AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[Killerdaffy]

How about starting another AU scenario with the new settings? I think further testing on different types of maps will give us some more data to discuss about, especially with the building preferences changed. Anybody who's got a good idea?

[Arrian]

Theseus asked my opinion for the next AU, and I'll tell you what I told him:

I want a low-landmass archipelago, w/less than max civs (standard/arch/80%, 5 rivals). I've been toying with those settings lately.

-Arrian

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Arrian
Lockstep,

I think I was the one who argued for "wealth" instead of "culture" for the Egyptians. They produce plenty of culture anyway, but we're after getting them to build marketplaces and banks. At least, that's the theory.

-Arrian

Thanks for the hint, Arrian. To be honest, I'm tinkering with the idea of additional city improvements that yield a large amount of culture per turn but do nothing else. What I'd like to make feasible is a distinct strategy of cultural dominance that also involves opportunity cost, and AI's that go for a cultural victory. In addition to the Babylonians, the Egyptians seem to be a good choice for this kind of strategy, and so I'd like to keep their 'culture' build priority.

BTW, 'culture-only'-improvements were already introduced in korn469's blitz mod, and the AI DOES build them. (Naturally, you have to tweak their costs, upkeep and culture production per turn so that they are a reasonable choice.)

[alexman]

Re: Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum

Originally posted by lockstep
If you really want to make riflemen and infantry wortwile as attackers (which is discussible IMO), adopt player1's solution of an 8/10 infantry.

Let's go with the smaller change for now. After the first AU game, we can decide if we want to further increase the attack of Infantry.

lethal land bombardment is a 'change fore the sake of change' IMO.

You're right. I will keep the increased ROF but remove lethal land bombard.

YES to more powerful battleships. OTOH I'd say leave Destroyers as they are now, leave the AEGIS cruiser's RoF at 2 and increase its bombard strength to 6. Finally, you could make Destroyers upgrade to AEGIS Cruisers.

We need to keep Destroyers a cheap alternative to Battleships. Firaxis has them well balanced now. If we boost Battleships we should boost Destroyers too. AEGIS was not meant to replace Destroyers, but to complement them.

As for the Docking Bay, I'd rather leave it as it is now, because this makes researching Robotics (and therefore the ability to build manufacturing plants) more of a strategic choice.

Okay. Again, going with the least amount of change.

A radical solution to make Longevity useful: Move it to Medicine instead of Genetics.

That's an interesting idea. What does everyone else think? Is it too big of a change? We would remove the happy faces.

Hmm ... why not 5%, 10% or even 50%? I'd leave research costs alone for now and change them accordingly to reports from test-games.

My pesonal taste is to have more time to do battle with your units before they become obsolete. But since it is just that - a matter of taste - I will restore the original costs.

Originally posted by Arrian
Not a whole heckuva lot of difference was noted between the standard AI and the "killer" AI games in AU102.

That's not exactly true. There definitely was a difference in the build preferences. Just look at their culture. It just didn't make a big difference in AI power until 510 A.D. The main reason for the similarity was that until the AI stops expanding, it is hardcoded to build a minimum of improvements, no matter what the build-often preference. Last night I started a game against AI Rome, and I was amazed to see that they started building cultural buildings before me!

[alexman]

I was just reading the Great Wall thread in this forum.

What do people think about boosting the Great Wall Wonder to give walls in every town?

[lockstep]

Re: Re: Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum

Originally posted by alexman
That's an interesting idea. What does everyone else think? Is it too big of a change? We would remove the happy faces.

The idea to move Longevity to Medicine was, IIRC, first adopted by monkspider in his 'balancer' mod. Most of his other changes were quite far-fetched, but this one is a winner IMO. Makes Longevity actually useful, and establishes a strategic choice of accelerated city growth, similar to the Pyramids.

[Harovan]

Alexman: That would be slightly better, but still lame. The Great Wall can be built with Construction. So can Aqueducts, and after they are built, the Walls become quickly obsolete anyway.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The Great Wall can be built with Construction. So can Aqueducts, and after they are built, the Walls become quickly obsolete anyway.

Agreed, for the core of your empire. But its real value would be to protect your newly-founded or conquered cities at the edges of your empire.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
That would be slightly better, but still lame.

OTOH, not implementing this change would be slightly worse and still lame. (Better a small strategic choice than a completely useless wonder.) I second the change!

EDIT: And if anyone fears that walls in every city on the continent are too unbalancing, we could drop the 'doubles defense' ability instead. It's a strange thought anyway that a city that grows from size 6 to size 7 has a smaller defense bonus than before.

[alexman]

Originally posted by lockstep
It's a strange thought anyway that a city that grows from size 6 to size 7 has a smaller defense bonus than before.

I don't think that's bad. If you assume that your newly-founded or conquered cities at the outskirts of your empire during late-Ancient and Middle Ages are towns, it acts just like the real Great Wall did. It protects border cities!

[Killerdaffy]

Originally posted by lockstep
It's a strange thought anyway that a city that grows from size 6 to size 7 has a smaller defense bonus than before.

Why not? Think of the small towns as primarily military encampments, with walls, a building code adjusted to military needs, etc. Once the town grows into a city some of these extra defense measures are abandoned and civil matters take priority, hence the drop in defense value.

I'm all for trying it!!

[Killerdaffy]

Oh, and I like the idea of moving Longetivity to Medicine. It's the most expensive wonder in the game, hardly gives any culture, so building it say, instead of ToE should be an interesting choice. We should give it a try as well.

And remove the happy faces, of course.

[Arrian]

I built longevity ONCE. It sucks. Why? Because your cities shoot past their sustainable pop level. Say your city is size 22. Say it has one extra food, and accumulates enough to grow. Normally, it would hit 23 and stop. But with Longevity, it goes to 24 and will eventually starve back to 23. Eventually (I'm assuming a granary here), because 1/2 the food box, which is really big at this point, has to empty, 1 food at a time. Meanwhile, any city that has negative food intake cannot be in WLTKD. So Longevity will make your cities grow past their means and make a bunch of them drop out of WLKTD. Like I said, I built it ONCE. It's crap.

-Arrian

edit: I suppose you could sell the granary and the city would starve back right away, but if you have the Pyramids you're screwed.

[alexman]

I like the delicate way you put it, Arrian!
I agree with you, BTW.

But perhaps moving it to Medicine will give cities a longer time period where they're under their sustainable population. So, even if it still sucks, it should suck less.

I was thinking about the French UU again. Would it be better to lower its attack and give it a movement of 2? Like Impi of the Middle Ages. It would be more useful but still not as powerful as increasing its defense, it would be used properly by the AI, and it would be more in the spirit of the actual unit (a defensive unit that can be used in an offensive role - supporting knights). Also think of the mobility of Napoleon's Army (a bit later, I know). What do you think?

[Arrian]

I suppose. I still wouldn't build the stupid thing.

Re: Musketeers,

So a 2/4/2 unit? Hmm... that's powerful. But I think I like it. That would do unspeakable things to Knight-based attackers, and still be a pain in the butt for Cavalry. Attacking the French in the Middle Ages would be a difficult thing. Better bring a LOT of cannon along.

Playing as the French, you could essentially have Samurai with stacks of Knights protected by Musketeers. The advantage being that your defense part of this "Samurai" upgrades all the way to Mech Inf., instead of stopping at Cavalry.

I think I like that idea, Alexman.

-Arrian