AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[Dominae]

Well, that goes to show how many times I've used nukes in my games: 0.


Dominae

[lockstep]

Originally posted by BillChin
Double unit support (4/8/16) plus ten free units helps small empires and large empires.

Larger unit support for Communism (and Monarchy) is a feasible way to rebalance governments, but what's the point of an additional - and rather small - number of free units per civ? IMO, this is a rather complicated change of rules with little effect (and besides, unbalanced with regard to different mapsizes).

[Pyrodrew]

Below are my only suggestions keeping in line with the prior rules:

1.Maximum of four build-often items per civ.
2.Production a build-often for everyone
3.Each civ needs at least one marketplace category (trade, wealth, or happiness)
4.Take advantage of civ traits: Scientific->Science, Religious->Happiness, Militaristic->Offense (or Defense) and trade (cheap harbors etc), Expansionist->Growth or Explore.
5.Don't change anything unless it violates one of the above rules.

I noticed some said Egypt was always a good competitor & Culture was good. Following especially Rules 4 & 5 I would suggest:
A. Give Egypt & America back Culture as per the traditional rules & remove Growth (this will make them tougher AIs & help try to solve their food addiction). Since the total # of changes for those Civs stay the same, this won't change the game any more than it currently is & it improves the AI.
B. All Growth is doing now for the AI is hurting it, so removing Growth from the other Civs should be considered. Removing it also provides the option to bring back a prior ability that was removed from the vanilla version.
C.For those who want to keep things more traditional with Growth - let Rome (and maybe India) have it. As a commercial Civ, Rome has more of a chance to benefit from the Growth feature than non-commercial Civs, not much... but better than Egypt & America.

Edit: I don't know if this is important to anyone, but Japan & the Aztecs have the exact same 'Build Often' AI Brain priority now... same aggression level... no difference between them.

[Druuge]

First thing I'd say is that +1 speed to SHIPS is too little. Compare the speed of railroad and naval transport. Naval transport should be emphasized and the speed of the ships (except trireme) should be DOUBLED. I am convinced with it. I liked the Civ 2 Exploration mod.
***faster ships, faster ships***

I agree that India should have Growth. Production for the India - for the gameplay's sake - yes. Otherwise...

I partially disagree that Rome should have no Defense.
My argument is historical - Rome defended it's borders for centuries against barbarians and persians. Wars were defensive. Offense is a must be though.

2/5/1 musketeer... hmm... Would 0-range bombard for 2/4/1 musketeer be a solution? I do not know but I just ask could it be an option?


To improve riflemen and infantry? Definitely!

[player1]

Originally posted by Druuge
First thing I'd say is that +1 speed to SHIPS is too little. Compare the speed of railroad and naval transport. Naval transport should be emphasized and the speed of the ships (except trireme) should be DOUBLED.

Compare the speed of ships with range of aircraft.

Very fast ships == very slow aircrafts

[Killerdaffy]

Back for PtW!

Ok, after my long (RL-induced) absence I'm back for PtW.

How should we go about moving the mod to PtW? Open a new thread or just maintain two files here (one .bic and one .bix)? We would then also need a discussion on possible changes to the new civs and the additional conventional units (Medieval Infantry, Guerilla).

Also, these could now be easily be included in vanilla Civ3, as we have graphics, animations and data.

[alexman]

I think we should make a new thread because this one is getting huge. (Perhaps we can even spell 'curriculum' correctly in the new thread! )

However, before we do that, we need to become more familiar with gameplay and AI tendencies in stock PtW. In the meantime, let this thread serve as a discussion-holder for ideas for the PtW version of the mod.

What existing changes should we leave out?
What new changes should we include?
Preferences for the new AI civs?

I am currently experimenting with the new editor and trying to make sense of the AI behavior so we can make more educated tweaks of their preferences.

[Killerdaffy]

Originally posted by alexman
I think we should make a new thread because this one is getting huge. (Perhaps we can even spell 'curriculum' correctly in the new thread! )

OK, you or I?

What existing changes should we leave out?
What new changes should we include?
Preferences for the new AI civs?

My $ .02, in no particular order:

1. The appearance of the Medieval Infantry and the Guerilla will make some of our rebalancing in the ground combat arena obsolete. This shouldn't affect naval and air units, though.

2. The Mongol UU, the Keshik, has the same movement rate on mountains as on grassland. This should apply to hills as well (10,000 foot cliffs - no problem but, gee, those hills are tough... ).

3. Additional city names for the new civs. Wernazuma III has done a lot of research for his ExtraPack, his lists are better than the ones included (e.g. Cadiz is included twice in PtW, once for Spain and once for Carthage).

4. Making cannons cheaper now should also affect the Korean UU. This might be unbalancing.

I already took the Civ3 AU 1.06 and included these extra changes, so I now have a PtW AU 1.06a if anybody is interested.

[Dominae]

I say we should set up AU 202 with a "Play the World" theme. In this way we can communally learn the ins and outs of PTW. Only then should we create a new AU mod.

Killerdaffy, don't you think that Keshiks moving through any non-forest land terrain at a cost of 1 movement point is a little strong? You're right that it makes no sense that their ability only works for mountains, but I think Keshisk are already quite powerful (can we say "cheap Knights").


Dominae

[Killerdaffy]

Originally posted by Dominae
Killerdaffy, don't you think that Keshiks moving through any non-forest land terrain at a cost of 1 movement point is a little strong? You're right that it makes no sense that their ability only works for mountains, but I think Keshisk are already quite powerful (can we say "cheap Knights").

If we figure them to be to strong we can change the ability from just mountains to just hills but I intuitively revolt against the mountain-but-not-hill thing. Plus, even then jungle and forest will stop them (and a large jungle is notoriously the hardest terrain to cross).

Other stuff I noticed: The worker price problem is fixed. I haven't figured out the details yet but Cleo wanted 73G + 3 GPT for one lonely worker in about 2800BC.

Also the barbarian AI is improved. They now go searching for your cities instead of attacking the first unit they come across.

[Dominae]

Replacing the Keshik's "mountains" ability for a "hills" ability sounds awfully logical; I'm surprised the design team didn't think of that one.

The AI values Workers at around 100-120 gold now, which appears to be balanced: priced so high, you'll rarely buy them early in the game, but it is still an viable option later on.


Dominae

[player1]

Just to know that patch suggestion MOD has been updated.
(since this MOD was based on it anyway)

[MiloMilo]

communism?

hey guys: I'm not sure how relevant any of this stuff is now that PTW's out, but:

I'm playing with core civ v1.29, AU v1.05, and a few of my own tweaks on top. Anyway, In my most recent game I noticed that, going into the modern age on a large map, the six other reasonably competitive civs were ALL in communism. In peacetime. The two tiny survivors were in democracy.

Now, in peacetime I usually worry when I see big civs in democracy. That means lots of income, lots of science, not much corruption, etc. So it was disappointing to see everyone in communism. I was easily able to hold my tech and money lead.

It's good that you made communism better, but you might have made it too attractive to the AI. Assuming you haven't reversed the change in 1.06, which I just noticed is up, you might want to look into it. Of course, I've only seen this in one game, so maybe it's an exception.

[MiloMilo]

sorry:

I haven't been here in a while, and missed the debates of a few pages back. Also missed the whole "free building maintenance" thing in 1.05, which is annoying since I downloaded it... I should be a more careful readme reader. From this recent game, here's my take on it:

As someone's analysis showed, communism still isn't as good as democracy. However, it's good enough that the AI will choose it in its binary cost/benefit analysis. Which means that it's too good, even though it's still not as good.

Conclusion: simply do what you did for 1.06, double unit support and restore building maintenance. Communism becomes a wartime gov't once again.

Consequence: two posts of no use. Oh well...

[aaglo]

Does this mod in question work with PTW?