MOD: korn's Blitz Mod

[kettyo]

Originally posted by korn469
if i did that i would have to come up with a land, naval airdefense unit that the AI could handle

Impossible to create a mobile SAM/AAA in CIV3?
It's a serious flaw in the game then.

Without airdefenses i agree not to include devastating airpower !

[korn469]

kettyo

if there was a way to haul around an air unit with the cruise missile and a 2 range with the air superiority ability then i wouldn't really mind, but there isn't a land transport AI so i doubt that the AI could handle this

but i'll try to think of something

[kettyo]

Originally posted by korn469
if there was a way to haul around an air unit with the cruise missile and a 2 range with the air superiority ability then i wouldn't really mind, but there isn't a land transport AI so i doubt that the AI could handle this

but i'll try to think of something

Thank You !

I think you're really spending serious time for this...

[lockstep]

Originally posted by korn469
lockstep

shouldn't a symetric system work like this

in awe of ---> disdainful of
admirers of ---> dismissive of
impressed with ---> unimpressed with
on par with ---> on par with

Yes, a symmetric system should work excactly that way.

3:1 minimum ratio for 'in awe of'
2:1 minimum ratio for 'admirers of'
5:4 minimum ratio for 'impressed with'
4:5 minimum ratio for 'on par with'
1:2 minimum ratio for 'unimpressed with'
1:3 minimum ratio for 'dismissive of'
1:10 (lowest possible editor value) for 'disdainful of'

now if we take your ratios and say that civ A has 200 points, civ b has 400 and civ c has 600 points then civ a is admirers of civ b and in awe of civ c while civ b is unimpressed with civ a and impressed with civ c and civ c is dismissive of civ a and unimpressed with civ b

A vs. B and A vs. C don't work as they should because 400/200 and 600/200 are exact threshold values. These effects cannot be avoided with the current editor. (There's no way to define the threshold value for 'in awe of' to more than 3:1, e.g.) However, change A's points from 200 to 201, and it will become only impressed with B and admirers of C. (You could also change A's points to 199, so that B will become dismissive of A and C will become disdainful of A.)

10:3
9:4
3:2
1:1
2:3
4:9
3:10

if we tke my ratios and say that civ A has 300 points, civ b has 450 points and civ c has 675 points then civ a will be in impressed with civ b and admirers of civ c, while civ b will be unimpressed with civ b and impressed with civ c and civ c will be dismissive of civ a and unimpressed with civ b

Everything seems to work correctly, but this is due to a weird combination of a) threshold values that aren't truly symmetric and b) the 'exact threshold' effect I've mentioned above. Test 1: Change A's culture point to either 299 or 301, and the comparisons won't work anymore. Test 2: Leave civ A as it is and add a civ D with 350 points. Under your system, A is on par with D (because 350/300 is higher than 1:1, but lower than 3:2). On the contrary, D is unimpressed with A (because 300/350 is higher than 2:3, but lower than 1:1).

P.S.: Sorry if I can't put my reasoning across. This is the first time as a member of these forums that I'm actually feeling the limitations of writing in a foreign language.

[korn469]

lockstep

we are both right and we are both wrong

a symetric system DOES work like this

in awe of ---> disdainful of
admirers of ---> dismissive of
impressed with ---> unimpressed with
on par with ---> on par with


however, what we both have is actually this

in awe of ---> disdainful of
admirers of ---> dismissive of
impressed with ---> unimpressed with
on par with --->

it should be this

in awe of
admirers of
impressed with
on par with
on par with
unimpressed with
dismissive of
disdainful of

or something like this

EDIT: hmmm after some more thinking

10:3 Civ A 340
9:4 Civ B 230
3:2 Civ C 155
1:1 Civ D 105
2:3 Civ E 70
4:9 Civ F 50
3:10 Civ G 35
1:10 Civ H 15

so that would mean

Civ A is
on par with Civ B
unimpressed with Civ C
dismissive of Civ D
disdainful of all the rest

Civ B is
on par with Civ A
on par with Civ C
unimpressed with Civ D
dismissive of Civ E
disdainful of all the rest

etc...

so as long as it is the threshold number and above wouldn't all of those ratios work out?

[kettyo]

Originally posted by korn469
now i have a feeling about what was happening in the size 1 city, air bombardment can target units, citizens, or buildings; however it cannot damage the last citizen since air units cannot kill cities, since this city didn't have any building and it was only size 1, the air units were most likely trying to attack buildings or citizens, yet since they couldn't inflict any damage on these it gave the bombardment failed reply; however, this is a very poor implementation of bombardment rules, all bombard units should always attack targets that can actually be damaged first, my F-15's should have attacked units until they were down to 1hp first, and then the best implementation would be that since aircraft can't damage 1hp units, nor destroy size one cities without any buildings in it that those targets shouldn't be targetable, but even barring that, actual targets (building, pop, units with more than 1hp) should always come first

I don't know but it could be solved with precision bombing ability given to all bombers and coming with flight. Sorry I don't know how precision bombing actually works because I never reached that far I'm not so stupid just got Civ3 recently.
In that case some other advantage should be given with smart weapons technology...

It would be nice to post some kind of tactical comparison between the changed governments. (Which one's recommended in which circumstances)
I played 7.2 and had a treasury growth of around 0 and upgraded to 7.3 now I have +85 growth (using monarchy). Wow!

Korn
I never created mod so I ask you if it's possible to set a land/not carrier naval unit to aircraft carriers? Could this unit be destination of a rebase mission? It would make airdefenses possible when the AI could use it.

[korn469]

I don't know but it could be solved with precision bombing ability given to all bombers and coming with flight. Sorry I don't know how precision bombing actually works because I never reached that far I'm not so stupid just got Civ3 recently.

as far as i know, precision bombing targets buildings first, the population, then units...i haven't used it that much against units in the field but i will try it

also i forget if it destroys as many targets as RoF, if so i may have to completely disable it or completely rework the air game

I played 7.2 and had a treasury growth of around 0 and upgraded to 7.3 now I have +85 growth (using monarchy). Wow!

did changing the corruption rate have that much of a change? could you please post a save of that game

I never created mod so I ask you if it's possible to set a land/not carrier naval unit to aircraft carriers? Could this unit be destination of a rebase mission? It would make airdefenses possible when the AI could use it.

as far as i know you can make ground units function as aircraft carriers, as they have done in the air bases mod, but since no proper AI type exists for it, i doubt that the AI is going to haul around fighters to protect its land units, we tried making landmines that functioned similarly and the AI didn't use them

It would be nice to post some kind of tactical comparison between the changed governments. (Which one's recommended in which circumstances)

anarchy: you NEVER want to be in anarchy

despotism: your starting government, decent for control and support, horrible for production, it's best to get out of this asap

republic: excels for small peaceful empires

monarchy: a good middle of the road empire, not the best at anything though not particularly horrible at any thing either

communism: corruption and poor economic planning plauge them, but they don't worry about building upkeep, they have the best spies in the game, they can support large armies, they have fast workers, they have a good assimilation rate, and lower resistance rates than fascism, so they are good at building up infrastructure and a military

fascism: good at generating science, good at maintaing control, good support, workers are slower than democracy or communism, not as powerful economically as a democracy, will meet fierce resistance when they start their blitzkrieg

democracy: the ultimate in peaceful builder governments, as far as the economy goes no government is better, though militarily they aren't nearly as good fascism or communism

hope that gives you some insight

[solo]

korn,

I just started my first game using your mod and have a few preliminary impressions to share. I tried a start as the Greeks with a standard map (with archipelago, minimum water, and wet options), 7 AI, and a restless barb setting. Here are some things noticed so far:

1) Barbarians are tougher, and even with a restless setting, seemed more aggressive. I was quite happy to be able to build hoplites as the Greeks, as I do not think weaker defensive units would have had much of a chance against barb swordsmen or knights, which I had to face before having the technology to build stronger non-UU units.

2) Having outriggers immediately available is a great idea, and I built some as soon as I could to make earlier contact with other civs, but each one was almost immediately sunk by barb privateers. After losing three this way, I just gave up trying with some more.

3) At deity level the human player has enough of a starting handicap the way things are, so I thought the added 20 shield cost of settlers, their -3 citizen cost, plus the 50 turn research limit have served to increase the early AI advantage at this level. In my game I built a settler as soon as possible in my capital, and founded a coastal city in 2270 BC, where I started to build the Colossus. A few turns later, this wonder had already been completed by one of the AI. In previous deity games, I have almost always been able to complete this wonder first. The 50 turn limit left me with nothing other than settlers, workers and hoplites to build early on, and also delayed my arrival to Literature, which I researched after Alphabet. By this time, the AI were all at, or in the Middle Ages, so I decided my only good chance for catching up was to try for the Great Library, which I was able to complete in 290 AD. I think the only reason I was able to build it first was because of the 2 library pre-requisite, because in many other deity games, I had to complete this one by around 1500 BC, in order to beat the AI to it. In this game, the GL was so late it also gave me Printing Press, Gunpowder, and Astronomy, techs that are 1/2 way through the Middle Ages. Although, I had a very playable game with the help of the GL, I feel that the mod has increased rather than diminished a poor feature of CivIII, 1.17f, which is the ridiculously rapid pace with which the AI make it through the first half of the tech tree.

4) Except vs. barbs, I did not have much opportunity to observe combats, but it looks like you have modified hit points and that this has improved the way battles are resolved. More hit points all around tend to diminish the wild swings in fortune due to “lucky” hits.

5) Under Despotism, the extra policing ability was a welcome feature, as was the 70% cap on science level settings. However, when setting my science very low to avoid a deficit, the game kept resetting it up to 30% every turn! I do not know whether this is a problem with the mod or with 1.17f, but having to reset the science slider every turn was enough of an irritation, that I did not want to continue my game any further until this quirk is resolved.

6) The observations above should not be taken as complaints, since your mod has increased the challenge of trying to beat the AI on deity level. However, I feel that some of the changes you have implemented have also limited the player’s options and have magnified, rather than corrected, some weaknesses in the game’s design.

That’s it for now. I'm very much interested in your reaction to these initial impressions.

solo

[kettyo]

Originally posted by korn469
as far as i know you can make ground units function as aircraft carriers, as they have done in the air bases mod, but since no proper AI type exists for it, i doubt that the AI is going to haul around fighters to protect its land units, we tried making landmines that functioned similarly and the AI didn't use them

It isn't possible to hack the bic file for this landunit to have the AI flag "naval carrier" what I know is impossible with the editor?

Originally posted by korn469
fascism: good at generating science, good at maintaing control, good support, workers are slower than democracy or communism, not as powerful economically as a democracy, will meet fierce resistance when they start their blitzkrieg

I think fascism should be good for smaller empires eager for conquest such as nazi germany and imperial japan in WWII.
Although I could easily exile fascism at all from the game I'm just so sick with fascists. (There are quite some here in Hungary)

Originally posted by korn469
anarchy: you NEVER want to be in anarchy

dammit I'm an anarchist (in real life)

I'll send you the savegame in e-mail I don't know how to attach file to the post.

Thank You for the always fast response and govt comparison !

[korn469]

solo

i'm getting ready to leave but here is some quick feedback

1) Barbarians are tougher, and even with a restless setting, seemed more aggressive. I was quite happy to be able to build hoplites as the Greeks, as I do not think weaker defensive units would have had much of a chance against barb swordsmen or knights, which I had to face before having the technology to build stronger non-UU units.

barbarians can be very dangerous now, what i found to work is actively seeking out their camps with archers, chariots, or preferably horsemen before they can start generating knights, you cannot afford to let them come to you, you have to disperse them or you will suffer, early on though if you set up kill zone usually two warriors (especially if they are veteran) can take out a barbarian conscript swordsman

although the great wall is now a wonder players might actually consider building

2) Having outriggers immediately available is a great idea, and I built some as soon as I could to make earlier contact with other civs, but each one was almost immediately sunk by barb privateers. After losing three this way, I just gave up trying with some more.

yeah other have had problems with this, it isn't so much their attack, but its their movement which lets them rapidly close in and kill your ships, i am going to most likely add in the fire galley and make that the barbarian ship

3) At deity level the human player has enough of a starting handicap the way things are, so I thought the added 20 shield cost of settlers, their -3 citizen cost, plus the 50 turn research limit have served to increase the early AI advantage at this level.

i really haven't talked much in depth about this because it doesn't seem that most people are playin on diety, but i am going to try and make emperor correspond to civ3's diety, then make the blitz mod diety a far greater challenge, then make chieftan basically a sandbox mode

In my game I built a settler as soon as possible in my capital, and founded a coastal city in 2270 BC, where I started to build the Colossus. A few turns later, this wonder had already been completed by one of the AI. In previous deity games, I have almost always been able to complete this wonder first. The 50 turn limit left me with nothing other than settlers, workers and hoplites to build early on, and also delayed my arrival to Literature, which I researched after Alphabet.

i have found that with AI tech whoring if you get cut off from other civs you are in SERIOUS trouble, but that if you can get contact it's not so bad

By this time, the AI were all at, or in the Middle Ages, so I decided my only good chance for catching up was to try for the Great Library, which I was able to complete in 290 AD. I think the only reason I was able to build it first was because of the 2 library pre-requisite, because in many other deity games, I had to complete this one by around 1500 BC, in order to beat the AI to it. In this game, the GL was so late it also gave me Printing Press, Gunpowder, and Astronomy, techs that are 1/2 way through the Middle Ages.

hmmmm, i was hoping that the AI would be smart enough to build at least 2 libraries, especially with it's production bonuses, i might have to drop that feature

Although, I had a very playable game with the help of the GL, I feel that the mod has increased rather than diminished a poor feature of CivIII, 1.17f, which is the ridiculously rapid pace with which the AI make it through the first half of the tech tree.

besides increasing the minimum amount of time to research a tech to either 4 or 6 turns i'm not sure how to slow properly slow them down, especially since they only pay half what the human does for tech, this problem vexed me as well...i am hoping that the next patch addresses this as well
so should i increase the minimum?

4) Except vs. barbs, I did not have much opportunity to observe combats, but it looks like you have modified hit points and that this has improved the way battles are resolved. More hit points all around tend to diminish the wild swings in fortune due to “lucky” hits.

the most outrageous combat result i've seen so far is a regular rifleman 6.8.1 6hps lose to an elite jag warrior 1.1.2 12hp, other than that while there have been a few surprises combat results are much better and the level of frustration is much lower with it

5) Under Despotism, the extra policing ability was a welcome feature, as was the 70% cap on science level settings. However, when setting my science very low to avoid a deficit, the game kept resetting it up to 30% every turn! I do not know whether this is a problem with the mod or with 1.17f, but having to reset the science slider every turn was enough of an irritation, that I did not want to continue my game any further until this quirk is resolved.

yeap i noticed this as well, it's a bug with rate capes, if you give your government a ratecap then it reset the levels every turn which is very annoying especially under despotism where it goes back to 30% science spending every turn, it goes to 20% under monarchy and republic, and since i was usually running 10% luxuries it would only go to 8.1.1, if you open up the blitz mod you can turn this off by going under the government tabs and setting rate caps to 0, and i will add this to the bug list

6) The observations above should not be taken as complaints, since your mod has increased the challenge of trying to beat the AI on deity level. However, I feel that some of the changes you have implemented have also limited the player’s options and have magnified, rather than corrected, some weaknesses in the game’s design.

well i'm glad you have taken your time to play and report back, i too ran into the AI techwhoring, and it ended my first diety/raging game because it armed the aztecs, who were already thrashing me with ancient units, with industrial units compared to my early middle ages units, and i noticed the rate cap bug as well, since i didn't invest anything into science my last game and just bought tech, so i had to fight with it every turn until i discovered democracy, thought i didn't really think about what an annoyance it was till you mentioned it (and it is REALLY annoying)

though besides those three problems (AI tech whoring, rate cap bug, barbarian control of the seas) what did you like, what did you hate, and what took you off guard? did any strategies that normally work prove useless and did any new strategies open up? did you notice the difference in expansion rates?

anyways i hope you play some more and report back

kettyo

It isn't possible to hack the bic file for this landunit to have the AI flag "naval carrier" what I know is impossible with the editor?

no a land unit must have a land AI

I think fascism should be good for smaller empires eager for conquest such as nazi germany and imperial japan in WWII.

hmmmm...that gives me an idea, i could change their support to x free units per civ and then lower their city by city support to simulate this

I'll send you the savegame in e-mail I don't know how to attach file to the post.
Thank You for the always fast response and govt comparison !

ok that'll do i'd like to look at it
no problem

ok guys i'm gone for now i'll be back later tho

[lockstep]

Seems that solo has taken the lead in playtesting for now. O well ... back to cultural levels.

Originally posted by korn469
it should be this

in awe of
admirers of
impressed with
on par with
on par with
unimpressed with
dismissive of
disdainful of

hmmm after some more thinking

10:3 Civ A 340
9:4 Civ B 230
3:2 Civ C 155
1:1 Civ D 105
2:3 Civ E 70
4:9 Civ F 50
3:10 Civ G 35
1:10 Civ H 15

so that would mean

Civ A is
on par with Civ B
unimpressed with Civ C
dismissive of Civ D
disdainful of all the rest

Civ B is
on par with Civ A
on par with Civ C
unimpressed with Civ D
dismissive of Civ E
disdainful of all the rest

etc...

so as long as it is the threshold number and above wouldn't all of those ratios work out?

IMO, yes. But you could drop row no. 4 (the first 'on par with' level with a 1:1 ratio) and the system would still work. As for the actual ratios, I'd rather stick with the values of v1.17f than change them slightly, but that's a matter of taste.

I'll try to illustrate my suggested system in a more intuitive way:

in awe of
------------------------- threshold: 3:1 (300%)
admirers of
------------------------- threshold: 2:1 (200%)
impressed with
------------------------- threshold: 5:4 (125%)
on par with
------------------------- threshold: 4:5 (80%)
unimpressed with
------------------------- threshold: 1:2 (50%)
dismissive of
------------------------- threshold: 1:3 (33.3%)
disdainful of
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [lowest possible editor value of 1:10, no gameplay effect whatsoever]

IOW, the editor value of 3:1 for 'in awe of' actually is the transition point from 'in awe of' to 'admirers of', and so on.

[korn469]

Seems that solo has taken the lead in playtesting for now. O well ... back to cultural levels.

no please continue to test, the more people we have who discover the same flaw means the more reason we have to fix that flaw

also i figured out what the problem was, it was the thresh hold values cause the error where one civ is in awe of another and then the other civ is simply dismissive instead of disdainful, and this was throwing me off, but i dodn't think we can avoid that, this was making me think that the whole system was suspect, but after more computations it seems that other than that it works out, and also that is why my system was having the problems where i needed to introduce the other row, but since your ratios seem simpler and we would only need one new level we'll go with them...hehe though i think that besides the threshold problem both systems actually work

but so, as far as you know...there shouldn't any places besides the transitions where two civs won't have the appropriate attitude towards each other right?

though i am going to tweak the propaganda, resistance, and continued resistance values

[lockstep]

Originally posted by korn469
no please continue to test, the more people we have who discover the same flaw means the more reason we have to fix that flaw

Don't worry. I played a few games of v1.17f on monarch instead of blitz v1.06 betaX on regent, but soon I'll start a monarch blitz game.

also i figured out what the problem was, it was the thresh hold values cause the error where one civ is in awe of another and then the other civ is simply dismissive instead of disdainful, and this was throwing me off

The hard part for me was your example that seemed to work despite hitting the threshold values. Took me quite some time to figure out what was wrong.

since your ratios seem simpler and we would only need one new level we'll go with them...

but so, as far as you know...there shouldn't any places besides the transitions where two civs won't have the appropriate attitude towards each other right?

Right. And two civs hitting exactly a threshold ratio should be a very special case IMO (even more than spearmen beating tanks on a 4/6/9/12 hitpoint scale ).

though i am going to tweak the propaganda, resistance, and continued resistance values

This may be a very conservative approach, but how about a) leaving the values for the six original levels alone and b) using the average values of 'impressed with' and 'unimpressed with' as values for the new 'on par with' level?

[korn469]

Don't worry. I played a few games of v1.17f on monarch instead of blitz v1.06 betaX on regent, but soon I'll start a monarch blitz game.

i've got to the point that all i play is blitz

This may be a very conservative approach, but how about a) leaving the values for the six original levels alone and b) using the average values of 'impressed with' and 'unimpressed with' as values for the new 'on par with' level?

i dunno, the propaganda values seem too low, and resistance vales seem a little high, but i'll try not to break them too bad

[TechWins]

About the whole technology situation, basically just forget everything I was saying before, except the model I gave you for the Ancient era.

i am going to most likely add in the fire galley and make that the barbarian ship

To even further support the idea of adding the fire galley. Right now the whole early naval units thing is messed up. Too much of the map is uncovered too early. One of the reasons is that the outrigger allows for quite a bit of uncovering of the map with the 2 mov rate. Back in 4000 bc no boat could move an equivalent of 2 tiles. The outrigger (at least this is what I assumed) is only there to help you compensate for the wheeled settler, so why is it important for the outrigger to move fast? The outrigger should primarily be to help you move a settler around a large jungle/mountain area. I think a 1 mov rate would be much more fitting for the outrigger. * Now once you discover you Map Making you receive the first and last attack capable ship until you get to Magnetism (or now Navigation with the move of the Privateer). So once you discover Astrononmy and can start building caravels you no longer can build an attacking boat. This is also very problematic if you get in a war like I did. I hadn't built many galleys because I didn't have much reason to look to expand on a different continet. Once I got in war, though, I needed some boats that could attack, but I was unfortunate enough to already had discovered Astronomy, so I was stuck without any boats being able to attack the AIs galleys that were transporting units over to my continent. Unless you decide to make a few more changes to the naval units it seems as if adding the firegalle is a must.

* = The other reason is that map trading takes place at too early of an age for gameplay reasons. I suggest that you move map trading capabilities to navigation instead of map making. This will increase the potentcy of the colonist because there will be more unknown land. I hope you see the benefits of this move, or maybe I'm just not seeing the downfalls of this move. Also, communication trading shouldn't come till later in the game, as well. Possibly even as late as radio, however, that might be way too late, so maybe an earlier tech would be better.

If the two things under * are implemented I think this might actually help solve tech whoring. Since it seems that the more land you have discovered the more civs that become visible. Being able to communicate with other civs enables you to trade more. Now if both of these things were restricted a bit, then less trading will take place. If less trading is taking place then less techs are being swapped around. If less techs are being swapped around then that means less "whoring" is taking place and more individual learning is taking place. This might be a nice little solution to AI tech whoring, IMO.

You know, I thought I noticed something strange occurring with my science/luxuries settins when I was in earlier govs.

Just a thought but what about making a modern day palace as well. This could give you your old historical palace in one city, the forbidden palace in another city, and a modern day palace (building) in another city. However, I can see a few problems that could take place because of this. Civ3 may not allow for two center of empire buildings? Too little of corruption?...

About building costs and terrain changes: As of right now Korn wants to have Anarchy require maintenance (to make revolutions a big decision) but because of strong criticism he decided against it (simply to destructive is Anarchy with it). Well, if building costs are lowerd it has no effect on Anarchy, but if the terrain is changed it will. So to make Anarchy more destructive, while keeping it balanced the following should be done (yes I have proposed most of this before except this time I'm proposing them for dfferent reasons ), as well as keeping the income for other govs balanced.

1) Use Lockstep's suggest building costs.
2) Take away the road commerce bonus from forest, mountains, tundra, and jungle.
3) To compensate for the lack of gold output by mountains, mining should give mountains a 3 shield bonus. To compensate for the lack of gold output by jungle, jungle should start off with either 1 gold commerce or 1 shield.

Doing this will also have other effects that I've stated before, but this time I think I have a better argument.

One more thing, it is nice to see other people comment on this mod, because the more input there is the better this mod can become. And the better this mod becomes the more fun I have playing Civ3.