Thread Tools
Old March 3, 2004, 18:22   #31
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally posted by Krill
1) the scout can only be built by expansionist civs
Right, so it makes sense for Scouts to be "better" than Curraghs.

Quote:
2) It costs 50% more than a scout, and is no where near as useful, because any contacts you can get with a curragh you can get with a galley (IE no trade agreements)
I think you're underestimating Curraghs. If you're not Expansionist you can use them to get early Contacts just as easily as Scouts by circling around your continent's perimeter. And once you've done that, you can send them off to discover civs on other continents as well, something Scouts cannot do. Scouts upgrade to nothing useful; Curraghs upgrade to Galleys, Caravels and Galleons.

Quote:
3) No/very little land is discovered
Who cares about land, it's Contacts that are more important! You have to pop a lot of Goody Huts (barring Settlers) to make up the advantage you get by getting early Contacts and trading all your techs around for profit.


Dominae
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Dominae is offline  
Old March 3, 2004, 19:14   #32
ZargonX
PtWDG LegolandInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 MorganC4DG SarantiumCiv4 SP Democracy GameApolyCon 06 ParticipantsBtS Tri-LeagueApolyton UniversityPtWDG2 TabemonoC4WDG Huygen's Union
Emperor
 
ZargonX's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Space
Posts: 5,117
Quote:
The AI below Sid never builds Curraghs
That is incorrect. I can speak from experience that on both Monarch and Emp. the AI will build curraghs.
ZargonX is offline  
Old March 3, 2004, 20:48   #33
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
I am not convinced that either Curraughs nor Privateers need changing. Haven't seen enough C3C AI behavior, and haven't messed about with Privateers lately.
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline  
Old March 3, 2004, 22:17   #34
ducki
C3C IDG: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Cake or Death?Apolyton University
King
 
ducki's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Our house. In the middle of our street.
Posts: 1,495
I'm with THeseus - I don't think the Privateer needs changing, but a discussion about changing the Pirvateer turned into a discussion about putting Middle Age transports at a sinking risk from the very first boat you can build, so I agreed that if the panel thinks Privateers are underpowered(I don't) and if the solution is to weaken two other units of the age instead of buffing up the Privateer then I would see curraghs, and to a lesser extent Galleys, as overpowered in a domino effect.

I do not think Curraghs should be defenseless - 1 defense is weak enough - but they also should not be able to take out middle ages ships.

But again, I don't think the Privateer has any problems. a Hidden Nationality unit at that time is, to me, worth it's weight in gold.

Edit: I sidetracked myself - I do like the idea of a 0-attack curragh in and of itself, but that may be supported by the propsed change to other units and may be due to personal playstyle. In the end, I don't think any of these units needs changing and if consistency with transports is a problem, we could buff that guy up. You can't go much lower than 1 and the C3C discussions about averaged combat showed that at the lower end, the difference between two units is magnified. Let's not change this guy. He's a good, fun, strategic tool.
__________________
"Just once, do me a favor, don't play Gray, don't even play Dark... I want to see Center-of-a-Black-Hole Side!!! " - Theseus nee rpodos
ducki is offline  
Old March 4, 2004, 00:17   #35
Aqualung71
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization III PBEMCivilization III Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversC3CDG Desolation Row
Emperor
 
Aqualung71's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:26
Local Date: November 3, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,544
Curraghs should definitely by 0 attack.

I'd be happy for them to have 0 defence too, even though it would p**s me off every time I sight a barb Galley (as it does now, actually!)

Last edited by Aqualung71; March 4, 2004 at 00:24.
Aqualung71 is offline  
Old March 4, 2004, 02:54   #36
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
I strongly oppose reducing the defense of caravels and galleons. Reducing the defense of caravels would pose two serious problems.

First, it would make them too vulnerable to galleys, and especially to Dromons and Carracks. One of the biggest advantages to caravels over galleys under the normal rules is that caravels offer an opportunity to invade without much risk of being sunk by contemporary non-UU enemy ships and can defend themselves reasonably well against the UUs. Reduce their defense value and naval invasions using caravels become a lot more difficult and dangerous. I don't view that as a good thing either in terms of strategic choices for human players or in terms of helping AIs.

Second, and even worse, consider the impact on a civ (whether human or AI) that is lagging a few techs behind and still stuck using caravels when enemy frigates and privateers make their appearance. Even if the civ stays at peace, privateers could place its ships at very serious jeopardy.

Reducing the defense of galleons would be a bit less problematical since a suitable escort is available at the same time that galleons are. But the idea of giving galleons a lower defense value than caravels would be abusrd, and the change is not necessary.

There is one other important point that I don't remember having been brought up, or at least having been given adequate consideration. When privateers sink transport ships, they often cost the enemy far more than just the value of the ships they destroy. A privateer that sinks a caravel carrying a knight and two MedInfs or longbowmen sinks almost four times its own cost in enemy units. A privateer that sinks a galleon carrying four units in a combination of riflemen and cavalry sinks more than seven times its own cost.

Thus, when transport ships are loaded and traveling without an escort, privateers already average destroying far more value than they lose even before the possibility of enslaving a defeated enemy is considered. It is simply not true that the fact that caravels and galleons have a defense value as high as a privateer's attack value makes escorting them unimportant.

Quote:
Just to be clear, I agree that Privateers are fairly well balanced as they are now. We will, however, have a vote
You seem to be saying that you intend to mark something as under consideration and put something up for a vote whether there is any real support for it or not. I don't suppose doing so would cause any great harm, but it seems like a waste of time when opinion seems clearly against the proposed changes without the need for a formal vote. If the absence of a vote is a mistake, panelists can easily correct the mistake by speaking out in favor of a change and asking for a vote.

Nathan
nbarclay is offline  
Old March 4, 2004, 03:28   #37
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
I think eliminating the attack value from curraughs would make good sense, but I don't like the idea of rendering them unable to defend themselves. Just the fact that ships need a port to heal makes curraughs vulnerable enough to being swarmed or worn down over time by barbarian galleys already. (I lost one of my curraughs to a barbarian galley swarm in AU 501, for example.) I think making them completely defenseless would make them too vulnerable.

In a very real sense, the curraugh helps make up for the fact that C3C has moved the ability to trade contacts back from Writing to Printing Press, and that is far more true for human players than it is for AIs. AIs tend to be pretty nice about letting each other send armed troops through their territory in order to explore or settle beyond, but AI cultural borders can usually stop human exploration cold for non-expansionist civs. With curraughs, human players have a way to reach around one AI to meet another without having to wait until they get Map Making and build galleys. I'm not in favor of undermining that ability.
nbarclay is offline  
Old March 4, 2004, 04:02   #38
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
With curraughs, human players have a way to reach around one AI to meet another without having to wait until they get Map Making and build galleys. I'm not in favor of undermining that ability.
I am.

Curraghs undermine the changes of pushing back Contact and Map trading to Printing Press and Navigation (respectively). With Curraghs you can typically get most Contacts, plus a really good idea of the land form to boot.

Curraghs should be like Scouts: vulnerable.

Can we at least agree that Curraghs are the most game-altering change introduced in C3C? Given how powerful they are, I see this as problematic.


Dominae
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Dominae is offline  
Old March 4, 2004, 04:52   #39
Aqualung71
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization III PBEMCivilization III Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversC3CDG Desolation Row
Emperor
 
Aqualung71's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:26
Local Date: November 3, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,544
Might as well drop this in here, since the discussion is kinda heading this way.......

While the discussion on Curraghs "per se" is not the same as the discussion on the power of the Seafaring trait, perhaps we should also look at tweaking the Seafaring advantages which many people consider to be too powerful in the hands of the human. One way to tie these together would be to increase the sinking chances for Seafaring (and possibly even non-Seafaring), which would reduce the effectiveness of Curraghs in intercontinental exploration and bring their use closer to what it was possibly intended to be - exploration largely restricted to your own landmass (and therefore comparable to Scouts, as has also been noted here).
Aqualung71 is offline  
Old March 4, 2004, 05:46   #40
Risa
Apolyton University
Warlord
 
Local Time: 02:26
Local Date: November 3, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 282
Re: Re: AU mod: The Privateer
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman


Hey, this is not true after all! Caputred non-Worker units do require support. I just tested it.
Huh? Which version of patch do you use?

Here is a screenshot of my latest SimuMove Multiplayer game (1.15).
Attached Thumbnails:
Click image for larger version

Name:	ss.jpg
Views:	100
Size:	53.8 KB
ID:	66193  
Risa is offline  
Old March 4, 2004, 09:08   #41
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
[Edit: I'm moving this message to the AI Naval Exploration thread where discussion of curraughs probably really belongs]

Last edited by nbarclay; March 4, 2004 at 09:16.
nbarclay is offline  
Old March 4, 2004, 10:03   #42
Stuie
King
 
Stuie's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Philly
Posts: 2,961
Getting back to Privateers, I'll agree with others (Arrian, etc.) that the only change really needed is a slight reduction in build cost. I don't like the idea of messing with units' stats to fix a perceived problem with some other unit - this goes back to the Cavalry issue; we ended up changing Cavalry's offense, not adjusting other units' defense.
__________________
"Stuie has the right idea" - Japher
"I trust Stuie and all involved." - SlowwHand
"Stuie is right...." - Guynemer
Stuie is offline  
Old March 4, 2004, 10:16   #43
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Re: Re: Re: AU mod: The Privateer
Quote:
Originally posted by Risa

Huh? Which version of patch do you use?
1.15, but I got confused. You're right that it's still a bug.
alexman is offline  
Old March 4, 2004, 10:49   #44
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Another cosmetic change that I picked up from player1's mod:

Privateers (and all other sailing ships) become obsolete with combustion.

The change would remove these units from your build list in the late-industrial age, thus preventing the AI from possibly building them when it can be building better ships.

To implement this change you make the units 'upgrade' to destroyers but you don't add the 'upgrade unit' button, so you can never really upgrade them, but you can't build new ones either, unless you run out of oil.

The PTW version of the mod had Frigates and Privateers upgrading to Destroyers, and we agreed that the loss of a hidden nationality unit in the modern age was not a big deal.
alexman is offline  
Old March 4, 2004, 11:04   #45
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
You seem to be saying that you intend to mark something as under consideration and put something up for a vote whether there is any real support for it or not.
There has definitely been support for a change to the Privateer. I'm just trying to figure out which change is most popular.
alexman is offline  
Old March 4, 2004, 11:29   #46
ZargonX
PtWDG LegolandInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 MorganC4DG SarantiumCiv4 SP Democracy GameApolyCon 06 ParticipantsBtS Tri-LeagueApolyton UniversityPtWDG2 TabemonoC4WDG Huygen's Union
Emperor
 
ZargonX's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Space
Posts: 5,117
Quote:
Privateers (and all other sailing ships) become obsolete with combustion.
I think that's a very good suggestion. The AI is better of building stronger ships, not hidden ones.
ZargonX is offline  
Old March 5, 2004, 08:44   #47
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Under consideration:

A. No change
B. Reduce cost of Privateer to 40.
C. Privateer does not require support.
D. Reduce defense of Caravel and Galleon to 1. Galleon would get 'requires escort' AI flag.

Voting in a week, by ranking the above choices.

Also under consideration, independently of the above:

Yes/No: Remove the ability to build Frigate, Privateer, Man-O-War when you can build Destroyers.
alexman is offline  
Old March 6, 2004, 03:14   #48
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
I've already made my case against reducing the defense of caravels and galleons.

Regarding the idea of reducing Privateers' cost or otherwise making them more effective, I think it is very important to understand their proper niche. Think back to the time of England's Queen Elizabeth I, when England wanted to gain power relative to Spain but did not want a direct war with Spain. Privateers allowed England to attack Spain while maintianing at least some pretext that the two nations were not truly at war.

The legitimate role of Privateers in Civ is similar: when a player wants to weaken one particular opponent without actually going to war. Privateers are not and should not be a means to gain a relative advantage over several AIs at once. In order for Privateers to provide a relative advantage even over two opponents at once, they would have to be able to destroy more than twice their cost in enemy units, which would make them far too effective when focused on one particular target.

(So far, I haven't used C3C Privateers yet because I havn't had a game where that niche was particularly valuable. To the extent that I've thought about the possibility of using Privateers at all after how useless Privateers were in earlier versions, either I've been more interested in building up my own civ than in tearing down one particular opponent or I've been inclined to fight more directly.)

The question that remains is whether Privateers can fill their legitimate role properly under the default rules if they are used correctly or whether they need to be beefed up in order to do so. If Privateers focused on one particular target can kill more shields' worth of the target's units (including both ships and carried units) than they suffer in losses (both from the target civ and from being forced to fight third-party ships), then they are good enough already. If not, it would be very hard to find a useful niche for them under the current rules.

So far, I have seen no compelling evidence or testimony indicating that the players who have the most effective tactics for using Privateers are unable to make them worthwhile in their proper niche. Further, C3C has been out a short enough time that there hasn't been a huge amount of opportunity to develop tactics for C3C Privateers (and experience from previous versions certainly does not carry over well). I think we need a stronger experience base with clearer evidence that the current version is not worthwhile before we reach the conclusion that change is needed. Even aside from the conservative nature of the AU Mod, if we make Privateers powerful enough that they are easy to gain a net advantage from using in most games, we risk making them far too powerful when players who figure out or learn the best tricks for using them effectively use them in their proper niche.

Nathan

Last edited by nbarclay; March 7, 2004 at 17:07.
nbarclay is offline  
Old March 7, 2004, 12:24   #49
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
Very well said, Nathan.
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline  
Old March 12, 2004, 10:09   #50
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Time to vote! We have 48 hours.

My votes:

DACB and Yes
alexman is offline  
Old March 12, 2004, 10:30   #51
Stuie
King
 
Stuie's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Philly
Posts: 2,961
CBAD and Yes
__________________
"Stuie has the right idea" - Japher
"I trust Stuie and all involved." - SlowwHand
"Stuie is right...." - Guynemer
Stuie is offline  
Old March 12, 2004, 11:34   #52
ZargonX
PtWDG LegolandInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 MorganC4DG SarantiumCiv4 SP Democracy GameApolyCon 06 ParticipantsBtS Tri-LeagueApolyton UniversityPtWDG2 TabemonoC4WDG Huygen's Union
Emperor
 
ZargonX's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Space
Posts: 5,117
BADC and Yes
ZargonX is offline  
Old March 12, 2004, 12:03   #53
lockstep
Apolyton University
King
 
lockstep's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,529
CBAD and YES
__________________
"As far as general advice on mod-making: Go slow as far as adding new things to the game until you have the basic game all smoothed out ... Make sure the things you change are really imbalances and not just something that doesn't fit with your particular style of play." - WesW
lockstep is offline  
Old March 12, 2004, 13:56   #54
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Hmm, with Nor Me missing in action I predict some ties in the rank voting. The order of conservativeness, which we have chosen as a tie-breaker, is not clear.

How about ACBD?
alexman is offline  
Old March 12, 2004, 18:51   #55
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
CBAD and Y
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline  
Old May 2, 2004, 06:52   #56
lockstep
Apolyton University
King
 
lockstep's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Yes/No: Remove the ability to build Frigate, Privateer, Man-O-War when you can build Destroyers.
I voted yes, but on second thought (just to be sure): Is there any reason why we didn't make Frigates, Man-O-Wars and Privateers upgrade to Destroyers?

(Note: you can upgrade Curraghs to Transports!)
__________________
"As far as general advice on mod-making: Go slow as far as adding new things to the game until you have the basic game all smoothed out ... Make sure the things you change are really imbalances and not just something that doesn't fit with your particular style of play." - WesW
lockstep is offline  
Old May 2, 2004, 10:38   #57
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Won't having Frigates upgrade to Destroyers make the Ironclad tech researched even less often?
alexman is offline  
Old May 4, 2004, 05:43   #58
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Won't having Frigates upgrade to Destroyers make the Ironclad tech researched even less often?
Only if you can find a way to research Ironclads less often than never. (That may be a slight exaggeration, but probably not much of one.)

On the other hand, having ironclads upgrade but not frigates does give human players more incentive to want to get the Ironclads tech from an AI when an AI researches it (which does happen in the AU Mod) and more incentive to build ironclads when the tech is available. Conversely, the lack of an upgrade path for frigates prevents a strategy of building a big frigate armada and then upgrading it into an instant big destroyer flotilla, a trick which could be especially powerful in conjunction with Leo's. So I think the current design is good enough that we don't need to change it in that regard.

Nathan
nbarclay is offline  
Old May 5, 2004, 11:47   #59
lockstep
Apolyton University
King
 
lockstep's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
... the lack of an upgrade path for frigates prevents a strategy of building a big frigate armada and then upgrading it into an instant big destroyer flotilla, a trick which could be especially powerful in conjunction with Leo's.
OTOH, I view building a bunch of horsemen and upgrading them to knights as a valid and (with C3C's upgrade costs of 3 gold per shield) 'non-broken' strategy, so I don't think that upgrading frigates to destroyers should qualify as a 'trick'.
__________________
"As far as general advice on mod-making: Go slow as far as adding new things to the game until you have the basic game all smoothed out ... Make sure the things you change are really imbalances and not just something that doesn't fit with your particular style of play." - WesW
lockstep is offline  
Old May 5, 2004, 11:55   #60
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:26
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
But you can already follow that strategy with Ironclads.

If we allow Frigates to upgrade to Destroyers as well, that would make one more reason to ignore Ironclads, especially since they require a 50% greater shield investment than Frigates do.
alexman is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:26.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team