FIRAXIS: A list of EASY fixes for the next C3C patch - Page 8

Gyromancer · November 17, 2003, 14:44

I think they meant Republic to be a government that transitions from the ancient Athenian democracy in the early part of the game to the "speak softly and carry a big stick" imperialist democracy:

6 level 1 cities( ancient age benchmark): 6 units free, 12 units cost 12 upkeep.

6 level 2 cities(middle ages benchmark): 18 units free, 36 units cost 36 upkeep.

6 level 3 cities(industrial age benchmark): 24 units free, 48 units cost 48 upkeep.

The problem here is that Republic is now so much better overall than monarchy/feudalism in the middle ages that I can't imagine anyone but the most die-hard warmonger not choosing it. I think that the free unit progression should be more like 1-2-4 or 1-1-4 instead of the 1-3-4 currently in the game.

That would preserve the peacenik nature of republic through the ancient age while still allowing for the militaristic "manifest destiny" model in the Industrial age. (And keep republic from completely dominating monarchy/feudalism in the middle ages...)

Jaybe · November 17, 2003, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by dexters
Alva, the problem is, until Galleons and Frigates hit, the AI simply do not have the transport capacity to mount a substantial naval invasion. It just doesn't build enough galleys, or caravels.

...

I suspect this is because the new AI code applies mostly to the case where you have a transport + escort. Before Frigates, all ships double as a transport and a warship. Perhaps this can be fixed in the next patch, and if it is fixed, then your idea will work, I think.

Add bombardment capability to galleys and caravels (2.1.1), along with Naval Power AI flag. A simple fix that enlivens early naval warfare tremendously.

Bombardment capability can simulate coastal raiding parties, if you want to rationalize it (necessary for those BARBARIAN galleys)!

DrSpike · November 17, 2003, 14:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Gyromancer
The problem here is that Republic is now so much better overall than monarchy/feudalism in the middle ages that I can't imagine anyone but the most die-hard warmonger not choosing it. I think that the free unit progression should be more like 1-2-4 or 1-1-4 instead of the 1-3-4 currently in the game.

I think the case remains to be made as to why republic should get any free units.

asleepathewheel · November 17, 2003, 15:45

shouldn't zeus require horses and ivory, as it produces ancient cavalry? These guys aren't parading around on 'phants are they?

lockstep · November 17, 2003, 16:06

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman [*]Restore PTW AI behavior

I'd rather say 'Restore PTW barbarian AI behavior.' Many users seem to be quite happy with Conquests' other AI tweaks, e.g. for naval warfare.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gyromancer
I think that the free unit progression should be more like 1-2-4 or 1-1-4 instead of the 1-3-4 currently in the game.

I was thinking about 1-2-3 as an 'easy' fix, but this obviously needs to be tested further. And while this should weaken Republic vs. Monarchy (currently my main concern), something also needs to be done to strengthen Democracy vs. Republic.

Risa · November 17, 2003, 16:20

I think there is another way to avoid Maya's worker-hunting: Just makes JT enslaves units as warriors rather than workers. What about that?

As for giving all civs enslavement ability, what about a new optional tech called "Slavery" with preq.s as Writing and Warrior Code, and a new cheap small wonder called "Slave Market" or what ever, which is available at Slavery and is obsoleted at Industrialization, and gives any land troop the ability of enslaving units as warriors (but at lower chance)?
I make it a small wonder so that it can use existing mechanics about obsoleting, and give players the choice of using it or not. I choose Industrialization as its outdating tech because it's when Universal Suffrage is available, though I would prefer it be Democracy if it wasn't a optional tech. And making it enslave as warriors is for avoiding worker-hunting problem.

Any comment? And is the second one too hard to make into a mod?

alexman · November 17, 2003, 16:31

I like your first suggestion Risa.

The second seems like a big change, but it's interesting, even if it requires a new Wonder ability which is currently not present.

Stuie · November 17, 2003, 16:49

to Risa's ideas. Very nice.

I really like the idea of enslavement becoming obsolete. I know it's not an "easy" fix, but if they have room for any enhancements....

Dominae · November 17, 2003, 16:49

I think Enslave should make Workers. It makes more sense that way. Just remove the Barb-farming option and the whole issue goes away.

Dominae

Inverse Icarus · November 17, 2003, 17:01

enslavement hasn't become obsolete in over 6000 years of recorded history... why should it in the game?

asleepathewheel · November 17, 2003, 17:02

I think the worker slaves are best. I don't think in the epic game you should be getting offensive units from barbs. I can just imagine-stockpiling gold, and capturing 10 warriors or so from a camp-boom-instant sword rush.

alexman · November 17, 2003, 17:05

They will be regular Warriors though, right? Unless you use them against their own old barb camp to get promoted!

In any case, you would still need 600 gold to upgrade those 10 Warriors...

Risa · November 17, 2003, 17:10

IIRC, historywise slaves are both peace-time workers and war-time cannon-fodders. It makes sense enslaving as warriors, IMO.
Bisides, even cannon-fodders sometimes need to get better equipment, or even be assorbed into regular army. That is represented by spending money upgrading slave warriors to more up-to-date units.

asleepathewheel · November 17, 2003, 17:10

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
They will be regular Warriors though, right? Unless you use them against their own old barb camp to get promoted!

In any case, you would still need 600 gold to upgrade those 10 Warriors...

I know I have 600 spare gold just laying around in the ancient age......

ok, so that wasn't a good idea on my part....

Dominae · November 17, 2003, 17:15

Mayan Javelin Thrower hits Babylonian Warrior in the chest.

"Ouch", says Babylonian Warrior, "that hurt".

"Now you are part of the Maya, weakling", states the Jav. Thrower, in the typical monotone of uncivilized nations.

"Well, I guess I had better pick up a sword and fight for you guys then? Is 'Long live the Maya, Death to Babylonians and other heathens!' an acceptable battle cry?", asks Babylonian Warrior.

"Yes. Now go and die."

Dominae · November 17, 2003, 17:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Risa
IIRC, historywise slaves are both peace-time workers and war-time cannon-fodders. It makes sense enslaving as warriors, IMO.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the former what was a lot more popular than the latter, right?

Dominae

asleepathewheel · November 17, 2003, 17:19

I can see some inertia. wipe out a garrison, converting say two into warriors, upgrading them into swords in the conquered city and continuing on. that would be very nasty. You can already see something like that in the Fall of Rome conquest-warlords enslave into marauders who upgrade into....more warlords. nasty.

Risa · November 17, 2003, 17:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
Mayan Javelin Thrower hits Babylonian Warrior in the chest.

"Ouch", says Babylonian Warrior, "that hurt".

"Now you are part of the Maya, weakling", states the Jav. Thrower, in the typical monotone of uncivilized nations.

"Well, I guess I had better pick up a sword and fight for you guys then? Is 'Long live the Maya, Death to Babylonians and other heathens!' an acceptable battle cry?", asks Babylonian Warrior.

"Yes. Now go and die."

Oh, really funny, really.

alexman · November 17, 2003, 17:23

English Man-O-War fires at French galley.

"Don't shoot", says the French captain, "I just polished the deck".

"Now you are part of the English, weakling", states the English commander, in the typical monotone of uncivilized nations.

"Well, I guess I had better load my little galley with 80 cannons, call it a Man-O-War, and fight for you guys then? Is 'God save the Queen, Death to the French and other heathens!' an acceptable battle cry?", asks the French captain.

"Yes. Now get in the line with us."

lockstep · November 17, 2003, 17:26

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
They will be regular Warriors though, right? Unless you use them against their own old barb camp to get promoted!

Not sure about that one, but I guess they would be conscript warriors - like the warriors from a hut and the drafted defense units.

BTW, the experience level of 'enslaved' Man-O-Wars should provide the answer - but I haven't tried the English in Conquests until now, nor have I seen an English AI.

Gramphos · November 17, 2003, 17:28

GENERAL SCENARIO HANDLING
Make it possible for scenarios that have a scenario folder to record their own highscore. (Instead of not saving the highscore for scenarios save them to a file in the scenarioname directory if that directory exists.)

Dominae · November 17, 2003, 17:32

Ha! You think you got the better of me with your cut-and-paste tricks, eh alexman?

Well! What you're not considering is that ships conquered by English are refitted to be Man-O-Wars, so it's not the people who are changing sides, but the vessel itself. This (presumably) makes more sense that what you're describing.

/me sits back to enjoy his victory.

Dominae

alexman · November 17, 2003, 17:38

I know, I know, I lose again...

But my point was that in a game like Civ, it's gameplay that matters obove all, and if you can provide some loose historical basis for better gameplay mechanics (like Risa has) so much the better. Don't you agree that Warriors instead of Workers would weaken the Mayan unit and thus provide better balance?

Dominae · November 17, 2003, 17:47

Well, it's a choice between:

1) Mayans get Warriors when they successfully Enslave a unit. Barbs remain valid targets.

2) Mayans get Slave Workers when they successfully Enslave a unit. The Enslave ability does not work on Barbs.

Which is better for gameplay? I'm not really sure. I prefer the second option, because it removes the silly "Barb hunt" strat, which the AI most definitely does not use. Whether I get Warriors or Slaves, I'll still feel dirty when I keep camps around for profit as the Mayans.

Dominae

alexman · November 17, 2003, 17:51

Agreed, I'm not sure which is better for gameplay either. I would be happy either way, actually. But Risa's solution is obviously much easier to implement, so I included both in the first post.

asleepathewheel · November 17, 2003, 18:29

what if each jav could only enslave one unit? would that nerf them too much?

vmxa1 · November 17, 2003, 19:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Stuie

to Risa's ideas. Very nice.

I really like the idea of enslavement becoming obsolete. I know it's not an "easy" fix, but if they have room for any enhancements....

In a sense it does. In that the JT will not be winning all that many battles as time goes by and you will want to upgrade it.

statusperfect · November 17, 2003, 19:30

has firaxis commented the corruption bugs??

they totallt RUIN the game

alexman · November 17, 2003, 19:31

A couple of AI observations:

The AI in Despotism irrigates grasslands again for no reason, after it was fixed in PTW not to do so. Sigh.

The AI starts building boats only after it has reached about half the OCN (which was increased in C3C, by the way), or after it has run out of room to expand. The result is that it very rarely builds curraghs.

alexman · November 17, 2003, 19:49

Also, with the addition of Wonders to previously low-priority required techs (Mathematics and Polytheism), the AI now usually ignores Literature until the Middle Ages. If you give Literature a benefit already given by Writing, such as Military Alliances, there will be no difference in game play, but the AI will research Literature earlier.