Updating the AU mod for C3C.

[nbarclay]

Keep in mind that the more threads we have, the easier it is for threads to get lost (and for AU Mod threads to crowd out other threads). How about something like:

• AU mod: Regular Land Units
• AU mod: Sea, Air, and Bombardment Units and Issues
• AU mod: Unique Units
• AU mod: Special Operations (Amphibious, Paratroops, Airlift, etc.)
• AU mod: City Improvements
• AU mod: Governments
• AU mod: Wonders, Great and Small
• AU mod: Tech Tree and Costs
• AU mod: AI Tweaks

Note that this list is organized primarily around trying to make it easy to identify which issues belong where rather than around trying to make sure the amount of discussion in each thread is fairly equal. Nonetheless, the number of threads is large enough that the amount of traffic on any one of them should not be too terrible, especially if particular issues that start to get out of hand are spun off into separate threads.

[nbarclay]

By the way, whatever list we come up with, the first message in each thread should have an explanation of what that thread is for, a copy of the complete thread list (preferably with links), and a list of any subthreads that have been broken off from it (also preferably with links).

[alexman]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Keep in mind that the more threads we have, the easier it is for threads to get lost

Have you lost a linked thread before?

Anyway, your list is fine by me, although I really would prefer one thread per change.

[Tassadar500]

I will wait to see what method we will use. Any one want to make any cases for either side?

[Theseus]

I want a friggin' thread on Berserks and Marines working together in Armies!!!

j/k

I like the idea of having a limited number of threads organized conceptually. I think Arrian's list is an excellent start, but would recommend fleshing out "AI Tweaks" into a number of different concepts (that is one of the primary purposes of the Mod after all!).

Hmmm... Happiness, Research, Infrastructure, Military Building and Strategy/Tactics (I know, I know... but build preferences, at least, can have an impact), Aggression, etc.

I also remain convinced, oh, a year and a half later, that environmental conditions have as big an impact on AI civ success as anything... and it seems that that will only be magnified with C3C. So, an interesting adjunct to the AU Mod discussion might be a thread dedicated to the evolution of KAIs. And I *still* want Soren or somebody from Firaxis / Breakaway to tell us the best settings!!

Great thread, and hello Nathan!

[lockstep]

Originally posted by nbarclay
How about something like:

• AU mod: Regular Land Units
• AU mod: Sea, Air, and Bombardment Units and Issues
• AU mod: Unique Units
• AU mod: Special Operations (Amphibious, Paratroops, Airlift, etc.)
• AU mod: City Improvements
• AU mod: Governments
• AU mod: Wonders, Great and Small
• AU mod: Tech Tree and Costs
• AU mod: AI Tweaks

Note that this list is organized primarily around trying to make it easy to identify which issues belong where rather than around trying to make sure the amount of discussion in each thread is fairly equal.

I'd add a category 'AU mod: Miscellaneous' at any rate. E.g. tweaking resource appearance ratios (which was done in AU v1.17) does not fit in any of the categories you proposed.

[player1]

I'll soon finish up conquests version of PS MOD, so maybe you could get some extra idea or two by looking at thread in Creations forum.

Just be wary, the MOD looks more conservative them before (I don't want to change too much until I play enough C3C games).

[alexman]

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that having one thread for each group of related changes is the way to go.

You will get short threads, where you can easily find the discussion you are looking for. Each group of related changes in the readme will link to one thread. In fact, each new idea can have its own thread. Why do we have to restrict the number of threads? If the idea doesn't make it into the mod, or if an existing change gets removed, they will get linked from a special section of the main thread, for future reference. When the topic comes up again, we can move the discussion to the proper thread, instead of going back and forth in one thread, with arguments spread over several pages, mixed with different topics. The discussion for existing features will never be mixed with old discussions of changes that are no longer part of the mod.

Another advantage of having many short threads is that we don't have to try and guess beforehand which topics will get the most discussion. Will the miscellaneous thread become as big as the old mod discussion thread? Who knows? Also, what if we make a change that falls into several categories (e.g. we tweak a Wonder in order to balance a government)?

Will all these threads clutter the Strat forum? At times, yes. But at the same time they will draw attention to the mod and the AU in general, which is a good thing. However, most of the time, I doubt that there will be more than a couple active topics at a time.

In the end, the mod documentation will be more like a web page, with easy links to related topics, instead of a few big threads, which you have to read from beginning to end to thread out irrelevant discussions in order to get to what you want. It takes a bit more work to maintain such a system, but I can volunteer to do that part. I think it will be a great solution for the long term.

[ZargonX]

alexman, I think it was the massive number of threads involved with that method that was off-putting to some people. However, if someone is willing to manage a central database, as it were, of the links, then it is a more optimal solution. So, if you want to volunteer, I won't stop you

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that having one thread for each group of related changes is the way to go.

At least keep those discussions in the same thread that deal with two or three changes that are somewhat intertwined. E.g. re-balancing Republics unit support has some effect on Democracy, although we need to make Democracy more attractive anyway.

Also, what if we make a change that falls into several categories (e.g. we tweak a Wonder in order to balance a government)?

IMO this is the best reason against an 'all-encompassing' thread system. E.g. the tweaks to the space race done in AU v1.17 (+50% cost for SS parts, additional tech requirements) wouldn't have fit in a single category, but clearly should be discussed together.

It takes a bit more work to maintain such a system, but I can volunteer to do that part. I think it will be a great solution for the long term.

[Tassadar500]

This should probably go in the other thread but.... we only have 6 panelists and it was decided we need to have an odd number. I don't want to take anyone out of their job so here's what I'll do. I will be the 7th panelist. Think of me as a mini-panelist because I will only vote and discuss. Not test as you may already know I have a mac

[alexman]

What about the "voice of the people" public poll? I thought that had a good chance of being be the last panelist...

[Tassadar500]

alexman I don't think that was a valid poll. It was my mistake because Dominae was talking about someone else. It was also agreed upon in the thread to have a 7th panelist.

[Stuie]

I thought the idea was if it came to a tie vote, a poll would be used (VotP) to break the tie.

[Tassadar500]

Stuie I already stated I misunderstood what Dominae was saying. If you look back in the thread alot of people agreed that it would be better to have a 7th panelist.