Alexman's curse -

[Ision]

I do not like to create a new thread in this forum if the issue is something trivial - however this issue is a matter that MUST be addressed!

No doubt the AU Modders will wait until the release of the1.20 patch before releasing their own updated AU MOD.

I have reached a point where I can no longer really enjoy this game unless I am playing with the AU MOD (stock CIV just won't cut it anymore). This alone should be taken as a 'thank you' to all the AU Modders for their efforts. Perhaps the single change made to the AU that I have enjoyed the most has been Alexmans ‘flavors’.

Unfortunately, I have a dilemma. I cannot imagine going back to a ‘flavorless’ AU Mod – even temporarily. The depth and nuances of the game (at least for me) have improved so greatly that I would stick to the present AU rather than upgrading.

Alexman! Its up to you! Help old Ision out – and assure him that you will update with flavors in ‘record time’.

Ision

[alexman]

Thanks Ision!

The flavors have been voted in, so unless they get voted out in the future, they will be part of all subsequent versions of the mod.

Unless we get word about timing of the patch soon, the next version of the mod will probably come out before 1.20, so we can start AU502.

However, we will update the mod again after 1.20 is out.

[Ision]

thank god!

and thank alexman - lol

hmmmmmm.... but won't the elimintaion of radio - and many of the AUs own changes require you to rework the flavors?

[alexman]

The Radio changes (i.e. Radio towers and civil defense moved) have a tiny effect on AI preferences, but nobody will notice. The flavors should be fine with no changes.

The only AU mod changes that affect AI tech preferences are the Curragh, Helicopter, Rifleman, Mech. Infantry, Impi, Musketeer, Philosophy, and Longevity changes, which were already in 1.03b.

[Harovan]

I have two questions:

1) Has the influence of the flavors on AI behavior been tested, or is the change still based on assumptions? I would be pleased if they had a really positive effect, but don't have any runtime experience with them.

2) (obligatory) Is the resource bug planned to be ironed out in the standard AU mod?

[alexman]

I was wondering if by some miracle at least this thread would escape being spammed by the resource scarcity issue from SR!

Seriously, even though the maps for AU games are carefully designed, we should put the issue under consideration. Do you want to open a thread making a case for a change, Sir Ralph?

As for flavors, nothing was ever based on assumptions, but on extensive testing. Check out the related thread. Also, we played the AU mod version of AU501 with flavors, and they worked as expected.

[Dominae]

Sir Ralph, some people like the so-called "resource bug". Strategic resources that are easy to access are not really strategic. Your campaign against the bug sounds a lot like jimmytrick's campaign against Culture flips (or was that Coracle?).

Yes, I know, I should be flogged for even thinking of such a comparison. Sorry, Sir. All I'm saying is that the issue is debatable.


Dominae

[Harovan]

Originally posted by alexman
I was wondering if by some miracle at least this thread would escape being spammed by the resource scarcity issue from SR!

I seldom post in the AU forum. The first page has only three threads where I posted in, and in none of them I already mentioned this issue. The first page of the Conquests forum has only eight threads I posted in. Only in one of them I mentioned it. Albeit multiple times, but therefor it's an ongoing discussion. So much about spamming.

It's a big deal for me, because I enjoy games with as little as possible own warfare. Everybody can win through warfare, since the AI combat tactics suck (not meant as rant, but it is so). Winning by peaceful means through a good economy (yea the AI sucks economically too, but that's why it has bonuses) and smart geopolitics is especially in the higher levels much more challenging and enjoyable, that's at least what I feel.

I played exactly three games with Conquests. All three were a chase-the-resource. In the industrial age I controlled 1/3..1/2 of the landmass, not because I wanted to conquer so much, but because I had to, resource-wise. Building a good industrial economy without coal is as impossible as building the spaceship without the key resources. And it may be a challenge to counter AI battleships with own frigates due to the lack of oil, but is it fun, if it happens so often? Trade is not an issue, when there are less instances on a map as remaining civs. So the only solution is to either reduce the number of civs (thus making trade possible) or to get the resources by conquest (now I understand the sense of the name of the XP). War 2 - Peace 0.

But the suffering side is in all cases the AI. Not the human suffers from resource scarcity, because he will get his resources no matter what. The AI suffers, because it doesn't wage active wars for resources, and in result of the human's actions remains either without resources or gets wiped out entirely. For the human resource scarcity is at most annoying. For the AI it is deadly. Since the AU mod claims to help the AI, it would be logical to include it.

Seriously, even though the maps for AU games are carefully designed, we should put the issue under consideration.

The AU mod should be created not only for AU courses, but for random games as well.

Do you want to open a thread making a case for a change, Sir Ralph?

Ummm... I'm not exactly an AU guy and at the moment on strike anyway, what concerns C3C (seriously, I needed a break, and as it looks it will be long). I may consider it later, but this will probably be too late to have any impact.

As for flavors, nothing was ever based on assumptions, but on extensive testing. Check out the related thread. Also, we played the AU mod version of AU501 with flavors, and they worked as expected.

I was sure about this. Thanks for the link.

[alexman]

SR of course I wasn't serious about the spamming comment, and I even thought you were half-joking by mentioning the resource scarcity in this thread.

By the way, feel free to open a thread at any time, it's never too late. If you don't, I may even do so.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Dominae
Sir Ralph, some people like the so-called "resource bug".

They are called warmongers.

Strategic resources that are easy to access are not really strategic.

They should at least be accessible by trade. I don't mind to pay for resources (and help your beloved AI, hint!, hint!). I do mind if I have to wage a war for every single resource in every single game.

Your campaign against the bug sounds a lot like jimmytrick's campaign against Culture flips (or was that Coracle?).

Yes, I know, I should be flogged for even thinking of such a comparison.

It was Coracle, and he got what he wanted, at least what concerns cultural conversions. While I surely criticize the way he ranted (including personal insults, which I never would use), his cause was just. He was an enthusiast with an own definition of what is enjoyable and what not. I can feel his pain.

No need to apologize, I am not the slightest insulted if compared with Coracle. And similarities are intended. (except personal attacks, that is)

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I am not the slightest insulted if compared with Coracle. And similarities are intended.

/me is impressed with Sir Ralph's methods.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by alexman
SR of course I wasn't serious about the spamming comment, and I even thought you were half-joking by mentioning the resource scarcity in this thread.

No, it was a sincere question. I would have felt it as much more spam and much more annoying, if I had opened an own thread for this question. So I recycled a thread, the question of which was already answered. (Or "case closed" as Ming would say)

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Dominae
* Dominae is impressed with Sir Ralph's methods.

At last somebody is impressed with something I do.

[SirOsis]

Now if you would just pull back the Germanic hordes from harassing the peaceful Danes.

The resource scarcity issue can be addressed in the editor. Perhaps the next AU course could come in 2 different varieties. Have one with increased strategic resources and the other with the current resource level.

It would be interesting to see how the different levels would affect playstyle as well as the AI's ability to deal with the increased availibility of resources.

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

They are called warmongers.

we just like the diplomatic challenge of getting foreigner resources

[jshelr]

Sir's points are well taken. You often can't even stop fighting and go for an SS peacefully with a big tech lead since you can easily find yourself without any uranium in the modern era despite owning half the map. After a while, moving that 100 unit MA stack loses its appeal.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

Quote:

quote: Your campaign against the bug sounds a lot like jimmytrick's campaign against Culture flips (or was that Coracle?).

It was Coracle, and he got what he wanted, at least what concerns cultural conversions.

Actually, it was both. Coracle just stuck at it longer. jt moved on to other games.

I like resource scarcity.

[nbarclay]

In theory, if you could figure out who is trading resources to whom, you could probably sign an embargo with the civ that has the resource against the civ that is getting it and break the trade deal between the AIs that way. I've never actually tried the idea (indeed, I just came up with that particular variant a few seconds ago), but that might provide a peaceful way to get resources at least some of the time.

[alexman]

I could be wrong, but I think it it's not possible to convince an AI to sign a trade embargo against a trading partner, just like you can't make an alliance without already being at war yourself.

But the statement that you have to go to war for every single resource in every single game is quite strong. See some AU501 some examples of peaceful resource trading.

[ducki]

But the statement that you have to go to war for every single resource in every single game is quite strong. See some AU501 some examples of peaceful resource trading.

Or at least one example of rabid expansion making war for the painful ones unnecessary.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
...just like you can't make an alliance without already being at war yourself.

Sure you can, if the price is right. I've done it before. It's true that the AI sometimes refuses outright, but not always.

[alexman]

Really? You learn something every day. So does that automatically put you at war as well?

[Harovan]

Of course, trade and the embargo technique is only an option if

a) a civ has more than one instance of the resource (which gets less likely later in the game), and
b) you succeed to figure out who is trading what with whom (which gets the less accurate, the more civs are in the game)

[Harovan]

Originally posted by alexman
But the statement that you have to go to war for every single resource in every single game is quite strong. See some AU501 some examples of peaceful resource trading.

It was an exaggeration. But I'm sure you know what I mean, and how I mean it. Still you remain without resources pretty often, since the AI sees the resources from the beginning, while you don't. By the way: Raising the resources back to PtW level doesn't mean, that you always get all resources. Far from that, see many and many PtW games. It just assures, you can with good diplomacy trade for the resources, since (in most cases) there are enough instances on the map.

[alexman]

Yes, I know you were exaggerating. Just making sure others know too.

I should open a thread for this fast, before this thread with the ridiculous title becomes the official AU mod resource scarcity thread!

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
Really? You learn something every day. So does that automatically put you at war as well?

Yes. Now if only I could dig up a game to prove it...

[alexman]

Resource Scarcity thread created.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I played exactly three games with Conquests. All three were a chase-the-resource.

I haven't much weighed in on this issue, but I increasingly agree with SR.

I've had time to squeak in one screw-around game since AU 501, playing as Celts on Demi (hmmm )... can we say no iron? can we say no horses? can we say no saltpeter? can we say no coal?

Made for an interesting game, given GA goals, the tech catch-up, etc. As in denying myself Feudalism until the KAIs had entered the Ind Age!!

Resources are currently imbalanced, period, with too many far-reaching effects for both the player and the AI civs.

[nbarclay]

I'm curious: what was your logic in delaying Feudalism for so long?

[jshelr]

Maybe he wanted to keep his UU in play until he got a GA?