AU 505 The Power of Fascism - After Game Comments

[Risa]

Originally posted by nbarclay
If human players could trade Steam Power in an even swap for Nationalism under conditions where all else is equal, I might view the good of making Nationalism a prerequisite for Industrialization as outweighing the harm. Changing a tech from being optional to being a prerequisite for a second-tier tech is a huge change from stock, but the benefit of helping AIs trade for Steam Power more quickly might be worth it.

But right now, Nationalism and Steam Power cost the same, making a straight-up trade impossible when all else is equal. Further, I suspect that AIs place a value on Nationalism for trade purposes that is significantly higher than its research cost alone would warrant. (Can anyone confirm or refute that?) Under those conditions, I would strongly oppose such a change because it would change an optional tech not just to being mandatory, but to being mandatory under conditions that favor the AIs. Yes, that's good from a "helping the AIs" perspective, but I consider the impact on the feel of the game too big a departure from stock.

I don't view it that way. Which is more often under current rules, researching Nationalism yourself or buying it from AI? It is latter in my experiences, and I guess your answer won't be much far from it. So research cost doesn't matter, it is trading value that we should consider about. The trading value will raise a bit due to it's now mandatory, not optional, but that is either acceptable or can be easily adjusted by alexman's magic tricks.
Of course, if you never buy Nationalism from AI (or at least until very late), that will be another story.

As for 'feel of stock', well, to me that anything tweaking techs will push the gaming feel away from stock. AU mod is already full of this, like Literature, Polytheism, Print Press, and so on. And that is very reason I drop stock rules: it makes AI performing smarter, thus increasing challenge.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Risa

I don't view it that way. Which is more often under current rules, researching Nationalism yourself or buying it from AI? It is latter in my experiences, and I guess your answer won't be much far from it. So research cost doesn't matter, it is trading value that we should consider about. The trading value will raise a bit due to it's now mandatory, not optional, but that is either acceptable or can be easily adjusted by alexman's magic tricks.
Of course, if you never buy Nationalism from AI (or at least until very late), that will be another story.

I think you're missing my point. In games where the tech race is close, making Nationalism a prerequisite for Industrialization would push players to trade to AIs for it sooner than we would otherwise. As long as we can make the trade on essentially even terms, that's probably not too big a deal. It helps the AIs, but only to the extent of counterbalancing an advantage we get from our different research path under the stock rules. But the situation would be a lot more painful if we have to trade for Nationalism on terms clearly favorable to the AIs, assuming we can even trade for it at all at the time we need or want it with how high the tech's trade value is.

In order to avoid pushing players to trade on clearly unfavorable terms, and perhaps setting up a situation where trades will be impractical because the AI wants so much in return, something would have to be done to reduce the trade value that AIs place on Nationalism. The most obvious way to do that would be to reduce its research cost, although there might be less obvious techniques that would at least help.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

The big difference between the stock and AU mod versions, of course, is that in the mod version the human player cannot stockpile Armies as quickly. But there is a simpler solution to avoid this: just make Armies cost more to build. By doubling or even tripling the cost, Armies would be a lot less cost-effective for what they do. I'm sure a happy ground can be found to avoid stockpiling but still make Armies a worthwhile thing to build if the game lasts well into the Industrial era.

We've already made armies a lot less cost-effective than stock with how badly we've nerfed armies in the AU Mod. If we'd go back to having the Military Academy build armies for 400 shields instead of spitting them out every so many turns, the cost/benefit ratio would probably be pretty good to make the question of whether to build armies or units an interesting one. With any higher cost, I'm highly skeptical that the AU Mod's reduced-value armies would be worth the cost, at least in conventional warfare. Even at cost 400, I'm not sure building armies would be worth it compared with building standard units.

As for the question of which way of making the Military Academy work is better, I don't see any overwhelming advantages to either approach (assuming the cost of building armies would be appropriate relative to their value - which it isn't in the stock rules). Normally, that would mean that the more conservative approach of keeping the "pay to build armies" model is the one we should follow. But once we get used to a change's being in the AU Mod, there is a strong argument that we should not undo the change without a good reason. Otherwise, we get into a feel of, "Which changes are in the AU Mod this week?" Further, a buiild-with-shields military academy with a completely different cost/benefit ratio from under the stock rules won't preserve the stock feel in any case. So I'm a bit more inclined to favor leaving things the way they are, although I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other.

[Modo44]

For me, the Military Academy did little to nothing. Produced like 3 Armies before I won the game. It came too late to make a difference. And since I can't put it in a high-production city to boost it's output, it's next to useless. Built it more for culture, than anything else. I see, that it is a good thing, that I can't have more "easy" armies, than the AI. But if I get 3 for the entire game, and they are much weaker, then I don't see the point of this small wonder. I should (and will) probably drop the Military Academy, and use the shields for normal units/improvements.

I think it's nerfed too much by the AU mod. I'd suggest moving it earlier. If it would become available while the AI still is in the game, and before the human has a big tech advantage (or is rapidly catching up!), that might tip the balance. They there'd be time to get some more Armies, so the building would make sense. Also, the AI could use it's Armies against the human some more (getting the Heroic Epic, btw.).

[Risa]

Well, you miss my point. It is always clearly favorable to AIs, stock rule, AU mod, or else. In other words, Nationalism is much more valuable than other tier 1 techs, except it has a low research cost, which is comparable to others.

And I don't see the reason why it would force player get this tech earlier than normal. As there's always the possiblity that bloodthirsty drives AI's cavalries (or heavy cavalries in AU mod) to mad, and musketmen are too fragile against them. Either you want riflemen thus Nationalism at once, or you wait for Replacable Parts and infantry. But when you get RP, Nationalism will be spreaded among AIs and won't be too hard to buy it.

[nbarclay]

For me, the most common research path in the industrial era is (1) Steam Power, (2) Industrialization (to get started on factories), (3) Electricity, and (4) Replaceable Parts so my workers can finish my rail network more quickly). If Nationalism were made a prerequisite for Industrialization, I would have to research or trade for Nationalism after the only industrial tech I've discovered is Steam Power or else delay building factories. If Nationalism were a prerequisite for Replaceable Parts, I'd have to research or trade for it after I've discovered only three industrial techs if I wanted to follow my most common research path. In contrast, under the current rules, I may wait somewhat longer to get Nationalism if I can't find a deal I like trading for it. That is where my "force the player to get [Nationalism] earlier than normal" concern comes from.

[Risa]

Edit: Ignore this. I misunderstood something.

[JimiD]

Originally posted by Dominae

AU mod's version

3. A 2x Cavalry Army (wow!) attack an Infantry.

I thought the AU Mod reduced the capacity of armies to 1 only? real wow!


If so, then the other AI armies are much as might be expected.

Of these, the first three Armies lost their combats (as expected), and the last won, only to be taken down in a counter-attack.

I have lost quite a few armies since the change (this says much about my military campaigns), and since the AI will attack reduced hp armies (I can testify to this), losing them on the counter is fair, especially if undefended.

the AI wastes the special benefits Armies confer in the field.

You can lead a horse to water....


I find the new armies useful but no longer game breakers, and the MA, while the AU change was based on old army strengths, useful too. I would like its rate increased a bit, perhaps to every 15 turns, since 25 turns from completion is a long time to wait for a single army. Having more armies for the AI is good (single capacity is always of limited use), while having a more reliable source for human armies means more choice with what to do for MGLs, no longer an army no brainer.

[JimiD]

Originally posted by nbarclay

With the kind of arrangement you seem to want, we would be left without any government that supports a balanced style of play, at least until Communism (which can be a fairly potent builder government if a civ is sufficiently large).

Republic and Democracy would be good for research but lousy for warfare, while Monarchy and Feudalism would be better for warfare but lousy for research

Without putting words in your mouth, the best form of government is obviously the freedom to war, whilst retaining the commerce bonuses.

I think that the game is too complicated for anything other than binary choices, war or cash governments (as the search for the purpose of feudalism and fascism shows). A middle of the road government would need to be not as good at commerce as Rep, and poorer at war than Mon, and since flexibility is also an assest, a little bit worse still.

With binary governments some strategy is required to ensure that you dont get attacked whilst milking republic, and some other method of keeping up with the tech leaders is required when at war in Monarchy, even if it is just getting a sufficient resource base to make up for the penalities (your comment on Communism)

My current critism of the goverments is that the commerce bonus allows a war to be waged under a represenative government, and that war weariness is not a sufficient controlling factor.

A greater upkeep cost, at least for Demo, might require a more peaceful concillitary style of play to ensure safety (and since the AI will declare war if it cant keep payments up, a little less greed on deals!).

[punkbass2000]

"I thought the AU Mod reduced the capacity of armies to 1 only? real wow!"

That's what I'd been thinking.

"I find the new armies useful but no longer game breakers, and the MA, while the AU change was based on old army strengths, useful too. I would like its rate increased a bit, perhaps to every 15 turns, since 25 turns from completion is a long time to wait for a single army. Having more armies for the AI is good (single capacity is always of limited use), while having a more reliable source for human armies means more choice with what to do for MGLs, no longer an army no brainer."

This too. Modo's suggestion, however, does warrant consideration. As it only spits out armies on a per-turn basis, having it earlier doesn't necessarily change the game that much; it's less exploitable. It should still be in the MA, of course, but often at this point the AI has a good lead and, at least the ones that aren't always going to war, will stockpile armies for future use, I believe.

[nbarclay]

The way I look at the government situation, Republic and Democracy are calibrated fairly well. Granted, expert players can fight in them (especially Republic) a bit more easily than would be ideal. But looking across the entire spectrum of players rather than focusing exclusively on experts, the balance is pretty good. Players can fight in them, but not in as unlimited a way as they can in more war-oriented governments.

The real problem in my view is that the commerce gap between Democracy/Republic and the others (except for Communism with really big empires) is too big. As a result, even though other governments are better for fighting wars, their war-fighting advantages can't make up for their commerce disadvantage under most conditions. Unfortunately, the editor doesn't provide the tools we would need to solve that problem; at least not in an acceptably clean way.

[Dominae]

I thought the Pentagon still increased Army capacity by one. If not, then I guess my vision was blurred and I was seeing for more HP bars than were really there.

[Modo44]

Nathan, everyone can use Republic. I did so when barely winning Monarch, and I'm sure others did as well. Granted that I was using defensive wars, but that still allowed a fair amount of conquest, without problems. To make Republic bad for your civ, you need to really play an offensive game, and do so for a long time, to actually feel War Weariness. This is just as helpful for the expert player, as it as for the newbie. And it doesn't change, no matter if you play with the AU Mod, or with stock rules. Not much has been helped in that matter.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
So while the choice of governments would become more interesting, a lot of strategic choices that require a balanced government in order to work correctly would disappear or be seriously undermined - except maybe in the case of Religious civs, which could more easily change back and forth.

The very reasons you prefer a "balanced" government strategy is that there is a best government (Republic) that does everything, and that Anarchy times make switching to and from it inefficient. I think you are confusing "balanced" with "most poweful at a certain stage of the game"; Communism is only "balanced" in the sense that it makes sprawling empires very powerful (and in those games I daresay you've won far before you switched to Communism).

I would have no problem if Democracy were the "most powerful" government like Republic is now; it comes late enough in the tech tree that you had to make some interesting decisions concerning your first government switch (if any). The fact that Republic is so comparable in strength and that it comes so much earlier means that Democracy, when it arrives, is often irrelevant. There is thus no sense of progress with respect to governments; all you need is one switch.

Ideally, I would like to see three phases to governments in a typical Civ3 game:

1. Despotism - early game
2. Feudalism, Monarchy, Republic - depending on mid-game strategy
3. Communism, Democracy, Fascism - depending on late-game strategy

The reason Republic screws up this system is that it's best for almost any strategy at phase 2, and it's (more than) good enough for almost any strategy at phase 3. Making Republic less powerful would both increase the usefulness of Feudalism and Monarchy, as well as encourage a strategic government-related decision in the late-game.

Currently, only Religious civs really employ this three-phase system. Ideally, all civs would. Religious would retain the flexibility of switching within phases.

[JimiD]

Originally posted by nbarclay


The real problem in my view is that the commerce gap between Democracy/Republic and the others (except for Communism with really big empires) is too big. As a result, even though other governments are better for fighting wars, their war-fighting advantages can't make up for their commerce disadvantage under most conditions.

Agree, you have provided clarity to what I have been trying to say.

Originally posted by Dominae

Ideally, I would like to see three phases to governments in a typical Civ3 game....

...Religious would retain the flexibility of switching within phases.

Also agree. The strategy should be how to time the change, not wherether it is worthwhile (assuming non religious).

Some thoughts:

Republic and Demo need greater upkeep costs for units to offset the commerce bonus when maintaining much more than a minimum workers and defensive army. WW was supposed to do this, but I dont think it succeeds.