AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[Theseus]

I pay NO attention to maintenance costs... I build what I percieve needs building. I think this discussion is much more in the context of the AI civs.

[BillChin]

Clearly, I see Communism as a war time government, with limited peace time uses (pop rushing, four military police). Communism with free maintenance still seems weaker than the other governments.

Communism suffers as much if there are no police stations and court houses. Palace centering does help the other governments more, so a poorly laid out empire might do a bit better under Communism. Again, I am focusing on competitive games--most competitive players have a grasp of centering their palaces (though the AI does not).

Double unit support (4/8/16) plus ten free units helps small empires and large empires. It may also change the dynamic of the game in multiplayer. A Communist would probably have garrisons of ten or more units in every border city (all free), while a Republic or Democracy might only have three units as a standing garrison. Maybe my original proposal is closer to the target of making Communism competitive: free maintenance plus the increased unit support.

Increased unit support opens up more strategy options, such as a huge army of conscripts (Communists can draft 2 per turn, most other governments are 1 per turn). I see the possibility that a small Communist empire might be able to field a large enough army to intimidate a slightly larger and more advanced neighbor. This is a counterpoint to the ability of a small Democracy to out tech a slightly larger Monarchy or Communist.

As for Theseus' point, free maintenance is a balancing tool to at least make Communism competitive with Monarchy in terms of gold and research. The other strategy option that opens up is minimal research and spies to steal tech. Without free maintenance this seems possible when the Communist player is far ahead in terms of production capacity. If this is the case, that player could stay another government and simply out tech their enemies instead of being cutesy with spies.

I see the bottom line effect of my proposed changes: Communism becomes the government of choice for players who want a huge military and/or depends on spying to keep up in tech. Monarchy retains its edge over Communism in terms of wonder construction. Monarchy is the war time government of choice for empires with a medium size military (builds units, instead of drafting most of them). Remember in a competitive game, one or two late game wonders may decide the game, so Communism's slower wonder construction is another liability to compensate for. Republic is still the best all around government if there is a chance of war. The modded Democracy is the best government if there is no war on the horizon, even for non-Religious civs.
- Bill

Originally posted by nbarclay
Keep in mind that in the AU 201 game, I have my palace and forbidden palace very well placed (or at least I like to think so). I have no cities that remain totally corrupt after adding courthouses and police stations. That isn't always practical, and communism would probably do a lot better by comparison under less favorable circumstances. Still, games where it makes sense to use communism as anything but a wartime government even with free maintenance would be few and far between if they exist at all.

Free unit support under communism is good enough in the standard game that I seriously doubt that adding more would make much difference. Yes, AIs have bigger militaries than humans do, but once the free unit support is enough to cover all a civ's units, any additional free support is of no more than theoretical interest. And even if an AI would go a unit or two per city over, the amount of gold involved wouldn't be big enough to make that much difference.

All in all, free maintenance seems to be the only really practical way I've seen to make serious research under communism even remotely viable, at least in the standard game. Thus, it's the only way to deal with the problem of AIs' scientific efforts self-destructing in the middle of the space race. (Note: these comments are pre-PtW.)

I also tend to wonder how much maintenance costs really enter the picture regarding strategic choices except maybe in the very early stages of the game. If I'm winning, I can afford to build where and when I want to without worrying much about maintenance. If I'm behind, improvements that wouldn't be worth the maintenance costs are unlikely to be worth the diversion from military forces. Do other people pay a lot more attention to maintenance costs than I do, or is what's lost in terms of strategy mostly just theoretical?

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by BillChin

I see the bottom line effect of my proposed changes: Communism becomes the government of choice for players who want a huge military and/or depends on spying to keep up in tech. Monarchy retains its edge over Communism in terms of wonder construction. Monarchy is the war time government of choice for empires with a medium size military (builds units, instead of drafting most of them). Remember in a competitive game, one or two late game wonders may decide the game, so Communism's slower wonder construction is another liability to compensate for. Republic is still the best all around government if there is a chance of war. The modded Democracy is the best government if there is no war on the horizon, even for non-Religious civs.

Democracy can do fine in defensive wars and blitzkreig-style offensive wars as long as losses aren't too terrible. (In AU 201, I conquered my second continent as a democracy.) Even in a contested game, there are often weaker civs around that can be absorbed easily with cavalry or MA blitzes (assuming their terrirtory would be worthwhile). It's the brutal slugfests that democracies have to be careful about.

Nathan

[lockstep]

As for my suggestion to make Manhattan Project a small wonder: Why should all civs be able to build nukes if my civ completes a crucial project? When I first read about the concept of 'small wonders' in Civ3, two great wonders that were included in the older versions of Civ instantly came to my mind: Apollo Programm and Manhattan Project. I never understood why Firaxis didn't change the latter to a small wonder, and am glad that it's at least possible now to change it with PtW's editor.

[vmxa1]

Amen to that. I misunderstood and thought that MP was going to be a SW in PTW, but at least it can be.

[Konquest02]

On an other topic, I noticed a bug in the version of the mod played in AU 201. Privateers no longer have an hidden nationality. I tried to attack a Roman ship with a couple of privateers and my advisor told me it would trigger a war... They are now completely useless and we should fix it.

--Kon--

[aaglo]

About the archer/bowman/longbowman & bombard ability...

This makes the babylonian bowman perhaps too powerful. It's cheap it has some attack&defence value and now this ranged attack thing...

Perhaps the babs bowman should cost 30 instead of 20 shields?

BTW, this is a great mod! Thank you all.

It certainly improves the game a bit.

[aaglo]

About coastal fortress:

Should it increase culture (say 1 point/turn)? In real life the old fortresses and fortifications are culturally important.

What do you think?

[edit]: this would also make coastal fortress worthy building.

[player1]

Of course, this would always make them destoyed, since all cultural buildings are destoyed when city is taken.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Konquest02
On an other topic, I noticed a bug in the version of the mod played in AU 201. Privateers no longer have an hidden nationality. I tried to attack a Roman ship with a couple of privateers and my advisor told me it would trigger a war... They are now completely useless and we should fix it.

This is not a problem in the standard mod (1.05 or 1.06). It's just a bug in the modified mod that ncbarclay created specifically for 201. He accidentally removed all other properties from Privateers, Frigates, Wan-O-Wars, Galleons, and Ironclads when he added the "Sinks in Ocean" propery. It will not be a problem in the future, but thanks for pointing it out.

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by lockstep
As for my suggestion to make Manhattan Project a small wonder: Why should all civs be able to build nukes if my civ completes a crucial project? When I first read about the concept of 'small wonders' in Civ3, two great wonders that were included in the older versions of Civ instantly came to my mind: Apollo Programm and Manhattan Project. I never understood why Firaxis didn't change the latter to a small wonder, and am glad that it's at least possible now to change it with PtW's editor.

Having a monopoly on nuclear weapons through a small wonder would equal game over. Mutual destruction ensures that the game doesn't end when nukes become available. But if they are first to SDI (small wonder) most players end the game in a nuclear armageddon without fear of retaliation.

Another little-known advantage of Manhattan Project being a great wonder is you can force an arms-control agreement by destroying it.

[Dominae]

Good points DaveMcW. Of course, the civ that built the Manhattan Project in their capital city won't be so happy at disarmament...


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by DaveMcW

Another little-known advantage of Manhattan Project being a great wonder is you can force an arms-control agreement by destroying it.

I tested this in an AU (or MT) game and was able to build nukes to my heart's content after the MP was destroyed. I believe that once built, the genie is out of the bottle and there's no turning back.

Catt

[vmxa1]

That has been true forever, the genie is out.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
Having a monopoly on nuclear weapons through a small wonder would equal game over.

First, a monopoly through a small wonder would be only temporary. Second and more important, this scenario is also possible in the current version of Civ3. If Manhattan Project has been built, the first player who has researched Fission, Rocketry and Space Flight (and has uranium and aluminium) has a temporary monopoly on tactical nukes - and if he also researches Satellites, he has a temporary monopoly on ICBM's. Surely this is an advantage, but IMO it doesn't equal 'game over'.

Mutual destruction ensures that the game doesn't end when nukes become available.

If MAD was truly implemented in Civ3, launching a bunch of nukes would cause automatic counter-strikes within your turn.

[Dominae]

Well, that goes to show how many times I've used nukes in my games: 0.


Dominae

[lockstep]

Originally posted by BillChin
Double unit support (4/8/16) plus ten free units helps small empires and large empires.

Larger unit support for Communism (and Monarchy) is a feasible way to rebalance governments, but what's the point of an additional - and rather small - number of free units per civ? IMO, this is a rather complicated change of rules with little effect (and besides, unbalanced with regard to different mapsizes).

[Pyrodrew]

Below are my only suggestions keeping in line with the prior rules:

1.Maximum of four build-often items per civ.
2.Production a build-often for everyone
3.Each civ needs at least one marketplace category (trade, wealth, or happiness)
4.Take advantage of civ traits: Scientific->Science, Religious->Happiness, Militaristic->Offense (or Defense) and trade (cheap harbors etc), Expansionist->Growth or Explore.
5.Don't change anything unless it violates one of the above rules.

I noticed some said Egypt was always a good competitor & Culture was good. Following especially Rules 4 & 5 I would suggest:
A. Give Egypt & America back Culture as per the traditional rules & remove Growth (this will make them tougher AIs & help try to solve their food addiction). Since the total # of changes for those Civs stay the same, this won't change the game any more than it currently is & it improves the AI.
B. All Growth is doing now for the AI is hurting it, so removing Growth from the other Civs should be considered. Removing it also provides the option to bring back a prior ability that was removed from the vanilla version.
C.For those who want to keep things more traditional with Growth - let Rome (and maybe India) have it. As a commercial Civ, Rome has more of a chance to benefit from the Growth feature than non-commercial Civs, not much... but better than Egypt & America.

Edit: I don't know if this is important to anyone, but Japan & the Aztecs have the exact same 'Build Often' AI Brain priority now... same aggression level... no difference between them.

[Druuge]

First thing I'd say is that +1 speed to SHIPS is too little. Compare the speed of railroad and naval transport. Naval transport should be emphasized and the speed of the ships (except trireme) should be DOUBLED. I am convinced with it. I liked the Civ 2 Exploration mod.
***faster ships, faster ships***

I agree that India should have Growth. Production for the India - for the gameplay's sake - yes. Otherwise...

I partially disagree that Rome should have no Defense.
My argument is historical - Rome defended it's borders for centuries against barbarians and persians. Wars were defensive. Offense is a must be though.

2/5/1 musketeer... hmm... Would 0-range bombard for 2/4/1 musketeer be a solution? I do not know but I just ask could it be an option?


To improve riflemen and infantry? Definitely!

[player1]

Originally posted by Druuge
First thing I'd say is that +1 speed to SHIPS is too little. Compare the speed of railroad and naval transport. Naval transport should be emphasized and the speed of the ships (except trireme) should be DOUBLED.

Compare the speed of ships with range of aircraft.

Very fast ships == very slow aircrafts

[Killerdaffy]

Ok, after my long (RL-induced) absence I'm back for PtW.

How should we go about moving the mod to PtW? Open a new thread or just maintain two files here (one .bic and one .bix)? We would then also need a discussion on possible changes to the new civs and the additional conventional units (Medieval Infantry, Guerilla).

Also, these could now be easily be included in vanilla Civ3, as we have graphics, animations and data.

[alexman]

I think we should make a new thread because this one is getting huge. (Perhaps we can even spell 'curriculum' correctly in the new thread! )

However, before we do that, we need to become more familiar with gameplay and AI tendencies in stock PtW. In the meantime, let this thread serve as a discussion-holder for ideas for the PtW version of the mod.

What existing changes should we leave out?
What new changes should we include?
Preferences for the new AI civs?

I am currently experimenting with the new editor and trying to make sense of the AI behavior so we can make more educated tweaks of their preferences.

[Killerdaffy]

Originally posted by alexman
I think we should make a new thread because this one is getting huge. (Perhaps we can even spell 'curriculum' correctly in the new thread! )

OK, you or I?

What existing changes should we leave out?
What new changes should we include?
Preferences for the new AI civs?

My $ .02, in no particular order:

1. The appearance of the Medieval Infantry and the Guerilla will make some of our rebalancing in the ground combat arena obsolete. This shouldn't affect naval and air units, though.

2. The Mongol UU, the Keshik, has the same movement rate on mountains as on grassland. This should apply to hills as well (10,000 foot cliffs - no problem but, gee, those hills are tough... ).

3. Additional city names for the new civs. Wernazuma III has done a lot of research for his ExtraPack, his lists are better than the ones included (e.g. Cadiz is included twice in PtW, once for Spain and once for Carthage).

4. Making cannons cheaper now should also affect the Korean UU. This might be unbalancing.

I already took the Civ3 AU 1.06 and included these extra changes, so I now have a PtW AU 1.06a if anybody is interested.

[Dominae]

I say we should set up AU 202 with a "Play the World" theme. In this way we can communally learn the ins and outs of PTW. Only then should we create a new AU mod.

Killerdaffy, don't you think that Keshiks moving through any non-forest land terrain at a cost of 1 movement point is a little strong? You're right that it makes no sense that their ability only works for mountains, but I think Keshisk are already quite powerful (can we say "cheap Knights").


Dominae

[Killerdaffy]

Originally posted by Dominae
Killerdaffy, don't you think that Keshiks moving through any non-forest land terrain at a cost of 1 movement point is a little strong? You're right that it makes no sense that their ability only works for mountains, but I think Keshisk are already quite powerful (can we say "cheap Knights").

If we figure them to be to strong we can change the ability from just mountains to just hills but I intuitively revolt against the mountain-but-not-hill thing. Plus, even then jungle and forest will stop them (and a large jungle is notoriously the hardest terrain to cross).

Other stuff I noticed: The worker price problem is fixed. I haven't figured out the details yet but Cleo wanted 73G + 3 GPT for one lonely worker in about 2800BC.

Also the barbarian AI is improved. They now go searching for your cities instead of attacking the first unit they come across.

[Dominae]

Replacing the Keshik's "mountains" ability for a "hills" ability sounds awfully logical; I'm surprised the design team didn't think of that one.

The AI values Workers at around 100-120 gold now, which appears to be balanced: priced so high, you'll rarely buy them early in the game, but it is still an viable option later on.


Dominae

[player1]

Just to know that patch suggestion MOD has been updated.
(since this MOD was based on it anyway)

[MiloMilo]

hey guys: I'm not sure how relevant any of this stuff is now that PTW's out, but:

I'm playing with core civ v1.29, AU v1.05, and a few of my own tweaks on top. Anyway, In my most recent game I noticed that, going into the modern age on a large map, the six other reasonably competitive civs were ALL in communism. In peacetime. The two tiny survivors were in democracy.

Now, in peacetime I usually worry when I see big civs in democracy. That means lots of income, lots of science, not much corruption, etc. So it was disappointing to see everyone in communism. I was easily able to hold my tech and money lead.

It's good that you made communism better, but you might have made it too attractive to the AI. Assuming you haven't reversed the change in 1.06, which I just noticed is up, you might want to look into it. Of course, I've only seen this in one game, so maybe it's an exception.

[MiloMilo]

I haven't been here in a while, and missed the debates of a few pages back. Also missed the whole "free building maintenance" thing in 1.05, which is annoying since I downloaded it... I should be a more careful readme reader. From this recent game, here's my take on it:

As someone's analysis showed, communism still isn't as good as democracy. However, it's good enough that the AI will choose it in its binary cost/benefit analysis. Which means that it's too good, even though it's still not as good.

Conclusion: simply do what you did for 1.06, double unit support and restore building maintenance. Communism becomes a wartime gov't once again.

Consequence: two posts of no use. Oh well...

[aaglo]

Does this mod in question work with PTW?