Apolyton University Mod (PTW version)

[nbarclay]

I'm not exactly the world's biggest fan of zero-range bow-bombardment, but at least it has purposes beyond just making changes for their own sake. Given my normal fighting tactics, AIs seem able to give me a little bit better fight with it than without it. (Although I wouldn't be shoked if it's something human players could get a good bit more use out of than AIs if we put our minds to it.)

What bothers me most about the UU tweaks is that they seem to have more of a spirit of, "Hey, let's find something to mod," to them than of really trying to improve the game. Yes, the mods can make unappealing civs more appealing to some. But for others such as myself, any advantage in power is more than made up for by the fact that I wouldn't be playing the "real" Indians or whoever. (Keshiks on hills are a special case where the change actually makes the unit make more sense rather than just making it more powerful.)

I definitely think there's a place in the Civ3 community for a mod that does extensive UU tweaks and so forth. I just don't think the AU mod is it, because AU is aimed at a more general audience (and, ideally, its lessons should carry over well to games with the stock version).

Another possibility would be to actually have two AU mods, one with a relatively minimalist philosophy and another with larger-scale changes. That could make keeping up with who's playing what version of the game even more complicated than it is now, but it might satisfy a wider range of tastes.

Nathan

[theNiceOne]

A good speech Nathan. I have never used any mods, and the only editing I have done except for testing purposes is to allow 24 civs in large games, as I'm something of a purist...

I do intend to try the AUM though, as I would welcome a better AI and balanced game. But if the mod starts tinkering too much with UUs etc. i will be turned off.

[Nor Me]

The problem with the Mongols is that they are too similar to other civs. Their traits are a good combo (both are helped by early war and both help that.) but are shared by two other civs. Their UU is mediocre not just when compared to other knight level UUs but against the Impi and Beserk as well. Only a radical change could solve that which is beyond the remit of this MOD.

I'd support removing the Med. Inf. from the Celts. Only the AI stops me from making the same suggestion for Rome.

The problem with the Musketeer is whether it has the offensive unit flag. Can the Musketeer be better in the hands of the AI than the Musketman without being an attacker that the AI shouldn't build? The current Musketeer doesn't have this problem.

As for the Conquistador, what exactly is the purpose of it being made successively cheaper? Is it to make it more useful against Knights or Cavalry or is it to make it a useful pillager?
Lowering the cost of what is primarily a utility unit wouldn't be unbalancing since only a certain number of them would be needed but for the same reason it is not that useful. The cost shouldn't be lowered so much that it makes sense to build large numbers of them for attack.
I was wondering about giving Spain the ability to build the explorer. Combining a cheap pillager with a unit able to capture workers would be useful. This doesn't affect the upgrade path as the Spanish cannot build scouts. It pevents their UU from actually being a disadvantage. The problem, of course, is that Conquistadors might not be built at all which doesn't help the Spanish flavour.

In my experience, quite large changes can be made to units without unbalancing the game. The same is not true of improvements and wonders. The Pyramids requiring Mathematics instead of Masonry has received no discussion at all. With it, the AI starts building wonders later(at Mysticism if it has no big coastal cities) while the human can still start a palace prebuild at Masonry. If the Oracle is built before Mathematics is discovered as it often is , the player has a much better chance at the Pyramids; if, more rarely, it isn't then the AI can use the Oracle then Pyramids as a prebuild for the Great Library far more often than under default rules. It means building the Pyramids is much easier for the player and building the Great Library is harder. Is the original reason, altering the AI's research path, sufficient justification for a change this big?

At least now, there will be less arguments about the uselessness of the Great Wall. It would still be useless in SP both for the human and the AI if it were changed back however.

Do we need a new thread?

[player1]

Originally posted by Dominae
Blitz is a very powerful and significantly different ability. This makes it far more "out of flavor" for AU than an added Defense point.

Dominae

Actually it's not.

Let me explain:

-Kehiks are NOT Tanks
-They need to be adjanced to opponent at enmy turn to get use of blitz.
-and they have only defense of 2 (counter-attack anybody?)
-blitz can be used only twice
-attack of 4 is not grounbreakeing, compared to attack of Tanks or Modern Armor (were is much greater chance of survivability of these units)
-blitz to Keshik is cool, but in no way some super-advantage, just good enough to move thier efficiency from bad to good


P.S.
On the other hand adding blizt to Ansar Warrior would be insane.
That's Knight-type unit which would benefit most from such ability.

[player1]

As for Conquistador.
Cost of 50 makes them good at pillage and COUNTER-attack.
Rememebr thet enemy Cavraly and Knights have defense of 3 on open.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by player1
Actually it's not.

The only difference between blitz on Knights and blitz on Tanks is that the latter can use Railroads to abuse the ability. But at its time of the game, a blitz Keshik would be extremely powerful. It can still use Roads to blitz effectively on defense. On offense, stack a few Keshiks with some Pikemen and any city will fall too rapidly, without risk of losses from counter-attack. Also consider that the AI uses many low defense units (Longbowmen, and non-uprgraded miscellaneous units) for its defense. A blitz Keshik would cut through these too quickly, denying the AI the only effective tool it has (strenght in numbers due to lower production costs).

Blitz was placed in the late Industrial age for a good reason. Think about Elephants in Civ2.


Dominae

[alexman]

Nor Me, good points. Let me try to answer.

Originally posted by Nor Me
The problem with the Mongols is that they are too similar to other civs.

First of all, let me say that having three identical trait combos is silly. But I'm not sure the Mongols are the worst of those three. Knight-level UUs are really poweful both because of horsemen upgrades, and because of GA timing. I have no problem with the Keshik as it is now.

The problem with the Musketeer is whether it has the offensive unit flag. Can the Musketeer be better in the hands of the AI than the Musketman without being an attacker that the AI shouldn't build? The current Musketeer doesn't have this problem.

The 3-4-1 Musketeer should definitely *not* have the AI offense flag, otherwise the AI will build some of them for offense instead of knights. But I have seen the AI attack with defensive units enough times to make me confident that the extra attack on a defensive unit will not be a complete waste in its hands.

As for the Conquistador...

Let's keep this guy at 60 cost. I suspect that going lower than that would make him too effective for attacking weakly defended interior cities (just as 50-cost Gallic Swordsmen are effective even against hoplites), which would change the flavor of the game too much for this mod.

The Pyramids requiring Mathematics instead of Masonry has received no discussion at all. With it, the AI starts building wonders later(at Mysticism if it has no big coastal cities) while the human can still start a palace prebuild at Masonry.

Good point. The reason for the change is not enough to justify the great effect on gameplay. Any other ideas to make the AI emphasize Math more?

At least now, there will be less arguments about the uselessness of the Great Wall. It would still be useless in SP both for the human and the AI if it were changed back however.

The whole walls thing is completely messed up. Now that we learned that walls affect even cities, the Great Wall as we have it in this mod might actually be a disadvantage because you can't build walls if you have it. When the Wonder becomes obsolete, the walls will disappear, so you will have lost your chance to wall your cities when they were towns.

Do we need a new thread?

For the MP Mod? Why not? Although there is already a AU PBEM thread where the AU MP mod lives.

[player1]

Originally posted by Dominae
The only difference between blitz on Knights and blitz on Tanks is that the latter can use Railroads to abuse the ability. But at its time of the game, a blitz Keshik would be extremely powerful. It can still use Roads to blitz effectively on defense. On offense, stack a few Keshiks with some Pikemen and any city will fall too rapidly, without risk of losses from counter-attack. Also consider that the AI uses many low defense units (Longbowmen, and non-uprgraded miscellaneous units) for its defense. A blitz Keshik would cut through these too quickly, denying the AI the only effective tool it has (strenght in numbers due to lower production costs).

Blitz was placed in the late Industrial age for a good reason. Think about Elephants in Civ2.


Dominae

Actually, you do have a point about blitz on defense.

Just rememebr that enemy defense on open could be 3*1.35=4.05 for Pikemen and Knights, which lowers the use of Blitz. Still they can chew up Longbowmen pretty easy (luckly in my MOD Longbowmen costs just 30 shields).

So I'm inclined to use blitz, cost 70 Keshik for my own MOD (since I do think that something needs to be done with this unit). Keshik is the Knight-type unit which would least benefit from blitz anyway.

As for Conquistadors, I do think that they should be useful for something else exept off-line pillaging. Like lower defense cities. So it's not really much about changeing flavor (since in hystory they were used for that purpose), it's more about making it more decent UU.

And 50 cost Muketmen (or 60 cost Musketemen in AU) could chew them nicely. And on the other hand 30cost Pikemen is CHEAP.


P.S.
Personnaly, I think that some things done with this MOD (like Bow bombards, or extensive changes to governments) are more out of original flavor then balancing one or 2 UUs, but that just my opinion.

[player1]

As for Pikemen and Keshik combo, it just not practical since you lose main advantage of mobility.
Pikemen, plus Med. Infantry combo is more cost effective in that case.

P.S.
Anyway, if you make some new UU, same as Knight and has a blitz, it won't be powerful UU (at least not compared to Samurai or Riders). Now if you take out one defense point and add no need for Iron and better Hill&Mountain movement as compensation you get pretty balanced UU.

[nbarclay]

Player1, the question isn't just how much a change alters the feel of the game, but also what advantages in terms of either (1) helping the AI or (2) complicating strategic choices for the player the change provides in return. The changes regarding Republic and Democracy, for example, were intended to counteract the tendency for players (especially with nonreligious civs) to simply go in Republic for the rest of the game and ignore Democracy completely. The more benefit a change provides, the more cost in terms of altering the feel of the game can be justified.

Dominae's AAR from AU 206 has me wondering about the merits of the zero-range bombard for guys with bows, though. I'd already suspected that if a human player wanted to, he could make better use of that feature than AIs do, and I get the impression that Dominae may have actually done it. (As a worst-case scenario, imagine the AI trying to attack a stack of archers guarded by spearmen headed for one of its cities.) That may be a change that shifts the balance in favor of the AI only until human players start redesigning their strategies to take advantage of it.

Nathan

[player1]

It's probably the difference in concept for these two mods.

While AU is more focused on AI, with some tweaks here and there, my MOD is more focused on conservative balancing without changing AI too much.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by player1
It's probably the difference in concept for these two mods.

While AU is more focused on AI, with some tweaks here and there, my MOD is more focused on conservative balancing without changing AI too much.

I think that's really the critical point. Changes that are "right" for the AU mod might not be "right" for yours, and vice versa. We can discuss the objective advantages and disadvantages of various possible changes, but there will inevitably be a large subjective element in choosing which changes to view as making the game "better." Which is ultimately probably a good thing, since it gives the Civ 3 community more options to choose from.

Nathan

[player1]

Exactly.

And I find it very informative to discuss some changes here.

For example, without some pointing out in this thread, I would not realise how problematic are 50 cost Knight-type UUs, or that Kesik blitz is pretty good on defense (so it would need higher cost of 70 shields).

It surely helped me when making changes for my MOD.
(even if it's not done in AU)

[alexman]

The main advantage of the zero-range bombard for archers, longbowmen, and guerillas is not really to give the AI that builds many of these units a free shot for city defense. As I have said before, helping the AI on defense is actually not good because it encourages more AI-vs-AI wars of attrition and hence less killer AIs, not to mention more tedium for the human.

However, I believe this change does comply with the mod's goals.

As we know, these units are in the game to provide an option to civilizations without access to resources. But in practice the human player is almost never without access to the required resources to build more effective units. Strengthening archers and guerillas would therefore provide the human more of an incentive to build some of them, or at least not to disband them. More options is one of the mod's goals.

The AI on the other hand is more often left without resources, so it needs these units more. In addition, the AI is coded to build all units it can build for a certain purpose. So it always builds some longbowmen for offense, even though it can build medieval infantry, and it always builds some guerillas, even though it can build infantry. So strengthening these units definitely helps the AI, which is another goal of the mod.

Even though it is a change from stock, I think that the zero-range bombard ability is worth having.

[nbarclay]

Early in the game, archers are often the offensive unit available. Adding zero-range bombard to them lets them also help defend their stacks against counterattacks from enemy archers, stretching spearman defenders in an archer rush farther. Also note that because AIs use almost exclusively regular troops in the early game, the hit point zero-range bombard can take away is a lot more crippling to an AI than it is to a human player who builds veterans. So I think we've probably made early archer rushes more powerful than they were before, which I don't view as a good thing.

Maybe a better compromise would be to give the zero-range bombard ability only to longbowmen and guerillas, since human players are less likely to build those units for offensive purposes than they are archers. At least with those units, human players can't usually take advantage without seriously altering their build queues and accepting disadvantages to offset whatever advantages they might gain. Although the zero-range bombard could still make a combination of longbowmen upgraded from archers left over from early archer rushes, medieval infantry upgraded from swordsmen left over from follow-on swordsman attacks, and pikemen pretty powerful if a human player would choose certain strategies.

By the way, how many players actually disband archers left over from early rushes? I know I normally keep them around, partly to keep my military from looking quite as weak and partly in case I find a use for them. (In AU 206, a left-over elite archer even gave me a leader.)

Nathan

[Dominae]

Nathan's right to point out the AI's use of Regulars in the early-game: a Vet. Spearmen defending an Archer stack does too well against the AI's favorite defense, the Archer counter-attack. The reason is that the AI does not take into account the possible effect of bombardment on its chances when deciding whether or not to attack. So it may attack thinking it has an acceptable success/loss ratio, when in fact would not do so if it realised its unit will be one HP short when fighting.

The proposed solution (remove zero-bombard from Archers only) is a good one, since the effect described above is washed out by other factors when Longbowmen and Guerilla are available. Perhaps we could leave the Bowmen with zero-range bombard, as an interesting way to balance that unit (most people think its kind of weak).

Nathan, I never disband my "leftover" Archers. But the fact is that I never really produce all that many of them (typically less than 10), so I only have maybe 4 left when my Archer rush is over (due to losses). I always prefer Horsemen when these become available. Actually, playing AU206 I was wondering if producing more Archers might be a good strategy, but I forgot about that pretty quickly because Gallics would soon become available. Something to think about in the next AU game, assuming Archers still have the bombard ability.


Dominae

[alexman]

Guys, I think you overestimate the effect of zero-range bombard in an early archer rush.

A regular archer in stock Civ3 has a 30% chance of defeating a veteran spearman in the archer stack on plains.

In the AU mod it has a 20% chance to do the same. Not a big deal, and probably worth keeping the zero-range bombard for the added usefulness of Archers once swordsmen are available, IMHO.

[Dominae]

If those are the numbers (which I'm sure they are), then I withdraw my conclusion. It felt a lot different in my AU game. However, there is still the fact that the human player can use zero-range bombard a lot better than the AI, but what else is new?


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Not a big deal? The AI's chance of taking out a spearman is reduced by a third! For every three defending spearmen a player would lose in stock Civ 3, he'd lose only two in the AU mod. Maybe not earth-shattering, given the relatively limited number of archers an AI can typically strike with, but not completely trivial either.

[nbarclay]

By the way, in the open field, every hit point an AI takes off a spearman is a turn the spearman has to wait and heal before being able to rejoin the attack if he wants to be healthy for his next fight. So reducing the AI's ability to take hit points off spearmen reduces it's ability to slow down archer rushes even when it loses battles.

[Dominae]

I doubt such a difference imbalances the Archer in the AU mod. As you pointed out, you'll not likely be attacked by that many Archers (you would need to be attacked with 10 Archers to see a whole-number difference on average), so its not easy to "abuse" this advantage. Usually you'll just want to strike with your own Archers and be done with it. Without doing the math, I was under the impression that the Spearmen got a 20-30% increase in survival, which obviously would be quite significant.


Dominae

[Dominae]

I suggest a couple of us try a full-blown AU mod Archer rush in the next AU game (I know I'll try it). If Archer rushes suddenly become more than they're supposed to be, a change would be in order.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

An average of one in ten means one in five about half the time, or one in three a little less than a third of the time. It's not just a question of averages; it's also a question of, "How many spearmen do I need for an adequate safety margin?" And to whatever extent AI counterattacks can delay a rush even when losing battles, the AI has more time to build additional counterattacking and defending units, thereby making the war longer and potentially more expensive.

I don't think it's a game-breaker, but given the principle that the game should be changed only when the advantages clearly warrant it, I don't see how zero-range bombardment for archers can be justified. It tilts the balance more in favor of early archer rushes (already a fairly popular tactic in the stock game), not just because it improves archer stacks' ability to defend themselves but also because left-over archers can be used to augment the defenses of sword stacks in the next phase of a warmongering strategy. (That aspect, of course, did not come into play significantly in AU 206 because of Gallic Swordsmen's higher movement rate.)

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
I suggest a couple of us try a full-blown AU mod Archer rush in the next AU game (I know I'll try it). If Archer rushes suddenly become more than they're supposed to be, a change would be in order.

Not a sufficient sample size to determine statistical validity.

In any case, I thought the idea of the AU mod was that we don't make changes to the stock game unless the changes provide significant advantages. I can see serious advantages to giving zero-range bombardment to longbowmen and (as unrealistic as I find it) guerillas. But given the likelihood that my swordsman stacks will have a couple left-over archers in them anyhow (whether from an archer rush or from barb hunting), it's hard to see how giving the ability to archers either gives AIs a better chance against humans or imposes significantly more difficult strategic choices on human players. And in the absence of one or both of those, providing archers with that ability contradicts the AU mod's principles.

[alexman]

Nathan, I think you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

The AI does not attack with enough archers for zero-bombard to make a difference in how many spearmen you bring along with your archers. You need to bring enough to garrison the city after you move on anyway. The difference will likely be the number of HP lost by a spearman, and in that case you would just leave him behind as garisson.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman
Nathan, I think you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

The AI does not attack with enough archers for zero-bombard to make a difference in how many spearmen you bring along with your archers. You need to bring enough to garrison the city after you move on anyway. The difference will likely be the number of HP lost by a spearman, and in that case you would just leave him behind as garisson.

You're assuming a style of play that garrisons cities. I usually like to keep as many of my units as possible on the front lines while fighting a war, so it's not rare for my units to move on as soon as they heal, leaving a captured city ungarrisoned. Further, if a spearman only has one hit point of damage and he's on the road network, he heals faster waiting where he is than he does moving into a city and then waiting another turn to heal.

Also note that the difference is not just in terms of what forces a player would bring along but also in the risk involved in not bringing enough if the RNG turns against the player. And in any case, what advantage does zero-range bombardment for archers offer that makes it worth changing the game from stock rules for, given that human players may get more than their share of benefit from it?

[alexman]

Originally posted by nbarclay

what advantage does zero-range bombardment for archers offer that makes it worth changing the game from stock rules for, given that human players may get more than their share of benefit from it?

I stated them above, but I will do so again:

1) The AI benefits when it can't build better offensive units. The human usually doesn't have this problem.
2) The AI benefits because it actually builds archers even though it can build better units.
3) Players have a reason to use archers, after swordsmen/horsemen are available.

[nbarclay]

(1) and (2) are relevant only if the AI gets more advantage than its human counterpart does, or if it contributes to creating "killer AIs". That's arguable at best. Keep in mind that the same arguments for why the benefit to human players is negligible tend to also apply in the other direction. Further, situations where one AI has resources and another doesn't can help contribute to the existence of a "killer AI." Giving the AI without resources an advantage would tend to undercut that.

In regard to (3), how much difference does it really make in players' build priorities? Archers can't keep up with horsemen well enough to be of much value as a defensive escort, and AIs rarely counterattack with enough units to make more than two or three archers in an offensive stack useful. So the player is probably more likely to get a free added bonus for archers he would have built in the early game anyhow than to seriously alter his build priorities. Edit: Unless, of course, the bonus for archers encourages more aggressive early warmongering (since the left-over archers have more value). But I don't view giving early warmongering a boost over building as a positive development. The dark side already exerts too much influence.

It can be argued that giving archers zero-range bombardment has advantages, but I view the advantages as being far too small and questionable to justify the size of the deviation from the default rules. (As I said, I'm speaking specifically of archers here, not of longbowmen or guerillas.)

[Dominae]

Let me see if I'm getting this straight:

1. We're not giving Archers zero-range bombard to help the AI on defense, because that would cause long wars of attrition, which is bad.

2. Instead, we're adding an ability to Archers because the AI still builds them when other, better units are around. The logic is that the AI will be more potent of its weak units are made a little stronger.

3. The zero-range bombard ability is not useful enough for humans to exploit. In fact, it's almost insignificant.

4. But, zero-range bombard does gives the player an incentive to use Archers, even when Swordsmen and Horsemen are available.

Now, no offense, but that's quite a tangle of arguments. Some seem to be in direct opposition to one another. What is clear however is that the change 1) does not significantly help the AI (it just ends up attacking with the Archers anyway), 2) does not give the human player significantly more options (Archers are just better when you're Archer rushing; you would never use them alongside Horsemen and Swordsmen unless you've got a few leftover from an Archer rush), and 3) changes the rules from stock Civ3.

I admit I like the Archer modification, but I also believe that, given my understanding of its justification, it does not fit into the AU mod philosophy.


Dominae

[alexman]

OK, there is a difference between exploiting something, and just using it. The former breaks the game but the latter enhances it. Archers can be used as part of a combined arms force. They put the third dimension of Civ3 warfare, the bombard ability element, back into the ancient age, since catapults are not very popular. It might entice the player to bring his Archers along for the offensive, instead of just leaving them behind for MP. Can the human exploit this new ability? Not really. Does it change his strategy? Not really. Does it make the game more enjoyable because we have this new option of including Archers in a mid-to-late ancient-age attack? I think so.

Also, Civ3 is supposed to be based on realism, and it is difficult to justify zero-bombard for Longbowmen when you don't give it to Archers.

I still think this is a big fuss over a small matter.