 |
| |
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
Re: Musketeers. Why is it any different for the AI than Impi and Horsemen? It won't build them instead of knights, because one unit has the offense flag and the other has the defense flag.
Re: Paratroopers. If they get the same defense as Infantry, the player will build them instead of Infantry (in cities that can produce both in the same number of turns) just in case he needs the special ability.
Re: 0-zange bombard. Well, I guess you can call it my beloved feature, but the main point is that it gives you a reason to use archers in parallel with swordsmen.
Re: F-15 and stealth fighters. I don't have a strong feeling here, but why weaken units that are already quite weak?
Re: Ironclads and Frigates. I thought about giving Ironclads a movement of 3, but that would slow down the AI, since it likes to protect its galleons with ironclads. It's all about the AI and play balance. I don't worry about realism as far as naval units are concered, because they are already heavily abstracted. The tactical advatage of the higher-speed Destroyer over the Frigate should be sufficient.
Re: AEGIS. Again, no strong feelings, but if Destroyers don't upgrade to them, we should make it worth building Destroyers instead of AEGIS, sometimes. We have already strengthened AEGIS by ROF and by making submarines more powerful.
Re: Military academy. By not requiring a victorious Army, we would be removing a very important decision in the game: do I use the early leader for an Army, or for a FP? I like that we have this dilema. Remember that we are trying to preserve the flavor of the game, not change it to make it better for builders or warmongerers.
Re: Espionage and propaganda. OK, I'll adopt player 1's changes.
Lockstep,  thanks for catching the Panzer bug. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Re: Musketeers. Why is it any different for the AI than Impi and Horsemen? |
Hmm ... I think you are right, and I stand corrected.
quote:
Re: Paratroopers. If they get the same defense as Infantry, the player will build them instead of Infantry (in cities that can produce both in the same number of turns) just in case he needs the special ability. |
OTOH, a lot of Infantry won't be built, but upgraded from Riflemen. And it doesn't seem elegant to me that the best non-wheeled defender after the arrival of mech infantry will have less defense strength than infantry.
quote:
F-15 and stealth fighters. I don't have a strong feeling here, but why weaken units that are already quite weak? |
Also no strong feelings here, but lethal sea bombardment should make this units notedly stronger.
quote:
Re: AEGIS. Again, no strong feelings, but if Destroyers don't upgrade to them, we should make it worth building Destroyers instead of AEGIS, sometimes. We have already strengthened AEGIS by ROF and by making submarines more powerful. |
Sorry for my mistakable wording, I meant increase the AEGIS cruisrer's bombard strength instead of its RoF.
quote:
Military academy. By not requiring a victorious Army, we would be removing a very important decision in the game: do I use the early leader for an Army, or for a FP? I like that we have this dilema. Remember that we are trying to preserve the flavor of the game, not change it to make it better for builders or warmongerers. |
In fact, this is my 'beloved' feature, and I know it's quite controversial. But it would be a small substitute for the lack of a peaceful method of leader generation, which IMO is a major design flaw of Civ3. (Like the original lack of a peaceful method to trigger a golden age, which was corrected by Firaxis only shortly before Civ3 went gold.)
quote:
Espionage and propaganda. OK, I'll adopt player 1's changes. |
quote:
Lockstep, thanks for catching the Panzer bug. |
You're welcome. And this reminds me to tell player1 about the Panzer bug in his mod.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
Re Military Academy, I sorta like the idea of not requiring a victorius Army, as this lets late warmongers, of which there are many, still commence, say, a Tank period intercontinental invasion, with an Army of Infantry as part of the invasion force. It must be frustrating not to be able to do so currently. |
Thanks for the support, Theseus. EDIT: And yes, it is frustrating.
quote:
Heroic Epic still requires an Army victory though, correct? That decides the early GL question for me. |
Yes. No Heroic Epic for builders until the late middle age.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
=DrJambo=
|
 |
Athens of the North
Jan 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman Re: Paratroopers. If they get the same defense as Infantry, the player will build them instead of Infantry (in cities that can produce both in the same number of turns) just in case he needs the special ability. |
Yeah, but the AI won't since Paras are listed as offensive, therefore this will only favour the human player. Unless of course you label them as defensive?! Not sure of the ramifications of this - whether the AI would use them for paradropping when set as defensive?!
quote:
Originally posted by alexman Re: 0-zange bombard. Well, I guess you can call it my beloved feature, but the main point is that it gives you a reason to use archers in parallel with swordsmen. |
Absolutely
quote:
Originally posted by alexman Re: Ironclads and Frigates. I thought about giving Ironclads a movement of 3, but that would slow down the AI, since it likes to protect its galleons with ironclads. It's all about the AI and play balance. I don't worry about realism as far as naval units are concered, because they are already heavily abstracted. The tactical advatage of the higher-speed Destroyer over the Frigate should be sufficient. |
If anything, increase the movement of frigates and galleons, they should be faster than ironclads. Naval units are too slow in civ3. OR.. make ironclads vulnerable in the ocean.
quote:
Originally posted by alexman Re: AEGIS. Again, no strong feelings, but if Destroyers don't upgrade to them, we should make it worth building Destroyers instead of AEGIS, sometimes. We have already strengthened AEGIS by ROF and by making submarines more powerful. |
Just make the destroyer the fastest ship available.
quote:
Originally posted by alexman Re: Military academy. By not requiring a victorious Army, we would be removing a very important decision in the game: do I use the early leader for an Army, or for a FP? I like that we have this dilema. Remember that we are trying to preserve the flavor of the game, not change it to make it better for builders or warmongerers. |
Agreed as a builder, i've sometimes been torn by the thought of warring just to try to obtain a leader. Then whether to use the leader on a wonder or army is a massively important decision... don't remove it.
quote:
Originally posted by alexman Re: Espionage and propaganda. OK, I'll adopt player 1's changes.
|
Good
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
My only suggestion after browsing the 0.6 readme: With the Military Academy no longer requiring a victorious army, I'd be happy to pay the original 400 shields for every army I build (like for the Academy, which is sort of Army no. 0).
Outstanding work!
EDIT: Caught another bug. If you want ironclads upgrade to battleships, you must also check the 'upgrade unit' flag (under 'special actions').
Last edited by lockstep on 07-08-2002 at 22:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Even though these defensive units won't attack very often, I think 20 shields for one movement point a bit too much.
|
For unit with 70 shiled cost 10 shield difference is nothing.
So, yes 20 shields for 2 movment is NOT to much.
quote:
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.
|
They attack if odds are HUGE inthier favor.
Like Infantry attacking heavily wounded Cavalry (happend to me in v1.07)
quote:
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).
|
You won't need to defend such Musketeer.
As for that 2 movment, some humans players wold be annoyed when they find out that they can't build mov 2 defender after discovering Nationalism.
quote:
I have never seen the AI build explorers. Does it? If not, then this is not fair for the AI.
|
Just wanted to add some flavor for human players.
Even without 1 defense, human player will use them as pillagers.
So in won't make any big difference.
(and would add some fun)
quote:
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.
|
It's more like a money porbelm, not willignes probelm.
As for Paras defense 10 problem:
When you start to use Paras often you'll already have Mech. Inf.
And don't foget that Paras req. BOTH OIL & RUBBER.
So you won't have Infantry vs Paras choice.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
And what was the purpose to drop the upgrade Swordsmen and Longbowmen? |
Theseus termed it as 'too far away from stock Civ3'.
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
I will restore the original cost for Armies and make Frigates upgrade to Destroyers. Sounds good? |
Yes, but don't forget the Man-O-War. As for the privateer ... if anyone thinks they are useful when destroyers arrive, I can life with them in my build menu.
Last edited by lockstep on 08-08-2002 at 00:21
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-08-2002 19:38
last-minute suggestion: player1 is right IMO that jaguar warriors upgrading to swordsmen is a bad idea, because their usefulness lasts much longer. If you don't want to introduce additional upgrade path, make jaguar warriors upgrade to nothing.
), but for less micromanagement. I don't think that this is a key feature, from which depends the AI to be strong or weak. It's just a nice-to-have in the late game, what is a clickfest anyway. Every tweak for more convenience is ok.
|