The Military Academy

[ducki]

Originally posted by Dominae
You must choose the Light Side or the Dark Side...stop trying to be Grey!
Dominae

Now you're trying to dictate playstyle, albeit I believe half-jesting. I don't think the AU mod or the gameplay and rules should deny different playstyles.

And in fact, forcing the builder to warmonger long enough to get a leader encourage, forces even, people to play Grey.

[nbarclay]

I strongly disagree with the word "forcing." That word would be appropriate if armies were truly necessary to win wars. As it is, playing styles that build all game and then turn conquistador when tanks or modern armor become available are still very much possible. They just have to do it without armies from a military academy (at least at first), although the blitz ability of tanks and MAs makes generating leaders with them to build new armies a lot easier than it is in earlier eras. (One of the ironies about attacking with a force consisting almost entirely of armies is that you don't generate leaders with it, so a certain amount of catching up in number of armies in the field is definitely possible.)

Nathan

[Kuciwalker]

So army's aren't good enough to be necessary for wars?

Thus, army's aren't good enough to warrant being a warmonger-only bonus.

[nbarclay]

My core position is that armies aren't vital enough to be worth changing the rules just so civs that have done little or no fighting (or possibly just been unlucky until at leader generation) until tanks or modern armor can suddenly go on a rampage with them around the dawn of the modern era. I would not have minded at all if Firaxis had made armies something available to everyone rather than requiring a victorious army, but I don't consider the issue one where a change is necessary.

By the way, it occurs to me that changing the Military Academy also changes a strategic choice when a civ does get a leader: do I use my leader to rush a Forbidden Palace (or possibly move my palace), or do I use my leader to build an army so I can build the Heroic Epic and Military Academy? Heroic Epic + Military Academy is worth a lot more than Heroic Epic alone.

Nathan

[lockstep]

Originally posted by nbarclay
By the way, it occurs to me that changing the Military Academy also changes a strategic choice when a civ does get a leader: do I use my leader to rush a Forbidden Palace (or possibly move my palace), or do I use my leader to build an army so I can build the Heroic Epic and Military Academy? Heroic Epic + Military Academy is worth a lot more than Heroic Epic alone.

With the proposed change, the strategic choice to use a leader to rush a Forbidden Palace OR create an army and get the Heroic Epic is still there in the early game, when the Military Academy isn't available. And at the time it becomes available (late middle ages), your Forbidden Palace is hopefully up and running (that is, if you want to win your game), so I still don't see a strategic choice being changed.

[nbarclay]

If a player is willing to count on getting another leader later, nothing's changed. But if a player uses a ldeader to rush a palace or FP and does not get another leader later, no military academy under the default rules. Make the military academy available for everyone and the risk of losing out on the military academy because you used your only leader to rush a palace or FP instead of to build an army goes away.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Make the military academy available for everyone and the risk of losing out on the military academy because you used your only leader to rush a palace or FP instead of to build an army goes away.

You're right in this respect. Nevertheless, I'm for the change to the Mil. Ac. because

1. there would be still the strategic choice to either rush your FP or create an army in the early game (the latter being a temporary, yet huge military advantage),
2. it is quite possible currently - im my experience - to play a hybrid 'builder-warmonger' game (engaging in limted warfare to control 'your' continent) and ending up with no MGL at all.

Originally posted by Dominae
I think it's acceptable to give the Warmonger some unique "toys" to play with.

I think it's a bad idea to force the player into a certain playstyle because otherwise he would be denied access to a core game feature.

[nbarclay]

The question is, are armies from the military academy a "core" game feature? If AIs follow a strategy of building the military academy, cranking out a number of armies, and swarming their opponents with those armies, then the ability for the human player to do the same is a core feature needed to compete with AIs militarily on a roughly level playing field. But if AIs do not follow such a strategy (and I have seen no evidence that they do in my admittedly limited experience with C3C), I argue that the ability for the human player to pursue such a strategy is a peripheral feature, an extra toy to play with that is nice but not necessary, rather than a core feature.

Nathan

[Kuciwalker]

What about MP? I bet that this is necessary for MP.

[korn469]

The AI seems to build the Military Academy when it can, but it's reluctant to build armies for the most part.

Besides removing the victorious army build condition, I also made it so that the MilAc will produce an army every 15 turns. It's something to think about, though I'm sure you guys will probably shoot that idea all to hell

[lockstep]

Maybe a way to secure substantial advantages for warmongers while still making armies available to builders eventually is to make a 'new' Military Academy (that doesn't require a victorious army) available at a later date, e.g. in the early industrial age. How about Fascism as a prereq for the Mil. Ac ? Currently, this tech isn't required for Hoover, tanks or anything else of value to the human player, but is likely to be researched by the AI.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by korn469
The AI seems to build the Military Academy when it can, but it's reluctant to build armies for the most part.

Besides removing the victorious army build condition, I also made it so that the MilAc will produce an army every 15 turns. It's something to think about, though I'm sure you guys will probably shoot that idea all to hell

Would that cause a problem if you went over the max army limit?

Also, remember this would be the same as 100 free shields anywhere every 15 turns.

[korn469]

skywalker,

I need to run more tests, but if you were at the max army limit it wouldn't build anymore armies, and i lowered the amount of shields armies cost from 400 to 200, plus made armies slightly better

[Dominae]

Originally posted by lockstep
I think it's a bad idea to force the player into a certain playstyle because otherwise he would be denied access to a core game feature.

Like force them to be a Builder in order to get a tech lead and therefore a shot at SGLs?

This is what the game is missing IMO. Everything is too accessible in Civ3, the result being that it's easy to figure out the best strategy and never have to stray too far away from it (can we say Republic, Cavalry rush, Toe, etc.?).

Splitting Great Leaders into MGLs and SGLs supports the delineation of the two big playstyles in Civ3 (the Builder and the Warmonger), which actually adds to strategy (think SMAC).

---

It seems to me that the arguments in favor of changing the Military Academy are all over the place: "It helps the AI!", "Armies are too important!", "It creates more strategic decisions!". This only so solidifies my opinion that you Builders just want access to the Warmonger toys without doing any of the work (I'm only half-joking here).

Dominae

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Dominae
Like force them to be a Builder in order to get a tech lead and therefore a shot at SGLs?

The 'toys' a SGL offers (Great Wonders, research boost) can be achieved by other means. The MGL's main toy - armies - can't.

This only so solidifies my opinion that you Builders just want access to the Warmonger toys without doing any of the work (I'm only half-joking here).

This may be a crucial point. You seem to imply that the typical builder who ends with zero MGL's per game hasn't engaged in warfare worthy of mention, and that serious warmongering offers a fair chance at at least one - and normally more - MGL's. This is contrary to my experience. For me, it is quite common to engage in a number of limited wars, eventually to control about 40% of a standard map's land mass, to destroy about two other civs in the course of events and still to end up with no MGL at all. In other words, getting armies is a matter of chance even for the hybrid player, and this is what - in my opinion - needs to be changed.