AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[Harovan]

It is a problem. It mostly causes your cities to grow over the size they can feed and then they starve. No matter how many luxuries you have, starving knocks the cities out of WLTKD and, thus, causes increased corruption everywhere. And it takes looong, till an almost full metropolis foodbox is empty.

We clearly miss the food caravans of Civ2 to level things out.

[Theseus]

Longevity SUCKS. I captured it in AU 107, and couldn't control pop growth. It doesn;t make sense to build it prior to Hospitals...

[Catt]

DIsclaimer: I haven't been playing the AU Mod and it has been a long time since I actually built or captured Longevity in a standard game.

I would think Longevity at Medicine would be very powerful (at least for the human player). Whether you get it at Medicine or at Genetics, it can be very frustrating to have pop grow beyond the city's ability to feed it -- and the subsequent starvation which knocks you out of WLTKD is a b*tch. But, again whether at Medicine or Genetics, the trick is to stabilize the food production and consumption (i.e., once maxed-out, mine or irrigate as needed to generate no food surplus). This sometimes results in a minor inefficiency in city production, but this is only a very small blip. It does require more micromanagment (especially with pollution popping up regularly), but that's true with or without Longevity. I am sympathetic with the view that in the standard game, it is largely worthless, but only because I think it never gets built unless you play with victory conditions turned off or after victory.

I would've thought Longevity at Medicine in AU 107 would have been a nifty little wonder, as the newly-founded Roman cities (on developed Babylonian or German lands) would grow like weeds and become productive quickly. Not so, eh?

Catt

[alexman]

For version 1.06 I would like to propose the following changes that player 1 has already incorporated in the latest version of his mod.

1) Add operational range of 8 to Tank, Panzer, Modern Armor and Mech. Infantry. Since these units have no airdrop ability, will not affect gameplay, but it will make sure the AI doesn't build paratroopers just because of their increased operational range.

2) Add the "Load flag" to Cruise Missiles. Without this flag CMs can be loaded into transports directly, but not from cities.

3) Reduce cost of cannon to 30. Under the standard rules, catapults are always more cost-effective bombard units than cannons. With this change, cannons are more cost-effective when bombarding a defender of strength 8 and above. And even with this change, artilery is more cost-effective than cannon for a defender above strength 8.

4) Restore steal tech cost to original value. According to player1, it was too cheap to steal technologies in the Industrial and Modern Eras.

As for the Longevity debate, this Wonder is worth having if you are willing to micromanage your workers to death. If not, I agree it's a pain. But I believe the Wonder is very valuable to the AI, who almost always has a food surplus from all the irrigation that it does compared to the human.

[Edit: Any input on the changes under consideration? (longbowmen and communism) My feeling is to drop longbowmen changes but keep the communism changes]

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
1) Add operational range of 8 to Tank, Panzer, Modern Armor and Mech. Infantry. Since these units have no airdrop ability, will not affect gameplay, but it will make sure the AI doesn't build paratroopers just because of their increased operational range.

Sorry for being too lazy to check it out, but what does "operational range" do for Tanks, Panzers and MAs? If nothing, the change seems natural, although hopefully the AI will choose to make paratroopers based on some other criterion.

Originally posted by alexman
2) Add the "Load flag" to Cruise Missiles. Without this flag CMs can be loaded into transports directly, but not from cities.

Sure, whatever(!).

Originally posted by alexman
3) Reduce cost of cannon to 30. Under the standard rules, catapults are always more cost-effective bombard units than cannons. With this change, cannons are more cost-effective when bombarding a defender of strength 8 and above. And even with this change, artilery is more cost-effective than cannon for a defender above strength 8.

Two Catapults are more cost-effective than one Cannon shield-wise, not upkeep-wise. However, the AI can only get better with this change, so why not.

Originally posted by alexman
4) Restore steal tech cost to original value. According to player1, it was too cheap to steal technologies in the Industrial and Modern Eras.

Funny, I had a feeling that the "steal tech" costs were very sensitive. In AU-107 I made some major progress by stealing techs, although it didn't seem to me to be overpowered. Basically the choice is between giving an enemy civ the money for a tech, or stealing it and not giving them the money. With the reduced costs, stealing the tech is always better in the late game. Armed with this information, the human player is likely to "exploit" it. So I suggest putting the tech costs back to normal, again to make the AI more competitive (indirectly, in this case).

Originally posted by alexman
As for the Longevity debate, this Wonder is worth having if you are willing to micromanage your workers to death. If not, I agree it's a pain. But I believe the Wonder is very valuable to the AI, who almost always has a food surplus from all the irrigation that it does compared to the human.

Again, I think it's far from certain how good or bad Longevity is at Medicine. However, if it becomes a major part of the game, I vote to put it back into the Modern age. Mind you, I prefer "as little change as possible from 'stock' Civ3" to "offer more strategic opportunities".

Originally posted by alexman
[Edit: Any input on the changes under consideration? (longbowmen and communism) My feeling is to drop longbowmen changes but keep the communism changes]

The Longbowmen change is uninteresting; I've upgraded a few Legionaries and Swordsmen to try it out, and wasn't impressed, while the AI avoided the option altogether. I'm game to try the change in Communism, although perhaps for a trial period of one or two AU games...if the AI gets significantly better, might as well keep it; if we all start switching to Communism, it needs to go.

As a last note, what are people's thoughts on incorporating Play the World into the AU mod? If we do, the gameplay changes will be big enough (I think) that everyone will need to have access to the expansion. And if this isn't a problem, will 1.06 involve Play the World, or do we test it out unmodded first?


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I wonder if we should not drop that Longevity wonder entirely and solve this way the situation Medicine vs. Steam Power. It's not only useless, but counterproductive. Or perhaps we should give it another power, like making continental Aqueducts free of charge or so. That would make it actually worth to build. As it stands, I never build it, be it in the modern or industial age. Even in my French powerplay in September (played with the AU mod) I didn't build it, even though I had a big tech lead. And some unlucky AI builds it then and gains more downsides than benefits.

I find Longevity to be EXTREMELY useful when tied to Medicine, perhaps unbalancingly so, in building up my populations to take advantage of hospitals. It's especially valuable for conquered cities and newly built cities in gaps where the AI didn't settle densely enough for my taste. (And it would be even more valuable for a raze-and-rebuild strategy.) As for the nuisance factor, building a worker (or switching a tile from mining to irrigation) can restore the balance if true balance is possible, and building a settler instead of a worker every 30 turns can deal with cities that produce an odd number of food (or you can have a tile that's irrigated but not railroaded to even the food production out).

How often have you actually built Longevity shortly after it becomes available in the AU mod? Are you judging its value based on its usefulness in AU mod games, or on its value as a mid-modern-age wonder that only becomes available after cities have already grown as much as they're going to?

Nathan

[yxhuvud]

I have built the longevity several times. At the time I research medicine, all my productive cities are already size 12, or will soon be, due to the railroads. I mainly build it to keep the AI's to waste shields in a unuseful black hole

I can see it being useful if you are doing a lot of poprushing or the like, but I fail to see the use of fastly rushing the growth of a few supercities, on the cost of nearby cities, unless you are using a spacing of 4 tiles between cities, in which case you have had unused lands for about half the game. if it speeds the growth of newly captured land, the population grows fast enough anyhow due to RR's and being on developed land. It would be totally unbalanced in the ancient age though, if the cost of it also were changed to reflect that..

Blame me for seeing only how I plays, but I just can't see how the gain can be anywhere close of the gain of RR's.

I have not once seen the AI chose RR over medicine since I changed to the au mod, and I most often did before I switched...

[Dominae]

If you do a lot of conquering in the late Medieval age (probably with Cavalry), you'll end up with a lot of smallish cities in the early Industrial age. These cities are outside your core, and are the result of either 1) bombardment, 2) pillaging, 3) forced starvation, 4) abandon and rebuild, or 5) a combination of all the above (most probably). If your warmongering is really successful, you could have quite a few small fledgeling cities. Getting them up to size 12 in less than twenty turns is nothing to scoff at.

But, this sort of situation is not present in every game; I most often finish my warmongering before or around Cavalry (weird, I know). The fact that Longevity is situational means it is not unbalanced.

However, it is clear that the AI doesn't manage the effects of Longevity as well as human players can. So the real question is whether "Longevity at Medicine" fits with the flavor of the AU mod.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

A common scenario for me is that I capture tons of AI territory and move my palace into it between the time I get cavalry and the time my victims have a chance to get riflemen. AI cities are more widely spaced than mine are, and since hospitals are just around the corner, the optimal cities limit argues against building a bunch of my own cities between them (although I do fill in the bigger gaps). Further, cities near my new palace don't need WLT?D to be enhance their productivity, so I can let them grow as big as they have tiles for. That's the kind of situation where Longevity is at its most powerful.

I'll agree that the effect on my original core is a lot less pronounced due to the tighter build there. On the other hand, Longevity can be fantastic for building settlers in the core to fill in gaps in my conquered AI territory, or maybe even to add population to cities that wouldn't grow quickly on their own. If a city's food box is full, it can regain the two pop points a settler costs in a single turn.

Nathan

[Harovan]

Originally posted by nbarclay
How often have you actually built Longevity shortly after it becomes available in the AU mod? Are you judging its value based on its usefulness in AU mod games, or on its value as a mid-modern-age wonder that only becomes available after cities have already grown as much as they're going to?

I'm judging it's value based on the "bonus" it gives. I built it once in an AU mod game, and never built it in the modern time. First, because it comes in a time, where my games are 95% over and second, because by this time my cities have no growth potential anymore. Maybe except some conquered and starved down (or rebuilt) AI cities, in the growth of which I am not interested, because they are corrupt anyway.

The one time I built it, it sucked. Starvation everywhere and half of cities out of WLTKD. Lots of micromanagement needed, but no chance to solve it entirely. I have no reason to build it again, if nothing in it's powers changes. It will always be the same. Some unlucky AI builds it then, and since it does not micromanage, it has the downsides 100% sure. I thought we're trying to make the AIs better and not weaker, aren't we?

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Catt
I would've thought Longevity at Medicine in AU 107 would have been a nifty little wonder, as the newly-founded Roman cities (on developed Babylonian or German lands) would grow like weeds and become productive quickly. Not so, eh?
Catt

By that time, it's more important to me to have 12 pop cities at max efficiency and output for large builds and units, while the new towns are building the basics and more or less take care of themselves.

True, I could have forested all the unshielded grassland, and micro-managed tile use, but 1) not industrial, and 2) what a pain.

[lockstep]

Re: proposed changes for v1.06 of the AU mod.

I second the incorporation of player1's latest tweaks (operational range fix, load flag for cruise missiles, cannon costs, tech steal costs).

As for Longevity, I think that the current solution is not perfect (because it may cause additional need to micro-manage), but better than Civ3's original one (where this wonder was utterly pointless IMO). Another possibility to make Longevity useful would be to drop the '+2 growth' effect and let it provide free Hospitals for every city on the continent. It could be also moved from Medicine to Sanitation, which may solve the Medicine vs. Steam Power AI issue.

As for the small tweaks that were 'under consideration' in v1.05: Longbowmen will upgrade to Guerillas in PtW, so there's no need to include a different tweak IMO. 0/1/2 unit support for Democracy should stay, 3 free support for Monarchy doesn't make a difference IMO, +50% worker speed for Communism should stay.

The most controversial change included in v1.05 was free maintenance for Communism. IMO, the idea to make this government more powerful money-wise is a good one, but I'm afraid that free maintenance is actually better than Rep's/Dem's trade bonus and therefore too unbalancing. If we want to make Communism more attractive, we should look out for other options.

(I haven't done thorough calculations, but here's my 'quick-and-dirty' reasoning: A city with the maximal no. of worked tiles (20) would lose 20 'raw' commerce units under Communism (no trade bonus) provided every tile has a road or railroad. After subtracting Communism's flat corruption rate of 30%, this equals to lost commerce of 14. After adding the bonus of tax/science buildings (which is +125% in vanilla Civ3, assuming 50% science and 0% luxuries), this equals to about 32 lost commerce units per 'maxed-out' city and turn under Communism. If this city has build every improvement available in vanilla Civ3 (there are 25, counting the four power plants as one), free maintenance means saving 41 gold per city and turn.)

[Theseus]

I'm in agreement with the latest proposed changes, and with pushing Longevity back to Sanitation.

Let's try leaving Communism as it is... the AI civs will still use it more often, and it seems to help.

[BillChin]

The cannon deal sounds okay to me.

I repeat my opinion that free Hospitals for Longetivity makes it virtually a game winning wonder. There is no need for the mod to add another wonder that is so powerful (Hoover, Theory of Evolution, Internet). I repeat my proposal: free Aqueducts is an okay bonus that is useful, but not overpowered. The free maintenance and the new construction in captured cities makes it valuable for both peaceful players and militarists. Free Hospitals gives the civ that gets Longetivity a jet propelled boost that allows that civ to leapfrog all the others in tech and gold and production. This probably leads to the same civ getting Hoover and easily winning what was a tightly contested game by getting one wonder. I vote thumbs down on this proposal.

As for the controversial Communism changes, it may be useful for someone to post a saved game or two or three where a Communist empire has a clear gold advantage over a Republic or Democracy. Is the game still in balance? Or it is some bloated empire in the process of cleaning up an already won game? The key idea is to make Communism a useful government in competitive games, especially for multiplayer. The example given of cities with every possible improvement is a game that is already won.

The other reason for the upgrade to Communism is that the AI prefers it Communism over Monarchy, even though it is weaker than Monarchy in many cases. The upgrade to Communism strengthens the AI, which is one of big goals of the mod.

Maybe more unit support is enough of an upgrade for Communism: ten free units, plus 4/8/16. Again, it is unlikely for AU games to generate much useful data because most single player games are decided by the Industrial age.
- Bill

Originally posted by lockstep
Re: proposed changes for v1.06 of the AU mod.

I second the incorporation of player1's latest tweaks (operational range fix, load flag for cruise missiles, cannon costs, tech steal costs).

As for Longevity, I think that the current solution is not perfect (because it may cause additional need to micro-manage), but better than Civ3's original one (where this wonder was utterly pointless IMO). Another possibility to make Longevity useful would be to drop the '+2 growth' effect and let it provide free Hospitals for every city on the continent. It could be also moved from Medicine to Sanitation, which may solve the Medicine vs. Steam Power AI issue.

As for the small tweaks that were 'under consideration' in v1.05: Longbowmen will upgrade to Guerillas in PtW, so there's no need to include a different tweak IMO. 0/1/2 unit support for Democracy should stay, 3 free support for Monarchy doesn't make a difference IMO, +50% worker speed for Communism should stay.

The most controversial change included in v1.05 was free maintenance for Communism. IMO, the idea to make this government more powerful money-wise is a good one, but I'm afraid that free maintenance is actually better than Rep's/Dem's trade bonus and therefore too unbalancing. If we want to make Communism more attractive, we should look out for other options.

(I haven't done thorough calculations, but here's my 'quick-and-dirty' reasoning: A city with the maximal no. of worked tiles (20) would lose 20 'raw' commerce units under Communism (no trade bonus) provided every tile has a road or railroad. After subtracting Communism's flat corruption rate of 30%, this equals to lost commerce of 14. After adding the bonus of tax/science buildings (which is +125% in vanilla Civ3, assuming 50% science and 0% luxuries), this equals to about 32 lost commerce units per 'maxed-out' city and turn under Communism. If this city has build every improvement available in vanilla Civ3 (there are 25, counting the four power plants as one), free maintenance means saving 41 gold per city and turn.)

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Theseus
I'm in agreement with the latest proposed changes, and with pushing Longevity back to Sanitation.

Let's try leaving Communism as it is... the AI civs will still use it more often, and it seems to help.

I'll add my "Yes" to pushing Longevity back to Sanitation. As for the question of how Communism is balanced, we could easily get some experimental data from AU 201 games by saving games and then doing a quick switch to see what happens. (If the AIs don't push me, I may even get Communism before I get Smith's.)

Nathan