AU mod: The Statue of Zeus

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by lockstep
But the first time an AI civ had the only source of ivory near its capital, built the SoZ and used Ancient Cavalry to sneak-attack the only neighboring civ (me), I decided that this was not my idea of fun.

Would that experience have been any less unpleasant if, as a result of eliminating the ivory requirement, a neighbor without ivory built the SoZ and sneak-attacked you? In my view, such unpleasant experiences have a whole lot to do with the overpowered nature of the wonder and very little to do with the ivory requirement.


Unless eliminating the ivory requirement significantly increases the percentage of games in which you build the SoZ yourself, I don't see how it would reduce your risk of being hit like that. And if the change would result in such an increase, I'm not thrilled at the impact on the balance between warmongering and peaceful strategies for the early game.

Nathan

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
I marked the proposal under consideration, but I'm not sure we should vote on all these changes at once. For example, what if someone agrees that the Wonder needs weakening, likes all the above changes, but thinks that making all of them would weaken it too much?

I see ... but IMO, these changes deal in fact with two different SoZ issues. Change no. 1 adresses the 'luck of the draw' problem (assuming there is one), while changes no. 2-5 try to tackle the 'costs vs. benefits' of this wonder. So for proposal no. 1 a simple yes/no vote is perfectly adequate IMO.

Perhaps we can vote in two stages. First we vote on whether the above changes would be independently acceptable (without considering them in relation to each other), and then (after some discussion) we can vote yes/no on a specific combination of changes.

What about this way: Each panel member (besides adressing the ivory issue)

1. votes upon how many of the suggested changes no. 2-5 seem appropriate to weaken the SoZ (i.e. none/one/two/three/all of them) - the mean value is considered as voting result;
2. gives a ranking of these four changes - the combined ranking is used to determine which changes are actually implemented, subject to the voting result of a).

Example vote ('lockstep' ):

• Remove the ivory requirement;
• Implement two of the suggested 'cost/benefit'-changes;
• (Best) remove AC hp bonus - increase SoZ shield cost - reduce AC spawn frequency - move SoZ to Construction (worst).

[lockstep]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Would that experience have been any less unpleasant if, as a result of eliminating the ivory requirement, a neighbor without ivory built the SoZ and sneak-attacked you?

Much less unpleasant because that neighbor would have beaten me to the SoZ.

[lockstep]

Just to be clear: My suggestion for an alternative voting procedure should be able to deal with the issue alexman brought up, but I still think that 'keep it simple and stupid' is also a valid voting procedure.

(1: YES - 2: NO - 3: YES - 4: NO - 5: YES)

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
I'm not sure we should vote on all these changes at once. For example, what if someone agrees that the Wonder needs weakening, likes all the above changes, but thinks that making all of them would weaken it too much?

On second thought - or rather on third thought - I'd say that this 'someone' should decide which of the changes he/she likes the most and should vote only for these.

Let's keep it simple and stupid.

[ZargonX]

Yaaaargh... the holidays have caused me to fall behind in my AU duties Done a quick scan of the multiple suggestions at hand, and I think I have to agree with lockstep's suggestion about the selection process:

Let's keep it simple and stupid.

[pauli]

so far, i have yet to spawn with ivory completely out of reach - though once i was simply lucky that my scout found it in time for me to get a settler over the 30 or so square distance in time. mongols almost got BOTH ivory squares!

took me considerably longer to get access to horses - had to trade for them, which required the artificial idiot to remember to build roads between his capitol and the border towns come to think of it, i didn't have any mounted units other than ancient cavalry and real cavalry.

could just make it a small wonder with no req (or add another seven statues), but that's not quite au-ish

[lockstep]

This is from a thread in the Conquests forum (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=105676):

Originally posted by Dominae
I would fix the State of Zeus by: 1) removing the Ivory requirement, 2) increasing the Shield cost to 300, and 3) taking away the +1 HP to Ancient Cavalry. Then we would have a perfectly balanced yet still interesting Wonder.

Dominae, as you posted this after you (prematurely) voted in the AU forum, I'm assuming for now that you'd like to change your vote regarding proposal no. 3 (SoZ's shield cost) to YES. Naturally, I'd like you to express yourself in this thread.

To the other panel members: The vote (a simple yes/no for proposals no. 1-5) will start on Sunday, Jan. 11th. Voting time period will be 48 hours, just in case more people are still on holiday.

[lockstep]

BTW, I like Dominae's latest suggestion because it brings the SoZ in line with Knights Templar: A wonder that does not need any resource, costs 300 shields, spawns a unit every 5 turns, and this unit has no hitpoint bonus.

[Dominae]

The voting system for this issue is too convoluted.

The suggestion I made in the other forum is a solution I would like to see implemented as a whole. Voting for bits and pieces of it individually will probably lead to a very odd solution, one that no one will be happy with.

Voting should be a simple "Yes/No, this change should be implemented". The weeding out of alternatives is what debating is for.


Dominae

[Stuie]

I'm inclined to agree with Dominae. There should be a single solution identified and voted on. If it fails, we try again.

The a la carte method might very well lead to something that nobody likes.

[lockstep]

Hmm ... nbarclays opinion would suggest to keep at least the ivory issue separate from everything else ... but let's see this through. We could either hold a single vote:

• Yes/No: Remove the Statue of Zeus' ivory requirement AND increase SoZ's shield cost from 200 to 300 AND remove Ancient Cavalry's +1 hitpoint bonus.

Or we could vote on two proposals, which may be combined:

1. Yes/No: Remove the Statue of Zeus' ivory requirement,
2. Yes/No: Increase SoZ's shield cost from 200 to 300 AND remove Ancient Cavalry's +1 hitpoint bonus.

I'm fine with either solution. Dominae and Stuie, you obviously prefer the single vote. So, if no other panel member has objections (and if, please speak out), let's hold a single vote.

[alexman]

How about something like this:

1. Yes/No: Remove the Statue of Zeus' ivory requirement.
2. Yes/No: If item 1) results in a No, increase SoZ's shield cost from 200 to 300 AND remove Ancient Cavalry's +1 hitpoint bonus.
3. Yes/No: If item 1) results in a Yes, increase SoZ's shield cost from 200 to 300 AND remove Ancient Cavalry's +1 hitpoint bonus.

By the way, my prefered solution would be to make Ancient Cavalry a 2/2/2 unit, with no other changes to the ToZ.

[Arrian]

2.2.2... it could finally fill that slot for unit stats (we've got 2.1.2 and 1.2.2, but no 2.2.2) and that would definitely reduce the power of the wonder.

I like it.

-Arrian, AU lurker

[Dominae]

2.2.2... it could finally fill that slot for unit stats (we've got 2.1.2 and 1.2.2, but no 2.2.2)

Played the Hittites recently, Arrian?

Personally it's not the power of the Wonder that bothers me, it's the fact that it grants this power on a very random basis. Put another way, the Statue of Zeus is not overly powerful if every civ has access to it (are the Pyramids too powerful? Sun Tzu's?).

Therefore, IMO the proopsed change of making Ancient Cavs 2/2/2 misses the point. My own solution includes increasing the Shield cost in order to make it more like the other Ancient era Wonders, and removing the +1 HP to make Cavs more like Ancient era units. But these are afterthoughts to taking away the Ivory requirement.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

I'm away from my game at the moment so I can't check (I'll probably be back home later tonight), but isn't the 3-man chariot 2-2-2?

I think the best approach would be to separate the ivory requirement issue from the question of how to balance the SoZ's power better, have each panelist state his preference for the best way to balance the wonder's power, and then have a final vote between the two (or three if a tie so requires) most popular proposals for balancing the wonder. Panelists could change their minds regarding what they personally favor up until all have indicated their preference. That way we'll be sure we have clear input from all the panelists before we start the final vote (and hence that we don't miss something like Alexman's 2-2-2 proposal).

Nathan

[ducki]

If access is the main issue, it would seem that a "good" first version to try out would be the Ivory-free version, and change nothing else.

Just as a first test, mind. Incremental steps. Start small and get bigger. If simply removing the Ivory requirement would bring this wonder in line and remove the impression of being strong or weak based on the Map Generator, maybe that's enough?

I haven't been really shooting for wonders in my epics in the ancient age, so maybe I'll make this change and see what happens with a player that is NOT (edit: NOT NOT NOT) specifically beelining for this, looking to maximize the ACs strength.

I'm starting to wonder if ACs and the SoZ shouldn't be debated separately, but no matter. I'll see if I can get some "test" games done. On that note, I'll probably run with debug on if I can figure out how - are there any potential downsides to editing my conquests.biq file directly(after backing up, of course)? I hate having to go to Civ-Content and prefer to just hit "New Game" or "QuickStart".

[Dominae]

I think we should first vote on whether or not to remove the Ivory requirement. Voting to balance the cost and Ancient Cav stats at the same time is not the right way to approach this, because the Statues of Zeus with and without Ivory requirements are very different Wonders.

So how about: YES/NO - Remove the Ivory requirement from the Statue of Zeus?


Dominae

[alexman]

To save time, we can also vote on two proposed changes to Ancient Cavalry: one if the statue of Zeus requires ivory, and one if it doesn't.

Example:

1. Yes/No: Remove the Statue of Zeus' ivory requirement.
2. Yes/No: If item 1) results in a No, reduce attack factor of Ancient Cavalry to 2.
3. Yes/No: If item 1) results in a Yes, remove Ancient Cavalry's +1 hitpoint bonus.

[Dominae]

No, I really think we shoud keep this discussion simple for now and ask ourselves: "Do we want the State of Zeus to require Ivory in the AU mod". This is a "strategic options" issue, not a "game balance" issue. We can deal with game balance later (it's easier).

Although we want to hurry this process up, we will actually get to an end result we can all agree on faster if we split this issue into simple sequential steps, instead of one big confusing conditional soup (that does not even include all the options we've been discussing).


Dominae

[lockstep]

OK, this is getting silly.

A new (and hopefully simple) suggestion: Every panel member states what he/she thinks should be done with the Statue of Zeus and with Ancient Cavalry. I’ll look at every statement and combine it to one proposal. Then we can vote on this proposal.

I’ll start: Remove SoZ’s ivory requirement AND increase SoZ’s shield cost to 300 AND remove AC’s +1 hitpoint.

[alexman]

Reduce attack factor of Ancient Cavalry by 1

[Dominae]

How are you going to "combine" them into one proposal without running into the same problems we have now? The problem we're having now is that we have too many suggestions and we're voting on all of them at the same time.

Are you just going to copy-paste everyone's suggestions? Then I imagine each panelist will vote for their own idea, which gets us nowhere.

Generally, I think the problem is that we're replacing the debates with votes. This was not the purpose of the panel. The panel was set up to lead us past impasses in debates, not do away with them entirely. The reason we're having so much trouble now is that we're voting on everything and discussing nothing.

Either we vote for everything one item at a time, or we return to discussing pros and cons, trying to convince each other of the best solution.


Dominae

[lockstep]

Well, I figured on looking at each panelists suggestion and asking myself: Does he/she want to fiddle with ivory? Or rather make the SoZ more expensive? Or rather weaken AC? Or does he/she want everything? Or is it an entirely new suggestion? Right now, we have sort of an impasse, and I wanted to end this.

As for 'replacing the debates with votes' ... sorry, I only tried to do my best. We can surely return to discussing pros and cons, but in that case it would also be helpful to know what solution each panel member prefers.

So ... I want to get rid of ivory, and also weaken the SoZ/AC combo somewhat. alexman only wants to weaken AC, but to a greater extent. What about you, Dominae?

[lockstep]

BTW, I can also live with Dominae's 'keep this discussion simple for now'- approach. In this spirit: Get rid of the ivory.

[Dominae]

Well, I think I've been pretty vocal about this matter:

1. Statue of Zeus should not require Ivory.
2. Statue of Zeus should cost more Shields to build, to make it more similar to other Ancient era Wonders.
3. Ancient Cavalry need not have a +1HP bonus.

The first point is major, the second makes sense in light of the first, and the third is mere personal preference.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

Personally it's not the power of the Wonder that bothers me, it's the fact that it grants this power on a very random basis. Put another way, the Statue of Zeus is not overly powerful if every civ has access to it (are the Pyramids too powerful? Sun Tzu's?).

Frankly, I've never viewed Sun Tsu's as a first-class wonder. If I can't get Sun Tsu's, Sistine, and Leo's all three, Sun Tsu's is the first of the three I'm willing to give up.

The Pyramids are likely comparable to the SoZ in overall power, but because their power is so long-term, they don't create the kind of short-term imbalance problems that the SoZ does. A human player doesn't steamroll AIs easily just because he has the Pyramids (except maybe if he builds them with an ultra-early SGL), and the Pyramids aren't nearly as likely to spur an AI to try to steamroll the player in the ancient or early medieval era as I get the impression the SoZ is.

Consider what a player could do on Emperor beelining to SoZ and using the Pyramids as a prebuild. Such a strategy would significantly compromise a civ's REXing, but compared with an early archer rush, the cost/benefit ratio would be excellent. And with a commercial, seafaring, or industrious civ (thus starting with one or the other of the prerequisites for Mathematics), I doubt that the strategy would fail often if executed properly. (I made a couple attempts with that technique on Deity and came pretty close in one of them. With the French, I succeeded, but they're a special case since they start with both prerequisites for Mathematics.)

Nathan

[ducki]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Consider what a player could do on Emperor beelining to SoZ and using the Pyramids as a prebuild. Such a strategy would

I don't think we should be balancing for specialized strategies - I'm not saying that's what we're doing, I'm just saying that statement set off my alarm bells.

If we try to balance for all the beelines and special cases that a skilled player can create for himself, I think we're setting ourselves up for failure.

I personally can't see myself beelining for Math because the Philo beeline is just so powerful in comparison - in my opinion. I can see where some players might choose that route, but I don't think it's anywhere near as overwhelmingly attractive as other beelines - say Mil. Trad. - or the ToE->Hoover slingshot.

I don't think that we should consider what a player could do in any specialized situation until it becomes a case of most players doing in most situations.

None of this is to say I don't think some change to SoZ is good. I support some attempt to rebalance either SoZ OR AC in a larger way and whichever is left in a lesser way.

I just don't think we should fall into the trap of balancing specifically for strategies that some players might use. More important are the forgone conclusions that most players usually make(like ToE-Hoover).

I'll hop down off the soapbox now. No offense intended Nathan.

[Arrian]

Doh! That's what I get for not playing civ for a couple weeks: I did forget the Hittites.

Personally, I'm one of those who kinda likes the ivory requirement precisely because it's different. And honestly I do wonder what adding yet another ancient wonder to the AI's build list (for all of them, instead of the 1 or 2 that might have ivory) would do.

-Arrian

[Tall Stranger]

I wouldn't mind the ivory requirement IF SoZ wasn't such a potential game breaker. If its game impact was no greater than, say, Colossus, then it would be a cute, secondary Wonder that could be considered a "bonus" Wonder for those lucky enough to be near ivory.

As it stands, I'd urge our distinguished panel to first eliminate the ivory requirement and see how that affects things. As Arrian points out, it's hard to determine how that change will affect the choice the AIs make in which wonders to pursue and thus how easy it is for the human to get it. Once we see how that works, we can then figure out whether AC is too powerful or whether the SoZ should produce them less frequently (if possible).