No! I don't want to build a galleon!

[Barnacle Bill]

I think you can check both "offense" and "defense" for the same unit. That hopefully means the AI would consider that unit when building for either purpose.

Part of the problem is also that the rules system treats "obsolete with" and "upgrades to" as the same thing. So, if a unit doesn't upgrade it never becomes obsolete (as far as the governors are concerned), either. Also, because of the resource system as currently implimented it needs to let you build obsolete stuff if you can't build the later stuff for lack of resources. I think that if you make every pre-modern unit upgradable it will stop making obsolete units buildable except where the resources are lacking to build whatever it upgrades to.

Once the editor is improved such that units can readily be added, I plan to create some sort of basic no-resource unit in every combat era, to which all infantry units of the previous era will upgrade, and from which you can upgrade to the current front-line resource-using infantry unit for that era. I will probably make these what you can draft, too. Pre-20th Century, I'll probably have some sort of mounted unit like that in every era as well, which requires only horses. I believe that this will cause the governors to stop building units from the previous era at all, and build less effective no-resource current unit in the absence of resources rather than build stuff from ages gone by. It should also address concerns about being resource-screwed if a proper combat effectiveness gap is created between the eras (if you have antiquated units because you lack the technology, not just the resources, then you should get the chop).

It may also work to create very expensive no-resource versions of units, have them obsoleted by the resource-using version, and I think it would then let you build the no-resource version only if the resource-using version is unavailable due to lack of resources.

In summary, if it works like I think, in any combat era, if you have the resources you'll be able to build the good stuff but if you lack the resources you will have a choice - build "poor man's" units which are significantly less effective than the good stuff (but still better than any obsolete stuff), or build very expensive units which are as good (or almost as good) as the good stuff but at 3 times (or so) the price.

[Akka]

Originally posted by rid102


I'm still looking for the "Don't be ****" checkbox in the editor - anyone found it yet?

It will probably comes with the patch, keep faith

[Farmer Jimbo]

This is all well and good, but you have missed the whole point. Without a certain number of obsolete units from the middle ages, you cannot construct the small wonder “Renaissance Festival” and produce the “leather mug” luxury item!

[DATarbell]

You think this is bad--just wait until MoO3 ships! For anyone who hasn't been following it's development, it is being designed so that AI governors run everything! In order to override what the AI governors are doing you have to spend IFP's (Imperial Focus Points)--of which you have a very limited number each turn. All of which to avoid "micromanagement". What they don't seem to see, or get, is that it will require an even greater level of micromanagement to best figure out how and where and when to spend my precious few IFP's in order to correct the AI governor(s)!

So, I for one am thankful that at least Civ3 gives me the capability and the opportunity to override these errant governor decisions. (And 'yes', I would still love to see it improved via the patch!)

[chazmyrr]

Actually, I find the micromanagement of my road system more annoying than the governor. For example, if I am playing the Aztecs, I would much rather have 5 jaguar warriors than 1 swordsman. Once I link iron to my road network, jaguar warriors are no longer available. However, other units/improvements may require iron. I have to plan when to cut the road to my iron and when to rebuild it.

The swordsman is more powerful, but the jaguar warriors are far more effective given a few turns to build a sufficient quantity. Yes, it will take a large stack of warriors to dislodge a fortified rifleman in a city on hilly terrain but I won't lose the warriors. They will retreat and heal and I only need to get lucky a few times. The combat system heavily favors cheap mobile units. I'm not going to attack tanks with jaguar warriors, but tanks aren't used to defend cities. The only defense unit I can think of with mobility is mechanized infantry. If the game goes long enough where I need to take a city defended by mech infantry, it's probably too late for conquest.

The underlying reason the AI builds cheap units is because they are generally more cost effective in the long run.

The part I do not understand is the AI fascination with bombers. The only thing I can think of is that the AI views them as indestructible since air defense doesn't work properly (for the player). Otherwise, I would much rather spend the production on almost anything else other than a bomber.

And Galleons have this odd tendency to be indestructible by anything other than another Galleon. Not everyone has experienced this phenomenon, but I have used it to great effect in a few games where the AI held out long enough to make naval warfare necessary.