MOD: Patch suggestion MOD

[lockstep]

I had the same thought, with prices of 240/480/960 (+50% from the original). I'll give it a try.

[player1]

Then I'll reconsider about adding this change.

(I don't have time to playtest it myself, and I would hate to add something like that without additional playtesting)

[lockstep]

Finished my test game with PS 1.32, SS part costs +50% (240/480/960). Monarch, Babylonians, standard map, archipelago, diplomatic victory disabled.

Summary: The AI still aims VERY agressively for space victory. I was able to lauch my SS, but at that time 5 of the 6 remaining AI civs had started their ship, 3 of them had finished at least 7 parts, and one AI civ already had finished part 9. I won't go into details right now, but it was close. (E.g.: Shortly after I had finished Apollo Program, one of the main AI rivals landed a tank army on my shores, and another one sabotaged my production and actually expelled my spy.)

Conclusion: Increasing the SS costs by 25% or 50% is a thing the AI can cope with, so I suggest to adopt it and to restore the original prereq tech (Space Flight) for SS Docking Bay. Should make researching Robotics an interesting strategic choice.

Savegame is enclosed. Load, investigate the SS screen (F10) as long as you like, then fortify the waiting mech infantry and watch history unfolding.

[player1]

Seen the game.

It looks like it worked well.
(with +50% cost increase)


One thing about that Docking Bay preq.

Somehow I realy don't know, if I took out Robotic preq. how much "aim for Robotics" stratgey would be viable.

Since two most expesive parts require Space Flight and Synthetic, and Space flight is first most important tech since it's needed for Apollo, and Synthetics are just one tech away (assuming that you got Ecology earlier, since Mass Transits are realy importatnt).

Now, after that moment, best thing to do is to start builid those two parts as quickly as possibile, without waiting for Robotics, since you'll need a lot of time to research it, and you don't have time to waste (960 shields! or maybe I'll need a leader).

Since Manuf. Plants costs 320 shields, and that gives 25% increase in production (base shields (100%) + factory (50%) + plant (50%) = 200%, with added manuf. plant (+50%) = 250%, 25% increase), building them is realy not cost effective then building other lower cost (480 and less) SS components.

Even if you have Robotics tech. best thing is to build all available SS parts first.
(240 SS part vs 320 manuf. plant (SS wins), 480 SS part vs 320 manuf. plant, building SS finishes job quicker)

So, at the end, best optimal stratgy is to research Laser the last and skip Robotics entirely.

[lockstep]

One thing that would favour the 'get manufactuing plants ASAP' strategy is that you can rush-buy them as soon as you get Robotics, which saves some precious turns. In my game, I built the SS parts that come with Space Flight very soon, but ignored the Ecolgoy branch of the tech tee for the moment and went for Laser - Robotics. Unfortunately, I didn't have aluminum in my territory, and the only AI with surplus aluminum would - naturally - only trade it to me for the Laser. From then on, I traded SS prereq techs vs. cash like mad - I even got Synthetic Fibers from the 5th civ that started building its ship. With aluminum within my borders, I would have researched Robotics about a dozen turns before everyone else. Also, in my test game there was virtually no war from the middle age until the modern age and nearly every civ was at least able to start their own space ship. With only two or three major civs, the optimal research strategy for the space race may be different.

In the end, the whole Robotics issue may be a matter of taste. At least, we know now that increased SS costs add to the fun and addiction of Civ3. Hell, I was glued on the screen when my last SS part needed still 10 turns to be finished and two other civs fiddled about with THEIR last part!

[player1]

Originally posted by lockstep
In the end, the whole Robotics issue may be a matter of taste. At least, we know now that increased SS costs add to the fun and addiction of Civ3. Hell, I was glued on the screen when my last SS part needed still 10 turns to be finished and two other civs fiddled about with THEIR last part!

Yes, a matter of taste.

In one case, you'll go to Robotic, ignoring Ecology.
In other case, I'll go Ecology and Sythetics first, and Robotics later.

So there are already different startegies, without removing Doking Bays preq. from Robotics.

It already works well (various strategies), no need for additional Doking Bay tech changes.


P.S.
I'll incorporate incresed cost in next MOD's version.
I'll make them 250, 500, 1000 (rounded numbers, just like for Wonders).

[player1]

Here are 2 things I am thinking about:

First,

I wanna make Jets a little bit more unique then fighters.
So I would give them bombard strenght of 3.
To make F-15 and stl. fighter still worth builing I'll give them bom. str. of 5.
I don't think that this would be unbalancing since they all still have ROF of 2 (compared to ROF 3 of bombers)

While higher ROF I gave them in one of older version was too much, maybe this small change with bombard str. would be OK.
(I'm pretty sure this would be OK)


Second,
Isn't Cr. Missile range of 6 a little bit too high?
Since you can move them by rails, and then attack from border. Then range becomes...

Maybe change of range to 4 tiles.
(I'm not sure about this "second" change too much)

[lockstep]

Originally posted by player1
Isn't Cr. Missile range of 6 a little bit too high?
Since you can move them by rails, and then attack from border. Then range becomes...

Maybe change of range to 4 tiles.
(I'm not sure about this "second" change too much)

I like the idea very much.

[player1]

I like the idea very much.

Thanks!

Now I'm sure that both idea will be fine.

Expect them in next version in several days.
(including SS cost too)

[lockstep]

player1, you may want to check out some suggestions I made in alexman's AU mod thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...71#post1202571

[alexman]

Originally posted by player1
To make F-15 and stl. fighter still worth builing I'll give them bom. str. of 5.

I would give them a strength of 6.
ROF is more powerful than strength, so it still won't be unbalancing. However, there will be enough of a difference to make the F-15 better than the Jet Fighter (since they now have the same ROF, which is not the case in the original rules)

Isn't Cr. Missile range of 6 a little bit too high?
Since you can move them by rails, and then attack from border. Then range becomes...

That's a good point. Doesn't the tactical nuke also move on rails though? Why does it have a range of 6?

I like the SS component changes. It should make for a better space race.

[player1]

Originally posted by alexman

I would give them a strength of 6.
ROF is more powerful than strength, so it still won't be unbalancing. However, there will be enough of a difference to make the F-15 better than the Jet Fighter (since they now have the same ROF, which is not the case in the original rules)

I've done some mathematical calcualtions, by which bom. str. of 6 would give some Bombarding advantage to Stl. Fighter compared to Stl. Bomber, good enough to make them more cost effective, which would make Str. Bomber much less usefull.
It's would make Str' Fighter better "Bombard choice".

So I would keep 5 instead.

Originally posted by alexman
That's a good point. Doesn't the tactical nuke also move on rails though? Why does it have a range of 6?

I like the SS component changes. It should make for a better space race.

That's default value for Nukes, and they need some better range in order to make succesfull Nuclear Subs raids (range of 4 would sometimes prevent Subs from targeting some inland cities completly).

[alexman]

Originally posted by player1
I've done some mathematical calcualtions, by which bom. str. of 6 would give some Bombarding advantage to Stl. Fighter compared to Stl. Bomber, good enough to make them more cost effective, which would make Str. Bomber much less usefull.

You're right! As you have it, two Stealth Fighters have exactly the same expected damage as one Stealth Bomber when attacking a defender of strength 10.

Anything lower than 10 for the defender, and it's better to attack with fighters. Anything higher than 10 and it's better to attack with bombers. Good job!

[player1]

Originally posted by alexman
You're right! As you have it, two Stealth Fighters have exactly the same expected damage as one Stealth Bomber when attacking a defender of strength 10.

Anything lower than 10 for the defender, and it's better to attack with fighters. Anything higher than 10 and it's better to attack with bombers. Good job!

Thanks!

[player1]

Major differences between the AU mod and the PS mod and how to resolve them

My take:

Because I'd really like to see the best mods out yet converge into an 'Apolyton Standard mod', here are some thoughts about differences between AU and PS:
Musketeer stats - 2/4/2 in AU, 4/4/1 in PS. The AU mod's version is probably better for the AI, but results in a somewhat inconsistent upgrade chain. I guess only playtesting will resolve this issue.

My version isn't bad for AI.
Yes, human player can attack with Musketmen, but maybe using Longbowmen or Knigth is better.
Also, only defese AI falg units do attack, but only if it's HEAVILY in their favor.
Like attack on 1hp Knight.
And 4/4/1 cost 50 Musketters look COOL.
(they do have AI offense flag)

Inclusion of zero range bombardment - AU yes, PS no. I'm with alexman on this one because the feature is 'realistic' and the AI can actually cope with it.

Yes, it's iteresting. But needs lots of playtesting and balaning.
And leaves a question: Why more modern units hhave not such feature?
I stay closer to "core" (conservative) Civ3 .
Anyway, it's still good feature.

EDIT: Lethal land bombardment for some air units - AU no, PS yes. I'm with Alexman on this one, because IMO lethal land bombardment is a 'change for the sake of change'. (Lethal sea bombardment is also debatable in terms of playbalance, but at least it makes 'Pearl Harbor'-type air attacks possible.)

From playbalance point, lethal naval compensates to low bambard rate of those units, and makes stratgey a little bit deaper for human player, without unbalancing AI too much.

As for lethal land for some of them, it's done mainly to represent those units as TACTICAL bobers. Since bombard rate of those units is still poor, you can only hope that you can take out 1hp Tanks or Infantry, which is not owerpowered in any way (not to say that you have 50% miss chance when bombing cities). Generaly, Cr. missles are better in that role, but if you have several availible jets, why not try that too.
It also represents use of Civ1 & Civ2 fighters as weak unit killers (although it's far from perfect, it still can take out spearmen).

Movement rate of Frigate/Man-O-War and Privateer - AU adds +1 (so that it is 5 resp. 4), PS leaves them at 4 resp. 3. I'm with alexman on this one, because it adds a strategic choice of building Frigates (faster) vs. Ironclads (higher bombard strength).

I think that preq. of Industralization for ironclads, and their new cost of 100, is enough to give strategic choice.
Later age ironclads were not slower then Frigates, and that makes Firagtes way to fast for sailing ships.

Ironclad upgrade path - AU to Battleship, PS to Destroyer. No strong feelings here, but upgrading to the Battleship would be in accordance with the Ironclad's civilopedia entry.

This just weakens Ironclads too much.
And historicaly, Destroyers are succesors of ironclads.

Longevity tweaks - AU: available with Medicine instead of Genetics, PS: additional happy faces. I'm with alexman on this one, because it makes Longevity's original effect (faster city growth) actually useful.

What to say?
I'm just conservative.
Since that's more like removing one wonder, and adding new Industrial wonder.