Apolyton University Mod (PTW version)

[Dominae]

I agree this is a big fuss over something relatively minor.

I just want everyone to agree that the zero-bombard modification is being made mostly to make things more interesting for the human player. It just seems to me that this is the realm of other mods, since this one is supposed to remain close to stock Civ3.

I'm fine with the change, I'm just pointing out that the different goals of the AU mod philosophy are sometimes contradictory. So I can see where this debate is coming from, at least. A part of me is screaming "simplify!", and the other part "accessorize!" (I'm neither crazy nor a fashion designer, in case you're wondering).


Dominae

[player1]

Also, Civ3 is supposed to be based on realism, and it is difficult to justify zero-bombard for Longbowmen when you don't give it to Archers.

Like it's difficult to justify having it for Archer and don't having it for other ranged units like Riflemen or Tank.

Probably the 2nd reason (1st was my conservative aproach), why I didn't used this modification.

[nbarclay]

I think the superior range and long-distance stopping power of longbows provides a sufficient rationalization for giving the ability to longbowmen but not to archers - especially when we give it to longbowmen and guerillas but not to tanks or modern armor. Player1 hit it right on the head: the decision of which units get the ability and which don't is not hinged on realism.

Alex, the AU mod was never supposed to be a catch-all for changes that people think "enhance" the game, and if you try to make it that, you depart enormously from the original spirit behind the mod. The mod was intended to incorporate only changes that either (1) benefit the AI without otherwise significantly affecting gameplay for the human or (2) add large enough extra strategy elements to be worth the changes in gameplay. I think it's up to advocates of a change to show that the change provides enough objective benefits to make it worth changing the game for. And if later playtesting shows that the claimed benefits aren't materializing, the change should be removed.

Dominae, what is it that you like about zero-range bombardment? Do you view it as making the game more challenging in some way? Or do you just like it because it takes away the problem of archers' you've built earlier being significantly devalued by the middle of the ancient era?

It seems to me that one of the major strategic choices of the early game is, "Do I try an early archer rush and get stuck with obsolete archers when it's over, or do I focus more on building early and fight later?" The more valuable archers are as the game progresses, the more the balance shifts in favor of early archer rushes (and/or building up significant archer forces as barbarian hunters). Considering how attractive the dark side tends to be even with the stock game, I don't view changes that promote early warfare as something positive. (Of course I'll grant that my own early-game builder proclivities leave me a bit biased as well.)

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Dominae, what is it that you like about zero-range bombardment? Do you view it as making the game more challenging in some way? Or do you just like it because it takes away the problem of archers' you've built earlier being significantly devalued by the middle of the ancient era?

Well, first, I like the "realism" of the change, since I originally thought it was dumb to have Archers act like melee units with strong offense and poor defense. In real life I doubt archers were ever caught without a heavy escort. So the change is fun for me from that perspective.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the AU mod. I do think the change adds something to the AI, since every time I attack a stack (in a city or not), there is a chance that an Archer or Longbowmen is in there, waiting to knock off a HP "for free". This happens quite a lot, since Archers and Longbowmen are ubiquitous in the AI's forces, and the AI likes to escort them with good defensive units. So it's nice to see this change in action, helping the AI out in every game.

I did not consider the effects of the change on human strategy until only very recently. This is because I did not usually mount Archer offensives per se, just the odd Archer here and there for disruption. Furthermore, I never consider Archers to be worth it once I begin building Horsemen or Swordsmen; the zero-range bombard in no way puts the Archer in the same category as its 30-Shield buddies in terms of cost-effectiveness. But in AU206 it was obvious that I was benefitting from the change just as much as the AI does, before those expensive units became available.

So, in short, my reason for liking the change is not that I want to make the most out of my "crappy" units. I have no problem with this, as I know that even the lowliest Elite Archer can knock off the last HP from a Musketmen.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

By the way, zero-range bombard for archers also tilts the balance between swordsman attacks and horseman attacks just a little toward the direction of swordsmen, since left-over archers are more valuable as part of a swordsman stack.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae


Well, first, I like the "realism" of the change, since I originally thought it was dumb to have Archers act like melee units with strong offense and poor defense. In real life I doubt archers were ever caught without a heavy escort. So the change is fun for me from that perspective.

It seems to me that zero-range bombardment just piles unrealism on top of unrealism. On open terrain, archers on both sides would be in range to fire roughly simultaneously, so neither side would have the kind fo advantage that zero-range bombardment represents (unless only one side had archers). But the whole idea of archers attacking spearmen directly, rather than from a distance, makes no real sense in the first place. In a real war, archers would be behind other troops that would defend them, not leading an attack themselves.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
It seems to me that zero-range bombardment just piles unrealism on top of unrealism.

And here I was happy with the change because it added realism (in my mind). Thanks a lot Nathan!

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by nbarclay
... On open terrain, archers on both sides would be in range to fire roughly simultaneously, .... In a real war, archers would be behind other troops that would defend them, not leading an attack themselves.

So what we really need is (belongs in General forum, Trip's "Biggest Disappointments With Game Engine?" thread) to be able to separate bombard units from bombard city/terrain capabilities.

Then we could make archers a bombard unit with 1 defense point.

[Dominae]

Let's get off the Archer issue for now...there's only three or four of arguing about this anyway.

I was thinking of a new change, concerning required techs. The idea is to selectively remove the "optional" status of certain techs, especially some Medieval ones. Specifically, I believe Navigation and Printing Press should be required in the Medieval age, and Advanced Flight, Nationalism and Sanitation in the Industrial age.

Here are my reasons:

1. Improve the AI

The AI selects techs based on its tech valuation formula. I'm not sure right now if a tech being optional figures into this equation or not (it must), but this factor is clearly not as important as it should be. The result is that the AI researches all the poorer optional techs, while the human player is advancing to the next age and benefitting from Steam Power and Railroads.

I consider this a huge deficit in the AI, and one which I "exploit" almost every game. Sure, the optional techs mostly have some useful ability tied to them, but usually this is not enough reason to research the tech in the first place. Cavalry is the notable exception. Researching Democracy just to get Democracy (and then a chance to proceed on to Shakespeare's) is really not a wise move.

On the higher levels, this effect is masked by the fact that the AI researches (trades) so fast, but whenever the human player pulls into it is all-too-obvious.

2. Provide more strategic options

In the Medieval age either you're doing a Cavalry beeline, or you doing a rush to the Industrial age beeline. It is too easy to avoid the optional techs, since they're not critical, and the AI will pick them up anyway. Forcing the human player to obtain more techs can only make the tech game more interesting.

Further, note that Advanced Flight comes with some quite interesting abilities, which are still not used regardless of the modifications to these individually. What is required is an independent reason to get the tech in the first place. The same applies to Navigation.

3. Add to realism

Not that important, really, but I'm not entirely happy when I've got Galleons and Ironclads cruising around while I've yet to obtain Navigation. Similarly for Advanced Flight and Rocketry and the Space Race.

4. Not change too much from stock Civ3

Obviously any change will deviate from stock Civ3, but I do not think that these changes will affect the flow of the game all that much. The AI already thinks Nationalism is the best tech ever, and Printing Press is not so shabby to it either (go figure). The same argument applies for the other techs I've mentioned, although slightly less so. The major difference is that, what the human player would usually trade for eventually (since the AI "fills out" the tree quite well), is now required up front. Other than removing the beeline capabilities which (a good thing), I cannot see this change drastically altering the nature of the game from stock.

Comments more than welcome.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Making Navigation mandatory would remove a major strategic choice from the game: Do you go ahead and get Navigation to get the ability to travel safely and trade over ocean tiles sooner, or do you reduce your research burden by waiting until Magnetism to gain the travel and trade advantages? In AU 206, my game would have been very different if I hadn't researched Navigation so my caravels could cross to the other continent safely. The way I view it, Navigation and Magnetism provide two different approaches to traveling safely through deep water, with the approach that comes with Navigation being the more primitive of the two. If you don't bother learning the more primitive way until you have the technology for the better way, why learn the more primitive way at all? Theref'ore, I see no realism problem either.

Nationalism is fine the way it is. The AI already makes it too high a priority compared with Steam Power, and if you're so far ahead that you can get out of the modern era before you can trade to an AI for Nationalism, what's the point in making you research Nationalism?

Making Printing Press mandatory makes perfect sense. Realistically, an industrial society trying to function without printing presses should be at such a huge handicap that it would be unplayable.

I see nothing unreasonable about making Sanitation mandatory because it and hospitals are so integral to the concept of a modern society. The change does, however, have some gameplay ramifications in that it devalues strategies built around not needing to get hospitals and grow past size 12. I have to give that one a "thumbs sideways."

I have a much harder time justifying why Advanced Flight ought to be mandatory. Keep in mind that jet fighters come with rocketry, so Advanced Flight is more of a sidestep from the evolution of aviation than an integral part of it. Helicopters are nice, but does a society need helicopters or paratroop tactics in order to be considered modern? If we make Advanced Flight mandatory, we might about as well make all techs (or at least all non-governmental techs) mandatory, because our only real reason for doing it is to keep the human player from gaining an advantage through skipping them.

So to recap, I support making Printing Press mandatory, have mixed feelings about Sanitation, and oppose making the others mandatory for varying reasons.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Thanks for your comments Nathan.

Originally posted by nbarclay
Making Navigation mandatory would remove a major strategic choice from the game: Do you go ahead and get Navigation to get the ability to travel safely and trade over ocean tiles sooner, or do you reduce your research burden by waiting until Magnetism to gain the travel and trade advantages?

I'm not sure I see this as being much of a problem. By going Navigation first, you're deciding that ocean travel/trade is very important to you. But you're avoiding the Invention-Chemistry branch. Conversely, if you beeline for Military Tradition (as many players like to do), you get your boats anyway (which has always seemed like a bad design decision to me), but you still have to go back and get Navigation.

Maybe I'm just not seeing where this "major" strategic choice is, in actualy gameplay (not in theory). Are you saying that getting Navigation first would be a no-brainer if it were required? Given that it's off the path to Military Tradition, I would beg to differ. In fact, Navigation is still a weak tech, but now its required so its contribution is at least significant.

Nationalism is fine the way it is. The AI already makes it too high a priority compared with Steam Power, and if you're so far ahead that you can get out of the modern era before you can trade to an AI for Nationalism, what's the point in making you research Nationalism?

I agree. For the same reasons I see no harm in making it required. It has the effect of making Communism and Espionage slightly more attractive to the human player, which is a good thing. Plus, with the new Scientific trait, I can see Nationalism getting bypassed far too often. Because the AI prioritizes it but the human player does not, the human player basically has more trading power than the AI. That's a bad thing.

Making Printing Press mandatory makes perfect sense. Realistically, an industrial society trying to function without printing presses should be at such a huge handicap that it would be unplayable.

I'm surprised your reasons for liking some of the changes are mostly "aesthetic", but I'll go with it!

I see nothing unreasonable about making Sanitation mandatory because it and hospitals are so integral to the concept of a modern society. The change does, however, have some gameplay ramifications in that it devalues strategies built around not needing to get hospitals and grow past size 12. I have to give that one a "thumbs sideways."

Yes and no to the size 12 argument. It is still better to do 3-spacing. Making the tech required means that those cities that you do want to make bigger (assuming you're ralphing or something similar) will not be "kept waiting" until the AI discovers the tech. And notice that the AI loves big cities, so making the player have to research Sanitation actually helps the AI.

If we make Advanced Flight mandatory, we might about as well make all techs (or at least all non-governmental techs) mandatory, because our only real reason for doing it is to keep the human player from gaining an advantage through skipping them.

That's the very point of my proposal. Realism is secondary here (but I'm not sure I agree with you that Advanced Flight brings nothing more than Helicopters and Paratroopers...in my mind it should almost be a prerequisite for the kind of stuff you can do with Rocketry). The point is to reduce the human's advantage of being able to avoid all the bad techs. Ideally all the optional techs would have useful abilities (making them attractive to the human as much as the AI), but this is obviously not the case (consider Advanced Flight).


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
Thanks for your comments Nathan.

I'm not sure I see this as being much of a problem. By going Navigation first, you're deciding that ocean travel/trade is very important to you. But you're avoiding the Invention-Chemistry branch. Conversely, if you beeline for Military Tradition (as many players like to do), you get your boats anyway (which has always seemed like a bad design decision to me), but you still have to go back and get Navigation.

Maybe I'm just not seeing where this "major" strategic choice is, in actualy gameplay (not in theory). Are you saying that getting Navigation first would be a no-brainer if it were required? Given that it's off the path to Military Tradition, I would beg to differ. In fact, Navigation is still a weak tech, but now its required so its contribution is at least significant.

Usually, my first beeline is to Education. From there, it's one short step to Astronomy and the ability to trade over sea tiles, and another short step to Navigation and the ability to trade over ocean tiles. For someone who likes trading techs for luxuries as much as I do in most games, those steps can make a lot of sense. But with Navigation as an optional tech, the benefits of being able to trade for luxrues from across ocean quite possibly before I even discover Gunpowder are counterbalanced by the fact that I have to research an extra tech to get through the middle ages.

Granted, for someone who beelines to Military Tradition first, the situation is different. Once you have Chemistry, Theory of Gravity is only one tech farther away than Navigation, so the main reason to research Navigation would be if you want Magellan's Voyage. But the fact remains that for some strategies, Navigation's optional nature can present players with a major strategic choice.

I agree. For the same reasons I see no harm in making it required. It has the effect of making Communism and Espionage slightly more attractive to the human player, which is a good thing. Plus, with the new Scientific trait, I can see Nationalism getting bypassed far too often. Because the AI prioritizes it but the human player does not, the human player basically has more trading power than the AI. That's a bad thing.

I still don't see how making Nationalism mandatory would improve anything. All being mandatory means is that you have to get it from an AI sometime before the end of the industrial tech tree, and with how much AIs prioritize Nationalism without its being mandatory, being able to trade for it is a foregone conclusion in any remotely competitive game where the human player has something to trade. The only time it would make a difference is when the human player is behind and wants to skip Nationalism to help catch up, but I see no compelling reason to undercut that option. In other words, I see it as a change with no really useful purpose, and I prefer to keep changes that do not serve a clearly useful purpose out of the AU mod.

I'm surprised your reasons for liking some of the changes are mostly "aesthetic", but I'll go with it!

I like it when gameplay improvements and aesthetics come into alignment, and I think making Printing Press mandatory is a case where they do. It's a lot messier when something improves gameplay but doesn't seem particularly logical in terms of realism, or whe something makes perfect sense in terms of realism but undercuts gameplay.

Yes and no to the size 12 argument. It is still better to do 3-spacing. Making the tech required means that those cities that you do want to make bigger (assuming you're ralphing or something similar) will not be "kept waiting" until the AI discovers the tech. And notice that the AI loves big cities, so making the player have to research Sanitation actually helps the AI.

Sometimes, although in a competitive game, chances aren't bad that the AI will pick up the tech eventually if the human player researches other techs and waits.

That's the very point of my proposal. Realism is secondary here (but I'm not sure I agree with you that Advanced Flight brings nothing more than Helicopters and Paratroopers...in my mind it should almost be a prerequisite for the kind of stuff you can do with Rocketry). The point is to reduce the human's advantage of being able to avoid all the bad techs. Ideally all the optional techs would have useful abilities (making them attractive to the human as much as the AI), but this is obviously not the case (consider Advanced Flight).

What in Advanced Flight, other than the name itself, implies that it ought to be required for Rocketry? Helicopters and paratroop operations have nothing whatsoever to do with technologies needed to evolve from piston-engined aircraft to jet aircraft or rockets. And if I understand history correctly, the developments came separately at roughly the same time.

I think what really bothers me is that I can't find any consistent standard that you're going by in wanting to make some techs mandatory but not make all the optional techs mandatory. (And making all techs mandatory, or even making certain aditional ones mandatory for largely arbitrary reasons, drags out the game a few extra turns, which doesn't especially thrill me.)

Nathan

[minke19104]

Instead of forcing ppl to have Advanced flight to jump to Modern era, y dont u put Airfields in Adv flight rather than in Flight.

The reasoning is that, in conquest games worker created Airfields is too powerful. Ppl would just attack a distant civ from the sea, take one of the workers, make an instant airfield and transfer the bulk of their army with airlift. In the old Civ 3 you have to wait till rebellion dies off then you can pay huge amount of money to rush an airport.

Airfields should be treated as advanced military base and landing strip.

Airport would still be in Flight. But at least Airfields in Adv. Flight will give Warmongers the incentive to research that tech.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Granted, for someone who beelines to Military Tradition first, the situation is different. Once you have Chemistry, Theory of Gravity is only one tech farther away than Navigation, so the main reason to research Navigation would be if you want Magellan's Voyage. But the fact remains that for some strategies, Navigation's optional nature can present players with a major strategic choice.

I honestly fail to see how making it mandatory removes that choice. I fall into routines too, but if your games always look like "beeline to Astronomy then trade all my Luxuries", then your "strategic options" are already quite limited. The fact that you've granted that different strategies deal with Navigation in different ways proves my point, I think.

I still don't see how making Nationalism mandatory would improve anything. All being mandatory means is that you have to get it from an AI sometime before the end of the industrial tech tree, and with how much AIs prioritize Nationalism without its being mandatory, being able to trade for it is a foregone conclusion in any remotely competitive game where the human player has something to trade.

You did not address my main point, which is that, by skipping Nationalism entirely, human players essentially have more trading power. That is quite the advantage, and one that I'm sure you've noticed (although the effect is far more pronounced in the Medieval age with Printing Press, Democracy, and such).

I think what really bothers me is that I can't find any consistent standard that you're going by in wanting to make some techs mandatory but not make all the optional techs mandatory.

Here is the implied standard in my reasoning:

1. All techs should have some use. It would be nice if the use of all techs were enough to make the human player consider them, but that's a different story.

2. The use of optional techs should, on average, be greater than the use of required techs. This is obvious, because a useless optional tech is not going to be researched very often. You can see that the tech tree was designed this way: The Republic, Literature, Chivalry, etc.

3. The AI is hard-coded to research most of the techs, in order to make the game more fun. The human player has the advantage of skipping some of the more usless optional tecsh. This is a major advantage, one which we should definitely address in our attempts to make a more competitive AI.

So, from these points, I think it is somewhat clear which techs I think should be mandatory:

NOT:

The Republic
Monarchy
Literature
Chivalry
Military Tradition
Democracy (government )
Free Artistry (Democracy as a prerequisite)
Communism (government)
Espionage (a specialized ability, perfect for optional status)

YEA:

Printing Press
Navigation
Nationalism
Sanitation

ON THE FENCE:

Advanced Flight
Amphibious Wafare

The last two I'm not sure about. If I had my way I would make them optional because it makes the game more interesting and helps the AI (because it researches these even when it could go for Computers), but if you would rather keep things like stock these reasons may not be that convincing to you.


Dominae

[Jaybe]

Amphibious Wafare should definitely not be required. It applies not at all to a landlocked AI civ.

Advanced Flight and Rocketry are indeed tied together IRL. Helicopters never had any decent weight-lifting capacity until they were powered by jet engines. (Maybe just make paratroops available with flight, helicopters with rocketry, and just delete advanced flight unless you make it required for airfields)!