Apolyton University Mod: C3C version

[lockstep]

I've started a thread about the ToE - Hoover beeline and how to make it less of an obvious choice:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103311.

[Myrddin]

Is anyone planning to look at the C3C changes to

Great leaders

Armies

as these seem obvious ommissions from the list

[Stuie]

I started a thread on post-sail ship movement, one of my pet peeves with Civ3:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103855

[lockstep]

I started a thread about the Military Academy and whether it should require a victorious army:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103894.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Dominae
IMO there are good ways of creating more strategic options, and there are bad ways.

One of the "good" ways is to balance certain effects in the game, so that they're not too powerful (in which case they're always used) or too weak (in which case they're never used. This involves tweaking the stats of a unit, the cost of an improvement, or something's relative attractiveness to the AI. This is the type of change that fits in the AU mod, because the game stays the same, it's just that some things are now more powerful or less powerful.

One of the "bad" ways is to introduce entirely new effects at non-stock points in the tech tree. This is bad because the game becomes conceptually different from stock; "Woah", you'll hear people say, "where the heck did the Theory of Evolution go!?" As far as I know, the philosophy of the AU mod clearly states that "not changing the feel of stock" is more important than "adding more strategic options wherever possible".

A list of "good" changes includes:

-Zero-range bombard for Archer-type units.
-Free unit support values for Republic.
-Better stats for Colosseums.

A list of "bad" changes includes:

-Moving Wonders to different parts of the tech tree.
-Creating an entirely new unit.
-Removing something entirely from the game.

Actually, I here's what is stated in the mod's philosphy:

AU mod Philosophy
The main purpose of the AU mod is to challenge the player with a need for deeper strategy, while changing as little as possible. Deeper strategy is accomplished by presenting the player with more non-trivial decisions, and by improving the AI.

Dominae, I respect your opinion on what are "good" and "bad' changes, but I don't entirely agree with it. I think a change (not necessarily the change we are debating in the ToE-Hoover thread) should be made if the benefits are clear, even if it is a big change. I feel that if you expect to play an AU game without realizing you are playing a mod, you should play stock rules. AU games always have both options anyway. Others surely don't agree with me. However, the fact that we disagree is not a bad thing. In fact, it's expected:

AU mod Method
Most modifications incorporated by the AU mod are a compromise between a) improving the AI, b) presenting the player with more options, and c) changing as little as possible. The level of this compromise is a delicate and subjective decision, so each proposed change is discussed by the Apolyton University community before it is implemented.

So it's up to each panel member to weigh the value of each change in terms of adding strategic depth to the game, against changing as little as possible. You have drawn a line of where you stand, and that's much appreciated.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
I think a change (not necessarily the change we are debating in the ToE-Hoover thread) should be made if the benefits are clear, even if it is a big change.

I guess that's where we differ. I concede that there are many changes we could make that would definitely be beneficial to the standard game. However, I (unlike you) believe that some of these do not belong in the AU mod, because it would then deviate too much from stock.

Anyone who makes a non-scenario mod thinks that it's going to be "better" than the standard game. Those crazy dudes that came up with the Double Your Pleasure mod never play Civ3 without it! I think this is why some of us are so willing to include big changes like moving Longevity across eras. Sure, it's probably more fun to have access to Longevity early. But that does not by default warrant a change in the AU mod.

Longevity is a Modern era Wonder in the stock game, and to preserve the feel of stock Civ3, it should stay there. How about leaving it there, and increasing its power somehow? Those are the types of changes I thought the AU mod was in the business of making. There would, of course, remain the "problem" that the AI loves Sanitation too much. I'm sure we can deal with this in a similarly non-drastic way (reduce its cost, whatever).

I'm not going into specifics here because it's not the thread to do so. I'm just trying to make the point that sweeping/drastic changes, while seemingly attractive because of the modder in all of us, are not what the AU mod is all about.

You have drawn a line of where you stand, and that's much appreciated.

Thanks, I hope I've not reached the "broken record" stage yet.


Dominae

[player1]

Re: Description of changes

Originally posted by alexman
AI Naval exploration:[list=1]
Curraghs get the 'unload' flag and are given the AI Naval Transport flag instead of the AI Naval Power flag.

Hmm...

Does this actually work?

Does AI build and explore with Curraghs.

If it's ture, maybe I could add this to the mod of mine.

[alexman]

Read all about it (and comment) in the PROPER THREAD.

That's where my broken record is stuck.

Anyone who makes a non-scenario mod thinks that it's going to be "better" than the standard game. Those crazy dudes that came up with the Double Your Pleasure mod never play Civ3 without it! I think this is why some of us are so willing to include big changes like moving Longevity across eras. Sure, it's probably more fun to have access to Longevity early. But that does not by default warrant a change in the AU mod.

Fun, although the ultimate goal in any mod, is not directly in the AU mod's philosophy. Most of the changes introduced by the DYP mod are motivated by historical accuracy, not balance. They may be fun, but they hurt the AI, for example.

If something is in the game, I want it to be useful often enough that it gets built sometimes. Some improvements (Colosseums and Coastal Fortresses) are not built often enough, so we make them more powerful. However, if there is no good way to make them more powerful without a big change (Longevity), I am willing to consider that change. The same goes for things that are so powerful that you cannot imagine not trying to build them (ToE). If you can't weaken them, I'm not opposed to making a big change so they are not as powerful.

Of course, we still have to make sure that a big change also makes a big difference in balance. I would never vote for a big change that makes a small difference, or that doesn't completely solve the problem without introducing negative side effects.

[Dominae]

In the case of Longevity, it's main problem is that it is in the Modern era. That's a problem with the game, not the Wonder itself. I'm sure we could tweak it to make it more useful in the Modern era.

As for the Theory of Evolution, there have been a grand total of three suggestions to balance it in the Industrial era. However, everyone seems to be happy just to move it to the Modern era, or remove it from the game completey!

As you can see there are non-drastic options that we have not considered yet (or, at least, not fully considered). Drastic changes should be the last thing we consider, not the first.


Dominae

[alexman]

Originally posted by Dominae
In the case of Longevity, it's main problem is that it is in the Modern era.

Sure, the Modern era has problems, but Longevity would very rarely be useful, even if the Modern era were balanced.

Drastic changes should be the last thing we consider, not the first.

I completely agree with that.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by alexman
If something is in the game, I want it to be useful often enough that it gets built sometimes.

So we should have a "Helicopter" thread?

[alexman]

Most definitely!

[Risa]

And a Privateer thread?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Dominae
I concede that there are many changes we could make that would definitely be beneficial to the standard game. However, I (unlike you) believe that some of these do not belong in the AU mod, because it would then deviate too much from stock.

Dominae, this is excatly the feeling I had about zero-range bombardment when alexman introduced it into the first version of the AU mod. This was 16 months ago, and now zero-range bombardment is part of the stock game.

And what about big changes that make for even bigger improvements in gameplay? Shouldn't the AU mod drop the ivory requirement for the Statue of Zeus?

[Dominae]

Like I said above, lockstep, I concede that there are some big changes that would be good for the game, yet I still hold that they might not belong in the AU mod. I think we can all agree that increased upgrade costs is good for the game, yet it's not something that we would have implemented in the Play the World version of the mod.

Zero-range bombard is not a "drastic" change by any stretch of the imagination. A couple of test games demonstrated that it's not the type of thing that forces you to rethink you strategy; Archers (Longbowmen, etc.) just happened to be better in those situations where you would use them already, which were common only in the case of the AI. Zero-range bombard does not drastically affect the game like moving the Theory of Evolution does.

You're quite right in bringing up the Statue of Zeus, as you can definitely make the case that removing the Ivory requirement is a drastic change to the standard game. Fair enough, I can live without this particular change.


Dominae