AU mod: The Colosseum

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Granted, the doubling of culture generation values after a thousand years can make things a little more complex if culture plays a significant role in players' build choices. But even that is really not much more than a little extra "oomph" for the easy-to-understand concept that building cultural buildings earlier gives you more culture.

Concept: Building Colosseums earlier gives you more Gold later on.

Q1: Do I want more Gold?
A1: Yes.

Q2: Will the game last until "later on"?
A2: Possibly. If yes, build Colosseums. If probably not, do not.

Please point out the extreme advantage a player-with-a-calculator derives beyond this rule-of-thumb analysis. I can understand pb2k's argument that Tourism might change the face of the late-game (and therefore affect the early-game more than we think), but your whole argument that there is something incomprehensibly complicated about Tourism I simply do not get.

As alexman points out, every turn you have to make choices in Civ3 that a-player-with-a-calculator is always better off making than you: one more Worker, or start on a Barracks? FP now, or FP later? FP where? Courthouse or Cathedral? Where do I place my cities? Should I trade this tech to this AI first, or that tech to that AI first? etc. etc. If you think you have the right answers to all these questions at all junctures (but somehow cannot figure out Tourism), why are you still playing Civ3? In a turn-based game like this, information is a very powerful thing; just look how look the Civ3 Strategy forum has remained alive! Yet 95% of players could not care less about most of this info, yet they succeed anyway. The Tourism mechanic is not something that is beyond their understanding.

Like I said, if Tourism Colosseums fundamentally change the face of the early-game (beeline for Construction at full speed, prebuild Colosseums everywhere, all the time), then I agree that the change does not belong in the AU mod. But if all it does is give players a new avenue to explore (that is, it makes Colosseums more interesting), then I believe it does.

I think some testing is what we need here. Can anyone "break" Tourism Colosseums? In other words, given a game that lasts well past 1500AD, does building Colosseums very early give you an unfair advantage versus the AI?

[Dominae]

Picking up on what Moonbars just said:

Originally posted by punkbass2000
That's the game-breaker, IMO. It's not necessarily that late in the game. If one beelined for Construction, they could could easily have a colosseum by 2000BC, generating 10gpt by 0AD, and 14gpt by 500AD.

How many turns after 2150BC is 2000BC? About 3-4. Please go back and check the various DAR threads in AU games and in the Strat forum that display players' progress at 2150BC: are they prepared to start building Colosseums en masse? Just building one Colosseum, maybe, but prioritizing them in every city (a total of 5, tops) would be akin to building Wonders while you are still REXing. Do you really think the Tourism bonus is worth that kind of sacrifice? Even at 1500-1000BC, you are still putting the finishing touches on your REX and have nothing more than a fledgeling military: would you really start poprushing a 100+ Shield improvement? Not to mention the fact that you missed the Philosophy beeline...(actually, this would be a nice side effect, IMO!).

[Modo44]

I checked some old games, and some new ones. Ranging from Monarch to Demigod difficulty, mostly with the AU mod. And I rarely find Colosseums built BC. They do happen if I have a very big city early on, but that's about it. Otherwise I'm too busy with my REX, basic infrastructure, and units, to go for a Colosseum, let alone need one.

With the current proposal, it would at least make sense for Militaristic civs to build Colosseums for happiness, once thay are available. But even they would have to get the tech first, and need the rather expensive happiness. I think chances are small for that to happen before 500 BC, or even later.

Yes, one could make an effort, and get a couple Colosseums up by 1000 BC, but, as Moonbars noted, this would require to hurt one's initial REX big time. Meaning, a couple relatively big cities very early. Definately something to look forward to... in 5CC games perhaps.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae


Concept: Building Colosseums earlier gives you more Gold later on.

Q1: Do I want more Gold?
A1: Yes.

Q2: Will the game last until "later on"?
A2: Possibly. If yes, build Colosseums. If probably not, do not.

The whole justification for adding the tourist attraction bonus to the colosseum is supposed to be to add an interesting strategic choice. But the process you describe here sounds to me more like guesswork than like genuine strategy. It does not even attempt to factor in the opportunity cost of what else could be done instead of building a colosseum, or to weigh the benefits of the colosseum against the benefits of other things that could be built instead.

Please point out the extreme advantage a player-with-a-calculator derives beyond this rule-of-thumb analysis.

My concern has not been that I consider the difference extreme (although punkbass2000 has me thinking it might be a lot bigger than I've been giving it credit for, depending on how people play). It's that "strategy" predicated on guesswork isn't all that strategic in my view. I see too much risk of causing players to build colosseums not because doing so actually will make them better off but because they only think it will. And while that might "solve" the "problem" of players' not meeting their "quota" of early colosseum-building in the mind of someone like Alexman, it would too often do so for the wrong reasons.

[nbarclay]

Here's something else to think about. From what I can tell from a quick look, multipliers for wealth-enhancing and science-enhancing buildings (such as marketplaces and libraries) do apply to income generated from tourism. If that is true, a difference of 10 gpt from tourism in base income would translate into a difference of up to 25 gpt in final income.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
It's that "strategy" predicated on guesswork isn't all that strategic in my view.

Every decision you make is based on a certain amount guesswork, that's why you are not able to beat Deity or Sid every time you play. While you might very well try to claim that every decision you make is the right one given the information available to you (har har), this is not true for every single player that plays at Demigod level and below (conservatively speaking, surely). Go back and read the DARs of that last few AU courses of Monarch and Regent-level players: they are explicitly stating that they are making guesses all the time! And you?

Strategic play is not perfect play. A player might incorporate a certain number of bombardement units in his/her offensive stack, only to later realise that this was probably not the best strategy due to the unexpected dominance of fast-movers in his/her campaign. Similarly, a player might incorporate Colosseums into his/her strategy on the mistaken assumption that the game might last until 1500AD. As players get better, they learn what works and what does not (or, they get better by learning what works and what does not). The AU mod's job is not to facilitate this process by making everything obvious. Rather, it is to make for an interesting/balanced game for veterans and newbies alike. By suddenly making Colosseums better, I do not think we are doing players a disservice by "forcing" them to think more. Was Firaxis in the wrong for "forcing" you to learn to use Settler-pumps?!

[nbarclay]

I just posted a test scenario for the tourist attraction bonus in another thread. I'd like to requiest that we delay the voting on the proposed change to provide time for some testing of how game balance is affected.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Here's something else to think about. From what I can tell from a quick look, multipliers for wealth-enhancing and science-enhancing buildings (such as marketplaces and libraries) do apply to income generated from tourism. If that is true, a difference of 10 gpt from tourism in base income would translate into a difference of up to 25 gpt in final income.

Yup.

The Modern era could get very ugly with this change. Especially considering that human players typically use a tighter city-spacing, and therefore would have more Colosseums to profit from. But let's try that test scenario you created just to make sure.

[nbarclay]

Dominae, I'll certainly agree that in a game like Civ 3, there is a probabilistic element to strategy. You have to plan in terms of the various things that the AIs might do, and for the vaguries of the random number generator. Thus, choices are often made based largely on a player's best guess about what is likely to be happening elsewhere in the world or is likely to happen in the future. The need to learn how to play the probabilities while at the same time protecting against being harmed excessively if something unlikely happens is indeed a very important element of Civ 3 strategy.

And if all that were involved in the tourist attraction question were a need for players to guess at when a game is likely to end, with players having a clear picture of how the cost and benefits of a colosseum compare for any given guess at when the game will probably end, I would agree that that is a perfectly legitimate probabilistic element to expect players to deal with. Just the need to guess when the game is likely to end, in and of itself, is not a significant concern to me.

But when the guesswork results from a lack of understanding of complex game mechanics, I view that as a very different issue. Players are most capable of planning strategy when game mechanics are easily understood so the players have a clear understanding either of what will happen (if the effect of a choice is definite) or of what might happen (if random number generators or decisions by other players are involved). When a game mechanic is so complex that players don't have enough information to get a clear picture of what the results of an action will or are likely to be, that seriously undermines the ability to make good strategic choices.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Moonbars


I doubt you would have many cities at 2000bc punkbass. You would have even fewer that could build Cols.

In fact, you would have to give up rexing, further reducing your city count..

Why do you doubt my skill? In my AU Peace game I had three cities in 2150BC with a Settler sitting on a city site and another about to be built next turn. That's five cities before 2000BC. It's admittedly a nice start with a good civ, but it's nothing amazing. It's also at Deity and has some restrictions. I don't think I've purported anything dramatically different from actuality. I've also slightly reconsidered and think perhaps France would be the best civ so I could start on MAth right away as BW and IW are easier to trade for.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Dominae
Picking up on what Moonbars just said:



How many turns after 2150BC is 2000BC? About 3-4. Please go back and check the various DAR threads in AU games and in the Strat forum that display players' progress at 2150BC: are they prepared to start building Colosseums en masse? Just building one Colosseum, maybe, but prioritizing them in every city (a total of 5, tops) would be akin to building Wonders while you are still REXing. Do you really think the Tourism bonus is worth that kind of sacrifice? Even at 1500-1000BC, you are still putting the finishing touches on your REX and have nothing more than a fledgeling military: would you really start poprushing a 100+ Shield improvement? Not to mention the fact that you missed the Philosophy beeline...(actually, this would be a nice side effect, IMO!).

These people were not trying to set up a situation where they could build a Colosseum or two. I would pop-rush the last forty shields for sure; the unhappiness would be counteracted by the Colosseum itself and given the immense gains of getting it ~8 turns early. I don't see what's so great about the Phil beeline in this scenario. At any level where you're likely to be able to get Constr. with it you probably won't get Phil first anyway, IME.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by punkbass2000


Why do you doubt my skill? In my AU Peace game I had three cities in 2150BC with a Settler sitting on a city site and another about to be built next turn. That's five cities before 2000BC. It's admittedly a nice start with a good civ, but it's nothing amazing. It's also at Deity and has some restrictions. I don't think I've purported anything dramatically different from actuality.

But if you build colosseums when you only have five cities, that seriously delays building additional cities, and thus delays everything that those additional cities will build for thousands of years. It's inconceivable to me that the benefits of such a strategy could outweigh the costs.

[punkbass2000]

I'll agree that it might not be exactly what I say, but if I were optimizing for shields I think it would not be hard to get up two or three by 1500BC. Even a 1000BC Colosseum would be pretty valauble. Are you even half way to 2050 when you reach 1000AD? But yes, game length does influence the overall calculation. However, I would surmise that most games that end particularly early are heavily militaristic, and thus the whole Colosseum thing would not be an issue. IT is somewhat a kin to wonder building, though 120 shields is really nothing compared to most GWs. The only good one for 200 (IMO and with AU) is Colossus, and that's still nearly twice as much plus it can't be rushed in any form.

[Moonbars]

I don't douvt your skill at all Punkbass, I am sorry if you took my comment the wrong way. maybe having 5 cities, at least one of which has been bulding settlers, is IMO not very many to then go on and build Cols in before 2000BC.

How BIG are your 3 cities? How many SPT do they produce, do any of them have granaries?

Originally posted by punkbass2000 Why do you doubt my skill?

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I just posted a test scenario for the tourist attraction bonus in another thread. I'd like to requiest that we delay the voting on the proposed change to provide time for some testing of how game balance is affected.

Nathan

That is alarming! I thought it was straight up, corruption free, gold - not wealth