How often do you research Navigation?

[Master Zen]

Sounds good.

Personally I usually beeline to Military Tradition before taking the high road of techs but I like Navigation if only because for some unexplained reason I really fancy the extra movement point ME gives my ships (it was even better with the +2 in Civ2 though). However, when I am a continental power I don't even bother.

But definitely making Navigation required would be a nice way to up the odds.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae

And I'm frankly quite surprised that no one sees this as a problem like I do (except perhaps CerberusIV). I believe the game would be a lot more fun if the AI were not so easily "outplayed" with respect to tech research, and if Navigation were of a higher priority in all games.

The fundamental reason I remain ambivalent about the change is that the same argumet seems to apply to just about every optional tech -- since the AI is prone to researching a variety of optional techs (without taking into account game circumstances and a "long-term strategy" approach) the same argument seems to me to apply to all optional techs. Why not make Economics, Nationalism, Communism, Sanitation, Amphib Warfare, etc. mandatory, since the AI "wastes" research time securing these techs also and thus can be outplayed in tech research?

As I said, I remain ambivalent -- I'm not convinced the change would hurt the game but I'm also not convinced it would help the game.

Catt

[Master Zen]

well, consider the disadvantages of not researching Sanitation for example

you might get ahead in techs, but when the AI has size 26 cities and you only have size 12, you'll see Sanitation is not a bypassable tech.

Neither is communism or economics if you plan on major warmongering. There's really no "cheating" way around those advantages that those techs give you unlike Navigation.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Master Zen
well, consider the disadvantages of not researching Sanitation for example

you might get ahead in techs, but when the AI has size 26 cities and you only have size 12, you'll see Sanitation is not a bypassable tech.

Neither is communism or economics if you plan on major warmongering. There's really no "cheating" way around those advantages that those techs give you unlike Navigation.

I have played several games well through the Industrial Age without ever having researched Nationalism (and therefore Communism and Espionage) or Sanitation. With a dense build, hospitals are really only needed for (1) Battlefield Medicine and (2) captured cities with a looser build. (BTW, you can even build Battlefield Medicine without Sanitation if you capture five cities with hospitals.)

I almost always prefer Monarcy to Communism in wartime (assuming I can't manage WW in Republic). And how does Econ help with warmongering? If Smith's is taken, Econ is almost completely worthless (and almost surely better as a rade target than straight research).

Catt

(I don't want to skip out of the discussion, but I have to run. I'll be back in a few hours).

[Dominae]

The difference between Navigation and Economics is that Smith's is widely regarded as being a great Wonder across all game situations, while Navigation's trade across Ocean ability is duplicated by another tech. Therefore not researching Economics means losing a shot at great benefit (not unlike researching Military Tradition, for example). So human players and the AI are basically "in agreement" as to the usefulness of researching Economics.

But it certainly would not hurt (in my mind) to make Economics mandatory. It's just that it's a slippery slope, and I agree that a whole bunch of techs should be made mandatory if only a few are changed at first.

If this were my mod, the following techs would be mandatory (after reflection this weekend):

Printing Press
Navigation
Nationalism
Sanitation
Advanced Flight

The first two I've argued at length in these threads. I've never understood why Nationalism was made optional in the first place, given that the AI relies so darn heavily on it. I included Sanitation because I believe it would make the game more interesting, by putting Hospitals in the face of players (like me) who could not care less about cities with pop greater than 12. Similarly, Advanced Flight provides some abilities which would make the game a lot more interesting.

Obviously, the backdrop purpose behind all these additions is to make the AI more competitive with respect to tech trading.

But the last three paragraphs are only my personal opinion, and are not an attempt to make further changes to the AU mod (yet!).


Dominae

[Theseus]

Too much. For me at least... I worry about cascade effects a lot, and this many changes altogether could be quite unbalancing.

I said it a bit ago: I think the AU Mod 'feels' very good, and that we should stay with it mostly as is for a while, addressing the changes that come with patches and new releases.

AU 207 (as opposed to several recent previous AU games) bugs me... there should have been more instances of KAI civs. I'd rather we focus on that.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Theseus
AU207 (as opposed to several recent previous AU games) bugs me... there should have been more instances of KAI civs. I'd rather we focus on that.

I was going to bring this up once the AARs started slowing down in the spoilers thread. But for now I can say (without spoilers) that I'm confident the lack of KAIs is not the AU mod's fault. I had a pretty tough time "creating" KIAs on a Huge map. Maybe this is standard for Huge maps, or maybe I just did not select a good map for KIAs. Anyway, I'll post more specific thoughts later on in the spoiler thread.


Dominae

[Master Zen]

I agree with Printing Press, Navigation and Advanced Flight being required. I beg to differ on Nationalism (or Communism) and Sanitation. Some of us really appreciate the benefits that large cities give ($$$-wise and tech-wise) and will get them anyway. Plus, the AU mod gives Longivety with Sanitation so that's an even greater incentive IMO.

My experience with Huge maps has been a lack of KAI's too. I am not playing AU207 because I am playing a Huge challenge game in the Spanish forum and none of the 10+ players have encountered a KAI. I've just finished a war with the #3 power and I squashed them like a bug.

In my other Huge games I have also had the same thing happen (I don't play too many huge maps because of my lowly P3 )

[badams52]

Originally posted by Theseus
AU 207 (as opposed to several recent previous AU games) bugs me... there should have been more instances of KAI civs. I'd rather we focus on that.

I think there should have been more KHumans.

And to get back to on topic, the only difference between mandatory and not mandatory dead-end techs is the trading the human will do to get them (if he doesn't like them). Especially those techs in the beginning, sanitation, nationalism, printing press, etc.

[Catt]

I'm only playing devil's advocate, here. As I said earlier, I am ambivalent about the proposed change.

Originally posted by Dominae
The difference between Navigation and Economics is that Smith's is widely regarded as being a great Wonder across all game situations, while Navigation's trade across Ocean ability is duplicated by another tech.

But if Smith's is taken (or the player beieves he will lose Smith's because of a lack of either a leader or an adequate pre-build) then Economics is virtually worthless -- very few players will be building a whole lot of wealth at that time, so the 8:1 change to 4:1 wealth ability is of little use.

Optional techs are made interesting through a variety of ways: (1) units (Chivalry, Military Tradition); (2) improvements (Literature, Sanitation); (3) abilities (PP-Democracy, Navigation); and (4) wonders (Economics, Music Theory, Free Artistry). Of course there is some cross-over as well (Literature being a great example).

Navigation offers both a wonder and an ability, albeit an ability that is duplicated later in the tech tree and a wonder that many feel is only "nice to have." Comparing Econ to Navigation, if the wonder is lost, Navigation actually offers something of value -- if the reasoning for making Navigation mandatory is "making it more challenging to the human" instead of "improving the AI" it seems to me to make a strong case for making Econ mandatory (since I believe AI's will still research Econ if Smith's is gone and also suffer from the inability to plan and pre-build for wonders so will pursue Econ as if Smith's were available when in fact it is gone in all but name).

Originally posted by Master Zen
I agree with Printing Press, Navigation and Advanced Flight being required. I beg to differ on Nationalism (or Communism) and Sanitation. Some of us really appreciate the benefits that large cities give ($$$-wise and tech-wise) and will get them anyway. Plus, the AU mod gives Longivety with Sanitation so that's an even greater incentive IMO.

I agree with you on the power of hospitals, and lately have been getting to Sanitation earlier and earlier in the Industrial Age because of it.

But it seems to me that you're confusing personal play preferences with strategic play options. I might put Navigation in the same category as Sanitation -- it offers a tangible advantage tha can be exploited (early ocean trade) just as Sanitation does (larger cities). The difference, I acknowledge, is that you will probably have to get Sanitation at some point but can skip Navigation entirely. On the other hand, if you are content to wait on hospitals, you can let the AI's research it and buy it on the cheap -- just like Navigation. For more on personal play style, see next comment.

Originally posted by Dominae in the AU Mod II Thread
The only games where you would not want Cavalry around are those where you're either very far ahead (and able to just fly into the Industrial age unscathed in order to get at all the goodies there) or very far behind (where you would rather just get "industrialized" as quickly as possible).

This also strikes me as personal play preference. I've been playing largely peaceful games to learn more about how that aspect of the game works -- even in peaceful games defensive and limited offensive warfare is needed, of course. Military Tradition is a tech that I can frequently bypass without much thought -- in fact, I would be most likely to skip it in the situation opposite of those you describe -- I will skip it if not at war and in a tight tech race. Cavalry are great offensive units, and great mobile defenders for counter-attacks. But if an offensive is not in the offing, the better mobile defender is railroad, and I would not slow a march to Steam Power to stop off at MT.

By the way, in AU 207 I researched Navigation before Chemistry and skiped (later traded for) Military Tradition.

Catt

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Catt
This [use of Cavalry] also strikes me as personal play preference...Military Tradition is a tech that I can frequently bypass without much thought -- in fact, I would be most likely to skip it in the situation opposite of those you describe -- I will skip it if not at war and in a tight tech race.

I must retract what I said earlier concerning Cavalry. You're right that in peaceful games (whether or not you're ahead), researching Military Tradition is hardly a priority. This is, unfortunately, at the core of my criticism of the AI: it selects techs independently of the game situation (or so I assume). It is really quite annoying that the AI "needs" all the techs to function, while the human player does not. But I'm not calling to make Military Tradition mandatory, as this would obviously warrant making all techs required, in all ages.

By the way, in AU 207 I researched Navigation before Chemistry and skiped (later traded for) Military Tradition.

...and in other games you would do the opposite, but in both cases you would have "outsmarted" the AI with respect to tech research. That's the problem.

By the way, I'm aware that we're not arguing here, but your comments provide great material for exposition of my proposal!


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae

...and in other games you would do the opposite, but in both cases you would have "outsmarted" the AI with respect to tech research. That's the problem.

I completely agree - but from my point of view, this problem is inherent in the very distinction between mandatory and optional techs -- so long as I can make intelligent (I hope ) decisions about which optional techs to bypass while the AI is incapable of making such decisions intelligently, I will have an advantage. The logical leap I'm having trouble making is that such advantage is significantly more problematic with respect to Navigation than with respect to other optional techs (or at least significantly problematic enough to warrant a change specific to that tech).

Catt

[CerberusIV]

I am getting a bit confused folowing the arguments in two threads!

My uncertainty is still whether the number of optional techs in the medieval is too many.

Ancient era - 21 techs - 3 optional

Medieval - 22 techs - 8 optional (7? in the AU mod)

Industrial - 22 techs - 6 optional

My current SP game is an illustration of what can be done. I am playing the Persians on a continents map in Monarchy and researching Feudalism. My Immortals are crushing the Ottomans who should be finished soon. After that I will regroup and crush the Zulus who are on the other side of the Ottomans and that will give me the whole continent. Because of the time spent in monarchy I will probably fall behind the Babylonians who are on a small continent nearby and also the other 4 civs I have not yet contacted.

My current research is to Chivalry, then Gunpowder, then Banking and Astronomy. After that I will go for MT, Magnetism, Theory of Gravity and get into the Industrial and Nationalism for free. MT and Magnetism will allow me to land cavalry to overrun the Babs.

The point is that this allows me to skip 5 optional techs (4 if it were the AU mod) which the AI civs will patiently research and I can probably get from them with judicious trading of one or two techs from my own research. If the Babs beelined the mandatory techs they could probably beat me to the Industrial and be a much tougher nut to crack.

My point is that it is possible to skip a large chunk of the medieval tech tree, probably too much, and making a couple more optional techs mandatory would limit the human player doing this sort of thing to the AI knowing it will work very well.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Catt
The logical leap I'm having trouble making is that such advantage is significantly more problematic with respect to Navigation than with respect to other optional techs (or at least significantly problematic enough to warrant a change specific to that tech).

My reasoning is as CerberusIV just mentioned. From a "help the AI by hurting the human" perspective, it would be best just to make most if not all techs optional. This is too radical a change for the AU mod. But this does not mean some cannot be made mandatory, while others remain as is. My criteria criteria for changing the optional status of certain techs are: 1) at most minor changes to strategy/gameplay (other than the fact the AI is better), 2) no changes in certain trends (like all governments come with an optional tech), and 3) reduction in the "skip techs I do not want" power of the human player.

So, to address your comment, Navigation itself is not "problematic". It's just that making it mandatory would be a step in the right direction (to help the AI), without going too far off the beaten path (the other parts of the AU mod philosophy).


Dominae

[Ephesos]

This may be just me, but I think that most of the military techs should be made optional. Except for general techs like Replaceable Parts, most military advances carry little value off the battlefield in the real world.
On the other hand, Sanitation should be required because it is so essential to a real-life industrial civ (just think about it )
Navigation should also be required because otherwise, the other naval techs become a bit far-fetched. It's simple logic, really.