07-01-2003 05:07									#91
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 1. Adding +1 hp to the Nuclear Sub and AEGIS seeing as they are modern age ships.

I try to keep thing conservative (no HP bonuses). Sub alrady has increased attack of 10, while AEGIS has some interesing abilities.

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 2. Making Privateers appear with Navigation? The AI will then build them during the period between Navigation and Magnetism.

Would be too much dominataing.
And flavor side, it would be straneg that main naval vessel is "pirate ship".

The way it is it won't be too much bad, since they are fine before you get Industralisation.

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 3. Adding +2 to the bombard strength or +1 to the ROF of the modern ships (Destroyer/Battleship/AEGIS) you have in your mod? I feel they are still too weak compared to Bombers the way you have them...

They had +1ROF, but now they only have +2 in bom. str.
Basicly 8/rof3 Batteship were too much dominating. Better use then bombers (no fear of interception) which also lower need for Carrier/Bomber packs.
Now with just +2Bom. Str. they are in fine balnce (12/rof2 would be "almost" same as 8/3rof)

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 4. Giving the Guerilla a 0 range bombard ability of 6? This makes them useful support troops when defending in stacks and gives a reason for building these units other than when one lacks rubber and upgrading archaic swordsmen/longbowmen.

Too radical for consrvative mod such as this.

Plus I like this unit as in "bummer, I have can't build Infantry" situations.
(in this MOD sword & bow upgardes to Riflemen)

And somehow having them with uniqe bombard ability just feels wrong (why should THEY be able to bomabrd, and not let's say Infantry or Mech. Infantry).

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 5. If you consider the main difference between the Frigate/MOW and the Ironclad to be in defence as opposed to weaponry then why not add a +1 to the Frigate's and MOW's bombard ability?

Because that would make them too much bombard effective.
It would make better to bomabrd with Frigate (or MOW) instead with Ironclad.

That would lead to weird combos like 5 Firgates and 2 Ironclads. 5 Frigates bombard and 2 Ironclads attack wounded units.

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 6. Why not make the Ironclad slightly slower than the Frigate/MOW? One way to do this is to give the Ocean a movement of 2 and allow every ship save the Ironclad and Galley to ignore the ocean movement. Ironclads were never really deep-sea ships anyhow.

They were never slower, adn later ironlcad were ocean sailing.
And I think that I already put fine balance with them.

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 7. Lower steal plans and steal technology to 7 and 8 respectively and lower investigate city greatly (to 1, 2 or 3?). Why's it so much to investigate cities anyway?

I never considered inv. of cities costly. For me it was always worth of cost.

As for tech steal, I tried, but it gave way to cheap tech in modern era.
Even with standard cost you could steal tech for 2500gp (safely), which could normally be bought for about 10,000 to 15,000gp.

Of course it still leaves problem in earlier eras (wehn steal tech is expensive).

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 8. Lower pop rushing and drafting penalties to 10 turns.... there's your Communism boost in a oner.

This one looks interesting.
I'll think about it.
Who knows, maybe I add it one day.

But, normal town grows in size in 10 turns so it gives 20 shields for 10 turns 9with no hap. penality). On the other hand, that still just 2 shields on turn average.

As I said I'll think about it.

Other possibility is making pop rush give 30 shields, but that would porbbaly make things fall apart (so I wan't do it).

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 9. As a consequence of this making Depostism too good give it a rate cap of 7 (i.e. 70% science/tax maximum) on the slider. This will help curb early tech rushing from the AI using 100% science strategies in the Ancient Period and make it desirable to change out of Despotism.

Looks too much Civ2ish to me, and Despotics is already weaken with 1.21f patch (less efective pop-rush).

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 10. Consider changing the unit support of Monarchy and Communism to 3, 6 and 12 instead of 2, 4 and 8? War doesn't cripple the AI so much, but builder strategies are still better in Democracy.

Won't realy help that much to AI (he already get some extra free support at higher levels).
But that would benfeit human too much (makes Despotism to Monarchy transition no brainer).

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 11. Make elite units have 6 hp? Helps Militaristic civs and makes elite soldiers really worth looking after.

Too powerful and unconservative.

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 12. Longevity under Sanitation? Lets face it, it's fairly useless where you have it under Genetics.

I'm just making conservative MOD.
Still, you could use it as conscript factory.

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 13. Make Cure of Cancer a culture Wonder, say providing 50 culture points where it's created? Have you ever seen a Cultural victory? I haven't but i'd sure like to see one without necessarily having to conquer all the other civs to reach it. By all accounts, people that achieve Cultural victories are nearly at Domination victory anyway. In my opinion this is wrong and Cultural victories should be achievable with less aggressive measures. However, maybe this isn't enough on its own to make a difference as it comes so late in the game. In fact i'd like to know how to achieve a hard fought Cultural victory from a mainly astute builder's strategy? Any ideas?

Weird, but interesrting.

By the way, best way to get culural victory is to play on bigger map (since needed culture points never scale with map size)

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 1. Why add a +1 defence to the Cossack? Having a 4 defence is more useful than you think.

Yes 4 defense makes then good defenser before Nationalism. But since in this MOD Musketmen is cheaper (50 shields). So even with Cossaks using Musketemen for defense is good option.
Plus, Musketmen and Riflemen have higher attack value (3 and 5), so defense rating of 4 is not so great anymore. Also, I can't see broken if comapred to medivial Samurai.

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= 2. More of an explanation this.... Propaganda makes citizens unhappy. The reason i know this is i've had the AI try it to me repeatedly in the same city. I think propaganda is successful when the number of unhappy citizens reaches a certain level (disorder maybe!?) and therefore the more times propaganda missions are attempted in one city the greater the likelihood it will succeed. Hence the reason it's better to use propaganda in a city of a civilisation currently in a period of anarchy.

Maybe.
Still halved propaganda prices look fine to me (that not cheap even if it would always succed).

quote: Originally posted by =DrJambo= Anyway, these are all simply suggestions as many of these i use myself and i'd ike to hear your thoughts on them. More to come when i can think of more.

Thanks, I like interesting discussions.

	07-01-2003 16:46									#92
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by player1 I try to keep thing conservative (no HP bonuses). Sub alrady has increased attack of 10, while AEGIS has some interesing abilities.

I understand, however, you have changed things like which tech is required to build certain spaceship parts ?? This to me seems a more drastic change than simply adding 1 hp to modern age ships.

quote: Originally posted by player1 Would be too much dominataing. And flavor side, it would be straneg that main naval vessel is "pirate ship". The way it is it won't be too much bad, since they are fine before you get Industralisation.

What this does is give a brief age of pirating where the sea travel is precarious before frigates arrive on the scene. If privateers aren't brought forward, the AI never builds them as they'll always prefer frigates.

quote: Originally posted by player1 They had +1ROF, but now they only have +2 in bom. str. Basicly 8/rof3 Batteship were too much dominating. Better use then bombers (no fear of interception) which also lower need for Carrier/Bomber packs. Now with just +2Bom. Str. they are in fine balnce (12/rof2 would be "almost" same as 8/3rof)

I respectfully disagree. With the increases i suggest the battleships become the "artillery" of the sea able to reach a max of 2 squares onto the mainland. However a battleship costs twice that of artillery and so should be noticably better, otherwise why bother?! Hence my reasoning of the extra increase. They do have a counter....enemy bombers, fighters and navy. Bombers most certainly still have their place on carriers as part of a navy since they can reach much further inland than battleships.

With poorer bombardment stats than artillery or bombers why bother with a navy or even dealing with an enemy navy when it starts bombarding your shores?

quote: Originally posted by player1 Too radical for consrvative mod such as this. Plus I like this unit as in "bummer, I have can't build Infantry" situations. (in this MOD sword & bow upgardes to Riflemen) And somehow having them with uniqe bombard ability just feels wrong (why should THEY be able to bomabrd, and not let's say Infantry or Mech. Infantry).

Fair enough, better this way than going the opposite way and making them as good as infantry as some are intent on doing.

quote: Originally posted by player1 Because that would make them too much bombard effective. It would make better to bomabrd with Frigate (or MOW) instead with Ironclad. That would lead to weird combos like 5 Firgates and 2 Ironclads. 5 Frigates bombard and 2 Ironclads attack wounded units.

No, as a result of the increase a frigate would change from 2,1,2 to 3,1,2 whilst an ironclad is 4,1,2. A man of war would be the same as the ironclad, but then, maybe it should as it is the English UU after all and arguably the worst UU in the game.

quote: Originally posted by player1 They were never slower, adn later ironlcad were ocean sailing. And I think that I already put fine balance with them.

Fair enough.

quote: Originally posted by player1 I never considered inv. of cities costly. For me it was always worth of cost. As for tech steal, I tried, but it gave way to cheap tech in modern era. Even with standard cost you could steal tech for 2500gp (safely), which could normally be bought for about 10,000 to 15,000gp. Of course it still leaves problem in earlier eras (wehn steal tech is expensive).

Ok.

quote: Originally posted by player1 This one looks interesting. I'll think about it. Who knows, maybe I add it one day. But, normal town grows in size in 10 turns so it gives 20 shields for 10 turns 9with no hap. penality). On the other hand, that still just 2 shields on turn average. As I said I'll think about it. Other possibility is making pop rush give 30 shields, but that would porbbaly make things fall apart (so I wan't do it).

I like this one, i hope you consider it.

quote: Originally posted by player1 Looks too much Civ2ish to me, and Despotics is already weaken with 1.21f patch (less efective pop-rush).

Fair enough.

quote: Originally posted by player1 Won't realy help that much to AI (he already get some extra free support at higher levels). But that would benfeit human too much (makes Despotism to Monarchy transition no brainer).

Maybe or maybe not. I've not fully convinced myself yet whether this is a useful change or not anyway. I asked you merely to see what you thought.

quote: Originally posted by player1 Too powerful and unconservative.

Ok.

quote: Originally posted by player1 I'm just making conservative MOD. Still, you could use it as conscript factory.

Longevity becomes useful if it comes with Sanitation and Hospitals. If it come under Genetics it tends to be more of a hassle than anything else. By this time your cities should be generally maxed out and all that happens is the city reverts from increasing to starving to increasing to starving, etc, as it cannot manage the 2 pop increase. Still, if you can move the Spaceship parts then....

quote: Originally posted by player1 Weird, but interesrting. By the way, best way to get culural victory is to play on bigger map (since needed culture points never scale with map size)

Heheh, yeah it is a little strange, but quite interesting nonetheless. I tend to play the Large map size on Monarch level and never see Cultural victories or even get close to them.

quote: Originally posted by player1 Yes 4 defense makes then good defenser before Nationalism. But since in this MOD Musketmen is cheaper (50 shields). So even with Cossaks using Musketemen for defense is good option. Plus, Musketmen and Riflemen have higher attack value (3 and 5), so defense rating of 4 is not so great anymore. Also, I can't see broken if comapred to medivial Samurai.

Hmmm. Why have you made musketmen cheaper as well as stronger? Currently i have your settings, but with musketmen as their original price of 60 shields.

Let me put an example to you:
Cossack (6,4,3) v Siphai (8,3,3)

Cossack attacks the siphai and has a 6/9 chance of killing the siphai (67%).
Siphai attack the cossack and has an 8/12 chance of killing the cossack (67%).

So it's fair. If you increase the defence of the cossack to 5 you imbalance this, no? Plus the way you have it the Russians would be better defending with cossacks rather than musketmen. Do you have them set to defence too?

quote: Originally posted by player1 Maybe. Still halved propaganda prices look fine to me (that not cheap even if it would always succed).

Agreed, i have mine halved too. I wrote this simply for information as i didn't know whether you knew this was the case or not?




Thanks, I like interesting discussions. [/QUOTE]
My pleasure, thanks for answering. I really like your mod and i've based mine very much around yours and my old mod from 1.29f days (RealDeal). My mod with PTW is much more conservative now since Firaxis added in the new buildings, which i essentially already had in my 1.29f mod! lol

	07-01-2003 22:42									#93
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I respectfully disagree. With the increases i suggest the battleships become the "artillery" of the sea able to reach a max of 2 squares onto the mainland. However a battleship costs twice that of artillery and so should be noticably better, otherwise why bother?! Hence my reasoning of the extra increase. They do have a counter....enemy bombers, fighters and navy. Bombers most certainly still have their place on carriers as part of a navy since they can reach much further inland than battleships.

I don't know.
Better Battlships make stealth bombers on carrier much less viable.
(since batteship also ignore fighters).
And both of them can be sunk by air units (take out enemy bombers by sunking thier carriers).

4 Stl. bomber on Carrier cost 4x240+180=1140
For that price you could buy 5 Battleships.
And if Battleships would be as good as Bombers...

Anyway, Batteships have other roles then bombarding (naval tanks).

Still, I'll think about it a little.
(something like 12/rof2, cost 240 batteship and 8/rof2 cruiser)

quote: With poorer bombardment stats than artillery or bombers why bother with a navy or even dealing with an enemy navy when it starts bombarding your shores?

Becuse you need navy against enemy navy, then can still be usable for bombing (even with slightly lowe bombard rating then artillery). And leting enmy battships take out you infrastructure is never a good option.

quote: No, as a result of the increase a frigate would change from 2,1,2 to 3,1,2 whilst an ironclad is 4,1,2. A man of war would be the same as the ironclad, but then, maybe it should as it is the English UU after all and arguably the worst UU in the game.

Bombard str. of 2 is already a powerfull agains enemy ships.
It takes out on average 1hp againt sailing ship or 0.67hp from Ironclad.
Bomb. str. 4 Ironclad takes out 1.33hp against sailing ships and 1hp against Ironclads
MOW takes out on average 1.2hp against sailing ships or 0.86hp from Ironclad.

Since cost ration is 60:90, if you have 3 Frigates and 2 Ironclads, Firgates would do 3hp damage against sailing ships while Ironclads would do 2.67hp (frigate better).
Against Ironclads Firgates would do 2hp damage against sailing ships while Ironclads would do 2hp.

If frigates were with modifier bomb. str. of 3 it would be 3.6hp against sailing ships while Ironclads would do just 2.67hp (frigates 33% more effective).
Against Ironclads they would do 2.57hp damage against sailing ships while Ironclads would do 2hp (Frigates 28% more effective).

So abviously it would pay off to bombard more with such "modified" Frigates.
And nodified MOW would be...

quote: Longevity becomes useful if it comes with Sanitation and Hospitals. If it come under Genetics it tends to be more of a hassle than anything else. By this time your cities should be generally maxed out and all that happens is the city reverts from increasing to starving to increasing to starving, etc, as it cannot manage the 2 pop increase. Still, if you can move the Spaceship parts then....

Instead of leaving them starving just make conscipts from them.
For one size increase you could get 2 Mech. Inf conscripts (worth total 220 shields), which you can use for defense or disband for 55 shields.

As for Spacship Parts is was move for making late game playable (by making it last longer).

Still, I'll thingk about it.
Maybe I put it as MEdiciane, cost 800 wonder (with no extra happiness).

quote: Hmmm. Why have you made musketmen cheaper as well as stronger? Currently i have your settings, but with musketmen as their original price of 60 shields.

Why?
Let's see Medivial Inf. costs 40 shields and has 4/2/1 stats.
Musketmen costs 50 and has 3/4/1 stats.
Similar cost effeciveness.

And makes 4/4/1, cost 50 Musketeer a very valuable unit.

quote: Let me put an example to you: Cossack (6,4,3) v Siphai (8,3,3) Cossack attacks the siphai and has a 6/9 chance of killing the siphai (67%). Siphai attack the cossack and has an 8/12 chance of killing the cossack (67%). So it's fair. If you increase the defence of the cossack to 5 you imbalance this, no? Plus the way you have it the Russians would be better defending with cossacks rather than musketmen.

Maybe you are right.
I could chnage it back.

quote: Do you have them set to defence too?

While setting them for defense gives them short time benefits, on longer run it makes AI build Cossaks instead of Inantry to defense some towns. Pretty weird.

	08-01-2003 04:34									#94
	Got spare money?

Hi again,

I don't really see why you are comparing battleships with bombers as they serve completely different purposes. Firstly bombers have a range of 6 (8 in my mod as i play large maps mostly) and can therefore be used to bomb deep within enemy borders targeting resources or cities. As a result a carrier full of bombers is completely different to a fleet of battleships in what they can achieve, but combined together they should be very devastating.

Battleships are simply like artillery in the sea which can bombard the coastlines of enemy civs, which can not necessarily be very nasty given their poor bombard stats. With this limit in mind they therefore should be very good at doing it otherwise there simply isn't a threat of having an uncontested enemy navy on your doorstep. Unless of course you are playing an Archipelago map and need to travel by sea.

As they stand destroyers, battleships and AEGIS can plug away for hours doing very little to one's coastline, whereas a fleet of bombers can cause real havoc.

You say that unlike bombers which have fighters, they themselves have no antagonists. Well build yourself a navy and go deal with them ship to ship, afterall that should be how they are dealt with, no?

I have been testing:
Battleships at 10,2,3 or 12,2,2.
AEGIS at 6,2,3 or 8,2,2.
Destroyers at 6,1,3 or 8,1,2.

EDIT: to give destroyers correct range of 1!

These both seem to work well and provides an immediate threat that needs to be dealt with, much like if you are being bombed by bombers each round.

Regards ironclads and frigates, i don't feel a comparison between their bombards strengths is particularly relevant as this never happens in any game i've played. If say 3 of your frigates moved and bombarded 2 enemy ironclads, then the next round the ironclads would simply move over and blow you out the sea with a 4 attack to a 2 defence. Why would they bombard the frigates? Assuming the best case scenario, even if the first 2 frigates took a couple of hp off a veteren ironclad and the 3rd one was lucky enough to kill it (3 attack to 4 defence) then the remaining ironclad would move over and boom, minus one frigate. Anyway i hope you get my drift here. If my frigates see ironclads they leg it double quick.

Apart from being cheaper, frigates serve no purpose after ironclads are researched given the stats you use. Even the increase in cost may make very little difference when a city can be producing 25 shields a turn by this time.

Similarly, one cannot compare medieval inf with musketmen as they generally serve completely different purposes for the human and AI. Med inf are an offensive unit and, whilst cheap, are no match for knights and therefore are only built in emergencies where decent units are required quickly. One wouldn't build them instead of musketmen so one cannot compare them. Musketmen are defensive units, or at least that's how they are intended and indeed how the AI uses them. Now with the combat boost given to them (+1 att), which i believe is a good adjustment, i don't see how you can justify a drop in price. MAybe i'm wrong here, i don't know, lol.

Conscripts and Longevity. Well possibly, however, remember each one makes a citizen unhappy and with highly populated cities happiness can be a real problem, especially when in a war under republic or democracy (a likely time for using conscription). Again, this alone doesn't make it worthwhile to build at a cost of 100 shields? as they are always more useful things to build for cheaper, or the Cure for Cancer which is another Genetics Wonder.

Medicine or Sanitation are both possibilities (maybe Medicine is actually better) and yes i have it at 800 shields and no happiness.

Anyway, more discussion which is good. Looking forward to your thoughts.

Cheers

DOc

Oh and i do believe that the rearranging of the spaceship parts to where you have them is indeed very beneficial. I've always had them this way in my mods and it's great. Otherwise all games tend to end with spaceship wins when very little of the modern tech tree has been researched.

Last edited by =DrJambo= on 08-01-2003 at 18:07

	08-01-2003 16:05									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

While there is option for me, to increase bomb str. for Battleship to 12 and Cruiser to 8 (and keeping current costs), I would not increase bomb. str. of Destroyer, since it would lead to much more cost-effective bombard of Destroyer (compared to Battleships and other ships).


As for Musketmen, since it has defense of 4, compared to Pikemen defense of 3, cost of 50 shields was more balancing.

But, now real question it, does increase in attack to 3 is worth of additional 10 shields of cost.
I don't think so, since there are more effective foot-attacking units like Lonbowmen and Med. Infantry, which are also cheaper.

Also, this way I could make Musketeer with 4/4/1, cost 50 stats, which IS balanced, especialy if you compare that to some other UU like Samurai (4/4/2, cost70).

But, maybe, for sake to help AI, I could lower their attack to 2 (and keep 50 cost). But in that case I would still keep attack 4 Musketeer.


As for Frigates, maybe, since I increased effectiveness of Cannons, Bomb. Str. of 3 could be an option, but in that case I would NOT increase bombard str. of Man-O-War too. Having MOW with same bombard Str. as Ironclad could lead to some weird problems.
Hmm... What the h**l! I will increase MOW's bombard to 4. This should net really make great problems, while it would be 50% more bombard effective then Ironclad, it will still sink quickly and it's still an UU (this remind me of Immortals attack rate of 4 in ancient era).

Also, I could lower cost of Privateer to 50, since Frigates would get both better attack and much more effective bombard ability (difference between bom. of 2 and 3 is big if used against sailing ships).

Last edited by player1 on 08-01-2003 at 16:56

	08-01-2003 17:08									#96
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

In short, plans for next version are:

Add lethal land for Fighters (it has weak bombard so it's won't make problem).
Something like to bomb12/rof2 to Batteship and bomb8/rof2 to AEGIS Cruiser.

I could put Longevity as Medicine, cost 800 Wonder (with no extra happiness).

Changing Cossaks defense back to 4.

Lower Musktemen attack to 2 (and keep 50 cost). But in that case I would still keep attack 4 Musketeer.

As for Frigates, bomb. str. of 3 for them.
I will increase MOW's bombard to 4 too.
I could lower cost of Privateer to 50 (because of higher power of Frigates).


P.S.
And maybe something about lowering draft and pop-rush happiness to 10.
(I'm have not yet decided, since that makes OK for pop-rush, but powerful for draft)

	08-01-2003 17:58									#97
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by player1 While there is option for me, to increase bomb str. for Battleship to 12 and Cruiser to 8 (and keeping current costs), I would not increase bomb. str. of Destroyer, since it would lead to much more cost-effective bombard of Destroyer (compared to Battleships and other ships).

Possibly, but there is more to figure into the cost of a unit than simply it's bombardment ability. Battleships represent a more complete ship and can arguably destroy two destroyers. Like the AEGIS they also have a bombardment range of 2, which shouldn't be underestimated in its usefulness, and they're more resistant to sub attacks and won't sustain as much damage from bombers/fighters. So, i wouldn't simply base a unit's bombard attack capabilities on it's cost. The most important factor here is that one battleship should be substantially better at bombarding than one destroyer.

The native Civ3 stats have the battleship at 8,2,2 and the destroyer at 6,1,2 which would make the destroyer even more imbalanced in comparison.

quote: Originally posted by player1 As for Musketmen, since it has defense of 4, compared to Pikemen defense of 3, cost of 50 shields was more balancing. But, now real question it, does increase in attack to 3 is worth of additional 10 shields of cost. I don't think so, since there are more effective foot-attacking units like Lonbowmen and Med. Infantry, which are also cheaper. Also, this way I could make Musketeer with 4/4/1, cost 50 stats, which IS balanced, especialy if you compare that to some other UU like Samurai (4/4/2, cost70). But, maybe, for sake to help AI, I could lower their attack to 2 (and keep 50 cost). But in that case I would still keep attack 4 Musketeer.

Very difficult this one. Unfortunately one of the difficulties the Civ3 combat system has is that increases of 1 or 2 points to offensive or defensive ratings at the ancient end of the scale make much more of a difference than they do in the modern age. For example, increasing the musketman's offensive value from 2 to 3 is a 50% improvement, whereas reducing the defence of modern armour from 16 to 14 is a 12.5% reduction. Even thought the increment of the first change is only 1 and the increment of the second is 2!

Anyway i kind of think that musketeers should be 4,4,1. I'm undecided as to whether musketmen should be 2,4,1 or 3,4,1. At 3,4,1 they become very useful for exploring and killing outside cities as nothing else in that time period has higher defence than 3, barring Samurai (which is such a good special unit). At 2,4,1 it really forces the human to be more defensive with them. If they were 2,4,1 i'd definitely have them at 50 shields, but at 3,4,1 the extra usefulness would make me inclined to have them at 60 shields. Remember strong defensive units can be very useful for pillaging as the AI is often loath to attack them especially on mountains and hills. With 3 attack they also become very useful attackers too... a very useful unit in that period.

You may say the knight is exactly that, however, they are 70 shields and because their attack is 4 and defence 3 they're often easily killed by other knights or the much cheaper med infantry.

quote: Originally posted by player1 As for Frigates, maybe, since I increased effectiveness of Cannons, Bomb. Str. of 3 could be an option, but in that case I would NOT increase bombard str. of Man-O-War too. Having MOW with same bombard Str. as Ironclad could lead to some weird problems. Hmm... What the h**l! I will increase MOW's bombard to 4. This should net really make great problems, while it would be 50% more bombard effective then Ironclad, it will still sink quickly and it's still an UU (this remind me of Immortals attack rate of 4 in ancient era).

Yeah, in terms of UU the English one stinks. It's not as if the English even have particularly good traits either... Therefore any increase to the MOW has to be a good thing for game balance.

quote: Originally posted by player1 Also, I could lower cost of Privateer to 50, since Frigates would get both better attack and much more effective bombard ability (difference between bom. of 2 and 3 is big if used against sailing ships).

Yes, i already have my privateers at 50 shields. An interesting thing i'm currently trying out is privateers with a 2,1,2 bombard ability. So unless their threat is countered they can maybe cause some damage to the coastlines although 2,1,2 is really poor and damage is rarely done.

Doc

	08-01-2003 18:06									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

double post, sorry.

look forward to the next version.

Last edited by =DrJambo= on 08-01-2003 at 18:18

	08-01-2003 18:35									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by player1 I could put Longevity as Medicine, cost 800 Wonder (with no extra happiness).

We tried this in the AU mod, and it sometimes makes the AI go for Medicine before Steam Power.

We decided that it's better to put Longevity at Sanitation because 1) the AI will then get Hospitals sooner (unlike the human, the AI usually has enough space between its cities to fit 12+ cities), and 2) Longevity comes slightly later, which is good since some feel it's too powerful that early.

	08-01-2003 18:50									#100
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: The native Civ3 stats have the battleship at 8,2,2 and the destroyer at 6,1,2 which would make the destroyer even more imbalanced in comparison.

Exactly, that why I would leave Destoyer bombard as it is.

And yes, there are other thing then bombard, but when bombing shorelines, it's not much important you attack or defense if tehre are no ships or aircraft nearby.

Plus, Batteship needs to look more fearsome.

With bombard of 8, that would on average give Batteships with just 25% increase in bombard (against 12 defense targets).

quote: We tried this in the AU mod, and it sometimes makes the AI go for Medicine before Steam Power. We decided that it's better to put Longevity at Sanitation because 1) the AI will then get Hospitals sooner (unlike the human, the AI usually has enough space between its cities to fit 12+ cities), and 2) Longevity comes slightly later, which is good since some feel it's too powerful that early.

I'm tord about this one, since Medicine texh just fits too well for Longevity.

Anway, how bad is for AI to delay Steam Power in order to get Medicine? (although it could help with getting Ironclads later)

	08-01-2003 19:17									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: At 3,4,1 they become very useful for exploring and killing outside cities as nothing else in that time period has higher defence than 3, barring Samurai (which is such a good special unit).

Of course the real porbelm is that AI would not know to exploit them.

Just look how bad French AI uses Musketeer is original game (3/4/1, cost 60, has both def. and off. strat).


About Longevity:

Maybe Sanatation would not be bad after all.
You do get HOSPITALS with Sanatation.

	08-01-2003 22:04									#102
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by player1 Add lethal land for Fighters (it has weak bombard so it's won't make problem).

But they are good to kill (damaged) outdated enemy units like musketmen. I like to use them in this role (i have them with lethal land from the start).

So do it !

	09-01-2003 00:33									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

OK!

	10-01-2003 03:06									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Version 1.13 is OUT!

Comments to changes in v1.13

Musketmen attack lowered to original value of 2 (but they still keep price of 50). With attack of 3, human player had big advantage against AI since he could nicely use Musketmen for attacks on open ground, while AI couldn't since Musketmen had no offense AI flag. On the other hand, giving Musketmen offense AI flag would not work well too, since in that case AI would also use them for suicidal attacks on cities (while there are many better and cheaper units for that, like Longbowmen).

But, even in that case, French Musketeer will keep its attack of 4, since with lower attack, it would just not be good offense unit.

Cossaks get their defense lowered back to 4. Testing showed that defense of 5 makes them too much powerful, since it makes them almost as good in defense as in attack.

Frigates get increased bombard strength to 3, while Man-O-War gets bombard strength of 4. This is all done in order to complement their increased attack ratings in last version. This should prove not unbalancing since these units still have poor defense. Since that change made Frigates even more better then Privateers, Privateers get their cost lowered to 50 shields.

In last version I've gone too far with limiting bombard strength of Battleship and AEGIS Cruiser. For that reason, they get slightly higher bombard ratings. Bombard rating of 12 for Battleship and 8 for AEGIS Cruiser.

Fighters get lethal land bombard added. Fighters were used for tactical bombing mission after all, and since they have pretty low bombard rating, this change will not be unbalanced.

Major changes for Longevity Wonder. Since it just doesn't give proper benefits in modern age, I made it available with Sanitation (industrial age) and removed all happiness bonuses. Now it could give some good benefits, especially after Hospitals are built.

NOTE: All changes done in v1.13 are also done in non-PtW version of this MOD.

	10-01-2003 14:04									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Excellent, i like the changes.

Let me know how you think it plays when you get an opportunity.

	13-01-2003 23:18									#106
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I have playtested how government corruption levels affect AI preferences of govts.

I've found that the greatest variety of AI govts could be seen with monarchy set to nuisance and both republic and democracy set to problematic level.

With this setting in the endgame with 14 civs in the game (started with 24 ) some of them was monarchies, some republics, some democracies, and there was 1 communist civ (a huge one).

It was terrible that everybody changed to republic as soon as possible than updated to democracy before this change.

Most notably this change results in much more common AI-AI wars too.

	15-01-2003 21:30									#107
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

There is something that has always bothered me with naval units, both in the stock rules and in the mod. Battleships are the least cost-effective bombard unit available (except AEGIS). Your latest changes make Frigates more cost-effective bombard units than Ironclads, and AEGIS more cost-effective than battleships, which is even more counter-intuitive. I just thought I would point that out, but I have no problem with it, because I believe that good gameplay is more important to Civ than historical accuracy.

On another issue, have you ever seen the AI load cruise missiles into transports? I haven't. If that's true, perhaps you should remove the ability of cruise missiles to get loaded in anything. You could do that by giving them the tactical missile ability. You could prevent them from being loaded into subs by giving subs the additional ability to transport only foot units, and making tactical nukes also foot units. (Helicopters wouldn't be able to transport nukes because they can't transport tactical missiles).

	15-01-2003 23:31									#108
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Worse that AI don't seem to recognize the usefulness of cruise missiles in crushing garrison units defending cities.
This is the only way to precision-bomb just garrison units.

IMO precision bombing ability of planes should work as the attacker would choose whether to attack buildings or units or pop.

AI sometimes use cruise missiles to attack tile improvements. What a waste !

	15-01-2003 23:43									#109
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by alexman There is something that has always bothered me with naval units, both in the stock rules and in the mod. Battleships are the least cost-effective bombard unit available (except AEGIS). Your latest changes make Frigates more cost-effective bombard units than Ironclads, and AEGIS more cost-effective than battleships, which is even more counter-intuitive. I just thought I would point that out, but I have no problem with it, because I believe that good gameplay is more important to Civ than historical accuracy.

I don't see real problem with it since it's just barely less cost effective in bombard.
It makes up that in good atatck rating.

In cases when you are the one who makes offensive it's best that you have plenty of Battleships.

Less efectivness then Destoyer makes up in much better defense rating (better protection from Bombers), while weaker cost effecviness then AEGIS makes up in it's better cost effectivness in attack (AEGIS 12 vs BShip 18) and earlier availablity.

As for Frigate vs Ironclad problem remember that Ironclad has good defense rating while Frigate does not.

So even with less cost-effecive bombard rating Ironclad would do better damage to Frigates then Frigates to Ironclads.

In fact, I just calculated that Ironclad would do 55% more damage to Frigate when bomabrding then Frigate could do to Ironclad (and price difference is 50%)

quote: Originally posted by alexman Have you ever seen the AI load cruise missiles into transports? I haven't. If that's true, perhaps you should remove the ability of cruise missiles to get loaded in anything. You could do that by giving them the tactical missile ability. You could prevent them from being loaded into subs by giving subs the additional ability to transport only foot units, and making tactical nukes also foot units. (Helicopters wouldn't be able to transport nukes because they can't transport tactical missiles).

I think that real problem here is that for players ability to transport Crusie Missiles in some way "sacred cow" so I don't
think that removing it would be good option (even if it hinders AI in some minor way).

It would be just like removing Artillery from game in order to help AI.


P.S.
By the way has anybody seen that AI airlifts cruise missiles?

	15-01-2003 23:49									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by player1 I think that real problem here is that for players ability to transport Crusie Missiles in some way "sacred cow"

I don't believe it was Firaxis' intention to have CMs be able to be loaded in transports, otherwise they would have added the "load" flag by now. In any case, if you want to be able to transport CMs, you might want to make submarines and AEGIS able to carry them instead of transports. It's more realistic, and it is just as unfair to the AI as allowing transports to carry cruise missiles. (You can fire a CM from a transport in the game, can't you?)

PS. No idea about airlifting CMs.

	16-01-2003 00:05									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by player1 As for Frigate vs Ironclad problem remember that Ironclad has good defense rating while Frigate does not.

I was thinking more of their bombard ability against ground units and improvements. As it is now, the player is encouraged to build Frigates for bombardment (more cost-effective) and Ironclads for naval combat, but in real life it was the other way around, wasn't it? I'm not sure.

	16-01-2003 00:12									#112
	Suffering from ads?

But Cannons are lurking from the cost.

Ready to damage low defense Frigates.

And your other naval units to finish them off.

So while they have net bombard raing, they are still vunerable.

	16-01-2003 13:31									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

If there is a proof that AI doesn't know to airlift Cruise Missiles, I may be inclined to remove that change.

But, as far as it goes with transports, I would keep that ability, exempt if Firaxis fixes that in some next patch.

Transporing Cr. Missiles by transports is far more fair to AI then making Cr. Missiles launchable from Cruisers or Destroyers.

	16-01-2003 14:41									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

alexman,

I tried to fire a CM from a transport last night and couldn't, so i see no problem with the transport ability of CMs.

Furthermore, like i mentioned in an earlier post, one cannot simply base units' bombardment ability on their cost alone. I'll always be inclined to build an ironclad for bombarding or attacking even though they cost more. Why?

Because they are less likely to be destroyed when attacked. Remember the AI knows where all your ships are whether it can see them or not, so frigates based off the coast of an enemy don't tend to last very long. Furthermore, take for example a city that is producing 50 shields/turn, which is not inconceivable in the industrial age. It'll be able to produce an ironclad OR frigate in 2 turns. What will you pick then?

This example is the prime reason why my ironclads have the disadvantage of poorer movement rates in the ocean. Thus making the frigate still a desirable option in the industrial period.

In fact as the game progresses and the production of a city becomes greater, the more the cost value of units becomes less of a factor. So i wouldn't base any real arguments over the cost effectiveness of part of a unit compared to another. Take the whole unit as the basis for comparison cost-wise. The ironclad is better than the frigate and the battleship better than the destroyer.

Obviously the difference becomes far more noticable in poor production cities, but then, will you really be building battleships, etc in these?? Not likely.

	24-01-2003 23:43									#115
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I've found a quite unimportant bug which also exists in standard rules.

The explore command is enabled for the tactical nuke unit which is totally useless, no one would ever go to explore the map with nuke missile launchers i think.

player1 you might have to fix this small bug in next version.

	25-01-2003 00:22									#116
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Thanks for bug report.

It will be fixed in new version.

Probably, since for now I have no other plans in this time, when new PtW patch comes out.


P.S.
I think that similar error exsisted in 1.01 for Cruise Missiles.

	25-01-2003 00:28									#117
	Suffering from ads?

Be sure to send same thing to Bug-list thread in order to make sure that Firaxis will fix it in next patch.

	01-02-2003 21:17									#118
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Plans for next version:

Removing Explore command from Tactical Nukes (stupid bug).
Changing Militry Academy to need 5 Barracks built.
(since we removed need for victorious army, this could add some flavor)


When will be next update?
I don't know. Since these changes alone not make up for need of new version (too minor), I'll wait for some time unitl new PtW patch gets out or until I find out some other things that need to be changed.

	01-02-2003 21:30									#119
	Got spare money?

Another thing.

What everybody thinks about making Settlers and Workers capable of Airlifting?
(since I have mixed feeling about that)

	02-02-2003 02:15									#120
	Increase Your PM Length

I think I recall a bug where having Sun Tzu's (or pyramids) could make it impossible to get the game to count you as having more than one Barracks (or granary) if you only had one continent. So you should probably test that before putting in the Mil Academy requirement (though I think it is a good idea ).

I don't know about airlifting Workers & Settlers. They are pop units, but it would be nice to be able to airlift em, especially Settlers when you're fighting a war on another continent.