AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[ducki]

It's not that the buildings aren't worth it, even at 2 gpt.

It's that it hampers the AI even further, I think.

An illustration.
I have 2000 gpt gross income, lose 250 to corruption, and spend 100 on maintenance.

My maintenance is 5% of gross, but 5.7% of net.

Now lets imagine I have much worse corruption losses, say 750 gpt.
Maintenance is still 5% of gross, but now it's 8% of net.

Now, we double maintenance. 11.4% of net for the low corruption empire, but 16% for the badly placed FP.


This assumes equal build-outs.
If we assume the low-corruption civ is the human, and let's pretend they hang on to a leader or time a pre-build so that they get Smith's, then the Human advantage is even greater, not over a single AI, but all of them.


To me, it seems like compounding interest.
Doubling maintenance seems like a small change. Hey, it's only 1gpt more.
But when you magnify it to include all the buildings that have maintenance and then figure in the fact that a human will naturally have less corruption, and therefore more GPT income, it sounds like the AI is getting the shaft.

We could argue, however, that since the AI doesn't build as many improvements as the human it hurts him less...
... except we've already agreed that, even at twice the cost, even in moderately corrupt cities, "buildings are almost always worth their maintenance cost".

I'd be more than happy to give double maintenance a whirl, but I really think, with corruption being a meaner beast for the AI than the human, this will hurt the AI twice as much as the human, making the mid-late game Human tech lead even more noticeable and easier to achieve and maintain.

I could be wrong though. Let's knock together the AUPtW release and give it a shot.

[Dominae]

A few points/questions:

1. Remind me again why we remove Culture as a build preference from all civs except Babylon? Is it because cultural improvements are always subsumed by some other category? If so, is this what we really want to do? Is the Culture preference basically useless?

2. I like the idea of moving abilities around the tree to make some techs seem more useful to the AI. This has the nice side-effect of making all the techs do something beyond allowing others. I suggest:

Rights of Passage: Moved from Writing to Code of Laws
Diplomats: Move from Writing to Literature
Alliances: Moved from Writing to Philosophy
Hanging Gardens: Moved from Monarchy to Polytheism
Doubled Wealth: Moved from Economics to Printing Press

I'm not entirely sure about the last one. The idea of moving Longevity to Medicine seems fine to me because the AI is now more prone to go down another path in the Industrial age.

3. Concerning upgrade paths, I think Archers should upgrade to Longbowmen (but not to Berserks).

4. The cost of the Conquistador should be reduced significantly...enough to make it cost-effective just for its pillaging use.

5. I don't like any of the AI boosters or human penalizers. We should try to make the AI smarter, but not at the expense of gameplay.

6. I'm fine with any changes to Communism...for now. After so much debate I'd like to actually test them out in an official AU scenario.

I can't think of any other things right now, but I'm sure there's more, so I'll be posting again.


Dominae

[alexman]

Originally posted by Dominae
Remind me again why we remove Culture as a build preference from all civs except Babylon? Is it because cultural improvements are always subsumed by some other category? If so, is this what we really want to do? Is the Culture preference basically useless?

The goal is to take advantage of civ-specific abilities. Culture is currently emphasized a lot by the AI, often at the expense of vital buildings like factories and harbors. There is no reason for a scientific but not religious civ to emphasize building happiness buildings, which are included in the culture category. It's better to emphasize science and build happiness buildings at normal priority. Of course all this is up for debate.

Hanging Gardens: Moved from Monarchy to Polytheism

The only problem I have with this is that it makes researching Monarchy completely useless to the non-religious human player.

Concerning upgrade paths, I think Archers should upgrade to Longbowmen (but not to Berserks).

Sorry, I don't get your point here. Archers already upgrade to Longbowmen in the standard rules.

[ducki]

I had the same confusion about Berserks.
Why are we singling out an already very situational UU for more restrictions?

I'm sure there's logic, I just don't get it yet.

[Dominae]

Unless there's something wrong with my copy of Play the World, Archers now upgrade to Guerillas. Berzerks replace Longbowmen for the Vikings, but I think upgrading Archers to Berzerks is imbalancing (perhaps not unfairly so, but I like the idea of the Vikings having to build up their super-army from scratch).

Why would a non-religious civ not want to switch to Monarchy? The few turns of Anarchy are well worth the advantage of being able to engage in a protracted war outside of Despotism.


Dominae

[alexman]

In my civ3X.bix it's like this:

Archer->Longbowman->Guerilla
Berserk->Guerilla

are you sure you have 1.04f?

As for the Polytheism thing, I never use Monarchy as a non-religious civ, unless I plan to be in war for a very long time. I think this is also what most of us do.

[ducki]

Originally posted by Dominae
Unless there's something wrong with my copy of Play the World, Archers now upgrade to Guerillas. Berzerks replace Longbowmen for the Vikings, but I think upgrading Archers to Berzerks is imbalancing (perhaps not unfairly so, but I like the idea of the Vikings having to build up their super-army from scratch).

By this logic, I feel we should force the same restriction on Celtic Swordsmen, Immortals, Legions, Mounted Warriors, Samurai, Riders, etc.
Like I said, why single out an already situational UU for more restriction? Expansionist is already situational, so the Vikings are getting a double-whammy where all other civs are allowed to upgrade to their UU, except for those that are the beginning of a chain - War Chariots, Jag Warriors, Impi, Numi.Mercs, Hoplites, etc.

It just seems like an arbitrary penalty, and even moreso to the AI that draws the Vikings than the Human that already has Galley-bound warfare in his heart.

If we remove upgrading to all UUs, then I think it's fair, but mighty painful to Persia, Rome, Iroquois, Japan, and China as well as Scandinavia.



Just out of curiousity, why do you think allowing Ragnar to upgrade to his UU any more unbalancing than, say Tokugawa?

[player1]

Personnaly I think it's BUG, not a feature.

Same has happend to Hwacha, and needs to be fixied ASAP.

As for other rules changes I support all changes done in my own MOD in last several versions (like ROF2/cost 60 Cannons, 240 cost Batteship, 7/6/1/80 Gueriilas, 5/2/1/50 Bezerk, quick Keshik on both Hills and Mountains, quick Elephant on Jungles, etc...)

For more info see link below.

[Dominae]

I didn't check my .bix file, I just consulted the Civilopedia. If what you say is true, then I've just found a documentation bug. Yipee!

As for Archers upgrading to Berzerks, it may just be a matter of preference. But here's my reasoning. The Vikings can build Archers immediately, and as Militaristic and Expansionist, they're probably the most likely candidate to do so (other than maybe the Chinese). Although Archers will not be dominant throughout the early game, a successful early Archer rush can easily tip the balance in favor of the Vikings. Now, the next stage in the game is where the Vikings get their (I believe) quite dominant UU. Being able to upgrade from a good position into a better position (even at a significant cost), doesn't seem fair to me. As I said, it's probably no big deal, but it does make the Vikings a lot more powerful.

As for the situational aspect of the UU, ducki, I think you're only looking at the amphibious assault ability. A six-power attack rating far before Cavalry is nothing to scoff at. Coupled with an ability than the AI just can't adjust to (trust me), and you've got a powerhouse UU (particularly against the AI, admittedly). Forcing the Vikings to build up their Berzerk force from scratch balances things out, IMO.

Then again, for simplicity's sake, it may just better to give every civ the ability to upgrade to their UU.


Dominae

[ducki]

That's good reasoning, Dominae, I just happen not to agree... maybe I should try the Vikings out again.

When you say that the early Archer rush tips the balance in favor of the Vikings, that can be true of any civ, but the militaristics in particular.

But the same can be said for any civ with a Knight-level UU with the Horseman rush.

I would actually say that the Knight-level UUs are more powerful, if anything.

I think a 6-attack 1-move UU is balanced with a 4-attack 2-move, and thus retreating, UU. The amphibiousness is really, IMO, the only place I would consider the Berserker to be overpowered.

But that's my opinion. I do feel you have good logic behind your thoughts, and I also noticed the Civopedia documentation quirk, but just assumed it was a bug.

Thanks for the explanation, I'll give the Vikings another try as soon as I'm done with my GreatLeaders game.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by ducki
But the same can be said for any civ with a Knight-level UU with the Horseman rush.

I think that's RIGHT on target.

I'm of a mind that the overall military unit paths are getting pretty much on target, especially with the changes we've made here.

Most times now when I see arguments for "overwhelming" relative strength advantage at the unit level (my own included), I try to consider the overall application described, and how it balances unit strength with cost, number, and timing...

I can and have made the argument that plain old Swordsmen are overwhelming (they are).

Let's play with all these new units for a while, both in SP and MP, and see what happens.

[Theseus]

OT:

I'm a little confused... isn't the AU PTW Mod in use for AU 205?

BTW, in my 205 game, the Greeks and Persians are serious challenges (big, strong, beating me in techs and GWs), and I've been gratified to see that on the big SE continent the various AI civs have been AGGRESSIVE and generally killer (btw, in my games, it's the AZTECS... a first for me at least).

So, isn't this mostly done?

(an, once again, a great job by all, but kudos especially to alexman and player1)

[Dominae]

I admit that the problem I have with the Viking UU isn't the upgrade path per se. My point that Berzerks are best used when they exploit an AI weakness still stands. So, making Berzerks even easier to obtain (via an upgrade from Archers, which the Vikings will already have produced) simply amplifies the problem in my mind. I also probably think Archer rushes are more effective than they actually are, since I've only begun seriously attempting this strategy myself.

So, the solution is simply for me to stop whining about the Archer-Berzerk upgrade path, and start whining about the Berzerk unit itself (or the AI, whatever). In any case, I don't think the Berzerk is unbalanced, just that it feels that way when you're using them.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Another problem with increasted building maintenance costs is that it increases Republic's advantage over Monarchy because the extra maintenance eats a much higher percentage of a monarchy's income. And if we increase maintenance costs, we can forget about giving Communism free maintenance to help it out. (Although I wish I knew whether improving Communism that much makes AIs more likely to use it, thereby undercutting our original objective.)

Regarding Communism, I like what we did with it in the version with free maintenance as long as that doesn't significantly increase the AIs' inclination to switch to and stay in Communism.

I think trying double-value specialists for a game or two could be interesting. If we don't like the results, we can always change it back.

Regarding player1's mods,

(a) I won't even try to speak to cannons because I practically never use them and will presumably continue to practically never use them.

(b) I don't like the idea of changing the cost of battleships; I think the balance of choosing between smaller numbers of powerful units or larger numbes of less powerful units was pretty good in the original design.

(c) The Guerilla change looks pretty good. Cavalry would still be more potent on offense (slightly less likely to win but with a good chance of surviving if they lose), and infantry would be vastly superior on defense.

(d) I don't like the idea of reworking Bezerk. It changes things too much from the stock game, for too little reason, for my taste. (The balance between Knight and Bezerk on offense is the same as that between horseman and swordsman, but the Bezerk actually has a lower defense value than knights.)

(e) I don't care that much one way or the other about the changes to Keshik and Elephant.

Nathan

[player1]

Originally posted by nbarclay
(b) I don't like the idea of changing the cost of battleships; I think the balance of choosing between smaller numbers of powerful units or larger numbes of less powerful units was pretty good in the original design.

This was maily done because of ROF 3 for Batteships.
It is a very powerfull ability.

Originally posted by nbarclay
(d) I don't like the idea of reworking Bezerk. It changes things too much from the stock game, for too little reason, for my taste. (The balance between Knight and Bezerk on offense is the same as that between horseman and swordsman, but the Bezerk actually has a lower defense value than knights.)

Just don't forget that Amp. ability. It actualy makes low defense unimportant.
Personnaly I think that 5/2/1/cost50 is not less powerfull unit at all. Although my main resoning was that Bezerk offense should not be the same as of Cavalry. Kills the flavor for me (but maybe not for you).


P.S.
There are some other changes but I haven't listed them here (it's best just to read about them in proper thread: two links below). AU was mostly based on PS MOD v1.36, while the last one now is v1.39 (and there is PtW v1.01 too).