AU mod: Cavalry

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Dominae
I'm trying to figure out why you guys are having a hard time conceptualizing that the two versions of Cavalry are more or less the same unit.

My 'hard time', as you call it, stems from using the phrase 'more or less the same' for two units with different A/D/M ratings.

They have the same cost and require the same resources. They accomplish the same thing on the battlefield. You would never have to choose between the two in a build queue. Functionally, they're identical.

You're talking about Cavalry vs. Cossacks here? Same A/D/M rating (blitz ability for Cossacks being the only distinction), yet different graphics ... Oh sorry, it's Light Cavalry vs. Cavalry! Now this is 'more or less the same' ...

Consider what you propose would be like to someone new to the AU mod: they hit Nationalism, and see a new unit, with a different name, different art, different stats, different Civilopedia entry. The feeling of alienation from stock Civ3 would be unavoidable.

I guess just about as unavoidable as the feeling of alienation from Civ3-PtW when someone new to Conquests hits Alphabet and sees a curragh.



... OK, sorry for the rant. Just let me put a few things straight:

1. I agree that something should be done about the current 'Cavalry ends the game' situation.
2. If 'something' means delaying Cavalry until Nationalism and creating a new mounted unit with attack strength of 5, available at Military Tradition, this should - in my opinion - be reflected in distinct graphics for this unit, provided this does not hamper installation of the AU mod.
3. I can deal with the prospect that my opinion is not the opinion of the panel's majority.

lockstep

[ducki]

Let me try a different tack.

Is there a way we can give the player a visual cue that he needs to upgrade his light cav that's as effective as the difference that currently exists between obsolete and current units in the build-queue or the unit itself?

Better still, is there a way to make the upgrade automatic, like instead of having two units, have one unit that receives the noted 20% attack bonus with Nationalism? Or is the travel requirement to and from a barracked city a desired side-effect?


P.S. I'm surprised at the resistance to the reuse of existing artwork for a new unit in the mod - it's not like we'd be using snapshots of horseriding barbie, but existing, included C3C assets. I think I just don't understand certain aspects of Stock Civ3 Flavor. I surrender, though. I just don't understand the argument.

[Dominae]

Well, if you're going to be using the AU mod and stubbornly refuse to learn about any of the changes in it...why are you using the mod in the first place?

Whenever you build a Light Cavalry, it will be plenty obvious that you've got an inferior/different unit because: 1) you'll see the Attack value is only 5, and 2) it's got a different name than what you're used to. At that point I imagine your military strategy would change accordingly (unless you're playing by reflex, which again begs the question: why are you using the mod in the first place?). Changing the art is not necessary if you take the time to learn what changes went into the mod.

(This gets me thinking: perhaps would should create a "10 things you need to know about the AU mod" readme-type file for the more casual users.)

Here's a little story I came up with:

Let's say a group of scientists come up with a better banana that's identical to the common banana, except it has twice the nutritional value. Because humans like use different names for different things, they decide to call it the "Better Banana" (there's also the obvious marketing value of such a name!). Better Bananas will cost the same as normal bananas. In fact, banana retailers agree to a plan whereby any consumer can turn in his or her regular bananas for a Better Bananas at no cost.

Now let's say you're at home, and have a bunch of normal bananas sitting around. Let's say you know about Better Bananas. You're hungry, but are too lazy to go the store to exchange for Better Bananas. What do you do? You eat a (normal) banana! That's because when choosing between eating a banana and not eating one, you'll gladly eat a normal banana even if you know Better Bananas exist. Now let's say you're not aware that Better Bananas exist. Then there's not much harm done, because you'll just finish all your normal bananas, and the next time you go to the store you'll buy Better Bananas, profiting from their better nutritional value without knowing it.

Back to the scientists. One says: "Let's change the color of Better Bananas to blue. It's confusing that there's actually two bananas out there, and I think people would appreciate it if they could tell the difference at a glance". What possible effect would there be to having yellow (normal) and blue (Better Banana) bananas around? Obviously the common man/woman would be reticent to buy/eat Better Bananas, because he/she expects bananas to be yellow, not blue. "In any case", one scientists says, "if someone is really interested in the nutritional value of bananas, he or she only needs to look at the label to tell whether it's a Better Banana or not". The scientists quickly forget the idea, and decide not to make Better Bananas blue.




Dominae

[ducki]

Originally posted by Dominae
Well, if you're going to be using the AU mod and stubbornly refuse to learn about any of the changes in it...why are you using the mod in the first place?
...
Changing the art is not necessary if you take the time to learn what changes went into the mod.
...
(This gets me thinking: perhaps would should create a "10 things you need to know about the AU mod" readme-type file for the more casual users.)

Who said anything about stubborn. It's pretty easy to read a lot about AU without knowing even half the changes, especially late in a "cycle" - just before PtW or just before Conquests.
It's pretty easy to get excited about AU just by reading the Philosophy of AU. I'm sure there's oodles of players that would like better AI behaviour and want more interesting/meaningful decisions in their games.
AU promises that, and delivers, IMO.

But some of us start to bleed from the eyes after reading just so much of the readme file. And players new to Civ3 won't know what have that stuff means anyways - I know I didn't. I did know that the AI was tougher with the mod than without, and that made it enjoyable and worth using.

Yes, a bullet-point list of important things to know about AU Mod would be good. Not everybody cares to know all the stats and every little change that was made. If it makes for better gameplay, yippee.

Nothing stubborn about that. I learn what I can, remember what sticks, and usually gloss over things that get too technical, like corruption formulae - no offense alexman, just not my cup of tea.

Here's a little story I came up with:
"In any case", one scientists says, "if someon is really interested in the nutritional value of bananas, he or she only needs to look at the label to tell whether it's a Better Banana or not". The scientists quickly forget the idea, and decide not to make Better Bananas blue.[/I]

No fair comparing bananas to orangutans.

If all horse units were just a picture of a horse, I'd've agreed with that, but they're not. Anyway, I don't want to argue about this anymore, at least not on this thread. If there are to be more unit additions in the mod, though, I'd like to see a Cosmetics thread devoted to discussing just this type of issue. But I'm not going to argue the point any more. We disagree - nothing new about that -

Funny story though.

[Fosse]

The mechnical change that was proposed at the start of this thread is a perfect solution.

I favor the name Dragoon being given just for Civ II nostalgia. As for the graphic differences... I'd be against creating NEW artwork that must be downloaded with the AU mod, as that sort of thing can and does intimidate some people out there, and AU should be accessible to everybody.

On the otherhand, I agree that, in order to help in reducing the micromanagement (remember that goal!) of clicking on every unit that looks like a cavalry to check its stats, that graphic representation is in order.

I think that choosing the UU graphics from one of the other civs for either Light or Stock cavalry is the solution (and perhaps flopping it for the civ that actually owns the UU).

I agree with Dom about not showing off the changes when those changes are under the hood. But when "showing off" that change will make things easier on the player from an interface - not competition - standpoint, then doing so makes sense to me.

[Risa]

A less important but still worth noting aspect: What will happen to Russian Cossack and Ottoman Sipahi?

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Fosse

I favor the name Dragoon being given just for Civ II nostalgia. As for the graphic differences... I'd be against creating NEW artwork that must be downloaded with the AU mod, as that sort of thing can and does intimidate some people out there, and AU should be accessible to everybody.

Yup, adding units or art to download would be a potential killer. It is what makes Gotm useless to me.

[ducki]

The only reason I supported the artwork was that someone said there is already artwork for the "extra" civ - Austrians, I think.

No custom art. No extra download. No quality issues. No confusion with existing units. No apparent drawbacks.

Maybe that's what got missed in the debate - it was never about adding custom artwork to the mod - that's completely against what AU stands for, to me and definitely not what I want in a mod devoted to strategy and improving the AI.

[MrWhereItsAt]

As I have already tried to suggest (to being almost universally ignored, it would seem ), a change from 5 to 6 attack in that particular era is not much at all. Try not to think of them as two different units, but think of it as the discovery of Nationalism effectively conveying an extra attack point on your Cavalry (although, without the ability to change the code, this would have to be mediated by upgrading in real terms).

AU seems to be aimed at fixing via small tweaks with as few and as little changes as possible. Changing/adding graphics is way beyond this, IMO. If you want your own graphics you can add them yourself, but the official AU should be barebones changes.

Moreover, AU is hoping to improve the chances for the AI. Where does changing the graphics help the AI?

[Stuie]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
If you want your own graphics you can add them yourself, but the official AU should be barebones changes.

I fully agree with this sentiment. I've been playing with Light Cav/Cav using the same graphic for both, and it has not caused undo consternation. The unit stats are readily available in the lower right of the screen when the unit is active, so it's pretty hard to mistake what you are using on the attack.

[nbarclay]

If the difference between an attack of five and an attack of six is no big deal, why are we even discussing changing the attack value of cavalry from six to five? Either attacking with a "light cavalry" instead of a "cavalry" by mistake would be a big enough deal to make it worth worrying about, or the whole thread is pointless. Personally, I regard the difference as a very big deal, since it's half the difference between a knight's attack value and a cavalry's attack value.

To me, preserving the feel of the stock game is a matter of mechanics, not a matter of visual effects. We're changing the feel of the game enormously if we cut the attack-value advantage of cavalry over knights in half until Nationalism. Instead of cavalry having a greater advantage over musketmen than knights have over pikemen, light cavalry will have a smaller advantage (and that at a time when more of the cities they attack will tend to have the extra defense bonus for being size seven or greater). This change is one of the biggest in the history of the AU Mod in terms of its potential impact on strategy.

But if we go ahead with this, I am all for a visual cue to reflect the change (since it can be done within the existing graphics set). The need to identify and upgrade light cavalry is an integral part of the change, and trying to mask the fact that we will now have two distinct types of cavalry units by using the same graphic for both strikes me as both misleading and confusing.

Dominae, regarding your "better banana" analogy, we aren't just talking about better nutritional value. We're dealing with clear and direct matters of life and death. If eating "better bananas" instead of regular bananas had the same chance of saving my life that using regular cavalry instead of light cavalry has of saving the units' lives, I would be all for some sort of visual cue (either in the bananas themselves or in their packaging) so I can't eat the wrong kind of bananas by mistake.

Also note that conceptually, it makes perfect sense that the newer, more powerful version of cavalry will be dressed and equipped a bit differently from their more old-fashioned counterparts. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with using a different graphic to reflect such changes.

Nathan

[DaveV]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been any discussion of the attack value of the "light" Sipahi. If it's 7/3/3, a 40% attack advantage over light cavalry, it becomes relatively weaker when it's upgraded to 8/3/3, a 33% advantage over cavalry. This relatively high attack value for the light Sipahi seems to give the Ottomans a huge advantage between Military Tradition and Nationalism. I'd argue that a 6/3/3 light Sipahi makes more sense - now it upgrades from a 20% advantage over light cavalry to a 33% advantage over cavalry. 6/3/3 is, not coincidentally, the same as the orginal, "too strong", cavalry.

[nbarclay]

(Edit: crosspost )

Giving "light sipahi" an attack value of 7 when "light cavalry" have an attack value of five would make them too powerful. In the standard game, sipahi have twice as much of an advantage as cavalry in nominal combat values attacking musketmen. With attack values of 7 and 5, light sipahi would have three times the advantage that light cavalry do. (Of course fortified in cities size 7 and higher, the musketmen's actual effective combat values will be considerably higher than the nominal 4.)

The best solution might be to give light sipahi an attack value of 6 for the same build cost as cavalry. Then there would be an upgrade cost associated with going from light sipahi to the full-power version. Note that at both levels, the nominal advantage of sipahi over musketmen would be twice the advantage of cavalry over musketmen.

Nathan

[ducki]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Changing/adding graphics is way beyond this, IMO.

Someone correct me if I am remembering incorrectly, or confirm if I am correct, but hasn't AU mod done something similar in a past version - didn't we have Med Inf before PtW using a UU graphic, or something similar?

If you want your own graphics you can add them yourself, but the official AU should be barebones changes.

Grr. This makes me feel like what I wrote wasn't even read. I don't want my own graphics. I never said that and I don't think anyone suggested it. Firaxis included graphics that are not used in the epic game that would fit this unit wonderfully.

Moreover, AU is hoping to improve the chances for the AI. Where does changing the graphics help the AI?

That's not the only goal of the AU mod, though the main one. I do know for sure that confusing the player is not one of the goals.

But I just don't care any more. I don't know how many clarifications of "it's not about new graphics" it would take so that everyone understood that it's not about new graphics, but I'm not going to find out.

Resuming lurk mode.

[ZargonX]

Regarding the graphical changes, using the included Austrian unit graphic is probably the most optimal solution to help maintain the "bare bones" feel of the AU mod. However, what that doesn't cover is the issue of having potentially 2 Sipahai units and 2 Cossack units. Repeated graphics might not be a problem when you are playing as one of those civs, as you will be aware of your own UU. But when playing the AI, it may become confusing for some if one of the UU versions shares the same graphic as a regular cav. unit. Before we delve too much further into graphical discussions, this is something that must be taken into account.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
AU seems to be aimed at fixing via small tweaks with as few and as little changes as possible. Changing/adding graphics is way beyond this, IMO. If you want your own graphics you can add them yourself, but the official AU should be barebones changes.

If we could accomplish in practice what we want at the conceptual level - "The same type of unit gets more powerful when the player discovers Nationalism" - I would agree with you 100%. But since the upgrade process will involve ending a turn in a city with barracks (with at least one light cavalry having movement left), what we will actually have is a situation where two distinct types of units with two distinct attack values will exist at the same time. Having those two distinct types of units share a graphic is not, in my opinion, a good thing.

The graphical change being discussed is not something we're considering for its own sake, but rather is a way of reducing the visual confusion that would otherwise exist from having light and regular cavalry look the same. Since there is a suitable graphic to address the situation already in C3C, one that is not used by any of the standard civs, we have a potential way out of the problem of having two distinct unit types share a graphic.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by ZargonX
Regarding the graphical changes, using the included Austrian unit graphic is probably the most optimal solution to help maintain the "bare bones" feel of the AU mod. However, what that doesn't cover is the issue of having potentially 2 Sipahai units and 2 Cossack units. Repeated graphics might not be a problem when you are playing as one of those civs, as you will be aware of your own UU. But when playing the AI, it may become confusing for some if one of the UU versions shares the same graphic as a regular cav. unit. Before we delve too much further into graphical discussions, this is something that must be taken into account.

I would suggest having cossacks and sipahi exchange graphics for their light versions. In other words, a light sipahi would look like a cossack and a light cossack would look like a sipahi. That would create a bit of confusion (players would have to go by color rather than unit type to determine nationality when both civs are present), but the combination of color and unit type would uniquely identify the unit.

By the way, the mention of AI units brings up another problem with having light and regular versions of a unit share a graphic. With separate graphics, it would be easy to tell what kind of AI unit you're looking at even if it moves into and out of vision (or dies) during the course of a turn. But with the same graphic, we would have to click on every cavalry-type AI unit to see to find out whether it's light or regular, and you can't do that during the AI's turn. How much of an issue that might be would depend on how good the AI is about upgrading in a timely manner.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by ducki
The only reason I supported the artwork was that someone said there is already artwork for the "extra" civ - Austrians, I think.

No custom art. No extra download. No quality issues. No confusion with existing units. No apparent drawbacks.

The issue is not custom art, it's different art. Most players have never even seen the art for the Austrian UU. So, if they were to open up the AU mod and see a weird-looking Cavalry, you can bet they would feel the AU mod was very mod-ish (like the GOTMs and CFC). This is independently of whether or not the art was done by Firaxis, and whether it's any good.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

The issue is not custom art, it's different art. Most players have never even seen the art for the Austrian UU. So, if they were to open up the AU mod and see a weird-looking Cavalry, you can bet they would feel the AU mod was very mod-ish (like the GOTMs and CFC). This is independently of whether or not the art was done by Firaxis, and whether it's any good.

So you want to compromise playability just to make it feel less "mod-ish"?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
This change is one of the biggest in the history of the AU Mod in terms of its potential impact on strategy.

If so, it's only a reflection that the Military Tradition beeline is simply too powerful and game-ending. I'm confident that with the change, (Light) Cavalry rushes will still be quite useful, just not overpoweringly so. You seem to want to cling to the "overpoweringly so" part.

Dominae, regarding your "better banana" analogy, we aren't just talking about better nutritional value. We're dealing with clear and direct matters of life and death.

This is a game.

If you're so afraid that your Light Cavalry will die like flies, you might have to (gasp) bring more of them along to do the job, or (gasp) use ground bombardment to soften up your targets, or simply (gasp) accept that it's not feasible to conquer 5-10 cities per turn anymore. These are all big changes to strategy around the time of MT, and they're all good ones, IMO.

Personally, I think the "visual cue" is unecessary, but many of you think it is. Now, think of your actual game experience: would you ever forget what types of Cavalry you have in the field? I imagine that once you hit Nationalism you would do your best to upgrade as many Cavalry as possible, and that's that. Any ones forgotten would not turn the tide of battle, would they? And if you're worried that they might, a simple right-click on the stack should tell you what's what. Just look at the banana's label!

There is still, of course, ducki's argument that people not entirely familiar with the AU mod not realize that Light Cavalry upgrade to regular Cavalry. Again, I think the solution to this is to create a brief FAQ for the AU mod, outlining the main changes that new users need to know about.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

Personally, I think the "visual cue" is unecessary, but many of you think it is. Now, think of your actual game experience: would you ever forget what types of Cavalry you have in the field? I imagine that once you hit Nationalism you would do your best to upgrade as many Cavalry as possible, and that's that. Any ones forgotten would not turn the tide of battle, would they? And if you're worried that they might, a simple right-click on the stack should tell you what's what. Just look at the banana's label!

It's easier if you can tell just by looking. I think it's ridiculous to make telling which kind of cavalry is which harder than it has to be just because it would involve visual evidence that (gasp!) we're playing with a mod.

With different graphics, it would be a simple matter to look at F3 sorted by unit type to see whether any units were missed by shift-U and to switch to showing by city to see where they are. Then if there are still light cavalry unaccounted for, look on the map for light cavalry that aren't in cities and for any other units that light cavalry might be hiding under.

With the same icons, though, a look at F3 by sorted by city won't make it clear which cities have light cavalry in them and which have regular cavalry, nor will it be possible to tell by looking at the map. Further, while cavalry outside cities at the time of hitting shift-U obviously would still be the light version, if such light cavalry aren't caught and upgraded before regular cavalry move out, things outside cities would get a bit muddled. Sorting F3 by unit type, moving the mouse over the units of the type that need upgraded, and checking where the units are on the minimap provides a last-ditch way of hunting down units that need upgraded, but I'd rather that not be the only way I can look short of checking every single stack in my empire.

Also, a visual difference would provide a last-ditch piece of insurance against accidentally attacking with a light cavalry that somehow missed being upgraded. Why do without that bit of insurance when we can have it so cheaply and easily?

[nbarclay]

I just thought of a possible snag to the upgrade process. Assuming cavalry continue to require access to horses and saltpeter, it will be impossible to upgrade light cavalry in cities that don't have access to those resources. That could be especially problematical in invasions where no harbor has been built or captured yet, or if the light cavalry were built with a resource from a trade that has since expired.

[alexman]

There is no question in my mind that a separate animation for Light Cavalry would make the mod more playable.

However, we have to carefully weigh the benefit of easily identifying Light Cavalry on the map, against the potential problems caused by incorrect installation of the mod.

Adding new unit animations involves the creation of an AU mod scenario folder containing some new text files. A simple save will no longer be sufficient to play an AU game using the AU mod rules. Anybody who has not installed the mod will have problems when he tries to open an AU mod save.

And as for the resource requirement, I don't think it's a problem at all. It's just how the game works. It's similar to the Med. Infantry upgrade from Swordsmen, where both units require iron.

[TheArsenal]

If it is a question of changing the basic mechanics of the game, not being able to readily and visually identify separate, distinct units which make appearances at different points in the tech tree, is a far more significant change than adding any additional graphic. If I see an ant trail of AI Cavalry breezing momentarily into view and disappearing again into the fog of war between turns, I would feel much more comfortable not having to guess which type of Cavalry it is.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
However, we have to carefully weigh the benefit of easily identifying Light Cavalry on the map, against the potential problems caused by incorrect installation of the mod.

I would rather have people actually get around to playing the mod and possibly complaining about it, than have some never touch it because of an annoying installation procedure. People are far more open to reading a FAQ about a mod's gameplay changes than a technical "how to get this mod working in the first place". Plug, play, and deal with everything else later.


Dominae

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
Adding new unit animations involves the creation of an AU mod scenario folder containing some new text files. A simple save will no longer be sufficient to play an AU game using the AU mod rules. Anybody who has not installed the mod will have problems when he tries to open an AU mod save.

I don't see a problem here. The first time you want to play an AU mod save, you install the AU mod by simply unzipping some files (AU.biq plus a folder including text files) into your (Civ III)\Conquests\Scenarios\ folder. This also gives you the possibility to start new games using the AU mod rules. Is that really too much to ask?

Just as an example, I've created a 'Light Cavalry Test' mod. Unzip the attached zip-file into your (Civ III)\Conquests\Scenarios\ folder, and enjoy!

From the readme: This mod is for testing purposes only. It makes Cavalry available at the beginning (no tech and resource requirements, cost of 10 shields) and includes a new 'Light Cavalry' unit (also available at the beginning) that uses the graphics of the Hussar (the unique unit of the 'hidden' Austrian civ).

[Dominae]

That's great, but then a 4000BC savegame of the AU mod version of a scenario is unplayable unless you go through the installation procedure.

I agree that it's not a huge deal, if you know how to do it. Also, I'm sure this is one of those slippery slope -type things; in a couple of months we'll realize we've created something as completely annoying to install and intrusive as the GOTM scenarios.

The AU mod is supposed to be lightweight and simple, darn it!


Dominae

[ducki]

Originally posted by Dominae
That's great, but then a 4000BC savegame of the AU mod version of a scenario is unplayable unless you go through the installation procedure.
...Dominae

Just so I'm clear on this - if you do not go through the "normal" install of the AU mod, you can still play AU Mod games using a .sav?

And this is not true if we assign a different (but already existing in the standard install) graphic for any given unit?

[lockstep]

ducki: Yes and yes. It comes down to the question how many players of AU mod saves don't have the AU mod (currently only a biq-file) installed. If you ever want to install the biq-file, any additional folders could be automatically installed (unzipped) at the same time.

[ducki]

In that case, if a poll were to show a significant percentage(more than, say, 5%) of AU-modded AU class players did not, in fact, have the mod installed, I'd sing a different song.