AU: A MOD for the curiculum

alexman · August 4, 2002, 20:10

Code:

============================
APOLYTON UNIVERSITY MOD 1.06
============================
(based on player 1's Patch Suggestion Mod)

This MOD tries to present the player with more strategic decisions by balancing the
existing elements of the game. It serves as a base for the Apolyton University curriculum,
which is a series of games aiming improve the skills of participants through discussion
of their strategy in those games.

The goals of this MOD are to:
- Present the player with more strategic decisions.
- Improve the AI.
- Change as little as possible, to preserve the unmodded Civ3 flavor.
- Reduce micromanagement.

GROUND UNITS
------------

Action: Added Wheeled ability to Tank, Panzer, Mech. Infantry, Modern Armor, Artillery,
Radar Artillery.
Reason: To give Paratroopers, Marines, and air and naval bombard support more improtance.
Comment: Also increases realism. You can still move these units on enemy roads.

Action: Reduced the cost of Musketmen and Musketeers by 10.
Reason: To make these units more cost-effective.
Comment: Two pikemen used to cost the same as one higher-tech musketman, yet they are more
effective on defense.

Action: Increased the movement of Musketeer to 2 and lowered its attack to 2 from 3.
Removed AI offense flag.
Reason: To make the AI use musketeers properly.
Comment: Still remains in the spirit of the original unit. A defensive unit that can be used
in an offensive role - supporting knights. Upgrade skips Riflemen because of
usefulness of two movement points.

Action: Increased attack strength of riflemen from 4 to 5 and reduced their cost from 80 to 70
Reason: Make these units more cost-effective and better-used by the AI.
Comment: The AI sometimes uses these units for attack, so an increase in their strength helps it.

Action: Increased attack strength of infantry from 6 to 8
Reason: Make these units better-used by the AI.
Comment: The AI sometimes uses these units for attack, so an increase in their strength helps it.

Action: Increased attack strength of marines from 8 to 10, and defense from 6 to 8.
Reason: Make this unit more valuable, and Amphibious War worth researching.
Comment: This might help the AI build these units more. They are more useful now that tanks
can't pass through jungles and mountains. This unit is as expensive as a tank, yet its
stats are still much lower.

Action: Increased attack strength of paratroopers from 6 to 8, and defense from 8 to 10.
Reason: Make this unit more valuable, and Advanced Flight worth researching.
Comment: To be consistent with the increase in infantry attack. This unit has the AI offense flag,
so it better do some damage when attacking. Provides a good mountain defender for
when Infantry upgrades to (wheeled) Mech Infantry.

Action: Removed the AI offense flag from Mech. Infantry.
Reason: To prevent the AI from attacking with these units.
Comment: Infantry built for attack (because the AI didn't have the resources to build cavalry
or tanks), is now converted to a defensive role and will never attack. This makes the
AI have to build new offensive units, which helps because Tanks are always available when
Mech Infantry is available.

Action: Added zero-range bombard ability to Archers (2), Bowmen (2), and Longbowmen (4).
Reason: To make Archers and Longbowmen worth building, even after Swordsmen and Musketmen,
respectively.
Comment: Combined Arms! Stacks of units with archers have some benefit when defending cities.
The AI aften puts an archer in its cities for couterattack anyway.

Action: Added airlift flag to Catapult, Cannon, Artillery, Radar Artillery, Explorer, Scout,
Leader.
Reason: To reduce micromanagement.
Comment: You can airlift tanks, why not atillery? Leaders can fly by plane.

Action: Increased movement of Radar Artilery by 1. Now requires oil and rubber in addition
to aluminum.
Reason: To keep up with mobile modern units, which was the major drawback of this unit.
Comment: Artillery should at least keep up with Mech. Infantry.
It's still slower than Modern Armor.

Action: Added pillage ability to Armies.
Reason: To give defensive Armies a function besides getting attacked.
Comment: All units that can go into an Army have this ability.

Action: Reduced defense of Modern Armor from 16 to 14.
Reason: To encourage combined arms.
Comment: The AI protects its offense-flagged units with defensive units anyway. MA was too good
for its cost (and still is).

Action: Added operational range of 8 to Tank, Panzer, Modern Armor and Mech. Infantry.
Reason: To discourage AI from building paratroopers instead of these units.
Comment: Since these units have no airdrop ability, will not affect gameplay, but it will
make sure the AI doesn't build paratroopers just because of their increased operational range.

Action: Reduced cost of cannon to 30 from 40.
Reason: To balance this unit compared to other ground bombard units.
Comment: Under the standard rules, catapults are always more cost-effective bombard units than cannons.
With this change, cannons are more cost-effective when bombarding a defender of strength 8 and
above. And even with this change, artilery is more cost-effective than cannon for a defender
above strength 8.

AIR UNITS
---------

Action: Increased ROF of Fighters and Jet Fighters to 2 from 1.
Increased bombard strength of Jet Fighters to 3 from 2.
Increased bombard strength of F-15 and Stealth Fighters to 6 from 4.
Reduced cost of Stealth Bomber to 200 from 240.
Gave all fighters lethal sea bombard (and the AI air bombard flag).
In addition, F-15 and Stealth Fighter have lethal land bombard.
Reason: To increase the importance of airpower and to balance fighters versus bombers.
Comment: Now carriers can use fighers to sink other ships, instead of always carrying bombers.
St.Fighters are a viable alternative to St.Bombers. The F-15 is a good UU (for a plane).
The following table shows the change in cost-effectiveness of each air unit in
bombarding.

===ORIGINAL===
Unit Str ROF Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
-------------------------------------------------------
Fighter 2 1 8 0.17 16
Bomber 8 3 10 1.33 100
Jet Ftr 2 1 10 0.17 13
F-15 4 2 10 0.57 43
St. Ftr 4 2 12 0.57 36
St. Bbr 8 3 24 1.33 42
Cruise 16 3 6 1.85 231*

===AU MOD===
Unit Str ROF Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%Bbr)
-------------------------------------------------------
Fighter 2 2 8 0.33 31
Bomber 8 3 10 1.33 100
Jet Ftr 3 2 10 0.46 35
F-15 6 2 10 0.75 56*
St. Ftr 6 2 12 0.75 47*
St. Bbr 8 3 20 1.33 50
Cruise 16 4 6 2.46 308*

Tables assume a 10-strength defender
Str = Bombard Strength
ROF = Rate of fire
Cost = shield cost / 10
Dmg = expected damage in HP
Value = Percentage of cost-effectiveness of bomber.
* = lethal land bombard

Action: Increased bombard range of Cruise Missile to 4 from 2, and its ROF from 3 to 4.
Reason: To make this unit more useful, since some air units now have lethal bombard.
Comment: The Civilopedia says Cruise Missiles have a range of hundreds of miles.
Higher ROF means it has an extra shot and a chance to kill healthy veteran units.

Action: Increased Helicopter range to 8 from 6, and transport capacity to 2 from 1.
Reason: To make this unit more useful.
Comment: The problem with helicopters was that it was difficult to land troops behind enemy lines.

Action: Increased Paratrooper operational range to 8 from 6
Reason: To make this unit more useful
Comment: For balance, the operational range of Helicopters and Paratroopers should be the same.

Action: Add the "Load" flag to Cruise Missiles.
Reason: To make the loading of this unit official and not an exploit.
Comment: Without this flag CMs can be loaded into transports directly, but not from cities.

NAVAL UNITS
-----------

Action: Added one move to all ships except: Galley, Caravel, Galleon, Ironclad, Carrier
Reason: To make Privateers and Frigates more powerful, without unbalancing later units.
Comment: Naval movement was too low compared to late-game land and air movement.
Player now has a strategic choice between Ironclad and Frigate, since the latter is slower.

Action: Added two moves to Carrier
Reason: To reduce micromanagement of carrier protection.
Comment: Battleships and Carriers do not have a big difference in speed in real life.

Action: Reduced the cost of the Privateer to 40 from 60.
Reason: To make this unit more useful
Comment: It was not a cost-effective unit. Privateers should be cheaper than the more powerful
Frigates.

Action: Prerequisite of the Ironclad is now Industrialization instead of Steam Power.
Increased cost to 90 from 80.
Reason: To make Frigates more useful.
Comment: Frigates became obsolete too fast. England might have a half-decent UU now.
Ironclads were actually more cost-effective for bombarding than battleships.

Action: Ironclad upgrades to Battleship.
Reason: To compensate for reducing the shelf-life of this unit by making it available later.
Comment: The civilopedia says that the ironclad was "the forerunner of the modern battleship".

Action: Frigate and Privateer upgrade to Destroyer
Reason: To encourage building these units
Comment: The upgrade cost is significant.

Action: Increased attack factor of Submarines and Nuclear Subs to 10 from 8.
Reason: To make these units (and hence AEGIS) more effective.
Comment: Makes these units more dangerous on attack, but still vulnerable if attacked.

Action: Increased ROF of Battleships, and AEGIS by 1.
Reason: To increase the significance of naval power.
Comment: Battleships are now as effective for bombardment as bombers.
The following table shows the change in cost-effectiveness of each naval unit in
bombarding.

===ORIGINAL===
Unit Str ROF Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%BB)
-------------------------------------------------------
Frigate 2 2 6 0.33 125
Man-O-War 3 2 6 0.46 173
Ironclad 4 2 8 0.57 161
Destroyer 6 2 12 0.75 141
Battleship 8 2 20 0.89 100
AEGIS 4 2 16 0.57 80

===AU MOD===
Unit Str ROF Cost Dmg(HP) Value(%BB)
-------------------------------------------------------
Frigate 2 2 6 0.33 83
Man-O-War 3 2 6 0.46 115
Ironclad 4 2 9 0.57 95
Destroyer 6 2 12 0.75 94
Battleship 8 3 20 1.33 100
AEGIS 4 3 16 0.86 80

Tables assume a 10-strength defender
Value = Percentage of cost-effectiveness of battleship.

IMPROVEMENTS AND WONDERS
------------------------

Action: Great Wall now also adds city walls to all towns in the same continent.
Reason: To make this wonder worth building.
Comment: This will mainly affect the outskirts of your empire (just like the real Great
Wall), since core cities will be larger than size-6 after Construction.

Action: Increased happy faces for Cure for Cancer to 3 from 1
Reason: To make this wonder worth building.
Comment: In the late game, when most empires have access to 6-8 luxuries,
1000 shields for one happy face is just not worth it.

Action: Longevity requires Sanitation instead of Genetics. Reduced cost to 800 from 1000.
Reason: To make this wonder worth building.
Comment: By the time of Genetics, most cities are already maxed out population-wise.

Action: Military Academy no longer requires a victorious Army.
Reason: To make Armies more common, and war just for leaders less important.
Comment: The Heroic Epic still requires a victorious Army.

Action: SS Life Support needs Recycling instead of Superconductor
Reason: To force players to research more modern techs before launching
Comment: The civilopedia entry mentions the importance of recycling for this component.

Action: SS Stasis Chamber needs Genetics instead of Synthetic Fibers
Reason: To force players to research more modern techs before launching
Comment: Cryogenics need a deep understanding of biology, including Genetics.

Action: SS Docking Bay requires Robotics instead of Space Flight
Reason: To force players to research more modern techs before launching
Comment: Just say you need robotic arms to load things in the docking bay.
Only the purely military techs now aren't required for a space victory.

Action: Increased the cost of all SS components by 50%
Reason: To make Manufacturing Plants a viable option.
Comment: The AI still places a high priority on building spaceship parts.

Action: Increased the upkeep of Banks from 1 to 2
Reason: To make building this improvement less of an obvious choice.
Comment: The AI benefits from this change as it generally builds banks later than the human.

Action: Increased the upkeep of Research Labs to 3 from 2.
Increased cost of Research Labs to 240 from 200.
Reason: To make building this improvement less of an obvious choice.
Comment: The AI benefits from this change as it generally builds labs later than the human.

GOVERNMENTS
--------------

Actions: Increased corruption for Republic from 'Nuisance' to 'Problematic'
Added 3 free unit support to Monarchy.
Increased worker speed to 3 from 2 for Communism.
Doubled free unit support per town/city/metro and added 10 free units for Communism.
Added 1 free unit per city and two free units per metropolis for Democracy.
Reason: To reduce the relative effectiveness of Republic
and the relative weakness of Communism
Comment: Non-religious civs rarely had a reason to be in any other form of
government than Republic. Communism was never worth it, even for
religious civs.

GLOBAL CHANGES
--------------

Action: Doubled value of Wealth
Reason: To make this build option sometimes worth choosing.
Comment: It's still better to build units and disbanding them in corrupt cities (instead of
using Wealth and rush-buying), but at least now Wealth is more useful than it
used to be.

Action: Doubled effect of specialists
Reason: To make encourage 20+ size cities.
Comment: This might benefit the human more than the AI for cities under max-size, and
it adds some micromanagement. On the hand, having a few large cities rather than
many small ones reduces micromanagement, and presents the player with another
decision.

Action: Reduced cost of Propaganda by 50%
Reason: To make this option worth pursuing.
Comment: Playtesting by player 1 has indicated that this reduction in cost is not too much.

AESTHETIC CHANGES
-----------------

Action: Added more (and accurate) city names
Reason: "London 2" just doesn't seem right.
Comment: Thanks to Sevorak and his mod for the compilation.

CHANGES TO AI BUILD-OFTEN LIST
------------------------------

Action: Changed AI build-often list as shown below
Reason: To bring AI build order closer to what expert human players have found optimal
Comment: Added production to all civs to encourage factories. Each civ has at least one
marketplace category (trade, happiness, wealth) to encourage building this important
building. Encouraging AI to take advantage of their cheap buildings: Scientific
have Science flagged, Religious have happiness, Militaristic have trade and units.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civilization Off Def Arty Setl Work Nav Air Grth Prod Hap Sci Wlth Trad Expl Cult
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rome (4) X - - X + +
Egypt (3) X X + + -
Greece (3) - + X X X
Babylon (4) + + X X
Germany (5) X + X + -
Russia (4) - X + X +
China (2) + - X - + +
America (3) X X X + -
Japan (4) X - + X +
France (1) + X X X
India (1) - + + X X -
Persia (4) X + + X -
Aztecs (4) X + X +
Zulu (5) X + + +
Iroquois (3) + X + X -
England (3) X + - X X

X = original
- = removed
+ = added

Action: Added "Emphasize Production" to advisor settings for all AI civilizations.
Reason: To bring AI irrigation, mining, and worked tiles closer to what expert human
players have found optimal.
Comment: The AI used to irrigate too much and had to compensate by assigning many entertainers.
The result was often large but unproductive cities.

VERSION HISTORY

[deleted 1.01 to 1.05]

1.06:
Added operational range of 8 to Tank, Panzer, Modern Armor and Mech. Infantry.
Added the "Load" flag to Cruise Missiles.
Reduced cost of cannon to 30.
Restored steal tech cost to original value.
Moved Longevity to Sanitation.
Removed the Swordsman-Longbowman upgrade path and restored Longbowman stats to original.
Gave Communism 10 free units plus double free unit support per city instead of free building maintenance.

Qustions? Comments? Suggestions? Post them here before we start the next game!

Theseus · August 5, 2002, 00:53

Excellent.

I hope Soren is watching.

Several comments / questions:

* Just so we all understand, zero-range bombard is such that when attacked, there's a 'free' counter-bombard?

* Thanks for eliminating some of player1's tweaks... the Sword-level unit upgrade was too far away from stock Civ3, both as it is and in the future, IMHO (that said, I think player1 has done great work).

* "Quadrupled value of Wealth"... what does this mean?

* The naval balances should be great.

* The build preferences will probably need the most tweaking going forward.

And lastly, thanks for good documentation... I know this is always a huge hassle for developers... Firaxis should hire you (although Mike B. seems to try to be the doc 'conscience' there!).

alexman · August 5, 2002, 01:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Just so we all understand, zero-range bombard is such that when attacked, there's a 'free' counter-bombard?

Yes, the archers now act like a catapult when they are attacked in a city. Actually, archers are half as strong as a catapult in this respect, but longbowmen have exactly catapult strength.

Quote:

"Quadrupled value of Wealth"... what does this mean?

Hmm, you discovered my extra liberties with the rules.

It means you get four times as much gold when you set your cities to "Wealth". I hope this can get rid of the tedious task of setting core cities to produce units, that you immediately disband in corrupt cities. If we quadruple wealth, then it is exactly the same to set the core cities to "Wealth" and rush the improvement in the corrupt cities using the extra cash. Otherwise disbanding units gives four times as many shields for each shield in the core city. Do you think this is unbalancing? I would love to give it a try. I increased the tech costs, for good measure, in case we end up with too much cash by setting all our empire to "Wealth".

lockstep · August 5, 2002, 04:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
* Thanks for eliminating some of player1's tweaks... the Sword-level unit upgrade was too far away from stock Civ3, both as it is and in the future, IMHO (that said, I think player1 has done great work).

For PtW, it is likely that swordsmen and/or longbowmen will upgrade to the new medieval infantry unit (which is currently being tested with A/D/M stats of 4/2/1), and from this unit an upgrade path to infantry or marines is at least discussible.

Also, I think that the possibility to upgrade swordsmen and longbowmen is one of the few tweaks that actually HELPS the AI.

Alexman, great work! (BTW, I noticed that ironclads upgrade to battleships instead of destroyers as in player1's mod.

)

lockstep · August 5, 2002, 07:58

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Action: Increased the attack strength of Musketmen and Musketeers by one.
Added AI offense flag to Musketman.

You meant Musketeer, didn't you?

EDIT: I noticed that Musketeers alse have the offense flag in vanilla v1.29. If you meant to add the offense flag to Musketmen: Is it really a good idea to attack with a 3/4/1 unit that costs 60 shields when there's also a 4/1/1 unit that costs 40 shield (the Longbowman)? Or do you think that the AI will attack with stacks of Longbowmen/Musketmen?

Killerdaffy · August 5, 2002, 08:33

alexman,

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Yes, the archers now act like a catapult when they are attacked in a city. Actually, archers are half as strong as a catapult in this respect, but longbowmen have exactly catapult strength.

I've tried it before, it works quite well and there isn't anything the AI can do wrong with it. Just the opposite: Finally the escorting-archers-with-spearman-thing will pay off.

Quote:

Hmm, you discovered my extra liberties with the rules.

It means you get four times as much gold when you set your cities to "Wealth". I hope this can get rid of the tedious task of setting core cities to produce units, that you immediately disband in corrupt cities. If we quadruple wealth, then it is exactly the same to set the core cities to "Wealth" and rush the improvement in the corrupt cities using the extra cash. Otherwise disbanding units gives four times as many shields for each shield in the core city. Do you think this is unbalancing? I would love to give it a try. I increased the tech costs, for good measure, in case we end up with too much cash by setting all our empire to "Wealth".

I think factor 4 is a little bit two much. Doubling it would still greatly decrease the need for micromanagement, especially since with the transfer and disband method you also have some losses, e.g. if your production doesn't fit exactly with the cost of the unit produced. Also talk about "preserving the original flavor..."

Have you thought about upping the number of beakers produced by taxmen and scientist from one to two like player1 did? It definitely makes sense but might be another disadvantage to the AI while increasing micromanagement.

Finally, cosmetics. I positively HATE cities like New Kyoto, Lahore2, etc. Any chance of incoporating the citynames patch? It just adds more cities, corrects the spelling and has been static for months, except for the version changes.

lockstep · August 5, 2002, 08:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Killerdaffy
I think factor 4 is a little bit two much. Doubling it would still greatly decrease the need for micromanagement, especially since with the transfer and disband method you also have some losses, e.g. if your production doesn't fit exactly with the cost of the unit produced. Also talk about "preserving the original flavor..."

Yes, player1's doubling of wealth is enough for me. A factor of 4 could have a lot of unintended side-effects.

Quote:

Have you thought about upping the number of beakers produced by taxmen and scientist from one to two like player1 did? It definitely makes sense but might be another disadvantage to the AI while increasing micromanagement.

Not only did player1, but virtually every major mod includes this feature. Alexman, please adopt it too!

lockstep · August 5, 2002, 08:58

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Action: Added one move to all ships except: Galley, Caravel, Galleon, Ironclad

Like player 1 you should add another movement point to the carrier, so that it has the same movement rate as the battleship.

Killerdaffy · August 5, 2002, 09:13

MI still have the offense flag on. The discussion is just on again in player1's thread with the usual result: It just doesn't make any sense and hurts the AI. Please take it out.

Harovan · August 5, 2002, 09:15

Quote:

Originally posted by lockstep
Like player 1 you should add another movement point to the carrier, so that it has the same movement rate as the battleship.

I second that. It also lessens the micromanagement if protecting a Carrier with a Battleship.

About the quadrupling of wealth. That's probably too much. What about doubling it plus doubling the effect of taxmen and scientists? Could be indeed a compromise.

And yes, if it can be done, please add one of these cityname and leadername mods. I hate Heidelburg, New Paris and London 2. Lockstep, can you recommend a good one? Maybe you post a link?

Killerdaffy · August 5, 2002, 09:20

The latest revision of Sevorak's original citynames mod is here http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...ight=citynames

player1 · August 5, 2002, 09:21

Riflemen & Infanrty stat changes removed from my MOD should stay.

Since that way, offense role of AI foot units shines, and make Cavalry vs Infantry decision more interesting.

As for my Sword & Longbow upgrade, it was just logical (at least until Ptw). They are all foot units with different weapons.
And Riflemen is also an ATTACK unit.

But since 0range bombard is exclusive to Archers-type, expet some player to use thme even in modern age.

Arrian · August 5, 2002, 09:41

The 4x wealth is definitely overkill (I'm ok with wealth as it is), 2x is enough.

What exactly were your infantry changes, Player 1? 8/8/1 for infantry, right? What about riflemen?

Ironclads to Battleships... well, I guess, but it better be expensive!

+2hp to subs? I'd just increase their a/d stats. Or add 1 hp. 2 is a lot.

I like the other changes a lot.

-Arrian

player1 · August 5, 2002, 09:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
What exactly were your infantry changes, Player 1? 8/8/1 for infantry, right? What about riflemen?

Just click on the link in my sign.

Killerdaffy · August 5, 2002, 09:52

Arrian,

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Ironclads to Battleships... well, I guess, but it better be expensive!

120 Gold enough for you? It might help the AI, especially the killer version that has enough money.

Arrian · August 5, 2002, 09:57

KD,

Yeah, I think it will help the ironclad-happy AI. 120 gold is ok.

P1,

5/6/1 for Riflemen
8/10/1 for Infantry

So a +1 attack for Rifles and +2 for Infantry. I like the idea, but I worry that 8 attack is a bit much for infantry. How about a compromise at 7?

Alexman,

What about P1's army changes (300 shields, can pillage things)? Those sound good.

-Arrian

lockstep · August 5, 2002, 09:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Killerdaffy
120 Gold enough for you? It might help the AI, especially the killer version that has enough money.

120 gold for the civ that has built Leonardo's. For everyone else, it's 240 gold.

lockstep · August 5, 2002, 10:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
+2hp to subs? I'd just increase their a/d stats. Or add 1 hp. 2 is a lot.

I second that. Just give them 10 attack instead of 8, like player 1 in his mod. No need to tinker with hitpoints (a rather controversal issue for mod-makers).

Killerdaffy · August 5, 2002, 10:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
What about P1's army changes (300 shields, can pillage things)? Those sound good.

Makes sense and at least shouldn't hurt the AI. We're gonna end up with 99% of player1's changes, anyway, they've been thoroughly discussed.

Plus the build restructuring, of course.

alexman · August 5, 2002, 11:40

Wow, so many things to answer!

Wealth boost: The point was to eliminate the disbanding of new units in corrupt cities. As it is now, it's NEVER worth it to produce Wealth, unless you don't feel like micromanaging. Increasing it by anything less than a factor of four will still make it better to produce units instead of Wealth. Ideally we would double Wealth and cut the shields from disbanding in half, but the latter is not editable. Anyway, since everyone agrees that a factor of four is too much, I will change it back to a factor of two.
Specialists: As Killerdaffy said, this would increase micromanagement, and probably disadvantage the AI (who rarely use specialists other than entertainers). It would also reduce the importance of corruption (and the commercial trait), since you could get a good income in 95% corrupt cities by irrigating everything and having lots of specialists. Do you still want this change?
Movement of carriers: Will increase to 6 immediately!
City and leader names: That's a lot of work to add now! Any volunteers?
AI Offense flag for Musketman: It's the same as having the AI offense flag for riflemen in the vanilla version. The AI uses mostly cavalry (or longbowmen) for attack, doesn't it? (At least now with 1.29 it does). I think the AI prefers to attack with units that have only the offense flag checked. It also does some sort of calculation to see if it has good odds of winning the battle. If not, it doesn't attack - usually. I wouldn't want to increase the stats of musketmen without having the AI take advantage of it.
AI offense flag for MI: I don't think the AI uses MI when there is MA available. If the offense is flagged for infantry, shouldn't it be also for MI? But I'm fine with it either way.
Increase Attack for Riflemen, Infantry: You're right, it will probably help the AI, who uses them on offense more often than the human does. I'll use player 1's ADM values, but I won't decrease their cost.
Submarines: By increasing their HP instead of their attack, we make extreme results (like subs getting sunk by galleons) less frequent. They are now stronger, but without being overpowering versus military ships. So subs will be forced to hunt transport ships instead of battleships, which I think is the correct thing to do.
Armies: Reducing their cost lessens the importance of leaders. Do we want to do that? If so, then I will make the change.

Thanks for all the great feedback!

lockstep · August 5, 2002, 12:56

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Wealth boost: The point was to eliminate the disbanding of new units in corrupt cities. As it is now, it's NEVER worth it to produce Wealth, unless you don't feel like micromanaging.

It can be worthwhile to produce wealth if one wants to max out the science rate to get a key technology ASAP and still maintain a positive cashflow. Producing wealth and rush-buying at the same time is a bad idea indeed under the present rules, and micromanagement is encouraged. However, quadrupling the wealth ratio makes for a whole different game and certainly cannot be termed as 'changing as little as possible'.

Quote:

Specialists: As Killerdaffy said, this would increase micromanagement, and probably disadvantage the AI (who rarely use specialists other than entertainers).

OTOH, it will encourage city growth beyond size 20, which is a good thing IMO. Also, to feed one additional specialist, you'll have to irrigate one railroaded grassland or plains tile instead of mining it, therefore foregoing two shields for two commerce. And contrary to the shields, no bonus can be applied for the additional commerce. Doesn't sound too unbalancing to me.

Quote:

Movement of carriers: Will increase to 6 immediately!

Quote:

City and leader names: That's a lot of work to add now! Any volunteers?

No need to reinvent the wheel. Look out for Sevoraks 'more city names' mod, v3.16.

Quote:

AI Offense flag for Musketman: It's the same as having the AI offense flag for riflemen in the vanilla version.

Yes, but that doen't necessarily mean it's a good idea.

Quote:

AI offense flag for MI: I don't think the AI uses MI when there is MA available. If the offense is flagged for infantry, shouldn't it be also for MI?

Contrary to infantry, if mech infantry is available (because you have the necessary techs/ressources), a better attack unit (the tank/panzer) is ALWAYS available.

Quote:

Increase Attack for Riflemen, Infantry: You're right, it will probably help the AI, who uses them on offense more often than the human does. I'll use player 1's ADM values, but I won't decrease their cost.

This is probably a matter of taste, but I'd rather decrease their costs and leave their A/D/M rates alone.

Quote:

Submarines: By increasing their HP instead of their attack, we make extreme results (like subs getting sunk by galleons) less frequent.

This is not a reason for a unit-specific hitpoint bonus, but for a general increase in hitpoints (e.g. a 3/4/5/6 scale). If you want that, it's fine with me. If not, rather tweak attack and defense values than hitpoints.

Quote:

Armies: Reducing their cost lessens the importance of leaders. Do we want to do that? If so, then I will make the change.

If one wants to somewhat lessen the importance of leaders and make armies more common, reducing their costs is the second-best way. The best way IMO is to make the Military Acadamy available with Military Tradition, but without a victorious army. Again, I'm not sure if this is compatible with a 'change as little as possible' approach.

Killerdaffy · August 5, 2002, 12:57

Alexman,

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
City and leader names: That's a lot of work to add now! Any volunteers?

:b Here, immediately, since I now do it every time I add another bic ... Which bic do you want me to use? The one posted above? Or do you have one with all the other changes implemented already?

Quote:

Increase Attack for Riflemen, Infantry: You're right, it will probably help the AI, who uses them on offense more often than the human does. I'll use player 1's ADM values, but I won't decrease their cost.

Submarines: By increasing their HP instead of their attack, we make extreme results (like subs getting sunk by galleons) less frequent. They are now stronger, but without being overpowering versus military ships. So subs will be forced to hunt transport ships instead of battleships, which I think is the correct thing to do.

Sounds both fine to me.

alexman · August 5, 2002, 13:41

OK, I just spent some time over in player 1's thread. Here is my understanding of how these flags are used by the AI:

The AI decides to build a defensive unit. It builds the best defensive unit it can build that has the defense flag checked. It uses this unit to defend cities, settlers, workers, and offensive units, but NOT to attack.

Similarly, when it decides to build offensive units, it builds the best one it can build and uses it to invade and attack enemy units. It will choose longbowmen over musketeers every time, since the former is always available and the latter is more expensive. That means that even if we flag musketmen and musketeers for attack, the AI will never use them as such. Has anyone EVER seen the AI use musketeers to attack under 1.29f?

Once a unit is flagged, it retains the same flag forever, even when it is upgraded. Hence, if a pikeman is upgraded to a rifleman, it will NEVER attack any other unit. Is this correct? Could we get Soren to comment on the validity of this statement?

If the AI lacks resources to build the best offensive unit, he will build a unit like infantry which has both flags, but it will use it only for attack. When it is later upgraded, it will be used for attack again, unless the upgraded unit doesn't have the attack flag. What happens if the upgraded unit doesn't have the old unit's flag? My guess is that it does not get upgraded. The AI keeps the old unit around, until it's destroyed by attacking.

If all the above is correct, I think we should do the following:
1) Do not increase the attack stats of the musketeer. Reduce the cost to 50 instead. The former would benefit the human player but not the AI. Remove the attack flag from this unit.
2) Keep the attack flag for MI. If the AI has attack infantry wandering around, why not upgrade them to MI and give them more mobility and strength? The upgrade cost is minimal, and the AI will never build attack MI from scratch, over tanks.
3) Increase the attack strength of riflemen and infantry by 1. Since these units are flagged for offense, the AI will be more likely to win some of the battles that are suicide right now.

Killerdaffy, thanks for volunteering!

But perhaps it's easier to start from the names mod and add all our changes, than to start from our changes and add all those names! What do you think? Is the "more city names" mod out yet?

Killerdaffy · August 5, 2002, 13:48

alexman,

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Killerdaffy, thanks for volunteering!

But perhaps it's easier to start from the names mod and add all our changes, than to start from our changes and add all those names! What do you think? Is the "more city names" mod out yet?

The city names patch has been out since about 1.16. I just copy-paste the city and leader names with two editors open, takes less than 10 min. At least you don't have to worry about forgetting a stat, since you simply do all civ's in a row. I already posted the link to a 1.29 version of the mod above, though, if you want to use it.

lockstep · August 5, 2002, 14:15

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
If all the above is correct, I think we should do the following:

2) Keep the attack flag for MI. If the AI has attack infantry wandering around, why not upgrade them to MI and give them more mobility and strength? The upgrade cost is minimal, and the AI will never build attack MI from scratch, over tanks.

If all the above is correct, I agree.

Quote:

3) Increase the attack strength of riflemen and infantry by 1. Since these units are flagged for offense, the AI will be more likely to win some of the battles that are suicide right now.

Even with an attack strength of +1, I think that the costs of riflemen should be reduced to 70 shields (20 less than infantry) to make them more cost-effective.

Quote:

1) Do not increase the attack stats of the musketeer. Reduce the cost to 50 instead. The former would benefit the human player but not the AI. Remove the attack flag from this unit.

The main problem of the musketeer is that the AI isn't likely to use a defense UU with slightly increased ATTACK strength effectively, e.g. for counterattacks. (Contrary to that, the AI will gain something from the Samurai's increased defense strength.) And I don't like the idea of a UU that COSTS less - the musketeer is crappy enough at the moment. So I propose the following (and no, it isn't a 'change as little as possible' feature

):

Reduce the costs for BOTH musketmen and musketeers to 50 shields (20 more than pikemen) to make them cost-effective.
Leave the musketman's A/D/M rating at 2/4/1, as in v1.29.
Give the musketeer +1 DEFENSE strength, so that it becomes a 2/5/1 unit. Remove its attack flag.

At the very least, this will benefit the human player and the AI alike.

alexman · August 5, 2002, 17:43

I updated the initial post with version 0.2

I changed Army cost, Carrier, Submarine, Musketman, Musketeer, Rifleman, Infantry, Marine, and Paratrooper stats, Wealth, Specialists, City and Leader names.

Check it out!

[Edit: lockstep, I implemented two of the three changes you proposed for the musketman/musketeer. I think that giving France a 5-defense musketeer would make that civ too strong).

lockstep · August 5, 2002, 19:40

Alexman, I didn't notice your update until now. I'll comment on the changes tomorrow (that is, today, if you are GMT +1

).

lockstep · August 6, 2002, 07:57

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Added Wheeled ability to Tank, Mech. Infantry, Modern Armor, Artillery, Radar Artillery

Quote:

Reduced the cost strength of Musketmen and Musketeers by 10

Increased attack strength of riflemen from 4 to 5 and reduced their cost from 80 to 70

Increased attack strength of infantry from 6 to 7

I agree on the cost reduction, but I'm not sure about the increased attack strength. In v1.29, musketmen/riflemen/infantry/mech infantry have attack strengths of 2/4/6/12, which is a rather smooth transition. Player1 uses a scale of 3/5/8/12, which is also smooth (although it introduces an 'odd' attack strength of 5

). A scale of 2/5/7/12 doesn't look very elegant to me. If you really want to make riflemen and infantry wortwile as attackers (which is discussible IMO), adopt player1's solution of an 8/10 infantry. It shouldn't be too unbalancing because marines (which have the same ressoure requirement - rubber) have an attack strength of 10 in your mod.

Quote:

Increased attack strength of marines from 8 to 10

Increased attack strength of paratroopers from 6 to 8

You may also want to slightly increase their defense value just like player1 did.

Quote:

Added zero-range bombard ability to Archers (2), Bowmen (2), and Longbowmen (4)

IMo a matter of taste, but I'm looking forward to game-reports.

Quote:

Added airlift flag to Catapult, Cannon, Artillery, Radar Artillery, Explorer, Scout, Leader

Increased movement of Radar Artilery by 1. Now requires oil and rubber in addition to aluminum

Quote:

Reduced the cost of Armies to 300 from 400 and added pillage ability.

YES to pillaging armies! As for the cost reduction, I'm for a more radical solution (Military Academy doesn't require a victorious army), but cheaper armies are a good alternative.

Quote:

Increased ROF of Fighters, Jet Fighters, F-15, and Stealth Fighters by 1, and gave them lethal sea bombard (and the AI air bombard flag). All the above, except Fighters, also get lethal land bombard.

Check out player1's mod, he changed F-15 and Stealth Fighters back to the original RoF of 2 when he added lethal sea/land bombardment. BTW, I like lethal sea bombardment because it makes 'Pearl Harbor'-type air attacks possible - even if it is somewhat unbalancing -, but lethal land bombardment is a 'change fore the sake of change' IMO.

Quote:

Increased bombard range of Cruise Missile to 6 from 2, and its ROF from 3 to 4

Increased Helicopter range to 8 from 6, and transport capacity to 2 from 1

Increased Paratrooper operational range to 8 from 6

Quote:

Added one move to all ships except: Galley, Caravel, Galleon, Ironclad, Carrier

Added two moves to Carrier

Actually, I'm fiddling around with the idea to give Destroyers and AEGIS cruisers +2 movement so that they would be the fastest naval units, but I'm not sure if a movement rate of 7 is too unbalancing (after all, the maximal operational range for air units is 8).

Quote:

Reduced the cost of the Privateer to 40 from 60

Prerequisite of the Ironclad is now Industrialization instead of Steam Power

Ironclad upgrades to Battleship

Quote:

Increased ROF of Battleships, Destroyers, and AEGIS by 1

YES to more powerful battleships. OTOH I'd say leave Destroyers as they are now, leave the AEGIS cruiser's RoF at 2 and increase its bombard strength to 6. Finally, you could make Destroyers upgrade to AEGIS Cruisers.

Quote:

Increased attack factor of Submarines and Nuclear Subs to 10 from 8

Quote:

SS Life Support needs Recycling instead of Superconductor

SS Stasis Chamber needs Genetics instead of Synthetic Fibers

SS Docking Bay needs Robotics instead of Space Flight

YES to the changes to Life Support and Genetics. As for the Docking Bay, I'd rather leave it as it is now, because this makes researching Robotics (and therefore the ability to build manufacturing plants) more of a strategic choice.

Quote:

Increased happy faces for Cure for Cancer to 3 from 1

Quote:

Added two happy faces to Longevity

A radical solution to make Longevity useful: Move it to Medicine instead of Genetics.

Quote:

Doubled value of Wealth

Doubled effect of specialists

Quote:

Increased the cost of research by 20% for all map sizes

Hmm ... why not 5%, 10% or even 50%? I'd leave research costs alone for now and change them accordingly to reports from test-games.

Quote:

Added more (and accurate) city names

Just a hint: In the Civilization forum, Wernazuma III is currently compiling city and leader names.

Quote:

Changed AI build-often list as shown below

The rules you followed modifying the build priorities are well-documented. There is only one change I couldn't comprehend: Why did you remove 'culture' as a priority for the Egyptians and added 'wealth' instead? Anyhow, GREAT WORK, and should really help the AI.

Quote:

Edit: lockstep, I implemented two of the three changes you proposed for the musketman/musketeer. I think that giving France a 5-defense musketeer would make that civ too strong.

Okay, commercial/industrious is not a bad combo (especially in v1.29) and the middle ages are a good period to trigger a golden age, but at least the human player could not use a 2/5/1 UU for conquest rushs the same way as Riders or Samurais. And a French AI with 2/5/1 musketeers could at least defend itself against other AI's ... But I agree, it's not a small tweak.

Harovan · August 6, 2002, 08:09

I don't think a 2.5.1 Musketeer in the era of 2.4.1 Musketmen would be imbalancing, at least not as much as a 1.3.1 Hoplite in the era of 1.2.1 Spearmen.

Arrian · August 6, 2002, 09:04

Lockstep,

I think I was the one who argued for "wealth" instead of "culture" for the Egyptians. They produce plenty of culture anyway, but we're after getting them to build marketplaces and banks. At least, that's the theory. Not a whole heckuva lot of difference was noted between the standard AI and the "killer" AI games in AU102.

-Arrian