The Military Academy

[Dominae]

MGLs and Armies are not meant to be commonplace in the game. That's why their appearance ratio was designed to be so low (just like SGLs).


Dominae

[lockstep]

OTOH, the typical warmonger will get a good deal more MGL's than the typical builder will get SGL's.

[korn469]

Ok I did some testing, by setting the Military Academy to build an army every turn it will despite the army limit, so do you think that is a bug or design feature?

[Theseus]

In synthesizing the arguments here, as well as I can, I reduce it all to the following:

* Will providing the ability to build Armies just from building the MA help the AI? No.

* Does *leaving* the current structure force a significant strategic choice onto the player? Yes. Is that good? Yes.

Leave it alone, for now at least.

[Stuie]

Having read and digested all the arguments for and against a change to the Military Academy, I now have to agree with Theseus: if the feature is forcing a strategic choice on the player, then it must be a good thing. So leaving it alone for now would probably be a good idea; if it appears problematic going forward, we can revisit the issue later.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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

How'd you make armies better?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by korn469
Ok I did some testing, by setting the Military Academy to build an army every turn it will despite the army limit, so do you think that is a bug or design feature?

I wouldn't call it quite a bug. It is merely an inintentional consequence of a combination of settings that were never intended to be together

[korn469]

How'd you make armies better?

I added some bonus hitpoints to armies

[alexman]

As there have been no new proposals, is it time to consider the proposal to remove the victorious army requirement from the Military Academy as "under consideration" before voting next week?

I think so.

[Dominae]

Yup.

[lockstep]

Yes.

[ducki]

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

if eschewing warfare was the way to get SGLs, I'd be with you on that.

This is what the game is missing IMO. Everything is too accessible in Civ3

and if the builder had semi-exclusive access to a Mil. Acad. analog, I'd feel the semi-exclusivity of Mil. Acad. was balanced.

As it stands, the builder doesn't have an exclusive toy like the warmonger. In fact, beyond Monarch, I'd venture to guess warmongering is a key to getting tech parity, and therefore a branch lead, and therefore, access to what is supposed to be the "builder's toy"

All I'm looking for is balance. If you think the warmongers need an exclusive toy, why then do you not think the builder should have one? Peaceful building offers nothing that can't be achieved via Warmonger building, save, perhaps, a bit of extra goodwill at the UN. Hardly a balance for the power of the army.

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

I disagree. I think it encourages playing grey, not strategic choice.

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

Actually, two points:
1. I was pretty sure it had been shown during Vanilla and PtW that this change DID help the AI, that it DID build armies. If it didn't, how/why did it remain in the mod for so long?
2. I love warfare. I'm still very grey, though. I don't just war so I can get access to the Warmonger toys. What I would like, and why I support this change - as much as my honest belief that we originally added it based on testing showing it helped the AI - is that it has no builder analog. Having MGLs and SGLs merely balances out the great leader situation. Not the exclusivity factor.

Here's a thought. This would make me happy and likely dissipate the whole issue.
Give an SGL exclusive opportunity to lead to a building. No, it's not semi-controllable the way MGL generation is. No, it shouldn't be something as silly as that little science boost.
Yes, it should be something significant, even if it is only the ability to create an army.

That still doesn't dissolve my support for this based on old tests showing it helped the AI, but it does remove my dislike for the requirement based on exclusivity of strategy.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by ducki
1. I was pretty sure it had been shown during Vanilla and PtW that this change DID help the AI, that it DID build armies. If it didn't, how/why did it remain in the mod for so long?

I was the one who argued in favour of this feature when creation of the AU mod started in August 2002. After Theseus supported my suggestion (see the quote in my first post), it was adopted for version 1.00 and has been in the AU mod ever since. After the changes introduced in C3C, I was hesitant to promote the Mil. Ac. change again, but decided that it was still in order after the new army bonuses were revealed.

As far as I know, there haven't been any thorough tests regarding AI behaviour with this change. I can only pass on my personal experience that once this feature was adopted in korn469's blitz mod (this was in December 2001, when Civ3's v1.16 editor introduced the 'requires victorious army' flag), I witnessed a notedly increase in the number of AI armies.

2. I love warfare. I'm still very grey, though. I don't just war so I can get access to the Warmonger toys.

Here's a thought. This would make me happy and likely dissipate the whole issue.
Give an SGL exclusive opportunity to lead to a building ... Yes, it should be something significant, even if it is only the ability to create an army.

I'm afraid Great Leader effects are pretty much hardcoded.

[nbarclay]

Do others feel like AI armies were more common under the AU Mod than under vanilla PtW? Personally, I ran into them only rarely under either set of rules (and certainly never enough to get a feeling that an AI was using a military academy to crank them out), but my playstyle may not lend itself to AIs' having "good opportunities" to build armies as well as playstyles with slower tech paces would.

I would be strongly against increasing the power of SGLs even if someone could find a way to do so. When and whether a player gets them is too much a matter of chance, and the ability for players to improve their odds is too limited. (For example, in Dominae's Chasqui Scout game, I was setting the tech pace in one branch or another of the tech tree through most of the game and held a significant tech lead overall, but I didn't get a SGL until at least around halfway through the industrial era.)

Nathan

[bongo]

Originally posted by 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.

Just felt the need to support this idea. Leave the current MA as is and add a 'Modern Military Academy', available to everyone, but later and at twice the price.