What is a "Munchkin" Strategy?

[Be Quicker]

Have there actually been many computer strategy games where it does not boil down to using the same boring strategy to which there is no clear defense?

[GeorgeWang]

Re: Hey Vel. Did I start this?

Originally posted by gachnar
Ask yourself: "Would the designers shake their heads at me if I told them about this?"

[art_vandelai]

Re: What is a "Munchkin" Strategy?

Originally posted by Velociryx
Okay...I'll bite.

So far, I've seen this term used to describe both IFE and Palace-Bouncing, so I've reached the early conclusion that the term means to describe any kind of game system exploit that, while not an outright cheat, certainly works in the human player's favor because it's not something that the AI does with regularity.

Having said that, are the following things ALSO considered "Munchkinish"?

* Tech Whoring (buying a tech from one AI and selling it to every other). Under the above definition, it *should* fall in the Munchkin category, because it gives the human player a heinous advantage that the AI seldom, if ever takes clear advantage of.

* Attacking any AI Civ anytime after the Ancient Era (because during the Ancient Era, the AI does reasonably well re: attack/defense, but when more versatile units become available, the AI either does not build them in sufficient quantity (preferring to continue building units from previous eras) and/or does not understand how to use them effectively).

* Making use of MPP's to lure a target civ into a disadvantageous position and engineer its destruction (I've never seen the AI do this at all).

* Using Pop-Rush techniques to rapidly overwhelm neighboring AI civs, regardless of difficulty level (the ai makes some use of conscription, but glancing at city sizes of AI civs makes it clear that they do not make much use of early game pop-rushing).

Essentially, pretty much every viable human-player strategy we've come up with on this board revolves around one or more exploits in the current game system. I'm just wondering what the difference is, out of a sense of genuine curiosity.

-=Vel=-

I think Vel raises some good points - some of these exploits (e.g. the leaving of cities undefended to coax the AI to attack there) don't fall within the spirit of the game, which is building and maintaining a civilization that spans the ages. And on most difficulty levels from Regent on up, they are almost necessary to
be successful - but they detract from the overall competitive level of the game.

The despot rush is easy for Firaxis to fix - just increase the unhappiness penalty for rushing so that there's more balance. The AI has obviously been instructed to use it sparingly, or not at all, so there should be some encuragement for either the AI to maximize its use, or for the player to reduce its use if it becomes too unbalancing.

Personally, I don't think that's at all outside the spirit of the game - despots did sacrifice and enslave large portions of their population to fight wars in the ancient era.

What about things like micro-managing hte tech slider to always maximize the gold production when on the last turn or two of a research project. If the AI does it, it will make the game that much more difficult for the player (who certainly can't micromanage that as effectively as a computer), and if the AI doesn't do it, it's considered an exploit, and the AI suffers. I think that it's best left to the advanced player to use the strategies that are most viable and fun, and play on whatever difficulty level reflects that. I've only played 1 game off of Regent (on Chieftan) but I've found the game to be infinitely fun and compelling, even after a month and a half of daily play. I use some of the lesser exploits (i.e. tech managing and selling) but not those I feel reach the point of abusing the AI's weaknesses. Maybe that's why I have only won the game a few of the many games I've started.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by David Weldon
Then, there are a number of creative strategies that work better than perhaps anyone intended or expected, but would still work vs. humans (IFE, pop-rush). In this category, it does not make any difference that the computer can't or doesn't use such tactics. The AI can't coordinate artillery in an offensive, but are we to never use them in such a manner? Of course not.

That logic doesn't work... the AI Civs cannot use the million dollar bug either... doesn't mean we can call it a strategy simply because they cannot use it.

In fact, at higher levels the AI is given "cheats" that it uses to make up for the well-known fact that it doesn't play a perfect game. We should play the game with whatever the rules are at the time.

Exactly, it is up to the player to determine what is within the rules... including using exploits. "I'm playing Deity, so I should be allowed to use these a, b & d exploits & reload twice to make up for the AI 'cheats'."

What if the creators of chess didn't expect the Queen would be the most powerful piece? They thought maybe the knights would dominate play. Over time, everyone started using the Queen "exploit" because clearly it was a "broken" piece. This lead to a game that the designers didn't really expect or intend,

1st, even a newbie can "exploit the Queen" for chess without going to a forum. The same cannot be said for the Despot Pop-Rush. 2nd, both the chess newbie & opponent have "the Queen"... the AI has no "Queen" (tech-whoring). "But the AI cheats on Diety, so I should be allowed a Queen. Fine - but that still doesn't change the fact that the AI has no "Queen". 1 unbalancing factor might help offset another, but you cannot deny that it is an unbalancing factor. Sure there are plenty of unbalancing factors - but don't you want to limit this as much as possible - hence multiplayer popularity?

Almost the exact same argument can be made about Cavalry in civIII,

If I was able to gain control of the AI's Cavalry for free just as I can gain control of the AI's tech profits with tech whoring - then that would be similar... otherwise it's not.

Yes, certain tactics are more powerful than others, and that's always the way it's going to be.

Unless Firaxis wants a smarter AI & better game balance. A smarter AI would take the tech profit that exists out there instead of letting a human player take the profit. But, like I said... some people obviously want a stupid AI. As far as certain tactics being more powerful - gee multiplayer games where newbies MUST know how to Despot Pop-Rush to have a chance of winning & that's all everyone will be doing over & over & over... how... predictable. Shouldn't multiple strategies be the goal, like chess has, rather than a few powerful ones?

Firaxis has all the right in the world to change any rules that didn't work out according to their intention (just as they nerfed IFE), but I don't really think that we, the players, have those same rights. I think that we should generally accept the game that's given to us and play it as well as we can.

So if your new chess set came with an extra black pawn instead of a black queen, you would play it with the extra pawn as an extra pawn?

Have there actually been many computer strategy games where it does not boil down to using the same boring strategy to which there is no clear defense?

Famous Quote: "Even the fool knows all the sky's stars cannot be reached, but it is the wise man who tries."

[sophist]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew

Selling techs is tech-trading. There is a difference between tech-whoring & tech-trading. The AI does NOT tech whore (buying a tech & then selling it to ALL other possible Civs, thus making $ that the Civ who originally sold the tech should have made).

The AI doesn't do a good job of knowing what techs they want to keep exclusively and what they can afford to sell. I think if the AI was better programmed to evaluate techs based on their utility, the behavior to properly tech-whore or tech-hoard (haha) would naturally follow. Sure, share Free Artistry and get all you can for it. But keep Military Tradition to yourself as long as possible.

[David Weldon]

With regards to ignoring the AI capabilities...

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
That logic doesn't work... the AI Civs cannot use the million dollar bug either... doesn't mean we can call it a strategy simply because they cannot use it.

Please read the whole post, not just the sentence you would like to critique. I feel there are multiple categories of activity, and that the AI ability or non-ability is NOT a determinant of what should/shouldn't be done. It should not be considered either way.

1st, even a newbie can "exploit the Queen" for chess without going to a forum. The same cannot be said for the Despot Pop-Rush.

So now the relative complexity or difficulty of the strategy should be a factor in determining if it is an exploit? I'm afraid I don't agree with that concept.

2nd, both the chess newbie & opponent have "the Queen"... the AI has no "Queen" (tech-whoring). "But the AI cheats on Diety, so I should be allowed a Queen. Fine - but that still doesn't change the fact that the AI has no "Queen". 1 unbalancing factor might help offset another, but you cannot deny that it is an unbalancing factor.

Unbalancing in what way? Against the AI? I've already asserted that that doesn't matter. Against a human? Not possible. If it works, then it's available to all human players.

Sure there are plenty of unbalancing factors - but don't you want to limit this as much as possible - hence multiplayer popularity?

Here I agree with you, balance and variety would be nice. I just don't think we're the people who are "in charge" of ensuring that the game is balanced, and I don't think it's possible in any case. Whatever we allow or don't allow there will always be a single strongest strategy for a given situation. How can we possibly draw a line in the middle of a vast gray pool of sameness? I say the line must be drawn at the edge of that pool, and it should be drawn wherever the game makers drew it, whether they did everything perfectly or not.

If I was able to gain control of the AI's Cavalry for free just as I can gain control of the AI's tech profits with tech whoring - then that would be similar... otherwise it's not.

As I understand your definition, tech whoring can't be done against a human, so it's out according to my concept of "exploitation". The Cavalry argument was with respect to using a Queen more effectively than an old computer could.

As far as certain tactics being more powerful - gee multiplayer games where newbies MUST know how to Despot Pop-Rush to have a chance of winning & that's all everyone will be doing over & over & over... how... predictable. Shouldn't multiple strategies be the goal, like chess has, rather than a few powerful ones?

First, an experienced chess player could easily play the same tactic against newbie players over and over and over. As could an experienced CivIII player pop-rush against newbies over and over and over. This leads me back to the second point in this post, that "Newbies" should also not be a determining factor in what is an exploit and what isn't.

As for the goal of multiple strategies and balance amongst quality players, again I agree that it is a great goal (see a few lines above).

So if your new chess set came with an extra black pawn instead of a black queen, you would play it with the extra pawn as an extra pawn?

No, because that wouldn't work against another human. I didn't think it was a difficult concept...

[absimiliard]

Originally posted by carioca

<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>

The word Munchkin (coming from Frank L. Baum's Oz books) was applied to new young gamers in the late '70s, because we looked (and often acted) like...Munckins.

I've heard the term used that way as well. It's just a case of multiple meanings. When I was young I used to be called a munchkin, and a rug-rat, myself.

*Gaahhhhh* I'm in cross-posting hell.


Pyro: I've seen the AI tech-whore, just a bit of trivia for you. To whit, I have the Great Library due to some serious foresight and a lot of luck. The AI calls me up to say "Hey, wanna pay this outrageous price for this tech you want". Predictably I tell it to go #@$%! itself, after all I have the GL. Moments later I find I've acquired the tech from it and another civilization. I then try to tech-whore it to all other civs only to find that two others have it and the researcher has a load of new gold.

So the AI definitely sells tech to each other. It's true they don't sell it to everyone, not everyone can meet the price they're asking. But it will sell to everyone it can on it's turn.

If I sell at a lower price that doesn't make it an exploit. It just means I'm a cheap son-of-a-#@$%*!

[Pyrodrew]

I Agree Tech Selling Is Fine

Originally posted by art_vandelai The despot rush is easy for Firaxis to fix - just increase the unhappiness penalty for rushing so that there's more balance.

Good idea!

Originally posted by David Weldon
I feel there are multiple categories of activity, and that the AI ability or non-ability is NOT a determinant of what should/shouldn't be done. It should not be considered either way.

These 'categories of activity' differences should attempted to be minimized for a more balanced game, therefore, the AI should be patched to protect itself from TechWhoring. Sophist gave a good suggestion.

So now the relative complexity or difficulty of the strategy should be a factor in determining if it is an exploit? I'm afraid I don't agree with that concept.

I didn't say that. There is a BIG difference between a Queen (a standard, obvious & common piece) and obtaining profit from a weakness in a stupid AI that it should have obtained instead. Using an analogy to compare the 2 is comparing apples and oranges. Comparing Cavalry Speed & Queen Movement would have been valid. Not patching TechWhoring is keeping a stupid AI - which is obviously what some want/need. A better comparision for Tech Whoring (taking profit the AI obviously should have made instead) would be being able to move the AI's Queen. The fact you are gaining control of something the AI should have instead is an exploit of a severe weakness in the programming.

Unbalancing in what way? Against the AI? I've already asserted that that doesn't matter.

If balance is irrelevant against the AI then the million dollar "cheat" would be valid as well.

Here I agree with you, balance and variety would be nice. I just don't think we're the people who are "in charge" of ensuring that the game is balanced, and I don't think it's possible in any case. Whatever we allow or don't allow there will always be a single strongest strategy for a given situation.

Umm yeah... just like chess. I don't think anyone has declared themselves "in charge" here... simply giving their opinions.

How can we possibly draw a line in the middle of a vast gray pool of sameness? I say the line must be drawn at the edge of that pool, and it should be drawn wherever the game makers drew it, whether they did everything perfectly or not.

We draw a line as we do in society - vote with our opinions, except with Firaxis as the final judge. This is a Civ3 game society & we are the game players (or beta testers as some say). If we stayed with tradition, IFE would still be ok... not to mention what society would be like. The "game makers" are not perfect, hence bugs, patches & patches with bugs.

First, an experienced chess player could easily play the same tactic against newbie players over and over and over. As could an experienced CivIII player pop-rush against newbies over and over and over. This leads me back to the second point in this post, that "Newbies" should also not be a determining factor in what is an exploit and what isn't.

1st, you overlook that the experienced players will still be doing Despot Pop-Rushes against each other as well... it would be like everyone moving a knight 1st in chess simply because it turns it into a queen by doing so. Suddenly everyone's 1st move is predictable & there are no alternatives to the Despot Pop-Rush. I'm glad chess isn't like that. 2nd, "Newbies" is where the future of this game is. Additionally, someone telling them "oh by the way you always have to Despot Pop-Rush to stand a chance" seems strategically limiting.

No, because that wouldn't work against another human. I didn't think it was a difficult concept...

The million dollar bug isn't a difficult concept either. Take a guess how many learned that & the Despot Pop-Rush here compared to learning it on their own.

As for the goal of multiple strategies and balance amongst quality players, again I agree that it is a great goal

Despot Pop-Rush provides such a huge benefit that it makes all other early strategies void. I'm not suggestion Pop-Rush be removed, but as of now it's too cheap/easy which many seem to agree (see prior link to Pop-Rush)... it's like a flying Queen in chess... don't remove her, fix her. Until then it's an exploit.

Originally posted by absimiliard I have the Great Library due to some serious foresight and a lot of luck. The AI calls me up to say "Hey, wanna pay this outrageous price for this tech you want". Predictably I tell it to go #@$%! itself, after all I have the GL. Moments later I find I've acquired the tech from it and another civilization. I then try to tech-whore it to all other civs only to find that two others have it and the researcher has a load of new gold. So the AI definitely sells tech to each other.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but... that is called Tech Trading/Selling... that's not Tech Whoring. A Tech Whore is player who specifically seeks to buy techs from other Civs, then immediately sells those techs to all the other AI Civs who don't have it. Result = the player gains a substantial profit... a profit which the AI Civ who originally sold the tech to the player should have made instead by selling it to the player & all other AI Civs during it's turn initially... IF it wanted to sell it at all. Or it should ask for a higher price (thus obtain most of that TechWhore profit) for the tech the player wants to buy.

[absimiliard]

But Pyro, by your definition of tech-whoring it's impossible to make a profit.

Taking Monotheism from my example. If I had bought it from the AI I would have paid an outrageous price for it. If I then turned around and sold it at any price to all the other AIs I would have lost money on the transaction. Lots of money.

There must, MUST, always be a price-point below which the AI won't sell a tech. If there wasn't I'd buy the tech from the AI for 1 Gold every time. If there is a lower-limit then there must, again MUST, exist the possibility for me to sell below it. It may be unprofitable, but profit may not be my goal, I might want Nationalism in a weaker AI's hands for geopolitical reasons.

Certainly you're right that the AI could capture that extra gold if it was willing to sell every tech for any price. But that would be a remarkably more dumb AI than the one we've got right now.

You can take issue with where the AI stops selling tech. But I don't understand how you take issue with the very existance of that price-point. Nor do I understand how I spending 600 Gold to get the tech and getting back 150 from the other AIs is bad, much less an exploit.

How would you program the AI selling algorithm? (no need to write code mind you, just a general logic path would do) I venture that you can't improve on what currently exists even if you differ as to how valuable a tech should be. There must after all be a point at which the gold is not worth the advantage you gain from the other players (AI or human) not having the tech.

It's just basic economics. I'm sorry if you don't like economics, but you should take that up with the universe, not even programmers can change those laws. (A real world example would be our drug-laws, not even lawmakers, our programmers, can change the laws of economics regarding prohibition or it's effects.)

In other words, techs must have a value. If you remove that the consequences are dire. If you leave it and I lose money buying and selling tech I don't see the problem.

I guess I'm confused as to what you think is wrong with the AI regarding tech-whoring. Maybe you could explain why you think it is bad again? (I'm a little slow sometimes)

[David Weldon]

Pyro:
Mixed and confusing analogies not withstanding, I think we are coming pretty close to agreeing.

I agree tech whoring (as you narrowly define it) is an exploit.

I agree the million dollar bug is a cheat.

I agree pop-rushing will dominate any MP game, and that this is undesirable.

I agree the AI should play better.

I agree we should continue to beta-test Firaxis' game for them, and suggest changes that will help balance the game and make it better.

I guess perhaps what we disagree on is whether playing the game we have now while hoping to fix pop-rushing (as one example) is an exploit or not. I don't think it's an exploit, I just think it's a poor design. This means CivIII isn't as good as it should be, but I still think that if MP tournaments were to be magically held tomorrow that everyone would use the most effective strategy they could (pop-rushing), and it couldn't possibly be considered an exploit. As you have already said, it would just be a boring game. Too bad Firaxis didn't do a better job, huh?

Here's an in-game comparison that may help shed light on where I stand: I play with an extremely small military because I know that I can quickly react to anything the AI will attempt. I don't garrison any of my cities at all. This would get me slaughtered in any MP game. According to the "AI can't/doesn't do it so it's an exploit" theory, it's an exploit. It seems quite obvious that we couldn't actually term this an exploit, when it's just a strategy that takes advantage of the game I'm currently playing (that is, a game against the AI). I feel pop-rushing is arguably a very similar strategy, employing the same concept of relative advantage over the AI by doing something that the AI doesn't do. The only real difference is that pop-rushing is much more effective.

This is what I mean by variations of gray and the inability to differentiate between them. If anyone started a tournament and tried to say "you can't have a small military", people would laugh. If someone started a tourny and said "you can't pop-rush", fewer people would laugh but some still would.

It's in the game. It's not a clear cheat, and it would be effective against any opponent (human or AI). It's not an exploit. It's a poorly balanced feature that I hope will be patched, but until it is then I think it's fair game.

Ruling things out shouldn't be ad-hoc, it should follow clear guidelines and I don't see any clear guideline that would rule out pop-rushing without affecting other quite obviously legitimate strategies.

[sophist]

Quoting from Vel in another thread:

I agree with the general consensus that AI border fortification would solve much of the problem, and I steadfastly hold to the conviction that every strategy can be beaten.

That is the nub of Munchkin strategies. Every acceptable strategy can be beaten. Every acceptable strategy has its counter-strategy. Every acceptable strategy works in some instances but not others. IFE cannot be beaten; the best you can do is to do it yourself. Combined arms can be beaten by taking advantage of the slow movement of infantry and artillery to pick off HP as the stack advances. And so forth.


Note: that's beyond your basic play, of course. I don't call building a temple to make people happy a strategy

[Velociryx]

::sheepish grin::

I've never stumbled into a situation where I found myself quoted before....that was....kinna cool...lol...thank you....

And I'd have to....agree with myself? LOL...yes, every strategy can be beaten (including IFE, I would say!), though sometimes in order to beat the strat, you have to do something even dirtier (find out where the IFE-ing is happening and punch through there, suddenly kidnapping a few hundred workers), and/or resort to the exact strategy, only do it better (IE - If I'm an industrious civ, just let a non-industrious civ try to out ife me...lol).

And some strategies (Jaguar rush), are theoretically beatable, but I've not quite figured out how .....



-=Vel=-
(allow myself to introduce.....myself)

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by absimiliard
But Pyro, by your definition of tech-whoring it's impossible to make a profit.

I can make TONS of money by simply selling techs I research alone.

Taking Monotheism from my example. If I had bought it from the AI I would have paid an outrageous price for it. If I then turned around and sold it at any price to all the other AIs I would have lost money on the transaction.

Some specific AI Civs charge more for certain techs than others. Militaristic Civs charge/pay more for military techs. These extreme differences increases the potential $ to be made when TechSelling & TechWhoring. Tech value also seems to vary on the number of Civs who currently know that tech.

There must, MUST, always be a price-point below which the AI won't sell a tech. If there wasn't I'd buy the tech from the AI for 1 Gold every time. If there is a lower-limit then there must, again MUST, exist the possibility for me to sell below it. It may be unprofitable, but profit may not be my goal, I might want Nationalism in a weaker AI's hands for geopolitical reasons.

As I explained earlier tech whoring could be patched by an AI Civ simply asking more for a tech a player wanted to buy during it's turn. Or if the AI Civ found it could earn x gold (the minimum) total from selling it to ALL other Civs then it could sell it during it's turn. If it couldn't then it shouldn't sell that tech.

Certainly you're right that the AI could capture that extra gold if it was willing to sell every tech for any price. But that would be a remarkably more dumb AI than the one we've got right now.

I disagree. The current AI allows the human player to make a substantial profit not from 1 AI Civ, but up to 15... that's A LOT of gold. 2nd, I never suggested the AI Civs should mass sell all their techs all the time.

You can take issue with where the AI stops selling tech. But I don't understand how you take issue with the very existance of that price-point.

It's not about a price-point, it's about total profit (see below).

Nor do I understand how I spending 600 Gold to get the tech and getting back 150 from the other AIs is bad, much less an exploit.

150 total (10 gold per Civ for a 600 gold tech???) hasn't been my experience. $150 each yes. The AI can gain $2100 ($150*14Civs) by mass selling a tech or only $600 from the human player (who can later earn the $2100 through TechWhoring) then obviously the 1st choice is superior. The AI always does the 2nd.

How would you program the AI selling algorithm?

I wouldn't necessarily "reprogram the AI selling algorithm", but I would add to it if I knew how...

Whatever the current pricing they use for Tech... let it be = x
Total Gold if AI sold a Tech to all other possible Civs = y
Amount of Gold for Player to buy Tech during human player's turn = the greater of y or x
If AI ever needs to sell a tech for gold (pick a low priority tech) & mass sell it during it's turn.

I venture that you can't improve on what currently exists even if you differ as to how valuable a tech should be. There must after all be a point at which the gold is not worth the advantage you gain from the other players (AI or human) not having the tech.

I'm not a programmer, but any AI can be improved upon. Any programmer will tell you that.

It's just basic economics. I'm sorry if you don't like economics, but you should take that up with the universe, not even programmers can change those laws.(A real world example would be our drug-laws, not even lawmakers, our programmers, can change the laws of economics regarding prohibition or it's effects.)

?

In other words, techs must have a value. If you remove that the consequences are dire. If you leave it and I lose money buying and selling tech I don't see the problem.

I never said techs should have no value.

I guess I'm confused as to what you think is wrong with the AI regarding tech-whoring. Maybe you could explain why you think it is bad again?

Hopefully the math calculations above will illustrate better where the AI Civs are losing profit that they should obtain instead of the player. In your scenario that 1 AI Civ lost $1500 ($2100-$600) of it's hard earned tech research/knowledge. 15 AI Civs... over 6000 years... that adds up.

In general, AI Civs are willing to give their soul (current treasury & future income for the next 20turns) for a tech (any tech)... atleast pre-patch they were. Recently, I made over 10000 gold (from 14 AI Civs) for Medicine alone in the Industrial Age on a Regent game. Could the AI Tech Selling/Buying for gold be improved? Definitely Yes. Do I have all the answers? Alas, no.

[absimiliard]

pyro: That's a pretty slick formula, I like it. If you are that concerned about the profit from the AIs that the AI doesn't sell too then your way would work. It would require the AI to treat the human differently from the other AIs however, and we have been told it will not do that.

I think I also see two points where we differ at a fundamental level. First, I play with 7 AI not 15. Second, in my experience the AI can't often deliver your 150 Gold on a tech.

The first results in a larger pool of AI players that you can sell to than my games provide. This should increase the amount of money you make. Except for my second belief.

My observation is that though the AI often will sell it's soul to get a tech it even more often can't offer more than it's World Map plus 1 to 5 Gold. This means the profit that you percieve doesn't exist.

I think the AI percieves this by simply not selling below a certain point. This means it is throwing some profit away, but not much given what the others can pay to it.

[David Weldon]

Hey guys, I just had a thought about this particular issue. It's possible that the problem isn't really one of inadequate diplomacy or poor pricing, it could be a greater problem of game balance.

1 gold = 1 beaker (before factoring in improvements), but 1 gold = 1/4 shield (assuming this only becomes dramatically exploitable after economics).

Tech prices that are too high require a very large tax base that can be converted to units, improvements, or luxuries far too effectively.

Who would care about tech whoring/selling if it took 6000 gold to rush a single modern armor? Or if each tech only cost 100 beakers, so that it was only possible to raise a few hundred gold per tech? This would certainly ease the burden on the AI's ability to assess value correctly.

The fact that a 4 turn limit was introduced leads me to believe that most empires create too large of a tax base in the late game. Couldn't we just turn down the trade rates and re-balance the tech costs so that the advantage gained by trading them is less?

I did some research a while ago that showed approximately a 3.5% per turn economic growth, given certain assumptions and using the tech tree as a measuring tool. I haven't measured it, but I'm sure unit costs escalate at a substantially slower rate. This could lead to a skew in the relative advantage of science vs. military late in the game.

At first glance, giving more value to the science approach would balance it against a purely military approach, but in reality the situation is reversed. Since techs cost so much, they can be converted into military at an alarming rate (either by trading them, or by simply turning down the science slider), which leads to almost purely military strategies in the late game.

I know this is a huge task which we probably can't accomplish ourselves, but the point is that we may be arguing about symptoms, not root causes.