AU: A MOD for the curiculum

[alexman]

Re: Musketeers. Why is it any different for the AI than Impi and Horsemen? It won't build them instead of knights, because one unit has the offense flag and the other has the defense flag.

Re: Paratroopers. If they get the same defense as Infantry, the player will build them instead of Infantry (in cities that can produce both in the same number of turns) just in case he needs the special ability.

Re: 0-zange bombard. Well, I guess you can call it my beloved feature, but the main point is that it gives you a reason to use archers in parallel with swordsmen.

Re: F-15 and stealth fighters. I don't have a strong feeling here, but why weaken units that are already quite weak?

Re: Ironclads and Frigates. I thought about giving Ironclads a movement of 3, but that would slow down the AI, since it likes to protect its galleons with ironclads. It's all about the AI and play balance. I don't worry about realism as far as naval units are concered, because they are already heavily abstracted. The tactical advatage of the higher-speed Destroyer over the Frigate should be sufficient.

Re: AEGIS. Again, no strong feelings, but if Destroyers don't upgrade to them, we should make it worth building Destroyers instead of AEGIS, sometimes. We have already strengthened AEGIS by ROF and by making submarines more powerful.

Re: Military academy. By not requiring a victorious Army, we would be removing a very important decision in the game: do I use the early leader for an Army, or for a FP? I like that we have this dilema. Remember that we are trying to preserve the flavor of the game, not change it to make it better for builders or warmongerers.

Re: Espionage and propaganda. OK, I'll adopt player 1's changes.

Lockstep, thanks for catching the Panzer bug.

[Theseus]

Sounds like we're getting very close. Let's try to reach some finality on the naval units.

Re Military Academy, I sorta like the idea of not requiring a victorius Army, as this lets late warmongers, of which there are many, still commence, say, a Tank period intercontinental invasion, with an Army of Infantry as part of the invasion force. It must be frustrating not to be able to do so currently.

Heroic Epic still requires an Army victory though, correct? That decides the early GL question for me.

[Harovan]

The game already favors warmongers enough. What's the point of not letting builders (or even unlucky warmongers) have armies for later wars? The successful warmonger would still have the advantages to build the HE and to have the army/ies before Military Tradition.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by alexman
Re: Musketeers. Why is it any different for the AI than Impi and Horsemen?

Hmm ... I think you are right, and I stand corrected.

Re: Paratroopers. If they get the same defense as Infantry, the player will build them instead of Infantry (in cities that can produce both in the same number of turns) just in case he needs the special ability.

OTOH, a lot of Infantry won't be built, but upgraded from Riflemen. And it doesn't seem elegant to me that the best non-wheeled defender after the arrival of mech infantry will have less defense strength than infantry.

F-15 and stealth fighters. I don't have a strong feeling here, but why weaken units that are already quite weak?

Also no strong feelings here, but lethal sea bombardment should make this units notedly stronger.

Re: AEGIS. Again, no strong feelings, but if Destroyers don't upgrade to them, we should make it worth building Destroyers instead of AEGIS, sometimes. We have already strengthened AEGIS by ROF and by making submarines more powerful.

Sorry for my mistakable wording, I meant increase the AEGIS cruisrer's bombard strength instead of its RoF.

Military academy. By not requiring a victorious Army, we would be removing a very important decision in the game: do I use the early leader for an Army, or for a FP? I like that we have this dilema. Remember that we are trying to preserve the flavor of the game, not change it to make it better for builders or warmongerers.

In fact, this is my 'beloved' feature, and I know it's quite controversial. But it would be a small substitute for the lack of a peaceful method of leader generation, which IMO is a major design flaw of Civ3. (Like the original lack of a peaceful method to trigger a golden age, which was corrected by Firaxis only shortly before Civ3 went gold.)

Espionage and propaganda. OK, I'll adopt player 1's changes.

Lockstep, thanks for catching the Panzer bug.

You're welcome. And this reminds me to tell player1 about the Panzer bug in his mod.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Theseus
Re Military Academy, I sorta like the idea of not requiring a victorius Army, as this lets late warmongers, of which there are many, still commence, say, a Tank period intercontinental invasion, with an Army of Infantry as part of the invasion force. It must be frustrating not to be able to do so currently.

Thanks for the support, Theseus. EDIT: And yes, it is frustrating.

Heroic Epic still requires an Army victory though, correct? That decides the early GL question for me.

Yes. No Heroic Epic for builders until the late middle age.

[=DrJambo=]

Originally posted by alexman Re: Paratroopers. If they get the same defense as Infantry, the player will build them instead of Infantry (in cities that can produce both in the same number of turns) just in case he needs the special ability.

Yeah, but the AI won't since Paras are listed as offensive, therefore this will only favour the human player. Unless of course you label them as defensive?! Not sure of the ramifications of this - whether the AI would use them for paradropping when set as defensive?!

Originally posted by alexman Re: 0-zange bombard. Well, I guess you can call it my beloved feature, but the main point is that it gives you a reason to use archers in parallel with swordsmen.

Absolutely

Originally posted by alexman Re: Ironclads and Frigates. I thought about giving Ironclads a movement of 3, but that would slow down the AI, since it likes to protect its galleons with ironclads. It's all about the AI and play balance. I don't worry about realism as far as naval units are concered, because they are already heavily abstracted. The tactical advatage of the higher-speed Destroyer over the Frigate should be sufficient.

If anything, increase the movement of frigates and galleons, they should be faster than ironclads. Naval units are too slow in civ3. OR.. make ironclads vulnerable in the ocean.

Originally posted by alexman Re: AEGIS. Again, no strong feelings, but if Destroyers don't upgrade to them, we should make it worth building Destroyers instead of AEGIS, sometimes. We have already strengthened AEGIS by ROF and by making submarines more powerful.

Just make the destroyer the fastest ship available.

Originally posted by alexman Re: Military academy. By not requiring a victorious Army, we would be removing a very important decision in the game: do I use the early leader for an Army, or for a FP? I like that we have this dilema. Remember that we are trying to preserve the flavor of the game, not change it to make it better for builders or warmongerers.

Agreed as a builder, i've sometimes been torn by the thought of warring just to try to obtain a leader. Then whether to use the leader on a wonder or army is a massively important decision... don't remove it.

Originally posted by alexman Re: Espionage and propaganda. OK, I'll adopt player 1's changes.

Good

[lockstep]

Originally posted by =DrJambo=
As a builder, i've sometimes been torn by the thought of warring just to try to obtain a leader. Then whether to use the leader on a wonder or army is a massively important decision... don't remove it.

I like important decisions, but I don't like to have to wage war to gain access to a core game feature. And while there are alternative strategies to finish a wonder (a core of massively productive cities - works at least until monarch), there's no alternative way to get an army.

[alexman]

I updated the initial post with v0.6

Military Academy no longer requires a victorious Army, Paratroopers now have the same defense as Infantry, Panzers are wheeled, and reduced cost of propaganda and tech stealing.

The other issues need to be resolved by playtesting, I think. Let's leave them as they are.

[=DrJambo=]

Originally posted by lockstep


I like important decisions, but I don't like to have to wage war to gain access to a core game feature. And while there are alternative strategies to finish a wonder (a core of massively productive cities - works at least until monarch), there's no alternative way to get an army.

On a slightly side-tracked point, what civ has existed without a war at some point in their history?

I feel even the builder types should feel they have to go to war to obtain an army. After all, if a civ had never been to war what would it know about armies?!

[=DrJambo=]

I wonder what making this modded paratrooper a "defensive" unit would do to the game's mechanics?

Could be interesting as i assume that paras are in the game to perform airdrops and pillage resources, not attack cities when tanks more ably do this job? When the AI uses defensive units in an "attacking" manner, it uses them for just that... pillaging! Maybe therefore switching their strategy from offensive to defensive would be ideal?!

[lockstep]

Originally posted by =DrJambo=
After all, if a civ had never been to war what would it know about armies?!

Without a Military Academy ... nothing.

[=DrJambo=]

hehehe touché

[Harovan]

A silly question: Can Settlers and Workers been airlifted? IIRC no, or am I wrong? What about making these airliftable too?

[lockstep]

For me, settlers and workers represent huge population numbers, so airlifting doesn't 'feel' right.

[Harovan]

When airlifting an infantry unit, it a huge number of soldiers too. Come on, look at the numbers the air companies transport today.

[alexman]

This will certainly reduce micromanagement, and help colonize new land faster. The real question is, as usual, will the AI take advantage of it, or will it help only the human?

[lockstep]

My only suggestion after browsing the 0.6 readme: With the Military Academy no longer requiring a victorious army, I'd be happy to pay the original 400 shields for every army I build (like for the Academy, which is sort of Army no. 0).

Outstanding work!

EDIT: Caught another bug. If you want ironclads upgrade to battleships, you must also check the 'upgrade unit' flag (under 'special actions').

[player1]

Originally posted by alexman
Even though these defensive units won't attack very often, I think 20 shields for one movement point a bit too much.

For unit with 70 shiled cost 10 shield difference is nothing.

So, yes 20 shields for 2 movment is NOT to much.

Are you sure about that? I have NEVER seen the AI attack with musketmen. In fact, I have never seen the AI do anything with their defensive units except protect their city/offensive unit/settler.

They attack if odds are HUGE inthier favor.
Like Infantry attacking heavily wounded Cavalry (happend to me in v1.07)

What do you think of the idea of giving Musketeers +1 movement instead? That way the AI uses them properly. Otherwise I doubt it would build a 4-attack, 50 shield unit for offense when a 4-attack, 40 shield unit is always available (longbowman).

You won't need to defend such Musketeer.

As for that 2 movment, some humans players wold be annoyed when they find out that they can't build mov 2 defender after discovering Nationalism.

I have never seen the AI build explorers. Does it? If not, then this is not fair for the AI.

Just wanted to add some flavor for human players.
Even without 1 defense, human player will use them as pillagers.

So in won't make any big difference.
(and would add some fun)

I know I suggested these changes to your MOD, but I'm afraid these options are not used by the AI. Making them cheaper will just help the human. If anyone ever sees the AI use propaganda, we will definitely consider making it cheaper.

It's more like a money porbelm, not willignes probelm.




As for Paras defense 10 problem:
When you start to use Paras often you'll already have Mech. Inf.
And don't foget that Paras req. BOTH OIL & RUBBER.

So you won't have Infantry vs Paras choice.

[alexman]

OK, let's settle the remaining issues before we freeze this MOD at 1.0 for AU103:

1) Airlift for workers and/or settlers?

2) Restore Army cost, now that Military tradition is available without a victorious Army (Armies will be more common because of this. Are two changes for the same reason an overkill?)

3) Any other last minute suggestions?

[lockstep]

Like I said before: Airlift for settlers/workers - no, restore army cost - yes.

Upgrade paths: Swordsmen/Longbowmen upgrading to Riflemen (from player1's mod) has not been included on purpose, and PtW's new medieval infantry will change things anyhow. But what about Frigate/Man-O-War and Privateer upgrading to Destroyer?

Other suggestions: None that can be termed 'last minute'.

[Arrian]

Frigate/MoW to Destroyer... ok, sure. Privateers? No. My $.02

-Arrian

[lockstep]

Originally posted by player1
As for that 2 movment, some humans players wold be annoyed when they find out that they can't build mov 2 defender after discovering Nationalism.

True, but 2/4/2 Musketeers share this 'feature' with 1/2/2 Impis in vanilla v1.29.

And BTW, another last-minute suggestion: player1 is right IMO that jaguar warriors upgrading to swordsmen is a bad idea, because their usefulness lasts much longer. If you don't want to introduce additional upgrade path, make jaguar warriors upgrade to nothing.

[Harovan]

I would like to see settlers and workers airlifted. Not for historical accurateness (I don't give a damn on it, hello Coracle?! ), but for less micromanagement. I don't think that this is a key feature, from which depends the AI to be strong or weak. It's just a nice-to-have in the late game, what is a clickfest anyway. Every tweak for more convenience is ok.

And what was the purpose to drop the upgrade Swordsmen and Longbowmen?

[alexman]

Originally posted by lockstep

True, but 2/4/2 Musketeers share this 'feature' with 1/2/2 Impis in vanilla v1.29.

Impis upgrade to musketmen, however. Let's make musketeers upgrade to infantry (they'll get their two moves back soon enough with mech infantry).

player1 is right IMO that jaguar warriors upgrading to swordsmen is a bad idea, because their usefulness lasts much longer. If you don't want to introduce additional upgrade path, make jaguar warriors upgrade to nothing.

You're right, that's a good idea. Vel would be happy.

Also, I will restore the original cost for Armies and make Frigates upgrade to Destroyers. Sounds good?

AU 103 is on its way!

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
And what was the purpose to drop the upgrade Swordsmen and Longbowmen?

Theseus termed it as 'too far away from stock Civ3'.

Originally posted by alexman
I will restore the original cost for Armies and make Frigates upgrade to Destroyers. Sounds good?

Yes, but don't forget the Man-O-War. As for the privateer ... if anyone thinks they are useful when destroyers arrive, I can life with them in my build menu.

[Theseus]

At some point, as we learn more about / get closer to PTW, we'll probably want to pre-replicate (?) the medieval infantry... but not yet.

[lockstep]

BUG REPORT: If you want unit A upgrade to unit B, you must also check the 'upgrade unit' flag for unit A (under 'special actions'). This needs to be done for all new naval upgrades, i.e. Frigate, Man-O-War and Ironclad.

[Harovan]

Oh crap, alexman already generated the AU 103 game with the mod. Can this still been fixed?

[lockstep]

I don't know, although it may be possible with Gramphos' multitool.

[player1]

I updated my won "Patch suggestion MOD" to v1.32
Have used some ideas from this thread (Great Wall and Military Academy suggestions).