AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[alexman]

Re: Re: AU: A MOD for the curriculum

Re: Musketeers. Why is it any different for the AI than Impi and Horsemen? It won't build them instead of knights, because one unit has the offense flag and the other has the defense flag.

Re: Paratroopers. If they get the same defense as Infantry, the player will build them instead of Infantry (in cities that can produce both in the same number of turns) just in case he needs the special ability.

Re: 0-zange bombard. Well, I guess you can call it my beloved feature, but the main point is that it gives you a reason to use archers in parallel with swordsmen.

Re: F-15 and stealth fighters. I don't have a strong feeling here, but why weaken units that are already quite weak?

Re: Ironclads and Frigates. I thought about giving Ironclads a movement of 3, but that would slow down the AI, since it likes to protect its galleons with ironclads. It's all about the AI and play balance. I don't worry about realism as far as naval units are concered, because they are already heavily abstracted. The tactical advatage of the higher-speed Destroyer over the Frigate should be sufficient.

Re: AEGIS. Again, no strong feelings, but if Destroyers don't upgrade to them, we should make it worth building Destroyers instead of AEGIS, sometimes. We have already strengthened AEGIS by ROF and by making submarines more powerful.

Re: Military academy. By not requiring a victorious Army, we would be removing a very important decision in the game: do I use the early leader for an Army, or for a FP? I like that we have this dilema. Remember that we are trying to preserve the flavor of the game, not change it to make it better for builders or warmongerers.

Re: Espionage and propaganda. OK, I'll adopt player 1's changes.

Lockstep, thanks for catching the Panzer bug.

[Theseus]

Sounds like we're getting very close. Let's try to reach some finality on the naval units.

Re Military Academy, I sorta like the idea of not requiring a victorius Army, as this lets late warmongers, of which there are many, still commence, say, a Tank period intercontinental invasion, with an Army of Infantry as part of the invasion force. It must be frustrating not to be able to do so currently.

Heroic Epic still requires an Army victory though, correct? That decides the early GL question for me.

[Harovan]

The game already favors warmongers enough. What's the point of not letting builders (or even unlucky warmongers) have armies for later wars? The successful warmonger would still have the advantages to build the HE and to have the army/ies before Military Tradition.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
Re: Musketeers. Why is it any different for the AI than Impi and Horsemen?

Hmm ... I think you are right, and I stand corrected.

Re: Paratroopers. If they get the same defense as Infantry, the player will build them instead of Infantry (in cities that can produce both in the same number of turns) just in case he needs the special ability.

OTOH, a lot of Infantry won't be built, but upgraded from Riflemen. And it doesn't seem elegant to me that the best non-wheeled defender after the arrival of mech infantry will have less defense strength than infantry.

F-15 and stealth fighters. I don't have a strong feeling here, but why weaken units that are already quite weak?

Also no strong feelings here, but lethal sea bombardment should make this units notedly stronger.

Re: AEGIS. Again, no strong feelings, but if Destroyers don't upgrade to them, we should make it worth building Destroyers instead of AEGIS, sometimes. We have already strengthened AEGIS by ROF and by making submarines more powerful.

Sorry for my mistakable wording, I meant increase the AEGIS cruisrer's bombard strength instead of its RoF.

Military academy. By not requiring a victorious Army, we would be removing a very important decision in the game: do I use the early leader for an Army, or for a FP? I like that we have this dilema. Remember that we are trying to preserve the flavor of the game, not change it to make it better for builders or warmongerers.

In fact, this is my 'beloved' feature, and I know it's quite controversial. But it would be a small substitute for the lack of a peaceful method of leader generation, which IMO is a major design flaw of Civ3. (Like the original lack of a peaceful method to trigger a golden age, which was corrected by Firaxis only shortly before Civ3 went gold.)

Espionage and propaganda. OK, I'll adopt player 1's changes.

Lockstep, thanks for catching the Panzer bug.

You're welcome. And this reminds me to tell player1 about the Panzer bug in his mod.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Theseus
Re Military Academy, I sorta like the idea of not requiring a victorius Army, as this lets late warmongers, of which there are many, still commence, say, a Tank period intercontinental invasion, with an Army of Infantry as part of the invasion force. It must be frustrating not to be able to do so currently.

Thanks for the support, Theseus. EDIT: And yes, it is frustrating.

Heroic Epic still requires an Army victory though, correct? That decides the early GL question for me.

Yes. No Heroic Epic for builders until the late middle age.

[=DrJambo=]

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

Originally posted by alexman Re: Paratroopers. If they get the same defense as Infantry, the player will build them instead of Infantry (in cities that can produce both in the same number of turns) just in case he needs the special ability.

Yeah, but the AI won't since Paras are listed as offensive, therefore this will only favour the human player. Unless of course you label them as defensive?! Not sure of the ramifications of this - whether the AI would use them for paradropping when set as defensive?!

Originally posted by alexman Re: 0-zange bombard. Well, I guess you can call it my beloved feature, but the main point is that it gives you a reason to use archers in parallel with swordsmen.

Absolutely

Originally posted by alexman Re: Ironclads and Frigates. I thought about giving Ironclads a movement of 3, but that would slow down the AI, since it likes to protect its galleons with ironclads. It's all about the AI and play balance. I don't worry about realism as far as naval units are concered, because they are already heavily abstracted. The tactical advatage of the higher-speed Destroyer over the Frigate should be sufficient.

If anything, increase the movement of frigates and galleons, they should be faster than ironclads. Naval units are too slow in civ3. OR.. make ironclads vulnerable in the ocean.

Originally posted by alexman Re: AEGIS. Again, no strong feelings, but if Destroyers don't upgrade to them, we should make it worth building Destroyers instead of AEGIS, sometimes. We have already strengthened AEGIS by ROF and by making submarines more powerful.

Just make the destroyer the fastest ship available.

Originally posted by alexman Re: Military academy. By not requiring a victorious Army, we would be removing a very important decision in the game: do I use the early leader for an Army, or for a FP? I like that we have this dilema. Remember that we are trying to preserve the flavor of the game, not change it to make it better for builders or warmongerers.

Agreed as a builder, i've sometimes been torn by the thought of warring just to try to obtain a leader. Then whether to use the leader on a wonder or army is a massively important decision... don't remove it.

Originally posted by alexman Re: Espionage and propaganda. OK, I'll adopt player 1's changes.

Good

[lockstep]

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

Originally posted by =DrJambo=
As a builder, i've sometimes been torn by the thought of warring just to try to obtain a leader. Then whether to use the leader on a wonder or army is a massively important decision... don't remove it.

I like important decisions, but I don't like to have to wage war to gain access to a core game feature. And while there are alternative strategies to finish a wonder (a core of massively productive cities - works at least until monarch), there's no alternative way to get an army.

[alexman]

I updated the initial post with v0.6

Military Academy no longer requires a victorious Army, Paratroopers now have the same defense as Infantry, Panzers are wheeled, and reduced cost of propaganda and tech stealing.

The other issues need to be resolved by playtesting, I think. Let's leave them as they are.

[=DrJambo=]

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

Originally posted by lockstep


I like important decisions, but I don't like to have to wage war to gain access to a core game feature. And while there are alternative strategies to finish a wonder (a core of massively productive cities - works at least until monarch), there's no alternative way to get an army.

On a slightly side-tracked point, what civ has existed without a war at some point in their history?

I feel even the builder types should feel they have to go to war to obtain an army. After all, if a civ had never been to war what would it know about armies?!

[=DrJambo=]

I wonder what making this modded paratrooper a "defensive" unit would do to the game's mechanics?

Could be interesting as i assume that paras are in the game to perform airdrops and pillage resources, not attack cities when tanks more ably do this job? When the AI uses defensive units in an "attacking" manner, it uses them for just that... pillaging! Maybe therefore switching their strategy from offensive to defensive would be ideal?!

[lockstep]

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

Originally posted by =DrJambo=
After all, if a civ had never been to war what would it know about armies?!

Without a Military Academy ... nothing.

[=DrJambo=]

hehehe touché

[Harovan]

A silly question: Can Settlers and Workers been airlifted? IIRC no, or am I wrong? What about making these airliftable too?

[lockstep]

For me, settlers and workers represent huge population numbers, so airlifting doesn't 'feel' right.

[Harovan]

When airlifting an infantry unit, it a huge number of soldiers too. Come on, look at the numbers the air companies transport today.