AU Mod: Resource Scarcity

[Catt]

Originally posted by nbarclay


How often have you actually seen two AIs out of seven killed at the hands of other AIs without human involvement? I don't recall any games offhand where I saw that happen, but I'm not positive. Of course between my military aggressiveness and my research aggressiveness (which tends to lead to shorter games), I probably don't give the AIs quite as much chance to have two killed by other AIs as a lot of players do.

Though asked of Tall Stranger, I'll answer on my experience that I've seen it happen in all three of my most recent games (standard proviso regarding limited sample), including AU 501. I'm inclined to say I've seen it very often since C3C, but my memory isn't sufficient to say with certainty. I've been playing mostly peaceful games and so not taking out a civ that I might otherwise have, increasing available targets for other AIs. In my AU 501 game, the Russians destroyed the Egyptians in the early middle ages and France exited, courtesy of the Mayans, in the later game (Industrial, IIRC). Each of the other games turned out not to be an archipelago map (making exists more likely) and I had at least two civs gone by the mid-Middle Ages. In my last two games, I entered the Modern Ages with only 3 AI opponents and didn't arrange an AI exit myself.

Now, if those monstrous AI empires would give in to the lure of Communism rather than Fascism, there'd be an even more engaging late game (purely subjective desire, obviously, and OT on this thread).

Catt

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by nbarclay


How often have you actually seen two AIs out of seven killed at the hands of other AIs without human involvement? I don't recall any games offhand where I saw that happen, but I'm not positive. Of course between my military aggressiveness and my research aggressiveness (which tends to lead to shorter games), I probably don't give the AIs quite as much chance to have two killed by other AIs as a lot of players do.

Nathan

While I certainly don't have hard numbers, I'd say pretty regularly. I often recieve word by the mid-Middle Ages that at least one AI civ has been destroyed by another. Nor does one necessarily need to be destroyed. A 2-3 city rump Civ will rarely have a strategic resource and will usually be so far behind in tech that it can't trade for the late-stage strategic resources you are concerned about. I'd say this situation (a dominant AI with one or occasionally two meager "client states") is common on the randomly generated maps I've played.

[Madine]

I wonder if the tendency of AI to kill AI is due more to diplomacy behavior.

It seems to me in the last 2 games I played that the AI is less likely to offer concessions for peace in situations when the AI is outnumbered and losing the war. This would mean that the AI would fight until it was hopelessly defeated, and it this point the weaker AI would be easily eliminated by the stronger AI.

[alexman]

Any objections to putting the following proposal under consideration?

-> Increase the frequency of coal (from 120 to 160 in the editor), which is the first resource that gives the builder real trouble. Iron is also necessary for railroads, but it already has a higher appearance ratio than Coal.

-> Increase the frequency of rubber (120 to 160), aluminum (120 to 160), and uranium (100 to 140), which are necessary for the spaceship.

-> Leave the rest of the strategic reources and luxuries as they are in C3C.

[Aqualung71]

Coal is an economic resource, for building RR and coal plants. Rubber is a military resource for pretty much any premium ground unit from Infantry onwards.

While I'm indifferent, I'd suggest we increase one but not the other. Probably more important to increase Coal. Without wanting to go into the whole strategic value arguments, a lack of Rubber will be annoying but may give the player more interesting choices

Uranium, Aluminium, yeh why not?

But what about Oil? I recently played a game without a ready Oil source and it really sucked! No Tanks, no modern ships, no bombers. A late game without Oil is tough.

[Risa]

Increasing frequency of coal is reasonable. We have seen so many otherwise strong AIs fell easily under player's iron fist just because they didn't have railroad to boost their production and therefore military.

But rubber is another matter entirely. With enough number of guerillas and TOWs, AIs can defend theirselves reasonably well. The most recent example is Chemical Ollie's game in AU 502. As for player, the process of capturing his first rubber (or oil) is so exciting and funny! Moreover, the best opportunity window of capturing rubber is roughly the same time as ToE race. Some miscalculation might result player lose the race. That is a good thing with regard to a game of strategical choice, IMO.

I don't have much experience of dealing with uranium or aluminum, so I've mo idea their frequencies are enough or not.

[alexman]

The logic behind increasing the frequency of rubber but not oil was to allow easier access to all spaceship parts. (The spaceship does not require oil but it requires rubber).

Oil allows cool offensive toys, but a builder can survive without it (unless attacked by a warmonger with access to oil, of course )

[alexman]

The following proposal is now under consideration:

1. Yes/No: Increase the frequency of coal from 120 to 160 in the editor.
2. Yes/No:
   Increase the frequency of rubber from 120 to 160.
   Increase the frequency of aluminum from 120 to 160.
   Increase the frequency of uranium from 100 to 140.

Voting in 1 week.

[Risa]

Frequencies of spaceship resources shouldn't be changed, IMO, until we draw some conclusion from AU503, which is supposed to address this issue.

[Theseus]

YY

Edit: To elucidate a little bit, I feel that the resource changes, whether purposeful or not, have been interesting. Again, however, I like to go sloooow... so dialing back some towards PTW levels makes sense to me. In terms of the broad arguments laid out in this thread, I think 1) the development of KAIs is a good thing, and typically happens in the early to mid-game, so let's leave the earlier resources alone for now if in fact that has an impact, 2) coal is to much of a make-or-break resource, especially for the AIs, so the proposed increase is good, and 3) I have no problem with Nathan's stance that the late-game should provide a not-too-difficult path towards an SS victory... the current resource levels overly require non-builderish action.

[alexman]

Originally posted by alexman

1. Yes/No: Increase the frequency of coal from 120 to 160 in the editor.
2. Yes/No:
   Increase the frequency of rubber from 120 to 160.
   Increase the frequency of aluminum from 120 to 160.
   Increase the frequency of uranium from 100 to 140.

Time to vote. AU mod panel, you have 48 hours.

My vote:
1. Yes
2. No for now. I would like to gain some more experience playing as a builder with the spaceship resources as they are now, to see if a change is really necessary.

[nbarclay]

Yes to both.

[lockstep]

1: YES
2: YES

(I want to be able to trade for spaceship resources, and this is nearly impossible in C3C.)

[Stuie]

1. No.
2. No.

[Nor Me]

1. No, although I can see why this might be a good idea.
2. No. I only ever seem to lose the space race to KAIs and this wouldn't help them.