

I built longevity ONCE. It sucks. Why? Because your cities shoot past their sustainable pop level. Say your city is size 22. Say it has one extra food, and accumulates enough to grow. Normally, it would hit 23 and stop. But with Longevity, it goes to 24 and will eventually starve back to 23. Eventually (I'm assuming a granary here), because 1/2 the food box, which is really big at this point, has to empty, 1 food at a time. Meanwhile, any city that has negative food intake cannot be in WLTKD. So Longevity will make your cities grow past their means and make a bunch of them drop out of WLKTD. Like I said, I built it ONCE. It's crap.

-Arrian

edit: I suppose you could sell the granary and the city would starve back right away, but if you have the Pyramids you're screwed.

Last edited by Arrian on 07-08-2002 at 00:47

	07-08-2002 00:12									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I like the delicate way you put it, Arrian!
I agree with you, BTW.

But perhaps moving it to Medicine will give cities a longer time period where they're under their sustainable population. So, even if it still sucks, it should suck less.

I was thinking about the French UU again. Would it be better to lower its attack and give it a movement of 2? Like Impi of the Middle Ages. It would be more useful but still not as powerful as increasing its defense, it would be used properly by the AI, and it would be more in the spirit of the actual unit (a defensive unit that can be used in an offensive role - supporting knights). Also think of the mobility of Napoleon's Army (a bit later, I know). What do you think?

Last edited by alexman on 07-08-2002 at 00:19

	07-08-2002 00:45									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I suppose. I still wouldn't build the stupid thing.

Re: Musketeers,

So a 2/4/2 unit? Hmm... that's powerful. But I think I like it. That would do unspeakable things to Knight-based attackers, and still be a pain in the butt for Cavalry. Attacking the French in the Middle Ages would be a difficult thing. Better bring a LOT of cannon along.

Playing as the French, you could essentially have Samurai with stacks of Knights protected by Musketeers. The advantage being that your defense part of this "Samurai" upgrades all the way to Mech Inf., instead of stopping at Cavalry.

I think I like that idea, Alexman.

-Arrian

	07-08-2002 00:48									#46
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by alexman I was thinking about the French UU again. Would it be better to lower its attack and give it a movement of 2? Like Impi of the Middle Ages. It would be more useful but still not as powerful as increasing its defense, it would be used properly by the AI, and it would be more in the spirit of the actual unit (a defensive unit that can be used in an offensive role - supporting knights). Also think of the mobility of Napoleon's Army (a bit later, I know). What do you think?

Interesting idea. It doesn't really fit into let's change as little as possible theme but I still kind of like the idea. It might benefit the human player too much, though, since the AI never gets the idea of using one unit to guard several cities. Especially in the middle ages, when all road connections have been made this might be a significant factor.

	07-08-2002 02:07									#47
	Get a bigger avatar today!

OK, I have some interesting news. Soren just confirmed that if the AI has a dual offense/defense unit flagged for offense, and the upgrade is only for defense, the upgraded unit will be flagged for defense.

What does this mean for us? Well, if we remove the AI offense flag from MI, any Infantry that the AI created for attack (because it didn't have the resources to create cavalry or tanks), will be converted to defense and will never attack. If we leave the flag as it is, these units will continue to attack and the AI will not feel it has to make new units.

Which is better for the AI? It depends on the situation. In peacetime, it's better to keep the offense flag for MI because building new units without losing the old ones will put a strain on his economy. In wartime, it's definitely to save the MI for defense and build tanks or MA.

So what should we do? I think player 1 had it right. We should remove that flag.

	07-08-2002 02:50									#48
	Remove this text

Updated initial post with version 0.4

So when do we start the next class, professor?

	07-08-2002 03:43									#49
	Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Here are my thoughts on this MOD.
And some resons why I have done some things differenctly in my own "Patch suggestion MOD".

quote: Action: Reduced the cost strength of Musketmen and Musketeers by 10. Reason: To make these units more cost-effective. Comment: The AI will still not take advantage of the Musketeer's exta attack, but that's OK because the French have strong traits and a well-timed GA. Left AI attack flag on for Musketeers as an experiment. If anyone sees the French AI attack with musketeers, please report it because it means that AI attack/defense flags don't work exactly as expected.

Why I made 3/4/1 cost 50 insead?
First, I though that original unit was fay to much cost-ineffective.
Then I looked the Knight: 4/3/2 cost 70.
After some thinking I conlcuded that cost of 50 is appropriate for unit with stats of 3/4/1.

Why extra +1 attack?
To make them capable of killing wounded Knights and Cavalry.
Athough unit has no offense AI flag selscted, AI still attacks with then if odds are high in their favor (like attacking wounded units, but not attacking fortified cities).
And it somehow looked logical.
They have muskettes, you know.

Also, this made Frech UU with attack of 4, which together with offense AI flag selected give very cool renesanse unit.
(like some sort of renessance legion, or slow moving Samurai)

quote: Action: Increased attack strength of infantry from 6 to 7 Reason: Make these units better-used by the AI. Comment: The AI sometimes uses these units for attack, so an increase in their strength helps it.

Why I gave then an attack of 8?
Somehow I though that it's a logical progression from 5/6/1 Riflemen.

Now, unit has better attack then Cavalry (6), but still not enough to make them obsolete. (Cavalry is cheaper and has movment of 3).
Still, it makes Infantry a preffered unit for attacking cities (after Artillery bombarding).
Anyway with Moden Infantry, Cavalry becomes more of a suppord unit, compared to its earlier role of main attacker.

quote: Action: Increased attack strength of marines from 8 to 10 Reason: Make these units more valuable, and Amphibious War worth researching. Comment: To be consistent with the increase in infantry attack. This might help the AI build these units more often. Note that they are much more useful now that tanks can't pass through jungles and mountains. Action: Increased attack strength of paratroopers from 6 to 8 Reason: Make these units more valuable, and Advanced Flight worth researching. Comment: To be consistent with the increase in infantry attack. This unit has the AI offense flag, so it better do some damage when attacking. Note that they are much more useful now that tanks can't pass through jungles and mountains.

I increased deffense of these unit too (8 Marince, 10 Para).
Fist I felt that having some modern infanry type unit with defenese of Riflemen is a little bit strange.

Second, since Infantry becomes Obsolete with Mech. Inf., and Mech. Inf doesn't move on moutains (without road), you lose good mountain defender type of unit (Infantry).
So by upping defense of Paras to 10, you actuly transfer that task to "Specail Ops" unit (Paratrooper).

quote: Action: Added zero-range bombard ability to Archers (2), Bowmen (2), and Longbowmen (4). Reason: To make Archers and Longbowmen worth building, even after Swordsmen and Musketmen, respectively. Comment: Combined Arms! Stacks of units with archers have some benefit when defending cities.

Probably the reason why I didn't incuded in my own MOD is that it's radical and that it gices some complications.

Like, will AI use them well?
Also, since modern units don't have this ability, you can expet use of them in Moidern age too.

Still nice idea.

Personlly I made Lonbowmen usefull by giving him cost of 30, and making him upgradeablke to Riflemen (marksmen before, marsmen later).

quote: Action: Increased ROF of Fighters, Jet Fighters, F-15, and Stealth Fighters by 1, and gave them lethal sea bombard (and the AI air bombard flag). Reason: To increase the importance of airpower and to balance fighters versus bombers. Comment: Now carriers can use fighers to sink other ships, instead of always carrying bombers.

While giving ROF of 2 to fighter and jets is fine, I think that ROF of 3 for Staelth Fighter and F-15 could be owerpowering.

Especaily since ROF3 Stl. Fighter would be more cost effective bomber then Stealth Bomber (and would have lethal ability too).

Now, I added lethal land to Jets, F-15 and Stl. fighter in order to give them some extra falvor.
Like being able to destroy heavility damaged Tanks on open.
It should not be owerpowering since ROF would stay 2 for all fighter type units, and targeting cities is very diffcult due to high miss chance (ofen targets bulidng intead of units) and city defense bonuses.

quote: Action: Added one move to all ships except: Galley, Caravel, Galleon, Ironclad, Carrier Reason: To make Privateers and Frigates more powerful, without unbalancing later units. Comment: Naval movement was too low compared to late-game land and air movement. Player now has a strategic choice between Ironclad and Frigate, since the latter is slower. Action: Added two moves to Carrier Reason: To reduce micromanagement of carrier protection. Comment: Battleships and Carriers do not have a big difference in speed in real life.

Somehow I always considered Ironclad to be quicker and better then Firgates. Especaily the later ones, not ealty Montitor types.

That's the reason why moved tech preq. to Indust. in fist place.

And in no way is Frigate "just a litle bit slower then Destoyer".

That's why I left them with same movemnt points (movment of 4).

Since I kept Figgates at movemnt of 4, Privatter stayed at movement of 3 (since they are cheper and have good offense).

quote: Action: Ironclad upgrades to Battleship Reason: To compensate for reducing the shelf-life of this unit by making it available later. Comment: The civilopedia says that the ironclad was "the forerunner of the modern battleship".

Somehow upgrading to Battleship sems weird to me espacialy since it will cost a fortune.
And civilopedia enrty refers more to early battleships, not to WWII versions which Civ3 unit represents.

And having both Ironclads are Destoryers in build queues (befeore mass production) looks a little bit weird.

quote: Action: Increased ROF of Battleships, Destroyers, and AEGIS by 1. Reason: To increase the significance of naval power. Comment: Battleships are now as effective for bombardment as bombers.

In my own MOD a left Destroyer with ROF of 2.
Sice I intended hevy bombard role to batteships, and with ROF3 and cost of 120 Destroyers would make them more effective bombers which was not intended.

AEGIS gets ROF of 3, since it is more modern and hits more often.

.

.

.

Other things done different:

UPGRADE PATHS:

First I try to adress issue of having Swordsmen and Firgates in build queue in Modern era.

Updaes looks like only good solution.

Why I made Sword and Logbowmen go to Rilfe?
It's a logical unit porogression.
Foot soliders to foot soliders.

Rifles with attack of 5 are also good offense units.
(attack and defense unit like Legion)

Benefits AI, by modernizing his army.
Makes player less likely to ignore Lonbowmen due the obsolence and non-upgradebiklity.


I also made Jaguar Warrior NOT upgarde to Swordsmen, since it's still a lot of usefull unit.
They upgarde to Rifle only becasue I need them out of build quesue and Sword upgrade to Rifles.

I have Frigates, Ironclads and Privatter upgarde to Destroyer for similar resons.
Although it looks a little bit weird to upgarde wooden ship to a metal one, since same thing happens to Galleon, and this is logical unit progression, plus it helps AI too, I decided to do it anyway.
At least you won't have them in buid quesues.
And upgrade is still costly (you know, they need to rebuild ships hull from scratch).

.

Some other things:

I lowered defense of Modern Armor to 14 in oreder to incourage use of Mech. Inf. as support units.
24/16/3 unit for cost of 120 shields is too much anway.

Caravlers get defense of 1.
To make them vunarable to enemy Priveteers, also when you get Caravel you usualy don't have Cannons discovered to get a better defense.

AEGIS cruiser with attack of 14 to make them more distinctive from Destoryers.
They are bigger ships anway.
Still Destoryer are more cost-effective as grunt attack units.

Made Battleships cost 220 shields.
That way, build time between Destoryer & Battleship would be enough diffrent to ecourage use of Destroyers as cheap grunt units.

Not to say that group Destoyers in less vunerable against air then smaller group of Battleships (much more HPs for bigger group).

Defense of Expolrers changed to 1, to make them more annoying for enemy foot units (PILLAGE TIME!).


Steal Tech mission cost lowered to 70% and propaganda to 50%.
This way tech steal is more valuable, expecily if only taget civ has that tech. (which effectively increses cost of trading it).

Same for porpaganda, also makes Democracy immunities more important.


I also removed a Mech. Inf. offense AI flag.
Since it's realy unnesseary, since you can always build Tanks.

Also, I think that AI will upgrade such Mech. Inf.

Only quesion is, will in that case, then take role of defender, or they would be UNIQUE offense AI flag selected Mech. Inf.

In both cases it's OK by me.

	07-08-2002 03:48									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ugh!

I finnaly made one BIG comment about version of 0.3 and there is already a version of 0.4

	07-08-2002 04:00									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Very interesting stuff here guys... i'm impressed with all the work you're putting in here. I'm particularly interested to find out more about the build often categories and how they affect AI play...

Anyway, if you're interested you can take a look at my mod for ideas or inspirations. Obviously, compared to player1's mod it's a little more experimental and ambitious, however, it's now thoroughly tested and play balance works very well.

Some of the ideas and implementations follow very closely to what you are trying! One of the things i'm still trying to get right is the build often categories for the Ai civs and how to improve them for maximum AI ability!

Like youreslves, i have found noticable links between the build often list and poor AI civ gameplay (i.e. the Romans and the Zulus)... any info you provide will be appreciated.

I've attached my readme for you info, or if you wish, follow my sig more a more detailed thread. Feel free to use anything you wish... good luck.

Attachment: real_deal readme2.0.rtf
This has been downloaded 7 time(s).

	07-08-2002 06:41									#52
	Re: Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Player 1, thanks for taking the time to comment.
And sorry for changing versions so fast. I try to keep up
with people's suggestions. When we get up to version 1.0, which we will use for our first game, the MOD will change much less frequently. Check out version 0.5. It's more similar to your MOD now (changed Destroyer ROF, Marines and Paratroopers defense, MA defense, Infantry attack).

quote: Why I made 3/4/1 cost 50 insead? ...I looked the Knight: 4/3/2 cost 70. After some thinking I conlcuded that cost of 50 is appropriate for unit with stats of 3/4/1.

Even though these defensive units won't attack very often, I think 20 shields for one movement point a bit too much.

quote: Athough unit has no offense AI flag selscted, AI still attacks with then if odds are high in their favor (like attacking wounded units, but not attacking fortified cities).

Are you sure about that? I have NEVER seen the AI attack with musketmen. In fact, I have never seen the AI do anything with their defensive units except protect their city/offensive unit/settler.

quote: ...this made Frech UU with attack of 4, which together with offense AI flag selected give very cool renesanse unit.

What do you think of the idea of giving Musketeers +1 movement instead? That way the AI uses them properly. Otherwise I doubt it would build a 4-attack, 50 shield unit for offense when a 4-attack, 40 shield unit is always available (longbowman).

quote: Like, will AI use them well?

I've tried 0 range bombard. The AI uses it very well, because it usually has an archer in its cities for couterattack.

quote: Defense of Expolrers changed to 1, to make them more annoying for enemy foot units (PILLAGE TIME!).

I have never seen the AI build explorers. Does it? If not, then this is not fair for the AI.

quote: Steal Tech mission cost lowered to 70% and propaganda to 50%. This way tech steal is more valuable, expecily if only taget civ has that tech. (which effectively increses cost of trading it).

I know I suggested these changes to your MOD, but I'm afraid these options are not used by the AI. Making them cheaper will just help the human. If anyone ever sees the AI use propaganda, we will definitely consider making it cheaper.

If people are OK with version 0.5, I'll rename it 1.0 and we can start AU 103!!!

	07-08-2002 13:11									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Errmmm how do you know the Ai doesn't use propaganda or steal tech?

For instance if a city suffers propaganda it'll seem no different to one that culture flipped! So, no way of telling whether city flips due to borders or propaganda. Plus, on one occasion with 1.29f i got a pop up message saying "citizens from such and such a city were unhappy about some propaganda..." or something similar - a propaganda failure message by the looks of it. So propaganda does happen, albeit i'll grant you, not very often.

Steal tech at 70% is what i use as well as it seems about right. Never had a failed mission attempt against me, however, this does not suggest it doesn't indeed occur.


I have been using 0 bombard for archers, longbowmen, bowmen, marines and my modern infantry for a very long time and the Ai uses them very effectively.

From my experiences with 1.29f plyaing around with a unit's movement can result in very weird unit selection. BE careful in that giving musketeers 2 movement could result in them replacing knights altogether..

I gave paras 2 movement and the AI seemed to prefer them to tanks for the offensive unit. Although this may be due to Advanced Flight being later in the tech tree?!

	07-08-2002 15:22									#54
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Killerdaffy Think of the small towns as primarily military encampments, with walls, a building code adjusted to military needs, etc. Once the town grows into a city some of these extra defense measures are abandoned and civil matters take priority, hence the drop in defense value.

On second thought, this 'military encampement' character of small towns will only be effective for the owner of the Great Wall , and only until the discovery of metallurgy, so the drop in defense value with size 7 is acceptable.

	07-08-2002 15:40									#55
	Re: Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by player1 Probably the reason why I didn't incuded in my own MOD is that it's radical and that it gices some complications. Like, will AI use them well? Also, since modern units don't have this ability, you can expet use of them in Moidern age too. Still nice idea.

Player1, while you are right that zero range bombardment is a rather big change and that we need to ensure that the AI understand this feature (which seems to be the case, due to game-reports), zero range bombardment WON'T cause the use of archers and longbowmen in the modern age, because they will be obsolete with Riflemen and/or Infantry. (And I don't think that a human player will deliberately a) not research Nationalism and b) cut himself off from rubber supply just to be able to build archers and longbowmen. )

Losing a special unit ability (zero range bombardment) because of upgrading isn't an ideal solution, but an acceptable one. BTW, privateers also lose their hidden nationality flag when upgrading to destroyers.

	07-08-2002 16:44									#56
	Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum Support Apolyton

Alexmen, some comments on version 0.5 of the AU mod. Whenever I don't mention a feature, consider it a big .

quote: Added Wheeled ability to Tank, Mech. Infantry, Modern Armor, Artillery, Radar Artillery.

I didn't notice this glitch until now, and re-checked your BIC file: The Panzer should also be wheeled. Never forget a UU when you tweak the standard unit. (BTW, this happened also to player1.)

quote: Increased the movement of Musketeer to 2 and lowered its attack to 2 from 3. Removed AI offense flag.

Interesting idea, but we'll have to take a close look at how the AI handles this.

quote: Increased attack strength of paratroopers from 6 to 8, and defense from 8 to 9.

Like player1 I think that the defense strength should be 10 so that paratroopers are a true replacement to infantry.

quote: Added zero-range bombard ability to Archers (2), Bowmen (2), and Longbowmen (4).

Well, if the AI can handle it, it's fine with me. (I guess every mod-maker has his 'beloved' feature. )

quote: Reduced the cost of Armies to 300 from 400 and added pillage ability.

I'd still like to hear your opinion on a Military Academy that doesn't need a victorious army, although this feature may be too radical for an AU mod.

quote: Reduced defense of Modern Armor from 16 to 14.

I'd even reduce it to 12. If tanks have A/D ratings of 16/8 (50% defense strength), then 24/12 for modern armor isn't too far-fetched.

quote: Increased ROF of Fighters, Jet Fighters, F-15, and Stealth Fighters by 1, and gave them lethal sea bombard (and the AI air bombard flag).

Even with only lethal sea and not land bombardment, IMO you should change F-15's and Stealth Fighters back to a RoF of 2.

quote: Added one move to all ships except: Galley, Caravel, Galleon, Ironclad, Carrier

Player1 may be right that Frigates shouldn't be nearly as fast as destroyers. How about leaving Frigates/Man-O-War and Privateers as they are in v1.29 and instead LOWERING the ironclad's movement rate to 3? (Not sure about that one.)

quote: Increased ROF of Battleships, and AEGIS by 1.

I still think it's more elegant to increase the bombard strength of AEGIS cruisers to 6, so that they are truly more expensive and powerful versions of destroyers (even if we don't let destroyers upgrade to AEGIS cruisers so that the player is still able to build them after researching Robotics).

quote: Great Wall now adds city walls to all towns in the same continent.

This may be misleading. You should add 'in addition to its former effects'.

quote: Longevity requires Medicine instead of Genetics. Reduced cost to 800 from 1000.

I was going to mention the cost reduction, but you beat me to it.

Again, this mod is quite excellent, and every mod-maker should use it (together with player1's mod) as a yardstick when starting to tinker with the standard game.

	07-08-2002 17:16									#57
	Re: Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum Support Apolyton

Lockstep,

quote: Originally posted by lockstep I'd still like to hear your opinion on a Military Academy that doesn't need a victorious army, although this feature may be too radical for an AU mod.

Yes, it's too radical, since it adds a whole lot of balancing problems (devaluation of militaristic) and takes the fun out of the strategic question what to do with your first leader.

quote: I'd even reduce it to 12. If tanks have A/D ratings of 16/8 (50% defense strength), then 24/12 for modern armor isn't too far-fetched.

Let's do that if we find that the AI still doesn't build sufficient MA in order to reduce the advantage for the human player. For now it's ok as it is.

quote: Player1 may be right that Frigates shouldn't be nearly as fast as destroyers. How about leaving Frigates/Man-O-War and Privateers as they are in v1.29 and instead LOWERING the ironclad's movement rate to 3? (Not sure about that one.)

This discussion hitches on the question which type of ship is represented by the ironclad. The monitor type should have a movement of 2 and be restricted to coastal, but later turn-of-the century battleships would definitely not fit into that class. You could still argue that they had major logistical challenges (constantly needing to refill their coal bunkers) that could be represented by lower movement.

If we can't find a consensus, leave it as it is in standard 1.29.

	07-08-2002 17:46									#58
	Re: Re: Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Killerdaffy Lockstep, Yes, it's too radical, since it adds a whole lot of balancing problems (devaluation of militaristic) and takes the fun out of the strategic question what to do with your first leader.

IMO, a major design flaw of Civ3 is the lack of a peaceful method of leader generation. So you have to wage war to get the chance of rushing a wonder, which is at least discussible, AND to be able to built an army even in the industrial or modern age, which just doesn't feel right to me. With a Military Academy that does not require a victorious army, the strategic question of what to do with your first leader still is: Get an army (and the possibility to build the Heroic Epic) now and for free, or wait till the end of the Middle Age and invest 800 shields (400 for the Academy and 400 for the actual army), which is even more than the costs of Great Wonders of this period.

BTW, this feature was included in korn469's blitz mod, and the comments of playtesters (among them a regular Deity player, solo) were quite positive.

	07-08-2002 18:12									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I support the idea of the Military Academy not requiring a victorious army. It should be available as SW after Military tradition.

	07-08-2002 19:02									#60
	Re: Re: Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by alexman I know I suggested these changes to your MOD, but I'm afraid these options are not used by the AI. Making them cheaper will just help the human. If anyone ever sees the AI use propaganda, we will definitely consider making it cheaper.

I disagree. Even if a feature is rarely or never used by the AI, it should have 'reasonable' costs for the human player. If we leave espionage costs as they are in vanilla v1.29, we'd have to double or triple the costs of artillery-type units, because the AI doesn't know how to use them - and this is a bad idea IMO.

BTW, I can confirm that the AI uses at least some of the 'active' espionage options. One or two times, production in one of my cities was sabotaged.