AU mod: The Statue of Zeus

[ducki]

The main idea of moving it to a later tech was not reducing the number of AC produced - that was a happy side effect.
The point alex or was it nathan made was that at the time it comes(Math) it's a do or die thing.
By moving it later, we postpone the building and leave more room for both player and AI to finish expanding and build up an ivory-conquering-force or have a city able to produce it or have a trade network in place.
_Seems_ more strategic to me than the haves vs. have-nots situation as it currently stands.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Risa
What about increasing the cost of SoZ to 500 shields? Even compared to ToA (the only ancient wonder that costs 500 shields under stock rules), SoZ provides larger benefits.

IMO, increasing shield costs by a factor of 2.5 is too much for the scope of the AU mod.

Originally posted by ducki
The main idea of moving it to a later tech was not reducing the number of AC produced - that was a happy side effect ... By moving it later, we postpone the building and leave more room for both player and AI to finish expanding and build up an ivory-conquering-force or have a city able to produce it or have a trade network in place.

I see ... it is still sort of a big change for a medium effect, but it is sufficiently different from the change to AC's spawn frequency. So I'll include it in the changes 'under consideration' - hopefully no one will accuse me of being fickle and/or premature. (And at least it's a proposal that does not change the age when a wonder becomes available. )

BTW, in my opinion moving the SoZ from Mathematics to Construction a) could be combined with a shield cost increase etc. b) does not dispose of the ivory requirement issue.

[Risa]

Originally posted by lockstep

IMO, increasing shield costs by a factor of 2.5 is too much for the scope of the AU mod.

But it's still within the range of ancient wonder's cost.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Risa
But it's still within the range of ancient wonder's cost.

I should have been more specific ... To me, the problem of an ancient wonder costing 500 shields (i.e. of the Temple of Artemis) is that even high-shield cities will need about 25 turns to build it, and the typical AI city will need far more turns. Any AI civ that tries for the ToA and fails will face a big overall setback just because of the shield loss of one city. Smaller AI civs may be even doomed because of that. I don't know if this is a sufficient reason to reduce ToA's shield costs, but IMO it's a sufficient reason not to mod SoZ's shield costs up to 500.

[Dominae]

Re: Proposal under consideration

Originally posted by lockstep
The following proposal is under consideration:

1. Yes/No: Remove the Statue of Zeus' ivory requirement.
2. EDIT: Yes/No: Move the SoZ from Mathematics to Construction.
3. Yes/No: Increase SoZ's shield cost from 200 to 300.
4. Yes/No: Make the SoZ produce Ancient Cavalry only every 7 (instead of every 5) turns.
5. Yes/No: Remove Ancient Cavalry's +1 hitpoint bonus.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Yes.

[Dominae]

Sorry I took so long to reply:

Originally posted by EnduringBlue
Dominae, I wanted to get your take on this:

Since ivory has been so rare on my C3C maps, I don't think that changing its status would have an impact on normal strategy in regards to net access to luxury resources.

A very interesting idea! Perhaps you could test it out? It's definitely a somewhat drastic change, but if it works out great we would need to at least consider it.


Dominae

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Dominae
A very interesting idea! Perhaps you could test it out? It's definitely a somewhat drastic change, but if it works out great we would need to at least consider it.

Problems of changing ivory to a strategic resource that cross my mind:

1. Since a resource can't be luxury and strategic at the same time, you either have to introduce a new eight luxury (probably tobacco) or cope with an even greater luxury scarcity in C3C.
2. The AI is likely to pay for ivory even after it has become useless (i.e. the SoZ has been built).

Note: In my experience, ivory is not generally scarce. Sometimes, it's right beside my starting location, sometimes quite a distance away, most of the time not available at all. Pretty much like the other seven luxury resources.

[lockstep]

Re: Re: Proposal under consideration

Originally posted by Dominae
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Yes.

A premature vote!

... I guess you didn't need time to considerate the issue anymore. Should be allright (i.e. in the spirit of the voting rules), but the voting period will still last for (at least one week) + (24 hours).

EDIT: grammar

[Dominae]

Originally posted by lockstep


Problems of changing ivory to a strategic resource that cross my mind:

1. Since a resource can't be luxury and strategic at the same time, you either have to introduce a new eight luxury (probably tobacco) or cope with an even greater luxury scarcity in C3C.
2. The AI is likely to pay for ivory even after it has become useless (i.e. the SoZ has been built).

The first point is not really a problem; you just swap a Luxury resource for a Strategic one. The seond point is, admittedly, rather annoying.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by lockstep

And predictability of which civs are likely to build a specific wonder is a good thing? I want to play an epic game, not sort of a pre-scripted scenario.

In comparison games, I view similarity of elements beyond a player's control as a good thing. Similarity of such elements is, after all, why we play the same scenario.

As long as more than one civ has access to ivory, as is usually the case, the question of who will build the SoZ is not entirely predictable from a player's perspective. Similarly, if a player does not know who has access to ivory, the question of who will build the SoZ is predictable only to the extent that a player can be reasonably sure that a particular civ does not have it. So I would hardly characterize the ivory requirement as turning a map into a "pre-scripted scenario."

I regard as bad gameplay - wonder availability by luck of the draw - what you regard as matter of taste. 'Objective fact' is something we both should strive for.

Do you regard the need for iron to build swordsmen, or horses to build horsemen, as bad gameplay (or, more properly, bad game design)? That is unit availability by the luck of the draw. How about the need for coal and iron both within the radius of the same city to build an Iron Works? That is small wonder availability by the luck of the draw. There are ample precedents in Civ for situations where resource availability makes something available to one player but not to another.

Granted, the situation with ivory and the SoZ is not precisely analogous to anything else in civ. But then again, is anything else in Civ 3 analogous to the need for iron and coal in the same city radius to build the Iron Works (and for only being able to build the Iron Works in such a city)? It can be argued that the Iron Works provides a clear precedent for particular things with unique requirements.

I recognize quite well your feeling of, "Hey, this isn't how things are supposed to work" in connection with the ivory requirement for the SoZ because I felt it myself at first. But instead of writing the idea off as something horrible, I started looking for positive aspects that might offset the negatives. Over time, I've about decided that having one wonder that works differently from the others is more interesting than having yet another ancient wonder that every civ in the game (or at least every AI) is competing for would be.

Nathan

[Risa]

Originally posted by lockstep

I should have been more specific ... To me, the problem of an ancient wonder costing 500 shields (i.e. of the Temple of Artemis) is that even high-shield cities will need about 25 turns to build it, and the typical AI city will need far more turns. Any AI civ that tries for the ToA and fails will face a big overall setback just because of the shield loss of one city. Smaller AI civs may be even doomed because of that. I don't know if this is a sufficient reason to reduce ToA's shield costs, but IMO it's a sufficient reason not to mod SoZ's shield costs up to 500.

Wow, that is very convincing.

Under stock rules, failing on ToA is very disastrous indeed, because no other wonder costs 500 shields, the 600-shield group (Sun Tzu's, Leo's and Sistine) are likely in the future, and 400-shield group are either completed long ago (Pyramids) or probably not available yet (Great Library).

However, SoZ is different from ToA. Every civ can compete on ToA, but only 2 or 3 civs have the chance to build SoZ. That is, only 1 or 2 civs may be hurt by it. Plus, now that SoZ and ToA have the same cost, when a civ fails to build SoZ, ToA becomes a fine backup. (Just like the relation among Sun Tzu's, Leo's and Sistine.)

Over all, SoZ worthes 500 shields.

Edit: grammar

[nbarclay]

One problem with the idea of moving the SoZ to Construction is that it would mean two wonders - SoZ and the Great Wall - tied to the same tech.

[ducki]

Well, I thought of that, and would have said Currency, but that just doesn't "make sense". No biggie. I have no problem having my ideas shot down, mostly because I toss them out there in the hopes that someone else with more knowledge will see some tiny spark in there that will work. I also realize most of my suggestions are borderline too radical, but since I'm not on the panel and don't expect any of them to be implemented as I present them, I can think bigger and just assume someone will trim them back to fit the philosophy if they are "good".

I can't wait to see how the mod shapes up. I'm itching to go.

[alexman]

Re: Proposal under consideration

Originally posted by lockstep
The following proposal is under consideration:

1. Yes/No: Remove the Statue of Zeus' ivory requirement.
2. EDIT: Yes/No: Move the SoZ from Mathematics to Construction.
3. Yes/No: Increase SoZ's shield cost from 200 to 300.
4. Yes/No: Make the SoZ produce Ancient Cavalry only every 7 (instead of every 5) turns.
5. Yes/No: Remove Ancient Cavalry's +1 hitpoint bonus.

I marked the proposal under consideration, but I'm not sure we should vote on all these changes at once. For example, what if someone agrees that the Wonder needs weakening, likes all the above changes, but thinks that making all of them would weaken it too much?

Perhaps we can vote in two stages. First we vote on whether the above changes would be independently acceptable (without considering them in relation to each other), and then (after some discussion) we can vote yes/no on a specific combination of changes.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by nbarclay
One problem with the idea of moving the SoZ to Construction is that it would mean two wonders - SoZ and the Great Wall - tied to the same tech.

I don't regard techs that enable multiple wonders as a problem. Under stock rules, this applies to two techs - Fission (enables United Nations & Manhattan Project) and Genetics (enables Cure for Cancer & Longevity), and so far I can't recall any complaints about these techs. (There are complaints about Longevity under stock rules, but for very different reasons. )

However, on second thought there is a potential problem with moving SoZ from Mathematics to Construction. Until PtW, the AI was very reluctant to research Mathematics (a fact that allowed the human player to research this tech at a slow pace and trade it for a lot of AI techs), and former AU mod versions included various attempts to make Mathematics more attractive for the AI. C3C's new SoZ wonder - that comes with Mathematics - may have disposed of this issue, and I'd rather not re-introduce it by moving the SoZ to another tech.

Do you regard the need for iron to build swordsmen, or horses to build horsemen, as bad gameplay (or, more properly, bad game design)? That is unit availability by the luck of the draw. How about the need for coal and iron both within the radius of the same city to build an Iron Works? That is small wonder availability by the luck of the draw.

About the Iron Works: Yes, it is available by luck of the draw, but as this (small) wonder provides no decisive advantage, I can live with that.

Unit availability by strategic resources (and therefore in a sense 'luck of the draw') may be a crucial point. I remember that a lot of the vocal criticism of vanilla Civ3 two years ago focused upon the new resource requirements and how this 'unbalanced' the game. I didn't share this opinion then, and also do not now. Yes, horses and iron may be rare on a given map (and more so in C3C), but in my experience their nature as strategic resources (which are spread over the map) makes it possible to grab at least one of them most of the time. Contrary to that, the nature of ivory as luxury resource will ensure that it is clumped in one or two places, and therefore frequently will be grabbed by an AI civ while I can nothing do about it. Combined with a wonder like the SoZ, this is - in my opinion - too much luck of the draw.

I recognize quite well your feeling of, "Hey, this isn't how things are supposed to work" in connection with the ivory requirement for the SoZ because I felt it myself at first. But instead of writing the idea off as something horrible, I started looking for positive aspects that might offset the negatives.

I honestly tried to look for positive aspects. It was somewhat satisfying to archer-rush an AI border city that had ivory within its radius, and then use a palace pre-build to finish the SoZ a few turns later. But the first time an AI civ had the only source of ivory near its capital, built the SoZ and used Ancient Cavalry to sneak-attack the only neighboring civ (me), I decided that this was not my idea of fun.