01-04-2003 15:24									#31
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ephesos Navigation should also be required because otherwise, the other naval techs become a bit far-fetched. It's simple logic, really.

As I've said before, if Navigation is viewed as an ability to navigate using the tools of Columbus's and Magellan's era, it is perfectly reasonable that it could be skipped by a civilization that doesn't start navigating the oceans until better tools are available. The logic is much the same as the reason why Chivalry isn't a prerequisite for Military Tradition.

	01-04-2003 18:32									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

My grain of salt...

Navigation is certainly 'mandatory' if you play on separated continents (see AU207) and even on archipelagos.
However, on pangea ?

The problem I see is that the AI researches it whatever the land mass is. Therefore, you can easily lead in techs only because the AI researches 'useless' techs, which is after all an unfair advantage for human players.

If possible, I would regroup all the 'seafaring' techs together and make them NOT mandatory (including the GLighthouse), but the 'older' tech should be a prerequisite for the 'newest one', and the Lesser W GL the prerequisite for all, of course. Accordingly to the map setting, the player AND the AI could choose not to research them.

If you follow my reasining, then I would also do the same for all 'military' and 'happiness' techs. And why not the 'political' ones?
For instance, Monarchy after Despotism (ancient times), then Republic (middle ages, not ancient times), then Democracy and Communism (industrial times).

However, I really don't know how much 'tweaking' of the programme is necessary.

	02-04-2003 00:08									#33
	Inflate your Upload Space

I voted "almost always."

I'm a wonder hog, and so I want Magellan's. I won't be too upset if I don't get it, but I'll certainly try for it if I can.

Re: killer AI civs in AU207...

Dunno. Mongolia sure had a shot (based on terrain). The Mongols, however, have terrible traits (in the hands of the AI). The AI is bad at war, and doesn't use Exp. effectively (never build additional scouts). Therefore, Mil/Exp is a bad combo for an AI civ, helping to negate the nice land Mongolia has. They did manage to build the Pyramids, and are a relatively strong civ ~500AD in my game, though.

By the way, I haven't seen the "other continent" yet, so I cannot discuss those civs.

Anyway, it is my impression that the best "killer AI" civs are actually good "builder" style civs that are forced into conflict + have good land. Stick France on a nice patch of land, next to the Mongols on so-so land, and my bet is that Joany will end up whoopin' Temujin's ass.

The AI is best with traits that don't require a certain strategy to maximize (industrious, commercial, scientific, religious, I think in that order). The AI doesn't have specific strategy - it's a generalist. So give it a generalist civ (France = ind/comm) but put it in a situation that likely will result in warfare against a disadvantaged neighbor or two, and you've got, IMO, the seeds of a KAI.

Rarely, if ever, have I seen a "warrior" civ like the Mongols become a KAI, even if they fight. Usually, I watch as the "builder" AIs fight off or even wipe out the pesky warmongers. Countless times I've seen Bismarck or Shaka get themselves killed by Joan or Cleo.

-Arrian

	02-04-2003 00:39									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

*** Completely off-topic ***

Arrian, I agree with your comments on KAIs. I think two ingredients for KAIs are: economic/builder traits, and aggressiveness. Germany and Persia therefore are typically KAIs. China and France are only KAIs if another civ pushes them into war, whereby they can gain extra land without having to be "aggressive" themselves. Egypt, with an aggressiveness of 3 somehow always ends up on top too, probably because it feels very powerful once it produces a bunch of cheap Horsemen.

*** AU207 Spoiler ***

I really wanted a pure warmongering civ (Mongols) for AU207, but this was not a good decision. Even on Standard maps the Zulus, Mongols and Vikings are just horrible at keeping a lead, so on a Huge map where building is even more critical (and warmongering less effective) those civs will never reach true KAI status.


Dominae

	02-04-2003 01:12									#35
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by nbarclay As I've said before, if Navigation is viewed as an ability to navigate using the tools of Columbus's and Magellan's era, it is perfectly reasonable that it could be skipped by a civilization that doesn't start navigating the oceans until better tools are available

Excuse me, but that doesn't make sense. How can a civ progress to newer navigation tools before it masters the older ones. It would be like if in real life Babylon had skipped abacuses and tried to invent computers. Seriously, how can you expect a civ to make the leap from galleys to galleons in one fell swoop?

	02-04-2003 01:42									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ephesos Excuse me, but that doesn't make sense. How can a civ progress to newer navigation tools before it masters the older ones. It would be like if in real life Babylon had skipped abacuses and tried to invent computers. Seriously, how can you expect a civ to make the leap from galleys to galleons in one fell swoop?

They don't. Caravels come with Astronomy, which is an indirect prerequisite for Magnetism, so civs always have a period when they can build caravels before they can build galleons. They just don't always have a period when they can travel the oceans safely with those caravels.

And your example of Babylon and computers would be like researching Magnetism without researching Physics and its prerequisites first. If ancient Babylon had had electronics, the relevant materials sciences, and so forth, an absence of abacuses would not have been a significant obstacle to developing computers, any more than an absence of knights in a society's history would prevent it from developing cavalry. As long as the new tools stem from essentially independent technologies from the older ones rather than building on the principles of the older ones, a society that becomes sufficiently evolved without ever having developed the older tools can jump directly to the newer ones.

Nathan

	03-04-2003 01:16									#37
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by nbarclay They don't. Caravels come with Astronomy, which is an indirect prerequisite for Magnetism, so civs always have a period when they can build caravels before they can build galleons. They just don't always have a period when they can travel the oceans safely with those caravels.

Okay, okay, I screwed up and forgot part of the tech tree.

Nonetheless, wouldn't a civ unable to use caravels safely be too scared of / superstitious about the ocean to bother going into it (that is, until the right insane inventor came along).

Yes, I realize the Babylon example was a bit screwed up. Sorry. I hope I got a point across though. I think it's simply too hard for a civ to go to advanced tools before mastering basic ones. (i.e. no destroyers before Navigation, etc.).