Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

v1.17 and A.I vs A.I tech "trading"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Analyst Redux
    Soren, in evaluating the situations in this thread on a case by case basis, I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Explaining away each individual tree doesn't make the forest go away.

    A very typical scenario post-patch: you uncover a civ that, for whatever reason (typically, because it started on an island, by itself, with lousy land), lacks contact with other civs and is technologically backwards. You sell it as much as you can, but at a certain point, that civ has no gold, no techs, no g/p/t, nothing left to trade with. You sell it contact with some civs, but not all. You see by the lists that you still have several techs and contacts that the poor civ hasn't even a single gold left to purchase.

    If you go back to that civ just a 2-3 turns later, it's got everything you didn't deal to it: all the contacts, all the techs, and probably one or two that you've never been able to pry from other civs because they were demanding an outrageous price.

    Posit all the hypotheticals you like (presumably, this horribly backward civ didn't wait for me to come calling to pop all of its huts), but this backward civ didn't suddenly come up with all the valuables it needed to aquire everything in a few turns. This doesn't happen so consistently and constantly without a severely stacked deck. If the other civs aren't giving it away, then the price is so nominal, compared to what they expect to charge me, that the difference between that price and free can't be much. Explaining it away won't make me feel better about seeing it happen every game.

    Much as I hate this, I can't bring myself to uninstall the patch. The improvements made to the worker automation, i.e. no more chasing around after pollution, are worth their weight in gold, platinum, mithril, dilitium crystals (insert your fictional item of infinite value here). I can't bear to give those up and go back to end of game tedium in micromanaging 100+ workers because they can't be trusted. But this radical change (make no mistake, it is a radical alteration to the flow of the game) in AI-to-AI trading behavior is a heavy price to take in exchange.

    To all (including Soren): My observation is that this problem is dramatically alleviated once the Republic tech advance gets passed around and AIs start adopting it. AIs that are Republics generate a lot more cash, giving you a lot more overhead to work with in gold-per-turn deals. For whatever reason, the AI also values g/p/t strangely. I can't count the number of times an AI with a healthy gold reserve refused to pay 40 gold for something, but happily paid 2gpt for it. Lots of players post that they wheel and deal their way out of a backward tech position during the midieval era. I submit that this is because the widespread adoption of the Republic, and the ability to milk the AI civs for gpt, is what levels the playing field for humans in trading with the AI.

    Until you cross that threshold, however, there is just no such thing as a peaceful strategy on the upper difficulty levels. The ancient era is the era of the horseman. The peer-to-peer AI tech trading makes ancient era research a one-against-seven proposition. Actually, it's much worse, as the AI research bonuses, combined with their skewed value of a tech when trading it to you vs trading it to each other (which, of course, is based on the reasearch bonus) pretty much gurantees that trying to peacefully trade/research your way to victory on Emporer/Deity level is aking to trying to crawl out of an ant lion pit. The harder you try, the faster you slide.

    The odds of getting what you want at the point of a horseman's lance are a great deal more sporting than that. It's just that a strategy game seems like it ought to have more, well, strategy. Until this patch, it did.
    hmmm, maybe... my guess is that the pre/post Republic split has more to do with world maps than anything else. In other words, every civ has a trump card to play for a few techs. If you want to take this away, just buy their world map and give it away to all the civs you know. Or just try to make sure they never acquire contact with anyone else (much easier if they are on an island, of course...) The whole techs-are-cheaper-if-known-by-other-civs rule only applies to _known_ civs. So even if every civ but one know Republic, it is still full value to that last civ if it is still alone.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that the game balance has shifted, but it is still balanced because it is still based on game rules. The AI is not just tossing techs to each other to screw over the human. I could have done that if I wanted to under the guise of "tribute" or whatever, but I decided that that would be unfair to the player.

    Because the system is still based on rules, it is still beatable using that rule-set. Try using the tech-scaling to your advantage by raising your science rate as high as possible and ignoring one section of the tech tree to burrow straight to Republic or Monarchy or Construction. Then, sell your techs off to everyone for cash to purchase the now-highly-discounted techs you previously ignored. Or pick an exploration civ, build 3 or 4 scouts and a couple galleys and sell your world map to everyone, providing you with a source of income and preventing them from using their maps as leverage. Do everything in your power to keep civs from contacting each other to keep tech costs high. Aggressively trade off your luxuries and resources to keep the money flowing out of their treasuries so that they have less gold to buy techs. Build the Great Library... or just research the militaristic techs and go capture it. Use your imagination.
    - What's that?
    - It's a cannon fuse.
    - What's it for?
    - It's for my cannon.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Rimpy
      Bravo, AnalystRedux -- your post was very well-written. It expressed my sentiments exactly. I don't like the aggressive AI tech trading because it makes the game less competitive. That is, there's not as much distinction between the different civilizations when knowledge is shared so freely. It ruins the science race element to the game.
      Rimpy
      Not only does it make the game less competitive.
      It also makes the game to proceed way too quickly. The production rate in the game is simply not optimized for such a quick tech-developement .
      It is an empty feeling that falls upon me....I hate it when I can build universities but haven´t had the time to even consider
      building my libraries yet .
      And reaching the indudstial age before 1000A.D is a sad reality
      after installing 1.17f.

      I gave 1.17f a few shots yesterday after getting the undesrtanding of how the A.I trades are handeled but
      quickly found out this patch was not for me.
      Waaaay to quick tech-developement.

      1.16f will have to do for now.

      -Saurus
      GOWIEHOWIE! Uh...does that
      even mean anything?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Saurus


        Not only does it make the game less competitive.
        It also makes the game to proceed way too quickly. The production rate in the game is simply not optimized for such a quick tech-developement .
        It is an empty feeling that falls upon me....I hate it when I can build universities but haven´t had the time to even consider
        building my libraries yet .
        And reaching the indudstial age before 1000A.D is a sad reality
        after installing 1.17f.

        I gave 1.17f a few shots yesterday after getting the undesrtanding of how the A.I trades are handeled but
        quickly found out this patch was not for me.
        Waaaay to quick tech-developement.

        1.16f will have to do for now.

        -Saurus
        I should clarify that we are concerned about techs progressing too quickly, and you can expect this to be looked at in the future.
        Last edited by Soren Johnson; February 21, 2002, 15:26.
        - What's that?
        - It's a cannon fuse.
        - What's it for?
        - It's for my cannon.

        Comment


        • #19
          Sigh. There are those that think techs progress way too slowly, esp. with the default settings in the ancient age. So how do you choose whom to please? Perhaps a solution can be approached from a slightly different angle in that giving the player more control in gameplay as to the rate of development, as in Civ2. That is, without being forced to play a certain way because we wrongly suggested a more complex game.

          Comment


          • #20
            Soren,

            First, thanks for the responses. Second, I'm glad Firaxis will be looking into the tech progess rate. Small changes are probably all that's needed.

            I understand what you're saying about the AI tech trading. I accept that it is trading according to the rules (which, on the level I play, Monarch, are skewed to give the AI advantages). However, I don't think that Fission (for example) should ever be worth 1 gold, no matter how many other civs know it. There should probably be a minimum cost for a tech. This would prevent AI's from catching up from 4 techs behind by giving up its already-known-by-all world map and 5 gold. I think that's the really annoying part. The new AI trading has made the game harder... but has also brought back the old Civ II "the world is against me" feeling, which many of us strongly disliked.

            Aggressive tech trading between two advanced civs that have cash and/or luxuries to trade is fine, I welcome the challenge.

            -Arrian
            grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

            The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Arrian
              Soren,

              First, thanks for the responses. Second, I'm glad Firaxis will be looking into the tech progess rate. Small changes are probably all that's needed.

              I understand what you're saying about the AI tech trading. I accept that it is trading according to the rules (which, on the level I play, Monarch, are skewed to give the AI advantages). However, I don't think that Fission (for example) should ever be worth 1 gold, no matter how many other civs know it. There should probably be a minimum cost for a tech. This would prevent AI's from catching up from 4 techs behind by giving up its already-known-by-all world map and 5 gold. I think that's the really annoying part. The new AI trading has made the game harder... but has also brought back the old Civ II "the world is against me" feeling, which many of us strongly disliked.

              Aggressive tech trading between two advanced civs that have cash and/or luxuries to trade is fine, I welcome the challenge.

              -Arrian
              I would guess that the civ you were trying to trade it to was 1 turn away from discovering it, so it was only willing to give away very little.
              - What's that?
              - It's a cannon fuse.
              - What's it for?
              - It's for my cannon.

              Comment


              • #22
                No, I don't think that was it. Before I sold Fission, I checked what each civ (no one but me had it) would pay. I chose the best two and sold to them. After that, I got the 1 gold offer. Before, it had been quite a bit more, just not as much as the others.

                Obviously, if England was a few turns from Fission, that would lower their offer, which may be why the French and Germans offered more to begin with. But still, 1 gold?? 1 gold to save an entire turn of research is pretty cheap.

                I noticed stuff like this consistently throughout the game, not just with Fission. After selling to two civs, the tech is worthless. The remaining civs offer 1 gold or even NOTHING for it ("I don't think such a deal is possible"), even if they were offering their entire treasury and some gold/turn before I starting selling. Of course, they all have it on the next turn, because the other AI's take the 1 gold deal.

                -Arrian
                grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Arrian
                  Soren,

                  First, thanks for the responses. Second, I'm glad Firaxis will be looking into the tech progess rate. Small changes are probably all that's needed.

                  I understand what you're saying about the AI tech trading. I accept that it is trading according to the rules (which, on the level I play, Monarch, are skewed to give the AI advantages). However, I don't think that Fission (for example) should ever be worth 1 gold, no matter how many other civs know it. There should probably be a minimum cost for a tech.

                  -Arrian
                  Arian, I absolutely agree.
                  The "outdated" techs are dropping in value too quickly
                  and way too much.
                  This was a problem even before the 1.17f.
                  GOWIEHOWIE! Uh...does that
                  even mean anything?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Arrian
                    No, I don't think that was it. Before I sold Fission, I checked what each civ (no one but me had it) would pay. I chose the best two and sold to them. After that, I got the 1 gold offer. Before, it had been quite a bit more, just not as much as the others.

                    Obviously, if England was a few turns from Fission, that would lower their offer, which may be why the French and Germans offered more to begin with. But still, 1 gold?? 1 gold to save an entire turn of research is pretty cheap.

                    I noticed stuff like this consistently throughout the game, not just with Fission. After selling to two civs, the tech is worthless. The remaining civs offer 1 gold or even NOTHING for it ("I don't think such a deal is possible"), even if they were offering their entire treasury and some gold/turn before I starting selling. Of course, they all have it on the next turn, because the other AI's take the 1 gold deal.

                    -Arrian
                    well, one thing to be aware of is that once you sell the tech to two civs, the research cost will drop by 25% (assuming 8 civs still alive...), so a civ which was 10 turns away might now be 1 turn away.

                    however, I would be surprised if this is true for all the other civs. If you would be willing to post a saved game with an example, I would be happy to look at it.
                    - What's that?
                    - It's a cannon fuse.
                    - What's it for?
                    - It's for my cannon.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Soren,

                      Hmm, I did forget about the research rate cut - so maybe Elizabeth suddenly was 1 turn from Fission like you said.

                      As for a saved game, thanks for the offer to check it out. I'd really like to oblige, since you've taken the time to answer my questions. But due to the size of the save files, I tend to have one save per game I play, which I repeatedly save over. So, unfortunately, I only have the 1812AD save, the turn before I won via the UN. However, if I encounter another situation like this that jumps out at me, I will try to remember to save it, zip it, and send it your way.

                      -Arrian
                      grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                      The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The AI will sell techs cheap if you've almost completed them, one gold even. It's been that way as long as I've been playing.

                        I like the new system better than the AI trading on my turn. That really was frustrating. People have reported that it has turned up the speed a lot... but the advance rate can be quite slow in the early game, even so. Could we have early techs reduced in required beakers and medieval/industrial increased?

                        Soren's advice of increasing tech investment in the early game works, but I still had the situation where I fell behind anyway and was faced with buying what I had halfway researched. I ended up going ballistic on a neighbor, extorting techs for peace. I never really had to do that so much before 1.17, it was really fun. By the time the industrial era came the AI civs didn't want to give me RoPs due to peace treaty violations. It was a good game, but required some ruthless behavior.
                        Above all, avoid zeal. --Tallyrand.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          rational against human AI

                          Greetings from Germany,
                          excuse me for interrupting, but I am afraid we see two different approaches for a Civ AI design here, that probably may cause a serious imbalance of the two Civ gaming philosophies that do exist, as Soren is creating the ultimate machine for the one fraction while the other fraction gets lost:

                          One fraction (including Soren), lets call them "rational hardcore" players, love to develop and play a perfect RATIONAL strategy game with a perfect rational AI intelligence and behavior

                          The other fraction (including me), lets call them "humanists", like to play the Civ series as a kind of HUMAN history simulator - and history isn't rational at all, as humans and their societies are not organized like computers

                          As Soren is the driving force behind the Civ3 AI we may come to the point when Soren creates the optimal rational Civ "chess" computer, perfectly fitting the desires of the "rational hardcore" players. But at the same moment the gameplay probably may have not much to do anymore with "real" world history and the game may be painful to play for humanists who feel like playing against inhuman opponents.

                          I think to the current point Soren did a tremendous job in designing a rational AI. But on behalf of the "humanist" fraction I plead to go a step further now and implement the "irrational" behavior of the human nature too. Currently the AI only distinguishes nations by their aggressiveness. I suggest to also implement human values like ethics, morale or belief. Probably then the gameplay would also be more surprising and demanding on the long run because of the unpredictability of human behavior.

                          Of course an artificial "human" intelligence would be much more complicated to do than an artificial "rational" intelligence. But it is possible and enjoyable (for example SMAC used a very simple but already playable "human" concept). Basically you could start with setting the human values to some initial settings that influence how likely the AI will deal with each other, for example: who wants to trade techs with a bastard of a leader if he isn't a bastard also? Hitler and Stalin may trade well with each other, but Lincoln shouldn't even consider to do any trade at all with them. You see, human values DO influence decisions.
                          Kai · Team www.civilized.de

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            [I]f you're like me, and don't make diplomatic contact every single turn, you can miss out occasionally.

                            Speaking of making diplo contact every turn... I know I should, but it's tedious. I really wish there was a screen that showed (with an embassy) what each civ has for tech, money, luxuries, resources, and pacts. That, and a screen showing all of your active deals (e.g. dyes to greeks for 10g/turn, 7 turns left). Basically, the F2 screen on steroids.

                            -Arrian

                            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Amen, Arrian. If success in the game is now going to be so highly dependent on diplomatic persistence and precision, then the lack of tools to accomplish same is a pain which is now more acutely felt than ever.

                            Soren, none of the strategies you suggest are any news to me, but post-patch, they are of extremely limited utility in the ancient era, when the AI's are chronicly and acutely cash poor, but tech rich. You've already identified why the strategy can't be applied in that circumstance, because the AI understands the distinction between you research ability and its own, and applies it to the deal, it doesn't respect your research efforts. Such strategies pay off much better in the medieval era, when the AIs economies become more cash-flow generating and cash-flow dependent, and deals can be structured in terms of cash--taking them away from being skewed by disparate research rates. In the ancient era, such strategies will leave you in possession of something no one can afford to pay value for, at least until the crossing of that barrier which transforms it almost instantly into something that no one will want to pay value for. Little windows of opportunity do exist in between, I'll grant, but as Arrian observes, a lack of tools designed with this purpose/strategy in mind means searching them out involves enduring a certain level of tedium--one that, quite frankly, I can't bring myself to endure.

                            In the ancient era, there is a much more efficient and direct solution: let that lame little civ on the island get the techs for you, then beat the techs out of 'em. For the price of a relatively small number of horsies, all of those treasures that the weak civ never paid fair value for, and is too weak to defend, fall into your hands when that lopsided peace treaty gets negotiated. As tedious as combat can be, it's still a lot less tedious than bringing up seven negotiation dialogues every single turn to see if the stars and planets have aligned in such a way as to bring you a deal you can live with. It's also a much cheaper investment of in-game resources than enduring a series of lopsided trades that, at best, leave you one tech step behind at the end of the deal.

                            I'd also figured out on my own that it is an *extremely* bad idea to let the AIs get the opinon (pardon my anthropomorphizing) that they've got these greatly valuable worldmaps when you don't. I've always known that it seemed to get in the way of making ancient era deals. Now I've got a better idea why.

                            BTW, for my fellow players, a workaround that I've discovered--in the event that you don't want to play an expansionist civ every game just to block the AI's grandly inflated vision of the value of its worldmap--is that AI civs are still apt to trade territory maps straight up even when they want an arm and a leg for worldmap. Work out a few territory map swaps, and the price of the AI worldmap plummets. This will get you past that map-swapping bottleneck when you aren't an expansionist civ.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I would contend that those two factions make up a tiny minority of civers. I would suspect that most who have bought Civ3 expected a game that would be simple in its design but deep in its execution. This has been the trademark of most of Sid's games from RRT to Civ1 and Civ2 to SimGolf. I believe the complexities introduced in Civ3, whether they worked or not, created a game that is less approachable and therefore, tends to be more work than fun. To go even further to the extremes of rationalism or humanism would create a game that truly becomes a niche.

                              Why, oh why must we continue to hash out needless complexities of the regular game when the scenarios/full editor and MP would satisfy a larger customer base??

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                soren said the AI trades within the rules, well, the nazi's siezed power in germany, technically, within the rules, and made it legal to kill jews. it didnt make it fair or right.
                                eimi men anthropos pollon logon, mikras de sophias

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X