MOD: korn's Blitz Mod

[TechWins]

hehe my very first thought was, hey you got the traits for the americans wrong, but then i realized you changed them

Yeah, I think the changes that are made to the traits close the gap between each trait being used (i.e. 4 traits are 5 times and 2 traits are used 6 times, which are optimal numbers). What do you think of those changes to the traits?

Americans..

No, the Americans don't have Wealth as a preference, so the number is 7.

Aztecs..

Yes, that is correct.

Ok, each Civ retains it's original preferences they had. On top of those original preferences each Civ is given an additonal 3. For example, the Japanese already had OLU, NAU, and HAP and they are at a 4 aggression level, so they can get the traits of
AGL = 4 = PRO – OLU – DLU – HAP – SCI – GRO – CUL. The traits are in order of importance, so the Japanese get PRO. Since they already have OLU they don't get that. They then get DLU. They already have HAP, so they get SCI. Now the Japanese have received the 3 bonus traits, so they don't get GRO and CUL. This makes the Japanese wind up with OLU, NAU, HAP, PRO, DLU, and SCI. I hope this makes things a little bit more clear.

AGL = 5 = OLU – DLU – PRO – SCI – AIU – GRO - EXP

See I was thinking of doing the traits like that, which I still could if you would like, but I thought what would be the smarter item to build not what follows your AGL or Civ traits more. If that makes any sense at all. Since a Civ of AGL 5 will be at war a lot happiness buildings will be important to have, so I put HAP on the list instead of growth. It's more important for a military Civ to be happy than to have it's cities large. What do you think?

also how about governmental preferences? should i leave them the same or what?

I'll look at that and tell you what I think.

Also, look at my last post for more info.

[TechWins]

i really wish it was possible to distinguish more between governments

That is the main problem right there, the lack of variations for governments. . .

Well, I thought that Communism needed to be at zero war weariness and you didn't, so I did a little test to check the results.

Below are the categories for which Communism, Fascism, and Democracy will be given a rank. The higher the rank number for a category the better.


Trade - this category consists of corruption, trade flags, and unit maintenance. This category will be considered the most important.

War - this category will consist of unit support and war weariness.

Working - this category will consist of rate cap, worker rate, and hurrying production

Rest - this category will consist of the rest of the categories not mentioned


If Communism is given zero war weariness.

1) 3rdmoney, 1st war, 3rdworking, 2nd for rest gov (Democ)
2) 2nd money, 2nd war, 1stworking, 1st for rest gov (Fascism)
3) 1stmoney, 3rd war, 2nd working, 3rd for rest gov (Comm)


If Comm isn't given zero war weariness, then the govs play out like this.

1) 3rd money, 1stwar, 3rd working, 2nd for rest gov (Democ)
2) 2nd money, 3rd war, 1stworking, 1st for rest gov (Fascism)
3) 1st money, 2nd war, 2nd working, 3rd for rest gov (Comm)

I feel that those are the appropriate ranks for each category for each government.


This equation will be used to determine the 1st number value of a gov:

(money rank *2 )(1.75) + (war rank * 2)(1.5) + (working rank * 2)(1.25) + (rest rank * 2)(1)

This equation will be used to determine the 2nd number value of a gov:

(money rank / 3)(1.75) + (war rank / 3)(1.5) + (working rank / 3)(1.25) + (rest rank / 3)(1)


Results for Comm with zero war weariness:

Democ = 25 4.16667
Comm = 23.5 3.91667
Fasc = 17.5 2.91667

Results for Comm without zero war weariness

Democ = 25 4.16667
Comm = 20.5 3.41667
Fasc = 20.5 3.41667


It appears that with Communism having zero war weariness there are two really potent governments and one average-weak government. With Communism not having zero war weariness there is one really good government and just to average-good governments. Now these results aren't very accurrate because of the amount of generalization that went into the test, but I still think they give a pretty clear view of how each government stands. Even after the results I still think that Communism should be given zero weariness. What are your thoughts on this now?

[korn469]

ok, i was thinking about build preferences and this came to mind

basically what we are trying to achieve here is to make the ai more of a challenge, because as it is the AI seems to waste a great deal of resources on useless things

civ is a game where the challenge comes from competition on one of the main goals of the game

1) Cultural victory
2) Spaceship victory
3) Diplomatic victory
4) Domination victory
5) Conquest victory

now the player can set up the rules to allow of those victories, or perhaps none, i've never tried it, the challenge for us is to give the AI the tools it needs to actually win, the big difficulty is that if one victory condition is inappropriate considering the prevailing conditions in the game then the human player will quickly change gears while the AI will continue to pursue an ineffective strategy
this is where the cheats in civ come into effect and should allow the AI to pursue an ineffective strategy yet still win the game

first thing we must do is which victory should each civ's AI pursue, and while all five would be the perfect world answer, i'm thinking each AI should actively pursue up to 3 victories with the victory type determining the strategy

so lets say we have the Americans and the Aztecs again

the default Americans are industrious/expansionistic
techwins modified Americans are industrious/commercial
both have the F-15 as their CSU, so now what victory conditions would be easiest for the Americans to achieve?

ok i need feedback, everyone following this thread please tell me the following:

1) If you could change around the civ specific traits so that every combination of traits was used at least once, how would you assign the traits?

2) Based on how you assigned the various traits, which two victory conditions would you think the AI would best be able to achieve?

3) If you were that civ, how would you go about achieving those two victory conditions (even a brief summary of your strategy is better than nothing)?

so for example:

CivA
Religious/Commercial
Cultural: I would concentrate on using their religious bonus to build lots of cheap religious structures, i would also build lots of cultural buildings. I would expand somewhat to envelope other civs and cause cultural defection, but focus on infrastructure. I would focus heavily on a culture supercity, and my aim would be to make it the cultural capital of the world.
Diplomatic: I would expand quite a bit, and use cheap religious buildings to prevent my cities from defecting, while hopefully causing enough defections to get my mass to a critical size. As culture increases so do relations with other civs. I would be peaceful but firm, so other civs would stay happy with me and would look for weaker, less friendly targets. Once i built the U.N. i would call up all of my good friends and have them vote me to victory.

CivX
Military/Scientific
Conquest: I would try to gain a tech lead, and then use that lead to develop advanced weaponry before my opponents did, knocking off weak civs if the oppertunity presented itself. Once I had a good advantage over the AI, like tanks and bombers when they still have cavalry and musketmen then i would blitz across the globe eating everything in my path.
Domination: This is if time runs short and i couldn't get around to destroying everyone . I would focus on high quality (vets and elites), high tech, high impact forces. The best defense is a good offense.

isolating what variable are most important to each victory type would then allow us to set the proper priorities

[TechWins]

1) If you could change around the civ specific traits so that every combination of traits was used at least once, how would you assign the traits

You already know my preferences for traits, but I'll post them here anyways.

America - E/C
Aztecs - M/R
Babylonians - S/R
Chinese - I/M
Egyptians - I/R
English - E/I
French - I/C
Germans - M/S
Greeks - S/C
Indians - R/C
Iroquios - E/R
Japanese - M/C
Persians - I/S
Romans - M/E
Russians - E/S
Zulus - M/E

This leaves us with the following amount for each trait being used. The numbers to the right of the trait are showing the difference betweent the original trait numbers:

5 Industrious +0
5 Expansionist +0
6 Militaristic +0
5 Religious -2
6 Scientific +2
5 Commercial +0

Here are all of the possible combinations for civ traits and the number of times they are now used:

I/E = 1
I/M = 1
I/R = 1
I/S = 1
I/C = 1
E/M = 2
E/R = 1
E/S = 1
E/C = 1
M/R = 1
M/S = 1
M/C = 1
R/S = 1
R/C = 1
S/C = 1


Concerncing questions 2 and 3. Another item to take into consideration when deciding of the building preferences for a Civ is the level of aggression for that Civ. I like your idea for setting up the building preferences for a Civ, but the level of aggression must be taken into consideration. I know I may sound a bit repititive with the last two sentences, but the point had to get accross.


EDIT: I changed the traits for a few Civs and gave information on how each trait combo is used.

[korn469]

It appears that with Communism having zero war weariness there are two really potent governments and one average-weak government. With Communism not having zero war weariness there is one really good government and just to average-good governments. Now these results aren't very accurrate because of the amount of generalization that went into the test, but I still think they give a pretty clear view of how each government stands. Even after the results I still think that Communism should be given zero weariness. What are your thoughts on this now?

techwins, if i am reading your figures correctly then democracy is the worst government in both equations, and i don't think that is right

basically i am trying to allow communism to build and fight equally well, while fascism will fight well but build poorly, and democracy will build well but fight poorly

with hopefully no government being used exclusively and no government being ignored

the easiest solution would be to drop one of the governments, then make it so that

despotism --> anything but anarchy is much better
republic --> democracy (super builder approach)
monarchy --> fascism or communism (super warmonger approach)

however that would constrain the player more than i would like to, so maybe one government will be slightly weaker while allowing more flexability than the other governments, so that some of its power comes from having more strategies at your disposal

lets say that communism keeps low war weariness, what other traits could communism have to make it attractive without overpowering it?

with a five unit police rating how long could a communist government fight before war weariness forced it to stop the war? would it be of such a low amount that fascist governments would gain a major advantage? would its other abilities balance out that advantage? if communism didn't have war weariness would it then be too powerful compared to the other governments?

last question, most important
is there anything that i am overlooking that could differentiate between the governments better while still keeping a good balance?

EDIT

Another item to take into consideration when deciding of the building preferences for a Civ is the level of aggression for that Civ. I like your idea for setting up the building preferences for a Civ, but the level of aggression must be taken into consideration. I know I may sound a bit repititive with the last two sentences, but the point had to get accross.

i'm not leaving it out, i think aggresion level is a function of the strategy you pursue, for example if you are going for a cultural victory then i think you will have a low agression, if for nothing else, building offensive land units would be wasting your resources on something that wouldn't help you win, hehe but i didn't want to say that because i don't want to sway how other people veiw it

_____________________________

ok here is how you had your civs, so which strategies do you think would be the best for each setup?

America - I/C
Chinese - I/S
Egyptians - I/R
English - I/E
French - I/C
Persians - I/S
none - I/M
Iroquios - E/R
Romans - E/M
Russians - E/S
Zulus - E/M
none - E/C
Aztecs - M/R
Germans - M/S
Japanese - M/C
Babylonians - R/S
Indians - R/C
Greeks - S/C

[TechWins]

Just to let you know, I quickly saw the faults with the traits and went back and edited them. I thought I would let you know that before I reply to your post.

[korn469]

ok no problem

[TechWins]

techwins, if i am reading your figures correctly then democracy is the worst government in both equations, and i don't think that is right

No, you're not reading the figures correctly, the higher the number the more potent the government is, therefore, Democracy is the best gov in all cases.

the easiest solution would be to drop one of the governments, then make it so that

No, I don't think that is the route to go.

basically i am trying to allow communism to build and fight equally well, while fascism will fight well but build poorly, and democracy will build well but fight poorly

It's not that communism will be a bad choice for a government, it's just most people, as well as AI, lean toward, either, peace (democ) or war (fascism). So a government that is dead on in the middle of the two ends won't be all that appealing. With communism having zero war weariness it would make Fascism that middle government, but Fascism would be more appealing as a middle gov than Comm. Fascism won't be used nearly as much this way because it is not the superior gov in any aspect, however, it could still be somewhat appealing. Fascism will only be used if you need a lot of money and also need to be in a big war. Communism will be used to be in an outright, huge war. Democracy willl be used to have the most possible money. I believe having it this way (Comm with zero war weariness) will provide a couple of Fascisms, a lot of Democracies, and a few Communisms. Whereas the other way will provide primarily Fascisms and Democracies.

[korn469]

It's not that communism will be a bad choice for a government, it's just most people, as well as AI, lean toward, either, peace (democ) or war (fascism). So a government that is dead on in the middle of the two ends won't be all that appealing. With communism having zero war weariness it would make Fascism that middle government, but Fascism would be more appealing as a middle gov than Comm. Fascism won't be used nearly as much this way because it is not the superior gov in any aspect, however, it could still be somewhat appealing. Fascism will only be used if you need a lot of money and also need to be in a big war. Communism will be used to be in an outright, huge war. Democracy willl be used to have the most possible money. I believe having it this way (Comm with zero war weariness) will provide a couple of Fascisms, a lot of Democracies, and a few Communisms. Whereas the other way will provide primarily Fascisms and Democracies.

right now the AI appears to like fascism the best from what's been observed, but how about we test communism with both war weariness and without to see how much stock the AI puts into war weariness

my goal is not only balance, but different ways of playing under each government

[lockstep]

Korn, I'll leave the discusion of building traits to TechWins and you for now.

Some preliminary comments to the government stats you suggested:

• You should try to make Democracy more favourable compared to Republic. I suggest to change the Republic's corruption to 'problematic' (because the difference between 'nuisance' and 'minimal' is negligible at the moment), to change its draft rate back to 1 and to discard its military police ability.
• I don't see the need for individual support figures for every single government. Example: Instead of 1/2/3 2 for Republic and 0/2/4 3 for Democracy, I suggest 1/2/4 2 for both governments. (With units costs of 3 for a Democracy, I'd simple stay a Republic.)
• About support rates ... Even rates of 2 aren't included in Civ3 v1.16f, so I'd be careful to introduce a rate of 3 - could be very unbalancing in the middle game (before one is able to get additional cash by erecting stock exchanges).
• I wouldn't want to park 5 units in most of my cities even if they all could act as military police. Why not stick with a maximum police rate of 4, as in the original Civ3 v1.16f?
• Fascism seems overpowered when compared to Communism, but I'm not sure how to change this. Perhaps by attaching rampant corruption to it (Fascism = Despotism plus trade bonus)? In any case, it shouldn't be feasible IMO to create a large and productive Fascist empire, therefore, Communism and its communal corruption should become the more interesting for warmongers the more an empire grows.

Generally, IMO we should be more caucious when changing game settings. Even if we add Fascism as the ultimate war-mongering government and try to remodel Communism to fit a hybrid stile, it should be possible to stay within the original range of government settings (or at least to extend it only somewhat). Also, I'd feel more comfortable if we started with the settings of v1.16f and deliberately changed some of them, instead of (apparently) starting from scratch, even if Firaxis did a mediocre job regarding government balance. Having said that, I still think that your work on the mod is outstanding so far and considerably improves gameplay. Just don't forget about WesW's rule of thumb (see my sig).

P.S.: An example regarding general play balance: You introduced new buildings (which I like) to get rid of the problem of 'running out of things to build'. However, by also increasing the tech rate by 25% and the tech costs of the industrial and modern age by another 10%, it takes a long time till late-game buildings (old and new ones) become available; therefore, the problem of 'running out of things to build' is still there IMO.

P.P.S.: I'd volunteer to outline government settings that don't start from scratch, yet are consistent with your approach for a 'hybrid' Communist government. Just tell me if you're interested.

[lockstep]

... a hybrid Communist government ...

To deserve the name 'Communism', this government must feature communal corruption, forced labor and no trade bonus IMO. To remodel it as hybrid, war weariness should change from 'none' to 'low'. So what can be done to make Communism attractive at all?

• Low support costs (lower than both Fascism and Democracy);
• High no. of free units per city (same as Fascism);
• High worker rate (same as Democracy, higher than Fascism);
• High assimilation chance (same as Democracy);
• High military police limit (higher than Fascism);
• Veteran or elite diplomats/spies (regular for Fascism);
• Immunity to steal technology (and no immunity for Fascism).

Still I'm not sure if this is sufficient.

[sfbaytf]

Well for wahatever its worth I'll add my .02 cents. I almost always go straight for Republic although I have toyed arround with Communism. Since I tend to play a warmongering type of game and at the higher levels, I find that its too hard to keep my citizens under control in a democracy. Fascism looks like an interesting option, although it may be hard to get advanced military hardware if productivity is too low.

Keep in mind that once the galley movement error gets corrected things may change as I've noticed that AI civs build cities all over the place rather quickly.

I just downloaded the Civ3tools files and I'll play around with it.

I was also playing around with the map editor. Is there a way to zoom out the map in the editor? The "z" key doesn't work.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by sfbaytf
Keep in mind that once the galley movement error gets corrected things may change as I've noticed that AI civs build cities all over the place rather quickly.

You can change the galley's movement back to 3 for yourself. Just open korn's modified Civ3mod.bic with the editor (you don't need the hacked one or Gramphos' tool), go to units, select the galley, change the movement rate, save, exit and start a new game.

[star mouse]

Military Police and Governments

(Where the Military Police (MP) are those troops in the city that keep the population happy.)

I think an interesting innovation would be to have at least 1 MP for every government. What this would do is make undefended cities unhappier, thus making it more necessary to keep at least 1 defender in the city at all times.

[TechWins]

I think an interesting innovation would be to have at least 1 MP for every government. What this would do is make undefended cities unhappier, thus making it more necessary to keep at least 1 defender in the city at all times.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think military police helps keep happiness. For example, if a city was at size 4 and 3 citizens were happy and one unhappy then if the gov had a MP of 1, then once I put one unit in that city the city would have 3 happy citizends and 1 content citizen. Meaning that for amount of MP you can instill in a city you can have that many citizens become content.