Apolyton University Mod: C3C version - Page 3

Theseus · January 16, 2004, 23:34

I'm with Dom... KISS.

Really, I can't stress this enough: C3C is a whole new beast; patch stuff is as yet uncertain (i.e., barbs, AI Armies, naval bombardment, etc.); we haven't played an AU game in HOW LONG?; etc.

While I appreciate the diligence in seeking out elements of the game that need improvement, I think we should stick to the broad brush strokes in a certain way (e.g., gameplay visible changes), while exploring advanced subtleties in another (e.g., preferences and flags).... most importantly, lock it down and PLAY THE NEW AU GAME!

alexman · January 23, 2004, 16:25

Version 1.00 is out.

Download from the initial post!

Dominae · January 23, 2004, 17:32

I'm pretty happy with version 1.00 (and 1.01b) of the mod. Good job everyone! However:

Quote:

Philosophy:

1. Not required for era advancement
2. Removed half the cost of the Republic, and added it to Philosophy.

This is pretty bad. Let's see:

a. It does not increase strategic options, because it's still the best move to rush for Philosophy and get a free tech on the way to Republic (Code of Laws).

b. It does not really help the AI, because all it does is slow the human player down. The AI will still not compete for Philosophy. If anything, it will reach the Medieval era faster and start on that tree, increasing the time it's not in Republic.

c. It does not preserve the feel of the stock game, for rather obvious reasons.

d. It does nothing else the AU mod was designed to do.

Although I admit there's a problem with Philosophy being too strong, I would rather we just had left it the way it is than play cut and paste with the tech tree (and still fail to solve the problem).

Dominae

player1 · January 23, 2004, 17:43

Hmm...

As far as know, AI researches optional techs less often.
Which means that AI would care for Philosophy even less then before.

P.S.
I did more conservative tweak in my mod:
Doubled cost of Philosophy (6 to 12), Republic cheaper for same amount (28 to 22).
While it does not fix the behavior, it at least makes more difficult to get free Republic (but more chance for free Code of Laws instead), and AI would still research it since its not too expensive, nor optional.

alexman · January 23, 2004, 17:53

Philosophy thread

donZappo · January 23, 2004, 20:34

Is there something easy to pull out of 1.02 to use in 1.01b in order to have the right graphics?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it. It's pretty easy to implement so I'm surprised that you didn't throw it into the "flavors" mod already.

-donZappo

ducki · January 23, 2004, 22:09

So is there a change needed in the biq or will both mods automagically find it?

Fosse · January 24, 2004, 12:15

Could the old .txt readme files be included with the zips in future versions? Those were nice because they carried a brief description of the change and the reasons why, which meant that people like me who only follow some of the discussions won't have to root through dozens of posts to find the reasons why.

Great job on the mod, and I'm looking forward to starting the first game. Thanks for the work.

Regards,
Fosse

Theseus · January 24, 2004, 14:48

Could we see final tallies for all the votes?

ducki · January 24, 2004, 15:03

Actually, Fosse, I think the top of this thread details all the current changes, but I agree, a readme would be a nice bonus.

Also agree with Theseus, especially since the rank voting system was very difficult to follow and tell which proposals were doing well(versus the simple Yes/No votes).

alexman · January 24, 2004, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Could we see final tallies for all the votes?

Does that mean you're volunteering to do it?

The next release will include a readme. We just didn't have time because the voting finished just a few hours before the AU game was to be released.

By the way, if you install the graphics, yes, both versions of the mod know to look for them.

Fosse · January 25, 2004, 00:38

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
We just didn't have time because the voting finished just a few hours before the AU game was to be released.

Can hardly fault you for that!

Cryptor · January 27, 2004, 04:25

When will the next release be by the way? Are you going to wait til the next AU game or continue releasing as new changes are approved. I was wondering whether I should wait for the next release, or mod in the build option changes and my own changes, which together are close to a mod themselves.

alexman · January 27, 2004, 07:32

I imagine that the next release will be in time for the next AU game. No time schedule is set yet. In the meantime, I would go ahead and mod the mod to my liking.

badams52 · February 6, 2004, 02:32

Alexman,

I currently have your AU Mod 1.02 in the Apolyton directory which means it's linked to the location of the file.

I will try to keep an eye on this thread to see when you update the AU Mod, but it would be easier for me if you PM me when you update to a later version so the link will be accurate.

Thanks

Aqualung71 · February 14, 2004, 08:01

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman

Philosophy

The main purpose of the AU mod is to challenge the player with a need for deeper strategy, while changing as little as possible. Deeper strategy is accomplished by presenting the player with more non-trivial decisions, and by improving the AI.

Now I've finished my first AU game and have a better understanding of the concept, I have a question that may help in in my approach to AU in future.

I enjoyed pretty much all the mods and I think they improved the game noticeably. Certain mods (such as the changes to Cavalry and Infantry attack values) definitely changed the way I play the game while others (such as resource positioning, though not really a "mod") served to highlight certain features and make you think more about your game.

So:

Is AU designed simply to teach us more about Civ3 strategy in general or is it also an attempt to improve the official version of the game by providing suggestions to the developers for future patches or ideas for Civ4?

I think the mods definitely improved the game in terms of making it more enjoyable and "fairer" to both the human and the AI (particularly the way it seemed to push the AI in certain directions), but they often change the way you play the game which may not help much if you are going to go back to stock rules at some point. I guess this is why some players choose to play with stock rules.

alexman · February 14, 2004, 09:23

That's a good question. I would say that the AU's goal is to study strategy. The lessons learned under stock rules will be slightly different than with the mod.

The AU mod's goal is to improve the game, while still preserving stock feel. I don't think it's possible to make a change that will not affect players' strategy compared to stock to a certain extent. Even if there is no change to gameplay, and you only change the AI's behavior, for example, players who know the AI tendencies in stock rules will change their approach to the game.

ducki · February 14, 2004, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
The AU mod's goal is to improve the game, while still preserving stock feel.

This is, IMO, the most subjective part of the mod. If you read through some of the threads on the C3C mod changes, it becomes apparent that there are a lot of different opinions on what "stock feel" is and how much deviation is too much.

For that reason alone, I am glad we have a panel now, so that there is a spread of that subjective "what is stock feel" instead of just 1 or 2 decisionmakers.

Personally, I think we've succeeded thus far - by the same token, I think you'd have to be fairly extreme to alter the inherent feel of the game, mostly because the design is so good, it's hard to **** it up unless you really try.

Aqualung71 · February 14, 2004, 11:26

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
The AU mod's goal is to improve the game, while still preserving stock feel.

And it's precisely for that reason that I hope the Firaxis people pay close attention to the AU forum and treat it as a resource of ideas for logical and "do-able" game improvements, as it's clear that a lot of thought and discussions on pros and cons happens before the game is modded.

From what I've read, it seems that Firaxis have picked up on some things implemented here in the past, so I hope it continues.

alexman · February 25, 2004, 08:44

This just in:

Rumor has it that the next official patch (1.18?) will include the AU mod change of removing the Electronics requirement from Motorized Transportation!!

By the way, it will also completely remove the Radio technology, move Radar towers to Advanced Flight, and add Electronics to the requirements of Advanced Flight.

How's that for proof of Firaxis listening to us?

Stuie · February 25, 2004, 09:17

Wow!! That's amazing. Nice to see the discussions here generating changes to the core game.

to everyone here at AU.

As for Radio, I never liked it as a tech; good riddance.

Risa · February 25, 2004, 10:09

Oh my GOD!

*calm down, calm down*

I can say nothing now. Just a few more days...

ZargonX · February 25, 2004, 11:09

Heh, I think we must have industry spies among us

sabrewolf · February 25, 2004, 11:39

Quote:

Heh, I think we must have industry spies among us

maybe

it's lovely to know that the community has a voice, especially considering that some changes are quite radical (scrapping radio, making advanced flight worth researching, etc)

Dominae · February 25, 2004, 11:41

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Rumor has it that the next official patch (1.18?) will include the AU mod change of removing the Electronics requirement from Motorized Transportation!!

Thumbs up to alexman for proposing it in the first place!

Now I will be very angry if my pleas of fixing Philosophy and the Theory of Evolution go unnoticed...

Dominae

ducki · February 25, 2004, 12:25

"Rumor"? What "rumor"?
That's a big change, I'm glad to see - even if it is just rumor - Firaxis willing to make radical changes that are more subtle(can I put those two phrases together?) than a broken corruption model.

Now, if we can just get some of the community artists to make Aerial View wonder graphics for the new stuff and have Firaxis fix the Aerial View for scenarios, I might just be the happiest guy on earth.

Oh, and AI Armies. And mixed-unit same-attribute armies(berserker+marines)

Man, another beta patch already? Whooo! Let's implement more mod stuff so they'll patch it in!

sabrewolf · February 25, 2004, 12:45

dominae:
i wouldn't be surprised if that (urgently needed) change won't be implemented.

removing and changing requirements is an editor-related thing, while the decision, which techs get chosen, is a programming-related modification.

for the same reason the corruption issue hasn't been touched.

the philosophy issue maybe also wasn't taken on, because the community hasn't managed to unanimously agree on a solution (random tech, no tech, cheapest tech, make it optional, change cost, etc).

i think the only real programming currently done for multiplaying...

i hope that lastest the june patch will have everything else

lockstep · February 25, 2004, 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Rumor has it that the next official patch (1.18?) will include the AU mod change of removing the Electronics requirement from Motorized Transportation!!

This is EXCELLENT news!

ducki · February 25, 2004, 13:49

I don't think the community will ever agree on a solution to ToE and Philo because there are so many different types of players that want a different experience. Lack of consensus would lead me to a more flexible/robust editor and/or game options screen. Or a "mini" editor for folks that want to change a couple of rules/setting but are intimidated by the editor - I know I'm intimidated, but part of that is the nature of most editors these days - short on docs, a GUI that is all "business", etc. Maybe they could release the editor's API and then a lot of these issues with too many solutions could be handled by the community with a secondary rules/options editor geared toward the more casual players instead of us codemonkeys/geeks.

I don't imagine this rumor is "public" anywhere, eh? Like a Jesse/Tavis post somewhere? (Hey, I can dream, can't I?)
Thanks for the pseudo-news, alexman!

Aqualung71 · February 25, 2004, 22:45

What happened to 1.16 and 1.17? Or have I been asleepatthewheel?

Anyway, great news - I think the AU Mod to Motorized Transportation was brilliant: it managed to be logical, very subtle, astoundingly simple, while extending strategic depth!

On the other hand, I'm ambivalent towards scrapping Radio. I'm not sure how adding the Electronics requirement to AF will make humans research it more if it's still optional. After all, it currently requires Radio which will now be scrapped, so no net change there. Not sure about other players, but for me Radar Towers come way too late to be of much use, and during invasions they are the first thing I bombard before sending in the ground forces. Still, the AI uses them so to the extent they make the AI more competitive that's good. So, want humans to research it? Make it required.