AU mod: The Colosseum

[Dominae]

Yes.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
Current stats per happy face:
Colosseum: 60 shields, 1 maint, 1 culture
Temple: 60 shields, 1 maint, 2 culture
Cathedral: 53.3 shields, 0.67 maint, 1 culture
Temple+Cathedral: 55 shields, 0.75 maint, 1.25 culture

You can see that building a Colosseum when you can build a Temple and/or Cathedral is usually a silly decision.

However, building a Colosseum under stock rules may be a good decision if a) cathedrals aren't available and b) you already have a temple, given the fact that you can't build a second temple.

I'm voting for YES regarding a maintenance cost reduction to 1, but like to have another vote on shield costs (reduction to 100 or 110).

[alexman]

Maintenance will be changed to 1gpt.

AU Mod panel, you have 24 hours to vote:
Yes/No: Should the cost of the Colosseum be reduced to 110 shields?

My vote: Yes
(Shields per happy person are then the same as Temple+Cathedral for non-religious)

[Nor Me]

Yes.

[Dominae]

Sure.

[lockstep]

YES.

[Stuie]

Yes.

[Theseus]

Yes.

[nbarclay]

Here's another case of a premature vote. I'm not sure I like the idea of both making the colosseum the most cost-effective happiness improvement in the game in terms of upkeep and reducing its shield cost per happy face to match the temple/cathedral combination. I could easily support one or the other by itself, but is making a colosseum more cost-effective than a temple both in upkeep cost per happy face and in cost to build per happy face really a good thing?

Nathan

[alexman]

Originally posted by nbarclay
is making a colosseum more cost-effective than a temple both in upkeep cost per happy face and in cost to build per happy face really a good thing?

According to 6 out of the 7 panel members, yes.

Temples are a relatively fast Ancient build, they give more culture per happpy face than Colosseums, and they allow Catherdals. Non-religious civilizations now have a choice, depending on their expected happiness problems. Religious civilizations still go for Temples in a no-brainer.

If any member of the panel has second thoughts, please speak up and I will add this issue to the ones "under consideration".

[pvzh]

Since, alexman okayed the idea about coloseums, I am putting it here.

Edit: alexman okayed the fact that we can consider such an idea, which does not imply that he agrees with me

I think we need to do something to militaristic trait, since we mangled armies, military great leaders cannot rush great wonders, and leaders/armies were the main advantage of being militaristic.

Current AU Coloseum is 110 shields, 1gtp, 2 content, 2 culture

Some thing to consider:

* add millitaristic flag, so Coloseum could be 120 shields, 1gtp, 2 content, 2 culture and militaridtic. Thus, militaristic civs will have them for 60 shield. Roman republic with coloseums everywhere

* same as above, and add flag reduce war weariness (maybe with +1 gtp upkeep, but I think it is not good because it will not justify building it for non-militaristic civ).

[alexman]

Hey, I don't need to OK any ideas. Everyone should feel free to make suggestions.

Anyway, I must say (again) that I like that idea a lot:

• 120 shields (back to stock value)
• 2gpt maintenance (back to stock value)
• Militaristic: Gives some punch back to the trait.
• War weariness reduction... we need to be careful with this one, because it might upset the delicate balance of governments in the mod. Would it weaken Monarchy compared to Republic and Feudalism? I think not, since non-militaristic civs would have to pay a steep price to build and maintain Coloseums. Militaristic civs would get an interesting strategic choice, since Monarchy is appealing to them because of zero WW and high unit support.

[ZargonX]

I think these are some excellent suggestions! The choice you mention that Militaristic civs would have to face is an enticing one, indeed. Definitely worth discussing

[pvzh]

Well, it will improve Feudalism compare to Monarchy obviously, especially for militaristic civs: easier to control war weariness, which kind of out of place for "war" goverment. I think this is for the good because Feudalism is still sub-par goverment considering that you need to wait for it much longer: whole ancient era, unlike republic or monarchy, which have neat bee-lines. And waiting usually means despotism with standart tile penalty: and that is a BIG opportunity cost for using feudalism.

However, it will definitely help Republic, but republic still needs a nerf IMHO, late republic with markets or even banks (I do not mention stock exchanges), can easily pay 2 gtp, without need to consider switch to monarchy or feudalism: you have even better corruption than monarchy and trade bonus! Plus, nuisance corruption (current republic) is very close to minimal, so there is no push for feudalism either.

I would lower Repblic corruption down to rampant (as Despotism), with a trade bonus it will not be a big deal commerce wise. Implying that Republic is for relatively small and peaceful states (if you want be big go for Monarchy with problematic corruption, or wait longer and go for Feudalism with minimal corruption). Such republic can handle war-weariness Coloseum quite well

The war weariness flag can really make coloseum to shine: as it now it is "dead-end" happieness structure, but with this flag it has a niche and unique role. Plus, 2gpt kind of expensive for just 2 content faces, but with warweariness flag it is ok.

[nbarclay]

The idea that with armies weakened, the Militaristic trait has virtually nothing left going for it is off target. Cheap barracks can be immensely valuable if a player wants to engage in very early warfare. For the cost savings on six barracks, a player could build up to twelve extra veteran warriors for upgrade to swordsmen. Under the right circumstances, the value of that advantage can be completely out of proportion to the humber of shields saved. In addition, the Militaristic trait provides half-cost harbors and airports, with harbors being especially valuable for connecting islands to trade networks and for making coastal cities more useful more quickly. And promotions to elite enhance the combat capabilities of units independent of the potential for generating leaders. That's not to say that Militaristic is one of my favorite traits; it's not. But the trait does have other things going for it besides just an improved ability to generate leaders for armies. And the Militaristic trait would provide greater advantages for players whose preferred playing style meshes better with the trait's advantages than mine does.

Also, what we've done to weaken armies is certainly not disastrous from the Militaristic trait's perspective. Yes, we've made armies less powerful. But on the other hand, in the stock rules, every hit point in an army comes from units added to it, while in the current AU Mod, armies provide an extra unit's worth of hit points for free. That extra "free unit" worth of hit points offsets at least some of the decrease in the power of armies. And also remember how much more powerful stock C3C armies are compared with the old PtW armies, so our weakening effect is relative to a very strong starting point.

I'm not necessarily opposed to pvzh's proposal. But if we adopt it, I want us to do so for the right reasons and not because we view the Militaristic trait as weaker than it really is.

[Modo44]

I'd appreciate militaristic civs to be helped a bit. Most of the time, the AI just can't play them and loses badly. Can't remember a strong Militaristic AI coming at me since I stopped playing PTW, so yes, the new handling of armies seems to be one of the problems as well. I'd appreciate a change that would help those. If it makes more players want to have the Militaristic trait, it's even better that way.

[alexman]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The idea that with armies weakened, the Militaristic trait has virtually nothing left going for it is off target.

I don't think anybody claims that the trait has nothing going for it. But I think most agree that without the C3C AI Army exploit, it has been weakened compared to stock rules.

Anyway, are there any objections to putting pvzh's proposal under consideration?

[nbarclay]

The big question is exactly what variant or variants to put under consideration. My own preference would be 120 shields, 1gpt upkeep (so it's a bit more worthwhile for non-militaristic civs than under the stock rules), and the militaristic flag. I don't like the idea of a war weariness reduction because adding another building that reduces war weariness seems like a too big a deviation from stock for too small a benefit in return.

[punkbass2000]

If its only going to cost 1gpt, I think it should be 80 or 90 shields for Mil civs, not half price.

[nbarclay]

The fact that buildings flagged as militaristic are half cost for militaristic civs is hardcoded. There is no mechanism for setting the cost to something other than half for militaristic civs.

[punkbass2000]

You could add a 'MilColosseum' easily enough, I believe.

[pvzh]

punkbass2000, all improvements are available to everyone.

[alexman]

OK, so we have a 2-part proposal under consideration:

1. Yes/No: Restore cost to 120 shields and flag as Militaristic.
2. Yes/No: If part 1 is approved, restore maintenence cost to 2 gpt, and add war weariness reduction property.

Voting in 1 week

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by pvzh
punkbass2000, all improvements are available to everyone.

add a new tech, Being Militaristic thats how RAR and other mods handle it

[punkbass2000]

I knew there was a way

I wish I knew something about the editor so I could back up ideas I have

[alexman]

1. Yes/No: Restore cost to 120 shields and flag as Militaristic.
2. Yes/No: If part 1 is approved, restore maintenence cost to 2 gpt, and add war weariness reduction property.

OK, let's vote!

1. Yes.
2. No: as much as I like the idea, I think it might change game play enough to make it too drastic for this mod.

[nbarclay]

1. Yes, not that I care that much either way.
2. An emphatic no because I consider it too big a change from stock for too little advantage if it's even an advantage at all.

[lockstep]

1: Yes
2: No

[ZargonX]

1. Yes
2. Have to go with no on this one...

[alexman]

Please see the discussion about making the Colosseum a tourist attraction. I like the idea.