Apolyton University Mod (PTW version) - Page 5

punkbass2000 · December 10, 2002, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
As an extreme experiment, reduce the OCN to 1 and watch the AI never build a settler. I did it yesterday. Definitely not domination threat from such an AI.

Hmmm, playing an all OCC game would be kinda interesting...

jshelr · December 12, 2002, 14:21

(Posted in "general" but moved here on recommendation.)

This note is an academic quibble with the notion that we are being fair to the poor AI in the AU mod. We are not IMO.

I approve overwhelmingly of the changes in the AU mod. However, I believe the idea that the mod has evened the playing field for the AI, even a little, is not correct. The new mod empowers the human player, particularly the warmonger. In short, me. That's why I like it.

My case rests on the SS build. In the basic game, while the human player is pounding his or her way to domination, a single civ, often separated by geography, can manage to research to the SS. This presents, as we all know, a critical time requirement for domination and strategic tradeoffs about the type of win to aim for. Go to slow and get stuck out of democracy and you might fail to achieve domination, not because any civ defeats you but because the SS clock runs out.

With the new SS requirements in the mod, the time to achieve domination has been materially lengthened. This reduced risks for the warmonger, especially on higher levels. Moreover, the improvement of the modern era wonders, which humans are more likely to get, further tilts the playing field in the human direction. I bet winning percentages go up visibly on deity and that emperor, like monarch used to be, will now approach 100% wins (if you survive the bad starts) for many of the players that post on these boards.

This is emphatically not a whine. I will likely use the new mod almost exclusively. Great work was done and many of the changes do make the AI more competitive. This is sort of like the old Roman games, however. The Christians may be a bit better armed, but we know who's going to get eaten.

alexman · December 12, 2002, 14:38

An interesting theory, jshelr, and thanks for posting it. I had never thought of that. The SS changes were made to add strategic depth to the modern ages, not to help the AI.

The real problem is, of course, that the AI never wins by domination. If it did, the delayed SS would be equally helpful to domination-aspiring AI empires as it is to humans. If we manage to get AI civs that win by domination, we might get humans that have a harder time building the SS before the AI gobbles up the land.

However, I would be willing to reconsider the SS change, just because it doesn't directly help the AI (and because it changes modern-age strategy, even if it deepens it).

jshelr · December 12, 2002, 15:58

A couple of months ago, when several of us were trying to beat deity, we agreed that a good first step was turning off the SS victory. That's what the AU mod essentially does. It's an interesting question whether we would have more fun if the SS reverted to normal PTW form.

Franses · December 12, 2002, 19:34

This is a great mod. Like many others I like it a lot. But I made a remarkable observation.

I just played a very interesting game with the mod on emperor level. The map was on random and it turned out to be all small islands with a rather bad starting position for myself. This meant I had to hang out for a while and for the first time ever I had to do so until the beginning of modern times (even though I am a builder most games were finished long before that until now).

Then everybody started to make war with everybody else which gave me the opportunity to add some extra ground to my territory. I took part in a coalition and was at war with three of the eight civ's, two of them being in the lead. Now what was remarkable was that none of the civ's (except the Korean's who where in my coalition) used air units. IMO, in Island maps air units are often essential to kill off the ships that dare come into your range.

Any idea why these mighty civ's did not use air units? I myself can not find anything in the mod that would explain such behavior. Or was this all a coincidence. What do you think?

PS: This game also proved jshelr's point. With SS I certainly would have lost the game.

alexman · December 13, 2002, 19:12

No idea why the AI didn't use air units. If anything, we have made air units a bit stronger. Probably just a coincidence, if you ask me, especially since Korea did use them. We'll keep an eye on it though.

On another note, is anyone interested in playing a PBEM game with this mod?

Franses · December 13, 2002, 19:31

My experience with (CTP) PBEM games is that they take several years to end. To long for me.

However, I think with PTW it is possible to start on-line and then switch to PBEM (and perhaps back again?). That might be a nice solution. If you are willing to try that I am definitly in.

jshelr · December 13, 2002, 20:04

PBEM with this mod -- count me in please.

Fosse · December 13, 2002, 23:48

I've never noticed easier dominations on AU, but I never pursue that victory path. If the changes have indeed made a human win easier, then maybe there's another way to add some fun into the modern era.

There have been various mods which have tried to fix the space race, the most recent that comes to mind is at
this link.

EDIT: There are two files, be sure to grab both if interested.

It's for vanilla Civ III, but worth checking out.

As for incorporating it into AU... I don't know, the more involved people can decide... it adds a touch of realism, which I think is one of the goals (not top priority, and never at AI expense, if I recall)... but it doesn't seem to help the AI, which is the primary goal (doesn't seem to hurt it either).

Panag · December 14, 2002, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

Quick! Crank out those interceptors!

hi ,

its funny but if you hit one of the ships from a pair , ( the AI seems always to sent them out in pairs ) then the AI sends both back for repair , ......

Soren any way to let the AI think twice about that , .....

okay a ship should return , but not an elite battleship with 4 hitpoints left , ......

have a nice day

Theseus · December 14, 2002, 20:20

You sure, panag? I've seen very different behavior lately... ships stay out and even attack with 3 out 4 hps left, especially when in pairs.

Panag · December 14, 2002, 20:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
You sure, panag? I've seen very different behavior lately... ships stay out and even attack with 3 out 4 hps left, especially when in pairs.

hi ,

yep , when the two units of a pair loose one point , they chicken out , ......

have a nice day

Theseus · December 14, 2002, 21:01

What version / patch are you playing these days?

alexman · December 16, 2002, 14:13

After Fanses' comments about the AI not building enough air units, and after observing what player 1 is doing in his mod recently, I think we should rebalance the air units compared to the naval units.

I propose to increase the ROF of bombers, so that they are better bombard units than battleships again. This means that we would have to increase the ROF of the rest of the air units too. We would restore the bombard strength of St. Fighters and F-15 back to their original value, and the cost of the St. Fighter back to its original value too.

This would keep the air units' relative strengths close to what it is in the stock version, except that fighters (stealth and normal) are strengthened relative to bombers due to lethal bombard. It would also keep the relative effectiveness of battleships and bombers close to what it is in the stock version.

Code:

         ===ORIGINAL===
         Unit       Str  ROF  Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%BB)
         -------------------------------------------------------
         Frigate     2    2     6   0.33    125
         Man-O-War   3    2     6   0.46    173
         Ironclad    4    2     8   0.57    161
         Destroyer   6    2    12   0.75    141 
         Battleship  8    2    20   0.89    100
         AEGIS       4    2    16   0.57     80

         ===AU MOD===
         Unit       Str  ROF  Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%BB)
         -------------------------------------------------------
         Frigate     2    2     6   0.33     83
         Man-O-War   3    2     6   0.46    115
         Ironclad    4    2     9   0.57     95
         Destroyer   6    2    12   0.75     94 
         Battleship  8    3    20   1.33    100
         AEGIS       4    3    16   0.86     80

         Value = Percentage of cost-effectiveness of battleship.

         ===ORIGINAL===
         Unit       Str  ROF  Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
         -------------------------------------------------------
         Fighter     2    1     8   0.17     16
         Bomber      8    3    10   1.33    100
         Jet Ftr     2    1    10   0.17     13
         F-15        4    2    10   0.57     43 
         St. Ftr     4    2    12   0.57     36
         St. Bbr     8    3    24   1.33     42
         Cruise     16    3     6   1.85    231*

         ===AU MOD===
         Unit       Str  ROF  Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
         -------------------------------------------------------
         Fighter     2    2     8   0.33     23
         Bomber      8    4    10   1.78    100
         Jet Ftr     3    2    10   0.46     26
         F-15        4    3    10   0.86     48*
         St. Ftr     4    3    12   0.86     40*
         St. Bbr     8    4    24   1.78     42
         Cruise     16    5     6   3.08    288*

         Tables assume a 10-strength defender
         Str = Bombard Strength
         ROF = Rate of fire
         Cost = shield cost / 10
         Dmg = expected damage in HP
         Value = Percentage of cost-effectiveness of bomber.
         * = lethal land bombard

Franses · December 16, 2002, 14:33

Sounds good to me. This may indeed help them building air units again.

player1 · December 16, 2002, 15:41

ROF 4?

This could give you navy killer air units.

You know, ships and land units on open have just defense of 8-14 (and up to 4hp).

P.S.
And could make Arty adn RA a little bit weak.

And ROF 5 Cr. Missiles are way too good.

alexman · December 16, 2002, 15:51

Even though airplanes are navy killers in reality, maybe you're right in terms of game balance. Still thinking about it...

Perhaps since ships do not get big defensive bonuses, we should increase their attack and defense strengths (say, by 50%) so that they are still balanced compared to each other, but stronger when defending against air units.

OTOH, this is starting to become too much change from stock.

ducki · December 16, 2002, 15:58

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
OTOH, this is starting to become too much change from stock.

Starting to get that snowball-rolling-down-a-mountain felling?

Robber Baron · December 16, 2002, 16:34

Okay, my galley slaves are fine with it ....
But I miss my suicide galleys

Sigh. I suppose it was an unbalancing exploit.

alexman · December 16, 2002, 16:38

You can still make suicide galley runs if you want. It's just more risky because they don't get as far in the ocean.

alexman · December 16, 2002, 21:12

The following group of changes does not directly help the AI, and is by no means minimal change from stock, but definitely adds strategic depth. As I see it, the changes are all-or-nothing, as keeping one change and not another would unbalance the game.

So the question is, do we keep the changes, or not? Or does anyone have any other suggestions? Please comment!

Code:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            APOLYTON UNIVERSITY MOD 1.13 BOMBARD UNIT CHANGES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviating from its goal to make as few changes as possible, the AU mod 
makes several changes to units with the bombard ability. This document
attempts to justify those changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a few problems with the stock version of Civ3 when it comes to
bombard units.

1) Ironclads, Destroyers, and even Frigates, are more cost-effective 
   bombard units than Battleships.
2) There is no reason to build Stealth Fighters, as two of them cost the 
   same as one Stealth Bomber, but do less damage and have double 
   maintenance costs.
3) Carriers are relatively weak for their cost, because airpower is not 
   lethal to ships
4) It is generally more effective to build ground units than to invest 
   in bombard units.


SOLUTIONS
---------

We increase ROF of Battleships and AEGIS by 1. This balances the bombard
cost-effectiveness of naval units, as shown in the following table:

         ===ORIGINAL===
         Unit       Str  ROF  Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%BB)
         -------------------------------------------------------
         Frigate     2    2     6   0.33    125
         Man-O-War   3    2     6   0.46    173
         Ironclad    4    2     8   0.57    161
         Destroyer   6    2    12   0.75    141 
         Battleship  8    2    20   0.89    100
         AEGIS       4    2    16   0.57     80

         ===AU MOD===
         Unit       Str  ROF  Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%BB)
         -------------------------------------------------------
         Frigate     2    2     6   0.33     83
         Man-O-War   3    2     6   0.46    115
         Ironclad    4    2     9   0.57     95
         Destroyer   6    2    12   0.75     94 
         Battleship  8    3    20   1.33    100
         AEGIS       4    3    16   0.86     80

         Tables assume a 10-strength defender
         Value = Percentage of cost-effectiveness of battleship.

The problem is that these increased ROF values make Battleships equally
effective bombard units as Bombers. As a result, if no other changes 
are made, the AI seems to build less Bombers. 

To maintain balance between air and naval units, we increase the ROF of 
all air units by 1. This makes Bombers more effective than Battleships
again, and all bombard units more effective combined-arms elements.

The new problem is that air units are now too powerful against naval 
units, which do not get terrain or fortification defensive bonuses. The 
solution is to increase the defense strength of all naval units by 50%.
To keep naval combat unchanged, we increase the attack strength of naval
units by 50% also.

The increased defense of naval units almost offsets the increased ROF of 
Battleships and air units, so the net result is more effective bombard
units against ground troops.

The ROF changes makes fighters a moderate bombard threat to weak units. 
Still, Jet Fighters are not as cost-effective bombard units as regular 
Fighters, so increase of their strength by 1 to fix this problem. To
establish fighters as a valid bombard unit, as opposed to being used
strictly for Air Superiority, add the lethal sea bombard ability to
all fighters. In addition, add the lethal land bombard ability to the
F-15 and Stealth Fighter. Fighters are now effective units for killing
weak targets, so add the AI air bombard flag to all of them. This new
ability makes it worth building Stealth Fighters in addition to Stealth 
Bombers, and Carriers with Fighters become a naval offensive threat.

The following table shows the cost-effectiveness of each air unit in 
bombarding:

         ===ORIGINAL===
         Unit       Str  ROF  Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
         -------------------------------------------------------
         Fighter     2    1     8   0.17     16
         Bomber      8    3    10   1.33    100
         Jet Ftr     2    1    10   0.17     13
         F-15        4    2    10   0.57     43 
         St. Ftr     4    2    12   0.57     36
         St. Bbr     8    3    24   1.33     42
         Cruise     16    3     6   1.85    231*
         Table assumes a 10-strength defender

         ===AU MOD AGAINST GROUND===
         Unit       Str  ROF  Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
         -------------------------------------------------------
         Fighter     2    2     8   0.33     23
         Bomber      8    4    10   1.78    100
         Jet Ftr     3    2    10   0.46     26
         F-15        4    3    10   0.86     48*
         St. Ftr     4    3    12   0.86     40*
         St. Bbr     8    4    24   1.78     42
         Cruise     16    4     6   2.46    231*
         Table assumes a 10-strength defender

         ===AU MOD AGAINST SHIPS===
         Unit       Str  ROF  Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
         -------------------------------------------------------
         Fighter     2    2     8   0.24     21*
         Bomber      8    4    10   1.39    100
         Jet Ftr     3    2    10   0.33     24*
         F-15        4    3    10   0.63     45*
         St. Ftr     4    3    12   0.63     38*
         St. Bbr     8    4    24   1.39     42
         Cruise     16    4     6   2.06    247*
         Table assumes a 15-strength defender to reflect naval changes

         Str = Bombard Strength
         ROF = Rate of fire
         Cost = shield cost / 10
         Dmg = expected damage in HP
         Value = Percentage of cost-effectiveness of bomber.
         * = lethal bombard

DaveMcW · December 16, 2002, 22:06

With lethal bombard fighters, why would anyone build cruise missiles?

Dominae · December 16, 2002, 22:13

As usual, I'm reticent to accept any changes that deviate significantly from stock Civ3.

Dominae

alexman · December 16, 2002, 22:27

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMcW
With lethal bombard fighters, why would anyone build cruise missiles?

Why, does anyone build cruise missiles in stock Civ3?

But to try to answer your question, you need about six Jet Fighters (that cost 10 times as many shields) to do as much damage as one Cruise Missile. It's definitely worth it if the target is protected by Fighters on Air Superiority.

Konquest02 · December 16, 2002, 22:54

I, like Dominae, am quite reticent to major changes in AU mod. But this might deserve a couple test games to prove my initial feeling...

--Kon--

alexman · December 17, 2002, 02:35

I did a quick comparison of the AU 1.12 mod and the stock rules in the modern age, and:

-> The AU mod AI builds air units with no problem. The same amount as with stock rules. This means that there is no need to increase the ROF of air units to 4, as I previously thought.

-> The AI still sometimes builds 7-6-1 Guerillas, even with 8-10-1 Infantry available. Why?

-> With 150% OCN, the AI actually won by domination on a tiny map, thus putting my OCC test to an end

ducki · December 17, 2002, 11:29

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman

-> The AI still sometimes builds 7-6-1 Guerillas, even with 8-10-1 Infantry available. Why?

You're sure these are builds and not upgrades?

Could it be some sort of cost or time-required "analysis" by the AI?

alexman · December 17, 2002, 11:36

Unfortunately, I'm sure they were from scratch because I was in debug mode and knew what the AI was building at all times.

One solution would be to make Guerillas upgrade to Infantry (for 0 gold). This would mean that you can't build Guerillas unless you have no rubber.

Panag · December 17, 2002, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman

Why, does anyone build cruise missiles in stock Civ3?

But to try to answer your question, you need about six Jet Fighters (that cost 10 times as many shields) to do as much damage as one Cruise Missile. It's definitely worth it if the target is protected by Fighters on Air Superiority.

hi ,

those rockets are great to be put with six at the time , and joined by two tactical ones (

) at a nuclear sub , .....

not to mention of the increased range , .....

anyway , its always worth it to have a couple on the block , certainly in modern times when a mech or mod armor army stands on your door , .......

have a nice day

Dominae · December 17, 2002, 11:46

The problem with the Guerilla->Infantry upgrade is that anything that is supposed to fall under the umbrella-category "Guerilla-upgradeable" now upgrades to Infantry if the civ has Rubber (for example, Medieval Infantry upgrade to Infantry). I don't think this was the intended use of Infantry (or Guerilla).

Maybe Guerillas build orders are hard-coded to accentuate the differences between stock Civ3 and PTW. Just a thought...

Dominae