 |
| |
|
|
jshelr
|
 |
pittsburgh
Apr 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
(Posted in "general" but moved here on recommendation.)
This note is an academic quibble with the notion that we are being fair to the poor AI in the AU mod. We are not IMO. 
I approve overwhelmingly of the changes in the AU mod. However, I believe the idea that the mod has evened the playing field for the AI, even a little, is not correct. The new mod empowers the human player, particularly the warmonger. In short, me. That's why I like it. 
My case rests on the SS build. In the basic game, while the human player is pounding his or her way to domination, a single civ, often separated by geography, can manage to research to the SS. This presents, as we all know, a critical time requirement for domination and strategic tradeoffs about the type of win to aim for. Go to slow and get stuck out of democracy and you might fail to achieve domination, not because any civ defeats you but because the SS clock runs out.
With the new SS requirements in the mod, the time to achieve domination has been materially lengthened. This reduced risks for the warmonger, especially on higher levels. Moreover, the improvement of the modern era wonders, which humans are more likely to get, further tilts the playing field in the human direction. I bet winning percentages go up visibly on deity and that emperor, like monarch used to be, will now approach 100% wins (if you survive the bad starts) for many of the players that post on these boards.
This is emphatically not a whine. I will likely use the new mod almost exclusively. Great work was done and many of the changes do make the AI more competitive. This is sort of like the old Roman games, however. The Christians may be a bit better armed, but we know who's going to get eaten. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
An interesting theory, jshelr, and thanks for posting it. I had never thought of that. The SS changes were made to add strategic depth to the modern ages, not to help the AI.
The real problem is, of course, that the AI never wins by domination. If it did, the delayed SS would be equally helpful to domination-aspiring AI empires as it is to humans. If we manage to get AI civs that win by domination, we might get humans that have a harder time building the SS before the AI gobbles up the land.
However, I would be willing to reconsider the SS change, just because it doesn't directly help the AI (and because it changes modern-age strategy, even if it deepens it).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Franses
|
|
This is a great mod. Like many others I like it a lot. But I made a remarkable observation.
I just played a very interesting game with the mod on emperor level. The map was on random and it turned out to be all small islands with a rather bad starting position for myself. This meant I had to hang out for a while and for the first time ever I had to do so until the beginning of modern times (even though I am a builder most games were finished long before that until now).
Then everybody started to make war with everybody else which gave me the opportunity to add some extra ground to my territory. I took part in a coalition and was at war with three of the eight civ's, two of them being in the lead. Now what was remarkable was that none of the civ's (except the Korean's who where in my coalition) used air units. IMO, in Island maps air units are often essential to kill off the ships that dare come into your range.
Any idea why these mighty civ's did not use air units? I myself can not find anything in the mod that would explain such behavior. Or was this all a coincidence. What do you think?
PS: This game also proved jshelr's point. With SS I certainly would have lost the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Franses
|
|
My experience with (CTP) PBEM games is that they take several years to end. To long for me.
However, I think with PTW it is possible to start on-line and then switch to PBEM (and perhaps back again?). That might be a nice solution. If you are willing to try that I am definitly in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
I've never noticed easier dominations on AU, but I never pursue that victory path. If the changes have indeed made a human win easier, then maybe there's another way to add some fun into the modern era.
There have been various mods which have tried to fix the space race, the most recent that comes to mind is at
this link.
EDIT: There are two files, be sure to grab both if interested.
It's for vanilla Civ III, but worth checking out.
As for incorporating it into AU... I don't know, the more involved people can decide... it adds a touch of realism, which I think is one of the goals (not top priority, and never at AI expense, if I recall)... but it doesn't seem to help the AI, which is the primary goal (doesn't seem to hurt it either).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Franses
|
|
Sounds good to me. This may indeed help them building air units again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
OTOH, this is starting to become too much change from stock. |
Starting to get that snowball-rolling-down-a-mountain felling?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
The following group of changes does not directly help the AI, and is by no means minimal change from stock, but definitely adds strategic depth. As I see it, the changes are all-or-nothing, as keeping one change and not another would unbalance the game.
So the question is, do we keep the changes, or not? Or does anyone have any other suggestions? Please comment! 
code:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APOLYTON UNIVERSITY MOD 1.13 BOMBARD UNIT CHANGES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviating from its goal to make as few changes as possible, the AU mod
makes several changes to units with the bombard ability. This document
attempts to justify those changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a few problems with the stock version of Civ3 when it comes to
bombard units.
1) Ironclads, Destroyers, and even Frigates, are more cost-effective
bombard units than Battleships.
2) There is no reason to build Stealth Fighters, as two of them cost the
same as one Stealth Bomber, but do less damage and have double
maintenance costs.
3) Carriers are relatively weak for their cost, because airpower is not
lethal to ships
4) It is generally more effective to build ground units than to invest
in bombard units.
SOLUTIONS
---------
We increase ROF of Battleships and AEGIS by 1. This balances the bombard
cost-effectiveness of naval units, as shown in the following table:
===ORIGINAL===
Unit Str ROF Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%BB)
-------------------------------------------------------
Frigate 2 2 6 0.33 125
Man-O-War 3 2 6 0.46 173
Ironclad 4 2 8 0.57 161
Destroyer 6 2 12 0.75 141
Battleship 8 2 20 0.89 100
AEGIS 4 2 16 0.57 80
===AU MOD===
Unit Str ROF Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%BB)
-------------------------------------------------------
Frigate 2 2 6 0.33 83
Man-O-War 3 2 6 0.46 115
Ironclad 4 2 9 0.57 95
Destroyer 6 2 12 0.75 94
Battleship 8 3 20 1.33 100
AEGIS 4 3 16 0.86 80
Tables assume a 10-strength defender
Value = Percentage of cost-effectiveness of battleship.
The problem is that these increased ROF values make Battleships equally
effective bombard units as Bombers. As a result, if no other changes
are made, the AI seems to build less Bombers.
To maintain balance between air and naval units, we increase the ROF of
all air units by 1. This makes Bombers more effective than Battleships
again, and all bombard units more effective combined-arms elements.
The new problem is that air units are now too powerful against naval
units, which do not get terrain or fortification defensive bonuses. The
solution is to increase the defense strength of all naval units by 50%.
To keep naval combat unchanged, we increase the attack strength of naval
units by 50% also.
The increased defense of naval units almost offsets the increased ROF of
Battleships and air units, so the net result is more effective bombard
units against ground troops.
The ROF changes makes fighters a moderate bombard threat to weak units.
Still, Jet Fighters are not as cost-effective bombard units as regular
Fighters, so increase of their strength by 1 to fix this problem. To
establish fighters as a valid bombard unit, as opposed to being used
strictly for Air Superiority, add the lethal sea bombard ability to
all fighters. In addition, add the lethal land bombard ability to the
F-15 and Stealth Fighter. Fighters are now effective units for killing
weak targets, so add the AI air bombard flag to all of them. This new
ability makes it worth building Stealth Fighters in addition to Stealth
Bombers, and Carriers with Fighters become a naval offensive threat.
The following table shows the cost-effectiveness of each air unit in
bombarding:
===ORIGINAL===
Unit Str ROF Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
-------------------------------------------------------
Fighter 2 1 8 0.17 16
Bomber 8 3 10 1.33 100
Jet Ftr 2 1 10 0.17 13
F-15 4 2 10 0.57 43
St. Ftr 4 2 12 0.57 36
St. Bbr 8 3 24 1.33 42
Cruise 16 3 6 1.85 231*
Table assumes a 10-strength defender
===AU MOD AGAINST GROUND===
Unit Str ROF Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
-------------------------------------------------------
Fighter 2 2 8 0.33 23
Bomber 8 4 10 1.78 100
Jet Ftr 3 2 10 0.46 26
F-15 4 3 10 0.86 48*
St. Ftr 4 3 12 0.86 40*
St. Bbr 8 4 24 1.78 42
Cruise 16 4 6 2.46 231*
Table assumes a 10-strength defender
===AU MOD AGAINST SHIPS===
Unit Str ROF Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
-------------------------------------------------------
Fighter 2 2 8 0.24 21*
Bomber 8 4 10 1.39 100
Jet Ftr 3 2 10 0.33 24*
F-15 4 3 10 0.63 45*
St. Ftr 4 3 12 0.63 38*
St. Bbr 8 4 24 1.39 42
Cruise 16 4 6 2.06 247*
Table assumes a 15-strength defender to reflect naval changes
Str = Bombard Strength
ROF = Rate of fire
Cost = shield cost / 10
Dmg = expected damage in HP
Value = Percentage of cost-effectiveness of bomber.
* = lethal bombard
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaveMcW
|
|
With lethal bombard fighters, why would anyone build cruise missiles?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
As usual, I'm reticent to accept any changes that deviate significantly from stock Civ3.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
-> The AI still sometimes builds 7-6-1 Guerillas, even with 8-10-1 Infantry available. Why?
|
You're sure these are builds and not upgrades?
Could it be some sort of cost or time-required "analysis" by the AI?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
The problem with the Guerilla->Infantry upgrade is that anything that is supposed to fall under the umbrella-category "Guerilla-upgradeable" now upgrades to Infantry if the civ has Rubber (for example, Medieval Infantry upgrade to Infantry). I don't think this was the intended use of Infantry (or Guerilla).
Maybe Guerillas build orders are hard-coded to accentuate the differences between stock Civ3 and PTW. Just a thought...
Dominae
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-2002 03:23
) at a nuclear sub , .....
|