AU Mod: Re-balancing the power of Armies

[nbarclay]

I'd like to add Player1's suggested reduction in the cost of the Pentagon to the proposal Alexman described. If I understand how things work correctly, the improvement in army stats won't average being as big for the Increased Army Value flag as for adding a fourth unit. Between that and losing the extra hitpoints a fourth unit provides, the new Pentagon would be clearly weaker, so a reduction in its cost seems warranted.

[alexman]

I would build the Pentagon with its current cost every time, just to give my Tank Armies +4 attack instead of +2, for example. Won't a cost reduction render the Wonder a no-brainer to build?

Of course, the Wonder is already a no-brainer in stock C3C, so maybe we want to keep it that way. So perhaps we can add the cost reduction as a second part of the proposal. What should be the cost reduction? Half price? 3/4?

[nbarclay]

Building the Pentagon at some point is and will remain pretty much a no-brainer, but the question of when to build it can be a bit more interesting. For example, at a lower cost, the Pentagon would be more interesting to build for a civ that gets three or four armies from ancient and/or medieval leaders but does not have strong enough units to benefit from the Pentagon in all of those armies. At the other end of the spectrum, at a lower cost, a civ at peace couldn't benefit as much (and get as much advantage over the AIs) from leaving the Pentagon available as a prebuild instead of going ahead and building it.

I'm not really sure whether it would make more sense to take the Pentagon all the way down to 200 shields or just down to 300 (compared with its current cost of 400). My current inclination might be toward 200 as making the Pentagon more interesting if a player gets enough armies from early leaders to be able to build it.

[jshelr]

I don't want to be a Luddite, but I just completed a game i've been puttering away on for awhile to get a military victory on demi. All that was required was to get to modern armor, fill your armies with those units, and use settlers to speed things up. You can clear a standard map of opponent cities without any losses, even against MI defense.

It's just too straightforward, and the AI just won't build modern era armies as a threat to the human player. It would be helpful if great military leaders could not arise after the middle ages and advanced military units could not be placed in armies.

Conversely, on demi and above, at least, cultural victory by an AI civ that wins early wars is a definite possibility. They build so cheaply that they end up building all the cultural buildings and, of course, they usually get all the early wonders. If it were hard to take them down, the game would have more interest in the late stages. But all you have to do, generally, is land some armies safely on a mountain near their capital and "you win."

Here's an off topic but related idea -- as soon as the UN is built, all civs at peace automatically enter a locked alliance. When the human attacks in the final push to win, the war is immediately against everyone.

must have got up on the wrong side of the bed...where's the coffee

[nbarclay]

I'm officially placing the following under consideration in conjunction with the proposal for 1-unit, +4hp armies:

If we make the proposed change for armies, what do we do with the cost of the Pentagon?

A) Leave it at 400.
B) Reduce it to 300.
C) Reduce it to 200.

Voting will be in order of preference (ABC) format.

[Theseus]

Hmmm... do we need to vote on the cost of Armies as well?

[Yes, methinks]

[nbarclay]

The revamped military academy spits out an army every 25 turns instead of building them with shields, and we've reduced the shield cost of armies to 1 to prevent disbanding them for sheilds. So the change to the nature of armies should not require rethinking any cost issues.

[donZappo]

In order to make up for the large decrease in strength that is being proposed, why not gives armies a small amount of support abilities to make up for it? I don't see a problem with giving them "build roads" or "build fort" as an added bonus.

It seems as if the added attack bonus to one unit isn't too large to matter early in the game, but could make a significant difference during the later stages. This would allow armies to be useful early on where added roads or extra forts are most helpful and preserve its utility throughout all the ages.

[Modo44]

The change is supposed to help the AI. It doesn't know how to use offensive units for building, so giving an army this ability would favor the human player.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The revamped military academy spits out an army every 25 turns instead of building them with shields, and we've reduced the shield cost of armies to 1 to prevent disbanding them for sheilds. So the change to the nature of armies should not require rethinking any cost issues.

Errr, yes, I am officially an idiot.

[nbarclay]

I hope we're getting very close to ready to lauch AU 504, so let's go ahead and get a vote started even though the Pentagon cost issue should technically wait a couple more days.

1) Yes/no: Should we adopt the following package of army changes?

Army: Add 4 bonus HP

Army: Reduce transport capacity to 1

Pentagon: Replace 'Build Larger Armies' flag by 'Increased Army Value'

Reduce cities needed to support an army to 1

2) If the answer to (1) is yes, what should we do about the cost of the Pentagon? Please vote in order of preference among the three options (ABC format).

A) Leave it at 400.
B) Reduce it to 300.
C) Reduce it to 200.

Please vote within 48 hours.

[nbarclay]

My votes:

1) Yes
2) CBA

[punkbass2000]

1) Yes
2) Either way is fine (I rarely get that far in my games, so I don't have much of an idea of what a 'fair' value would be)

[jshelr]

Yes,C

[alexman]

1) Yes
2) ABC

There are good arguments for and against a cheaper Pentagon, but when in doubt, keep it closer to stock.

A small Wonder like the Pentagon is different than a Great Wonder because you are under no time pressure to build it. You will eventually build it - the question is when. 400 shields in the Industrial Age is not a big deal, and 200 shields is the price of a city improvement (as cheap as a University).

I believe that there will be a more interesting strategic choice if the Pentagon remains relatively expensive, because you might decide to sacrifice an MGL to build it in the Ancient/Medieval Ages.

[Theseus]

1. Yes
2. BAC

[sabrewolf]

i thought only panelists vote? if no:
1) yes
2) a, b, c
same reasons as alex... 200 is just too cheap...

[lockstep]

1: YES
2: ABC

[nbarclay]

It's supposed to be just panelists voting.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by nbarclay
It's supposed to be just panelists voting.

Oh. Well no one had said that...

[jshelr]

sorry

you guys are normally so inclusive and consensus-building that i never ran into this before

[nbarclay]

I guess it's been so long since we've had many votes that it's not hard for people to forget how this is set up, or for new people to come along who never knew. The official process, as described in the Apolyton University Mod C3C Version thread, is:

Method

Most modifications incorporated by the AU mod are a compromise between a) improving the AI, b) presenting the player with more options, and c) changing as little as possible. The level of this compromise is a delicate and subjective decision, so each proposed change is discussed by the Apolyton University community before it is implemented.

A new idea for the mod, or an area where the stock version needs improvement should first be posted in this thread [the Apolyton University Mod C3C Version thread] by any member of the community. A member of the AU mod panel (see next section) then starts a thread for discussion, where the community debates the merits of the new idea, the necessity for a change, its compliance with the philosophy of the mod, and its best final implementation. That thread is linked to this thread for easy future reference.

After listening to all sides of the debate, the AU mod panel then formulates a specific proposal, and the the issue is marked "under consideration" for a period of one week. During that period, the community is given the opportunity to present arguments for and against the proposed change.

After a week from the proposal being marked as "under consideration", the panel members get a time period (usually 24 hours) to cast their (Yes/No) votes. A minimum of 5 votes are needed within that time to make the decision official. If at the end of the time limit there is a tie, all remaining of the 7 panel members who did not vote, must then vote to resolve the tie.

The Panel

The AU mod is a community effort. However, a semi-official panel is set up to ensure this process runs smoothly.

The AU mod panel has these responsibilities:

1. Listen to input from the Apolyton University community in order to identify possible changes to the standard game that fit into the AU mod philosophy, or problems with modifications already present in the AU mod. This includes reading this thread, as well as AARs and DARs for AU courses, as many scenarios are used as tests for the AU mod.
2. Formulate official proposals for any change to the AU mod. In the case of new modifications, present a proposal to the community for discussion through a new thread, (which is to be linked from the mod’s description found in this thread). In the case of changes to the existing AU mod modifications, bump the relevant discussion thread by formulating the new proposal.
3. Vote on the resolution of each official proposal. Modifications may be incorporated on a trial basis, in case real-game testing is required to further evaluate the change. Panelists cannot abstain.
4. Implement any accepted proposal in the editor, create and upkeep the official documentation for the AU mod, and ensure that both the mod and the documentation are readily accessible the community.

[Aqualung71]

I hate the idea of reducing Army transport capacity to 1 (Theseus, where are you?)

But I guess I have to give it begrudging support since stock armies are way too overpowered in human hands.

[lockstep]

It's not only that they are overpowered. The current AI handling of armies is simply a bug that Firaxis needs to deal with - thank god there's a (temporal?) solution available with the editor.

[Aqualung71]

Precisely....which is why I said "in human hands"

[Stuie]

1: YES
2: BAC

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
I hate the idea of reducing Army transport capacity to 1 (Theseus, where are you?)

But I guess I have to give it begrudging support since stock armies are way too overpowered in human hands.

I know, I know...

Worth it, though, I think.

[ZargonX]

Sorry for the late vote:

1)Yes
2)BAC

[sabrewolf]

so far it looks like B is the clear winner...

[sabrewolf]

1 week is up, so i guess the decision has fallen.

they have lost a whole lot of their punch now, but on the other hand we can now build 1 army per city.

...but....

in the early industrial era the military academy city will probably produce approx. 40-60 shields., which currently means an army every 7-10 turns. in between things like factories, power plants, hospitals and stock exchanges will wanted to be built.

so at this price armies will probably only be built when there is no infrastructure left to be made.


so before incorporating the changes in the AUmod: could we consider lowering the costs of armies from currently 400 to something around 200?