AU mod: AI Naval exploration

[donZappo]

If the AU makes it cost 2mp in ocean squares then should the cost of The Great Lighthouse be reduced by a tad as well? Part of the function of that wonder is to make it easier to suicide galleys, and a large part of that is through crossing oceans. If oceans cost 2mp then seafaring civs would be able to move 3 times through ocean whereas non-seafaring would still be stuck at 2 movement points. Granted, it allows for safe sea travel but the +1 movement would no longer be as valuable to the majority of civs.

[ducki]

I'd like to propose a course to be used in testing this mod - a 'pelago map with large islands as a seafaring nation. I think making it harder to pass over ocean is good, but I fear that we may be concentrating a bit much on the "typical" scenario of two big continents and a player wringing exceeding advantage out of a potential contact monopoly.

I kinda think we could fix the monopoly problem by moving Contact trading back to Writing like it was before, but I could be wrong.

[donZappo]

Originally posted by ducki
I'd like to propose a course to be used in testing this mod - a 'pelago map with large islands as a seafaring nation. I think making it harder to pass over ocean is good, but I fear that we may be concentrating a bit much on the "typical" scenario of two big continents and a player wringing exceeding advantage out of a potential contact monopoly.

The reason that I've always referred to the 'typical' situation of two big continents was that I needed an average situation to base the comparison off of. If you have a pangaea map, then the oceanic movement penalty doesn't matter; if you have a archipalego map, then the oceanic movement penalty might be a little bit too painful. Since this change would be so hugely map dependent I was hoping to find a solution that would be the best for all situations and thats why I took the continental world approach.

I do think it would be interesting to try out the changes on a massive ocean map, though, just to see if it *is* imbalancing or not. I just incorporated the suggested mod into my last game (small, 60% archipalego apparently) and they all worked out quite well on there. I drew Carthage and was able to suicide my galleys and it was more costly and delayed because of these changes. It wasn't too much of a problem to do it, though, and I was still successful in getting the contacts before too long. I wish that I had transport capacity on my curraghs to settle the large island just off the coast of my capitol, though!

I kinda think we could fix the monopoly problem by moving Contact trading back to Writing like it was before, but I could be wrong.

I don't think this would solve the problem since the only way for the AI to get those contacts would be to extort them from the human. They still wouldn't be able to find each other, and I'm pretty sure that the human will never release their stranglehold on the contacts. "You can talk to the Egyptians when you pry their contacts from my cold, smoldering city-states!"

[MrWhereItsAt]

Why are we talking about balancing both Galleys and Curraghs anyway? If we are going to err on the conservative side, as we may be doing for the Cavalry change, why not here too? Just change the Curragh. The Galley is a separate issue, IMO.

If the proposed way of preventing later ships from experiencing the move cost of sea/ocean works then fine, but I still think it would be simpler just to remove ocean travel capability for curraghs altogether. Whether we add the transport capability or not, oceanic travel should NOT be permitted that early in the game - I dont care if it is a fluke one game in 20 where you get lucky and it happens. Galley suicide runs are less unbalancing, so surely we can treat them in isolation, once the new unit is dealt with.

[Theseus]

I was about to say, MWIA, that I totally agree, especially in the interest of conservatism...

But I think nerfing Galley suicide runs a LEETLE bit would be a good thing (while preserving that advantage if in possesion of the GLight, and especially so if seafaring to boot).

[donZappo]

I didn't think that galleys came at a time that was significantly far enough away from curraghs to seperate them in the discussion of early contacts. I also think that they were being lumped together in the debates to try to address both problems at once.

[Catt]

I don't think they (curraghs and galleys) come far enough apart to make a strong logical case for separating them either, except as a stop-gap to making too dramatic a change to the base game. The power of the suicide naval unit is roughly proportional to the number of civs isolated by sea and ocean. Finding the last civ that has been isolated from others offers much less opportunity than finding each of the other X civs in the game, all of which are isolated or semi-isolated. When suiciding becomes a seeming imperative (archi maps, min land, for example), the human is likely to prioritize MM and galleys in any event. Perhaps paradoxically, I think suiciding might offer the most benefit in a continents map where roughly half the civs each collectively share half the explorable world.

My conservatism wrt suiciding comes mostly from the strategic choices involved. Where only one or two civs are isolated, the benefits aren't great (unless the human is one of the isolated) and the risk to shields offers less potential return. Where everyone is isolated, the benefits are greater, but not overwhelming. Where there is plenty of land for each civ but groups are isolated, it begins to be easier to sacrifice some shields in suicide attempts which can pay decent rewards. But if suiciding galleys are ruled out, a strategic choice -- risk shields for contact -- is removed; and I for one believe that the "assistance" to the AI by removing the human suicide ability is not great enough to remove the interesting strategic choice. So, while I don't favor removing completely the ability to suicide curraghs, I could live with that implementation; removing the ability to suicide galleys strikes me as a real step backwards in terms of engaging gameplay and strategic choice.

Catt

[vmxa1]

I have seen that if you have two contients with more or less 4 civs on each that the human can make some headway with curraghs. It does not even have to be a true suicide run. I had a map where I could go from my lannd to theirs and not end in an ocean tile. or Maybe one turn. The AI did not build curragh and would wait to have galley and the tech needed to cross the ocean.
So you get a long time with all contacts, while the AI's each have only half of them.

[Strollen]

I do think Curraghs and galley are slightly seperate problems. A human with seafaring has a reasonable chance of making contact with another continent. (in my last game large map, 60% water, continents their was a sea connection, and I found a one square ocean connection early on)

Most humans don't make researching a map making a high priority items (especially now that you can't trade maps with it.)
Therefore eliminating suicide curragh runs delays the period of time when a human can have a monopoly trading establishment.

So my suggestion is to make ocean squares impassable, for curraghs. For galleys make ocean squares take 2 MPs.

Not sure if we should make sea squares 1 or 2 MPs I am inclined to leave them alone.

[MqsTout]

I don't know if this has ever been proposed, but...

What if (This isn't something we could do but Firaxis could) the map generator looked at the map after it was done, and took the terrain into consideration when distributing civilizations. Have seafaring civs in the starting points near water, agricultural ones near deserts, commercial ones near rivers, expansionist farther from the rest, industrial in areas that will need lots of working (jungles...), militaristic ones in between the rest, and religious/scientific ones... unweighted.

If that were done, I guess it could be easily expanded by them to consider placing the Indians always in areas farther from iron, etc.

[donZappo]

Hmm, I don't suppose I have the power to call for a vote on this, do I?

Seriously, though, I don't know how much new discussion is being generated on this subject. It seems like either people are for or against making ocean movement 2 points, and barring ocean travel altogether from curraghs. Other ideas aren't seriously being considered (it seems) or are better left to a "power of seafaring" thread.

Oh, I almost forgot about the "trick" to make the AI build curraghs to explore early on. I guess that leaves three points to vote on...

[MrWhereItsAt]

Aside from a vote (which we could in principle have, if that's what we want for AU decisions), we could try to 'beta test' the AU mod. There will undoubtedly be changes made after the first iteration, so what if whoever gets around to being motivated enough to make the mod makes the decision, and we adjust what we need to based on our post-game experiences?

Beta test AU. After all, we will be playing the first game or two with the Beta patch. It's almost fitting.

[alexman]

Time to vote!

AU mod panel, you have 24 hours to decide:

1. Yes/No: Should Curraghs be given the AI Naval Transport flag, instead of the AI Naval Power flag?
2. Yes/No: Should Curraghs be made wheeled, with Ocean unpassable to Wheeled units?
3. Yes/No: Should Galleys be made wheeled, with Ocean unpassable to Wheeled units?
4. Yes/No: Should Sea and Ocean tiles cost 2 MP to enter for Curraghs?
5. Yes/No: Should Ocean tiles cost 2 MP to enter for Galleys?

My votes:
1.Yes
2.Yes
3.No
4.Yes
5.Yes

[Dominae]

I agree!

1. Yes (I assume this means Curraghs get a transport capacity of 1 too).
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.

[donZappo]

Originally posted by Dominae
I agree!

1. Yes (I assume this means Curraghs get a transport capacity of 1 too).
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.

From my understanding of this vote, it still means a transport capacity of 0. If you make it so that the AI thinks that they're building them for Naval Transport then the AI will use them to scout like the human does. If you actually give them a transport of 1, then they won't use them to carry settlers, and will rarely use them for military units.