Apolyton University Mod (Thread II)

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by aaglo
To the true nature of berserker, it should have defence dropped to 1 and hitpoints increased with 1

I propose dropping its defence, not messing with its hitpoints, and lowering its freaking cost. For God's sake, the unit is too expensive!!!

[Fosse]

Despite what I originally thought about the berserker before PTW came out (Too powerful, too expensive), I've found that it's actually pretty balanced. You're getting Cavalry level attack with invention, after all. That SHOULD cost a pretty penny. Also, remember that with the militaristic Vikings, all of your Berskerkers will be veterans unless you TRY to make your force less efficient.


Sometimes you'll have the Vikings landlocked with poor production cities, sure. But sometimes you'll have the Iroquois with no access to horses.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Ah, I just keep over-REXing with the Vikings and then getting attacked by some screwheads like the Russkies or the Celts... without a good enough infrastructure to fight back.

But I'm sure I'll get my Viking timing right eventually.

[player1]

I dropped Bezerk cost to 50, and attack to 5.

That way they are not to much expensive (much lower loss if you lose them against charging Knights). They are still pretty cost effecive on attack since you can build more of them.

And, as plus, they won't have annoying Cavarly attack of 6.

5/2/1, cost 50, Amp.
Pretty good balance.

[nbarclay]

I don't view the Bezerk as having sufficient balance problems to justify making changes in the AU Mod. I'll grant that Player1's version seems more realistic, but making changes for realism purposes alone goes against the spirit of the AU Mod.

[Catt]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I don't view the Bezerk as having sufficient balance problems to justify making changes in the AU Mod. I'll grant that Player1's version seems more realistic, but making changes for realism purposes alone goes against the spirit of the AU Mod.

I agree.

Catt

[MrWhereItsAt]

That stupid Guerilla is nigh-on useless for ANYONE as it is. Isn't it just a little bit of sense to give it ignore movement cost and 2 moves? The difference between 2 moves and 3 (as for the Cavalry) is huge enough, so IMO Cavalry are still better than the Guerillas for normal (read flat land) combat situations.

[nbarclay]

Keep in mind that in the AU Mod, both infantry and guerillas have had their attack value increased from six to eight. Giving guerillas a faster movement rate, and thus the ability to retreat, on top of that would be a bit unbalancing (at least once artillery have softened up the target). Also, if guerillas had a faster movement rate, it would take away the ability for cavalry, tanks, and MAs to retreat from them.

Guerillas have two main reasons for their existence as part of the game. (1) They provide an upgrade path for ancient and medieval slow-moving offensive units. (2) They provide a more potent attacker for civs that don't have the resources for cavalry or infantry. But the very fact that they are a "no resources required" unit means that they should be, in general, clearly less potent than their counterparts that do require resources.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I don't view the Bezerk as having sufficient balance problems to justify making changes in the AU Mod. I'll grant that Player1's version seems more realistic, but making changes for realism purposes alone goes against the spirit of the AU Mod.

I also think the Berserkir is fine as it is, but I might suggest that these stats would be more historically accurate, in case anyone cares: reduced cost and reduced attack. After all, there were LOTS of these guys... they weren't Gods from the sky, even if they did believe in them.

But for play reasons, the berserk is fine. Just a change I'd like to see the future I guess.

[Buckets]

I'd like to say that some great work has been done here and my hats off to all involved. I'm only sorry that i just discovered this thread yesterday, as i've been tinkering on my own version of an 'enhanced ai/stategy' mod for months now.

If you care to hear some new ideas (maybe they're all old to you) here's what i've done differently:

Since the ai loves hospitals and takes forever to build factories, i've added 2 happiness to hospitals and 2 unhappines to factories to 'reward' growth and 'punish' production. Of course the net result is the same amount of happiness in the end. A nice side-effect is the player has the choice of not building factories at all, hence reaping more happiness >more pop >more commerce, which i think enhances the strategical choice between commerce and shields. Another nice side-effect is that 'Cure for cancer' can now be modded to double the happiness of hospitals (+2 in any city w hospital), which is more realistic.

Give aircraft movement of 2. This allows them to rebase and attack/perform a mission on the same turn, which compared to the movement bonus of railroads, is also more realistic. Note that without blitz, aircraft can only do one bombing run anyway and recon takes up all remaining movement points. However, i'm thinking of eliminating the extra movement from bombers, mainly since it requires skipping their turns if they have movent points left, but also i imagine they do rebase slower than fighters.

Eliminate 'build city' from desert, tundra, forest, jungle and mountains (as before). This make certain regions purely uninhabitable (as they should be) and the ai has no trouble dealing with it. In fact i think it helps them because they won't build cities in usesless desolate locations. And for the first time i actaully saw decent use of colonies! Note that ai's with the 'build often: trade' are more likely to build colonies. The only human advantage here is that the human can first order workers to clear forest/jungle, then settle. But, from my playtesting, i've seen little advantage to this until the late game. It's usually much better to just find a different spot and settle sooner, as the ai does. But hey, if you want to spend 24 worker turns in ancient times to claim a scrap of jungle, be my guest...

Make nearly all units 'wheeled' until replaceable parts. (ie- all but worker, settler, scout, infantry, marine, and paratrooper. plus i suppose guerilla, for ptw.) This means that solid strips of moutain and jungle are now obstacles that must be roaded before normal units may pass. Again, the ai deals with this fairly well. It will not build roads, unless it's within their borders (or for the sake of a colony), but it will rather try to find another way around (quite often by sea). An interesting effect is that non-expansionist civs can be as isolated by jungle and mountain as by islands. This improves the expansionist trait by making them the 'discoverers'. So, again it think this adds to strategic depth and realism. ps- It's been noticed that the ai can move wheled units where they're not supposed to go if they're accompanying settlers. I think this is okay and reasonable since it's usually one defender and they build a road eventually.

Added 4 commerce to gold, for a total bonus of 8. It's about who owns what terrain, really. If you don't have it, you'd better go get it.

Fortresses provide 100% bonus. The ai uses them on their colonies, and occasionally on choke points. Okay, maybe this is too advantageous for the human, but when they do build fortresses, it should be worhtwhile.

Smart Weapons-removed prerequisite Satellites. This is to allow precision strikes somewhat earlier. Precision strikes are the only real reason to build stealth, and what makes the f-15 good, so to balance these units, Smart Weapons comes (possibly) sooner. There's redundancy anyway in the fact that Integrated Defence requires satellites and smart weapons, while smart weapons require satellites.

I've also added upgraded citizens as techs advance. (are you opposed to adding citizens?) The ai loves this as it always chooses the best ones and uses lots of them in size 20+ cities.

I've decided to go all out and change the Marine to 12.8.1, requires rubber, and the paratrooper to 8.12.1 requires oil. Reasoning? The ai does not use the 'special ability of these units (that i've ever seen in over a year...) so i made them into 'alternative' attackers/defenders. For example, you have oil but lack rubber, the paratrooper makes a good defender substitute for MI. If you have rubber but no oil, the marine will make a good attacker substitute for tanks. The ai recognizes this (with the proper flags attached) and you will see them use these units only if they lack resources.

One major difference is that i've taken the approach of decreasing the OCN, rather than increasing it. Why? Thinking about it, there's really only one strategy in Civ3 - expand. Playing Civ3 can be like watching a snowball build -slowly. All the 'victories' come from a general domination strategy. Let me put it this way: What are the advantages of staying small, under your OCN? The ai's atttitude towards you is better.... but then they bully you despite that. Corruption is lower ....but overall production is lower too. Well, that's about it, whopee. Now, what are the advantages of expanding? where do i start? resources, power rating, science, production, culture... need i go on? The advantages of claiming territory all willy-nilly far outweighs the strategic choices of 'optimal placement'. In a nutshell, big is good, small is bad. So, in order to give an advantage to small civs and a penalty to large civs, i've lowered the ocn, added 'free units' to all government types (yes i know this will be map size specicfic), lowered the unit support of communism/monarchy/despotism to half, and doulbled the unit support cost of democracy/republic. The theory is that at a certain optimal size, unit support is equal to the unmodded rules, above is more costly and below is less costly. I may not have gotten the math right but (for me) i think it's a step in the right direction. Oh, and when the ocn only allows 1-2 rings of cities, the ai can't really make as bad a placement choice for the FP.

Speaking of the FP, i've made the real Palace unbuildable, for obvious reasons.

Sorry that was so long (first post here). Whether you use these things or not, i hope these ideas help in some way.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Buckets, those suggestions were like buckets of gold.

Seriously, those are all very good suggestions. I would have to differ with the final one, though, about the palace. Real palaces are built, and capitals shifted, all the time (relatively speaking) in the history of nations. Just look at the Roman empire. From Rome to Byzantium. Or China, from Xian to Beijing. Or Japan, from Osaka to Tokyo... but you get the picture.

Other than that, though, I think those are great ideas, and seem to pan out well in use, too. Do you have a mod we could D/L?

[Nor Me]

Buckets, all very interesting suggestrions .

Unfortunately, I don't rate the chances of getting any of them implemented very highly. Some of them are too radical for this MOD. About the others, I've seen similar suggestions already debated to the death. You'll notice the link to 2 prevoious ~500 post threads in the title. Not to mention the threads for player1's Patch Suggestion MOD.

[Dominae]

Yup Buckets, those are some good suggestsions. I may have time to go back and comment on each in turn later. For now, I must say that most of them fit into the "too radical a change from stock Civ3" category.

Concerning the OCN, you have to consider the fact that the AI's decision to claim more land is directly related to this value. Lowering it means that AIs will not expand. As you said, expanding is all-powerful, so you with your change you would end up having large, powerful and inefficient human empires, and small, weak and efficient AI empires. The human would be at the advantage here (moreso than usual).


Dominae

[Nor Me]

To reply to specific suggesttions:

Originally posted by Buckets
Since the ai loves hospitals and takes forever to build factories, i've added 2 happiness to hospitals and 2 unhappines to factories to 'reward' growth and 'punish' production. .

I suggested giving factories the abilities of a barracks to make the AI build them more often but that was vetoed as too radical because the human could save 1 gold a city per turn! You risk reinforcing already bad AI build choices so that would have to be playtested. The human knows how to use the luxury slider properly so has the advantage in dealing with unhappiness. Are you sure your not underestimating the AIs ability to build factories when its at peace.
If it passes those tests, it's a good change but I don't see alexman agreeing with it

Eliminate 'build city' from desert, tundra, forest, jungle and mountains (as before).

Firstly, does the map generator know that these are uninhabitable? This could give very bad starting positions and inaccessible resources on islands. Does the AI eventually colonise forest/jungle?
I've played Marla's world map with desert and tundra uninhabitable (and unreforestable) and I've not seen oil move to an arctic island but I've not tried it with generated maps.

Make nearly all units 'wheeled' until replaceable parts. (ie- all but worker, settler, scout, infantry, marine, and paratrooper. plus i suppose guerilla, for ptw.)

I'll suspend judgement about the early effects of this until I've tried it but radical is an understatement for this one. I've seen the AI unload wheeled tanks on the other side of a jungle before now. Tanks were originally wheeled in this mod but it's been changed.

Added 4 commerce to gold, for a total bonus of 8. It's about who owns what terrain, really. If you don't have it, you'd better go get it.

a more reasonable change but why?

Fortresses provide 100% bonus.

I think that's already been suggested and debated. Only the human can use forts effectively when they're useful.

Smart Weapons-removed prerequisite Satellites.

Suprisingly for civ, I can see the realism behind the original prerequisites. Although this is a change that might be strategically more whatever. ( WTF do I mean by realism in that sentence anyway. It's certainly not Platonism nor even pagmatism.)

I've also added upgraded citizens as techs advance. (are you opposed to adding citizens?) The ai loves this as it always chooses the best ones and uses lots of them in size 20+ cities.

The effects of the original specialists have already been doubled. There are alternative uses such as highly corrupt cities that have to be balanced. If it can be shown that increasing the effect of specialists at any point helps the AI and it works graphically then why not?

I've decided to go all out and change the Marine to 12.8.1, requires rubber, and the paratrooper to 8.12.1 requires oil. Reasoning? The ai does not use the 'special ability of these units (that i've ever seen in over a year...) so i made them into 'alternative' attackers/defenders. For example, you have oil but lack rubber, the paratrooper makes a good defender substitute for MI.

Firstly, I've seen the AI use both abilities. In the case of marines, I've seen it use it effectively (although I've not yet seen a 1 square island fall). I've also finished off a conquest victory with 10.8.1 marines because they could be researched earlier than tanks. Is giving the AI an alternative defender a good idea? Or do we want civs with no rubber to die?

One major difference is that i've taken the approach of decreasing the OCN, rather than increasing it.

As Dominae said, the AI would really take the perfectonist approach when it might be better to have lots of corrupt cities. With a well placed FP, a human can have a productive empire twice the size of any AI. Lots of 95% corrupt cities can be used for specialists or conscripts. A Communist empire at 5 times the OCN and enough corruption reducing improvements might have every city very corrupt but it can outproduce any other reasonably sized empire.

Speaking of the FP, i've made the real Palace unbuildable, for obvious reasons.

I've tried this. But it just means I should be prepared to palace jump (abandon the capital) which is even more of a silly exploit than just building it elsewhere.

[nbarclay]

I'm not going to address all of Buckets' proposals right now, but I'll go ahead and address a few of them.

Giving aircraft the ability to rebase and then do something else is an intriguing proposition. If others use aircraft as rarely as I do, it could be useful from an "additional strategic options" perspective as long as it doesn't undercut AI effectiveness unacceptably. (The thing that drives me nuts about aircraft is how hard it is to get them where they're needed in time to use them effectively. Defensively, artillery can go anywhere on the continent to bombard sufficiently close enemy ships or troops, while aircraft are only useful if the enemy happens to come near where the aircraft are. Offensively, aircraft can't keep up with a full-speed MA blitz. Giving aircraft an extra movement point would go a long way toward offsetting the extremely limited range of Civ 3 aircraft.

Adding the "wheeled" flag to most units has the undesirable side effect of making bad starting positions a lot worse. Sometimes there's only room for a handful of cities (maybe even just one or two with real growth potential) near the starting position and then you have to cross several mountain or jungle tiles to get anywhere else. Such situations are hard enough to deal with without having to road through the tough territory to get military units out (especially for a non-industrious civ).

I don't like the idea of taking away the ability to settle other terrain types. Virtually any type of terrain can support at least small settlements in the real world (even deserts tend to have an occasional oasis), and I think the difficulty of making cities with only desert, jungle, forest, or tundra available grow reflects that. Also note that with a harbor, a coastal tundra city can be well worth having if only for the extra commerce.

Making gold more valuable than it already is in terms of commerce would tend to give a civ that can exploit gold early too much of an advantage. And unless AIs know to plant cities on gold hills to get the commerce bonus without sacrificing growth, it would also tend to shift the balance in favor of human players. I see no significant advantage in terms of gameplay that would offset those factors. (Keep in mind that conquered gold would tend to be far enough away not to be worth a whole lot in the early game even at twice the value.)

The idea of a happiness bonus for hospitals and a happiness penalty for factories is intriguing. With my usual strategy of having many cities not really designed to grow past size 12, Sanitation tends to be a relatively low priority for me these days and many of my cities never do get hospitals. A happiness bonus for hospitals would shift the balance of advantage a bit away from such strategies.

[Buckets]

Thanks for the comments, everyone. It's good to debate these things from time to time. Keep in mind i'm in no way claiming any of these changes are for the better with respect to your mod. Just injecting a few new ideas (if they are new). Anyhow, in the spirit of debate and progress, i'll play devil's advocate and reply to a few things.

Do you have a mod we could D/L?

No, but i suppose i could learn how to do that. There are more changes yet unmentioned, so if i do get it up online, keep in mind it's not exactly a AU game-testing type mod. it's really just for my own pleasure.

Some of them are too radical for this MOD...You'll notice the link to 2 prevoious ~500 post threads in the title

Point taken. I tried to at least read all of Alexman's posts. I will be implementing many AU changes into my mod.

As you said, expanding is all-powerful, so you with your change you would end up having large, powerful and inefficient human empires, and small, weak and efficient AI empires. The human would be at the advantage here (moreso than usual).

Well, i don't really have a counter-argument here, but i will say that my style of 'struggle -grow bigger -be the biggest - get bigger -win' has altered since i tried this. But, i am only one guy and can only do so much playtesting. I think AU's current solution is a good one and i only recommend considering an alternative.

You risk reinforcing already bad AI build choices so that would have to be playtested. ... Are you sure your not underestimating the AIs ability to build factories when its at peace.

I agree that since changing the 'build often' orders, the ai builds them a little more often. But do you not think that factories are already one of the single best improvements? i think nerfing them a bit is not unbalancing, rather it's balancing. Same thought goes for hospitals. Isn't it nice to know that you can build a hospital, grow your city and it will not fall into disorder? I mean, really, I'm glad the city i live in has a hospital.

On a side note, i think someone mentioned part of the problem with the ai not building factories is that they cost alot of shields. Well, why not split the factory into 2 buildings, say 'factory a' and 'factory b'. They both cost 120 sheilds, produce +1 production, +1 pollution, one has a maintenance of 1 and the other 2. one would be a prereq for the other. Just a thought.

Firstly, does the map generator know that these are uninhabitable?

Yes, it does. I generated dozens of maps with these settings and it once placed a start position on a mountain(!), of all places. I think it gives pretty good spots for the capital, but after that... well where's the fun without a little diversity and challenge. If you get stuck behind a jungle - deal. Same if you get stuck on an island. Harder, but not impossible. Since when are the start positions fair anyway? Maybe you could ask a native american how they liked their start position. (Ok, sorry that was o/t, but i couldn't resist.)

inaccessible resources on islands.

Yep, but very rarely. I think there's too many resouces in the game already. They should be scarce and worth fighting over.

Does the AI eventually colonise forest/jungle?

Yes. Forests, absolutely, simply because there's rarely a 'jungle' of forests. There always seems to be a good patch a tile or two away. Jungles, sometimes. If a city gets built on the edge of a jungle, the jungle gets cleared within the borders. If that city gets razed, the ai might settle deeper in, etc. It does use colonies fairly well, however, so city building is not that big of an issue.

I've seen the AI unload wheeled tanks on the other side of a jungle before now. Tanks were originally wheeled in this mod but it's been changed.

I'll take your word for it, but i haven't yet seen such anomalies.

'Added 4 commerce to gold' ...a more reasonable change but why?

This is a more complicated question, but it boils down to my concept of strategy, my concept of history, and the concept of civ in general. As the unmodded rules are, building cities often, anywhere, and everywhere is the way to go. That's not what i had hoped for before i got the game out of the box and unravelled the basic winning strategies. History (talking real-world here) has shown that it's not the people, it's not religion, it's not wars that make winners and losers out of civilizations, it's the terrain. Why did europeans conquer the americas and not vice-versa? As an example, the americans had no horses, no cattle, and no domestcatable animals capable of doing heavy labour. Thus, they did not 'invent the wheel' as we know it. The europeans, on the other hand, had great domesticatable plants and animals, mostly thanks to the fact that the terrain allowed easy access to the fertile crescent. Also, because of the diverse east-west terrain, alot of independent civs could take hold and create a great amount of in-fighting, which sparked great scientific advancement. So there's merely one example. Ask someone who knows what they're talking about and you'll get lots more about this. but i digress.
I just want to see the terrain actaully worth something, i mean it should be a tough descision- do i build here and get the gold or do i build there and get more grassland? That's why i also advocate decreasing the strategic resources and the ocn. Do i build a worhtless city (maybe even a costly city) to get this resource or can i just peacfully trade for it?

I think that's already been suggested and debated. Only the human can use forts effectively when they're useful.

Fair enough. But i will add that since the ai uses colonies in my mod, they do religiously build fortesses on them too.

If it can be shown that increasing the effect of specialists at any point helps the AI and it works graphically then why not?

Yes and yes. No reason why not. i love 'em.

But it just means I should be prepared to palace jump (abandon the capital) which is even more of a silly exploit than just building it elsewhere.

Okay, but which is worse, a free wonder every era, or palace jumping, which i might add, costs your (potentially) most productive city and is kinda risky? Note that the ai never ever moves the capitla.

Giving aircraft the ability to rebase and then do something else is an intriguing proposition. ...as long as it doesn't undercut AI effectiveness unacceptably

So far no worries there. Make sure jets are marked as 'ai defence' only and they'll build them to counter your airstrikes.

Adding the "wheeled" flag to most units has the undesirable side effect of making bad starting positions a lot worse. Sometimes there's only room for a handful of cities (maybe even just one or two with real growth potential) near the starting position and then you have to cross several mountain or jungle tiles to get anywhere else. Such situations are hard enough to deal with without having to road through the tough territory to get military units out (especially for a non-industrious civ).

Substitute 'undsirable' with 'challenging' and i agree with you 100%

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Buckets

Substitute 'undsirable' with 'challenging' and i agree with you 100%

I'm curious: do you normally play out those "challenging" starts rather than restarting? If so, how do they typically turn out?

[Dominae]

I had a bunch of time to think about this in class today, and I've come up with a more coherent argument as to why Navigation should not be optional in the AU mod.

1. Motivation

The AI does not really take into account the optional/mandatory distinction in its decision of which tech to research next. Human players can avoid the optional techs they do not need. Taken together, these two facts give the human player and advantage over the AI with respect to progression through the tech tree. In hopes of making a more challenging AI, this problem could be addressed in the AU mod.

The main (only) argument against the proposed change is that it removes a strategic option (research Navigation or not) for the human player. This will be addressed presently in points 2 and 3.

2. Peaceful tech progression

Take the semi-extreme case of pure peaceful progression through the Medieval tech tree: Monotheism, Theology, Education, Astronomy. At this point the human player has the option of researching Navigation or some other (presumably required) tech. My argument here is that, if the player does in fact choose this route, the "decision" is really not much of a decision at all.

Consider first that the goal in getting Navigation is to establish naval trade routes. If this were the case, then the "decision" to get Navigation was made far before the completion of Astronomy (since the important parts of the map are usually revealed by then), and is completely independent of whether or not Navigation is optional. That is, if the human player believes that peaceful trade is the way to go, then he or she is always better off researching Navigation (optional or not) instead of going back to research all the techs leading up to Magnetism.

Second, if the human player has no need for naval trade routes just yet, he or she would never research Navigation in favor of some other (required) tech. Therefore the "decision" here is really no decision at all.

3. Military tech progression

In this case it is even more obvious that the player need not even consider researching Navigation. By focusing on the military techs first (Engineering, Invention, Gunpowder, Chemistry), he or she is always better off just getting Physics and Magnetism in order to use Navigation's trade effect. The reasons are simple: 1) if the focus is military, then overseas trade is not really a priority (for the moment), 2) Magnetism is required for advancement, and 3) Magnetism offers Galleys and Frigates, which are somewhat more attractive to a warmonger than Navigation's Explorer and Magellan's.

4. Hybrid tech progression

A more realistic scenario is if the human player is progression through the tech tree in a less focused way than the in the situations described above (presumably through trade with the AIs). In this case the player is better off just not researching Navigation, since the AIs (who are at approximately the same level of advancement) will do so themselves, and the player can just trade for Navigation later if its ability is desirable (usually not, since Magnetism is relatively close). So there's yet again no real strategic decision (in a vast majority of the cases). In this hybrid case, there would in fact be more strategic choice involved if Navigation were required, because it is not obvious whether it is better to research it or some (usually better) tech, like Physics.

5. Additional strategic options

Personally, I finish most of my games without Navigation (I sometimes get it as an afterthought when trading some weak civ). This means I never ever use Explorers. I know if no one who prioritizes Navigation for Explorers, partly due to the weakness of the unit, partly due to the fact that Navigation is optional. Making Navigation required may change this somewhat.

6. Spain

The Spanish are highly disadvantaged in being the only civ that gets its UU as part of a optional tech. And, as above, the fact that the Conquistador is not the best UU ever makes this situation ever worse. This is of course a minor point, but it would make Spain slightly better if Navigation were required.


Dominae

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Dominae
The Spanish are highly disadvantaged in being the only civ that gets its UU as part of a optional tech. And, as above, the fact that the Conquistador is not the best UU ever makes this situation ever worse. This is of course a minor point, but it would make Spain slightly better if Navigation were required.

Or if the conquistador were a better unit!

Perhaps amphib attack capabilities? Maybe an attack of 4? It's a little too weak, unless you can set your game up where all the civs are clumped close together, with several large empty continents waiting to be discovered by your boatloads of conquistadores...

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

4. Hybrid tech progression

A more realistic scenario is if the human player is progression through the tech tree in a less focused way than the in the situations described above (presumably through trade with the AIs). In this case the player is better off just not researching Navigation, since the AIs (who are at approximately the same level of advancement) will do so themselves, and the player can just trade for Navigation later if its ability is desirable (usually not, since Magnetism is relatively close). So there's yet again no real strategic decision (in a vast majority of the cases). In this hybrid case, there would in fact be more strategic choice involved if Navigation were required, because it is not obvious whether it is better to research it or some (usually better) tech, like Physics.

(emphesis added)

If a player is expecting to get Navigation in a trade with an AI, making Navigation mandatory is irrelevant to his research path. Whether Navigation is mandatory or optional has an impact on human strategy only if the player sees a significant likelihood of having to research it himself sooner or later if it's mandatory, or if the player would prefer not to trade for it if he doesn't have to. So I think you're seriously overestimating the degree to which making Navigation mandatory would impact human research paths in competitive games.

I also think you're overestimating the inherent dichotemy between peaceful and military strategies. Even when I'm aiming for major cavalry campaigns, I'll usually focus on the peaceful branch of the tech tree for at least a while before I go beyond Invention on the military branch because I want universities and probably banks to support my military research. Going on to get Astronomy and Navigation can (depending on the circumstances) be an extension of that: if I can drop my luxury spending to zero thanks to imported luxuries, it's a lot easier to get my military research time down to or near four turns. The result is that I get Military Tradition almost as soon as if I went straight toward it, and I have a much higher research capacity to research beyond Military Tradition. It's that decision of whether the benefits of going ahead and getting Astronomy and Navigation outweigh the detour from getting Military Tradition that I don't want to see shifted by making Navigation mandatory.

You say you rarely get Navigation unless you trade for it. How often would you be unable to trade for it by the end of the medieval era on terms that wouldn't cut into your tech lead (or parity) significantly? Is the change really something that would have a major impact in practice, or just in theory?

Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
If a player is expecting to get Navigation in a trade with an AI, making Navigation mandatory is irrelevant to his research path.

You took a quote out of context. In the games where the AI and the human are relatively close, the human player will prioritize techs that 1) do something, and 2) are mandatory. Therefore Navigation is always bypassed (in these situations), since 1) the AI will pick it up soon enough, 2) Magnetism is not too far away.

So I think you're seriously overestimating the degree to which making Navigation mandatory would impact human research paths in competitive games.

That's not the point. The point is that the human can bypass Navigation entirely, which means more money in the his or her pocket, so to speak. I am, in fact, arguing that making Navigation mandatory has almost no impact on human research paths, which is the exact counter to your own argument for why the change should not take place (it would remove a strategic option).

It's that decision of whether the benefits of going ahead and getting Astronomy and Navigation outweigh the detour from getting Military Tradition that I don't want to see shifted by making Navigation mandatory.

It seems to me like there is really no decision at all in your games. You hit Education, then Astronomy and Navigation before going Military Tradition, because you're convinced that this is in fact faster than the Military Tradition beeline from the start. I'm highly doubtful that this last part is true. Even if it were, you've got a knock-down argument as to why Navigation is necessary, and therefore you should have no problem in it becoming mandatory. I would argue, rather, that the Military Tradition beeline is more common than you would think (in most games), and therefore that detouring to get Navigation after Chemistry is already in hand is a waste of time.

You say you rarely get Navigation unless you trade for it. How often would you be unable to trade for it by the end of the medieval era on terms that wouldn't cut into your tech lead (or parity) significantly? Is the change really something that would have a major impact in practice, or just in theory?

I'm not sure I understand your question. But I believe what you're asking is whether the extra cost of getting Navigation would be relevant in my games. The answer is: sometimes yes. Sometimes I'm struggling to keep up with the AI, and the thought of having to trade for yet another tech before reaching the Industrial age is a nightmare. In practice, I avoid all optional techs in the Medieval age other than Chivalry, Military Tradition (and sometimes Music Theory). And I am quite certain I am not alone in this.


Nathan, I'm not sure what you're arguing for anymore. You seem to like a certain tech path in the Medieval age, one that focuses on economy until "the time is right" for Military Tradition. Fine. I honestly cannot see how making Navigation mandatory would interfere with your games. In the games where you would want to get it, you would still do so, and in the games where you would not want to get it, you would have to, making the AI a stronger opponent. So, gameplay is really not affected (in your case and in the general case), and where it is it directly helps the AI.

One of the major goals of the AU mod is to help the AI, yet you're arguing that this change that will affect gameplay on slightly (if that) is not a good idea. If I did not know better, I would say you're trying to keep the AI "down where it belongs".


Dominae

[player1]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth


Or if the conquistador were a better unit!

Perhaps amphib attack capabilities? Maybe an attack of 4? It's a little too weak, unless you can set your game up where all the civs are clumped close together, with several large empty continents waiting to be discovered by your boatloads of conquistadores...

Just give them cost of 50.
That way, exempt being super pillager, they can be killers of backward civs (as in reality), and destoyers of Knights and Cavalry on open (for cheap 50 shileds cost).

[nbarclay]

Dominae, the reason I don't want Navigation made mandatory is that somewhere in between the games where I definitely want Navigation and the ones where I'm definitely better off skipping it (and yes, I do have both), there are games where it's a tough decision. There are advantages to going ahead and researching Navigation, and advantages to skipping it (and probably Astronomy too) and heading straight toward Military Tradition after Banking. That is exactly the sort of situation that optional techs exist to create, and I don't like taking that nuance away.

To take this to an extreme, we could probably make AIs a bit more competitive by making every optional tech mandatory. But the existence of optional techs is part of the flavor of Civ 3, and I don't want to throw away that flavor. You seem to view Navigation as so uninteresting and useless that it can be shifted from optional to mandatory without the same kind of effect on the game's flavor that making Music Theory or Economics mandatory would have. But from my perspective, the effect is similar with all three because there are times when I find the question of whether to "waste" time researching Navigation in order to reap its benefits strategically interesting. In other words, I don't like the idea of wholesale elimination of the idea of optional techs because I don't like how it would affect the game's flavor, and I don't think Navigation deserves to be singled out for special treatment.

By the way, I'm not saying I can get to Military Tradition faster with my detours than I would without. But my detours don't slow me down much, and they leave me in a much stronger position when I get there, both in terms of where I am in the tech tree and in terms of my capacity for continuing research.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Dominae, the reason I don't want Navigation made mandatory is that somewhere in between the games where I definitely want Navigation and the ones where I'm definitely better off skipping it (and yes, I do have both), there are games where it's a tough decision. There are advantages to going ahead and researching Navigation, and advantages to skipping it (and probably Astronomy too) and heading straight toward Military Tradition after Banking. That is exactly the sort of situation that optional techs exist to create, and I don't like taking that nuance away.

And making Navigation mandatory would make this decision not-so-tough? Frankly I've never encountered this dilemma in any of my games.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

With the standard rules, a big piece of the price of researching Navigation is that it means researching a tech you wouldn't need otherwise. Depending on the circumstances, making Navigation mandatory would take away part or all of that price. So the change would tend to make researching Navigation more attractive than it is under the standard rules (which could make decisions either easier or harder, depending on the original balance).

Thinking about that, the real question is whether most players follow your tendency to never research Navigation themselves or my tendency to research it sometimes but not others, depending on the situation. If your tendency is typical, making Navigation more attractive could objectively be viewed as positive overall even if I don't like how it affects me personally. But if a large percentage of players already regard Navigation as worth researching, that would indicate that Navigation's optional nature is working as intended and there's no compelling reason to change it. I'll start a poll and we can see how it comes out.

Nathan

[Dominae]

I was just about to propose the same thing. Our debates are nice, but we're only two players. The AU mod is meant to be for a bunch more.


Dominae

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I just wanted to throw in my two cents here:

Navigation in HISTORY was quite optional. Many states went through a period without navigating the world, and turned out quite functional.

No nation has been without some sort of seapower, but I would say what "navigation" represents in C3, many cultures skipped, and some still turned out to be superpowers.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

For examples of the above, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans, India.

[Theseus]

Strike the last two.

[CerberusIV]

This all seems to turn on the fact that the AI NEEDS Navigation - because it doesn't do suicide galleys. For the same reason in reverse human players don't need Navigation because they get the same benefit from Magnetism which is mandatory anyway. Navigation is therefore much more valuable to the AI than to the human because of different playing style.

Making Navigation mandatory doesn't improve the AI, it handicaps the human player. To level things out without handicapping the human either means leaving Navigation as optional and encouraging the AI to go for Magnetism or making Navigation mandatory but having it give a benefit that makes it a must have for the human.

Either of these options would "improve" the AI but not handicap the human. Most of the comments against making Navigation mandatory are based on this change being a limitation on the human - so a better approach IMHO is to boost the AI instead.

Having said all that, I have no bright ideas on how. Possibly improve explorers to go with mandatory Navigation. Or remove ocean trading from Navigation so only Magnetism gives that benefit and see if the AI still regards Navigation so highly.