Feedback loops and game balance

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Cabbagemeister
Okay, here's a question.
It's clear that in Civ3, the designers were trying to do something like the proposed tech-leaking...
So why didn't it work? Why are we still trying to propose methods to speed up tech research for the smaller civs? Was it just a matter of degree (e.g. the costs didn't vary enough), or was it a matter of concept (e.g. something about the idea was fundamentally flawed)?

It was the means to help the smaller civs, but it felt unnatural how it was executed...

One thing I did not like about the tech leaking is that to some degree, it creates a disincentive to focus on research because it applied to everyone. (a tech welfare state anyone???) In early versions of civ3, it was a given that players would often set research at 0-10% and then either buy the techs they wanted or ride the coattails of someone else and then with cash, slingshot into the lead with some savvy trading. The act of actual research felt like a waste of effort.

The AI benefitted to some degree because of slanted trade deals that favored the AIs too, but once the player was able to get his cash house in order, he could catch up.

In this regard, I'd favor making all tech trading very expensive (and hard to accomplish for all players, be they AI or human). Keep a tech-leak for the AI that is tied into ranking in relation to the human player. (AI players that are behind the human player will get a research benefit that will allow them to gradually close the gap with the player, but once caught, the bonus will disappear - AI players above the human player will not lose anything to the player (or gain anything over and above their normal bonuses due to difficulty level)

The human player gains nothing, and at the same time, he does not really lose anything either. Bottom line - he has to concentrate on research for the sake of research.

On the surface, my solution probably has an 'unnatural' feel to it (it works more as a subtle cheat because it is slanted to the AI) but it is one of those situations where the gameplay it creates is better because the end result creates the need to internally create a climate of tech development that is based on research. After all, the cost of research is already modelled on an economic necessity (gold is the main engine that creates research). No need to slant it totally on the economic side...

[lockstep]

Originally posted by hexagonian
I'd favor making all tech trading very expensive (and hard to accomplish for all players, be they AI or human).

One way to do this would be to make tech deals only possible with added costs (probably gold). This would represent the resources (time, manpower etc.) necessary to 'teach' a given tech to other civs, which also seems more realistic than simply to give the tech away. Naturally, it would be subject to negotiations if the 'receiving' civ has to compensate the tech leader for these costs.

[Ninot]

As I remember Civ 3....

there was a minimum research time of 4 turns. No matter how big or small you were, if you through everything into research, you couldn't get it sooner than 4 turns.

So the #1 Civ has a huge empire. Its got the luxuries it needs to keep citizens happy without using the luxury slider. the player puts everything into research. Brand new, undiscovered techs are being researched in 4 turns.

Meanwhile, the middle of the road civ has maybe 1 luxury, so it needs to use a luxury slider. It cant spend very much on research, so its researching techs in 12, maybe 16 turns. the Civ falls behind and is at the bottom of the tech ladder. the Wellfare part kicks in, and the techs become cheaper. Its researching Nationalism in 4 turns, while the #1 Civ is already researching Airplanes.... also for 4 turns.

So the small civs do get their discounts, but because of the minimum time, and the ammount of money a big civ can throw at research, it always lags behind.

[Kuciwalker]

So if 1/4 of the civs you have contact with know the tech, make the minimum time 3 turns. If it's 1/2, 2 turns. And so on and so forth.

[Cabbagemeister]

Originally posted by Ninot
So the #1 Civ has a huge empire. Its got the luxuries it needs to keep citizens happy without using the luxury slider. the player puts everything into research. Brand new, undiscovered techs are being researched in 4 turns.

Meanwhile, the middle of the road civ has maybe 1 luxury, so it needs to use a luxury slider. It cant spend very much on research, so its researching techs in 12, maybe 16 turns. the Civ falls behind and is at the bottom of the tech ladder. the Wellfare part kicks in, and the techs become cheaper. Its researching Nationalism in 4 turns, while the #1 Civ is already researching Airplanes.... also for 4 turns.

So the small civs do get their discounts, but because of the minimum time, and the ammount of money a big civ can throw at research, it always lags behind.

But there's an easy solution for that problem: reduce science to nothing, jack up your income, and buy a tech from the leaders at a super-discounted price every 1 or 2 turns. The leaders get more money, but so what? They still can't go faster than 4 turns / tech. You do eventually catch up (unless you're so small you can't make enough money even for the discount prices, in which case you don't deserve to catch up).

This SEEMS like it should work. Every time I think about how to fix the tech progression to help laggers catch up, this kind of "discount tech for the slow guys" solution presents itself. But they're really all just rehashes of what Civ3 did, which didn't work.

Do we just need more, deeper discounts? Or discounted tech costs plus a small chance of "tech leakage," so you could even get two techs in a turn?

Or...maybe the game mechanics are okay, but it's just the AI that needs work. Sure, it's possible to buy a tech every 2 turns, but is the AI smart enough to jack up its income like that?

[Provost Harrison]

I never liked that minimum time for a tech, thought it was awful...it just felt like such an artificial constraint...

[Kuciwalker]

Without that constraint it would be far too easy to establish an enormous tech lead.

[Bosh]

I see 1 difficulty with this.
If I have a rather small empire, but through savvy trading and researching, I get the tech lead... it would be unbalancing if a larger civ gets the tech leaked to them. Having the tech lead would be my only advantage, so I should be given a chance to use it before it leaks away.

The way EU II deals with this is to have small civs pay less for tech advances. It gives quality some advantages that you usually don't see in Civ (especially with ICS)

So why didn't it work? Why are we still trying to propose methods to speed up tech research for the smaller civs?

I don't know why it didn't work, I gave up on Civ III a pretty short time after it was released. What I DO know is that this system works quite well in EU II. Its a little silly to bash game mechanics that work very well in other games as unworkable.

One thing I did not like about the tech leaking is that to some degree, it creates a disincentive to focus on research because it applied to everyone.

Ah, the EU II way was much more intelligent. You had to be adjacent to get any bonuses and they were capped, what was more important is if you were getting tech at faster than the historical rate you'd get penalized by having to pay more for it.

I'd favor making all tech trading very expensive

Yes, definately. That's a real flaw with civ. You can't teach stoneagers to make tanks over night.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I think that four things which could help reduce 'Feedback Loops' (or the 'Snowball Effect' as I call it) are:

1) Having to pay maintainance on tile improvements-especially roads and rail-would take more money out of the coffers of larger nations than smaller ones. It would also be good if cities had a base maintainance cost.

2) Health sounds like it will have a greater impact on faster growing nations than slower growing ones.

3) It would be good if cultural and-to a lesser exent-scientific techs did drift to other nations with whom the discovering nation has trade contacts (the more trade routes, the more likely drift is to occur.) Military techs should be gained by discovery or trade ONLY-and such techs should come at a VERY high cost in trade!!

4) Decreased Stability for Larger Empires-and hence greater chance of secession-UNLESS said Empires take the time to consolidate their gains.

By the sounds of it too, the unit promotion system sounds like it will more favour experience over sheer numbers! Here's hoping.
That said, one thing I can say without doubt is that the Snowball Effect MUST be curtailed.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Sandman]

Friction suggestions:

1. Harsher environment. You should almost never be in a situation where you're waiting for sewage systems before 500AD. Deserts and tundra should be worthless forever.

2. Scaled tech costs. The bigger you are, the more expensive the tech costs. Simple. This would reward civs with a high city to income ratio... perhaps too much.

3. Tech dependencies. Certain techs require you to have specific civics or city improvements beforehand. You need at least one library to research literature, for example.

4. More and deadlier barbarians. There could be special barbarian promotions that allow them to destroy improvements and move in the same turn, for example.

5. More important and more unpredictable trade. You could have 'crazes' which increase the effect of a certain type of luxury for a limited period. Other luxuries may fall out of fashion forever (sorry, frankincense). Manufactured luxuries could supersede harvested ones.

6. An inflation model, like EU. Over-spend and it will damage your economy for years to come.

7. Changing your government should be much more damaging than before. Rebel units could spawn, for example.

8. Ethnic groups should remain in your civ nearly forever, instead of vanishing quite easily. If you capture a city, it should retain its original ethnic group even as it grows. Only by manually adding (or removing) pop-units from it should it start to take on a new identity.

9. Entertainers should be scrapped.

[Kuciwalker]

4. More and deadlier barbarians. There could be special barbarian promotions that allow them to destroy improvements and move in the same turn, for example.

This would hurt small nations much much more than large ones.

[alms66]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

4. More and deadlier barbarians. There could be special barbarian promotions that allow them to destroy improvements and move in the same turn, for example.

This would hurt small nations much much more than large ones.

Unless, of course, barbarians were coded to go after large civs... there's more wealth there afterall.

[GeoModder]

Not necessarily. The Aztecs and Maya's were large civilisations, but wealth?

[alms66]

Originally posted by GeoModder
Not necessarily. The Aztecs and Maya's were large civilisations, but wealth?

Ever heard of the "legendary" city of gold? The reason they were conquered was because of the Spanish lust for gold.

[GeoModder]

Yes, and how much gold did they found in the whole of Central America? And what was there was of poorer quality then they were used to.

El Dorado was, and always will be, a conquistadore tale.