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

[Heinrich IV]

Re: Downloaded the patch on Friday...

Originally posted by ShuShu
And I must admit I like this new model better. I play on emperor. I find I have manged to get and keep a tech lead, albeit only for a short time.

Hey ShuShu!
That`s just great to read! In my experience, though, I`ve never managed to stay at peace. They simply come for me, at the latest when all space on ym island/continent is taken. And since they don`t sell me military techs or resources I`m usually 1 step behind in units - and loose. Like 5:1 to 10:1 for battles - game over!

Since I went back to 1.16 it`s fun again, but I`d sure love to play with ICBMs and stck movement and fixed culture flips.....

[ShuShu]

Small Islands are death

If you are the only target an AI has to attack, they will attack. But if there is another, you can generally convince the two to fight each other.

When you offer to buy a tech for cash, the AI will give you a big lump sum number. Counter the offer with the same value but as much as possible in Per Turn payments. They are far less likely to attack if they still have credits headed their way. The same is true for luxuries and resources.

Interestingly, the Great Library can appear to be a disadvantage as you will have nothing to buy!!! Then the cash goes to 'Gifts' or at least alliance payments.

[Heinrich IV]

Re: Small Islands are death

Originally posted by ShuShu
If you are the only target an AI has to attack, they will attack. But if there is another, you can generally convince the two to fight each other.

When you offer to buy a tech for cash, the AI will give you a big lump sum number. Counter the offer with the same value but as much as possible in Per Turn payments. They are far less likely to attack if they still have credits headed their way. The same is true for luxuries and resources.

Interestingly, the Great Library can appear to be a disadvantage as you will have nothing to buy!!! Then the cash goes to 'Gifts' or at least alliance payments.

Usually I play with many AI and end up with only 1 neighbour or with several one of which is militaristic - ouch! OK, I can sometimes get them to fight between them and leave me alone, but it soon comes to the point where I start loosing towns - they will go for my towns if I start outculturing them. So whatever I do, I loose. Maybe it`s the kind of map I`m playing (standart, 8 civ, random but almost always get only 60% land)

[Willem]

Re: Small Islands are death

Originally posted by ShuShu
If you are the only target an AI has to attack, they will attack. But if there is another, you can generally convince the two to fight each other.

I find quite often having a military alliance with a civ that isn't even close to my enemy's territory is enough to ensure a short war. And the more I can get on my side, the shorter it gets, regardless of whether they're neighbours or not. Just a threat of a 3 front war is enough to make him think twice about dragging the conflict out. I also suspect that the AI civs have a memory of past alliances, and as long as I am at peace with my former allies after the war, then I'm generally left alone.

[belchingjester]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis


They aren't allowed to sign per-turn deals they can't pay.

Soren, as others have noted, it's strange that they "would never make such a deal" when you're asking for 3gpt and they don't have the cash flow, but they have 60 gold in the bank and cleaning out their treasury is fine.

Are there plans to allow them to use their treasury to pay gold per turn agreements? It would make a lot of sense...

Saurus, thanks for the tip re: raising tax rate before negotiating. Soren, that's the flip side of the same coin. Logically I should be able to pay a gpt agreement out of my treasury, right?

Thanks for the insights - I understand a lot better now, although parts still don't "make sense" to me
-belchingjester

[Arrian]

I think I'd like to play a couple of games with the tech rate adjusted (Soren said Firaxis was looking at the tech advancement rate closely) before making a final judgement on the AI tech trading under 1.17f.

Like many posters have pointed out, it is certainly possible to gain a tech lead, it's holding that lead that has become very difficult (ToE really helps, of course, so it's easiest to hold the lead after building it). However, if one had enough time to take advantage of a slim tech lead, it would be worthwhile to attempt to out-research the AI. As it stands now, on Monarch, by the time I have enough knights to think about attacking an enemy, gunpowder has made the rounds. Another very slim window of opportunity exists between Mil. Tradition and Nationalism (unfortunately for me, that has been the time period where the AI has caught and passed me in both my post-patch games).

However, my main concern remains immersion (nod to Analyst Redux for setting forth this problem better than I did). The "human vs. united AI" feeling is a problem for me, and I'd bet a lot of other civers. As a matter of fact, one of the things I liked best about pre-1.17 Civ III was that it didn't give me that feeling, unlike Civ II. The other main thing I liked was the balance between warmongering and peaceful building (although warmongering remained very successful, and resulted in a higher score, the balance was pretty good). Challenging gameplay is important, and changing the AI tech trading was an attempt to increase the challenge. At the end of the day, however, immersion is more important than challenge. Why? Because one can always come up with personal challenges (score, OCC, launch date, combinations of the foregoing broken down by map size and type, etc.). After all, no matter what is done to help the AI, humans will figure out how to beat it.

-Arrian

[belchingjester]

Good display screens...

Many people have asked for a good "summary display" screen for everything that happens in between human turns. I think that would improve the flow immeasurably. I liked the screen SMAC had for messages - obviously this type of message collection would fit into the Civ3 GUI much differently.

This would avoid the check-every-turn tedium that now happens during tight periods.

Perhaps there could even be options for what types of messages one would like to see? I really liked the wealth of "display this message" checkboxes in Civ2 and SMAC compared to Civ3's options. Perhaps this is an "advanced menu" type of thing.

-belchingjester

[Random Passerby]

I see the people who are most strongly against the aggressive tech trading tend to have two traits in common:

1. They eschew any and all research.
2. They complain that they can't get any tech lead.

This is, of course, over-generalizing the issue, but still I find that well-planned research and tax distribution can keep you competitive at least on Regent and Monarch, and probably even higher if you're cutthroat enough. More importantly, it keeps everyone ELSE competitive. In my average game of 1.16f on the middle difficulties, the game's outcome would be set in stone by the early industrial age. In 1.17f, tech leads are shakier and comebacks are easier for both AI AND human civs.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Random Passerby
I see the people who are most strongly against the aggressive tech trading tend to have two traits in common:

1. They eschew any and all research.
2. They complain that they can't get any tech lead.

Having read this thread, I disagree. #1 is wrong. In fact, the people who are complaining (myself included) are those who concentrate on research, in an attempt to out-research the AI. #2 is partially correct. The complaint isn't about getting a tech lead, it's that it is darn near impossible to hold it - even if you have a large, prosperous civ with all sorts of Wonders.

Yes, it is possible on Monarch (I will not speak to higher levels which I do not play) to gain a tech lead. Holding it is very difficult, no matter how big, rich, and wonderous your civ is. This is due to tech devaluation, coupled with the current incarnation of AI tech trading.

Look, I don't want it to go back to 1.16, where the game was essentially over at the start of the industrial age. I think Soren and the gang were on the right track with 1.17, but have overdone it.

-Arrian

[Random Passerby]

I wasn't actually particularly serious about that... it just struck me as humorous the way those two propositions were being brought up by a couple people.

I still don't see any problem though. As per my usual luck, I usually end up stranded on some crappy island and end up with a small but densely settled and highly developed territory. With a little work, I can maintain only a very small tech lead, which seems about right to me. That even very large empires can only maintain a couple techs' lead, even late in the game when everyone else is foundering, also seems about right; I was never a big fan of how huge empires automatically equated to utter domination (OK, so with corruption this isn't necessarily true, but empires two to three times the size of the "average" civilization are still often small enough that they get considerable benefit from their added bulk).

In general, I think that the only real problem here is the pace of advance now... before, even with a laid-back game you'd often end up reaching new eras a couple centuries before the real-world benchmark, but now things are just silly. A generally slower but still mostly aggresively-traded tech race would probably be in order.

[JeffNebraska]

Just to sum up again, it's not that it's impossible to have a good game, it's just that the ride up the science tree is simply not part of it anymore. The devaluing of the techs has made it impossible to do anything but scamper up the the tree at virtually the same pace as everyone else.

Think of it this way Soren, wouldn't it be less fun if every nation automatically got each tech on the same date (e.g., Alphabet at 3200 BC, Military Trad. at 800 AD). You'd agree that would REMOVE the science race from the game. The 1.17 system is inches away from that reality.

With a little work, that ain't much fun, all the nations are just about the same at all times.

[player1]

FACT I:
If you don't have much better economy then AI, trading techs to everybody is a good way to go. That way, you can discover next tech quicker by moving sliders to 80, 90%.
In fact, it's the only way to actuelly keep science lead, if having worse economy then some AIs.

I know from expirience (try playing builder type game on emperor)


FACT II:
If you have MUCH better econmy then AIs, then not-trading techs could be usefull.

Unfortunately having SUPER-ECONOMY might is not realy possibile in Civ3.

Why?
Ask Soren about corruption model.


FACT III:
In real world, most tech backward contries don't have 5% of USA GNP, so making real world vs Civ3 comparations is not OK.
In civ3 gold&science differences are much lower.

FACT IV:
AI knows FACTS I & II.

FACT III is irrelevant to AI.

When some AI trades tech, it befefits him most (read FACT I), not other AIs which get free tech.

So don't complain if AIs are plating best way they can.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think I'd like to play a couple of games with the tech rate adjusted (Soren said Firaxis was looking at the tech advancement rate closely) before making a final judgement on the AI tech trading under 1.17f.

Like many posters have pointed out, it is certainly possible to gain a tech lead, it's holding that lead that has become very difficult (ToE really helps, of course, so it's easiest to hold the lead after building it). However, if one had enough time to take advantage of a slim tech lead, it would be worthwhile to attempt to out-research the AI. As it stands now, on Monarch, by the time I have enough knights to think about attacking an enemy, gunpowder has made the rounds. Another very slim window of opportunity exists between Mil. Tradition and Nationalism (unfortunately for me, that has been the time period where the AI has caught and passed me in both my post-patch games).

You have a good point there. I think if the overall tech advancement speed was lowered, then this new aggressive trading may turn out to be just right in terms of being challenging. I've noticed myself that quite often on a huge map, that I'd be in the Industrial Age by the 1600-1700's. The whole timeline seems to be rushed, and the later it gets, the faster it goes. I think the Middle Ages especially should be taking longer than it is.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by player1
FACT II:
If you have MUCH better econmy then AIs, then not-trading techs could be usefull.

Unfortunately having SUPER-ECONOMY might is not realy possibile in Civ3.

Why?
Ask Soren about corruption model.

I have had "super-economies" on Emperor level in one of my recent 1.17f games. I was popping out tanks every turn, about 500 gold per turn. No other civs even had infantry yet. I quit that game and counted it as a win. So it is possible.

(I certainly don't do this every game, but it is possible!)

[player1]

Originally posted by Zachriel


I have had "super-economies" on Emperor level in one of my recent 1.17f games. I was popping out tanks every turn, about 500 gold per turn. No other civs even had infantry yet. I quit that game and counted it as a win. So it is possible.

(I certainly don't do this every game, but it is possible!)

Great, so real TECH lead is possbile.
And since you had so HIGH income&science you really didn't need to do any tech-sells (at the end).

Great!



P.S.
Post a save.