Apolyton University Mod (PTW version)

[ducki]

Originally posted by BRC
I think that Guerrillas could be made to pull off some great strategic attack. The marines can attack cities directly from ships. This does give them use, even if it's limited. I envision a similiar use for Guerrillas. Sneaking through the jungle, hills, or whatever to lay seige on a city.

Make them "anonymous" like Privateers.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by ducki
Make them "anonymous" like Privateers.

I thought about that...and it would be way too powerful.


Dominae

[ducki]

Is there a way to give the retreat ability without giving 2 movement?

Being able to slip away into the night would really fit with my image of guerillas, but actually giving them 2-move would not.

Catch-22

[DaveMcW]

Treat all terrain as roads? That's what Partisans did in civ2.

[alexman]

DaveMcW, that's also a great idea, but probably would change the use of the unit too much for this mod.

I tested the zero-range bombard chnage, and it seems that everything is fine. I gave the AI all industrial techs and access to rubber (but not oil), and it built the following units:

Stock PTW: 11 Infantry, 3 Guerillas, 1 Marine
AU 1.13: 8 Infantry, 2 Guerillas, 5 Marines

Notice how the AI still builds a small number of Guerillas, but with the mod it builds more Marines for offense instead of Infantry (this is a good thing!)

[Dominae]

That's good news alexman. Now we'll just have to play to see if the Guerilla's zero-range bombard is a useful addition to the AI's (and the player's!) arsenal.

alexman, as usual, great work and commendable dedication on this mod.




Dominae

[BRC]

Stock PTW: 11 Infantry, 3 Guerillas, 1 Marine

AU 1.13: 8 Infantry, 2 Guerillas, 5 Marines

I think that this is the best way to solve the Guerilla problem. I really didn't want to see the Guerrilla completely disappear (if you had rubber) from the game. Thanks Alexman. Keep up the good work.

[Fosse]

I like the Guerilla solution! It's nice and subtle!

Just for the sake of weighing in... I'd love for the mod to include all terrain as roads for geurillas... I miss those partisans. I know... not this version... maybe in a far flung future!

I've looked over the posts dealing with increased OCN and percentages and levels... but somethings escaping me... I know it's beneficial for the AI, and we'll see bigger AI's... but I don't understand the mechanics. alexman (or somebody who is more clever than I), would you be so kind as to explain exactly what the changes do, and how.


Keep up the good work everyone.

[Catt]

*** WARNING -- CONTAINS SPOILERS TO AU 202 ***




I played the v1.12 AU Mod in AU 202. It was the first time I played the AU Mod in some time, and I thought I'd share some feedback. For those of you who have read the AU 202 spoilers thread, you know that once I had the game in hand I used it as more of a labroatory for the AU Mod than as a real game.

Overall, I'd say the Mod is excellent . I still can't say whether the Mod creates a distinctly more challenging AI foe, but I think it helps a little bit and otherwise makes some very welcome changes to the stadard rules set. I must once again give the obligatory to Player1 for all his work and to alexman for his continued experimentation and innovative modding work with AU.

I didn't get a chance to experiment with all the changes obviously, but did focus on several things. I liked the vast majority of changes and they seemed to work well for the AI too. Rather than say "Great" to 80% the changes in a repetitive fashion, I will only highlight a couple of areas that I think might deserve another look -- my review may therefore seem to focus on "criticism" (hopefully seen as constructive ) - but remember that is only because I have omitted the "Fantastic change!" comment from most of the changes.

My first concern centers on adding the "wheeled ability" to modern fastmovers and artillery. I grasp the "realism" arguments in favor of this change, but I fear that it could be exploitable by the human against the AI. I bring a strong bias in favor of gameplay over realism, so take this with a grain of salt. I also recognize that opportunities to use the potential exploit may be few and far inbetween -- both the map and the technology discovery rate need to cooperate to even present a potential problem.

But take a look at the screenshot below. In the mountainous Greek lands of AU 202, the thoughtful human player could easily channel any and all Greek "wheeled" units into death traps by leaving strategic mountains unroaded. Unroaded, that is, until the human wants to go on the offensive. When the time comes to roll human artillery or tanks towards Eretria, it is relatively easy for a human to stack several infantry in the mountains west of Gandestagion and then bring in enough workers to build a connecting road in one turn -- allowing the artillery and tanks to advance. The AI, unfortunately, will limit its attacking forces to foot units, and/or divide its attacking forces into two prongs, a slowmoving foot stack making its way through the mountains (where it will be bombarded to redline), and a mobile force that attacks via flatlands far to the southwest (where it is at a huge terrain disadvantage and soes not benefit from infantry / foot defensive covering.

Again, I recognize that the opportunity for exploit is probably pretty limited, but I think this change is worth another look.

Catt

[Catt]

Most of the unit changes in the mod work very well. I particularly like the zero-range bombard on archers (and suspect I would like it on guerillas as well).

I was concerned that giving lethal sea bombard to fighters would be unbalancing (based on my own experiments long ago), but I don't think it necessarily is. The AI uses it, and the shield investment needed to deploy a force of fighters sufficient to decimate enemy navies would indicate that the game is won anyway (and everything is "unbalanced" at that point ). I also noticed that the AI uses the more versatile cruise missles quite well.

There has been a fair bit of experimentation on making the "age of the frigate" more meaningful, but I'm not sure we're there yet (or that it is necessarily an important goal to get there). The Frigate, with an attack of 2, is still untrustworthy in attacking its peers - the RNG seems more important to frigate battles than unit superiority. As a human player, I will still build relatively few frigates, and they will then be used primarily as (1) escorts and (2) coastline defense against bombarding AI frigates. Their mobility advantage over ironclads is basically useless when used as escorts (although they can keep up with a galleon anbombard a nearby enemy), and, given my views on what is a "typical" human research approach to the Industrial Age, pushing back ironclads to Industrialization doesn't appreciably extend the age of the frigate.

Perhaps pushing back the frigate (and man o' war) to Astronomy will better create an "age of the frigate?" As it is, the mod as it stands didn't induce me to build larger numbers of frigates (and didn't the last time I played the mod on an archipelago map), but did seem to encourage the AI to build more -- unfortunately, the upgrade costs meant that I was seemingly the only player to upgrade my few frigates and privateers -- the AI, with better uses for it's gold apparently, used them as cannon fodder even in the time of destroyers and then battleships. And the AI didn't take advantage of the movement bonus over galleons when escorting -- the AI frigates moved four spaces, staying right on top on its escorted transport, but wouldn;t burn the last movement point on a bombard when ending right next to my ships -- it seemed to view the frigate in that case as "escort only."

Catt

[player1]

Catt, look for my last chnages to "age of sail" naval units (PS MOD).

As for weeled units,
I've got similar concernes as you several months ago, but then I summed good and bad things, and concluded that there is more good then bad overall.

I've remember some wars in which I was pretty annoyed that my Tanks can't cross jungles.
So I attacked by using my old Cavalry.

[Catt]

The changes to improvements and wonders are great! I actually wanted to get my hands on the Great Wall and will, in certain circumstances, consider building it deliberately (rather than due to a wonder cascade).

I like the move of longevity to Sanitation, but that is probably partly because I like Longevity, period. I do have concerns that its power may be more readily apparent to the human than the AI -- the move to the time of hospitals means it will actually give a real boost (especially with pumping out workers for RR) - and so long as the human can manage the "starvation cycle" it might induce, it can be a real powerhouse wonder (great for later-age wars and rebuilding pop centers). In other words, I think Longevity is now valuable, potentially very much so, but I don't know if the AI "sees" it that way (much like I think the AI radically underestimates the value of the ToE - Hoover's run).

With the change to Cure for Cancer (2 content faces instead of 1), I would consider moving SS Stasis Chamber to either Stealth or Smart Weapons. I think leaving Genetics as an "optional only" tech that offers a helpful wonder may present a more interesting strategic choice to a human in a tight tech race -- go for the wonder (and the trade value of the tech), or beeline for SS victory? Such a change might very well shoot the AI in the foot though - inducing an AI departure from the SS path for a wonder in a tight SS race.

In a concern similar to the one I expressed re: Longevity -- i.e., the AI might "underestimate" the true power of a given wonder or improvement -- the increased maintenence cost for both banks and RLs only serve to heighten the value of Smith's and the Internet. I agree that it does make the decision "bank or no?" more of an actual decision (whereas the AI will build them regardless), but does it also make Smith's a "must-have" wonder in PTW (not unlike ToE)? Maybe, maybe not -- I always try for Smith's regardless, perhaps others who don't hold it so high on their list of "must haves" will set me straight.

Catt

[Catt]

*** WARNING - CONTAINS AU 202 SPOILER INFO ***



A final point (though I'm not completely done testing). I know that there was recently a fair bit of discussion regarding Communism, and how to make it better. I can't remember if the goal was to (1) make it a realistic choice for the human; (2) make it more AI-friendly; or (3) ideally, both.

In AU 202 I fought a 400 year war (1300 - 1700) against Babylon and much of the world making only a token invasion myself, but letting Babylon and others land troops, etc. I wanted to see how long it took for war weariness to kick in, and then I wanted to experiment with Communism. It took a long time for WW to kick in! although I did have US and I jacked up luxury spending considerably. Eventually, I was forced to change governements. I did so to both Communism and Monarchy (using reload) to see the effects. The screenshot below provides an apples-to-apples comparison (although notice that my democracy was mighty unhappy when I reduced the luxury slider to 0% for the screenshot).

I thought, at the time of the switch, that my empire would be ideal for a communist government, but found that Monarchy was definitely better. I did play for about 10 turns in communism before switching to Monarchy (instead of just relying on civ statistics immediately post switch). I enjoyed the faster workers. The communal corruption wasn't terrible - it allowed some fringe cities to get a leg up on temples, courthouses, harbors, aqueducts, etc. And the communal corruption didn't absolutely kill my core, the way it can in very large empires. But it was a significant nuisance. And my tech rate seemed to be at least 35% - 50% slower under communism. But I think I know why, and I think I may have an interesting idea on how to "fix" it and make communism more appealing.

By the time of communism and the Industrial Age, I often as not have all of my military forces in strategic locations or in border cities -- very few troops are left in the interior, especially after RRs. One advantage of communism is the 4 MP -- in my case, if I had 4 units in many of my cities, I would have had WLTKD in manyof them, which would have imrpoved my shield production and made communal corruption more appetizing. I did not try to build a bunch of MPs, nor did I draft for MPs. I don't have a fix for this.

But the other factor that I believe (more testing needed) significantly affected my economic performance under communism was the lack of police stations, particularly in my core cities. Since every other government is amenable to the "core concept," I think we all optimize our civs to that end. I will not build police stations in "core cities" with relatively little corruption or waste -- it is not so much the shield investment as it is in the maintenance -- why would I pay 2 gpt for a police station that will not save at least 2 gpt in corruption reduction? (I'm not really convinced of the WW reduction benefits, most of which are largely moot with a religious civ anyway - the only civ type where I currently would ever consider communism - but with an improved communism, maybe it becomes an alternative to Monarchy if forced to switch by WW?). As I watched my civ lag behind others under a communist system, I bemoaned the lack of police stations in my core. But it still didn't make sense to build them for the sole benfit of the XX turns as a communist.

But, if police stations were maintenance-free I would have built them as soon as practicable after discovering communism -- and I suspect that communism would have been a much more attractive government. I think this would also help the AI, since they will go communist at some point, and they will build police stations regardless. I'm worried that maintenance-free police stations would be too valuable to the human, but maybe it's worth a try to see if it makes communism more appreciated? Have we tried this before and I'm just blanking on the test feedback?

Catt

[alexman]

Catt, thanks for taking the time to check out the mod, and even more for taking the time to comment. You bring up valid points, and lots of material for debate!

Wheeled units
As player 1 said, there are good and bad things to this change. The good: realism and strategic depth. The bad: AI problems and change from stock. If presented with a situation like in Greece in AU 202, I suspect the AI would have the same problem as it does when trying to invade another continent. It would lack coordination in its attack. Since this mod is all about improving the AI and changing as little possible, with the addition of strategic depth whenever possible, I'm inclined to remove the change. Objections?

Age of Frigate
First of all, even if the changes do not make a distinct "Age of Frigate", I still think the mod is at least better than the stock version in this respect. However, can we improve it even more? Catt's observations seem to point to the solution that player 1 has adopted. Leave the movement of this unit to be the same as that of the Galleon, but increase its strength. A good solution, even though the current one is more interesting IMO. What does everyone else think?

SS Stassis Chamber
If we do anything to this component, I think we should just undo the change, not move it to a military tech. That way we still have a choice of going for Stealth and Integrated Defense if a war is in the horizon, or complete the SS if we think we can do that unmolested. Don't worry about the AI going for a Wonder tech instead of focusing on the SS. The latter has a much higher priority for the AI.

Increased maintenance of Banks, Labs
Catt is right that Smith's is already very powerful. Stock exchanges and the commercial docks increase its value even more than it was in 1.29f. I suspect that the Internet comes too late to make a difference in upkeep. The good thing about that wonder is that you get instant labs everywhere, not that you don't have to maintain them. In any case, the increased upkeep was added to present a strategic decision to the player, but it's not much of a decision, most of the time. Perhaps the change is not necessary, but I don't have a preference either way.

Communism
I have been thinking about this one too. The main idea was to help the AI, who often uses this government. One of the changes we made was to increase free military support, but from Catt's screenshots even Monarchy was enough to completely support his military. So of course Communism was as bad as usual, since the AU bonus did not come into play that time. The AI generally has many more units than Catt had at that point (80), so it would likely benefit more. The question is, do we want to make this government actually become a good choice for the human in some cases, or do we just want it to become a less idiotic choice for the AI? The current solution is a step in the right direction, but it is nowhere near enough to make Communism a good (or even average) government. The police station solution is interesting, but won't it help the human more than the AI? The AI does not look at maintenance costs of buildings at all, when deciding what to build.

Let me just add that there are many great ideas (like the wheeled ability) that make the game more interesting, but hurt the AI. Perhaps we could develop another mod (AU MP) that is intended exclusively for Multiplayer, without keeping the AI's limitations in mind. The mod would otherwise have the same goals as this one does.

[Catt]

Originally posted by alexman
Catt, thanks for taking the time to check out the mod, and even more for taking the time to comment. You bring up valid points, and lots of material for debate!

[. . . .]

The mod is really great - I'm going to play it more often (including in my next game)!

If I had to bet, I'd say that maintenance-free police stations would be too favorable to the human player, but it might be worth a test. I'm pretty certain that with multiple police stations Communism would have made sense for my relatively largish empire -- but building them outside of Communism made little sense and building them while communist took too long to make sense (due to the communal waste!). If it even smacked of human exploitable, I'd drop the idea like a hot potato -- the changes to date go a long way towards helping the AI. BTW - I suspect my military force was a lot smaller than a "normal" game would require -- with only Greece on my landmass and the others forced to make intercontinental invasions, I could afford to run a pretty lean machine -- the additional free unit support might have been more important in different circumstances.

Let me just add that there are many great ideas (like the wheeled ability) that make the game more interesting, but hurt the AI. Perhaps we could develop another mod (AU MP) that is intended exclusively for Multiplayer, without keeping the AI's limitations in mind. The mod would otherwise have the same goals as this one does.

I was thinking the same thing as I was playing with the Mod -- with jshelr's AU PBEM organizing and the PBEM games you guys already have going, I would think that there are a number of changes that make a whole lot of sense for human games that are perhaps inappropriate for the AI.

An AU MP Mod would be . I may be a little biased towards marines for some reason . . . but nuclear subs that can carry and launch 4 cruise missles would be a powerful complement to a marine assault on a coastal city (assuming your games get into the modern age or assuming you play a few scenarios that start there ). The AI can;t coordinate well enough to use them effectively . . . but some players might .

Catt

[alexman]

Two new ideas, courtesy of kettyo:

1) What if we give cruise missiles the tactical missile ability, and AEGIS and subs the ability to carry tactical missiles? These naval units would also get the AI "Naval missile transport" flag. However, to prevent regular subs and AEGIS to carry tactical nukes, we would also give those ships the "transports only foot units" ability, and cruise missiles the "foot unit" ability.
(Note: foot units are used only to determine what units can be transported by a helicopter. But since the helicopter can't transport tactical nukes, there is no effect on gameplay, I think)

So, to recap the first idea:
AEGIS, regular Sub: can carry one cruise missile.
Nuclear Sub: can carry one cruise missile or one tactical nuke. The AI would use all these ships as "naval power" or "naval missile transport".

The major benefit of this change is to strengthen four rather weak units (subs, AEGIS, CM), but it also enhances realism. The AI can deal with the change, since it already knows about nuclear subs and tactical nukes.

As it is now, cruise missiles can be loaded into transports (probably an exploit). The human knows of this fact, but the AI does not.

2) All artillery units get a defense strength of 1. This prevents the human player from getting all his artillery courtesy of the AI (can no longer be captured). Also, the AI defends its cities with artillery (and usually does nothing more than that with them), so giving an extra defense might prevent an AI city from being captured if the attacker is one unit short.

I like both these ideas a lot.

Existing changes that I would like to reconsider (because the AI doesn't know how to use artillery) are 1) the movement increase of radar artillery, and 2) the airlift ability of all artillery units.

[player1]

I'm sorry, but all of this sound for me more like nerf the MOD completly in order to make AI play better.

In that case just BAN Arty to all players.

[player1]

As for cruise missiles.

Exept that somestimes it could be easy way to do invasion (with cuise missiles and marines), there is also probelm with consistency.

If you add Cr. Missiles to AEGIS, should you add it to Destroyer too?

Did early normal subs carried cr. missiles at all?

Which number is enough?

etc, etc...



P.S.
As for Statis Chamber.
Pesonanly, no version of Cure Cancer would make Genetic enough powerfull in order to discover it just for that, and delay needed spaceship tech.


P.P.S.
For wheeled, I think same as for def 1 arty change.

For any kind of build. upkeep change: never made difference for me.

[player1]

For Communism: have no clue, haven't seen any decent solution.

[Catt]

Subs and Missles
I used to play (long ago) a mod in which regular subs could carry 4 foot units, nuclear subs 4 missles (tactical nukes or CMs w/extended range), and Aegis 2 missles. The AI did use all the mods, but certainly not optimally.

For example, it regularly used regular subs to insert teams of 4 infantry behind the lines in a surprise landing -- but, as with all intercontinental invasions by the AI, couldn't coordinate well so the 4 units would arrive alone, without support, and be slaughtered on the goods guys' rails. (I had hoped that the AI would use subs to launch surprise amphibious assualts, but alas, it did not -- though I'm seeing more marine assaults with newer versions of Civ III and PTW). The AI also launched CMs from both subs and Aegis -- but, as with many an AI attack, it tended to go after the closest, most immediate target -- if war started and a destroyer was within range, CMs were launched at the destroyer; nevermind that a fully loaded carrier was one turn's movement away. In short, my experience way back when was that by making these weapons more powerful, it disproportionately aided the human simply due to preexisting AI shortcomings.

All that said, it is probably worth another go with PTW since the AI's targeting of enemy units seems to have changed quite a bit.

Artillery

No opinion yet. Trying to imagine how it would work in the game. Could unduly slow down an AI assault -- I'm wondering if using a few arty units, especially out-dated ones, couldn't easily divert the AI's attention from strategic targets. Kind of a variation of the worker bait game.

Catt

[alexman]

Player 1, thanks for your comments.
Please don't get upset for us butchering your mod. We're still just testing things out here in the AU, and lately we have been focusing on changing as little as possible while helping the AI. Any change from stock that would benefit the human more than the AI (like wheeled and artillery bonuses) are not in our philosophy for now. Your changes are great ideas, and if we make a AU mod for multiplayer, they will certainly be included.

Originally posted by player1
If you add Cr. Missiles to AEGIS, should you add it to Destroyer too?

I think no. AEGIS is the only ship of the modern age, and it's not even as powerful as a Battleship.

Did early normal subs carried cr. missiles at all?

Not early ones, no. But Cruise missiles are not available in the industrial age, so you can't carry them until you reach the modern age.

Which number is enough?

I think one missile is enough. Perhaps more than enough.

As for Statis Chamber.
Pesonanly, no version of Cure Cancer would make Genetic enough powerfull in order to discover it just for that, and delay needed spaceship tech.

Yes, I think so too.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Catt
I'm wondering if using a few arty units, especially out-dated ones, couldn't easily divert the AI's attention from strategic targets. Kind of a variation of the worker bait game.

I'm not sure I understand how adding a defense strength can do that. Can't you do that now? Isn't the AI more tempted to go after artillery now that it knows they can be captured?

[Catt]

Originally posted by alexman


I'm not sure I understand how adding a defense strength can do that. Can't you do that now? Isn't the AI more tempted to go after artillery now that it knows they can be captured?

Sure can. But why in the hell let logic interfere with my point .

I was thinking about something else entirely and obviously didn't have my thinking cap on correctly.

Catt

[alexman]

That's always my problem around this time of year. Too many santa caps and not enough thinking caps.

Another random idea to balance Frigates and Ironclads:
Reduce attack of Ironclads to 1, so that they are encouraged to use their bombard strength of 4 instead of attacking directly. With the same movement as Frigates and Galleons, Ironclads are then excellent escorts and bombard units, whereas Frigates (with the player 1 increase in atatck strength to 3) are used to go for the kill of damaged ironclads or unescorted galleons. Do you think the AI will cooperate?

[delmar]

Originally posted by BRC
I think that Guerrillas could be made to pull off some great strategic attack. The marines can attack cities directly from ships. This does give them use, even if it's limited. I envision a similiar use for Guerrillas. Sneaking through the jungle, hills, or whatever to lay seige on a city.

Make them invisible?

You would probably need a guerilla-hunter that can detect them though. How about the explorer for this purpose? Two birds with one stone, so to say.

[BRC]

Make them invisible?

The more I think about it, the 0 range bombard is the best solution if we want to keep the Guerilla in the game. I thought long and hard about a solution similiar to this, but I realized that it would be more beneficial to the human. We would end up using Guerillas to rape the AI, which is definately something we are trying to avoid in this MOD. This could be used in an MP mod though, and could create some interesting strategies.

[delmar]

Originally posted by BRC
The more I think about it, the 0 range bombard is the best solution if we want to keep the Guerilla in the game. I thought long and hard about a solution similiar to this, but I realized that it would be more beneficial to the human. We would end up using Guerillas to rape the AI, which is definately something we are trying to avoid in this MOD. This could be used in an MP mod though, and could create some interesting strategies.

I am reading this thread because jshelr asked me if I want to play a AU Mod-based PBEM, so I made this comment based on MP games, that much is true.

As for making something invisible will help to rape the AI: doesn't the AI see everything anyway?

[BRC]

As for making something invisible will help to rape the AI: doesn't the AI see everything anyway?

I think the AI still is affected by "fog of war". Maybe we could get a second opinion on how this would work.

I am reading this thread because jshelr asked me if I want to play a AU Mod-based PBEM, so I made this comment based on MP games, that much is true.

Good. I'm planning on being involved in one of those games, also. Maybe someone who is more qualified than me should reply to the original suggestion. Sorry I can't help.

[alexman]

Originally posted by alexman
Do you think the AI will cooperate?

Let me answer that: NO!
The AI doesn't know to bombard other ships with a 1(4)-4-4 unit. It runs away from 3(2)-2-4 Frigates instead. So we can forget that idea...

[Edit: I just saw the AI use those Ironclads properly, but still, it doesn't happen very often]

[player1]

I think having 4/4/cost90 Ironclads vs 3/2/cost60 Firgates together with slight delay of Ironclads with Industralisation would make fine balance.

One extra attack point for 50% more shields (but still twice better defense).

Anyway, it would make Ironclads on average a better unit, but you won't feel that money spent of Frigates is wasted at all.

3/2/cost 60 unit will still be usefull.

At least against Galleons.

P.S.
And if you face modern Ironclads agains your old Frigates some change of tactic could be usefull.

Like bomb to hell and then atatck.

And 4/2/cost 60 Man-O-War could be an interesting unit.

P.P.S.
Just keep standard bombard rating (2 for Frigate and 3 for Man-O-War).