AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[alexman]

lockstep, you're amazing. Thanks for finding that bug. I fixed it in version 1.01 above.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
lockstep, you're amazing. Thanks for finding that bug. I fixed it in version 1.01 above.

No, I'm not. But not checking the 'upgrade unit' flag for additional upgrade paths is a rather common glitch, and I know about it because I was one of the more frequent playtesters of korn469's blitz mod.

[Theseus]

So lockstep, I know you are pretty familiar with the mods out there... now that it's done, for the moment, whaddya think of this one?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Theseus
So lockstep, I know you are pretty familiar with the mods out there... now that it's done, for the moment, whaddya think of this one?

I can only compare it with monkspiders/elucidus' 'Balancer' mod, korn469's 'Blitz' mod, plutarck's 'Long Winded Changes' (LWC) mod, velociryx' 'Noname' mod and player1's 'Patch Suggestion' (PS) mod. I have playtested Blitz and PS and am familiar with the other mod's contents.

Balancer, Blitz and LWC were old mods, work on them had started shortly after Civ3 hit the stores (I use the term 'were' because, AFAIK, Balancer and LWC haven't been updated to v1.29, and Blitz - sadly - only in an abrigded version). Most of the features of Balancer and LWC seemed to me like 'change for the sake of change', although both of them also contained original ideas that shined (e.g. Balancers 'Longevity available with Medicine'). Anyhow, one has to give credit to the modmakers because they pioneered in testing Civ3's possibilities and limitations - Plutarck's 'Modmaker's tutorial' (in the Creation forum) is a must-read until today.

'Blitz' was very different - it was deliberately designed to eliminate weaknesses in Civ3's gameplay and is full of features that still wait to be utilized in other mods or even a kind of 'Apolyton Standard mod' (e.g. additional improvements that yield only culture). One feature of the Blitz mod - the ability of armies to blitz - made it into Civ3 v1.17. Unfortunately, the additional units introduced in Blitz (e.g. a Guerilla-type unit a la PtW) meant that it could not be played as a standalone-BIC, but needed some kind of manual installation procedure, which may have prevented the casual gamer from trying it. At last there was no update to v1.21.

'Noname' was created under v1.17 and with a goal similar to Blitz: improving gameplay by adding strategic choice. Vel introduced a lot of interesting concepts (e.g. Zero-ressource units or bonus ressources attached to techs). The mod also came with an installation procedure and the hint not to open the Civilopedia entry for Warrior Code - due to the additional techs introduced by Vel, v1.17 would crash otherwise. As far as I can judge, the editor limitations (this was way before unit-specific hitpoints and lethal bombardment) and a general 'disenchantment' with Civ3 made Vel's team stop working on further versions of the mod only a month after they had started. The 'Noname' readme still has many hidden gems IMO.

The goal of 'Patch Suggestion' seemed to be different from the beginning: Change as little as possible. While that's not entirely my cup of tea, I have to admit that every tweak actually made sense (or, in case of lethal land bombardment was at least debatable), was well-documented and heavily playtested. (E.g. Player1 found out that 'wheeled' units still could use enemy roads and just didn't get the road bonus.) Because of the self-imposed limitation, player1 could create his mod as a standalone-BIC and is, until today, the only mod that made it to the official Civ3 page.

The 'Apolyton University' mod ... It amazes me what alexman has been able to do in a few days. AU has the most thorough documentation of all mods and in v1.01 there's not a single change I couldn't agree with. I like the way how the AI is maintained or - revised build priorities - even improved, and the mod also seems to be on the right track when it comes to major changes that nevertheless are likely to improve gameplay. (Don't change only for the sake of change, but be aware that 'changing as little as possible' does not always mean 'changing little'.) If there ever is a kind of 'Apolyton Standard' mod, it will bear vast resemblance with the AU mod IMO.

Having said that, I still strongly suggest to take a close look at the tweaks player1 is testing and introducing in his mod or even to try some kind of cooperation/merger. Player1 has posted v1.32 of his mod only today and has adopted the changes to the Military Academy that are also part of AU (and part of blitz, where it all started), and that's a good sign IMO that the mod community eventually will reach some kind of consensus. The highest goal, naturally, should be that we convince Firaxis to incorporate this consensus into the standard game.

[Theseus]

Great summary for the non-modders... thanks, lockstep.

Also, I'm glad that the efforts seem to be converging for a "Standard." Outside of AU, I expect that when MP comes around there'll be a desire of some groups to use it.

[Theseus]

If anybody is interested, in looking at the new PTW screenshots, the 4th one has a Medieval Infantry selected...

Stats are 4-2-1.

BTW, they carry morningstars... can't wait to see the animation!

[kettyo]

Hello to all !

I would just like to ask that what are the main differences between this mod and player1's?

I see many changes are the same or very similar.

[player1]

90% same, 10% different

[Theseus]

In AU 103, Musketmen and Riflemen both upgrade to Infantry, and can be built simultaneously.

Is this correct for the mod?

[alexman]

It's un unexpected and unwanted side-effect (a.k.a. bug ) of making musketeers upgrade to Infantry instead of Riflemen.

The upgrade path used to be:
musketman->musketeer->rifleman->infantry

Now it is:
musketman->musketeer->infantry
and
rifleman->infantry

We will have to fix this in the next version, probably by making musketeers upgrade to riflemen again.
Sorry...

Another thought that I had while playing AU 103:
Coastal fortresses are pretty much useless right now. What if we make them required for veteran naval units instead of harbors? Harbors already have two other functions (food and trade). What do you think?

[Theseus]

It's OK... just prioritizes Rep Parts a little.

I like the idea about coastal fortresses... they come with metallurgy, so it means some reg Galleys, which is fine.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
It's un unexpected and unwanted side-effect (a.k.a. bug ) of making musketeers upgrade to Infantry instead of Riflemen.

IMO it SHOULD be that way. Musketeers with a movement rate of 2 are 'special' defenders, and I'd still want to be able to build them after Riflemen are available. Because of the way Civ3 works, upgradig Musketeers to Riflemen isn't an option then, but I'd accept that.

BTW, it's the same way with Impis (1/2/2) in vanilla v1.29 now. They upgrade directly to Musketmen and therefore are available simultaneously with Pikemen. 'Naturally', you have to build additional Pikemen from scratch when you play as the Zulus.

Another thought that I had while playing AU 103:
Coastal fortresses are pretty much useless right now. What if we make them required for veteran naval units instead of harbors? Harbors already have two other functions (food and trade). What do you think?

The best solution IMO would be to split harbors (which are incredibly cheap and powerful in vanilla v1.29) into a food-enhancing improvement (e.g. 'docks') and a trade/vet units improvement (e.g. 'seaport', equivalent to the airport). But introducing additional buildings in a kind of 'standard' mod should have to wait IMO until PtW has arrived; until then alexman's suggestion could be adopted. (At any rate, we would have to take a close look at how the AI handles this.)

[Coracle]

Well, all I can say is that at no time in History was a musketman/musketeer of any variety upgraded to Infantry instead of Rifleman. Never happened. Why? Because no civ would ever sit around with obsolete musketmen while a neighboring civ had the much better Riflemen.

The difference?

Musketmen: less than 100 yards range; less reliable weapon. Sometimes vulnerable to mounted troops unless in squares.

Riflemen: at least 400 accurate yards (bullets deadly up to 600); more reliable; slightly faster rate of fire. Mounted troops wouldn't even bother attacking them, no chance.

Would YOU want to risk being attacked by Riflemen while you still have muskets?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Coracle
Well, all I can say is that at no time in History was a musketman/musketeer of any variety upgraded to Infantry instead of Rifleman. Never happened. Why? Because no civ would ever sit around with obsolete musketmen while a neighboring civ had the much better Riflemen.

Just FYI Coracle, in this mod the Musketeer has +1 movement rate instead of +1 attack, so that it becomes a 2/4/2 unit. This may not be historical correct, but it makes a direct Musketeer - Infantry upgrade at least debatable.

(Another possibility for a 'special' musketeer ability that would actually benefit the AI would be +1 defense, making it a 2/5/1 unit. In that case, Musketeers should upgrade to Riflemen.)

Alexman, another note on the vet naval units issue: Don't forget that - contrary to harbors - coastal fortresses need iron and saltpeter to be built.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by lockstep
BTW, it's the same way with Impis (1/2/2) in vanilla v1.29 now. They upgrade directly to Musketmen and therefore are available simultaneously with Pikemen.

Sorry, I figured the problem out now. Skipping parts of an upgrade chain works for the Impi because it's at the beginning of the chain. It won't work for the Musketeer, sadly. So the only solution (that is, besides Musketeers that need to be built from scratch, as in Civ3 v1.07) is indeed to make Musketeers upgrade to Riflemen.