AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[lockstep]

Major differences between the AU mod and the PS mod and how to resolve them

Because I'd really like to see the best mods out yet converge into an 'Apolyton Standard mod', here are some thoughts about differences between AU and PS:

• Musketeer stats - 2/4/2 in AU, 4/4/1 in PS. The AU mod's version is probably better for the AI, but results in a somewhat inconsistent upgrade chain. I guess only playtesting will resolve this issue.
• Inclusion of zero range bombardment - AU yes, PS no. I'm with alexman on this one because the feature is 'realistic' and the AI can actually cope with it.
• F-15 and Stealth fighter stats - AU gives them RoF of 3, PS leaves them at 2. I'm for the compromise that player1 is likely to include in the next version of his mod: Leave the F-15's and the Stealth Fighter's RoF at 2 (3 only for bombers), but give them a bombard strength of 5 instead of 4 (and increase the Fighter's and Jet Fighter's bombard strength to 3 instead of 2).
• EDIT: Lethal land bombardment for some air units - AU no, PS yes. I'm with Alexman on this one, because IMO lethal land bombardment is a 'change for the sake of change'. (Lethal sea bombardment is also debatable in terms of playbalance, but at least it makes 'Pearl Harbor'-type air attacks possible.)
• Movement rate of Frigate/Man-O-War and Privateer - AU adds +1 (so that it is 5 resp. 4), PS leaves them at 4 resp. 3. I'm with alexman on this one, because it adds a strategic choice of building Frigates (faster) vs. Ironclads (higher bombard strength).
• Ironclad upgrade path - AU to Battleship, PS to Destroyer. No strong feelings here, but upgrading to the Battleship would be in accordance with the Ironclad's civilopedia entry.
• Upgrade paths for Swordsman/Legionary/Immortals, Longbowman and Jaguar Warrior - AU to nothing, PS to Rifleman. I'm with player1 on this one because it really helps the AI to get rid of 'obsolete' units and makes for a less cluttered build menu. Although PtW's new Medieval Infantry - Guerilla upgrade path will change everything in that respect, player1's solution is still a nice temporary fix.
• Revised AI build priorities - AU yes, PS no. This will need additional playtesting, but I think - especially after Soren Johnson's comments - that alexman is on the right track here.
• Longevity tweaks - AU: available with Medicine instead of Genetics, PS: additional happy faces. I'm with alexman on this one, because it makes Longevity's original effect (faster city growth) actually useful.
• SS Docking Bay requires Robotics instead of Space Flight - AU no, PS yes. Actually, I was the one who suggested to alexman to leave things as they are in vanilla v1.29, but after some discussions with player1 and a full test game, I think that player1 was actually right. The solution (that is also likely to be included in the next version of player1's mod): Change SS Docking Bay's prereq to Robotics (so that only the purely military techs aren't required for a space victory) and increase the costs of SS parts by about 50% (250/500/1000 instead of 160/320/640), so that going for Robotics ASAP is still a strategic choice.
• Privateer upgrade path - AU to nothing, PS to Destroyer. No strong feelings here - I'd simply like to hear the opinion of expert players if a naval unit with A/D rates of 2/1, yet with hidden nationality is still of any use after Destroyers become available.

Furthermore, PS has three additional features that I'd like to see included in the AU mod:

• Percentage of optimal cities from Chieftain to Deity is 150/120/100/90/80/70 instead of 100/95/90/85/80/70.This makes corruption more manageable at lower difficulty levels.
• Attack bonus against barbarians from Chieftain to Deity is 200/100/50/50/0/0 instead of 800/400/200/100/50/0. This makes barbarians more challenging at lower difficulty levels (an attack bonus of 800% at Chieftain isn't even fun).
• EDIT: Cruise Missile bombard range is 4 instead of 6 (still +2 compared to vanilla v1.29, 6 obviously was too unbalancing).

[alexman]

Lockstep, thanks for all your comments. I too would like to see an 'Apolyton Standard' mod. I'm sure we will eventually converge after some playtesting. The AU is a great way to test mod changes, since you have many people playing the same game.

Here are the changes I propose for AU MOD 1.02:

Musketeer no longer upgrades to Infantry
Back to the original, since the change breaks the musketman upgrade.

Coastal Fortress, not Harbor, produces veteran naval units
I did a quick test, and if you have already built a Coastal Fortress and you run out of saltpeter, the units that you build there are still veteran. This means that the change will not introduce saltpeter as a necessary resource in the modern age. The AI is indeed a question mark. Under the default rules, it NEVER builds coastal fortresses. I will do some more testing.

Change SS Docking Bay's prereq to Robotics and increase the costs of all SS parts by 50%
After lockstep and player 1's discussion and results, it seems like a great idea.

Reduce ROF of F-15 and Stealth Fighters back to 2. Increase bombard strength to 6 instead.
Player 1 has lethal bombard on for these units. We don't. So increasing their bombard strength by 2 instead of their ROF by 1 will weaken these units so they are still noticeably better than Jet Fighters, but still nowhere as good as bombers.

What do y'all think?

[lockstep]

Re Coastal Fortresses: You'd still need saltpeter in the modern age if you want to build new fortresses.

Re F-15/Stealth Fighter RoF: The difference between AU and PS is only lethal land bombardment, but this still might justify different unit stats.

Keep up the good work!

[Theseus]

I'm generally in favor of all these changes.

Any thoughts on introducing Medieval Infantry?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Theseus
Any thoughts on introducing Medieval Infantry?

If you add a custom unit to a mod, you have to replace some of Civ3's files (e.g. unit_32.pcx) with corresponding custom ones, otherwise the build menu graphics will be messed up. You also have to add custom graphics (or re-use graphics of a standard unit). Anyhow, it's not as simple as starting a scenario instead of a new game. (PtW will make things much easier, because it will include a mod manager that checks if a scenario/mod also includes custom files.) So I'd suggest for now to focus on changes that can be done with only modifying the BIC-file.

Still, it's nice to see that you can't wait for PtW, Theseus.

[Theseus]

OK, didn't realize it was that complex.

It's not so much that I can't wait for PtW (although can we say "let the 'elite' smackdown commence"?), but rather I think that Sword-level strategies are seriously compromised by the lack of an appropriate upgrade path.

(also, I need more options for mixed-unit Armies!!)

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Theseus
OK, didn't realize it was that complex.

. . .but rather I think that Sword-level strategies are seriously compromised by the lack of an appropriate upgrade path.

(also, I need more options for mixed-unit Armies!!)

Upgrade path? Here's a brainstorm for you: MOD it.

And I won't make armies unless I can upgrade units in them.

[alexman]

I found another little bug. I accidentally left a 2 HP bonus for nuclear subs.

As for building Coastal Fortresses, I believe the AI will use them like it does barracks and Airports. It makes them a priority at wartime. So we might get many regular AI ships wandering around in peacetime, even though Coastal Fortresses are available.

Right now most naval units are veteran anyway, because by the late middle ages all cities productive enough to build ships already have harbors. This is true for the AI too. What if we compensate for the lack of this harbor ability by giving a 1 HP bonus to all naval units? That way, the regular units will actually be the same as veteran units now. It's bad to have 3 HP naval units fighting because that makes the combat too random, and ships are too valuable to risk that way.

This naval HP increase would also compensate for the new lethal naval bombard we gave to fighters. Should we give it a try?

1.02 Update
Musketeer no longer upgrades to Infantry.
Coastal Fortress produces veteran naval units.
Harbor no longer produces veteran naval units.
Added 1 HP bonus to all naval units.
Fixed erroneous HP bonus (+2) to nuclear submarines.
Changed SS Docking Bay prerequisite to Robotics
Increased the costs of all SS parts by 50%
Reduced ROF of F-15 and Stealth Fighters back to 2. Increased bombard strength to 5 instead.
Added lethal land bombard to F-15.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
Right now most naval units are veteran anyway, because by the late middle ages all cities productive enough to build ships already have harbors. This is true for the AI too. What if we compensate for the lack of this harbor ability by giving a 1 HP bonus to all naval units? That way, the regular units will actually be the same as veteran units now. It's bad to have 3 HP naval units fighting because that makes the combat too random, and ships are too valuable to risk that way.

I don't see the point of these changes. On the one hand, you separate the ability to build veteran naval units from harbors, so that 4 hp naval units won't be that common. On the other hand, the result of a +1 hp hp bonus is exactly the opposite - 4 hp naval units are all too common then. If one really wants to have 4 hp ships, he should obviously build coastal fortresses. Or - and that's the solution I'm leaning towards for now - you could just leave things as they are in vanilla v1.29.

Changed SS Docking Bay prerequisite to Robotics
Increased the costs of all SS parts by 50%

You might want to use round values of 250/500/1000 for the SS parts, just like player1.

ROF of F-15 and Stealth Fighters back to 2. Increased bombard strength to 5 instead.
Added lethal land bombard to F-15.

If lethal land bombardment is added (and I can understand player1's reason for doing it somewhat better now), the Stealth Fighter should have it, too. That way, every civ can buld air units with lethal land at some point. Your idea to deny this ability to Jet Fighters is good IMO; after all, they also don't have the ability for precision strikes, while the F-15 does. You might also consider to give Fighters and Jet Fighters a bombard strength of 3, just like player 1.

[=DrJambo=]

interested to see whether the AI will build coastal fortresses now you've made them produce veteran units!

also interested to see what the AI's build choice regarding paratroopers and tanks... so far in my tests having an operational range value seems to make the AI prefer paras as the primary offensive unit.

as a result any thoughts on making the para a defensive unit especially with the 8,10,1 stats? AI will then use them offensively for pillaging only and keep them in cities nearer airports...! Compared to tanks they are no good as an attacking unit assaulting cities, etc.

[alexman]

Originally posted by lockstep

I don't see the point of these changes. On the one hand, you separate the ability to build veteran naval units from harbors, so that 4 hp naval units won't be that common. On the other hand, the result of a +1 hp hp bonus is exactly the opposite - 4 hp naval units are all too common then. If one really wants to have 4 hp ships, he should obviously build coastal fortresses. Or - and that's the solution I'm leaning towards for now - you could just leave things as they are in vanilla v1.29.

The point was to make Coastal Fortresses worth building, without affecting any other aspect of gameplay too much. If coastal fortresses allow you to make "elite" naval units, they will be worth building.

If lethal land bombardment is added (and I can understand player1's reason for doing it somewhat better now), the Stealth Fighter should have it, too.

My concern was not to add too many air units with this ability, otherwise the cruise missile will be completely useless. But I agree here. Let's make the St. Fighter have lethal land bombard too.

You might also consider to give Fighters and Jet Fighters a bombard strength of 3, just like player 1.

We already increased the ROF for these units. Making them effective bombers is not what was intended by the designers. But I will make the changes, just to have less differences with player 1's mod.

Dr. Jambo: I'm not sure about the defense flag for paratroopers. Will they even attempt to paradrop with this flag?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
The point was to make Coastal Fortresses worth building, without affecting any other aspect of gameplay too much. If coastal fortresses allow you to make "elite" naval units, they will be worth building.

IMO, they are even more worth building when producing 'veteran' instead of 'regular' naval units. So I'd drop the general hitpoint bonus for naval units.

My concern was not to add too many air units with this ability, otherwise the cruise missile will be completely useless. But I agree here. Let's make the St. Fighter have lethal land bombard too.

player1 also adds lethal land to Jet Fighters, but I guess it's a matter of playtesting if this makes the F-15 still a decent UU. After all, not every feature of the two mods must converge ASAP.

We already increased the ROF for these units. Making them effective bombers is not what was intended by the designers. But I will make the changes, just to have less differences with player 1's mod.

[lockstep]

On second thought, even with the changes you suggested to harbors and coastal fortresses, the former still is 'too good to be left out' and the latter is a 'second-rate'-improvement. So a more radical solution could be:

• Change the harbor so that it only provides +1 food in water tiles. Remove the 'Militaristic' characteristic. Maybe even rename it to 'docks'.
• Add the 'veteran naval units' flag AND the 'allows water trade' flag to the coastal fortress. Rename it to 'seaport' 'or 'naval base'. Remove its ressource requirements. Change its costs to 80 or 120 and its upkeep to 1 or 2. Make it available with Astronomy or even with Mapmaking (if you want coastal trade still to be possible in the ancient age).

[player1]

Originally posted by lockstep [*]Add the 'veteran naval units' flag AND the 'allows water trade' flag to the coastal fortress. Rename it to 'seaport' 'or 'naval base'. Remove its ressource requirements. Change its costs to 80 or 120 and its upkeep to 1 or 2. Make it available with Astronomy or even with Mapmaking (if you want coastal trade still to be possible in the ancient age).[/list]

Yes, it does look radiacal.

Having costal fortress, with all those cannon graphic in ancien age.

[lockstep]

I knew you would say that.

Apart from moving an improvement into another age, what's your opinion on 'splitting' harbors?

EDIT: About the 'cannon graphic' ... walls don't look THAT different to me.