AU mod: The Enkidu Warrior

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay


I don't view it as the AU's Mod's proper role to go around saying, "This civ doesn't need an uber UU, so weakening its UU is fine," or, "That civ needs a good UU, so lets make its UU better." Once we go down that path, the feel of the stock game goes completely out the window

Adding strategic options can take the form of making the weaker civs more attractive. This involves either making them better or by reducing the power of the stronger civs (yes, reducing the power of one thing can make another thing more attractive). There's no strategic decision in picking Agr. civs 19 times out of 20. When was the last time we saw someone post an example of a Mil. Archer-rush?

- not to mention all the time we'd have to spend trying to choose which civs "ought" to have how powerful UUs.

Civs with powerful traits ought not to have the most powerful UUs. Otherwise there are de facto most poweful civs, and that is bad for strategy/variety. Identifying these cases should not be too difficult because we can restrict our search to a subset of all the civs, namely the Agr. ones.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Aren't you forgetting about archers???

It is my understanding that the AI would build Archers in all four cases. And IIRC its Archer production would cut into both its Warrior and Swordsmen production (in a proportion I'm admittedly not too familiar with). So I do not think that the fact the AI would build Archers undermines my point.

[nbarclay]

Duplicate post

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

Adding strategic options to the game involves making the weaker civs more attractive. This involves either making them better or by reducing the power of the stronger civs (yes, reducing the power of one thing can make another thing more attractive). There's no strategic decision in picking Agr. civs 19 times out of 20. When was the last time we saw someone post an example of a Mil. Archer-rush?

Civs with powerful traits ought not to have the most powerful UUs. Otherwise there are de facto most poweful civs, and that is bad for strategy/variety. Identifying these cases should not be too difficult, because we can restrict our search to a subset of all the civs, namely the Agr. ones.

I could accept an argument that in MP games, the choice of civs can constitute a strategic option that needs to be balanced (at least within any given game). But in SP play, the choice of civs is a set-up option for determining the flavor of game a player wants, not an option of what strategy to use within the game. Players who want the power of an Agricultural/Commercial civ with Mounted Warriors can play the Iroquois, and players who view that combination as too powerful to be interesting can choose other civs. If we try to improve the balance, we actually reduce the range of choices players have available for what kind of game they want.

If we were the game's original designers, I would favor having the civs balanced against each other a bit better. But the advantages and disadvantages of such rebalancing are mixed enough that I don't think it's something the AU Mod should come in and do after the fact - especially since such changes would tend to undercut the desirability of using the Mod in the eyes of players who enjoy using powerful civs in their full glory.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by nbarclay
If we try to improve the balance, we actually reduce the range of choices players have available for what kind of game they want.

Exactly. There's no way I would want all civs to be middle-of-the-road. In that case, one wouldn't get much fun out of using the random civ choice.


What's this about making one civ stronger than another, Alexman? Somehow this resembles my argument to strenghten the Panzer, as it is a weak UU. I've been told this is not a change for the AU Mod, so I don't suppose, that seriously weakening an UU is either.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

It is my understanding that the AI would build Archers in all four cases. And IIRC its Archer production would cut into both its Warrior and Swordsmen production (in a proportion I'm admittedly not too familiar with). So I do not think that the fact the AI would build Archers undermines my point.

From my experience, I get the very strong impression that once archers are available, AIs would build very few warriors or Enkidus for offensive use. Players who don't recognize that fact (assuming it is indeed a fact) could easily come away from your post exaggerating the degree to which AIs would build warriors or Enkidus "until Medieval era."

[joncnunn]

IME, the AI is programed to only be building the best defender and best attacker at a time. (Defined using AI defense / AI flags and the largest offense & largest defense)

The AI will upgrade units that are located in tiles with Baracks as money becomes adviable. What it won't do that a human would is rotate the military force around for upgrades.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay


From my experience, I get the very strong impression that once archers are available, AIs would build very few warriors or Enkidus for offensive use. Players who don't recognize that fact (assuming it is indeed a fact) could easily come away from your post exaggerating the degree to which AIs would build warriors or Enkidus "until Medieval era."

Players who don't recognize your very strong impression...?

Anyway, I understand what you mean. But the point you're making is tangential to mine; if the AI does not have Iron, I would think 10-Shield Enkidus and Archers would be a strong alternative to 20-Shield Spearmen and Archers (or, 15-Shield Enkidus, Archers, and the possibility of a few Warriors for unit variety).

[Dominae]

Originally posted by joncnunn The AI will upgrade units that are located in tiles with Baracks as money becomes adviable. What it won't do that a human would is rotate the military force around for upgrades.

Nor aggressively take all the money out of the other civs' coffers in order to do mass upgrades.