AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[Theseus]

I pay NO attention to maintenance costs... I build what I percieve needs building. I think this discussion is much more in the context of the AI civs.

[BillChin]

Clearly, I see Communism as a war time government, with limited peace time uses (pop rushing, four military police). Communism with free maintenance still seems weaker than the other governments.

Communism suffers as much if there are no police stations and court houses. Palace centering does help the other governments more, so a poorly laid out empire might do a bit better under Communism. Again, I am focusing on competitive games--most competitive players have a grasp of centering their palaces (though the AI does not).

Double unit support (4/8/16) plus ten free units helps small empires and large empires. It may also change the dynamic of the game in multiplayer. A Communist would probably have garrisons of ten or more units in every border city (all free), while a Republic or Democracy might only have three units as a standing garrison. Maybe my original proposal is closer to the target of making Communism competitive: free maintenance plus the increased unit support.

Increased unit support opens up more strategy options, such as a huge army of conscripts (Communists can draft 2 per turn, most other governments are 1 per turn). I see the possibility that a small Communist empire might be able to field a large enough army to intimidate a slightly larger and more advanced neighbor. This is a counterpoint to the ability of a small Democracy to out tech a slightly larger Monarchy or Communist.

As for Theseus' point, free maintenance is a balancing tool to at least make Communism competitive with Monarchy in terms of gold and research. The other strategy option that opens up is minimal research and spies to steal tech. Without free maintenance this seems possible when the Communist player is far ahead in terms of production capacity. If this is the case, that player could stay another government and simply out tech their enemies instead of being cutesy with spies.

I see the bottom line effect of my proposed changes: Communism becomes the government of choice for players who want a huge military and/or depends on spying to keep up in tech. Monarchy retains its edge over Communism in terms of wonder construction. Monarchy is the war time government of choice for empires with a medium size military (builds units, instead of drafting most of them). Remember in a competitive game, one or two late game wonders may decide the game, so Communism's slower wonder construction is another liability to compensate for. Republic is still the best all around government if there is a chance of war. The modded Democracy is the best government if there is no war on the horizon, even for non-Religious civs.
- Bill

Originally posted by nbarclay
Keep in mind that in the AU 201 game, I have my palace and forbidden palace very well placed (or at least I like to think so). I have no cities that remain totally corrupt after adding courthouses and police stations. That isn't always practical, and communism would probably do a lot better by comparison under less favorable circumstances. Still, games where it makes sense to use communism as anything but a wartime government even with free maintenance would be few and far between if they exist at all.

Free unit support under communism is good enough in the standard game that I seriously doubt that adding more would make much difference. Yes, AIs have bigger militaries than humans do, but once the free unit support is enough to cover all a civ's units, any additional free support is of no more than theoretical interest. And even if an AI would go a unit or two per city over, the amount of gold involved wouldn't be big enough to make that much difference.

All in all, free maintenance seems to be the only really practical way I've seen to make serious research under communism even remotely viable, at least in the standard game. Thus, it's the only way to deal with the problem of AIs' scientific efforts self-destructing in the middle of the space race. (Note: these comments are pre-PtW.)

I also tend to wonder how much maintenance costs really enter the picture regarding strategic choices except maybe in the very early stages of the game. If I'm winning, I can afford to build where and when I want to without worrying much about maintenance. If I'm behind, improvements that wouldn't be worth the maintenance costs are unlikely to be worth the diversion from military forces. Do other people pay a lot more attention to maintenance costs than I do, or is what's lost in terms of strategy mostly just theoretical?

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by BillChin

I see the bottom line effect of my proposed changes: Communism becomes the government of choice for players who want a huge military and/or depends on spying to keep up in tech. Monarchy retains its edge over Communism in terms of wonder construction. Monarchy is the war time government of choice for empires with a medium size military (builds units, instead of drafting most of them). Remember in a competitive game, one or two late game wonders may decide the game, so Communism's slower wonder construction is another liability to compensate for. Republic is still the best all around government if there is a chance of war. The modded Democracy is the best government if there is no war on the horizon, even for non-Religious civs.

Democracy can do fine in defensive wars and blitzkreig-style offensive wars as long as losses aren't too terrible. (In AU 201, I conquered my second continent as a democracy.) Even in a contested game, there are often weaker civs around that can be absorbed easily with cavalry or MA blitzes (assuming their terrirtory would be worthwhile). It's the brutal slugfests that democracies have to be careful about.

Nathan

[lockstep]

As for my suggestion to make Manhattan Project a small wonder: Why should all civs be able to build nukes if my civ completes a crucial project? When I first read about the concept of 'small wonders' in Civ3, two great wonders that were included in the older versions of Civ instantly came to my mind: Apollo Programm and Manhattan Project. I never understood why Firaxis didn't change the latter to a small wonder, and am glad that it's at least possible now to change it with PtW's editor.

[vmxa1]

Amen to that. I misunderstood and thought that MP was going to be a SW in PTW, but at least it can be.

[Konquest02]

On an other topic, I noticed a bug in the version of the mod played in AU 201. Privateers no longer have an hidden nationality. I tried to attack a Roman ship with a couple of privateers and my advisor told me it would trigger a war... They are now completely useless and we should fix it.

--Kon--

[aaglo]

About the archer/bowman/longbowman & bombard ability...

This makes the babylonian bowman perhaps too powerful. It's cheap it has some attack&defence value and now this ranged attack thing...

Perhaps the babs bowman should cost 30 instead of 20 shields?

BTW, this is a great mod! Thank you all.

It certainly improves the game a bit.

[aaglo]

About coastal fortress:

Should it increase culture (say 1 point/turn)? In real life the old fortresses and fortifications are culturally important.

What do you think?

[edit]: this would also make coastal fortress worthy building.

[player1]

Of course, this would always make them destoyed, since all cultural buildings are destoyed when city is taken.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Konquest02
On an other topic, I noticed a bug in the version of the mod played in AU 201. Privateers no longer have an hidden nationality. I tried to attack a Roman ship with a couple of privateers and my advisor told me it would trigger a war... They are now completely useless and we should fix it.

This is not a problem in the standard mod (1.05 or 1.06). It's just a bug in the modified mod that ncbarclay created specifically for 201. He accidentally removed all other properties from Privateers, Frigates, Wan-O-Wars, Galleons, and Ironclads when he added the "Sinks in Ocean" propery. It will not be a problem in the future, but thanks for pointing it out.

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by lockstep
As for my suggestion to make Manhattan Project a small wonder: Why should all civs be able to build nukes if my civ completes a crucial project? When I first read about the concept of 'small wonders' in Civ3, two great wonders that were included in the older versions of Civ instantly came to my mind: Apollo Programm and Manhattan Project. I never understood why Firaxis didn't change the latter to a small wonder, and am glad that it's at least possible now to change it with PtW's editor.

Having a monopoly on nuclear weapons through a small wonder would equal game over. Mutual destruction ensures that the game doesn't end when nukes become available. But if they are first to SDI (small wonder) most players end the game in a nuclear armageddon without fear of retaliation.

Another little-known advantage of Manhattan Project being a great wonder is you can force an arms-control agreement by destroying it.

[Dominae]

Good points DaveMcW. Of course, the civ that built the Manhattan Project in their capital city won't be so happy at disarmament...


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by DaveMcW

Another little-known advantage of Manhattan Project being a great wonder is you can force an arms-control agreement by destroying it.

I tested this in an AU (or MT) game and was able to build nukes to my heart's content after the MP was destroyed. I believe that once built, the genie is out of the bottle and there's no turning back.

Catt

[vmxa1]

That has been true forever, the genie is out.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
Having a monopoly on nuclear weapons through a small wonder would equal game over.

First, a monopoly through a small wonder would be only temporary. Second and more important, this scenario is also possible in the current version of Civ3. If Manhattan Project has been built, the first player who has researched Fission, Rocketry and Space Flight (and has uranium and aluminium) has a temporary monopoly on tactical nukes - and if he also researches Satellites, he has a temporary monopoly on ICBM's. Surely this is an advantage, but IMO it doesn't equal 'game over'.

Mutual destruction ensures that the game doesn't end when nukes become available.

If MAD was truly implemented in Civ3, launching a bunch of nukes would cause automatic counter-strikes within your turn.