Updating the AU mod for C3C.

Dominae · October 18, 2003, 21:07

Well, Conquest will be available to us all soon, which means some work will need to be done on a new version of the AU mod. This time around, I'm proposing the following:

The AU mod will remain a community effort. However, a semi-official panel of either 3 or 5 members will be set up to ensure this process runs smoothly.

The following are the panelits' responsibilities:

1. Identify possible changes to the standard game that fit into the AU mod philosophy, and present these in a clear and precise manner to the community via the Strategy forum.

2. Identify problems with modifications already present in the AU mod, and again brings these to the attention of the community.

3. Listen to the input of the community for help with 1 and 2. In other words, "the community" will often be the harbringers of change in the AU mod, and the panelists should be open to any and all suggestions. Note that this includes reading AARs and DARs for AU courses, as many scenarios are used as tests for the AU mod.

4. Formulate official proposals for any change to the AU mod (either a new modificaiton or the alteration of an existing). Present such proposals to the community for discussion.

5. Vote on the inclusion of each official proposal. Inclusion may only be on a semi-permanent basis (in case real-game testing is required to determine whether a change is good or not). Panelists cannot abstain.

6. Implement any accepted proposal in the editor.

7. Create and upkeep the official documentation for the AU mod.

8. Ensure that both the mod and the documentation are readily accessible the community.

In short, the only thing that's really new here is that the panel has the final say on what gets into and what stays out of the AU mod. Obviously therefore we will want good panelists. How to define "good"? Well, a good panelist will always consider proposals in terms of the AU mod, which I will reproduce here:

---

Philosophy of the AU mod:

The following list is in order of importance:

1. The AU mod retains the "flavor" of stock Civ3.

Any modificaiton which alters the game "too much" is to be rejected. Entire strategies cannot be made obsolete for example. Nor should new strategies be introduced which completely replace existing ones. There is obviously a real big gray area here, and it's the panelists responsibility to make it black and white.

2. The AU mod improves the AI.

The main reason the mod was created in the first place. The AU mod strives to force the AI to play better, and therefore offer the human player and more interesting challenge.

3. The AU mod offers the human player more strategic decisions.

This is otherwise known as "balancing": strong things are made sligthly weaker, and weak things are made slightly stronger. The idea is that if it's not entirely obvious what's good and what's not (and in what situation!), the game is more interesting.

4. The AU mod preserves historical accuracy.

Very few changes are made for this reason alone. Rather, it's more of a factor in determining which modifications are good and which are not.

5. The AU mod reduces micromanagement.

Not really sure about this one, but it's listed in the documentation so I suppose I need to list it here!

---

Note that any modification will be a balancing act between points 1 and 2,3 above. That is, to improve the AI and increase strategic options, it is necessary to deviate from stock Civ3 (that's what a mod is, after all!). However, the goal is for AU mod modifications to be easily conceptualized by Civ3 players (novice and veteran alike), and therefore easily and happily integrated into each and everyone's playstyle.

I hope the above makes sense to you all, and that you are all still with me.

One last thing: who will sit on the panel? We can either have a vote, or just agree by informal consensus here in this thread.

I personally think that alexman should, partly because he's the father of the mod (player1 is the grandfather, I guess), partly because he knows a scary amount about the inner workings of the game, but mostly because he really understands how to balance between the conflicting tenets of the AU mod philosophy.

I, Dominae, would also like to sit on the panel. However I will not be so bold as to nominate myself.

I will leave it to the rest of you to bring up other names.

Just to clarify: the panel will not spend their time debating their issues. That's the role of the community and the Strat forum. The panelists of course will hopefully participate in these debates. But ultimately the role of the panel is to end debate, not to engage in it perpetually.

Any and all comments are welcome!

Dominae

alexman · October 19, 2003, 01:13

Thanks for starting this thread, Dominae!

With all the changes in the stock game, I suspect the mod will need lots re-thinking for C3C. We will probably need to start from scratch, actually.

I was initially sceptical about the official-sounding panel you are suggesting, but the more I think about it, the more I agree it's a good idea.

As for nominating people for this panel, I could name at least 10 good choices, but it all comes down to whether these people want to put in the effort. Perhaps it's best for people to nominate themselves if they know they can make the commitment, and the rest of the community can vote on the 3 or 5 choices in a poll?

By the way, the reduced micromanagement goal was put in to justify airlifting leaders and such. I think we can safely remove that from being part of the mod's philosophy. Micromanagement is, after all, essential if you want to master this game.

conmcb25 · October 19, 2003, 01:34

Dominae HAS to be on the panel, I nominte him.

Master Zen · October 19, 2003, 03:19

Yeah I nominate Dominae too

(and of course Alexman also but that should go without saying)

I'd like to help out in the discussion myself. Being a latecomer to poly I missed alot of the strategic dissecting of Civ3 and PTW but being a C3C beta tester I think I have a small advatange this time around. I don't necessarily need to be on the panel, frankly I think there are whole punch of other people who would be more fitting, rather this post is more of an assurance that I will be actively discussing these things with you guys once the game comes out as well as obviously playtesting the mod. Good luck to all.

Tassadar500 · October 19, 2003, 23:57

What about this idea? Any candidate most be seconded to be considered. Then Rothaerill and I will pick the panel.

Dominae · October 20, 2003, 00:15

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
What about this idea? Any candidate most be seconded to be considered. Then Rothaerill and I will pick the panel.

As long as we get a good panel, I'm fine with any method that we use to choose it.

I was going to PM you about this panel idea, NM, but simply forgot. Hopefully you think it is a good idea, and it has the AU Dean's full support.

I'll do the easy one: I nominate alexman to be on the panel.

Dominae

Tassadar500 · October 20, 2003, 00:23

Dominae, yes it does have mine and my secret clone's support. And with the selection we have for our strategy forum it would be almost impossible not to have a good panel.

vmxa1 · October 20, 2003, 01:14

I agree with that statement NM about the panel. Anyway, I don't know if I get a voice, but if I do I would second Alewman and Dom.

Dominae · October 20, 2003, 01:29

Everyone gets a voice.

The panel will only decide on the big issues when we reach an impasse. Everything else will be a group effort, as before.

Dominae

ZargonX · October 20, 2003, 01:55

Here, here! Have a review panel formed to deal with the changing Civ world is an excellent idea! I would throw my support behind all of the suggested names thus far.

alexman · October 20, 2003, 11:15

First of all, if we're going to do it this way, I second Dominae's nomination. I would feel comfortable even if he were the only person on the panel.

There are many people I would like to see on the panel, but I'm afraid that many of them would not be interested because they have declared that they prefer to play under stock rules (for example, Aeson, Arrian, Catt, DaveMcW, Sir Ralph, vmxa1...), or because they are not as active in this sort of thing any more (for example DeepO, jshelr, nbarclay, Velociryx, vulture...). If we vote for these people, can we force them to be on the panel?

Anyway, I would like to nominate Nor Me. He's the ideal type for this sort of thing: top-notch player, willing to use strategies characterized as exploits by many (so he is able to identify new exploits from our modifications), yet striving to eliminate those loopholes and imbalances from the stock game.

I would also like to nominate Theseus. The father of AU might not get involved in the nitty-gritty details of the mod, but he gets the big picture.

And how about Rothaerill? He has shown a great interest in the AU lately, and he has put an amazing amount of effort into it.

Tassadar500 · October 20, 2003, 11:19

alexman, you can't nominate Rhothaerill. He's management

But seriously it should be ok.

Dominae · October 20, 2003, 11:46

Those are all very good suggestions.

Rhoth is particularly interesting, because he's actually got an official title in the AU (Assistant Dean, is it?). This means (or should mean!) that he's required to be interested in the health of AU as a whole and not just his own enjoyment of Civ3.

Dominae

vmxa1 · October 20, 2003, 12:08

Hopefully C3C will bring some of them back, actually jsheir has been posting lately.
Rhothi should be ready to go after his vaction.

Rhothaerill · October 20, 2003, 16:52

I'm back.

Vacation wasn't that great because of some extenuating circumstances that I won't go into.

But I guess overall it was okay. My next one in November will be better (going to Maui with ONLY my wife

).

Anyway, back to topic, great thread you've started Dominae.

The AU mod will definitely need to be reworked for Conquests and it's a good idea to start now.

As to the official panel, I don't know that I'd necessarily be the best choice to fill out the last position. I think that someone who has had experience with the beta-test (like MZ) would be better as he has already been playing with the new tweaks. I fully support alexman, Dominae, Nor Me, and Theseus, but I'd prefer to have a betatester in there. However, that doesn't mean I won't be giving my opinions when I have them.

Tassadar500 · October 30, 2003, 22:24

This needs a bumping

Tassadar500 · November 12, 2003, 22:15

The mod needs to be started now. I am going to nominate some people and if they accept we will get started. Yes I do know I have 6 people but I am thinking one will step down.

Dominae
Alexman
Theseus
Rhothaerill
Nor Me
ZargonX

Dominae · November 13, 2003, 00:08

We should wait another little bit (a week or two) before getting into this. For now I think it would be best just to list some "possible changes" that come to mind.

Dominae

Tassadar500 · November 13, 2003, 00:20

Nevertheless we need to finalize our panel and start discussion about some changes.

Dominae · November 13, 2003, 00:40

You're thinking a five-person panel is better than three?

I'm fine either way. I just want to make sure that the whole panel is present when needed.

Dominae

Tassadar500 · November 13, 2003, 00:42

Well I'm actually hoping for 5-6 people to say they volunteer for the panel. Then we can have some elections

Nor Me · November 13, 2003, 13:03

We can start talking about changes long before we'll need a panel to decide anything.

I have the time and would be prepared to do it. Of course, I don't have conquests yet. I've pre-ordered it and Amazon.co.uk still expect it to be dispatched on Nov 9 so it might be some time still.

Stuie · November 13, 2003, 13:15

I've already made some changes that I missed from the AU Mod (and the never released "Stuie_X" mod, now known as "Stuie_Q"). Specifically:

Rifleman +1 attack
Infantry +2 attack
Paratrooper +2 attack (and Modern Paratrooper got +2 attack as well)

I also went ahead with the Cavalry/Cavalry II idea we were discussing in the topped AU Mod thread.

Now Guerillas are another matter. I know AU had them as +2 attack, but I prefer giving them a movement of 2 and ignoring hills, mountains and jungle. Gives them a very nice feel and I've found the AI to use them quite effectively.

The only building modification I've made so far is to remove the "Requires victorious army" flag from the Military Academy. Especially with the increased strength of armies, I feel it is necessary for all Civs to have some sort of access to them.

I'm also thinking of reducing the cost of Coloseums to bring the happy face/shield cost ratio down below that of Cathedrals. The reason I would make the ratio lower than Cathedrals is that they end up with the same upkeep cost.

alva · November 13, 2003, 13:29

Eugh, you peeps do realise that most players don't even have the game yet.

Other that

Btw, if Catt

is interested, I would very much like to nominate him.

ZargonX · November 13, 2003, 16:55

Thanks for the nomination, NM!

I guess this means I'll have to play Conquests even more now...

Grazzit · November 13, 2003, 20:49

IMHO 8D

Personally I would like to see Helicopters/paratroopers increased. You should be able to airlift Infantry at least 8 squares into an enemy country and at least 12 for paratroopers. As they are now i don't even build them.

I also like to see stealth bombers and fighters get a cost increase but also a damage increase.. You shouldn't need 30 stealth bombers per city. And stealthfighters just suck.. Id turn them into the F22, leave the bombard the same, increase their cost, but add air surperiority to them.

Cruise missles should have a very low cost.. that is the point of a 1 shot missle. 1/10 the cost of a plane.

(The only problem i have with my suggestions is i am not sure it will help the AI be better, It is just things i noticed)

Catt · November 13, 2003, 21:29

Originally posted by alva
Btw, if Catt

is interested, I would very much like to nominate him.

Thank you; but I don't think I'd be a good addition. Not only am I much busier these days but alexman had it right some weeks back

Originally posted by alexman
. . . I'm afraid that many of them would not be interested because they have declared that they prefer to play under stock rules (for example, . . . , . . . , Catt, . . ., . . .)

EDIT: I am interested enough in the AU Mod to look in on the discussions and offer an opinion as a member of the community, but not to be on a panel.

Catt

Thoth · November 14, 2003, 00:21

Originally posted by Stuie
I've already made some changes that I missed from the AU Mod (and the never released "Stuie_X" mod, now known as "Stuie_Q"). Specifically:

Rifleman +1 attack
Infantry +2 attack
Paratrooper +2 attack (and Modern Paratrooper got +2 attack as well)

I also went ahead with the Cavalry/Cavalry II idea we were discussing in the topped AU Mod thread.

Now Guerillas are another matter. I know AU had them as +2 attack, but I prefer giving them a movement of 2 and ignoring hills, mountains and jungle. Gives them a very nice feel and I've found the AI to use them quite effectively.

The only building modification I've made so far is to remove the "Requires victorious army" flag from the Military Academy. Especially with the increased strength of armies, I feel it is necessary for all Civs to have some sort of access to them.

I'm also thinking of reducing the cost of Coloseums to bring the happy face/shield cost ratio down below that of Cathedrals. The reason I would make the ratio lower than Cathedrals is that they end up with the same upkeep cost.

I haven't messed with any of this yet, but I'm currently trying out a collection of Naval mods that seem to nerf Seafaring suicide curraghs quite nicely. The results may be a little skewed by the American warrior rush that I had to contend with.

The only thing that kept me in the game was a lot of luck from the RNG, my last warrior in London was redlined.

Sea movement cost increased to 2
Ocean movement cost increased to 3

Dromons, caravels and more advanced ships ignore move cost for sea. (Exception: Ironclads pay full move cost in sea and Ocean)

Carracks, Galleons, Privateers, Frigates, Man O'Wars and more advanced ships ignore move cost for Ocean.

Curraghs cost 20 and can carry 1 (to try and get the AI to build them). Role changed to Transport.

All Ships and Artillery have "Collateral Damage" flagged. (I haven't had a chance to try this out yet, it's been a long game

)

Scientist specialist requires Writing. (attempt to get the AI to research Writing earlier)

NOTE: As of 980 AD not a single AI has Literature. I didn't bother with the Great Lib as I had a solid tech lead early. I can't use it as a prebuild anymore. You can't build obsolete wonders, even just for the culture.

Police Specialist moved to Feudalism. Temporary until the corruption bug gets patched.

Entertainers provide 2 lux

Increased cost of Statue of Zeus to 300 shields.
Reduced cost of the Mausoleum to 180 shields.

Reduced damage cleanup time by 1/3.

Mountain Sage · November 14, 2003, 07:43

Originally posted by Nor Me
I have the time and would be prepared to do it. Of course, I don't have conquests yet. I've pre-ordered it and Amazon.co.uk still expect it to be dispatched on Nov 9 so it might be some time still.

I hope you are right. I had the same delivery date but now it has been postponed to Dec. 8-12

Nor Me · November 14, 2003, 11:49

That's not good. Mine still says Nov 9 so I can still hope.

Thread: Updating the AU mod for C3C.

Thread Tools