Getting tech from conquest.

[Kramsib]

I remember getting techs from conquest in Civilization II but in Civ III this is not possible.

Why?

As far as I am concerned, this ability can balance a warmonger's strategy with a builder's strategy allowing the warmonger to maintain the costs for all his wars and keep his units nearly up to date.

On the other hand, money from conquest is too low and selling buildings is not worthwhile .

I would be very pleased if these options could be changed/edited/implemented with the editor.

Do you agree?.

[Spiffor]

In Civ2, it was way too easy for a warmonger to never be late in the tech race, even when playing at higher difficulty. You just had to attack a badly defended city, and voilà !

I think Civ3 is considerably more balanced on the matter, as the warmonger player has actually to pay some drawbacks for choosing this stance

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

However, it would be nice to have a random (if slim) chance of "capturing an enemy scientist" and forcing them to work on YOUR programs for you, just like in real life.

[Arrian]

I HATED the CivII way. One AI sneak attack (or more likely, the use of a single diplomat) suddenly grants them Tanks? Bah!

You can still get tech from warfare in CivIII, it just works differently. You can fight, and then get techs in exchange for peace. You can only demand techs you have the prerequisites for, though.

So if you don't have Polytheism, you cannot demand Monarchy.

-Arrian

[Alex]

Yes, I like the way Civ3 handles the spoils of war. No more automatic techs, but you can demand them during peace negotiations. It helps to balance the game.

[Catt]

IMHO the ability to get techs through conquering cities would tilt the playing field even more towards aggressive warmongering. Again IMHO, warfare is the most effiicient approach to winning, and strengthening that method would further channel the game into one method of playing.

Catt

[Thirgaral]

It´s much better the civ 3 way!!!
(although it spoils some of my tactics at the higher levels)

[TheArsenal]

Yes, I like the way Civ3 handles the spoils of war. No more automatic techs, but you can demand them during peace negotiations. It helps to balance the game.

I agree. Going to war and suing for peace can get you techs, sometimes many, but never guarantees you anything along those lines. Civs on their last poorly defended city sometimes refuse to give what you ask for in exchange for peace.

Even though I wouldn't change it, it is a classic example of where game play diverts from real world situations for the better. If I conquered every square inch of your empire, had access to all your labs, scientists, libraries and universities, I'm pretty sure I would have all your techs along with it.

[Dominae]

Although you do not get techs from conquering cities in Civ3, the net result is still there in the form of sueing a beaten AI opponent for Peace. In fact, sometimes the problem is worse in Civ3, as you can conquer a 5-civ empire and propel yourself into the tech race. Below is an example of this.

***AU401 Spoiler***

When I finally managed to conquer Rome at the end of the Ancient era, most civs (including the Romans) were already in the Medieval age. After trading for Writing and Math from the Babylonians, here is what I got for a Peace Treaty with Rome:

Construction
Currency
Polytheism
Philosophy
Code of Laws
Literature
Map Making
Horseback Riding
Roman Worker
World Map
158 Gold

I had to conquer 3 cities to get all these techs (although Rome itself was a particularly tough nut to crack; Archers versus Legionaries is not a pretty sight). I'm now in the Medieval age, one tech behind the Scientific civs but with a 1200 Gold treasury. Warmongering is good.


Dominae

[Demerzel]

hmm damn AI will never give me techs for peace even when I'm battering the heck out of it and taking its cities every other turns

[amra]

my only problem with this is the AI refusal to capitulate even when the odds are astronomically against it... self preservation should be an absolute... if the AI is down to the last city (probably some piece of garbage in a swamp or desert) it should give me whatever I ask for in return for peace...

sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't... i think it must have something to do with how you have treated the civ in the past...

but if facing complete extermination, the civ should capitulate, end of story...

amra

[TheArsenal]

It's amusing, isn't it? I often find myself asking out loud:
"How can you POSSIBLY be insulted by this deal, when the only other deal on the table is my marching through your capital with your head on a pike?"

But again, its frustrating, and far from realistic, but I think it balances things. It keeps warfare from being the primary goal to winning everything you want and makes war just a part of an overall strategy.

[Egbert]

Originally posted by amra
my only problem with this is the AI refusal to capitulate even when the odds are astronomically against it... self preservation should be an absolute... if the AI is down to the last city (probably some piece of garbage in a swamp or desert) it should give me whatever I ask for in return for peace...

sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't... i think it must have something to do with how you have treated the civ in the past...

but if facing complete extermination, the civ should capitulate, end of story...

amra

Umh, I actually think it is good that a civ down to its last little village in some stinking swamp gets all stubborn and refuses to hand anything over. That civ is completely stuffed anyway so why should it hand over technologies that will magnify my power so I might then do the same thing to some other civ. Much better that it be stubborn and spiteful, better for gameplay too.

[Egbert]

I think the AI should be much more stubborn particularly given the popularity of the "oscillating warfare" strategy (perhaps better described as "the systematic bullying of AI neghbours") used by many human players. If I find myself in trouble with a big nasty AI civ I am absolutely determined to give them nothing, if I give them something it will just make them stronger for when they come back for another round (and by strengthening them I am thus increasing the likelyhood that they will attack again). In such a situation I will instead give techs or whatever to everyone else to attack my bullying opponent. I will even attempt to buy off his allies if need be. I will do virtually anything to avoid strengthening a bully by giving him tech.

I think after a human player has bullied a certain amount then any AI civ should just fight to the death before handing over anything other than moderate amounts of cash, maps or maybe useless cities.

[Kramsib]

Ok I know about the problem of getting tech from poor little villages, but it can be easily solved if the game rules restrict the chance to steal a technology for cities which are bigger than 6.

And about the diplomats.

Civ III has something that I still don't understand, why is the espionage more expensive than buying the technology to its owner?, that makes no sense. IMHO, diplomats and spies in Civ II were better, a cheap way to get the tech level of your enemies, (with a high risk of war obviously), there was another difficulty because you had to transport the diplomat or the spy to your enemie's territory, I found more adventure on this way.

In addition I remember more spy options in Civ II