AU501 - Post-game comments

[ducki]

I think the lack of AI armies is probably accentuated on a 'pelago map, where it's much harder for them to wage war "effectively".

Dang, wrong button.
I wonder if there's some way to give the AI's some attribute, like an AI-only-researchable/starting tech that allows them to build a Military Academy... you know, like there's the different research paths in that one Conquest and if you choose side A you don't get to research on side B? Or am I remembering that one incorrectly?

[vmxa1]

The AI would have problems with armies in this map as it would would not be able to load full armies in ships for a long time.

Humans could drop an army with only 1 unit it in and then get where they are going and add units from another ship. That tactic is not available to the AI. When 3 unit transports show, you could have 2 unit armies and then fill. So an island map would hurt their use of armies, even if they did want to use them.

[Aeson]

Aeson, do you have any views on the possibility that claiming remote islands, especially if they are not defended strongly, increases the risk of being attacked by an AI?

Not enough playtime in C3C to really tell. In Civ/PtW I'm pretty sure that it didn't have any effect. The AI would go for the easiest target, and you could ping pong them all over the map if you want to take advantage of the fact.

I would guess that you are being hit in a weak area by an AI already determined to go to war with you, and that not having that area wouldn't lessen the chance. If you have any saves around the time of those invasions perhaps you can gift the 'target' city away and check if the AI still attacks in the same timeframe?

Another thing that may very well play into account is resources (hidden or exposed). The AI has always valued cities based in large part on if there are any resources nearby.

So if the AI is going to go to war with you, I'd expect that they will strike somewhere poorly defended and of value. I use this reasoning in all my games to predict (or even force) landing sites. What exactly they value isn't something I'm sure of, but in all the cases I can think of it's resources and/or your capitol when everything else is equal.

In my game the Russians landed 5 groups over the course of the game. 3 of the landings were next to an Iron city (the Iron on the near West island, which isn't exactly an efficient target for them), and the other two were next to my Hittite Saltpeter and Incense city (much more expedient a target). In all 5 cases those cities were 'undefended'. The English and Maya both landed next to my coal city on the far West island. I had kept my Oil city garrisoned, while almost everything else was empty most of the game, and nobody ever tried to land on the Oil island.

[alexman]

Re: Re: Re: AU501 - Post-game comments

Originally posted by Dominae

Could someone please tell me why the OCN and research rates were different from a typical Large-size map in this scenario?

I would love to figure that out too. I made exactly the same mistake in my test map in the pre-game thread.

Perhaps it has something to do with generating the map and then importing it into another bic. The game might not know how to figure out the size of an imported map (what would it do with a 100x130 map?) so it might just assume it's standard.

The safest solution for the scenario maker might be to change the properties (OCN, tech rate, etc) of all map sizes to be the same as the map size you really want.

As for Armies, the AI builds them even more rarely in C3C than it did in PTW. It must be a bug and I hope it will be fixed in a patch. Otherwise we will definitely need to address the issue in the AU mod.

[Theseus]

Re: Are Armies too strong?

Originally posted by Thriller
I haven't started a new thread on this since some people are still playing, but perhaps we can open some discussion here.

I noticed that a lot of players (including myself) are building large numbers of armies, that make invasions relatively one dimensional (or two dimensional....as in, artillery + 2 armies = captured city). Conversely, I can't recall seeing one AI army in my AU501 game, and although clearly the AI does use them, it doesn't seem to place any higher importance on them given the huge boost in Army power in C3C.

So my question is, are Armies too powerful and if so, is it within the brief of AU to consider a mod to tone down this power (if possible, that is) which in my opinion gives the human player a significant and often game-winning advantage? I got the impression from reading DAR's that often the battle objective seemed to be generaing an MGL for building unbeatable Armies, rather than the overall defeat of enemy forces or capture of cities.

Comments?

There doesn't seem to be ANY Armies built by AI civs in C3C...

[vmxa1]

I want to say I saw a few, but I never fought any, but they were not exactly common in PTW either.

[Aqualung71]

I've seen the AI build armies in C3C, but not often and certainly not efficiently, nor are they used well.

Since there seems to be some interest in addressing this issue for an AU Mod, I'll start a new thread.

[Theseus]

Re: AU501 - Post-game comments

[Sorry, still catching up, and though I've read this thread I should do so again, and in the interim will prolly be repetitive.]

1. What did you learn about the power of Seafaring?

Heck, use it more, More, MORE, for all it's got when it's got. I didn't stay focused on it... dumb me. Meaning?

* Early on for exploration, obviously. I had Dromons AND the GLight before 1000BC, and kept'em all home for the attack on Japan, when I should have been using their five-moves to find the rest of the AI civs.

* I screwed around over the weekend with a TOTAL commitment to Dromon-power. Ah, again, remember, with the GLight too... 40 five-move Dromons are, er, formidable. I mean really really evil: Wanna be the first to just about EVERY tech in latter Ancient Era and most of the Middle Age? No problemo, bombard EVERY coastal tile of the tech challengers! Wanna spark some wars? Bombard coastal luxuries. Etc etc. Hell, just for fun, I set 40 on auto-bombard against Satsuma for 3 turns (eastern hill city at 8 pop), and redlined everything.

* If you DO get the GLight, remember that it also provides for waaaay early resource trading... USE IT.

* I still can't believe that I, me, Me, ME, didn't go for a Marine gambit.

* A couple of us, in the late game, did the same thing on IC attacks: Land, capture, heal, load back up onto the transports, raze... rinse and repeat. Nasty.

* Stack'em high, and mix'em up. Use extra empty transporters as additional defenders. Look for natural opportunities for one-turn ferries (e.g., Magellan-enhanced Transports between Sumeria and Netherlands). Block chokepoints (e.g., between Byzantine and Japan).

2. About Civ3 in general?

I friggin' love this game. Oh, wait, I already knew that.

I got better at pumps. I have to remain more focused on the meta-game, and following through on mini-strategies. Slow war can be good. C3C Armies are over-powered. Going back to something Arrian taught me a long time ago: MUST HAVE 8 LUXURIES. Monarchy doesn't suck if you build enough good stuff, but I prolly shoulda tried being Commie, especially in the AU Mod.

I have to think more about my tech trading / gifting... I OWNED tech through the Industrial Corridor, but had somehow lost that edge midway into the Modern Era.

3. Was there anything you would have done differently?

Sheesh.

On the one hand, yes, a lot as I described in my DARs. I prolly should have won 300 or so years earlier, via domination.

On the other hand, nope, not in a macro sense... it was a lot of fun, and I got to play with some new toys (Modern Paras!), so no regrets.

4. Which civ gave you the most trouble, and why?

Well, like most, Japan was a bit more than I bargained for... but that was OK.

In review, definitely the Maya, but only cause I didn;t pay attention and deal with them sooner. CLOSE RACE, though!

5. What did you think of the Plague?

It should be less frequent, but worse. I mean, it's very cool as an "amuse bouche" but it really did not impact my game much at all. I think it should be on a level with Aeson's volcano misadventure (my heart still goes out to his poor lost troops )... the Plague should be just bad enough to make even an experienced player quail and consider starting over, but not do so.

6. How did the AU mod affect gameplay?

Loved it (except I played the version with messed up seafaring, but not the end of the world).

For the player, the changes that jumped out the most: the cost of Philosophy, the government tweaks, and and the Electronics change all really make one think; Cavs at 5a are just right; and the end game was a blast.

For the AI civs: we need to play many more games, but things are looking awfully promising. [/QUOTE]

7. Did you find any Easter eggs?!

The whale breeding grounds, certainly. I kept looking and looking at them... was there any kind of graphic design intended there?

I got quite lucky with an appearance of coal in Japan not too far into the Industrial Age, and considering the huge focus on resources in game design, play, and discussion (and knowing Dominae )... were the strategic resource disappearance chances tweaked?

[Cort Haus]

Re: Re: AU501 - Post-game comments

Originally posted by Theseus


* If you DO get the GLight, remember that it also provides for waaaay early resource trading... USE IT.

Inspired by AU501, I started a random large pelago map as the Byzantines, built the Lighthouse, and traded with everyone.

I was on the north end of a 'Cumberland Sausage' of a continent, with Abe to the south. I attacked him for his saltpeter just the other side of the border and 'pling!' all my trades were broken. The sole sea-lane to the outside world went through his borders so my trading rep was trashed in a single DoW!

Definitely worth remembering.

[Dominae]

Re: Re: AU501 - Post-game comments

Originally posted by Theseus
... the Plague should be just bad enough to make even an experienced player quail and consider starting over, but not do so.

It's not that powerful unless you edit it. In AU501, I reduced its potency.

I was a big fan of it during the beta (and still am). It's the kind of random effect that really improves TBS games: not too drastic (you're not going to win or lose due to the Plague), nonetheless requires careful consideration, and common enough to affect almost every game. Kind of like combat.

The whale breeding grounds, certainly. I kept looking and looking at them... was there any kind of graphic design intended there?

Nope.

I got quite lucky with an appearance of coal in Japan not too far into the Industrial Age, and considering the huge focus on resources in game design, play, and discussion (and knowing Dominae)... were the strategic resource disappearance chances tweaked?

Nope.


Dominae

[Theseus]

Damn, I was sure I had caught you out on a subtle Egg.

Great job, Dom.

[nbarclay]

Re: Re: Re: AU501 - Post-game comments

In reference to Plague

Originally posted by Dominae

I was a big fan of it during the beta (and still am). It's the kind of random effect that really improves TBS games: not too drastic (you're not going to win or lose due to the Plague), nonetheless requires careful consideration, and common enough to affect almost every game. Kind of like combat.

The chance element in combat is a direct result of strategic choices players make. Even though it is random, it is something players can understand and factor into their strategy, making the overall strategic depth of the game much greater than if the result of every combat could be determined in advance just by looking at the forces involved.

Resource scarcity is another random element that adds a lot of strategic depth because players can understand it and factor that understanding into their plans. Whole strategies are built around dealing with resource shortages and taking advantage of rivals' shortages.

But to the best of my knowledge, plague is so sporadic and random that there is little meaningful way of factoring it into one's strategies before the fact. If that is true, its role is far more as a spoiler to mess up strategies than as an element to factor in when formulating strategies. Some players might enjoy the challenge of adapting when a random event comes in out of nowhere and messes up their plans, but personally, I'm not one of them.

If there is more depth to Plague than just that people die all of a sudden for no known reason, please let us know. One Plague outbreak in one game doesn't exactly give me a lot of experience. But if there isn't a good bit more to it, I'll be happy if I never see another vulture circling in an AU game for the rest of my life.

[ducki]

Just out of curiousity, would you also say the same of disease from floodplains?

I sort of view Volcanoes, disease, resource distribution, etc, as part of the AI. These are all random and cannot be factored beforehand. Ultimately, the AI is not intended to be a competitor for victory, but an obstacle to be overcome by the player. Our work here has done a lot to make it more competitive, but the hardcoded bits still ensure that every obstacle to the player's victory is surmountable. It is supposed to make the player work, but not too hard. I didn't experience the plague, but abstracted, it's effect is similar to the other features listed and simply present an obstacle for the player to overcome.

I can appreciate those unforseeables are not your cup of tea, but I'd like to see them mutated and multiplied in a way only Soren could implement - I'd like to see things like FP disease, Plague, Volcanoes rewritten to be "personality" elements of certain AIs. Still semi-unpredictable, but leading to more depth.

Dang. I got distracted and forgot where I was going.
Anyway, the AI - in any game - is merely a surmountable obstacle thrown in the player's path and things like volcanoes, disease, plague, resource distribution, etc. are part of that obstacle course. I just wish they were more, well, realistic. Just got a harbor and initiated trade with a far off, backward civ? That SHOULD be a warning flag saying you might get the plague and you SHOULD have an opportunity to attempt to combat it. Or maybe that IS the trigger and we just don't know it?

Oops, distracted and rambling. Sorry.

[Theseus]

I'm sorta with ducki, although I don't think of random events as being an artefact of the AI, but rather of world map generation and certain game aspects being RNG-driven.

Nathan, do you complain when you get a sweet starting spot? Or a bad one for that matter? And, albeit C3C is horrible in this regard, what about resource distribution / disappearance?

Fundamentally, these are all things that are OUT OF YOUR CONTROL (and I knoooow how much you hate that. )

It occurs to me, btw, that in the course of AU 501 (this thread?) you have voiced disagreement with it being a) overly artificial and b) too random.

/me is just giving you grief.

[nbarclay]

The real key to strategic depth is to take a decision that would otherwise be a no-brainer and make players think about it. If a feature makes players think more, it adds strategic depth. If it just replaces one no-brainer with another, or if it causes damage without actually changing what is good strategy, no meaningful strategic depth is added.

The disease associated with flood plains adds a bit of strategic depth to the early game because players have to decide whether risking disease in order to get more food to grow cities faster is worth it. It makes the use of flood plains a little bit less of a no-brainer without going to the opposite extreme of making them essentially never worth using.

Volcanoes add some strategic depth by making the choice of where to build cities more complex. I still hate volcanoes with a passion because of the micromanagement headaches that come with them (they'd be a lot better in my opinion if they just destroyed tile improvements and potentially cities without creating pollution on top of that), but they do add some strategic depth to the game.

[Edit: In response to Theseus, starting position and resource availability also have enormous strategic depth associated with them, for reasons that I imagine are clear to everyone here.]

In contrast, I don't view plague as adding meaningful strategic depth. I finally thought to check the Civilopedia, and I'm not impressed. Walls make plague worse, so plague makes building walls less attractive. But adding a disadvantage to an improvement people rarely build in SP games anyhow is exactly the wrong direction to go to add strategic depth. The other factors that the Civilopedia says affect plague - city size, commerce, and being on a trade network - might penalize players for doing well but it's hard to see plague actually having a meaningful impact on players' choices regarding those matters. About the only way I can see plague having a significant impact on my playing style in SP is that I would be less likely to build the Great Wall in games where I knew plague was enabled, but even there, the Great Wall is not exactly on the top of my list of high-priority wonders to begin with.

With essentially no meaningful strategic depth added, that just leaves the fact that plauge can cause damage at essentially random times and players have to deal with that damage. I'm sure there are players who like that sort of thing, but as I said, I'm not one of them.

Nathan