AU Mod Test Game: Explorig Colosseums as Tourists

[punkbass2000]

Well, here's my Carthage run. Not a great, but not too good a start either. Third colosseum will be ready next turn. Was easily able to get tech parity minus Monarchy (plus peace with all civs, one of whom had declared war after a tribute rebuff and then signed MAs.) Generally bad luck with barbs, losing many a Warrior on Forest, but oh well. Not doing too bad, have been able to settle as well as improve virtually all the "good land" available and near my capital, all ready getting cites with only 1spt and 2 wpt. Generally second or third in the important demographics. All in all, I don't think building them has really hindered me, and trading for tech parity has been abnormally easy; enough so that I am vaguely considering heading up the Constr. route even in games without this Tourist attraction. All opposing civs happen to be Sci., BTW (Babylonians, Ottomans, Persians). Babylon, surprisingly, IMO, is dominating. The Persians are behind me in tech, down Myst. and Constr. This is Tiny map, 70%/Continents, "Average" Climate, etc., Deity, random opponents and Restless barbs.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by joncnunn
I think it's an inhertatenly bad idea to put tourist attaraction onto any building that normally costs money to maintign.

Dang, you stole my idea for a test run! Well, here it is:

1. ICS.
2. Colosseums everywhere ASAP.
3. Wait 1000+ years.
4. Enjoy a bunch of Corruption-free Commerce.

Shield Corruption might be annoying, but hey, that's what upgrades are for.

[Moonbars]

The bonus is corruptable - try killing a courthouse in a save with lots of ancient Tourist wonders.

[Dominae]

Oh, good.

[Rommel2D]

Ok- so these games provide extereme examples to base an argument upon, but there's a few considerations I haven't seen mentioned;

I believe part of the problem was the AI's tendency to build colosseums it doesn't really need. About what time in the game do they start building these and in how many cities? A player's commerce from colosseums should be considered relative to what is being produced by what the AI will build regardless. The player beelining and trading to get Construction will result in shorter times for the AI to acquire it also.

Also, why should we believe that the amount of commerce produced in a few hundred turns will be the factor to push these games 'over the edge' into victory conditions? I think it would be difficult to lose any emperor game with a better than average start if you normally win at that level. Could the circumstances that allowed an early push for Construction and prebuilds have been exploited in another direction, such as the direct military conquest Alexman brought up? To give good evidence that this is a game-breaker, I think it would have to be played out by various players championing different strategies. In addition, a player winning a couple games at a step up from their normal level of play would be pretty convincing...

At first glance I'd say having the military flag checked for this produces a very complimentary result. Don't most militant strategies focus on dominance earlier in the game? In any event, is this flag part-and-parcel of the tourism mod, or are they being considered in mutual exclusivity?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
In this particular game, I had the good luck to get a settler from a hut near my capital about 2950 BC, and to have my nearest neighbor not REX particularly well. But I also had the bad luck to get beat to Alphabet so I had to research Masonry myself instead of being able to trade for it. I ended up getting Construction in 1200 BC, with two cities with prebuilds that I could switch in order to complete colosseums the same turn and a third that could do the same with a rush build. The following turn, I used pop rushes to finish another four colosseums. Then more pop rushes and a couple forest chops in 1150 gave me another three. So as of 1150 BC, I now have ten colosseums.

Hm, let's see how "typical" this game was:

1. Free Settler
2. Agricultural civ and Rivers as far as the eye can see.
3. Militaristic civ - half-cost Colosseums
4. Multiple Wine resources in close proximity to starting location.
5. Multiple Cattle resources accessible from starting location.
6. Multiple Bonus Grasslands around starting location.
7. Chokepoint to major trading partners.
8. Knowledge of map (Nathan's second or third attempt)

I agree with alexman: with that kind of setup, why do you need to wait until ~1300AD to the Tourism bonus to kick in!?

This is the example game of what you can do with an ideal setup. Nonetheless, it makes me think that the Colosseum should either have the Tourism or be Militaristic, but not both (I prefer Tourism). This way we could be confident that, despite our best player's best efforts, the new Colosseum would not be imbalanced save in the most favorable circumstances (and then, again, why would you need Colosseums in those circumstances?).

[punkbass2000]

"I agree with alexman: with that kind of setup, why do you need to wait until ~1300AD to the Tourism bonus to kick in!?"

The tourism bonus would kick in long before then.

And what about my game? Non-Mil, Deity, fairly poor start, IMO, non-Agr. I still got 3 Colosseums by 800BC on a Tiny map and have tech parity. Perhaps not game-breaking, but this Tourism change still has a major effect on the fundamental core of the game. IF this goes in I'd probably stop playing/touting the AU mod in general. I'd go play RaR instead.

[alexman]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
And what about my game? Non-Mil, Deity, fairly poor start, IMO, non-Agr. I still got 3 Colosseums by 800BC on a Tiny map and have tech parity. Perhaps not game-breaking, but this Tourism change still has a major effect on the fundamental core of the game.

Not only are three Colosseums in 775 BC not game breaking in the late-game, but you sacrificed REX big time in order to get those Colosseums up and running. Pretty soon you will have Babylonian Settlers on your island, stealing your silks and gems. You also sacrificed early gold from Marketplaces, Libraries (or even the Great Library), and Colosseum upkeep, for late-game gold that may never come into play on a tiny map.

I'm not saying you made the wrong choice, but at least you had a tough choice to make, which is a good thing. That's exactly what the tourism bonus was supposed to achieve: an incentive (but not a no-brainer) to build colosseums when they become available, instead of building them after Cathedrals, centuries after they are available.

So to me, your game shows that the early Colosseum is a viable choice, but it's nowhere near having a "major effect on the fundamental core of the game".

[pvzh]

I would prefer to keep Coloseum militalirstic even if it will require abandoning TA. It creates cleaner game mechanics and choice about them.

[JimiD]

@pvzh: snap

[Moonbars]

I think I am going this way as well. I had not understood that the commerce from TA would be multiplied by Marketplaces and Libraries.

[joncnunn]

Collosums build actually varies by AI

Those with "Build culture often" and "Build Happinesses often" will build it much earlier.

What the AI has no understanding of though (when playing a non-Relgious civ) is that Catherdrial is always the better choice if you have Monotheism.

Edit: Fix typo

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by joncnunn

What the AI has no understanding of though (when playing a non-Relgious civ) is that Catherdrial is always the better choice if you have Monarchy.

Do you mean Monotheism rather than Monarchy, or am I missing something special about Monarchy?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
The tourism bonus would kick in long before then.

Yes, I know, my point is that you could "win" the game around 1000AD with this setup without prioritizing Colosseums (in fact, without building them at all).