AI Gallic Swords at less than 50 shields???

[cracker]

Now that we have completed Gotm18 and played the human perspective of Gallic/Euro sword at 50 shields, should we drop the cost of the Gallic Swords down to 40 or 30 shields for the AI players in all future GOTM games.

I stand behind my assessment that the cost of the Gallic sword in PTW is based on balancing considerations for Human Players in a multiplayer game.

The AI programming in Civ3v1.29 and PTW does not make very good use of advanced strategic upgrade planning and as a result when the Celts are played by the AI they become virtually crippled by having their primary Iron based weapon priced out at 50 shields when every other civ has a unit in this niche that is priced at 30 shields.

The question here is for us to discuss the pros and cons of this proposed change and to solicit your opinion as to which option should be implemented for all future GOTM games.

 

[el_kalkylus]

I voted for 40 shields, but I think 30 shields is alright too. Like Cracker said, the AI doesn't use the upgrade strategy very well or at all.

 

[TedJackson]

I voted overpriced but no change:

OTTOMH the closest UU I can think of is the Iroquois mounted warrior @ 30shields with 3.1.2 - so I can see that an extra 10 shields for the extra defense point of the Gallic sword makes sense, bringing the cost down to 40 shields.

However, I'm generally against modifying the "out of the box" game as I think it could discourage new (GOTM) players.

regards

Ted

 

[mad-bax]

Shouldn't option 2 read 25 for Emperor? I voted for this option on that assumption. Though having read Teds post I kinda wish I'd gone for the 40, 36,,, option. Mounted warrior needs horses, GS needs iron. Iron can be more difficult to hook up because it takes longer to road the tile. GS is a stronger defensive unit.

Just to be awkward I would therefore value the GS at a little less than 7/6ths of a mounted warrior (say 34), which would fit el-kalkylus' choice.

 

[ltcoljt]

But once this genie is out of the bottle how do you get it back in?

 

[CruddyLeper]

Probably not! It depends...

I built all but 2 of my Gallics in GOTM18 at full price and still won (with a mediocre score).

If this game is at Emperor or above, the AI will have production bonuses anyway. Once the Gallic wins, the Golden Age starts - reducing the production time still further.

On the other hand, if the Celts are getting a raw deal in real estate this change might even things up.

I voted no change - but I could be wrong.

 

[Shillen]

I don't think the unit is overpriced at all. Swordsmen are very strong units, if you give them mobility too they're like ancient age knights. My last deity game the Celts were at war with Korea. They were on opposites sides of my territory. The Celts were sending stacks of gallic swordsmen and horsemen at Korea. It's great to have that 2 defense to cover up their horses with. Anyway the Celts took about 8 Korean cities until they got Feudalism. Once they upgraded them to MDI's the war came to a standstill because the MDI's are just too slow.

The AI knows how to use quick moving units also. They will make sure to park their units 2 tiles from whatever they're attacking to prevent counter-attacks. Therefore not only do the gallic swords get to their target quicker, but they get counter-attacked less often, and to top it all off they retreat like half the time. If you think of a retreating unit as saving shields then the extra shield cost completely makes sense.

And I also don't think we should be modding the game arbitrarily like this. That's Firaxis' job. If they decide it's too expensive then let them fix it. Let's just play it the way they made it.

 

[alexman]

The option I would have chosen is not listed: I think the unit has the right price, but the AI does not know how to take advantage of it. But the AI does not know how to take advantage of countless other elements of the game, why should the Gallic Swordsman deserve special attention?

For the human, the unit is quite powerful. Just think of it as a light, cheap ancient-age knight instead of an expensive swordsman. The extra survivability of a 3-2-2 unit in the ancient age (high attack, high defense, AND retreat!), combined with the militaristic trait, means many more leaders on average.

No, I don't think the GS is overpriced. But even if it were, I don't think changes of this type are a good idea for the GOTM.

 

[RufRydyr]

Originally posted by TedJackson
I voted overpriced but no change:

I'm generally against modifying the "out of the box" game as I think it could discourage new (GOTM) players.

regards

Ted

What he said.

 

[Ribannah]

Indeed.

I don't think it is overpriced to the human player, btw.

 

[Kemal]

Don't change anything, Firaxis made them costs 50 shields and so they should stay.

I don't think changing any values of the game to help the AI play better should ever be considered, as the purpose of the gotm is to let the players compare their skills at playing civ3, and help eachother get better at it. If you start changing around game parameters to let the AI put up a better fight, you're not playing standard civ3 anymore, I think that situation should be prevented.

Already, the AI has shown great troubles adapting to situations you would not normally find in a standard game, like the barbarian islands, so I say keep the modding to a minimum.

 

[AgedOne]

I voted for 30 like normal swordsmen. This may seem crazy, and indeed I may be crazy, as the rampaging hordes of GS will wipe me out the next time I face them.
However, I looked at the other special units which add a movement point to the conventional unit - such as Jaguar Warrior, Impi and Rider - and noted that all are at the same shield cost as the original. So why penalise the Celts by making them pay extra for the additional benefit of their UU, while other civs get that same benefit for free?

 

[Karasu]

I don't know really. I agree that the unit may indeed be overpriced (especially after reading Cracker's review of the new features of PTW).

But, as I say, I don't know -therefore, I would not favour any changes.

 

[Skyfish]

Please stop trying to change the game !
We love our Civ3 and love our GOTM, bringing "small"changes one after another has a definite "invisible" impact on the whole balance of the game.
I do not want to play a "modded" Civ3 game, sorry.

 

[Singularity]

They're unfair highly priced, but no change pls. Or, make the change after it has been playtested until you're 100% sure that it's an actual improvement to the game.

As I see it civ3 suffers from a few things:

1. Traditionally a soloplayer game.
2. Balancing solo and multiplay with the same rulesets for both games are impossible with todays AI level. I have great hope for future AIs however, and it can only get better from now on. But until that they should have two permanent seperated rules for MP and SP(disabling stuff in gamecreation aint enough).
3. The community of civ3 seems placid that the changes in PTW interupts the soloplay experience, don't discourage evolving a game because you've learned to play and love it at the current evolution. Things can allways get better, and a popular game should be given it's deserved attention to make it even better.

Most of us dont have the resources to make a balance change to the game. That can only be made after countless hours of playtesting and rebalancing the game. The patces so far in Civ3 seem barely adequate to keep up with the bugs and different language versions in the game...and the mac version. So any hope of balances is far off. I appreciate GOTMs efforts on the territory, and I think the game has improved with most of theese changes. But bear in mind that for this particular change you would need hundreds of hours of playtesting it before you would be close to a solution. Yes, the game is dented in many places. But most of the dents it seems we have to live with

 

[Smirk]

I voted that they are fine and shouldn't be changed, but that was before I read what you were saying about the AI. If it does in fact cripple the AI then a change for them might be useful, like say 40 shields. Its a bit grey in my mind how to balance this even for human players, 50s is a lot and hampers the Celts but 40 seems a bit light.


As for balance and playtesting, thats what change is for. Why are people so against it? I think the fog that has been in the last few games have a much larger effect than a reduction in shields for the celtic swords. It would appear to have no effect since the Celts haven't even hooked up iron in later games. I'm all for challenging opponents, I particularily dislike it when an AI civ does nothing from the beginning.

 

[cracker]

Skyfish,

Just remember that sometimes we are asking you tough questions to see if you have real observations or inputs into the process - - more than we are asking you questions that indicate we are always trying to change things.

I know this is hard to visualize the difference but by focusing on the meat of the questions and trying to provide thoughtful inputs (Whether they be Yea, Nay, or indifferent) then you will help us all to better understand who your perspective is developed and if there are available options that can better meet your need even if no real changes are implemented into the games.

 

[Darkness]

Originally posted by TedJackson
I voted overpriced but no change:

OTTOMH the closest UU I can think of is the Iroquois mounted warrior @ 30shields with 3.1.2 - so I can see that an extra 10 shields for the extra defense point of the Gallic sword makes sense, bringing the cost down to 40 shields.

However, I'm generally against modifying the "out of the box" game as I think it could discourage new (GOTM) players.

regards

Ted

Well said!

 

[LKendter]

So far the GOTM has mainly been a modded map with a few custom units. I have do the same thing with the LK world map games. I have no problems with modded maps provided they don't go to "extremes".


However, I do not want to change the core game in any method. This is the same reason I voted against the Great Wall changes. My driving force for all my voting is to not screw with game mechanics, and this change does.

 

[ControlFreak]

Playing as the celts, I felt they were overpriced. Playing against the celts, I thought the celts were a pushover. I agree that there is a misvalue here. BUT...GOTM has become a different game than CIV or PTW IMHO. While I appreciate all the work that goes into leveling the playing field for Mac, Civ and PTW, I would like to see further modifications that are intended to "correct Firaxis failings" to be reduced or eliminated. I feel sorry for the new players trying to learn offline to get ready for competition and then get slapped with a whole new set of parameters in the GOTM including modified appearance of goodyhuts vs. barbarians, powerful sea creatures that make galley travel much more risky, and potentially different cost values for units, benefits for wonders etc.

I think the best changes in GOTM have been the map development which includes selection of player's civ and opponents. The cross platform leveling is also top notch. Other mods are becoming a distraction and risk losing longtime, great players such as LKendter.

[End My 2 cents]