AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[lockstep]

PtW is likely to have a large impact on the upgrade chains of swordsmen AND longbowmen. The AU mod has been very reluctant to change the upgrade chains of land units until now, so IMO there's little need to focus on that specific topic less than a month before PtW's release. If anything, I'd adopt player1's changes (swordsmen and longbowmen upgrade to riflemen) and view them as a nice temporary fix.

[lockstep]

For now, I'll assume that the following changes will be included in v1.04:[list=a][*]Changes to coastal fortresses and naval unit hitpoints made in v1.03 are removed[*]Communism gets worker rate of +50% or +100%[/list=a]After browsing the readme-txt's of some other mods, I suggest to adopt some additional changes in the AU mod. The items in the following list are structured in outline, reason and details, and the mods that include this feature (not necessarily the exact stats) are annotated. (LWC stands for 'Long Winded Changes Mod', PS for 'Patch Suggestion Mod'). Here goes:

1. Higher corruption for Republic [blitz]
   Makes switching from Republic to Democracy more attractive for non-religious civs
   Republic's corruption and waste is 'problematic' instead of 'nuisance'
2. Tweaked cost and maintenance for some improvements [blitz]
   Makes 'advanced' improvements a strategic choice instead of a must-have
   Bank has maintenance of 2 instead of 1
   Research Lab has cost of 240 instead of 200, maintenance of 3 instead of 2
   Manufacturing Plant has maintenance of 4 instead of 3
3. Reduced number of 'filler' technologies [blitz, noname]
   Makes research and trade of technologies slightly more of a strategic choice
   Hanging Gardens available with Polytheism instead of Monarchy
   Universal Suffrage available with The Corporation instead of Industrialization
   Artillery available with Steel instead of Replacable Parts
   Library available with Writing instead of Literature
4. Terrain defense bonus only for forest, jungle, hills and mountains [blitz]
   Slightly reduces 'odd' combat results
   Desert, plains, grassland, tundra, flood plain, coast, sea and ocean have defense bonus of 0 instead of 10
5. Reduced attack bonus against barbarians [blitz, LWC, PS]
   Makes barbarians more challenging at lower difficulty levels
   Attack bonus against barbarians from Chieftain to Deity is 200/100/50/50/0/0 instead of 800/400/200/100/50/0
6. Percentage of optimal cities rebalanced with regard to difficulty levels [PS]
   Makes corruption more manageable at lower difficulty levels
   Percentage of optimal cities from Chieftain to Deity is 150/120/100/90/80/70 instead of 100/95/90/85/80/70
7. More productive Jungles [balancer, blitz, LWC]
   Alleviates the handicap of starting positions near jungle
   Jungle yields 1 shield per turn instead of 0 (still cannot be mined)
8. Earlier availability of irrigation without fresh water [LWC]
   Alleviates the handicap of starting positions without access to rivers or lakes
   Irrigation without fresh water available with Engineering instead of Electricity
9. Generous 'turns per tech' limits [blitz, LWC, noname]
   Makes obtaining a technology lead a more feasible strategic choice
   Minimum research time in turns is 2 instead of 4
10. Symmetric cultural opinions, including an additional neutral level [blitz]
    Provides clearer information about culture ratios and resultant effects
    Impressed with: Lower threshold culture ratio 5:4 (125%) instead of 1:1 (100%)
    New cultural opinion 'on a par with': LT culture ratio 4:5 (80%), chance of succ. prop. 15%, resist. chance in. 65%, cont. 55%
    Unimpressed by: LT culture ratio 1:2 (50%) instead of 3:4 (75%)
    Dismissive of: LT culture ratio 1:3 (33%) instead of 1:2 (50%)
    Disdainful of: LT culture ratio 1:10 (lowest possible editor value) instead of 1:3 (33%)

IMO, every item of this list contributes to 'smoothing out the basic game' (see my sig), but I'm aware that the presented 'reasons' are rather keywords that need to be discussed further. Which is why I'd like to get some feedback.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by alexman
Good idea for preparing for PtW, SR.
But would the new Longbowmen require iron like Med. Infantry? If yes, then be prepared to see the ironless AI attacking pikemen and knights with - gasp - archers!
If they don't require iron, is their cost still balanced after the increase in defense?

I would it not let require iron and raise the cost to 5. This should be still affordable for both the AI and the human, and the upgrade path will be repeared. A 4.2.1 unit that costs 5 is not unbalanced, if we consider, that we let the 2.4.1 musketman also cost 5 and the 4.3.2 knight costs 7.

[player1]

Why just don't make Longbowmen which cost 30 shields like in PS MOD?

[Harovan]

And let the upgrade swordsman-longbowman cost 0 gold?

[player1]

-

[player1]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
And let the upgrade swordsman-longbowman cost 0 gold?

In that case, Swordsmen should not upgrade to Longbowmen.

Longbowmen is supposed to be cheap resouceless unit.

As 4/1/1, cost 30 unit is.

Although you could make 4/2/1, cost 40, needs iron unit (with Immortal graphic), to which Swordsmen will upgrade.


P.S.
By the way, since you have 5/6/1 Rilflemen unit, I don't see probelm with upgrading Longbowmen and Swordsmen to Riflemen.

They are all Infantry-type units.
And all of them have offense AI flag selected (including Riflemen).

Swordsmen and Bowmen were not used after Rifles anyway.

[player1]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
And let the upgrade swordsman-longbowman cost 0 gold?

In that case, Swordsmen should not upgrade to Longbowmen.

Longbowmen is supposed to be cheap resouceless unit.

As 4/1/1, cost 30 unit is.

Although you could make 4/2/1, cost 40, needs iron unit (with Immortal graphic), to which Swordsmen will upgrade.


P.S.
By the way, since you have 5/6/1 Rilflemen unit, I don't see probelm with upgrading Longbowmen and Swordsmen to Riflemen.

They are all Infantry-type units.
And all of them have offense AI flag selected (including Riflemen).

Swords & Bows were not used as primary weapons after Rifles anyway.

[alexman]

1. Republic's corruption and waste is 'problematic' instead of 'nuisance'
   This is a step in the right direction, although I promise you that you won't see a difference. Problematic has identical distance corruption as Nuisance. The difference in corruption due to number of cities is 1-2% for half the OCN, and less than 5% when over the OCN. See Aeson's test in the corruption thread.
2. Bank has maintenance of 2 instead of 1
   Research Lab has cost of 240 instead of 200 maintenance of 3 instead of 2
   Manufacturing Plant has maintenance of 4 instead of 3
   I like these changes a lot, especially since they will help the AI, who generally delays building these no-brainer improvements. I'm not sure about weakening the manufacturing plant though. Many players don't bother with these anyway, as spaceship victory is so close.
3. Hanging Gardens available with Polytheism instead of Monarchy
   Library available with Writing instead of Literature
   Universal Suffrage available with The Corporation instead of Industrialization
   Artillery available with Steel instead of Replacable Parts
   I like these changes too, but they might be too drastic for this mod. Moving libraries and hanging gardens will help the AI who somewhat ignores optional techs. That way Monarchy and Literature become truly optional, and I'm not sure they would be worth researching unless you want the GL or want to warmonger, respectively. The industrial age techs would be more balanced with this techs, but players are forced to research them all anyway, so I don't know that it would make that much of a difference in gameplay. Does it?
4. Terrain defense bonus only for forest, jungle, hills and mountains
   I personally have no problem with combat results. People just have to remember to always be stronger when they are attacking.
5. Reduced attack bonus against barbarians
   I hate barbarians! Seriously, how does this bring the mod closer to its goals? It even hampers the AI who plays at Regent.
6. Percentage of optimal cities rebalanced with regard to difficulty levels
   I love corruption! Again, I'm not sure this change is in the spirit of this mod.
7. More productive Jungles
   I'm OK with this either way, but it seems like changing for the sake of changing. Sometimes overcoming a difficult start can be very satisfying.
8. Earlier availability of irrigation without fresh water
   See comment for jungles.
9. Minimum research time in turns is 2 instead of 4
   Since 1.29f I think shooting a tech lead is a valid strategy, even on Emperor.
10. Symmetric cultural opinions, including an additional neutral level
    This seems like just an aesthetic change, because the histograph is good enough for estimating the culture-flip odds. I have no problem with it either way.

So here is the list of changes for 1.04. Speak up if you are unhappy with any of them, or if I left out one of the suggestions that are a must-have (e.g sword-longbow upgrade, items in lockstep's list)

• Remove coastal fortress and naval unit HP changes.
• Increase communist worker speed to democracy level
• Increase republic corruption to monarchy level
• Add "emphasize production" to all civs
• Increase maintenance cost for bank, research lab.
• Replace "explore" by units for Iroquois

[BillChin]

Originally posted by alexman [list=1][*]
So here is the list of changes for 1.04. Speak up if you are unhappy with any of them, or if I left out one of the suggestions that are a must-have (e.g sword-longbow upgrade, items in lockstep's list)

• Remove coastal fortress and naval unit HP changes.
• Increase communist worker speed to democracy level
• Increase republic corruption to monarchy level
• Add "emphasize production" to all civs
• Increase maintenance cost for bank, research lab.
• Replace "explore" by units for Iroquois

On the Monarchy/Democracy thread I suggest these minor tweaks to Government:
1) Monarchy add four free unit support. Four more gold is significant early, but meaningless later so Religious is not so super powerful. This change makes Monarchy slightly more desirable as the first switch. I think of these four units as an Imperial Guard.

2) Republic increase the corruption as is already slated.

3) Democracy add 0/1/2 unit support to give it a slight gold and tech edge over Republic. Strictly a game balance deal, not based on history.

4) Communism allow six military police (up from four). Add ten free unit support so small communist empires can have reasonable military. Increase unit support to 4/8/16 (from 2/4/8). With six MP, a human player can get WLTKD in all cities pop 12 or below, helping a great deal in the very large empires that Communism favors. Large armies of conscripts are historically accurate for Communist empires. Six MP and doubled unit support plus ten free units allows players to role play this. Faster Communist workers seem historically inaccurate, but I can live with it for game balance.

Nothing earth shaking here, but I see all these tweaks helping the AI and evening out the disparity in government choices (especially Communism which is shunned by most experienced players).
- Bill

[Harovan]

I still would like to give the swordsman-longbowman(4.2.1, 5, no resource)-marine upgrade a try. Opposing to player1, I think that upgrades to riflemen aren't such a good idea, as the offense-defense flags of the units will be messed up and the riflemen (and the units upgraded from them) will run around with the offense flag. This prevents the AI from building enough tanks. See the "Swordsman to Knight" thread in the Creation forum.

[player1]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I still would like to give the swordsman-longbowman(4.2.1, 5, no resource)-marine upgrade a try. Opposing to player1, I think that upgrades to riflemen aren't such a good idea, as the offense-defense flags of the units will be messed up and the riflemen (and the units upgraded from them) will run around with the offense flag. This prevents the AI from building enough tanks. See the "Swordsman to Knight" thread in the Creation forum.

As far as I have tested, this doesn't pose any real probalem.
(with 1.29f)
They still build Cavarly and Tanks in proper amounts.

And attack 5 Riflemen and atatck 8 Infantry are not realy bad option, if you have no Tanks either.

[lockstep]

Re no. 1: I won't see a difference in Republic's corruption, but I'll know it's there.

Re no. 2: No hard feelings about my suggestion for manufacturings plants, as they would be the only buildings with a maintenance of 4. However, resesarch labs IMO really should be more expensive than universities, which already cost 200 shields. BTW, I think that the bank's maintenance of 1 in vanilla Civ3 is actually a bug, because the 'Maintenance' entry of the civilopedia says it's 2.

Re no. 3: The suggestions for Hanging Gardens and Universal Suffrage are mainly aesthetic (I don't like filler techs), but should also increase strategic choice in the second case - no wonder option as a by-product of a tech (industrialization) you'd want anyhow. Artillery to Steel would weaken Replacable Parts, which is currently to good to be missed (for the human player). And libraries shouldn't be attached to an optional tech IMO.

Re no. 4: To be honest, I never understood what's the point of a GENERAL terrain defense bonus. 'Bonuses' are something special IMO, which means a lot of terrains should have a bonus of zero.

Re no. 5, 6: I adopted some of player1's tweaks that will only affect lower difficulty levels. No hard feelings here, but an attack bonus of 800% against barbarians at chieftain (which means your lonesome warrior will attack with a strength of 9) 'isn't even funny'.

Re no. 7, 8: Jungles would have stats of 1/1/0 (still worse than forests), couldn't be mined (contrary to plains) and would still entail the risk of disease. Doesn't sound too unbalancing to me. OTOH, if I start near jungle in vanilla Civ3, I normally hit control-shift-Q. Same with the lack of fresh water. I simply want to decrease the urge to quit second-rate starting locations.

Re no. 9: Being able to research a new tech every turn would be a bad idea IMO. OTOH, if you have managed to be civ no. 1 in the middle game and to trigger your golden age at that point, you'll often get a tech every 4 turns with a science rate of 60-70%. I want the option of deficit spending and/or producing wealth to enlarge my tech lead.

Re no. 10: It IS mainly an aesthetic change, but I'd like my foreign and cultural advisor to give info that is SOMEWHAT useful. Currently, the fact that 'Civ X is impressed by our culture' means that I have somewhere between 100% and 200% of their culture (who knows) and that my people are either 'unimpressed' or 'dismissive' of their culture (which makes a difference when it comes to the chances of flipping, but again - who knows).

Anyhow, I like every change that’s in your list for v1.04 so far.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman

• Remove coastal fortress and naval unit HP changes.
• Increase communist worker speed to democracy level
• Increase republic corruption to monarchy level
• Add "emphasize production" to all civs
• Increase maintenance cost for bank, research lab.
• Replace "explore" by units for Iroquois

alexman, I support all of these changes 100%. I'm glad you're a voice of reason against making relatively important changes just for the sake of making them; such changes are usually a matter of personal taste, and thus would lead to endless debate. As is, the AU MOD is one most of us can agree with. Any other tweaks can remain in our own personal .bic files for now (I know I have a couple of cool ones lying around).

I do have a very minor question about the last item in the list. I assume you're planning to remove 'Explore' and insert 'Offensive Units' for the Iroquois, correct?


Dominae

[alexman]

I updated the readme in the initial post. I will update the BIC tomorrow after people have had more time to comment.

I think we should include Sir Ralph's sword-longbow upgrade and BillChin's government tweaks for now. We will decide whether or not to keep them in the mod after some playtesting in the AU 107 game (just like we did for my brilliant Coastal Fortress idea )

[Theseus]

Great input and great job!!!

alexman is da man! (ummm, third or fourth time I've said that??) Seriously, I think you are doing a great job of balancing great ideas / improvements with staying relatively close to stock.

Of the remaining concepts, here are my top thoughts:

* Government tweaks: I'm generally hesitant... as player1 points out, these are the hardest to balance, as their effects are non-linear. The one concept I'm in favor of is (gently) improving communism, as the AI civs continue to use it.

* Swordsman upgrades: I'm very much in favor at this point, as long as the mechanism matches what we know about Medieval Infantry as closely as possible. Until PTW, the loss of Longbowmen is trivial (except for Babylon?). I would avoid a further upgrade to Marines, Riflemen, etc., as it seems the path in PTW will terminate in Guerillas, for which there is no existing analog. Lastly, I would suggest including the "Swordsman to Medieval Infantry" upgrade path in AU Mod 1.04... AU 106 is coming !

[Dominae]

I think I've found what may be a bug with one of the changes made in the AU MOD (actually, it's an Editor problem, but discovered it through the mod):

The new Great Wall ability puts City Walls in all towns (cities of size 6 and higher make the Walls obsolete). If a Barbarian attacks an undefended town, the result will be a pillaged City Walls. But the Walls don't stay destroyed because the Great Wall puts them back (I'm not sure exactly when...maybe they never leave). So, all your towns are "immune" to Barbarian attack.

I'm pretty sure that this bug doesn't exist for the Pyramids and similar improvements, but not 100% sure.

Anyone care to confirm this?


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
The new Great Wall ability puts City Walls in all towns (cities of size 6 and higher make the Walls obsolete). If a Barbarian attacks an undefended town, the result will be a pillaged City Walls. But the Walls don't stay destroyed because the Great Wall puts them back (I'm not sure exactly when...maybe they never leave). So, all your towns are "immune" to Barbarian attack.

Have you verified whether a "walls destroyed" result is always the result of barbarians entering a city with city walls? With other types of improvements, destroying an improvement is merely one of several courses of action the barbarians might choose to pursue.

Nathan

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
1.04: (* = under evaluation)
Removed HP bonus from all naval units.
Coastal Fortress no longer produces veteran units and has zero upkeep.
Harbors produce veteran units again.
Increased Republic corruption to Problematic level.
*Added three free unit support to Monarchy.
*Increased worker speed to 3 for Communism.
*Increased military police for Communism to six.
*Added 10 free unit support to Communism.
*Increased unit support to 4 per town, 8 per city, 16 per metropolis for Communism.
*Added 1 free unit per city and two free units per metropolis for Democracy.
All AI civs have "emphasize production" checked.
Iroquois have "offensive units" in their build preferences instead of "explore".
Increased aggression level of Iroquois from 2 to 3.
Maintenance of Banks and Research Labs increased by 1.
Cost of Research Labs increased to 240.
*ADM for Longbowman now 4/2/1, cost 50.
*Swordsmen upgrade to Longbowmen.

Great list! Also, it's a good idea to single out the changes that are still 'under evaluation'. Two comments:

• The change of the Iroquois' agression level seems well-founded, but I'd like to have it embedded (maybe until v1.05) in a general discussion about the average level of AI agression - should it be about the same, higher or even lower?
• The military police limit of 6 for Communism seems to be designed to virtually guarantuee WLTK days in every city, but I'm not sure if this is desirable in terms of gameplay (i.e. less need to trade luxuries, which is part of Civ3's core design). I know that this feature is 'under evaluation', but IMO it's quite radical even for that.

Originally posted by Dominae
As is, the AU MOD is one most of us can agree with. Any other tweaks can remain in our own personal .bic files for now (I know I have a couple of cool ones lying around).

My own personal bic-file has become quite similar to the AU mod, because most of the changes have been either included in the AU mod or I have dropped them for now because I don't have a solid reason on second thought. Also, there are a lot of ideas around in the mod-community that never made it in my bic-file (some really unbalancing ones and some that are subject to further testing). Anyhow, I'd be interested in the tweaks that you have 'lying around' as well as in your opinion on the tweaks I suggested (no. 3-10, as 1 and 2 are mostly part of the AU mod now).

[Harovan]

May be we find a way to improve Longevity? I'm ignoring this wonder now, because it's negative and keeps to push your cities out of WLTKD. But that means, I leave the downsides to the unlucky AI that builds it. Giving a free hospital to all (continental) cities seems way too much, even though a hospital is only 5-6 turns of production in this period and this is about the same like with barracks and Sun Tzu's. Any other ideas?

As for the proposed upgrade: The new Longbowman has the same stats like the Immortal. I thought first, that we should make it unaccessible for Persia, but OTOH it needs no iron and might be of use. Again, ideas?

[BillChin]

Originally posted by lockstep
[*]The military police limit of 6 for Communism seems to be designed to virtually guarantuee WLTK days in every city, but I'm not sure if this is desirable in terms of gameplay (i.e. less need to trade luxuries, which is part of Civ3's core design). I know that this feature is 'under evaluation', but IMO it's quite radical even for that.[/list]

Perhaps it is radical, however, I see nothing else on the table that would tempt me to consider Communism. Remember, it is an Industrial Age tech. Communism NEEDS a fairly major upgrade to give it some clear benefits over Ancient age techs such as Republic and Monarchy. It is unlikely that any changes to Communism will effect game outcomes, because 98% of games are decided before the Industrial Age.

My proposal helps the AI which seems to favor Communism in the late game. I see that as a positive. I also believe it might be useable in multiplayer (vs. the default rules where few experienced human players will choose Communism). My proposal also makes Communism an option for a small empire (10 free unit support), which is out of the question under the default rules.

As for luxuries, historically, Communist states do not import luxuries for the populace, so this fits the historical profile. Also keep in mind, that Communism is often chosen by human players when he/she has a very large empire. They usually have no need to trade for luxuries.

Communism is abysmally weak as it stands. Increasing the worker rate will not influence any human player to give it a try. Factories and railroads are a much higher priority tech path for human players, not to mention infantry, planes and tanks. There is the cost of an extra optional tech to research and the turns of anarchy. My proposal lets a human player role play historical Communist states with a large conscript military. I see it making the game more fun in single player, and Communism an equivalent option to Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, in multiplayer.

Even with the proposed upgrades (10 free units, 4/8/12 unit support, 6 MP), Communism is not a clear choice over Monarchy as a wartime government. A player needs to build courthouses and police stations in the cities near the palace to get the max benefit of Communism. That is a lot of extra set up, and even after that, can not produce large wonders as fast as a Monarchy can.

Bottom line: my proposal will NOT effect game outcomes because Communism is a late tech. It helps the AI. My proposal makes the game more fun for human players by giving them the option to role play historical Communist states with large conscript armies. My proposal makes Communism a reasonable option in multiplayer for large and small empires.
- Bill

[Slax]

I am against increasing corruption in Republic.

I know its personal preference, but usually I look forward to that small decrease in corruption that comes with a Republic government to quicken the pace of Forbidden Palace building.

Please don't increase Republic's corruption!

[Dominae]

lockstep, I must admit most of the changes in my favorite "personal" mod are present in the AU mod. There are some that I do include, however, that I wouldn't suggest to this thread. For example, I like to have Taxmen and Scientists (the doubled variant) available through Banking and Physics, respectively. Also, for a long time now I've made Swordsmen (and variants) upgrade to Marines (it's quite a shock to get hit by an amphibious assault, which happens almost every game I play, though not so effectively).

My point is that such changes don't belong in the AU mod (corrrect me if I'm wrong). The AU mod tries to keep as close to "standard" Civ3 as possible, with the changes being "obvious" ones that the community can agree upon. Large changes (like tweaking governments or corruption, etc.) may very well be fun, but are simply too drastic for this mod. Imagine in AU-109 when there will be a clear cleavage between the players who choose to play the modded scenario and those that don't. I don't think anyone wants this to happen. Some of the changes now under consideration, however, are a step in that direction.

[Aside: Please forgive me if I sound like I'm preaching; I know I've only been back to Apolyton for a couple of weeks now, it's just that AU is such a great idea I don't want to see it transform into something I'll have to disagree with!]

On to the changes proposed for 1.04. As I said, I like most of them. Here are some areas of concern:

1. Communism

It's funny how people are slowly trying to transform Communism in Civ3 into Fundamentalism from Civ2 (subconsciously, I'm sure). Six-unit Military Police means bye-bye to unhappiness. I doesn't matter if real-world Communist states imported/used Luxuries or not, they will do so in Civ3. Increasing the Support values is fine, as this will help the AI considerably, as is increasing the Worker rate (up to 3, not 4?). But making Communist states always celebrate seems a bit much.

2. Monarchy

Increasing the free Unit Support by 3 is too small a change. I think Monarchy is fine as it is, even compared to The Republic early on. Small chages like this one will only complicate the mod, and not significantly improve it.

3. Democracy

Increased unit support I assume is hopes of making this government better compared to The Republic. Again, I think that weakening The Republic is the way to go, not making the over governments better (except for Communism).

4. Swordsmen and Longbowmen

I'm fine with this change as long as it mirrors exactly what we're going to get with Play the World. I don't want to pick up any bad habits!


Dominae


P.S: nbarclay, I will do some tests soon to figure out if the Barbarians only destroy my Walls. It's not a major problem, it's just that they'll never steal money anymore, because they can always destroy the Walls. So, the silly strategy is just to leave your outlying cities completely undefended when you get the Great Wall.

[Theseus]

I'm with you, Dominae... the primary purpose of the AU Mod is to improve AI performance while staying within the realm of stock Civ3, NOT to 'fix' the game (whatever that means). The relatively minor building and unit changes are fine and make sense, but have been purposefully kept subtle.

That said, I think the changes thus far have been just great, and the ongoing discussion very valuable as well.

Re governments, I suggest as little change as possible... in fact, the only real changes I would support would be one that *help the AI civs* as opposed to changing the human players government strategy.

Thus, I like the idea of improving Communism UP TO THE POINT that it helps the AI civs (who will use it when a human player wouldn't), but not so much that a human player would use it any differently than in stock Civ3.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Dominae
lockstep, I must admit most of the changes in my favorite "personal" mod are present in the AU mod. There are some that I do include, however, that I wouldn't suggest to this thread. For example, I like to have Taxmen and Scientists (the doubled variant) available through Banking and Physics, respectively.

An interesting example. The mod-community seems to agree that specialists are too weak in vanilla Civ3 - one solution is to up taxmen/scientists to a value of 2, another one to up them to 3 and make them available in the late ancient or in the middle age. The AU way (up them to 2 and leave them available instantaneous) is somewhat nearer vanilla Civ3, but that doesn't mean other solutions are a bad idea.

Also, for a long time now I've made Swordsmen (and variants) upgrade to Marines (it's quite a shock to get hit by an amphibious assault, which happens almost every game I play, though not so effectively).

PtW is likely to include a swordsman - medieval infantry - guerilla upgrade, which is very similar to your proposal.

My point is that such changes don't belong in the AU mod (corrrect me if I'm wrong). The AU mod tries to keep as close to "standard" Civ3 as possible, with the changes being "obvious" ones that the community can agree upon. Large changes (like tweaking governments or corruption, etc.) may very well be fun, but are simply too drastic for this mod.

IMO, 'changing as little as possible' does not always mean 'changing little'. E.g. the tweak to make the Military Academy available with Military Tradition, but without a victorious army is a quite drastic one, but vastly improves gameplay (access to a core game feature without the need to wage war). But I agree with you insofar as every change (drastic or small) should be well-reasoned.

AU is such a great idea I don't want to see it transform into something I'll have to disagree with!

Exactly my thoughts. In fact, I only re-enteed the AU discussions when the changes to coastal fortresses started to have a good chance to be removed.

It's funny how people are slowly trying to transform Communism in Civ3 into Fundamentalism from Civ2 (subconsciously, I'm sure). Six-unit Military Police means bye-bye to unhappiness.

Again, exactly my thoughts. I understand the reasoning of BillChin's suggestion, but it's too radical IMO.

I think Monarchy is fine as it is, even compared to The Republic early on. Small chages like this one will only complicate the mod, and not significantly improve it.

Agreed. A good rule for mod-makers: If you suggest a small step in the right direction, it should simplify the rules, not complicate them.

I think that weakening The Republic is the way to go, not making the over governments better (except for Communism).

A small unit support for Democracy may improve gameplay - naturally, this has to be tested. But contrary to a military police limit of 6 for Communism, I don't think that this change to Democracy violates the core design of Civ3.

Swordsmen and Longbowmen ... I'm fine with this change as long as it mirrors exactly what we're going to get with Play the World.

With PtW released, the discussion of Swordsmen/Longbowmen upgrade chains is very likely to fade away ...

[BillChin]

From the first post in this thread:
The goals of this MOD are to:
- Present the player with more strategic decisions.
- Improve the AI.
- Change as little as possible, to preserve the unmodded Civ3 flavor.
- Reduce micromanagement.
-----

I believe government choice is about as strategic as decisions get in Civ III. I believe my proposed government tweaks use the available tools in the editor to make for more interesting choices, improve the AI, and preserve the integrity of the game. Others may disagree on one or all of these points, but this is the spirit of my suggestions.

The changes I propose for Monarchy (4 free unit support) and Democracy (0/1/2 unit support) are small enough that a player that did not have them pointed out, would probably not even notice them. They both improve the AI because it favors large standing armies. The editor has few options to downgrade Republic, without crippling it, so giving small nudges up for Monarchy and Democracy are a way to make the choice a more interesting one.

As for the big one, Communism, I believe most experienced players agree that the stock version is weak. I see at least two strong opponents to the six MP for Communism, plus some mild opponents. So maybe I am off base, but nothing else has been put on the table to upgrade a near useless tech and an nearly always shunned government choice. The question I pose is: "Will any experienced player shift to a Communist government in a competitive multiplayer game?" That is the bottom line of any strategic decision, whether it be the tech tree, government choice, or a wonder. Is a good human player going to consider that choice in a competitive game? Or is it an automatic yes or automatic no?

The answer in my mind is a clear NO, given the upgrades on the table for this Industrial Age tech. To me, Monarchy is clearly the better wartime government in games that are still in the balance. This is a key point because a player with a huge, sprawling empire will usually win regardless of government choice. However, I have made my case and find no supporters so perhaps I am wrong.

As for Longevity, how about making it give free Aqueducts. Free Hospitals is definitely way too much. Free maintenance for Hospitals would be my preferred bonus, but there is no way to put that in. By making Longevity give free Aqueducts it makes it worthwhile without making it super powerful. Again, this is a late game wonder, so it is unlikely that any change will effect game outcomes.

I also like the Coastal Fortress deal. In the stock game, Harbors are an automatic yes, Coastal Fortresses are an automatic no. With the change, Coastal Fortresses are an option for a player that needs naval support. Is it better to build a few ships quickly or wait for the Coastal Fortress and build fewer ships? The same choice as barracks at the start of the game and it is not always clear.
- Bill

[Dominae]

BillChin, I honestly agree with all your reasons to tweak the governments, even Communism. But I must say that I don't like the options. I would love to actually consider switching to Communism once in a while, and with your changes I would definitely do so. But, at the very least, the changes you propose should be tested thouroughly (by many).

I hope you understand my point when I say that a unhappiness-free, military-oriented government may be a bit overboard. As Civ3 is set up, every government needs to deal with unhappiness and the realities of a large army. The new Communism you propose is one step away from this.

This said, if we do adopt your changes for a future version of the AU mod, I'll happily test them out and be the first to cheer if they are balanced and "feel good". For now, I'm just wary, that's all.


Dominae

[Theseus]

Bill, I have to say that you put as much thought as anyone into these issues (you should be a Firaxis beta). And I do VERY MUCH agree with you, government choice is about the most strategic choice one can make. That's why I encourage as little change as possible from stock... what if an AU player got used to the "new Communism" (funny phrase!) and it screwed up a PTW MP game? Tweaks to make governments better for the AI are fine, but beyond that I get nervous.

I'm intrigued by the direction of your thinking though. It's late, so I might not express this properly, but if I had to ding the AI civs' approach to military strength (in the context of geovernment... I'll get back to that), the AI civs do not:

* Maintain a large enough standing military
* Balance unit types and attack / defense function
* Upgrade enough

Here's the point: Are there government tweaks that would be beneficial to the AI civs, but not exploitable to the human player, and that would / could redress those weaknesses?

Whereas 4 free units under Monarchy would affect human player decision-making, I'd like to see more discussion about your 0/1/2 concept for Democracy, for instance... as far as I can see, this would have NO impact on the human player's choice of government (the human being focused on WW, not money), but would be highly beneficial for the AI civs.

BTW, I think the ongoing discussion is great, and the AU Mod rocks... I played some of the CFC GOTM 11 today, and 'stock' sucks in comparison (but, in a non-modding way, I just gotta say that Samurai kick ever-lovin' Legion butt!!)

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Theseus
I'm intrigued by the direction of your thinking though. It's late, so I might not express this properly, but if I had to ding the AI civs' approach to military strength (in the context of geovernment... I'll get back to that), the AI civs do not:

* Maintain a large enough standing military
* Balance unit types and attack / defense function
* Upgrade enough

I am not so sure I would agree with those sentiments. I guess it would depend on the point in time you are talking about and other factors, but I see them with mostly current units after modern ear. They will get them upgraded if they are under pressure. I will skip or concede the 2nd point. The first part though, I would say that is not their biggest problem. They seem to have plenty of troops, more than me for most of the game. I think the problem is that they do not commit those troops. I will not address the use of troops as that is beyond a doubt sad. If they at least sent more units into the battle at the start the rest would not matter. I mean, I am not even addressing their willingness to send a tank/MA/MI on the attack after it survived a previous battle and has only one HP, or that they do not concentrate attacks well. Just if they had 100 units and after round one you see that they still have 80, you go ok where are they? Turn after turn they have massive numbers left sitting in their cities while you whack the handfull they sent out or if you are attacking they are slow to reenforce or do it peace meal. This is what makes them lose. They do not need more units or even great tactics, just a few simple strategies could make things interesting.

[lockstep]

BillChin, I actually think your idea to increase Communism's Military Police limit to 6 is a very interesting one, and like Dominae I would definitely consider switching to Communism once in a while with this tweak. On the other hand, I don't like the possibility that a core game feature - the need to trade luxuries with other civs to quell your empire's unhappiness - may get lost in the process. But in the end, only playtesting will tell if a typical Communist empire - which I imagine as having at least 20 cities on a standard map, half of them metropolises, and at least two different local luxury ressources - will still have the need to trade luxuries with at least some of the other civs.

As for Longevity, I think that the AU mod's tweak to make this wonder available with Medicine already makes it much better than in vanilla Civ3. (Or am I the only one who deems accelerated city growth in the early industrial age an interesting option?) Anyhow, Longevity providing hospitals in every city on the continent is also a good idea, and I wouldn't say it is unbalancing. After all, hospitals cost 160 shields each, and PtW will introduce a new Internet wonder which will provide research labs in every city on the continent, which normally cost 200 shields each.