Debunking the Chieftain Research Myth

[Arrian]

This was indeed the case in the store bought Civ 3 Classic.
An early patch fixed it.

Bascially what was going on was that the AI had a massive tech cost penalty on Chieftain level while the human had a constant cost. (And the AI having a massive reduced tech cost bonsus on Diety)

An early patch reversed it to AI having a constant reserch cost, and the human having a massive reduced tech cost bonsus on Chieftain level. (And the human having a massive increased tech cost penalty on Diety)

That pretty much sums it up. And of course Nathan is a great player, and rocked the game on Chieftain.

-Arrian

[Solomwi]

The "myth" comes about from novice players on chief not being able to hold pace with the AI in research. People would then tell them that part of the reason is that they must do all the research on their own.

I think all I'm doing is demonstrating my ignorance of said myth , but I was always under the impression that the "myth" only applied when the player outpaces the AI in tech, and related not to keeping up with the AIs, but to marking time, so to speak. For example:

Chieftain Player: Tanks in 1300 AD?!? How did you do that? It always takes me until about 1800 to get there!

Veteran player: Playing on a higher level helps, since the AI keeps up better and has techs to trade you, speeding up the pace for all.

As opposed to the way I read your description:

Chieftain Player: I'm only playing on the easiest level, but I can never keep up in tech with the AI. How do they get so far ahead of me???

Veteran Player: Play on higher levels. It gets easier to keep up because the AI can keep up with you, and therefore has techs to trade.

Obviously, in the second case, it's simply a matter of bad advice, since it's self-contradictory. My only question was whether the second case is actually the "myth" Nathan aimed to debunk.

[vmxa1]

Well those two statement are not contradictory. Yes you can research quickly at times at say Monarch, since you do not have to research all techs yourself. That is if you are a decent player.

Yes if you are a novice and play at chief, you may find the AI out pacing you. This is do to a few things.

1- you are not getting all the land (your fair share)
2- you did not do a good job of building your empire (roads and infrasttructure)
3-they will trade each other techs and if you are not getting involved they can leap frog you.

I would only challenge the last quote on the vet saying it is easier to keep up at higher levels.

It is not easier, it is doable up to deity. The point players fail to keep up is a function of their skills and the map settings.

So it may be that a pretty good player cannot keep up at monarch, until they have gotten quite large. At really strong player with a good map may keep up at Demi.

IOW the myth as I see it is was that players saying they cannnot keep up with the AI at chief and stronger players, telling them it is partially due to having to research everything on their own.

In fact it is a number of things.

[Solomwi]

Oh, I agree with your assessment of what the problems are. It's the second scenario veteran's statement that is self-contradictory, and just a case of bad advice. I've just always seen the myth as relating to the overall tech pace of the world respective to other worlds/games, rather than the player's pace respective to the AI.

[nbarclay]

The real point I was trying to make with this exercise is that when players express frustration about how slowly they are researching on Chieftain or Warlord, the focus should be on figuring out what they could do to get better results no matter what difficulty level they play on. I've always felt like talking as if low difficulty levels and a slow research automatically, inevitably go together distracts from that issue.

I might also note that players who don't like to do much micromanaging should not feel bad if they play longer games on lower difficulty levels than those of us who do a massive amount of micromanaging. Civ 3 does not have particularly good automation for workers and city laborers, so there is no direct comparison between what a player like myself who does a huge amount of micromanaging can consider a good game and what a player who does little or no micromanaging should consider a good game.

And of course it takes new players, and especially players who haven't played earlier Civ-type games, a while to get used to what works and what doesn't. But the strategy forum (including the "must read" threads) and Apolyton University can help in that regard.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Wouldn't you have ended up researching faster overall by skipping Music Theory altogether and researching Astronomy at slower than four turns?

Almost certainly, and in normal games, I do almost invariably skip it. But given how long it would be before any AIs would get that far, I decided to put the glory of my civilization ahead of ruthless efficiency.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by joncnunn

Theory of Evolution can always yield two full techs. (Atomic Theory and Electronics are the best to get this way in Conquests) Just turn reserach completely off when you discover a tech and find you can't fully research an additional one before it completes. You'll probably find something to do with the cash. Building up to the 1000 reserve in preparation for Wall Street perhaps?

In monetary terms, you can always get two full techs that way. But when it is practical to do so, especially if my science slider is maxed or I'm on a four-turn research pace, I normally prefer to time ToE so it finishes the same turn that I would normally be scheduled to discover a new tech. That way I can keep researching full tilt instead of having to cut back to zero temporarily to avoid wasting gold.

[Solomwi]

I see where you're coming from, Nathan, and it makes good sense. I've always viewed lower level research through the lens of "You're going to hit 4-turn research quickly enough anyway", which would explain the disparity between my idea of "the myth" and what you were trying to debunk (and did, btw).

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Mad bomber, Nathan specifically said he would restart if he got a scientific or agricutural civ. I'd have added expansionist to the same list myelf consider the shear number goody huts that would be poped with the only "bad" results being empty & map that tells you nothing that expansionist civs have.

I specifically selected no barbarians so that there would not be any huts to speed up research. So if I got an Expansionist civ, the Expansionist hut-popping advantage would not have mattered.

With a good fresh-water start, the Agricultural trait is definitely the most powerful trait in C3C. My decision to exclude Scientific was a bit more arbitrary; I definitely think Scientific is better than Religious if a civ is only going to go through one government change in its history, but I don't have a clear picture of how Scientific and Industrious compare.