Apolyton University Mod (PTW version)

[alexman]

Another side-effect that I saw was that AI artillery becomes an excellent leader-generator for humans. An elite victory with minimal risk to your elite.

Good points, Catt. I agree that this change needs to go. Even if it weren't just a "minor annoyance", it is at least an unnecessary change.

[player1]

I told you so!

[Dominae]

The part about stacks of Artillery being able to defend (although poorly) is right on. It takes quite a few AI Cavalry to capture a city with 20 Artillery and 2 Riflemen as defenders. Usually there is time to bring in reinforcements.

I could be wrong, but I think the new Artillery also can count as MP. This is another big change from stock Civ3 (one which the AI does not take advantage of).

But I disagree that captured Artillery is not a problem. Catt, you said you would have capture 10 of them in AU203? My figure is more around 30. Given that you captured bombard units cost no Shields (+ time) to produce, and upgrade at minimal cost, this is definitely a weakness in the game.

Still, the change has to go.


Dominae

[Theseus]

Agreed, across the board.

I had a 3xMA Persian Army take out a 4xInfantry Army protecting about 20 Arty... no follow up despite the fact that all I had left for protection was 1-2 vet Infantry... Persia just didn't have enough units!! I actually would have LOVED to have seen the AI accomplish such a capture.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae
But I disagree that captured Artillery is not a problem. Catt, you said you would have capture 10 of them in AU203? My figure is more around 30. Given that you captured bombard units cost no Shields (+ time) to produce, and upgrade at minimal cost, this is definitely a weakness in the game.

Still, the change has to go.

I completely forgot the MP use - great for both contentedness and flip suppression. Also, I'm glad it seems I wasn't wandering in the darkness, and that others had the same reaction, so the change should go.

I don't want to debate a moot point, but I think a similar argument wrt other game issues has come up before and will probably come up again and so will indulge in at least one response (though for the life of me I can't remember the exact circumstances that rest on the same line of thought). I agree that 30 artillery represents a lot of shields and a fair amount of production time when looked at in isolation -- but in my experience, the AI rarely has more than 2 arties in any one city, and usually has 1 or none. If you can capture 30 arties, I'd speculate that you're also capturing 30+ AI cities, at which point the value of captured arty relative to your power and standing in the world is pretty small, regardless of the shields represented. I just don't think that AI arty captured by the human is the big problem with arty we should try to solve for (though I think I also believe that only Firaxis can help with the inherent imbalance between human and AI use of artillery).

Catt

[Dominae]

Catt, point taken about the number of cities taken if a large force of Artillery are taken. But the situation is not as drastic as you indicate. Starting with Catapults up to Artillery, and across many civs, it is not uncommon to get around 20 bombard-type units with minimal city-capturing (or, at least, minimal gain in relative strenght, especially if the AI is powerful). A stack of 20 Artillery is "just right" to do some serious damage throughout the game. The fact that it comes free is unfortunate. This is only one of the facets of the "AI and Artillery" problem, which is tough to fix.


Dominae

[ducki]

I don't think the free Artillery is any worse than the free workforce that many people figure into their gameplan.

I would venture to guess, according to some reports in this game, that workers are actually more of a "problem", but at least now you can't buy them for 30 gold.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but in your example of minimal city-capture spread across AIs(oscillation), you actually are gaining a lot in relative strength due the the pruning effect. The fact that the AI "wasted" time on Catapults would be more the problem, not that a series of pruning wars netted you a nice stack of bombardiers.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong or miss the point, but I see the free artillery problem as more a symptom of poor build-queueing(sp? ) by the AI as well as yet another nod in the general direction of warmongering as the "easiest" way to a win, and no worse or more unbalancing than free workers.

Maybe I misunderstood your point about minimal city-capture wrt relative strength, but in other threads here it's intimated that you actually gain more strength by spreading your wars around than by concentrating on one foe.

[Dominae]

ducki, I'll address your points in another thread, because alexman will crack the whip if he even smells a threadjack.

Let me just state the obvious: bombard units are a problem in Civ3, and we should be looking for a fix that helps the AI in this regard. Obviously this problem is a symptom of other things, but that's out of our hands.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
Catt, point taken about the number of cities taken if a large force of Artillery are taken. But the situation is not as drastic as you indicate. Starting with Catapults up to Artillery, and across many civs, it is not uncommon to get around 20 bombard-type units with minimal city-capturing (or, at least, minimal gain in relative strenght, especially if the AI is powerful). A stack of 20 Artillery is "just right" to do some serious damage throughout the game. The fact that it comes free is unfortunate. This is only one of the facets of the "AI and Artillery" problem, which is tough to fix.

Of course those "free" artillery that start their lives as catapults come with upgrade costs and centuries of maintenance costs (unless you stay in Monarchy and under the unit limit). Those costs reduce the imbalance somewhat.

[alexman]

Speaking of artillery, the Koreans must be bummed. Since they can't build cannons, they can't capture them either! I believe defeated AI cannons get destroyed instead, just as scouts get destroyed if attacked by non-expansionist civs.

Should we change this? If we make Cannons upgrade to Hwach'a (right now it's the other way around), and give the Koreans the ability to build Cannons, any such units captured in the field will not be destroyed. Instead, they can be upgraded to Hwach'as for zero gold. Koreans will still not be able to build Cannons, since their UU has the same tech and resource requirements, but it higher in the upgrade chain.

Another thing about the poor Koreans: their UU cannot trigger a GA because you can't actually kill anything with a bombard unit. Should we add lethal bombard to the Hwach'a? Would that be exploitable?

[player1]

Leathal?

No way!

[player1]

Anybody tested that thing about Koreans unablity to capture Cannons?

[Dominae]

Against the AI lethal bombard would be overpowering. Against humans it would create very interesting strategic situations. I vote for no change with respect to this mod, and lethal bombard (for the Korean UU) in the MP version.


Dominae

[ducki]

What about making bombard units like workers...
...in that they retain their nationality, with the inherent (slight) reputation hit, and operate at half effectiveness?

Is that something that can be done in the editor?
Is that still within the spirit of AU?


P.S. to Dom - I realize that the bombardiers are a problem, I just - personally - haven't experienced it to be any more of a human advantage than slaves. I'm sure it's just due to relative inexperience, but it's still my personal opinion.

[alexman]

OK, no lethal land bombard for Hwach'a. Although I'm not convinced that it would be more overpowering than, say, the Ottoman UU.

How about lethal sea bombard? Too unrealistic?

In any case, let's change the upgrade path so that cannons can be captured by the Koreans.