Thread Tools
Old December 22, 2002, 16:50   #271
Ozymandias
Prince
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Also, the Small Wonder implementation of the Kremlin does not work as expected.

Even though it does not show up in the list of improvements in the city, it actually continues to work even after the civ switches out of Communism.
???? -- I've heard/read repeatedly that this was fixed with 1.29 -- ????

-Oz
__________________
... And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away ...
Ozymandias is offline  
Old December 22, 2002, 16:52   #272
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
One more thing.

Impi are flagged as an offensive and defensive unit for the AI. This is not so bad in the first half of the ancient age (it's like building Chariots with an extra defense for the same cost), but it hurts them in the second half of the ancient age, because they continue building some Impi when they could be building swordsmen or horsemen. I think we should remove the AI offense flag from Impi.

Similarly with Numidian Mercenaries. They are flagged for both offense and defense, so the AI builds some of them for offense instead of Swordsmen, Horsemen, and Archers. I think we should remove the AI offense from this unit as well.

PS. Oz, I just tested it. Perhaps it was fixed for improvements, not Wonders.
alexman is offline  
Old December 22, 2002, 16:54   #273
Ozymandias
Prince
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
It's worth testing whether flagging artillery as AI "offense" instead of "artillery" will do the trick.
"Historical" benefits as well -- e.g., siege and horse artillery offensive, "Napoleonic" artillery (in quotes to refer to the guns called that through the ACW) defensive. Yes, they were of course deployed as part of offensives, but weren't exactly the sorts of things you'd say, advance with under fire.

-Oz
__________________
... And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away ...
Ozymandias is offline  
Old December 22, 2002, 16:56   #274
Ozymandias
Prince
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
One more thing.

PS. Oz, I just tested it. Perhaps it was fixed for improvements, not Wonders.
*sigh*

Many thanks for beating me to the punch

-Oz
__________________
... And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away ...
Ozymandias is offline  
Old December 22, 2002, 16:58   #275
Ozymandias
Prince
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Impi are flagged as an offensive and defensive unit for the AI. This is not so bad in the first half of the ancient age (it's like building Chariots with an extra defense for the same cost), but it hurts them in the second half of the ancient age, because they continue building some Impi when they could be building swordsmen or horsemen. I think we should remove the AI offense flag from Impi.

Similarly with Numidian Mercenaries. They are flagged for both offense and defense, so the AI builds some of them for offense instead of Swordsmen, Horsemen, and Archers. I think we should remove the AI offense from this unit as well.
Apologies, as I am jumping into this thread rather late on, but wouldn't flagging upgrade paths fix this?

-Oz
__________________
... And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away ...
Ozymandias is offline  
Old December 22, 2002, 17:05   #276
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by flagging upgrade paths, but these two units upgrade to pikemen, at which time they lose their AI offense flags. But until then, the AI builds some Impi/Mercs especially for offense. That means that it builds less of something else, like horsemen.
alexman is offline  
Old December 22, 2002, 17:14   #277
Ozymandias
Prince
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by flagging upgrade paths, but these two units upgrade to pikemen, at which time they lose their AI offense flags. But until then, the AI builds some Impi/Mercs especially for offense. That means that it builds less of something else, like horsemen.
Hmmm ....

I understand that a major goal is to change as little as possible, BUT ...

Perhaps have them upgrade to swordsmen, and likewise flag the swordsmen offensive & defensive. IMHO, if the paradigm for the swordsmen is the Roman Legion, then they should have equal offensive & defensive factors.

.... Okay, I'll tiptoe quietly away now ...

Happy Holidays,

Oz
__________________
... And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away ...
Ozymandias is offline  
Old December 22, 2002, 18:03   #278
Jaybe
Mac
Emperor
 
Jaybe's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 4,168
The Artillery Question
If the purpose is to make the AI more "equal" to the player, how about this uh, RADICAL change:

Remove all ground Artillery units from the game.
No more catapults, cannon, artillery or radar artillery for anyone. Cruise missile removal would be optional.

Leave the air and sea bombardment, which the AI seems to use somewhat proficiently.
Jaybe is offline  
Old December 22, 2002, 18:57   #279
player1
Emperor
 
player1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 3,218
About offense flag for Impi and Num. Merc:

Removing it would make these 2 civs severly handicapped in early game when thse units are suppesed to shince.

On the other hand, I don't see problem in later game, since AI civ will still build horse&sword units (together with thesse UUs).

And, on the longer run, problem will be resolved when AI gets Gunpowder.
player1 is offline  
Old December 22, 2002, 20:04   #280
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Actually, the problem is solved with Feudalism, as both units upgrade to Pikemen. But I'm still not convinced that the AI is better off by using these units for offense. Remember, for the AI, each unit has only one function: offense or defense.

Take first the Numidian Mercenary. It costs the same as a Swordsman. Why build this unit for offense if you can build Swordsmen? If you don't have iron, you can build Archers, who have the same attack and are cheaper.

Similarly for the Impi. Why build this unit for offense, if you can build Archers that cost the same and have a higher attack, or Horsemen that are more expensive but have higher attack and the same movement?

In a test debug game I observed, the Zulu and Carthage were at war. It was very funny to watch the battles. Hordes of Impi would get slaughtered trying to attack Mercenaries. Then the next turn you would get mercenary after mercenary getting killed trying to counterattack the surviving Impi... They would have both been much better off using Swordsmen and Horsemen to attack.

More news on the Government-specific Wonders. They work as long as you don't use the flags that are only for Wonders. If you use flags that are for improvements, they work fine. Fortunately, happy faces are also available to improvements, so we can have the Kremlin (or whatever), as long as we don't give it free maintenance for trade installations as I had suggested.
alexman is offline  
Old December 22, 2002, 22:21   #281
ducki
C3C IDG: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Cake or Death?Apolyton University
King
 
ducki's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Our house. In the middle of our street.
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Similarly with Numidian Mercenaries. They are flagged for both offense and defense, so the AI builds some of them for offense instead of Swordsmen, Horsemen, and Archers. I think we should remove the AI offense from this unit as well.
I was actually thinking of trying a "Mercenary Rush".
Since Carthage doesn't start with any tech that allows any unit, if they get Bronze first, then they can start building an attack force that doesn't need defenders and that can easily hold any city they take.

It's like the Bowman, but stronger defensively, IMO.
It's a first-level tech, and with culture linking, you can probably buy Bronze from Greece or maybe Ottomans very early to begin building a strange attack force that is its own defense.



Since I haven't tried it yet, though, I can't say whether it works or not, but I have a feeling it would be even better than using Archers, since you don't need to build defenders once your conquest is over.
ducki is offline  
Old December 22, 2002, 23:27   #282
Pyrodrew
Prince
 
Pyrodrew's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 679
Quote:
how about this uh, RADICAL change:
Remove all ground Artillery units from the game.
I believe some found my idea too radical, so this is earth-shattering. I'm guessing some want to leave artillery in for the human & AI because AU has 2 goals (maybe more?):

1.Help the AI
2.Keep the game as much like the original as possible

Since Goal 1 does not have priority over Goal 2, artillery stays in regardless of the human advantages with it. That's my guess anyways. But I support your idea, simply because I know it would help the AI. That's why I also am designing a mod on the side with AI help being the only goal - for a truly diabolical AI.
Pyrodrew is offline  
Old December 23, 2002, 00:13   #283
Mad Bomber
King
 
Mad Bomber's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,119
Jaybe:

The idea with this mod are conservative changes in order to balance out the game, removing all land artillery is too radical, and IMO tilts the game too heavily in favor of the AI. Have you used extensive Airpower? After the avent of SAMS and Jet Fighters, Airpower becomes very costly until the discovery of Stealth, even then it is still rather costly way of reducing enemy metros. Sea bombardment is simply not effective enough and cannot be employed against large areas.

Alexman:

Try flagging the cruise missle as a tactical missle, this should let the AI be able to load it onto any ship w/ transport capacity and "only transport tactical missle" flag. Not sure if this will work in fact, because the AI does not load tactical missles on any ship even nuc subs which it should be able to do with vanilla 3.

as for the Zulu's I modded the Impi to a 2.1.2 and had them replace archers, the impi was used almost soley for offense, even if they are spearmen.

Not sure about Numidian Merc, as I do not have PTW yet.
__________________
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
Mad Bomber is offline  
Old December 23, 2002, 17:17   #284
Jaybe
Mac
Emperor
 
Jaybe's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 4,168
Quote:
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Jaybe:

The idea with this mod are conservative changes in order to balance out the game, removing all land artillery is too radical, and IMO tilts the game too heavily in favor of the AI. Have you used extensive Airpower? After the avent of SAMS and Jet Fighters, Airpower becomes very costly until the discovery of Stealth, even then it is still rather costly way of reducing enemy metros. Sea bombardment is simply not effective enough and cannot be employed against large areas.
I SAID it was a radical idea!
I HAVE used airpower extensively, and find that substantial use of offensive fighter missions mitigates much of defender AS missions and bomber losses become small. Both bombers and artillery have the same strength (stock values), 8 x 3 RoF or 12 x 2 RoF.

The point was that only the player will use artillery to reduce a city's population/defense bonuses and is a gross advantage. Can you imagine having to come up with different tactics or even victory strategies to compensate? Might even have to reduce difficulty levels! ***Disclaimer: I have always played at Regent.

The loss of those offensive fighters I have reduced by increasing their defense strength to almost their attack strength (e.g., Jets are 8/7), with the exception of the F-15 which is equal (8/8). Chance of Intercept increased to 67%.
OTOH, this is probably a tactic which only the player would use substantially. I have never witnessed a SAM situation.
Jaybe is offline  
Old December 23, 2002, 18:20   #285
Mad Bomber
King
 
Mad Bomber's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaybe

I SAID it was a radical idea!
I HAVE used airpower extensively, and find that substantial use of offensive fighter missions mitigates much of defender AS missions and bomber losses become small. Both bombers and artillery have the same strength (stock values), 8 x 3 RoF or 12 x 2 RoF.

The point was that only the player will use artillery to reduce a city's population/defense bonuses and is a gross advantage. Can you imagine having to come up with different tactics or even victory strategies to compensate? Might even have to reduce difficulty levels! ***Disclaimer: I have always played at Regent.

The loss of those offensive fighters I have reduced by increasing their defense strength to almost their attack strength (e.g., Jets are 8/7), with the exception of the F-15 which is equal (8/8). Chance of Intercept increased to 67%.
OTOH, this is probably a tactic which only the player would use substantially. I have never witnessed a SAM situation.
Yes I have modded the fighters similar to yours, but If you haven't run into SAM's then play out the modern world more (perhaps try playing a game with 16 civ's and only conquest as a victory condition) SAM's completely eliminate the possibility of a successful air campaign without Stealth, they intercept with the same possibility as a fighter and can only be bombed out of existance (usually you have to take out 7-10 improvements before you will knock out the SAM) .This is only feasible with Precision Bombing which is only available to the F-15 and Stealth aircraft. I'll try to get a screenshot of a SAM site in action and have it ready for the next time I post. I too play almost exclusively on Regent.
__________________
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
Mad Bomber is offline  
Old December 23, 2002, 19:32   #286
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Communism again
It turns out that Communism as used by the AI is not as bad as we thought. At least it's not as bad as it is for the human.

As we know, for the human who has a good Capital/FP placement, Monarchy is almost always the better war-time government. But for the AI, which generally places the FP close to its palace, Communism is about as good as Monarchy.

To prove this point, I did a simple test. I made a rectangular grid of 25 cities (the OCN was 16), spaced 3 tiles apart on a diagonal. I put courthouses everywhere, and police stations in all cities (but not in towns). The following diagram shows the city arrangement, where the numbers are the city sizes:
Code:
 |   A  B  C  D  E
------------------
1|   9  9  9  9  6
2|   9 12 12  9  6
3|   9 12 12  9  6
4|   9  9  9  9  6
5|   6  6  6  6  6
With the Palace at position B2, and the FP at B3, which is a realistic AI setup because the AI usually has its Palace and FP close to each other and its total number of cities rarely go over 150% of the OCN, the percentage of commerce lost to corruption was 20% for Monarchy and 21% for Communism!

When I moved the FP to D4, which is more like what the human would try to do, the corruption for Monarchy dropped to 15% (and of course for Communism it remains 21%).

On top of that, humans usually have more than 150% the OCN. A typical game where the human is achieving UP is more like 250% the OCN, with all those cities being productive. A switch to communism in this case would be even worse for the human.

So, to summarize, because of better FP placement, Communism is almost never a better option than Monarchy for the human player. But for the AI, these two governments can be comparable.

Communism still needs bonuses to help the AI that chooses it over Monarchy, but not huge ones.

Consider adding an extra courthouse-type improvement, specific to Communism, to each of the 25 cities in the example above. This would bring corruption down to 16% for Communism, helping the AI in its choice to select Communism over Monarchy in the first configuration, but still not giving the human a better government that Monarchy (15%) in the second configuration.

I believe this is the best way to balance Communism.
alexman is offline  
Old December 23, 2002, 20:14   #287
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Re: Communism again
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Consider adding an extra courthouse-type improvement, specific to Communism, to each of the 25 cities in the example above. This would bring corruption down to 16% for Communism, helping the AI in its choice to select Communism over Monarchy in the first configuration, but still not giving the human a better government that Monarchy (15%) in the second configuration.
Why would the AI select Communism over Monarchy with an added improvement? I assume you mean that the improvement will help the AI since it already chooses Communism over Monarchy, given it builds the improvement with any regularity.

I must say I like this solution compared to the ones proposed above, essentially because it does not change the human's strategy very much (and therefore the feel of the game). However, I'm still not sure why the changes I myself proposed are not satisfactory. Basically they all work together to make Communism (and therefore the AI) better. If the Republic and Democracy are better than Communism in the long run, so be it. Communism just needs to be better than Monarchy in wartime.


Dominae
Dominae is offline  
Old December 23, 2002, 20:32   #288
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Re: Re: Communism again
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
I assume you mean that the improvement will help the AI since it already chooses Communism over Monarchy, given it builds the improvement with any regularity.
Sorry I was not clear. Your assuption is correct. We can help the AI build the improvement immediately by giving it other redundant properties like veteran military units. Barracks do not become useless, because Communism is temporary.

Quote:
Communism just needs to be better than Monarchy in wartime.
We agree 100% here. The changes you proposed are definitely an alternative worth considering, and all make Communism better than it was, but it is still does not come close to Monarchy for any decent FP placement.

The difference in the two suggestions is whether we want to help the AI a little, or if we want to help the AI as much as possible without changing human strategy.
alexman is offline  
Old December 23, 2002, 21:06   #289
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Sorry, somehow I posted before I was done...

The "communist courthouse" approach is the most we can help the AI without forcing the human to consider Communism instead of Monarchy. OK, the human might consider using Communism for war if he has terrible (or no) FP placement, but I think this is not very common, and even if it is, it's a welcome strategic option. Note that this corruption reduction is in some ways a bigger change than the previous small wonder suggestion of happiness enough for a WLTKD. WLTKD affects waste (and the small wonder works only on the same continent), whereas the extra courthouse affects both waste and corruption everywhere it is built.

The "Dominae tweaks" approach changes very little, so that's good. The changes will benefit the player in a defensive war, since he needs units in his cities to take advantage of the MP bonus (he will be able to either draft without unhappiness, or build units and to get WLTKD). But Communism is still not as good as Monarchy, even with terrible FP placement. The AI does not take full advantage of the MP limit, but the changes should help a little, especially defensively. But is defense what we want to strengthen here? Tougher defense means more bloody battles of attrition, which in turn means less killer AIs (and perhaps more late-game tedium).
alexman is offline  
Old December 23, 2002, 21:16   #290
Mazarin
Civilization III PBEMCivilization III Democracy GameACDG The Cybernetic Consciousness
Prince
 
Mazarin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: of Old Europe
Posts: 341
I'm not sure whether a new corruption-reducing improvement would help much...will the AI build these new improvements during a war or will it prefer units instead?-Further I'm not sure that communism is a bad choice for the AI as it makes up for its bad FP-placement. What really counts in communism is that a FP has been built -no matter where...Maybe this is better than monarchy where only a small AI-area is productive.
__________________
www.civforum.de
Mazarin is offline  
Old December 23, 2002, 21:21   #291
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Mazarin, see the test. Communism is worse than Monarchy, even with the worst FP placement.

As for whether the AI will build the new improvement, the answer is yes, especially if you make it cheap and give it the abilities of a barracks.
alexman is offline  
Old December 23, 2002, 21:46   #292
Mazarin
Civilization III PBEMCivilization III Democracy GameACDG The Cybernetic Consciousness
Prince
 
Mazarin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: of Old Europe
Posts: 341
...sorry, I didn't see that before my first post .
Mazarin is offline  
Old December 24, 2002, 00:59   #293
ducki
C3C IDG: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Cake or Death?Apolyton University
King
 
ducki's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Our house. In the middle of our street.
Posts: 1,495
alexman =
you edited out a comment about making Communism good enough that the human would consider it over Monarchy...

I feel that is - or should be - the goal.
It should not be obviously and categorically better than Monarchy, but it also should not be obviously and categorically worse...

If it's good enough that it would be considered and occasionally and situationally chosen, then I think it's right.

Currently, Communism is the only of the "real" governments that is never the right choice.
In keeping with both Improve AI and Increase Strategic Choice for Human, I think that the goal "should" be making Communism good enough for human consideration.
__________________
"Just once, do me a favor, don't play Gray, don't even play Dark... I want to see Center-of-a-Black-Hole Side!!! " - Theseus nee rpodos
ducki is offline  
Old December 24, 2002, 01:13   #294
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
This this the eternal dilema we get by setting two conflicting goals for this mod: Making minimum changes versus giving more strategic depth.

I think that the right balance is to make Communism the best wartime government for the AI, most of the time. This makes sure we help the AI as much as possible, without seriously changing human strategy. Still, if a human player finds himself in the circumstances of a typical AI (i.e. bad FP placement, or no FP) then Communism will be the right government for him too.

The real question is how to achieve this balance.
alexman is offline  
Old December 24, 2002, 02:48   #295
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
alexman, as usual I'm quite ready to test out your new proposal (in this case, regarding Communism); I've been wrong in the past, and I'll surely be wrong again. I'm quite happy that the latest proposal does not change human strategy too much, which (as you may know) is important for me (along with only even Attack/Defense values!).

However, here are some things to think about (in case you haven't already):

1. Correct cost for the new improvement. If the cost is too high, the AI will either not build it, or will waste a lot of time building it. If the cost is too low, then switching to Communism will be too much of an immediate boost, which feels wrong. Ideally the cost should be such that the AI will consider building it under Communism, but still require a few turns to construct.

2. Effects for the human player. Will a good FP placement always favor Monarchy, or will the improved Communism be better once the new improvement has been built in all cities? If the human player has many many cities, will the reduction in Corruption due to Courthouses, Police Stations, and 'Improvement X' be better than a partially corrupt empire in Monarchy (or even the Republic or Democracy)?

3. Balanced level of corruption-reduction. Again, the compounded effect of Courthouses, Police Stations and the new improvement should not be too great (factoring in the Commercial trait as well).

4. Upkeep cost and Culture. Should the improvement have either of these?


Finally, I will try to test the changes I proposed earlier when I get the chance. I can see how they only add to the "attrition factor" of AI to AI warfare; I was only thinking about a Communist AI putting up a good fight against the human player. If the changes I proposed detract from creating Killer AIs, then clearly something is wrong.

Oh, and Merry Christmas everyone!




Dominae
Dominae is offline  
Old December 24, 2002, 20:24   #296
Mad Bomber
King
 
Mad Bomber's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,119
this is just a random thought, but what about changing rush buying to cash instead of whipping for a communist gov?

would this be a good thing for the AI or would this benefit the player more?

Finally a mod that I have found helpful to AI's is to have tanks, MA's and MI's have 3 moves and the all terrain as roads flag enabled, the AI is very profecient in taking advantage of the change.
__________________
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
Mad Bomber is offline  
Old December 27, 2002, 12:57   #297
=DrJambo=
Prince
 
=DrJambo='s Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Athens of the North (Edinburgh)
Posts: 377
Possible Government tweaks.
Hi folks, i have just spent nearly 2 hours reading this thread and i have a couple of ideas on how to modify and/or help to make Communism more of a Government of choice.

1. Have you considered adding rate caps for each of the Government types similar to the way Civ2 had? For instance, why not limit Despotism to 7 (= 70% slider max for science or tax), Monarchy and Republic to 8 and Communism and Democracy to 9 or 10. This way Communism has an advantage over Monarchy and Republic of being able to set the slider to 100%.

2. Why not alter the unhappiness turn penalties for drafting or sacrificing citizens? Instead of 20 turns, why not set it to 10 or 15 turns. This could make Communism quite attractive given a situation where a civilisation is bursting at the seams with people. The AI will also be less likely to succumb to the "dwindling empire" syndrome associated with excessive use of drafting and sacrificing.

This option probably has the potential to give the greatest help to Communism, although it also affects Despotism and may imbalance the Ancient period. If combined with no. 1 above, however, then the advantage to Despotism could be offset by imposing a noticeable rate cap on the slider a la Civ2.


3. Consider toying with the "Immune to:" options for Communism?

4. Consider modifying the rate of assimilation or the propaganda modifiers for Communism.

All these possibilities are far less drastic than some of suggestions mentioned previously in this thread.

What do you think?
=DrJambo= is offline  
Old December 27, 2002, 13:41   #298
player1
Emperor
 
player1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 3,218
What about making Pop-Rush more productive.

Like making it give 30 shields instead of 20.

Althogh there is possibility of making Despotism a little bit unbalanced.

Or maybe not?
player1 is offline  
Old December 27, 2002, 13:53   #299
=DrJambo=
Prince
 
=DrJambo='s Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Athens of the North (Edinburgh)
Posts: 377
ehhe yeah, i thought of that as soon as i posted!

Indeed, maybe making the pop-rush more productive would be the better option? Difficult to say.

By the way, can someone please explain and elaborate on this debug mode that i keep hearing about?

Ta
=DrJambo= is offline  
Old December 27, 2002, 13:57   #300
ducki
C3C IDG: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Cake or Death?Apolyton University
King
 
ducki's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Our house. In the middle of our street.
Posts: 1,495
There's an option to make a scenario run in Debug mode on the Scenario Options dialog box.
__________________
"Just once, do me a favor, don't play Gray, don't even play Dark... I want to see Center-of-a-Black-Hole Side!!! " - Theseus nee rpodos
ducki is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:41.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team