What do you want from the AU mod?

[alexman]

It's time to decide on the PTW version of the AU mod. But before that, I would like to get a feel of what you want from the mod. A better AI? More options for the player? More historical accuracy? Please make your choices, and justify them below!

[Edit: I guess you lose the multiple choice poll selection when you preview your post...

Well, chose the option that is most important to you then.]

[Konquest02]

I think the AU Mod should try to improve the AI without changing much of the gameplay. If it has a much better AI, but losing the feel of Civ3/PTW, then I won't feel like playing Civ3.

As for historical accuracy, when you play on higher levels, you might just forget historical accuracy, as tech trading between civs makes the tech rate much higher than in real life. I think Civ is accurate somewhere between Warlord and Regent.

--Kon--

[ducki]

I voted for Improving the AI without restricting Human Options.

I feel that improving the AI will necessarily, at least slightly, affect human strategy, so those two are, to me, mutually exclusive. I don't feel, however, that we should not leave all the options and strategies and tactics available to the human. Just because they are available will not make them good.


I wasn't sure what "Change the Rules for the Human" meant, but either it strikes me as counterproductive to the AU goal of Preserving the Feel, or as unworkable.

I like historical accuracy, but I realize that for gameplay reasons, some things have to give. This is the easiest to bend a little.

On Increasing Strategic Options for the Human, I really think that improving the AI without removing options for the human will achieve this. With an "improved AI", I feel that some of the "options" currently available, but "stupid" strategically, will become more viable - Communism for Non-Religious Civs, for example.


I'm very excited about AUPtW and look forward to its release.

[alexman]

Originally posted by ducki
I wasn't sure what "Change the Rules for the Human" meant, but either it strikes me as counterproductive to the AU goal of Preserving the Feel, or as unworkable.

By that I meant changing anything that affects gameplay from the human point of view. Changing AI build preferences, AI unit offense/defense flags, AI technology values (without changing costs), AI bonuses, would all be OK, but changing anything that the human can "see" would be off limits.

[ducki]

Ah, then both my impressions were incorrect.
By "changing anything the human can see" you're talking about stuff like moving Hanging Gardens to Polytheism, etc, right?

I'm fine with that sort of thing if it helps the AI out a little. Sure, "empty" techs are mildly annoying, but it's just a bridge to something important. It seems to me like it was a way for Soren & Crew to essentially double the Research cost and time to get to a certain point, essentially making it such that a tech like Monarchy would roughly coincide with Republic, or be only slightly earlier. Without Polytheism, Monarchy is an awfully quick non-despot government.

Sure, they could have simply doubled the cost for Monarchy, but then a goody hut could still totally mess the timing up.

All that ramble to say, sure, I'm fine with changing some stuff like that as long as we don't get too radical. I'd rather not see 50 new wonders and 100 new buildings and 20 new units. Moving things like RoP and Hanging Gardens by 1 tech, 2 at the most? Sure.

[jshelr]

You are doing a great job on this mod. KUTGW
Thanks Russ

[alexman]

Originally posted by ducki
Ah, then both my impressions were incorrect.
By "changing anything the human can see" you're talking about stuff like moving Hanging Gardens to Polytheism, etc, right?

No. Those are exactly the changes that would NOT be acceptable by that option. It's the most conservative option. It means "don't change anything except the AI bahavior and (possibly) bonuses".

[Dominae]

I think the options on this poll are confused and confusing. Here are my comments on the 3 voted-for choices so far:

1. Improve the AI only if it doesn't restrict the options available to the human.

'Restrict' is weird here. I assume you mean "make some things better than others in order to help the AI, but don't take anything out in general". If this is the case then I most definitely disagree with this philosophy for the AU mod.

2. Improve the AI only if it doesn't affect human strategy.

"Affecting human strategy" is vague. I don't want Communism to become a major government option, but I don't mind attacking with higher-attack Infantry either.

3. Increase strategic options as long as it doesn't hamper the AI.

I voted for this option, but I don't like it either, because it makes it sound like no changes are to be made to the AI.


Here's brief description of what I think the AU mod should do: "Improve the AI and increase the number of strategic options available, without significantly affecting the way we've come to learn to play the game".

This means that all the experience since Civ3 came out is still useful and relevant. This said, there are some changes that could make the game more fun or strategically interesting (improving the AI being one of them).


Dominae

[alexman]

Sorry about the confusing poll. As I said, it was meant to be a multiple choice.

I'll try to give examples of the three options you mention:

1. Move Longevity to Sanitation (changes strategy but helps the AI build hospitals), but don't make Literature a required advance (helps AI build libraries and the GL, but makes the human have to research Literature).

2. Both the Communism example and the infantry example are relevant. But if Communism ever becomes a good government for the human player, or if the human ever builds infantry for the sole purpose of conducting a major offensive operation, then this option would be violated.

3. Add a new building, or move benefits and units within the tech tree. The AI would be able to handle these changes, but they might change gameplay.

The line between these choices is thin, that's why I wanted to make a multiple choice poll. Just to get a feel of what people want. Obviously each change of the mod needs to be examined individually.

[BRC]

I voted #2. I think that the AI needs more long-term help. It would be great if the AI could stay competitive all the way until the end, without their trade rate, production bonuses, or extra units. You guys are doing a great job on the AI, and I will definately use the mod once you guys figure it out.

I didn't care too much for the changes to the coastal fortress and the harbor, but you guys switched it back. I think that that was going a little too far. (even though I did like the archer bombardment)

I think that the best way to improve this game is by allowing the human to play the game without being overwhelmed at the beginning, and keep them from being bored at the end.

[Dominae]

Ok, thanks for the clarification alexman. My point is just that the multiple-choice poll is difficult to vote for without committing yourself to something you don't want (in my case, at least). I think most players would agree that improving the AI is a good idea, but not at the cost of a significant change in gameplay. That option doesn't fit anywhere in your poll.

In any case, my gut feeling goes along with the philosophy described in the first versions of the AU mod, and I don't think we should change it from that.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

The big problem with the poll design is that there are too many dimensions involved, reflecting too many sometimes conflicting goals. The poll provides only a sampling of a small percentage of ways to mix and match the dimensions.

There are really four basic goals that the AU mod can try to pursue (unless I've missed something):

1) Preserving the feel of the game.
2) Improving the AI.
3) Adding strategic options for the human player.
4) Improving (or at least not undercutting) realism.

This is further complicated by the fact that each of these is on an analog scale, both in terms of how important it is to people and in terms of how much a change might affect it. And worse still, people may, for example, care a great deal about preserving some aspects of the feel of the game but not care nearly so much about others. A poll with ten basic choices can't even begin to cope with all of that; mahy of the combinations of priorities will inevitably be omitted.

If we want a poll, I would suggest a group of four polls, each asking people to rate the importance of one of the aspects I listed above on a scale from one to five or one to ten. That would give us a rough idea of (for example) how many people view preserving the feel of the standard game as important and how many don't.

But I'm not quite sure this is something we even want governed by poll. Different people like different things, and if we throw the AU mod open for everyone on the strategy forum to vote, we might end up with a mod that's fairly popular overall but that most of the active AU participants aren't all that fond of. The best approach might be to go ahead with such a set of polls, but to use them as a starting point for discussion rather than as firm guidance.

Nathan

[Theseus]

Yeah, tough way to go about it... especially when multiple choice doesn't work!

I think the goals of the AU Mod are fairly well understood by those of us who have actively contributed to it's development... and such will continue to be the case. The newcomers who make the effort to really get up to speed and join the discussion, like ducki, have been great, and certainly have meshed in well.

The suggestions on the new, AU PTW Mod thread will guide us sufficiently, I think.

On a separate note, I'd like to throw out for discussion the following: Although it still needs some work, I think the AU Mod is fantastic... how (and should) do we propagate it out into the 'poly and then the other Civ communities?

[Dominae]

Re: propagating the AU mod into other communities, I think we need to reach some sort of "stable" version first. At that point, the readme could be touched up (perhaps including the names of all the faithful AU students who contributed). Then, I think the most that can be done is to post the "official" version on various Civ fansites (maybe even contacting the moderators to give the thread special status).

If this ever happens, I think having a clear idea what the AU mod philosophy is is a good idea, because people's reticence towards mods in general will probably be reduced when they see the reasoning behihnd this one. I know this was true in my case.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Concerning Nathan's four goals of the AU mod, I would rate them as follows:

1. Preserving the feel of the game.
2. Adding strategic options (for both humans and AI).
3. Improving the AI.
4. Not undercutting realism.

I would like 'improved AI' to be higher, but it's not simply because I'm very doubtful the AI project is realistic in light of points 1 and 2. That is, any major improvements to the AI (that we can make) will be at the expense of those 2 points, IMO.


Dominae