AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[Theseus]

Great input and great job!!!

alexman is da man! (ummm, third or fourth time I've said that??) Seriously, I think you are doing a great job of balancing great ideas / improvements with staying relatively close to stock.

Of the remaining concepts, here are my top thoughts:

* Government tweaks: I'm generally hesitant... as player1 points out, these are the hardest to balance, as their effects are non-linear. The one concept I'm in favor of is (gently) improving communism, as the AI civs continue to use it.

* Swordsman upgrades: I'm very much in favor at this point, as long as the mechanism matches what we know about Medieval Infantry as closely as possible. Until PTW, the loss of Longbowmen is trivial (except for Babylon?). I would avoid a further upgrade to Marines, Riflemen, etc., as it seems the path in PTW will terminate in Guerillas, for which there is no existing analog. Lastly, I would suggest including the "Swordsman to Medieval Infantry" upgrade path in AU Mod 1.04... AU 106 is coming !

[Dominae]

I think I've found what may be a bug with one of the changes made in the AU MOD (actually, it's an Editor problem, but discovered it through the mod):

The new Great Wall ability puts City Walls in all towns (cities of size 6 and higher make the Walls obsolete). If a Barbarian attacks an undefended town, the result will be a pillaged City Walls. But the Walls don't stay destroyed because the Great Wall puts them back (I'm not sure exactly when...maybe they never leave). So, all your towns are "immune" to Barbarian attack.

I'm pretty sure that this bug doesn't exist for the Pyramids and similar improvements, but not 100% sure.

Anyone care to confirm this?


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
The new Great Wall ability puts City Walls in all towns (cities of size 6 and higher make the Walls obsolete). If a Barbarian attacks an undefended town, the result will be a pillaged City Walls. But the Walls don't stay destroyed because the Great Wall puts them back (I'm not sure exactly when...maybe they never leave). So, all your towns are "immune" to Barbarian attack.

Have you verified whether a "walls destroyed" result is always the result of barbarians entering a city with city walls? With other types of improvements, destroying an improvement is merely one of several courses of action the barbarians might choose to pursue.

Nathan

[lockstep]

Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum

Originally posted by alexman
1.04: (* = under evaluation)
Removed HP bonus from all naval units.
Coastal Fortress no longer produces veteran units and has zero upkeep.
Harbors produce veteran units again.
Increased Republic corruption to Problematic level.
*Added three free unit support to Monarchy.
*Increased worker speed to 3 for Communism.
*Increased military police for Communism to six.
*Added 10 free unit support to Communism.
*Increased unit support to 4 per town, 8 per city, 16 per metropolis for Communism.
*Added 1 free unit per city and two free units per metropolis for Democracy.
All AI civs have "emphasize production" checked.
Iroquois have "offensive units" in their build preferences instead of "explore".
Increased aggression level of Iroquois from 2 to 3.
Maintenance of Banks and Research Labs increased by 1.
Cost of Research Labs increased to 240.
*ADM for Longbowman now 4/2/1, cost 50.
*Swordsmen upgrade to Longbowmen.

Great list! Also, it's a good idea to single out the changes that are still 'under evaluation'. Two comments:

• The change of the Iroquois' agression level seems well-founded, but I'd like to have it embedded (maybe until v1.05) in a general discussion about the average level of AI agression - should it be about the same, higher or even lower?
• The military police limit of 6 for Communism seems to be designed to virtually guarantuee WLTK days in every city, but I'm not sure if this is desirable in terms of gameplay (i.e. less need to trade luxuries, which is part of Civ3's core design). I know that this feature is 'under evaluation', but IMO it's quite radical even for that.

Originally posted by Dominae
As is, the AU MOD is one most of us can agree with. Any other tweaks can remain in our own personal .bic files for now (I know I have a couple of cool ones lying around).

My own personal bic-file has become quite similar to the AU mod, because most of the changes have been either included in the AU mod or I have dropped them for now because I don't have a solid reason on second thought. Also, there are a lot of ideas around in the mod-community that never made it in my bic-file (some really unbalancing ones and some that are subject to further testing). Anyhow, I'd be interested in the tweaks that you have 'lying around' as well as in your opinion on the tweaks I suggested (no. 3-10, as 1 and 2 are mostly part of the AU mod now).

[Harovan]

May be we find a way to improve Longevity? I'm ignoring this wonder now, because it's negative and keeps to push your cities out of WLTKD. But that means, I leave the downsides to the unlucky AI that builds it. Giving a free hospital to all (continental) cities seems way too much, even though a hospital is only 5-6 turns of production in this period and this is about the same like with barracks and Sun Tzu's. Any other ideas?

As for the proposed upgrade: The new Longbowman has the same stats like the Immortal. I thought first, that we should make it unaccessible for Persia, but OTOH it needs no iron and might be of use. Again, ideas?

[BillChin]

Re: Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum

Originally posted by lockstep
[*]The military police limit of 6 for Communism seems to be designed to virtually guarantuee WLTK days in every city, but I'm not sure if this is desirable in terms of gameplay (i.e. less need to trade luxuries, which is part of Civ3's core design). I know that this feature is 'under evaluation', but IMO it's quite radical even for that.[/list]

Perhaps it is radical, however, I see nothing else on the table that would tempt me to consider Communism. Remember, it is an Industrial Age tech. Communism NEEDS a fairly major upgrade to give it some clear benefits over Ancient age techs such as Republic and Monarchy. It is unlikely that any changes to Communism will effect game outcomes, because 98% of games are decided before the Industrial Age.

My proposal helps the AI which seems to favor Communism in the late game. I see that as a positive. I also believe it might be useable in multiplayer (vs. the default rules where few experienced human players will choose Communism). My proposal also makes Communism an option for a small empire (10 free unit support), which is out of the question under the default rules.

As for luxuries, historically, Communist states do not import luxuries for the populace, so this fits the historical profile. Also keep in mind, that Communism is often chosen by human players when he/she has a very large empire. They usually have no need to trade for luxuries.

Communism is abysmally weak as it stands. Increasing the worker rate will not influence any human player to give it a try. Factories and railroads are a much higher priority tech path for human players, not to mention infantry, planes and tanks. There is the cost of an extra optional tech to research and the turns of anarchy. My proposal lets a human player role play historical Communist states with a large conscript military. I see it making the game more fun in single player, and Communism an equivalent option to Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, in multiplayer.

Even with the proposed upgrades (10 free units, 4/8/12 unit support, 6 MP), Communism is not a clear choice over Monarchy as a wartime government. A player needs to build courthouses and police stations in the cities near the palace to get the max benefit of Communism. That is a lot of extra set up, and even after that, can not produce large wonders as fast as a Monarchy can.

Bottom line: my proposal will NOT effect game outcomes because Communism is a late tech. It helps the AI. My proposal makes the game more fun for human players by giving them the option to role play historical Communist states with large conscript armies. My proposal makes Communism a reasonable option in multiplayer for large and small empires.
- Bill

[Slax]

I am against increasing corruption in Republic.

I know its personal preference, but usually I look forward to that small decrease in corruption that comes with a Republic government to quicken the pace of Forbidden Palace building.

Please don't increase Republic's corruption!

[Dominae]

lockstep, I must admit most of the changes in my favorite "personal" mod are present in the AU mod. There are some that I do include, however, that I wouldn't suggest to this thread. For example, I like to have Taxmen and Scientists (the doubled variant) available through Banking and Physics, respectively. Also, for a long time now I've made Swordsmen (and variants) upgrade to Marines (it's quite a shock to get hit by an amphibious assault, which happens almost every game I play, though not so effectively).

My point is that such changes don't belong in the AU mod (corrrect me if I'm wrong). The AU mod tries to keep as close to "standard" Civ3 as possible, with the changes being "obvious" ones that the community can agree upon. Large changes (like tweaking governments or corruption, etc.) may very well be fun, but are simply too drastic for this mod. Imagine in AU-109 when there will be a clear cleavage between the players who choose to play the modded scenario and those that don't. I don't think anyone wants this to happen. Some of the changes now under consideration, however, are a step in that direction.

[Aside: Please forgive me if I sound like I'm preaching; I know I've only been back to Apolyton for a couple of weeks now, it's just that AU is such a great idea I don't want to see it transform into something I'll have to disagree with!]

On to the changes proposed for 1.04. As I said, I like most of them. Here are some areas of concern:

1. Communism

It's funny how people are slowly trying to transform Communism in Civ3 into Fundamentalism from Civ2 (subconsciously, I'm sure). Six-unit Military Police means bye-bye to unhappiness. I doesn't matter if real-world Communist states imported/used Luxuries or not, they will do so in Civ3. Increasing the Support values is fine, as this will help the AI considerably, as is increasing the Worker rate (up to 3, not 4?). But making Communist states always celebrate seems a bit much.

2. Monarchy

Increasing the free Unit Support by 3 is too small a change. I think Monarchy is fine as it is, even compared to The Republic early on. Small chages like this one will only complicate the mod, and not significantly improve it.

3. Democracy

Increased unit support I assume is hopes of making this government better compared to The Republic. Again, I think that weakening The Republic is the way to go, not making the over governments better (except for Communism).

4. Swordsmen and Longbowmen

I'm fine with this change as long as it mirrors exactly what we're going to get with Play the World. I don't want to pick up any bad habits!


Dominae


P.S: nbarclay, I will do some tests soon to figure out if the Barbarians only destroy my Walls. It's not a major problem, it's just that they'll never steal money anymore, because they can always destroy the Walls. So, the silly strategy is just to leave your outlying cities completely undefended when you get the Great Wall.

[Theseus]

I'm with you, Dominae... the primary purpose of the AU Mod is to improve AI performance while staying within the realm of stock Civ3, NOT to 'fix' the game (whatever that means). The relatively minor building and unit changes are fine and make sense, but have been purposefully kept subtle.

That said, I think the changes thus far have been just great, and the ongoing discussion very valuable as well.

Re governments, I suggest as little change as possible... in fact, the only real changes I would support would be one that *help the AI civs* as opposed to changing the human players government strategy.

Thus, I like the idea of improving Communism UP TO THE POINT that it helps the AI civs (who will use it when a human player wouldn't), but not so much that a human player would use it any differently than in stock Civ3.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Dominae
lockstep, I must admit most of the changes in my favorite "personal" mod are present in the AU mod. There are some that I do include, however, that I wouldn't suggest to this thread. For example, I like to have Taxmen and Scientists (the doubled variant) available through Banking and Physics, respectively.

An interesting example. The mod-community seems to agree that specialists are too weak in vanilla Civ3 - one solution is to up taxmen/scientists to a value of 2, another one to up them to 3 and make them available in the late ancient or in the middle age. The AU way (up them to 2 and leave them available instantaneous) is somewhat nearer vanilla Civ3, but that doesn't mean other solutions are a bad idea.

Also, for a long time now I've made Swordsmen (and variants) upgrade to Marines (it's quite a shock to get hit by an amphibious assault, which happens almost every game I play, though not so effectively).

PtW is likely to include a swordsman - medieval infantry - guerilla upgrade, which is very similar to your proposal.

My point is that such changes don't belong in the AU mod (corrrect me if I'm wrong). The AU mod tries to keep as close to "standard" Civ3 as possible, with the changes being "obvious" ones that the community can agree upon. Large changes (like tweaking governments or corruption, etc.) may very well be fun, but are simply too drastic for this mod.

IMO, 'changing as little as possible' does not always mean 'changing little'. E.g. the tweak to make the Military Academy available with Military Tradition, but without a victorious army is a quite drastic one, but vastly improves gameplay (access to a core game feature without the need to wage war). But I agree with you insofar as every change (drastic or small) should be well-reasoned.

AU is such a great idea I don't want to see it transform into something I'll have to disagree with!

Exactly my thoughts. In fact, I only re-enteed the AU discussions when the changes to coastal fortresses started to have a good chance to be removed.

It's funny how people are slowly trying to transform Communism in Civ3 into Fundamentalism from Civ2 (subconsciously, I'm sure). Six-unit Military Police means bye-bye to unhappiness.

Again, exactly my thoughts. I understand the reasoning of BillChin's suggestion, but it's too radical IMO.

I think Monarchy is fine as it is, even compared to The Republic early on. Small chages like this one will only complicate the mod, and not significantly improve it.

Agreed. A good rule for mod-makers: If you suggest a small step in the right direction, it should simplify the rules, not complicate them.

I think that weakening The Republic is the way to go, not making the over governments better (except for Communism).

A small unit support for Democracy may improve gameplay - naturally, this has to be tested. But contrary to a military police limit of 6 for Communism, I don't think that this change to Democracy violates the core design of Civ3.

Swordsmen and Longbowmen ... I'm fine with this change as long as it mirrors exactly what we're going to get with Play the World.

With PtW released, the discussion of Swordsmen/Longbowmen upgrade chains is very likely to fade away ...

[BillChin]

From the first post in this thread:
The goals of this MOD are to:
- Present the player with more strategic decisions.
- Improve the AI.
- Change as little as possible, to preserve the unmodded Civ3 flavor.
- Reduce micromanagement.
-----

I believe government choice is about as strategic as decisions get in Civ III. I believe my proposed government tweaks use the available tools in the editor to make for more interesting choices, improve the AI, and preserve the integrity of the game. Others may disagree on one or all of these points, but this is the spirit of my suggestions.

The changes I propose for Monarchy (4 free unit support) and Democracy (0/1/2 unit support) are small enough that a player that did not have them pointed out, would probably not even notice them. They both improve the AI because it favors large standing armies. The editor has few options to downgrade Republic, without crippling it, so giving small nudges up for Monarchy and Democracy are a way to make the choice a more interesting one.

As for the big one, Communism, I believe most experienced players agree that the stock version is weak. I see at least two strong opponents to the six MP for Communism, plus some mild opponents. So maybe I am off base, but nothing else has been put on the table to upgrade a near useless tech and an nearly always shunned government choice. The question I pose is: "Will any experienced player shift to a Communist government in a competitive multiplayer game?" That is the bottom line of any strategic decision, whether it be the tech tree, government choice, or a wonder. Is a good human player going to consider that choice in a competitive game? Or is it an automatic yes or automatic no?

The answer in my mind is a clear NO, given the upgrades on the table for this Industrial Age tech. To me, Monarchy is clearly the better wartime government in games that are still in the balance. This is a key point because a player with a huge, sprawling empire will usually win regardless of government choice. However, I have made my case and find no supporters so perhaps I am wrong.

As for Longevity, how about making it give free Aqueducts. Free Hospitals is definitely way too much. Free maintenance for Hospitals would be my preferred bonus, but there is no way to put that in. By making Longevity give free Aqueducts it makes it worthwhile without making it super powerful. Again, this is a late game wonder, so it is unlikely that any change will effect game outcomes.

I also like the Coastal Fortress deal. In the stock game, Harbors are an automatic yes, Coastal Fortresses are an automatic no. With the change, Coastal Fortresses are an option for a player that needs naval support. Is it better to build a few ships quickly or wait for the Coastal Fortress and build fewer ships? The same choice as barracks at the start of the game and it is not always clear.
- Bill

[Dominae]

BillChin, I honestly agree with all your reasons to tweak the governments, even Communism. But I must say that I don't like the options. I would love to actually consider switching to Communism once in a while, and with your changes I would definitely do so. But, at the very least, the changes you propose should be tested thouroughly (by many).

I hope you understand my point when I say that a unhappiness-free, military-oriented government may be a bit overboard. As Civ3 is set up, every government needs to deal with unhappiness and the realities of a large army. The new Communism you propose is one step away from this.

This said, if we do adopt your changes for a future version of the AU mod, I'll happily test them out and be the first to cheer if they are balanced and "feel good". For now, I'm just wary, that's all.


Dominae

[Theseus]

Bill, I have to say that you put as much thought as anyone into these issues (you should be a Firaxis beta). And I do VERY MUCH agree with you, government choice is about the most strategic choice one can make. That's why I encourage as little change as possible from stock... what if an AU player got used to the "new Communism" (funny phrase!) and it screwed up a PTW MP game? Tweaks to make governments better for the AI are fine, but beyond that I get nervous.

I'm intrigued by the direction of your thinking though. It's late, so I might not express this properly, but if I had to ding the AI civs' approach to military strength (in the context of geovernment... I'll get back to that), the AI civs do not:

* Maintain a large enough standing military
* Balance unit types and attack / defense function
* Upgrade enough

Here's the point: Are there government tweaks that would be beneficial to the AI civs, but not exploitable to the human player, and that would / could redress those weaknesses?

Whereas 4 free units under Monarchy would affect human player decision-making, I'd like to see more discussion about your 0/1/2 concept for Democracy, for instance... as far as I can see, this would have NO impact on the human player's choice of government (the human being focused on WW, not money), but would be highly beneficial for the AI civs.

BTW, I think the ongoing discussion is great, and the AU Mod rocks... I played some of the CFC GOTM 11 today, and 'stock' sucks in comparison (but, in a non-modding way, I just gotta say that Samurai kick ever-lovin' Legion butt!!)

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Theseus
I'm intrigued by the direction of your thinking though. It's late, so I might not express this properly, but if I had to ding the AI civs' approach to military strength (in the context of geovernment... I'll get back to that), the AI civs do not:

* Maintain a large enough standing military
* Balance unit types and attack / defense function
* Upgrade enough

I am not so sure I would agree with those sentiments. I guess it would depend on the point in time you are talking about and other factors, but I see them with mostly current units after modern ear. They will get them upgraded if they are under pressure. I will skip or concede the 2nd point. The first part though, I would say that is not their biggest problem. They seem to have plenty of troops, more than me for most of the game. I think the problem is that they do not commit those troops. I will not address the use of troops as that is beyond a doubt sad. If they at least sent more units into the battle at the start the rest would not matter. I mean, I am not even addressing their willingness to send a tank/MA/MI on the attack after it survived a previous battle and has only one HP, or that they do not concentrate attacks well. Just if they had 100 units and after round one you see that they still have 80, you go ok where are they? Turn after turn they have massive numbers left sitting in their cities while you whack the handfull they sent out or if you are attacking they are slow to reenforce or do it peace meal. This is what makes them lose. They do not need more units or even great tactics, just a few simple strategies could make things interesting.

[lockstep]

BillChin, I actually think your idea to increase Communism's Military Police limit to 6 is a very interesting one, and like Dominae I would definitely consider switching to Communism once in a while with this tweak. On the other hand, I don't like the possibility that a core game feature - the need to trade luxuries with other civs to quell your empire's unhappiness - may get lost in the process. But in the end, only playtesting will tell if a typical Communist empire - which I imagine as having at least 20 cities on a standard map, half of them metropolises, and at least two different local luxury ressources - will still have the need to trade luxuries with at least some of the other civs.

As for Longevity, I think that the AU mod's tweak to make this wonder available with Medicine already makes it much better than in vanilla Civ3. (Or am I the only one who deems accelerated city growth in the early industrial age an interesting option?) Anyhow, Longevity providing hospitals in every city on the continent is also a good idea, and I wouldn't say it is unbalancing. After all, hospitals cost 160 shields each, and PtW will introduce a new Internet wonder which will provide research labs in every city on the continent, which normally cost 200 shields each.