Thread Tools
Old January 23, 2003, 14:54   #391
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
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
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Dominae is offline  
Old January 23, 2003, 14:58   #392
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
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
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Dominae is offline  
Old January 23, 2003, 15:04   #393
Catt
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
King
 
Catt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,120
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.

Last edited by Catt; January 23, 2003 at 15:09.
Catt is offline  
Old January 23, 2003, 15:07   #394
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
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!
alexman is offline  
Old January 23, 2003, 15:46   #395
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 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?
__________________
"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 January 23, 2003, 16:59   #396
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
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.
__________________
JB
I play BtS (3.19) -- Noble or Prince, Rome, marathon speed, huge hemispheres (2 of them), aggressive AI, no tech brokering. I enjoy the Hephmod Beyond mod. For all non-civ computer uses, including internet, I use a Mac.
Jaybe is offline  
Old January 23, 2003, 17:14   #397
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
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.
__________________
"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 January 23, 2003, 17:34   #398
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
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
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Dominae is offline  
Old January 23, 2003, 17:45   #399
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
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.
__________________
"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 January 23, 2003, 18:41   #400
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 AI offensive use of artillery story:
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.

Last edited by Jaybe; January 24, 2003 at 02:49.
Jaybe is offline  
Old January 24, 2003, 05:43   #401
aaglo
King
 
aaglo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the contradiction is filled with holes...
Posts: 1,398
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...
__________________
I'm not a complete idiot: some parts are still missing.
aaglo is offline  
Old January 24, 2003, 14:02   #402
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
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
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 24, 2003, 18:29   #403
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
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.
Fosse is offline  
Old January 28, 2003, 09:05   #404
aaglo
King
 
aaglo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the contradiction is filled with holes...
Posts: 1,398
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?
__________________
I'm not a complete idiot: some parts are still missing.
aaglo is offline  
Old January 28, 2003, 11:00   #405
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
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.
alexman is offline  
Old January 28, 2003, 11:49   #406
Bluefrog
Chieftain
 
Bluefrog's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Just east of nowhere.
Posts: 82
I like the bombard of Guerillas. ZOC sounds like it would be good, too...would definitely help the AI out.
Bluefrog is offline  
Old January 28, 2003, 12:22   #407
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
ZOC Guerillas would be cool.


Dominae
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Dominae is offline  
Old January 28, 2003, 12:48   #408
BRC
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Prince
 
BRC's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 495
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.)
BRC is offline  
Old January 28, 2003, 17:08   #409
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
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.
Fosse is offline  
Old January 28, 2003, 17:25   #410
Konquest02
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG Vox ControliApolyton University
Prince
 
Konquest02's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Physics Guy
Posts: 977
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--
Konquest02 is offline  
Old January 28, 2003, 17:33   #411
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
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
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Dominae is offline  
Old January 29, 2003, 03:48   #412
aaglo
King
 
aaglo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the contradiction is filled with holes...
Posts: 1,398
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...
__________________
I'm not a complete idiot: some parts are still missing.
aaglo is offline  
Old January 29, 2003, 08:50   #413
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
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
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 29, 2003, 09:40   #414
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
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.
alexman is offline  
Old January 30, 2003, 19:47   #415
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
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.
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline  
Old January 30, 2003, 22:00   #416
BigDork
Prince
 
BigDork's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The biggest dork around.
Posts: 375
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
__________________
Holy Cow!!! BigDork's Back!

BigDork's Poll of the Day over at MZO. What Spam Will It Be Today?
BigDork is offline  
Old February 6, 2003, 20:12   #417
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
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?
alexman is offline  
Old February 6, 2003, 20:41   #418
player1
Emperor
 
player1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 3,218
Not drafted Infantry? (strange ruling)

No drafted Mech. Inf?
(but at least has some logic)
player1 is offline  
Old February 6, 2003, 20:42   #419
Nor Me
Apolyton University
Prince
 
Local Time: 11:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 689
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 is offline  
Old February 6, 2003, 20:51   #420
Nor Me
Apolyton University
Prince
 
Local Time: 11:41
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 689
to everything else especially the secret police and explore command
Nor Me 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