The Military Academy

[nbarclay]

I don't think there's a way to make two military academies mutually exclusive, is there? If not, civs that can build the original would end up with two military academies instead of one, and thus with the ability to crank out even larger numbers of armies (as long as they have enough cities to allow them). If the two could be made mutually exclusive, I could go for the idea, but if I'm right that they can't, I see too many problems.

Nathan

[bongo]

A civ with two MA's would be a real killer, I didn't think that far

I don't know the editor well enough to provide a workaround, perhaps triple the price of the MA, make it available to everyone and use the 'successfu army' flag to bring the price back to normal for those who had an successful army? sounds impossible....

[ZargonX]

I don't know the editor well enough to provide a workaround, perhaps triple the price of the MA, make it available to everyone and use the 'successfu army' flag to bring the price back to normal for those who had an successful army? sounds impossible....

Unfortunately, this is impossible, within the limitations of the editor. I think this is going to have to be resolved through reassigning the associated tech, because, as was stated, having two Mil. Acd. available would both be what I consider a major change, and very unbalancing.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I don't think there's a way to make two military academies mutually exclusive, is there? ... If the two could be made mutually exclusive, I could go for the idea, but if I'm right that they can't, I see too many problems.

One thing that comes close is to make the first Mil. Ac. obsolete with the tech (e.g. Fascism) that allows for the second one. But this creates the problem that any AI who had built the first Mil. Ac. would not 'know' to avoid the tech that makes it obsolete.

What I'd be interested in: Aside from the question if a small wonder should be moved to another age in the AU mod - would one Military Academy that is available without a victorious army, but only with Fascism result in a better balance between 'builders' and 'warmongers'?

[ducki]

There seems to be at least some level of concensus that this change did not, does not, and will not help the AI.

If true, (and in light of my current game), I withdraw my support for opening the MA up to all. Should later research show it would, in fact, help the AI, I'm sure we'd all agree that a reevaluation is in order.

For now, though, I'll trust in Theseus and Dominae that the AI does not benefit.

[lockstep]

After some pondering I'm still for a Military Academy that doesn't require a victorious army. However, to evaluate if this change is really suitable for the AU mod, I feel the need to adress at least three questions:

1. Do C3C-style armies provide a crucial advantage when waging war against a player or AI without the ability to build them?
2. How many Scientific and/or Military Great Leaders is a player likely to get under standard game settings if he/she adopts builder, hybrid or warmonger strategies? (As a first approximation to define these playstiles I suggest to use the percentage of landmass owned by the player at the end of a successful game.)
3. To what extent does the AI use a freely accessible Military Academy to build armies that it couldn't built under stock rules? (I'm assuming here that 'more armies' means 'more competitive AI'.)

Questions no. 1 and 2 should be resolved in a while when there's more familiarity with C3C's gameplay. I will read the DAR's of the forthcoming AU games specifically with these aspects in mind (besides also playing at least some of the games). Question no. 3 can't be adressed without implementing the change to the Military Academy at least on a trial basis or in some kind of test scenario.

[lockstep]

Judging from On the Utility and Use of Armies, the tentative answer to question no.1 - do armies provide a crucial advantage in C3C - is 'YES'. These are my favourite quotes:

Originally posted by radegast
With the extra movement point and blitz, armies become over-powered against the AI, it simply has no response or defence.

Originally posted by nbarclay
I'm another one that didn't have much interest in armies prior to C3C but loves them now ... Before, I didn't regard building a Military Academy to crank out armies as all that big a deal. But now it's a very definite priority ...

As the beta v1.12 patch was released yesterday, I'd like to gain some experience about army relevance / leader frequency subject to the 'rectified' AI performance (i.e. with the correct amount of gold at the AI's disposal). In order to do that, I ask the panel to postpone the vote on the Military Academy change for another week.

[Theseus]

Fair enough... good weekend to experiment.

[nbarclay]

Lockstep, there is a huge difference between providing a useful advantage and providing a crucial one. The Military Academy itself costs the shields of about four conventional military units, and each army built with it costs the shields of about another four. (That's before considering the units needed to populate the army.) It may be possible that there are situations where a civ with armies would win a war where one with extra conventional units instead would lose, but my expectation is that such situations would be exceedingly rare. (Consider, especially, the power of artillery-based tactics - something else the AI has "no response or defence" against when properly executed.)

Also consider the fact that armies do not generate leaders, so a civ fighting with conventional forces instead of armies will tend to catch up at least a little in armies as it generates leaders. (That is especially true with tanks and MAs, since their blitz capability makes it relatively easy for them to become elite.) So it's not as if a civ without a Military Academy is doomed never to get a chance to use armies.

As I wrote in one of the messages you quoted, I do regard the military academy as a priority now because I like the power armies provide under the C3C rules. But would I feel like my ability to mount an effective offenseive was critically impaired if I had to do without it in a game? Most emphatically not. Thus, I characterize the Military Academy as providing an advantage but not a "crucial advantage."

Nathan

[alexman]

This has been three weeks under consideration.
Time to vote!
The panel has 48 hours.

[Theseus]

No.

[ZargonX]

Despite the builder in me, I must vote no.

[Dominae]

No.

[Stuie]

No.

[lockstep]

Although this will make the 'No' official:

Yes.

(Actually 'Experimental', as nbarclay would probably put it.)

I'm still in the middle of playing epic games with the v1.12 patch (five games finished so far), but gaining experience about leaders and armies is much more tedious than I hoped it would be. Preliminary insights:

• When using a 'hybrid' or a 'warmonger' approach, it is likely to get at least one Military Great Leader, although this may not happen until the end of the industrial age (tank warfare).
• I don't have evidence so far regarding a pure 'builder' approach - if I tried this route, a neighboring AI with the Statue of Zeus always forced me to do some serious warmongering.
• Scientific Great Leaders seem to be very rare (as one would assume due to the 3%-chance) - they are certainly more uncommon than MGL's for 'hybrid' players.
• An ancient/medieval MGL - and therefore the early possibility to build the Military Academy - may result in steamrolling the AI with about the maximum number of armies in the late industrial age.
• With the Pentagon also in place, the +100% attack factor of 4-unit armies (plus their movement bonus) make them vastly superior compared to individual units.
• So far, I haven't seen any AI army.

I'll play a few more games using a 'builder' approach under stock rules. After that, I'll use a modified biq-file with a freely accessible Mil. Ac. and watch out if the AI is more inclined to build armies.