Apolyton University Mod (PTW version)

[alexman]

I can think of something to generate killer AIs at the expense of other AI civs, but I don't know if it will work.

Increase the optimal number of cities, and reduce the "percentage of optimal cities, so that their product remains constant.

This will increase the desire of the AI to expand, while keeping corruption unchanged.

Hopefully, this will make the AI more willing to fight for land when it already has many cities. We might even see some domination victories by the AI (imagine that!).

However, we have to be careful. If we overdo it, given enough land, the AI will try to expand more and more, and never develop its cities. (When in expansion mode, the AI builds settlers and units almost exlusively).

Any other ideas?

[Nor Me]

I do stand by my observations that the aggressive civs often come out on top, but with an addition: aggressive civs that are also either Industrious or Scientific seem to come out on top.

This is odd. I find it's the most peaceful civs with these traits that come out on top.
I have seen civs like Greece and France become killer. I infer from this that commercial is the 3rd best AI trait amd that less agressive civs tend to join the winning side in wars.

[Catt]

Originally posted by alexman
I can think of something to generate killer AIs at the expense of other AI civs, but I don't know if it will work.

Increase the optimal number of cities, and reduce the "percentage of optimal cities, so that their product remains constant.

This will increase the desire of the AI to expand, while keeping corruption unchanged.

Hopefully, this will make the AI more willing to fight for land when it already has many cities. We might even see some domination victories by the AI (imagine that!).

Yeah - I guess we've never tried it. Modders have shown that a radically lowered OCN causes the AI to cease expansion even in the face of available land. Could the converse be true?

I actually asked the question in the creation forum some time ago (look at this lonely thread) and despite a coupla dozen views, never got a reply (and obviously never tested it myself).

Probably worth a test during one of those lulls between AU games.

Catt

[alexman]

Another thing to consider is whether this trick will put the AIs constantly at war with each other when they have no more land to settle.

If so, this is something a human can exploit by staying out of the wars, building up, and grabbing land and resources as the AI cities change hands and have their cultural borders reduced.

I'm not sure if it's better for the AI to be aggressive or not. I guess it depends on the situation. I've seen AI civs get very powerful because they built up their infrastructure instead of building units and losing them in wars. I've also seen AI civs get powerful because they rolled over another civ and then built their infrastructure. It all depends on the swiftness of the wars, just like for the human. But the problem is that the AI doesn't know when to go to war and when to stay out of it. High aggression might make them be in wars of attrition too often, while low aggression might make them miss opportunities.

Let's keep looking!

[Dominae]

alexman, I would like to give a big thumbs up to the changes on the new version of the AU mod:



Specifically:

1. Doubled Entertainers

This doesn't appear to unbalanced. It may be because of the particular geography of the map in AU202 (SPOILER: abundance of Plains) which didn't favor the kind of "abusiveness" I was mentioning (irrigate everything to get cities way up in pop, then go back and mine). But, in general, you were right: I do not think it is possible to "break" the "super-entertainers".

However, dealing with unhappiness (especially during Anarchy) is easier for the human player. This is a side effect, nothing more, but one to keep in mind as a difference between the AU mod and stock Civ3/PTW.

2. AI Workers

The AI consistently uses mines more often than irrigation in my games. There are some times when irrigation is abundant, however, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on. Probably has something to do with the exact tile composition. I'll post some screens of particularly nice terraforming (SMAC term) shortly.

3. Tech Tree

I've found an unfortunate aesthetic consequence to attaching certain Diplomatic abilities to techs that come after Writing (Literature, etc.): when you obtain those techs, an Advisor asks you if you want to Establish embassies again (redudantly, since were already given the option with Writing). This is very minor, and is actually a nice reminder.

4. Taxmen and Scientists

My only negative comment: placing the pictures of these Specialists on the approriate techs in the tech tree looks horrible, IMO. Have them removed!


That's all I can think of for now.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Although the choice of Wonders could be better, I'd say this is progress:

[alexman]

Originally posted by Dominae
alexman, I would like to give a big thumbs up to the changes on the new version of the AU mod:

Are you sure you're the real Dominae?

The AI consistently uses mines more often than irrigation in my games. There are some times when irrigation is abundant, however, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on. Probably has something to do with the exact tile composition.

This is actually not a AU mod fix. It's Soren's fix, new in 1.14f. See the Why, oh why thread for some screenshots.

when you obtain those techs, an Advisor asks you if you want to Establish embassies again (redudantly, since were already given the option with Writing).

Yes, thanks for pointing this out. There is an easy way to fix it. Alliances, which is another ability of Writing (with equal AI value) doesn't produce this popup.

My only negative comment: placing the pictures of these Specialists on the approriate techs in the tech tree looks horrible, IMO. Have them removed!

They get placed there automatically when you attach them to techs. If they look so bad, we can definitely undo the changes. Their AI value is relatively low anyway.

Thanks for the report!

[alexman]

New AI changes (proposal for v1.13)

• Increase aggresion of Chinese to 4: These guys are one of the most dangerous civs when used aggressively (can you say "Archer rush?")
• Offensive units as a build-often for the Chinese: To build those Archers and those Riders. Especially now that they're more aggressive.
• Reduce aggresion of Babylonians to 2: This is the ultimate builder civ. Reduced aggression should stop them getting into wars instead of building.
• Trial: Increase optimal number of cities for all map sizes by 50%: As discussed above, this might make the AI more aggressive in grabbing land. When it runs out of room, and is strong enough, it will hopefully attack its neighbor. The goal is to generate a couple of "killer AIs" in each game, instead of a bunch of pretty good ones.
• Trial: Reduce percent of optimal number of cities for all levels by 2/3: To keep corruption unchanged after the increase in OCN.

I will test the OCN/percentage change by playing two OCCs (one with the change and one without).

Comments?

[Dominae]

If we're going to make the Chinese more aggressive, we might as well do so for the Iroquois as well (again, up to 4 this time). In AU202, they really are not taking advantage of their UU. Just a thought...


Dominae

[Dominae]

Also, could you explain again why are higher OCN ultimately leads to Killier AIs? I understand that they will want to expand more (with Settlers), but they do this quite well already. Does the AI attack another civ in part because it's under the OCN?


Dominae

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Dominae
Also, could you explain again why are higher OCN ultimately leads to Killier AIs? I understand that they will want to expand more (with Settlers), but they do this quite well already. Does the AI attack another civ in part because it's under the OCN?


Dominae

Yes, though I would phrase it differently. The AI always wants to reach its OCN, and thus, if it cannot do so peacefully, will resort to war. This isn't to say it won't go to war while it can still expand peacefully, incidentally.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
Yes, though I would phrase it differently. The AI always wants to reach its OCN, and thus, if it cannot do so peacefully, will resort to war. This isn't to say it won't go to war while it can still expand peacefully, incidentally.

That's what I meant; thanks for the clarification (English is my mother tongue, really!).


Dominae

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by ducki
Hey guys!

I thought of a potential "fix" for the Great Wall, if the current one - granting free Walls in all towns - is insufficient.

Change it to The Aqueducts, a new great wonder that grants free Aqueducts to all cities. I think that would make it worth building for both the AI and the human - we'd have to make it more expensive, probably - and it retains, IMO, the "flavor" of Civ as well as posing the player with a strategic choice by giving yet another valuable beeline in the Ancient Age.

Thoughts?

Would the Civ Engine then place Aqueducts in cities which didn't have water nearby? -- Sorry, I'm a bit behind the curve in a few of these threads, but IIRC there was something about a Wonder placing Harbors in landlocked cities.

-Oz

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by nbarclay


Ironclads don't belong in the battleship age. That's why providing upgrade paths for frigates and ironclads is important. And while Civil War ironclads weren't much good in deep ocean, successors that were came close enough after (if I recall correctly) that it's reasonable not to penalize ironclads in deep water given the time span they cover.

After the Monitor/Merrimack-Virginia clash, EVERY European navy immediately cancelled all non-iron-armored warship construction.

An historically accurate upgrade path might (post-Monitor) be --

Ironclad steam "frigates"
Early battleships (Remember the Maine!)
"Modern" battleships (dreadnoughts and the pre-WW1 arms race)

-Oz

[alexman]

Report from the lab

I tested the increased OCN to make the AI more land-hungry, and it worked as expected. However, I'm not sure that this is what we want.

Have a look at the attached picture. The one on the left is with a 50% higher OCN, and the one on the right is standard OCN. Both with the AU mod, otherwise.

In the Western continent, the Japanese dominated in both cases. In the modified OCN version they were more aggressive and immediately got into a war with China, whom they destroyed. In the standard version, they got into a war with the nations more to the South (Persia, France), leaving their Chinese neighbors alone.

In the Eastern continent, everyone is pretty balanced in the standard version, and stayed peaceful until the industrial age. But in the modified version, the Iroquois dominate.

In other words, what we expected, happened. The AIs try to gobble up each other. But was the result a more "killer AI"? In the modified version we got a bigger Iroquois empire, but it came at a very high cost because they were almost constantly at war. The AIs were fighting with tanks in 1750 when I stopped the standard game. In the modified OCN game, they were using Cavalry and Infantry, so they were half an age behind.

To summarize, increasing the OCN results in more wars. Strong empires will dominate and prosper, but empires with no significant advantage over their neighbors will enter long wars of attrition and stagnate. Communism will be used more frequently, and the research rate will drop.

So what do you think? Should we make the change? Is the human better off dealing with many smaller AI civs and face a faster research rate, or dealing with with fewer, bigger AI civs at slower research rate? I am inclined to say that the former case is presents a greater challenge, but it depends heavily on the map and starting locations.