AU: A MOD for the curiculum - Page 4

alexman · August 8, 2002, 10:13

lockstep, you're amazing.

Thanks for finding that bug. I fixed it in version 1.01 above.

lockstep · August 8, 2002, 10:34

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
lockstep, you're amazing.

Thanks for finding that bug. I fixed it in version 1.01 above.

No, I'm not. But not checking the 'upgrade unit' flag for additional upgrade paths is a rather common glitch, and I know about it because I was one of the more frequent playtesters of korn469's blitz mod.

Theseus · August 8, 2002, 10:42

So lockstep, I know you are pretty familiar with the mods out there... now that it's done, for the moment, whaddya think of this one?

lockstep · August 8, 2002, 13:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
So lockstep, I know you are pretty familiar with the mods out there... now that it's done, for the moment, whaddya think of this one?

I can only compare it with monkspiders/elucidus' 'Balancer' mod, korn469's 'Blitz' mod, plutarck's 'Long Winded Changes' (LWC) mod, velociryx' 'Noname' mod and player1's 'Patch Suggestion' (PS) mod. I have playtested Blitz and PS and am familiar with the other mod's contents.

Balancer, Blitz and LWC were old mods, work on them had started shortly after Civ3 hit the stores (I use the term 'were' because, AFAIK, Balancer and LWC haven't been updated to v1.29, and Blitz - sadly - only in an abrigded version). Most of the features of Balancer and LWC seemed to me like 'change for the sake of change', although both of them also contained original ideas that shined (e.g. Balancers 'Longevity available with Medicine'). Anyhow, one has to give credit to the modmakers because they pioneered in testing Civ3's possibilities and limitations - Plutarck's 'Modmaker's tutorial' (in the Creation forum) is a must-read until today.

'Blitz' was very different - it was deliberately designed to eliminate weaknesses in Civ3's gameplay and is full of features that still wait to be utilized in other mods or even a kind of 'Apolyton Standard mod' (e.g. additional improvements that yield only culture). One feature of the Blitz mod - the ability of armies to blitz - made it into Civ3 v1.17. Unfortunately, the additional units introduced in Blitz (e.g. a Guerilla-type unit a la PtW) meant that it could not be played as a standalone-BIC, but needed some kind of manual installation procedure, which may have prevented the casual gamer from trying it. At last there was no update to v1.21.

'Noname' was created under v1.17 and with a goal similar to Blitz: improving gameplay by adding strategic choice. Vel introduced a lot of interesting concepts (e.g. Zero-ressource units or bonus ressources attached to techs). The mod also came with an installation procedure and the hint not to open the Civilopedia entry for Warrior Code - due to the additional techs introduced by Vel, v1.17 would crash otherwise. As far as I can judge, the editor limitations (this was way before unit-specific hitpoints and lethal bombardment) and a general 'disenchantment' with Civ3 made Vel's team stop working on further versions of the mod only a month after they had started. The 'Noname' readme still has many hidden gems IMO.

The goal of 'Patch Suggestion' seemed to be different from the beginning: Change as little as possible. While that's not entirely my cup of tea, I have to admit that every tweak actually made sense (or, in case of lethal land bombardment was at least debatable), was well-documented and heavily playtested. (E.g. Player1 found out that 'wheeled' units still could use enemy roads and just didn't get the road bonus.) Because of the self-imposed limitation, player1 could create his mod as a standalone-BIC and is, until today, the only mod that made it to the official Civ3 page.

The 'Apolyton University' mod ... It amazes me what alexman has been able to do in a few days. AU has the most thorough documentation of all mods and in v1.01 there's not a single change I couldn't agree with. I like the way how the AI is maintained or - revised build priorities - even improved, and the mod also seems to be on the right track when it comes to major changes that nevertheless are likely to improve gameplay. (Don't change only for the sake of change, but be aware that 'changing as little as possible' does not always mean 'changing little'.) If there ever is a kind of 'Apolyton Standard' mod, it will bear vast resemblance with the AU mod IMO.

Having said that, I still strongly suggest to take a close look at the tweaks player1 is testing and introducing in his mod or even to try some kind of cooperation/merger. Player1 has posted v1.32 of his mod only today and has adopted the changes to the Military Academy that are also part of AU (and part of blitz, where it all started), and that's a good sign IMO that the mod community eventually will reach some kind of consensus. The highest goal, naturally, should be that we convince Firaxis to incorporate this consensus into the standard game.

Theseus · August 8, 2002, 17:04

Great summary for the non-modders... thanks, lockstep.

Also, I'm glad that the efforts seem to be converging for a "Standard." Outside of AU, I expect that when MP comes around there'll be a desire of some groups to use it.

Theseus · August 8, 2002, 18:01

If anybody is interested, in looking at the new PTW screenshots, the 4th one has a Medieval Infantry selected...

Stats are 4-2-1.

BTW, they carry morningstars... can't wait to see the animation!

kettyo · August 9, 2002, 04:10

Hello to all !

I would just like to ask that what are the main differences between this mod and player1's?

I see many changes are the same or very similar.

player1 · August 9, 2002, 07:51

90% same, 10% different

Theseus · August 10, 2002, 16:35

In AU 103, Musketmen and Riflemen both upgrade to Infantry, and can be built simultaneously.

Is this correct for the mod?

alexman · August 10, 2002, 17:06

It's un unexpected and unwanted side-effect (a.k.a. bug

) of making musketeers upgrade to Infantry instead of Riflemen.

The upgrade path used to be:
musketman->musketeer->rifleman->infantry

Now it is:
musketman->musketeer->infantry
and
rifleman->infantry

We will have to fix this in the next version, probably by making musketeers upgrade to riflemen again.
Sorry...

Another thought that I had while playing AU 103:
Coastal fortresses are pretty much useless right now. What if we make them required for veteran naval units instead of harbors? Harbors already have two other functions (food and trade). What do you think?

Theseus · August 10, 2002, 17:52

It's OK... just prioritizes Rep Parts a little.

I like the idea about coastal fortresses... they come with metallurgy, so it means some reg Galleys, which is fine.

lockstep · August 11, 2002, 05:19

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
It's un unexpected and unwanted side-effect (a.k.a. bug

) of making musketeers upgrade to Infantry instead of Riflemen.

IMO it SHOULD be that way. Musketeers with a movement rate of 2 are 'special' defenders, and I'd still want to be able to build them after Riflemen are available. Because of the way Civ3 works, upgradig Musketeers to Riflemen isn't an option then, but I'd accept that.

BTW, it's the same way with Impis (1/2/2) in vanilla v1.29 now. They upgrade directly to Musketmen and therefore are available simultaneously with Pikemen. 'Naturally', you have to build additional Pikemen from scratch when you play as the Zulus.

Quote:

Another thought that I had while playing AU 103:
Coastal fortresses are pretty much useless right now. What if we make them required for veteran naval units instead of harbors? Harbors already have two other functions (food and trade). What do you think?

The best solution IMO would be to split harbors (which are incredibly cheap and powerful in vanilla v1.29) into a food-enhancing improvement (e.g. 'docks') and a trade/vet units improvement (e.g. 'seaport', equivalent to the airport). But introducing additional buildings in a kind of 'standard' mod should have to wait IMO until PtW has arrived; until then alexman's suggestion could be adopted. (At any rate, we would have to take a close look at how the AI handles this.)

Coracle · August 11, 2002, 05:53

Well, all I can say is that at no time in History was a musketman/musketeer of any variety upgraded to Infantry instead of Rifleman. Never happened. Why? Because no civ would ever sit around with obsolete musketmen while a neighboring civ had the much better Riflemen.

The difference?

Musketmen: less than 100 yards range; less reliable weapon. Sometimes vulnerable to mounted troops unless in squares.

Riflemen: at least 400 accurate yards (bullets deadly up to 600); more reliable; slightly faster rate of fire. Mounted troops wouldn't even bother attacking them, no chance.

Would YOU want to risk being attacked by Riflemen while you still have muskets?

lockstep · August 11, 2002, 06:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Well, all I can say is that at no time in History was a musketman/musketeer of any variety upgraded to Infantry instead of Rifleman. Never happened. Why? Because no civ would ever sit around with obsolete musketmen while a neighboring civ had the much better Riflemen.

Just FYI Coracle, in this mod the Musketeer has +1 movement rate instead of +1 attack, so that it becomes a 2/4/2 unit. This may not be historical correct, but it makes a direct Musketeer - Infantry upgrade at least debatable.

(Another possibility for a 'special' musketeer ability that would actually benefit the AI would be +1 defense, making it a 2/5/1 unit. In that case, Musketeers should upgrade to Riflemen.)

Alexman, another note on the vet naval units issue: Don't forget that - contrary to harbors - coastal fortresses need iron and saltpeter to be built.

lockstep · August 11, 2002, 09:39

Quote:

Originally posted by lockstep
BTW, it's the same way with Impis (1/2/2) in vanilla v1.29 now. They upgrade directly to Musketmen and therefore are available simultaneously with Pikemen.

Sorry, I figured the problem out now. Skipping parts of an upgrade chain works for the Impi because it's at the beginning of the chain. It won't work for the Musketeer, sadly. So the only solution (that is, besides Musketeers that need to be built from scratch, as in Civ3 v1.07) is indeed to make Musketeers upgrade to Riflemen.

lockstep · August 11, 2002, 10:54

Because I'd really like to see the best mods out yet converge into an 'Apolyton Standard mod', here are some thoughts about differences between AU and PS:

Musketeer stats - 2/4/2 in AU, 4/4/1 in PS. The AU mod's version is probably better for the AI, but results in a somewhat inconsistent upgrade chain. I guess only playtesting will resolve this issue.
Inclusion of zero range bombardment - AU yes, PS no. I'm with alexman on this one because the feature is 'realistic' and the AI can actually cope with it.
F-15 and Stealth fighter stats - AU gives them RoF of 3, PS leaves them at 2. I'm for the compromise that player1 is likely to include in the next version of his mod: Leave the F-15's and the Stealth Fighter's RoF at 2 (3 only for bombers), but give them a bombard strength of 5 instead of 4 (and increase the Fighter's and Jet Fighter's bombard strength to 3 instead of 2).
EDIT: Lethal land bombardment for some air units - AU no, PS yes. I'm with Alexman on this one, because IMO lethal land bombardment is a 'change for the sake of change'. (Lethal sea bombardment is also debatable in terms of playbalance, but at least it makes 'Pearl Harbor'-type air attacks possible.)
Movement rate of Frigate/Man-O-War and Privateer - AU adds +1 (so that it is 5 resp. 4), PS leaves them at 4 resp. 3. I'm with alexman on this one, because it adds a strategic choice of building Frigates (faster) vs. Ironclads (higher bombard strength).
Ironclad upgrade path - AU to Battleship, PS to Destroyer. No strong feelings here, but upgrading to the Battleship would be in accordance with the Ironclad's civilopedia entry.
Upgrade paths for Swordsman/Legionary/Immortals, Longbowman and Jaguar Warrior - AU to nothing, PS to Rifleman. I'm with player1 on this one because it really helps the AI to get rid of 'obsolete' units and makes for a less cluttered build menu. Although PtW's new Medieval Infantry - Guerilla upgrade path will change everything in that respect, player1's solution is still a nice temporary fix.
Revised AI build priorities - AU yes, PS no. This will need additional playtesting, but I think - especially after Soren Johnson's comments - that alexman is on the right track here.
Longevity tweaks - AU: available with Medicine instead of Genetics, PS: additional happy faces. I'm with alexman on this one, because it makes Longevity's original effect (faster city growth) actually useful.
SS Docking Bay requires Robotics instead of Space Flight - AU no, PS yes. Actually, I was the one who suggested to alexman to leave things as they are in vanilla v1.29, but after some discussions with player1 and a full test game, I think that player1 was actually right. The solution (that is also likely to be included in the next version of player1's mod): Change SS Docking Bay's prereq to Robotics (so that only the purely military techs aren't required for a space victory) and increase the costs of SS parts by about 50% (250/500/1000 instead of 160/320/640), so that going for Robotics ASAP is still a strategic choice.
Privateer upgrade path - AU to nothing, PS to Destroyer. No strong feelings here - I'd simply like to hear the opinion of expert players if a naval unit with A/D rates of 2/1, yet with hidden nationality is still of any use after Destroyers become available.

Furthermore, PS has three additional features that I'd like to see included in the AU mod:

Percentage of optimal cities from Chieftain to Deity is 150/120/100/90/80/70 instead of 100/95/90/85/80/70.This makes corruption more manageable at lower difficulty levels.
Attack bonus against barbarians from Chieftain to Deity is 200/100/50/50/0/0 instead of 800/400/200/100/50/0. This makes barbarians more challenging at lower difficulty levels (an attack bonus of 800% at Chieftain isn't even fun).
EDIT: Cruise Missile bombard range is 4 instead of 6 (still +2 compared to vanilla v1.29, 6 obviously was too unbalancing).

alexman · August 11, 2002, 13:57

Lockstep, thanks for all your comments. I too would like to see an 'Apolyton Standard' mod. I'm sure we will eventually converge after some playtesting. The AU is a great way to test mod changes, since you have many people playing the same game.

Here are the changes I propose for AU MOD 1.02:

Musketeer no longer upgrades to Infantry
Back to the original, since the change breaks the musketman upgrade.

Coastal Fortress, not Harbor, produces veteran naval units
I did a quick test, and if you have already built a Coastal Fortress and you run out of saltpeter, the units that you build there are still veteran. This means that the change will not introduce saltpeter as a necessary resource in the modern age. The AI is indeed a question mark. Under the default rules, it NEVER builds coastal fortresses. I will do some more testing.

Change SS Docking Bay's prereq to Robotics and increase the costs of all SS parts by 50%
After lockstep and player 1's discussion and results, it seems like a great idea.

Reduce ROF of F-15 and Stealth Fighters back to 2. Increase bombard strength to 6 instead.
Player 1 has lethal bombard on for these units. We don't. So increasing their bombard strength by 2 instead of their ROF by 1 will weaken these units so they are still noticeably better than Jet Fighters, but still nowhere as good as bombers.

What do y'all think?

lockstep · August 11, 2002, 14:23

Re Coastal Fortresses: You'd still need saltpeter in the modern age if you want to build new fortresses.

Re F-15/Stealth Fighter RoF: The difference between AU and PS is only lethal land bombardment, but this still might justify different unit stats.

Keep up the good work!

Theseus · August 11, 2002, 15:42

I'm generally in favor of all these changes.

Any thoughts on introducing Medieval Infantry?

lockstep · August 11, 2002, 16:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Any thoughts on introducing Medieval Infantry?

If you add a custom unit to a mod, you have to replace some of Civ3's files (e.g. unit_32.pcx) with corresponding custom ones, otherwise the build menu graphics will be messed up. You also have to add custom graphics (or re-use graphics of a standard unit). Anyhow, it's not as simple as starting a scenario instead of a new game. (PtW will make things much easier, because it will include a mod manager that checks if a scenario/mod also includes custom files.) So I'd suggest for now to focus on changes that can be done with only modifying the BIC-file.

Still, it's nice to see that you can't wait for PtW, Theseus.

Theseus · August 11, 2002, 17:27

OK, didn't realize it was that complex.

It's not so much that I can't wait for PtW (although can we say "let the 'elite' smackdown commence"?), but rather I think that Sword-level strategies are seriously compromised by the lack of an appropriate upgrade path.

(also, I need more options for mixed-unit Armies!!)

Coracle · August 11, 2002, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
OK, didn't realize it was that complex.

. . .but rather I think that Sword-level strategies are seriously compromised by the lack of an appropriate upgrade path.

(also, I need more options for mixed-unit Armies!!)

Upgrade path? Here's a brainstorm for you: MOD it.

And I won't make armies unless I can upgrade units in them.

alexman · August 11, 2002, 21:22

I found another little bug. I accidentally left a 2 HP bonus for nuclear subs.

As for building Coastal Fortresses, I believe the AI will use them like it does barracks and Airports. It makes them a priority at wartime. So we might get many regular AI ships wandering around in peacetime, even though Coastal Fortresses are available.

Right now most naval units are veteran anyway, because by the late middle ages all cities productive enough to build ships already have harbors. This is true for the AI too. What if we compensate for the lack of this harbor ability by giving a 1 HP bonus to all naval units? That way, the regular units will actually be the same as veteran units now. It's bad to have 3 HP naval units fighting because that makes the combat too random, and ships are too valuable to risk that way.

This naval HP increase would also compensate for the new lethal naval bombard we gave to fighters. Should we give it a try?

1.02 Update
Musketeer no longer upgrades to Infantry.
Coastal Fortress produces veteran naval units.
Harbor no longer produces veteran naval units.
Added 1 HP bonus to all naval units.
Fixed erroneous HP bonus (+2) to nuclear submarines.
Changed SS Docking Bay prerequisite to Robotics
Increased the costs of all SS parts by 50%
Reduced ROF of F-15 and Stealth Fighters back to 2. Increased bombard strength to 5 instead.
Added lethal land bombard to F-15.

lockstep · August 12, 2002, 04:59

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Right now most naval units are veteran anyway, because by the late middle ages all cities productive enough to build ships already have harbors. This is true for the AI too. What if we compensate for the lack of this harbor ability by giving a 1 HP bonus to all naval units? That way, the regular units will actually be the same as veteran units now. It's bad to have 3 HP naval units fighting because that makes the combat too random, and ships are too valuable to risk that way.

I don't see the point of these changes. On the one hand, you separate the ability to build veteran naval units from harbors, so that 4 hp naval units won't be that common. On the other hand, the result of a +1 hp hp bonus is exactly the opposite - 4 hp naval units are all too common then. If one really wants to have 4 hp ships, he should obviously build coastal fortresses. Or - and that's the solution I'm leaning towards for now - you could just leave things as they are in vanilla v1.29.

Quote:

Changed SS Docking Bay prerequisite to Robotics
Increased the costs of all SS parts by 50%

You might want to use round values of 250/500/1000 for the SS parts, just like player1.

Quote:

ROF of F-15 and Stealth Fighters back to 2. Increased bombard strength to 5 instead.
Added lethal land bombard to F-15.

If lethal land bombardment is added (and I can understand player1's reason for doing it somewhat better now), the Stealth Fighter should have it, too. That way, every civ can buld air units with lethal land at some point. Your idea to deny this ability to Jet Fighters is good IMO; after all, they also don't have the ability for precision strikes, while the F-15 does. You might also consider to give Fighters and Jet Fighters a bombard strength of 3, just like player 1.

=DrJambo= · August 12, 2002, 06:58

interested to see whether the AI will build coastal fortresses now you've made them produce veteran units!

also interested to see what the AI's build choice regarding paratroopers and tanks... so far in my tests having an operational range value seems to make the AI prefer paras as the primary offensive unit.

as a result any thoughts on making the para a defensive unit especially with the 8,10,1 stats? AI will then use them offensively for pillaging only and keep them in cities nearer airports...! Compared to tanks they are no good as an attacking unit assaulting cities, etc.

alexman · August 12, 2002, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by lockstep

I don't see the point of these changes. On the one hand, you separate the ability to build veteran naval units from harbors, so that 4 hp naval units won't be that common. On the other hand, the result of a +1 hp hp bonus is exactly the opposite - 4 hp naval units are all too common then. If one really wants to have 4 hp ships, he should obviously build coastal fortresses. Or - and that's the solution I'm leaning towards for now - you could just leave things as they are in vanilla v1.29.

The point was to make Coastal Fortresses worth building, without affecting any other aspect of gameplay too much. If coastal fortresses allow you to make "elite" naval units, they will be worth building.

Quote:

If lethal land bombardment is added (and I can understand player1's reason for doing it somewhat better now), the Stealth Fighter should have it, too.

My concern was not to add too many air units with this ability, otherwise the cruise missile will be completely useless. But I agree here. Let's make the St. Fighter have lethal land bombard too.

Quote:

You might also consider to give Fighters and Jet Fighters a bombard strength of 3, just like player 1.

We already increased the ROF for these units. Making them effective bombers is not what was intended by the designers. But I will make the changes, just to have less differences with player 1's mod.

Dr. Jambo: I'm not sure about the defense flag for paratroopers. Will they even attempt to paradrop with this flag?

lockstep · August 12, 2002, 12:02

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
The point was to make Coastal Fortresses worth building, without affecting any other aspect of gameplay too much. If coastal fortresses allow you to make "elite" naval units, they will be worth building.

IMO, they are even more worth building when producing 'veteran' instead of 'regular' naval units. So I'd drop the general hitpoint bonus for naval units.

Quote:

My concern was not to add too many air units with this ability, otherwise the cruise missile will be completely useless. But I agree here. Let's make the St. Fighter have lethal land bombard too.

player1 also adds lethal land to Jet Fighters, but I guess it's a matter of playtesting if this makes the F-15 still a decent UU. After all, not every feature of the two mods must converge ASAP.

Quote:

We already increased the ROF for these units. Making them effective bombers is not what was intended by the designers. But I will make the changes, just to have less differences with player 1's mod.

lockstep · August 12, 2002, 12:28

On second thought, even with the changes you suggested to harbors and coastal fortresses, the former still is 'too good to be left out' and the latter is a 'second-rate'-improvement. So a more radical solution could be:

Change the harbor so that it only provides +1 food in water tiles. Remove the 'Militaristic' characteristic. Maybe even rename it to 'docks'.
Add the 'veteran naval units' flag AND the 'allows water trade' flag to the coastal fortress. Rename it to 'seaport' 'or 'naval base'. Remove its ressource requirements. Change its costs to 80 or 120 and its upkeep to 1 or 2. Make it available with Astronomy or even with Mapmaking (if you want coastal trade still to be possible in the ancient age).

player1 · August 12, 2002, 12:36

Quote:

Originally posted by lockstep [*]Add the 'veteran naval units' flag AND the 'allows water trade' flag to the coastal fortress. Rename it to 'seaport' 'or 'naval base'. Remove its ressource requirements. Change its costs to 80 or 120 and its upkeep to 1 or 2. Make it available with Astronomy or even with Mapmaking (if you want coastal trade still to be possible in the ancient age).[/list]

Yes, it does look radiacal.

Having costal fortress, with all those cannon graphic in ancien age.

lockstep · August 12, 2002, 12:39

I knew you would say that.

Apart from moving an improvement into another age, what's your opinion on 'splitting' harbors?

EDIT: About the 'cannon graphic' ... walls don't look THAT different to me.