AU mod: The Statue of Zeus

[ducki]

EnduringBlue - I like the idea of Ivory as strategic, but would that make it strategic AND luxury, or just strategic?
If both, then we get the added benefit of less AI unhappiness(and therefore less entertainers) I think.
If it can only be one or the other, then the scarcity of luxuries would just be worse.

Nice thinking.

[EnduringBlue]

I just rechecked the editor, and I would like to revise my suggestion. You're right, Ducki, in that only one category (luxury, bonus, or strategic) can be applied to each resource and making it strategic would remove its happiness effect.

HOWEVER

#1 Ivory can have its appearance ratio adjusted. I just generated and compared several maps using this option and it appears to be valid. This might be a good option if consensus is that part of the imbalance of ToZ is the reg C3C scarcity of ivory.

Or, idea#2, you could change/add the prereq for ToZ from a resource to an underutilized ancient era tech so as to reduce the amount of time during which ToZ would be dominant in any given scenario for a human player. this could also be 2 fixes in one within the scope of the AU mod mandate.

I've read enough of the other threads to think changes to other unit strengths are already going to occur, and knocking out the Anc Cav-generating-wonder might push the overall unit changes over the edge to where early game may be very different from a regular version C3C game.

[Tarquinius]

You can also make Ivory a strategic resource, and make a current bonus resource a luxury.
I propose tobacco, because it seems quite useless to me. (only +1 trade) This way you will keep 8 luxuries, and have ivory as a strategic resource for the SOZ (and maybe some other things)
It will change the impact of the game a lot though, I am not sure whether it is too much or not.

[sabrewolf]

before we change strategic, luxury and bonus resources, let's just stick to the less extreme measures.
IF we change the requirements for SoZ, then take horses.

but i still prefer leaving it as it is a weakening it...

[nbarclay]

I think weakening the SoZ but leaving the resource requirement alone is by far the best solution. As I've noted before, there are some at least somewhat interesting strategic issues involved in the ivory requirement. The ivory requirement also adds a bit of extra variety to the game, reducing the likelihood of ruts in which players either almost always try to build it or almost never do. Given those facts, I don't view a change as fundamental as removing a resource requirement as justified.

I think the most transparent thing that could be done to make Ancient Cavalry less overwhelming is to get rid of their extra hit point Since what would be taken away is itself an anomaly from how units normally work, that change might even make the game feel more normal rather than more moddish.

Coupling that with either adding a hundred shields to the cost or reducing the frequency of Ancient Cavalry from every five turns to every seven should result in a pretty good overall balance for the SoZ. In the short term, players could get more punch building conventional units and going ahead and attacking rather than waiting to build the SoZ and then waiting for it to produce enough Ancient Cavalry to form the core of an attack. But in the longer term, the SoZ would far more than pay for itself. Thus, even if the human player knows he's the only one with ivory, the question of how to fit the SoZ into the overall strategy would not be a no-brainer.

Such a composite solution would have only a relatively small effect on the feel of the game. The SoZ would still require the same things, and it would still do basically the same things. It would just do them in a less powerful way.

In contrast, the question of whether or not the SoZ "should" require ivory strikes me as a matter of taste. And as far as I am concerned, changes related essentially just to matters of taste do not belong in the AU Mod.

Nathan

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The ivory requirement also adds a bit of extra variety to the game, reducing the likelihood of ruts in which players either almost always try to build it or almost never do.

This is an excellent point.

[lockstep]

A few remarks: IMO, eliminating a wonder or changing the nature of a resource from luxury to strategic aren't changes suitable for the AU mod.

On with the argument.

Originally posted by nbarclay
I think weakening the SoZ but leaving the resource requirement alone is by far the best solution. As I've noted before, there are some at least somewhat interesting strategic issues involved in the ivory requirement.

The 'strategic factors' you mentioned before were essentialy a) securing an ivory source that is somewhat distant from your starting location and b) coping with an AI that has the Statue of Zeus because you didn't have a chance to secure ivory. a) is - IMO - a rather minor point, and b) just means coping with extremely bad luck of the draw - nothing I'd call 'strategy'.

I think the most transparent thing that could be done to make Ancient Cavalry less overwhelming is to get rid of their extra hit point ... Coupling that with either adding a hundred shields to the cost or reducing the frequency of Ancient Cavalry from every five turns to every seven should result in a pretty good overall balance for the SoZ.

I agree with you insofar as I view the SoZ as overpowered, too (besides from the ivory issue), and that a combination of two of the three changes you mentioned seem to be about right to rebalance 'costs and benefits' of this wonder. Personally, I'd rather leave AC's +1 hitpoint alone and go with a SoZ shield cost increase plus reduced AC frequency, but this is nothing to tough it out.

In contrast, the question of whether or not the SoZ "should" require ivory strikes me as a matter of taste. And as far as I am concerned, changes related essentially just to matters of taste do not belong in the AU Mod.

SoZ's ivory requirement strikes me as a matter of bad gameplay, and changes related to better gameplay surely do belong in the AU mod.

BTW, I find your rationale for removing Ancient Cavalry's hitpoint bonus rather interesting:

Since what would be taken away is itself an anomaly from how units normally work, that change might even make the game feel more normal rather than more moddish.

Replace 'units' with 'Great Wonders', and you have yet another rationale for a SoZ that doesn't require ivory.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by lockstep

The 'strategic factors' you mentioned before were essentialy a) securing an ivory source that is somewhat distant from your starting location and b) coping with an AI that has the Statue of Zeus because you didn't have a chance to secure ivory. a) is - IMO - a rather minor point, and b) just means coping with extremely bad luck of the draw - nothing I'd call 'strategy'.

The ivory requirement can, in particular games, interplay with a number of strategic choices: scouting priorities, REXing priorities, the building of road networks for trade, and the timing and extent of wars. Granted, the ivory requirement is more often uninteresting in its strategic dimensions (since ivory is usually either fairly readily available or not available at all), but the strategic dimensions can be rather considerable when they do exist.

I'm also skeptical of the value of removing the ivory requirement in terms of deepening strategy. The basic argument in favor of removing the requirement is that it would put the SoZ in play for every civ in every game. But would that really improve the game's strategic depth?

The Pyramids are a very powerful wonder, yet on Emperor, about the only time they ever add strategic depth for human players in SP is when we capture them (or, in C3C, when we get an ultra-early SGL). Why? Because competing for the Pyramids is not really practical. The benefits are quite large, but the chance of getting the wonder without a completely unacceptable sacrifice to REXing is negligible, so few of us even try. (At least that's the strong impression I get.) If the SoZ proves similarly hard to get with every civ in the game competing for it, where is the improved strategic depth?

Alternatively, suppose the SoZ doesn't prove especially hard to get if human players really want it because AIs tend to have higher priorities. That would make a fairly powerful extra toy available for warmongers in every game rather than just some games. But would that be a good thing or a bad thing? Do we really want to increase how often human players are encouraged to adopt warmonger rather than builder tactics in the early game?

There is a narrow window in between where the SoZ would be available enough to add strategic depth but not so readily available as to tilt the balance significantly toward warmongering on a regular basis. And if experimentation with a resourceless SoZ can show that the change lands in that range, I might be willing to reconsider. But right now, the idea that eliminating the ivory requirement would improve strategic depth at all seems almost purely theoretical from where I sit.

Incidentally, the ivory requirement also helps keep AU games more similar to each other for comparision purposes since the same relatively limited set of civs is eligible for the SoZ in everyone's game. Without the ivory requirement, we could easily have situations where one player has a neighbor get the SoZ and another has a civ on the other side of the world get it. Granted, the same has always been true with other wonders, but the SoZ strikes me as a much more clear and direct threat than any other wonder a neighbor might get.

SoZ's ivory requirement strikes me as a matter of bad gameplay, and changes related to better gameplay surely do belong in the AU mod.

Your concepts of "bad gameplay" and "better gameplay" strike me as essentially purely matters of taste rather than matters of objective fact. From one perspective, having one wonder that works differently from the others is bad. From another perspective, it adds a bit of extra flavor to the game.

In my view, the real problem with the SoZ is that it is overpowered. In human hands, it leads to relatively easy romps over neighbors without a lot of investment in troops. In the hands of a neighboring AI, it poses a very serious threat.

That problem, in turn, greatly magnifies the importance of the ivory requirement. The presence of ivory becomes a huge advantage, while not having ivory when a neighbor does becomes a major liability. But the high importance of ivory is a symptom of deeper problems that would still be there without the requirement. Without the ivory requirement, the SoZ would still be just as overwhelming in the hands of human players and just as dangerous in the hands of a nearby AI.

From that perspective, I view fixing the problem of the wonder's excessive power as also fixing the problem of making the presence or absence of ivory too important. If balance is good, a civ with ivory would have only a modest advantage over one without rather than an overwhelming advantage, so what is objectively "bad" about the requiremnt in the stock game would no longer be a serious issue. As long as the impact of the presence or absence of ivory is not out of line with the impact of countless other factors related to starting position - bonus resources near the starting position; access to luxuries for happiness; access to strategic resources; presence or absence of rivers; the advantages of grassland and disadvantages of jungles and desert; what neighbors you end up with; and so forth - any claims that the ivory requirement for SoZ makes ivory too important are nothing more than a matter of subjective taste.

Replace 'units' with 'Great Wonders', and you have yet another rationale for a SoZ that doesn't require ivory.

Note that I said "might even," not "would." I was never trying to argue that the fact that the extra hit point is unusual is, in and of itself, a reason to remove it. I was just pointing out that the fact that the extra hit point is unusual would tend to work against a moddish feel to removing it. That working against might even, in the eyes of some, make the modified rules seem more normal than the default rules. That mitigating factor is why I like the idea of removing the extra hit point better than I like other changes we could make to tone down the power of the SoZ.

A similar argument can be made for why eliminating the ivory requirement for the SoZ would not create nearly as much of a moddish feel as other types of tinkering with resource requirements would. But while that is a good reason to think that eliminating the requirement would not destroy the feel of the game, I don't view it as a sound argument for why the change should be viewed as a good thing.

I contend that the burden of proof is on those who want to eliminate the requirement to show that the benefits of doing so are sufficient to justify a deviation from the default rules. So far, all the arguments I remember seeing in support of such a change seem to come down to one of three things:

1) As a matter of personal taste, people don't like having one wonder depend on a luxury resource when others do not.

2) The requirement makes ivory too important.

3) People believe that being theoretically able to compete for the SoZ in every game would translate into more interesting strategic choices.

I reject the first line of reasoning as incompatible with the purpose of the AU Mod. The second, I view as a problem with the wonder itself being too powerful; with that cured, the importance of ivory is not out of line with other factors that affect how good or bad starting positions are. As for the third, I have serious doubts as to how well the theoretical benefits would translate into practice (as noted above) and it will take experimental evidence to overcome those doubts.

Nathan

[lockstep]

Hmm ... I'll try to keep my answers shorter.

Originally posted by nbarclay
The Pyramids are a very powerful wonder, yet on Emperor, about the only time they ever add strategic depth for human players in SP is when we capture them (or, in C3C, when we get an ultra-early SGL). Why? Because competing for the Pyramids is not really practical ... If the SoZ proves similarly hard to get with every civ in the game competing for it, where is the improved strategic depth?

This is not a critcism of a modified SoZ, but of Civ3's general gameplay on Emperor and above.

Alternatively, suppose the SoZ doesn't prove especially hard to get if human players really want it because AIs tend to have higher priorities. That would make a fairly powerful extra toy available for warmongers in every game rather than just some games.

As I already said, I agree that the SoZ needs to be toned down so that it is not that powerful.

Incidentally, the ivory requirement also helps keep AU games more similar to each other for comparision purposes since the same relatively limited set of civs is eligible for the SoZ in everyone's game.

And predictability of which civs are likely to build a specific wonder is a good thing? I want to play an epic game, not sort of a pre-scripted scenario.

Your concepts of "bad gameplay" and "better gameplay" strike me as essentially purely matters of taste rather than matters of objective fact.

I regard as bad gameplay - wonder availability by luck of the draw - what you regard as matter of taste. 'Objective fact' is something we both should strive for.

In my view, the real problem with the SoZ is that it is overpowered ... Without the ivory requirement, the SoZ would still be just as overwhelming in the hands of human players and just as dangerous in the hands of a nearby AI.

Yes, but at least the nearby AI would have got the SoZ despite my technical possibility to build this wonder.

(E)liminating the ivory requirement for the SoZ would not create nearly as much of a moddish feel as other types of tinkering with resource requirements would. But while that is a good reason to think that eliminating the requirement would not destroy the feel of the game, I don't view it as a sound argument for why the change should be viewed as a good thing.

I didn't say it was a sound argument - only a rationale very similar to the one you brought forward regarding the AC hitpoint change.

I contend that the burden of proof is on those who want to eliminate the requirement to show that the benefits of doing so are sufficient to justify a deviation from the default rules.

As I said above, making a Great Wonder available by luck of the draw - and a luxury resource requirement is essentially just that - is, in my opinion, bad gameplay and justifies a deviation from stock rules. Obviously, you view SoZ's ivory requirement either as good idea or at least not as bad enough to overcome your general disinclination to rule changes.

[sabrewolf]

how about a vote?
the options seem quite clear.

let me try to sum up
A) make SoZ more expensive (300? 350? 400?)
B) remove ivory requirement
C) replace ivory with horses requirement
D) change frequency of output (7?)
E) remove the extra hitpoint of the ancient cavalry

have i forgotton something?
i'm not allowed to vote. but if i could, it would be
yes: A (300g), D (every 7 turns), E
no: B, C

[lockstep]

Regarding the vote: alexman (the 'father' of the AU mod) should be back in a view days and can mark any proposal as 'under consideration'. A vote should be held about a week later.

Regarding the options you proposed: This is about what I had in mind - perhaps without the horse requirement, because it was really unpopular in the discussions.

[lockstep]

Hmm ... I can't edit alexman's posts to mark a proposal as 'under consideration', but at least I can bump the relevant thread. Also, arguments for and against specific changes have been stated, and, as sabrewolf said, the options (at least the ones somewhat suitable to the AU mod) are quite clear. So here goes:

The following proposal is under consideration:

1. Yes/No: Remove the Statue of Zeus' ivory requirement.
2. EDIT: Yes/No: Move the SoZ from Mathematics to Construction.
3. Yes/No: Increase SoZ's shield cost from 200 to 300.
4. Yes/No: Make the SoZ produce Ancient Cavalry only every 7 (instead of every 5) turns.
5. Yes/No: Remove Ancient Cavalry's +1 hitpoint bonus.

AU mod panel members will have the opportunity to caste their votes after a period of one week after alexman has edited the relevant post (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...postid=2524160).

EDIT: I included ducki's proposal to move the SoZ to Construction as new no. 2.

[ducki]

I just had an idea that might fix at least part of the problem. (Emphasis mine)

The ivory requirement can, in particular games, interplay with a number of strategic choices: scouting priorities, REXing priorities, the building of road networks for trade, and the timing and extent of wars. Granted, the ivory requirement is more often uninteresting in its strategic dimensions (since ivory is usually either fairly readily available or not available at all), but the strategic dimensions can be rather considerable when they do exist.

I find the same. Either I have Ivory of my own or I am not willing to expend the effort to conquer or build "extra" roads to trade for it, especially if the AI only connects one of them.

The Wonder comes with Math, which is fairly early in my games. Usually the AI has Math by the time I have Philo if I head for Philo. Some players here can beeline for Math and amass a big AC force, which is also, I think, part of the Overpoweringness. It's too early compared to the defenders of the age - it's like getting Mounted Warriors without being Iroquois or Conquistadores. In numbers, even though Conquistadores often fall after Muskets, they are still effective - at Astronomy!

(Warning: numerical looseness ahead. Take all numbers with a pound of salt and correct as needed.)
What if SoZ was moved to Construction? It's one of the last two techs before the Middle Ages in my games, which means at most you've got 50 turns in which to build the Wonder and collect your ACav before Pikes begin to appear. IIRC, typical build time on SoZ is around 40 turns, but I could be wrong. So, at the most, you could amass 2 ACav before Pikes if you follow a "typical" research path. Let's say you use a prebuild and finish SoZ on the turn after you research Construction - you've got 50 turns, so you'll have 10 AC by the time Pikes appear.
How many free shields would that be? Anyone know the cost of Conquistadors and MWs offhand?

Seems like a nice bonus, but not overpowering. In fact, I may mod that to be a small wonder and move it to Construction to see what happens.

[lockstep]

A couple of points:

1. By moving the SoZ to a later tech, you reduce the no. of turns the wonder is in effect and therefore the no. of AC's produced. Not a bad idea, but a similar effect can be achieved by increasing the no. of turns it takes to spawn yet another AC (from 5 to 7), and this change is far less drastic IMO.
2. I view the effect as 'similar' because, in my experience, Ancient Cavalry is still very useful against pikemen (admittedly not as deadly as against spearmen).
3. The typical (unmodded) SoZ build time should be far less than 40 turns unless you build wonders in a 5-shield city.

[Risa]

What about increasing the cost of SoZ to 500 shields? Even compared to ToA (the only ancient wonder that costs 500 shields under stock rules), SoZ provides larger benefits. Moreover, 500 shields will be much closer to the free shields (ACs) SoZ spawns, which moves it toward balance.

[ducki]

The main idea of moving it to a later tech was not reducing the number of AC produced - that was a happy side effect.
The point alex or was it nathan made was that at the time it comes(Math) it's a do or die thing.
By moving it later, we postpone the building and leave more room for both player and AI to finish expanding and build up an ivory-conquering-force or have a city able to produce it or have a trade network in place.
_Seems_ more strategic to me than the haves vs. have-nots situation as it currently stands.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Risa
What about increasing the cost of SoZ to 500 shields? Even compared to ToA (the only ancient wonder that costs 500 shields under stock rules), SoZ provides larger benefits.

IMO, increasing shield costs by a factor of 2.5 is too much for the scope of the AU mod.

Originally posted by ducki
The main idea of moving it to a later tech was not reducing the number of AC produced - that was a happy side effect ... By moving it later, we postpone the building and leave more room for both player and AI to finish expanding and build up an ivory-conquering-force or have a city able to produce it or have a trade network in place.

I see ... it is still sort of a big change for a medium effect, but it is sufficiently different from the change to AC's spawn frequency. So I'll include it in the changes 'under consideration' - hopefully no one will accuse me of being fickle and/or premature. (And at least it's a proposal that does not change the age when a wonder becomes available. )

BTW, in my opinion moving the SoZ from Mathematics to Construction a) could be combined with a shield cost increase etc. b) does not dispose of the ivory requirement issue.

[Risa]

Originally posted by lockstep

IMO, increasing shield costs by a factor of 2.5 is too much for the scope of the AU mod.

But it's still within the range of ancient wonder's cost.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Risa
But it's still within the range of ancient wonder's cost.

I should have been more specific ... To me, the problem of an ancient wonder costing 500 shields (i.e. of the Temple of Artemis) is that even high-shield cities will need about 25 turns to build it, and the typical AI city will need far more turns. Any AI civ that tries for the ToA and fails will face a big overall setback just because of the shield loss of one city. Smaller AI civs may be even doomed because of that. I don't know if this is a sufficient reason to reduce ToA's shield costs, but IMO it's a sufficient reason not to mod SoZ's shield costs up to 500.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by lockstep
The following proposal is under consideration:

1. Yes/No: Remove the Statue of Zeus' ivory requirement.
2. EDIT: Yes/No: Move the SoZ from Mathematics to Construction.
3. Yes/No: Increase SoZ's shield cost from 200 to 300.
4. Yes/No: Make the SoZ produce Ancient Cavalry only every 7 (instead of every 5) turns.
5. Yes/No: Remove Ancient Cavalry's +1 hitpoint bonus.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Yes.

[Dominae]

Sorry I took so long to reply:

Originally posted by EnduringBlue
Dominae, I wanted to get your take on this:

Since ivory has been so rare on my C3C maps, I don't think that changing its status would have an impact on normal strategy in regards to net access to luxury resources.

A very interesting idea! Perhaps you could test it out? It's definitely a somewhat drastic change, but if it works out great we would need to at least consider it.


Dominae

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Dominae
A very interesting idea! Perhaps you could test it out? It's definitely a somewhat drastic change, but if it works out great we would need to at least consider it.

Problems of changing ivory to a strategic resource that cross my mind:

1. Since a resource can't be luxury and strategic at the same time, you either have to introduce a new eight luxury (probably tobacco) or cope with an even greater luxury scarcity in C3C.
2. The AI is likely to pay for ivory even after it has become useless (i.e. the SoZ has been built).

Note: In my experience, ivory is not generally scarce. Sometimes, it's right beside my starting location, sometimes quite a distance away, most of the time not available at all. Pretty much like the other seven luxury resources.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Dominae
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Yes.

A premature vote!

... I guess you didn't need time to considerate the issue anymore. Should be allright (i.e. in the spirit of the voting rules), but the voting period will still last for (at least one week) + (24 hours).

EDIT: grammar

[Dominae]

Originally posted by lockstep


Problems of changing ivory to a strategic resource that cross my mind:

1. Since a resource can't be luxury and strategic at the same time, you either have to introduce a new eight luxury (probably tobacco) or cope with an even greater luxury scarcity in C3C.
2. The AI is likely to pay for ivory even after it has become useless (i.e. the SoZ has been built).

The first point is not really a problem; you just swap a Luxury resource for a Strategic one. The seond point is, admittedly, rather annoying.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by lockstep

And predictability of which civs are likely to build a specific wonder is a good thing? I want to play an epic game, not sort of a pre-scripted scenario.

In comparison games, I view similarity of elements beyond a player's control as a good thing. Similarity of such elements is, after all, why we play the same scenario.

As long as more than one civ has access to ivory, as is usually the case, the question of who will build the SoZ is not entirely predictable from a player's perspective. Similarly, if a player does not know who has access to ivory, the question of who will build the SoZ is predictable only to the extent that a player can be reasonably sure that a particular civ does not have it. So I would hardly characterize the ivory requirement as turning a map into a "pre-scripted scenario."

I regard as bad gameplay - wonder availability by luck of the draw - what you regard as matter of taste. 'Objective fact' is something we both should strive for.

Do you regard the need for iron to build swordsmen, or horses to build horsemen, as bad gameplay (or, more properly, bad game design)? That is unit availability by the luck of the draw. How about the need for coal and iron both within the radius of the same city to build an Iron Works? That is small wonder availability by the luck of the draw. There are ample precedents in Civ for situations where resource availability makes something available to one player but not to another.

Granted, the situation with ivory and the SoZ is not precisely analogous to anything else in civ. But then again, is anything else in Civ 3 analogous to the need for iron and coal in the same city radius to build the Iron Works (and for only being able to build the Iron Works in such a city)? It can be argued that the Iron Works provides a clear precedent for particular things with unique requirements.

I recognize quite well your feeling of, "Hey, this isn't how things are supposed to work" in connection with the ivory requirement for the SoZ because I felt it myself at first. But instead of writing the idea off as something horrible, I started looking for positive aspects that might offset the negatives. Over time, I've about decided that having one wonder that works differently from the others is more interesting than having yet another ancient wonder that every civ in the game (or at least every AI) is competing for would be.

Nathan

[Risa]

Originally posted by lockstep

I should have been more specific ... To me, the problem of an ancient wonder costing 500 shields (i.e. of the Temple of Artemis) is that even high-shield cities will need about 25 turns to build it, and the typical AI city will need far more turns. Any AI civ that tries for the ToA and fails will face a big overall setback just because of the shield loss of one city. Smaller AI civs may be even doomed because of that. I don't know if this is a sufficient reason to reduce ToA's shield costs, but IMO it's a sufficient reason not to mod SoZ's shield costs up to 500.

Wow, that is very convincing.

Under stock rules, failing on ToA is very disastrous indeed, because no other wonder costs 500 shields, the 600-shield group (Sun Tzu's, Leo's and Sistine) are likely in the future, and 400-shield group are either completed long ago (Pyramids) or probably not available yet (Great Library).

However, SoZ is different from ToA. Every civ can compete on ToA, but only 2 or 3 civs have the chance to build SoZ. That is, only 1 or 2 civs may be hurt by it. Plus, now that SoZ and ToA have the same cost, when a civ fails to build SoZ, ToA becomes a fine backup. (Just like the relation among Sun Tzu's, Leo's and Sistine.)

Over all, SoZ worthes 500 shields.

Edit: grammar

[nbarclay]

One problem with the idea of moving the SoZ to Construction is that it would mean two wonders - SoZ and the Great Wall - tied to the same tech.

[ducki]

Well, I thought of that, and would have said Currency, but that just doesn't "make sense". No biggie. I have no problem having my ideas shot down, mostly because I toss them out there in the hopes that someone else with more knowledge will see some tiny spark in there that will work. I also realize most of my suggestions are borderline too radical, but since I'm not on the panel and don't expect any of them to be implemented as I present them, I can think bigger and just assume someone will trim them back to fit the philosophy if they are "good".

I can't wait to see how the mod shapes up. I'm itching to go.

[alexman]

Originally posted by lockstep
The following proposal is under consideration:

1. Yes/No: Remove the Statue of Zeus' ivory requirement.
2. EDIT: Yes/No: Move the SoZ from Mathematics to Construction.
3. Yes/No: Increase SoZ's shield cost from 200 to 300.
4. Yes/No: Make the SoZ produce Ancient Cavalry only every 7 (instead of every 5) turns.
5. Yes/No: Remove Ancient Cavalry's +1 hitpoint bonus.

I marked the proposal under consideration, but I'm not sure we should vote on all these changes at once. For example, what if someone agrees that the Wonder needs weakening, likes all the above changes, but thinks that making all of them would weaken it too much?

Perhaps we can vote in two stages. First we vote on whether the above changes would be independently acceptable (without considering them in relation to each other), and then (after some discussion) we can vote yes/no on a specific combination of changes.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by nbarclay
One problem with the idea of moving the SoZ to Construction is that it would mean two wonders - SoZ and the Great Wall - tied to the same tech.

I don't regard techs that enable multiple wonders as a problem. Under stock rules, this applies to two techs - Fission (enables United Nations & Manhattan Project) and Genetics (enables Cure for Cancer & Longevity), and so far I can't recall any complaints about these techs. (There are complaints about Longevity under stock rules, but for very different reasons. )

However, on second thought there is a potential problem with moving SoZ from Mathematics to Construction. Until PtW, the AI was very reluctant to research Mathematics (a fact that allowed the human player to research this tech at a slow pace and trade it for a lot of AI techs), and former AU mod versions included various attempts to make Mathematics more attractive for the AI. C3C's new SoZ wonder - that comes with Mathematics - may have disposed of this issue, and I'd rather not re-introduce it by moving the SoZ to another tech.

Do you regard the need for iron to build swordsmen, or horses to build horsemen, as bad gameplay (or, more properly, bad game design)? That is unit availability by the luck of the draw. How about the need for coal and iron both within the radius of the same city to build an Iron Works? That is small wonder availability by the luck of the draw.

About the Iron Works: Yes, it is available by luck of the draw, but as this (small) wonder provides no decisive advantage, I can live with that.

Unit availability by strategic resources (and therefore in a sense 'luck of the draw') may be a crucial point. I remember that a lot of the vocal criticism of vanilla Civ3 two years ago focused upon the new resource requirements and how this 'unbalanced' the game. I didn't share this opinion then, and also do not now. Yes, horses and iron may be rare on a given map (and more so in C3C), but in my experience their nature as strategic resources (which are spread over the map) makes it possible to grab at least one of them most of the time. Contrary to that, the nature of ivory as luxury resource will ensure that it is clumped in one or two places, and therefore frequently will be grabbed by an AI civ while I can nothing do about it. Combined with a wonder like the SoZ, this is - in my opinion - too much luck of the draw.

I recognize quite well your feeling of, "Hey, this isn't how things are supposed to work" in connection with the ivory requirement for the SoZ because I felt it myself at first. But instead of writing the idea off as something horrible, I started looking for positive aspects that might offset the negatives.

I honestly tried to look for positive aspects. It was somewhat satisfying to archer-rush an AI border city that had ivory within its radius, and then use a palace pre-build to finish the SoZ a few turns later. But the first time an AI civ had the only source of ivory near its capital, built the SoZ and used Ancient Cavalry to sneak-attack the only neighboring civ (me), I decided that this was not my idea of fun.