Apolyton University Mod (PTW version) - Page 14

Dominae · January 23, 2003, 14:54

ducki, the AI uses slave Workers. The fact is that the AI is better at terraforming that at bombarding. Yes, the human player puts slave Workers to better use, but then what do we not do better than the AI (forget the AI's bonuses for high difficulties)?

I do not think it is possible to give bombard units a nationality, because they cost no pop to produce. Again, this would not help because the real problem is that the AI does not use bombard well. The fact that the human player can capture bombard units only makes this more apparent.

Dominae

Dominae · January 23, 2003, 14:58

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
OK, no lethal land bombard for Hwach'a. Although I'm not convinced that it would be more overpowering than, say, the Ottoman UU.

We can try it, but for the human player it means no offensive casualties while the Hwach'a is available (and beyond; I would use lethal bombard Hwach'a with Artillery during the Infantry age to accomplish the same thing). The AI will never benefit from this change.

Why lethal sea bombard? I thought we were discussing the Korean UU.

Quote:

In any case, let's change the upgrade path so that cannons can be captured by the Koreans.

Yes.

Dominae

Catt · January 23, 2003, 15:04

I never knew that the Koreans can't capture cannons - if that's true, and there's a way to fix it, I say fix it.

on lethal bombardment. A slightly less

on lethal sea bombardment. As we all seem to agree, the AI is woefully unerskilled in its use of bombarment units -- anything done to strengthen such units favors the human. I think the letahl sea bombarment for fighter planes doesn't unduly tilt the scales more toward the human, but I've just never seen the AI use land-based bombardment units (particularly in the age of RR) effectively.

The foregoing view is with respect to the AU Mod as a standalone, as I get the sense that a lot of people play regular games with the mod all the time. I wouldn't necessarily be against lethal bombard for the Hwach'a in an AU course game -- provided the human civ wasn't the Koreans, of course

.

Catt

Edit: changed ". . . seen the AI use land bombardment . . ." to ". . . seen the AI use land-based bombardment units . . ." at the end of the second paragraph.

alexman · January 23, 2003, 15:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
Why lethal sea bombard? I thought we were discussing the Korean UU.

We are. lethal sea bombard means that the Korean UU would be able to sink ships. Unrealistic, but they would at least get a GA. The AI regularly uses cannons to fire at ships, so it would benefit.

Just an idea. Moving along!

ducki · January 23, 2003, 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
I've just never seen the AI use land-based bombardment units (particularly in the age of RR) effectively.

I've never even seen the AI build an effective land-based bombardment force...

...which may be why I don't see them as a Captured Unit Problem.

If I were able to capture 20 cannon/arty in one go, I'd probably flip my lid.

Edited to contribute: Is there a way to convince the AI to build (much much) more Cannon/Arty without giving the human an undue advantage? Maybe the poor usage is due to low numbers?

Jaybe · January 23, 2003, 16:59

Go ahead ducki. Let THE AI capture 20 of YOUR artillery and see how YOU feel about it!

Within a few turns, you may see the AI offensively use artillery. They keep all their home-built bombards at home, but captured ones eventually get sent to the front.

ducki · January 23, 2003, 17:14

Actually, Jaybe, that's a stellar idea.
I think I've got a save from au203 wh...
no, damn, 203 won't work.

I'll find something and experiment to see if the AI will use a "real" artillery stack.

Dominae · January 23, 2003, 17:34

I refuse to build Artillery specifically for use by the AI. I know where this is going, too: "Let's give each AI civ a stack of 10 Catapults to start out the game with!". Bleh.

Dominae

ducki · January 23, 2003, 17:45

No, that's not where I am going with this.

If anyone can save me the time, what does the AI do when it suddenly finds itself in possession of a stack of bombard units?

I'm genuinely curious, but mostly to see if there's a way to get the AI to either use them in a way that actually does good, or spend the shields on something that it will use semi-effectively.

Jaybe · January 23, 2003, 18:41

I was Alexander, you see, and next door was Hannibal the Cannibal. He was stronger, and I hadn't the room or the force to successfully wage war against him. My wars became defensive, and I was falling behind in tech. I had repl. parts and rubber while Hannibal was just getting tanks....

I fought off his tanks with artillery, infantry, cavalry & guerillas losing only 1/5 my cities, but when he started escorting his tanks with mech, it got bad. I played to the end....
(end of babbling)

I had 2-3 instances where my cities with artillery were lost. Hannibal would take these pieces home, and then a few turns later they would reappear in an offensive stack, 2-4 arty grouped together. They would be used against both improvements and target cities. I do NOT remember if they were used against enemy units outside of cities (I may not have had much of those by that time).

[EDIT] My speculation is that AI arty stays in the city it was built in. Unfortunately they do not bombard even when enemy units are within range. All others (i.e., captured) are free to rumble.

aaglo · January 24, 2003, 05:43

I have a question, which may have been asked previously.

Why does the democracy give 1 free unit/city and 2 free units/metropol? I think that the democracy without this addition is a superior government.

I would suggest, that either drop that, or change republic back to nuisance corruption.

With this current model, there is no point using republic government, not even for religious civs...

nbarclay · January 24, 2003, 14:02

Quote:

Originally posted by aaglo
I have a question, which may have been asked previously.

Why does the democracy give 1 free unit/city and 2 free units/metropol? I think that the democracy without this addition is a superior government.

I would suggest, that either drop that, or change republic back to nuisance corruption.

With this current model, there is no point using republic government, not even for religious civs...

Why should a civ that has Democracy use Republic under any but the most special of circumstances? The original idea behind the changes was that non-religious civs would almost invariably go into Republic and stay there the rest of the game, never bothering to switch to Democracy. Democracy has to be significantly better than Republic to provide any incentive for non-religious civs to switch to the more advanced government.

Nathan

Fosse · January 24, 2003, 18:29

Speaking of giving incentive to have non-religous civs switch to Democracy running a Republic...

What if Republic also had the same high war-weariness of Democracy? This would make Republic less appealing when compared to Democracy than it is now, and make the ancient era choice between Republic and Monarchy more strategically viable.
If we agree that the longer amounts of time that wars in the ancient and middle ages represent (500 years to something like 20... don't have the numbers in front of me) then Republic still allows for much longer wars (in years) than Democracy, so the spirit of the two isn't really altered.

However, currently the low weariness of Republic allows for it to be moot. I've been at war in my current AU game in a Republic against two civs for maybe a hundred turns or so, and I've had ONE citizen become unhappy because of it.

aaglo · January 28, 2003, 09:05

The readme-txt says:

Quote:

Reduced all resistance modifiers versus Communism by 5.
Doubled assimilation chance for Communism.

What if these would be dropped out, and change hurrying from population to cash?

alexman · January 28, 2003, 11:00

Aaglo, I agree that rush-buying is better than pop-rushing, but it's not that much better. Changing the rush method would change the flavor of Communism, without significantly improving it compared to Monarchy. I'm not sure I like the change.

What is needed to make this government balanced is a way to reduce corruption. Perhaps we can try a communism-specific building next.

What do people think of the guerilla zero-bombard change? I'm still finishing up AU 203 and the AI guerillas are annoying, I like it. What does everyone think if we also give them a ZOC? It would certainly be realistic and in the spirit of zero-bombard to have a free shot at passing enemy Tanks.

Bluefrog · January 28, 2003, 11:49

I like the bombard of Guerillas. ZOC sounds like it would be good, too...would definitely help the AI out.

Dominae · January 28, 2003, 12:22

ZOC Guerillas would be cool.

Dominae

BRC · January 28, 2003, 12:48

I like the idea of ZOC.

I think that Communism needs to keep its poprushing, to retain the flavor. Wasn't there a problem with using a specific building?? Can we make one that will be operational only in Communism??

*praying for a communal corruption slider in next patch*
(I know it will never happen, though.)

Fosse · January 28, 2003, 17:08

ZOC for guerillas would be a nice touch, making them something to really deal with when you encounter outside of cities, instead of march past.

I'm all in favor of gold rushing for communism. Part of the reason AIs can't use communism is that they'll kill off their own size 20 city by rushing infantry units and face massive unhappiness.
Communism still can't rush like a democracy does, because they won't have the same income, so it isn't unbalancing in that respect.

This is one case where preserving the flavor is really hurting this government, the switch should be made.

Konquest02 · January 28, 2003, 17:25

What about hidden nationality guerillas, just as privateers. Maybe give them a 5/6/1 rating, but I think they might be cool. Will the AI be able to manage them (or even build them at all...) is an other question, but I think it's worth at least a debug game...

--Kon--

Dominae · January 28, 2003, 17:33

Hidden nationality ground troops would break the game: just imagine blocking an enemy's troop movement with your "neutral" guerillas and you'll see my point.

Dominae

aaglo · January 29, 2003, 03:48

I have no comments on the zoc on guerillas, since I don't have PTW yet. It should be available here on 13th of February.

Oh please, almost 6 months later than the rest of the world... why? There is no localization or anything else...

nbarclay · January 29, 2003, 08:50

I found zero-range bombardment for guerillas annoying, and I think I just figured out why: it doesn't pass the "Why in the world should these guys have that kind of ability?" test. If spearmen are backed by archers, or pikemen by longbowmen, it seems reasonable that the guys with bows should be able to do some damage as the attackers close in. But guerillas hitting MAs before the MAs get close enough to attack? How? (I suppose one could argue minefields or some such, but that sort of defense wouldn't require the unit that set it up to stay around in order for it to work.)

Giving guerillas a ZOC seems more reasonable. Either you take them out, or they manage some hit-and-run raids taking advantage of the terrain and so forth while you try to pass by them.

Nathan

alexman · January 29, 2003, 09:40

Nathan, think of the zero-bombard just as you think of the ZOC, but for your unit moving into the guerillas's tile instead of between two adjacent tiles. Just imagine that they are getting their free shot not as the MA is attacking, but as it is moving in position to attack. I don't think it's unrealistic, but even if it is, it enhances gameplay so much that I think we should leave it in anyway.

Theseus · January 30, 2003, 19:47

I agree... I make sure to have zero-bombard troops in just about all of my stacks now, and it definitely helps the AI on defense.

BigDork · January 30, 2003, 22:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Konquest02
What about hidden nationality guerillas, just as privateers. Will the AI be able to manage them (or even build them at all...) is an other question, but I think it's worth at least a debug game...

--Kon--

I've played with this and the AI does use them. They especially use them to grab workers. Also the AI loves to go after the guerillas, kinda like they do with Privateers. The biggest problem I had with them was that they could capture a city for you without going to war. Big time exploit. But Dom is right, it just breaks the game.

BigD

alexman · February 6, 2003, 20:12

OK, since AU 204 is getting close, it's time for a new release of the mod.

Based on earlier discussions, I will make Koreans be able to capture cannons, and I will add ZOC to guerillas.

In addition, I would like to remove the "explore" command from several units that don't need it: Settlers, Workers, artillery, leaders, tactical nukes. The "E" key is right next to the "W" key, and we don't need to send our settlers and workers exploring by accident.

Also, what do people think about adding a Communism-specific building, called Secret Police (KGB)? It would reduce corruption like a courthouse, produce veteran units (so the AI builds it immediately), cost 40 shields (perhaps less?), and have zero upkeep.

Finally, any ideas on what to do with pop-rushing versus drafting? Disbanding a drafted Mech. Infantry unit produces 27 shields, versus 20 for pop-rushing.

I have a suggestion. Disallow drafting for Infantry and Mech. Infantry, and reduce the cost of guerillas to 80. That would mean that you would get a maximum of 20 shields whether you draft/disband or pop-rush.

It would also mean that drafting when Infantry or Mech. Infantry is available is less effective. This is a good thing, I think.

Comments?

player1 · February 6, 2003, 20:41

Not drafted Infantry? (strange ruling)

No drafted Mech. Inf?

(but at least has some logic)

Nor Me · February 6, 2003, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
I have a suggestion. Disallow drafting for Infantry and Mech. Infantry, and reduce the cost of guerillas to 80. That would mean that you would get a maximum of 20 shields whether you draft/disband or pop-rush.

It would also mean that drafting when Infantry or Mech. Infantry is available is less effective. This is a good thing, I think.

Two things:

1) The big advantages of drafting and disbanding are that you can do it outside of Communism and transfer the shields to a different city than the pop loss and unhappiness.

2) The AI drafts heavily for defense. If they're drafting guerillas and I have MAs, the reduction in city size might outweigh the advantage of added defenders. So it would encourage tactics like parking a load of MAs outside a city and waiting for it to fall below 12. Now if I can get GLs onto my rail network...

2 is probably more important than 27/20 shields if you're not going to do it that often. Since pop rushing was fixed for Despotism, it'll never be worth it for Communism.

To help part of 1, you could try forbidding drafting at all for certain goverments. I doubt there's a simple fix.

Nor Me · February 6, 2003, 20:51

to everything else especially the secret police and explore command