MOD: Patch suggestion MOD

[player1]

Originally posted by alexman
This is a good idea. I had also suggested reducing their movement by 1. But the problem is the AI. It likes to use ironclad-galleon pairs, and restricting the ironclad would restrict his invasion force. He's not smart enough to use Frigates when ironclads are available.

Yes, AI is the problem.

If I wanted to reduce movment or make them sink in sea, I would probably keep them with Steam Power.

[player1]

Originally posted by alexman
One more thing.

I would increase the movement of Frigates (but not Galleons) along with all the combustion-and-later naval units.

This would make them still useful at the same time as the Ironclad, which is realistic and adds some strategy.

Hmm, you know, Firagtes & Ironclads have same movement of 4, which is OK since I moved Ironclads to Industialization.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by player1
I try to keep a Vanilla Civ3 flavor.

And this is why I like your mod so much.

[player1]

Originally posted by lockstep
You could make ironclads sink in sea/ocean. Would give them a distinct role and also enlarge the age of sail.

You know, later Ironclads had no such coast problemes.

That's why I moved them to Industrialization.

[player1]

Originally posted by alexman
Sorry, one more idea...

Do you ever wonder why AI England is always weak but AI Egypt is usually strong? Some of the AI civs have stupid build priorities. Nobody should have Wealth as a "build-often" priority! This is also the reason why many AI civs hardly ever build any factories.

Change build priorities to be more like what we humans have found to be optimal. Depending on the civ traits, place more emphasis on production, trade, and culture, and less emphasis on military units.

It think that 1.29 patch has handled some of these problems without playing with AI flags in BIC file.

I try try to stay away from these AI flags (for now), so I would not break something (remeber "famous" 1.17f patch).


P.S.
And you know that wealth effect is doubled with this MOD?

[player1]

Ugh...

So many posts and so many replies for just one hour.

[alexman]

OK, last reply for today, I promise!

Originally posted by player1


Hmm, you know, Firagtes & Ironclads have same movement of 4, which is OK since I moved Ironclads to Industialization.

If Ironclads and Frigates have the same movement, there is no question: you always build Ironclads. The point was to have a small window (between Industrialization and Combustion) where you get a strategic dilema as to whether you want speed or power.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by player1
I try try to stay away from these AI flags (for now), so I would not break something (remeber "famous" 1.17f patch).

I agree with you that AI flags should only be changed with good reason. But there may be one: Some of the best Civ3 players (Aeson, Theseus) suspect that the AI often doesn't bother to build marketplaces, therefore does not enjoy the additional luxury benefits and is seriously crippled. So it would be a good idea to set all AI's to build 'trade' often.

Still, this needs to be further tested.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
If Ironclads and Frigates have the same movement, there is no question: you always build Ironclads.

BTW, player1, in that case frigates should upgrade to ironclads, not to destroyers.

[player1]

Originally posted by lockstep
BTW, player1, in that case frigates should upgrade to ironclads, not to destroyers.

I was thinking about that.
But then, I said to myself, why to penalize England by making Frigate type units obsolete with Ironclads.

Yes I could make only Frigate upgarde to Ironlcads, not Man-O-War, but it would look a little bit strange.

So I would leave it as it is.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by player1
I said to myself, why to penalize England by making Frigate type units obbolete with Ironclads.

Yes I could make only Frigate upgarde to Ironlcads, not for Man-O-War, but it would look a little bit strange.

So I would leave it as it is.

If the Man-O-War is not allowed to skip ironclads and upgrade directly to destroyers, why are jaguar warriors allowed to skip swordsmen and upgrade directly to riflemen?

[player1]

Originally posted by lockstep


If the Man-O-War is not allowed to skip ironclads and upgrade directly to destroyers, why are jaguar warriors allowed to skip swordsmen and upgrade directly to riflemen?

But you can always say, that Jaguars are pretty good lite troops, so they don't get obsolete.

But you can't say, even for Man-O-War, that it's a pretty good ships, so it's not made obsolete.

P.S.
The real reason of not making then osbolete is that they are an UU, which can trigger GA.

[lockstep]

Actually, it's a very good idea IMO that jaguar warriors don't get obsolete quickly, even if this means a somewhat different upgrade path compared to warriors. And for the same reason I would tolerate a different upgrade path for the Man-O-War compared to frigates. I don't think that this would look 'a little bit strange'.

(After all, the Man-O-War should also be able to trigger a GA, at least in theory.)

[player1]

Yes, but that also can be a disadvanatge.

Other civs would upgrade their Frigaes, while English would need to build thier Ironclads form scratch.



P.S.
On the other hand,
Jaguars not upgrading, in same way, is not real disadvantge, since upgrade cost of 40 gold in anicent era is alot, and Jaguar have a movment of 2, better then Swordsmen.

[player1]

Version 1.31 is OUT!
Download from top of the thread.


Changes in ver 1.31

Prequisite tech for Ironclad unit is now Industrialization (instead of Steam Power).
This is done in order to prolong use of Frigates as "queen of seas".
In original rules, Frigates were quickly made obsolete by Ironclads.

Late game naval units have increased movment by 1.
This is done in order to make greater difference between speed of modern naval vessels and sailing ships.
It should not be unbalancing since change is for just one movment point.

So Destroyers, Battleships, AEGIS Cruisers, Transports and Carriers get movment of 6.
Subs get movment of 4, while Nuclear Subs get movment of 5.


Attack bonus against barabarians is lowered too.

Why?

Since I don't think, that even novice players think it's fun to have his one lone warrior defeat 15 enemy horsemen. And that's something that can happen with anti-barabarian bonus of 800% at easiest difficulty.

Now, at Chieftain diffculty, bonus against barabarians is 200% (still good), at Warlord is 100%, at Regent and Monarch is 50%, and at Emperor and Deity diffculty there is no bonus at all.