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

[Heinrich IV]

Originally posted by Pius Popprasch
A.I. players research Chivalry and so do I. It seems that the Middle Ages are a weak time of the A.I. forces to me and my Knights hardly encounter Musketmen(def:4). Saltpeter needs to be connected and available and more often than not my neighbor doesn't have it. Cavalry is confronted with Riflemen(def:5) and even Infantry(def:8). Riflemen don't need resources.

Regarding the topic of this thread: I also would like to have more one-for-one trades.

what level are you playing on? It sound very much like my games on the lower two, where the AI is slower than the human, but on Regent I only once (tiny map) had any use out of Chivalry......... Also, the Ai trades Saltpeter extremely chaep to other AI in my experience... i made the mistake of going for a broke, iron&saltpeter lacking civ with Knights - they suddenly got Saltpeter from someone and 6 turns later had Riflemen - I was struggling to reach Economics and missing 4 other techs for the new age....

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Heinrich IV

Good luck! I tried - but tech is so fast that your militray is outdated when it reaches the enemy while you`ll quickly find your Spearmen attacked by Longbowmen.

I`d like to simply cut research beakers by half thus doubling the number of turns for each research......

Well, I had a slim tech lead going into the middle ages in my game last night. I had built marketplaces everywhere (well, everywhere that wasn't horribly corrupt). More horsemen in certain places would have been better, I think. There may have been a short window of opportunity in the early middle ages for me to hit the Chinese (my southern neighbor who later betrayed me). What actually happened was that Shaka attacked me. He was terribly weak, so winning was easy... but I actually ended up buying chivalry, as I had ignored it for other techs. I upgraded what horsemen I had and crushed him. China, my ally vs. the Zulu, attacked the Indians. At that moment, I should have joined in on India's side. That I did not was a mistake. I wasn't really ready to fight China, but we all know how the AI deals w/two front war. If I'd had just a few more knights (say... 5) I would have done it. I am also going to have to adjust my wonder priorities. I cannot allow the AI to beat me to Copernicus. I will give up Leo's for that. That should help.

-Arrian

[Heinrich IV]

Originally posted by Arrian If I'd had just a few more knights (say... 5) I would have done it. I am also going to have to adjust my wonder priorities. I cannot allow the AI to beat me to Copernicus. I will give up Leo's for that. That should help.

-Arrian

5 more Knights - well I can only say they`d been enough for me to kill 1 unprotected Musketman - will you tell me numbers for next weeks lottery?????

I`m happy with 1.16, Regent or Monarch. That is: I rock, especially militarily, while under 1.16 I sometimes don`t know why I buil units in the first place. They die without resistance, anyway!

[Pius Popprasch]

Originally posted by Heinrich IV what level are you playing on?

Emperor. In my current game I skipped Knights for other reasons but my opponents(Japanese) either don't have any muskets at all or very few. They have some Riflemen, though.

Want a save file?

[Heinrich IV]

Originally posted by Pius Popprasch
Emperor. In my current game I skipped Kights for other reasons but my opponents(Japanese) either don't have any muskets at all or very few. They have some riflemen, though.

Want a save file?

Watch them go from a few Riflemen to lots when you attack them - one thing the AI learned in the patch is upgrading!!!!! They save the money as long as they can so you`ll see lots of Spearmen - then they upgrade (even if the`re broke, another mystery).

Yes, I`d like the save, but I reverted to 1.16 so it wouldn`t run. I`ll try and sk Firaxis if it`s possible to have two parallel installations of Civ by using different user profiles for Windows - if so I`d make one 1.16 and the other 1.17.....

[bahoo]

It's just plain impossible that the AI treats other AI the same as it treats the human. Whether tech trading or anything else trading. If it did there would NEVER be any AI to AI deals.

The AI always wants 2+ resources or luxuries for a single resource or luxury.

The AI always wants all your money a ridiculous amount per turn, a map and all techs you have for a tech that only it knows.

For a World Map they usually want a World Map plus a tech even if you're world map covers 80% of the known world.

Now if the AI gave these demands to another AI, do you really think if they treated each other like you that they would come to a consensus? I don't think so. I occasionally offer the AI my World Map for theirs and a tech, or I'll offer them a resource for two of theirs and some gold per turn. Guess what, they always tell me to go pound salt! But I'm supposed to believe when the AI offers the other AI such a deal they can work it out?

To sit here and suggest that two AIs who have no concept whatsoever of fair value when dealing with a player and absolutely no willingness to negotiate down, could somehow come to agreement when dealing with each other without treating the AI differently than the player, is complete malarkey!

Not to mention with the new patch, the AIs are all ridiculous tech whores now. You can't teach any Civ a new tech without every other tech getting it the next turn (assuming they're linked with communications). I traded Greece metallurgy and the cavalry tech at a discounted price so they could help fight the Indians better, whom they were also at war with. I was 2 or 3 techs ahead of the next closest civ at the time. Two turns later India had cavalry, and I checked around and everyone had gotten the two techs by one means or another, in spite of the fact that we were in a world war. Of course if the AI does happen to get a tech ahead of you, they will no doubt trade it to every other civ within a couple of turns, thereby allowing you to pick it up for dirt cheap since you'll be the only one who doesn't know it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by nbarclay

One last thing: I'd like to wholeheartedly endorse the idea of having a simple way to know when the trading status of any of the AI civs changes significantly (i.e. they gain a new tech or have a significant change in their cashflow). I tend toward big maps with lots of civs, and checking with each of a dozen or so civs even every four turns or so, much less every turn, tends to be very tedious. My ideal would be a "trading status change" screen that provides a quick look specifically at significant changes in what the AI civs can trade rather than having to look through every detail and pick out the changes yourself.

Nathan

One good way of doing this would be to have an Advisor's report at the end of every turn, which show any changes that would be of interest. This could also show trade deals, or anything that Domestic nag might want to bring to your attention. Maybe have a section for each advisor, with some sort of indicator whether any of them had anything of importance to report. If they do, you can click on their section and get a more detailed listing. If they don't, you just close the screen and the game resumes.

[ikol]

This is the reason why you don't even need to bother spending money researching. You will never ever get a tech lead with 1.17. In fact, the trading which takes place allows you to grab techs for nothing. You will be one tech behind, but rich!
I want patch now !

loki

[bahoo]

Additionally with the high speed tech trading, the acceleration of advances is out of control. I'd like to get to use some of my old time units throughout the game.

Playing Rome I got about 5 legionaries built before they were outdated in favor of knights. I never got any boats built prior to inventing the destroyer.

It was noticeable to some degree with prior patches, certain units were rarely used, namely frigates/man'o'wars because they came to quick before the superior ironclad. Now it seems to be affecting even more areas of the game.

[Heinrich IV]

Originally posted by ikol
. In fact, the trading which takes place allows you to grab techs for nothing.
loki

Yep, grab it in 4 turns! When I try to buy my way through the tech tree they block me from advanced governments and inportant military tech, then attack even if I have a strong military compared to them -and their advanced units almost always come through...

[Arrian]

Well, certainly not "nothing." Even if all the AI's have a tech, you, the player, aren't gonna get it for 1 gold.

The AI clearly evaluates AI-AI luxury trades differently than AI-Human ones, as well. Hell, that was true in 1.16. Example:

I have 3 local luxuries, 2 of which are monopolies. I am the largest civ, so yes, a luxury is worth more to me than to other civs. So I make two 2 for 1 deals and get 2 more as imports. That's 5. I investigate an Indian city and see that India has 7 out of the 8 luxuries. India, bear in mind, is a medium sized civ with 1 local luxury, with a near-monopoly (all but 1). Now, 2 of those 7 they have are mine, as India was one of the civs I did a 2 for 1 deal with. Fine. But the other 4? They must be 1-for-1's, which the player almost never gets. Now, I would be fine with this, except for the fact that India, despite theoretically having to pay for all these luxury imports, is able to keep up in tech.

Yes, I'm whining. Let's just get that out of the way. I'm whining because the patch has, IMO, turned the game into human vs. a nearly united AI, which has taken a lot of the fun out of the game for me. It sucks, frankly, to have carefully guided your civ into a strong position, only to have that position undermined in a virtual instant, through no fault of your own.

I think what I'm trying to say is that, from my point of view, 1.17 has tipped the balance of AI advantages from a level that I can accept as "fair" (actually, I agreed that the AI needed some more help in 1.16) to a level I do not perceive as fair. It's not that the AI is cheating anymore than it did already, it's just that the AI has been taught how to properly exploit those cheats within the rules. The new AI tech trading is devastating because of the research advantage the AI's have. If you're up against 7 other civs, each of which can research techs for 90% of what you have to spend, and then they can trade amongst one another at a discount (techs cheaper in AI-AI deals b/c of the research advantage, whereas the human must ante up full price), it's really hard to keep up, let alone lead, even if that's your main focus.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Peaceful vs Warmonger -

After trying a lot of different trading scenarios on Deity, it does seem that the AI has to pay for their techs. Just with the discounted tech rate they have, and only having to pay 1/2. The AI's tech price seems to be about 1/4 or 1/5 of what the player would have to pay to get the same tech under the same circumstances. I actually like tech trading how it is now, a definite challenge just to keep up.

The problem is that there hasn't been a comparative decrease in military power. Getting rid of pop rushing (sorta) just delays military buildup, but doesn't disallow military supremacy once that buildup is achieved. The tech trading system doesn't allow for building up any kind of tech lead on higher difficulties. It upsets me though that my prefered playstyle (military rush and expansion) is becoming more and more of a copout, because of the relative weakness of peaceful building to military domination.

As a warmonger, a player can compete directly with 1 civ in military situations, or even be part of the military "loop" by signing alliances and MPP's. As a tech trader, it is the player against the world. A trade embargo doesn't help the player get in the trading loop, it just weakens their overall ability to keep up. The fewer AI that have a tech, the higher price it will cost the player. Also the techs that a player gets to first won't be worth as much if they can't sell them to every AI. In a game with 1 AI, military and trading are balanced, but in most games it favors the warmonger. This allows the warmonger to play on higher difficulties, which devalues those difficulties and frustrates the more peaceful players.

I would prefer to see warfare become more challenging, though I do realize that upgrading the AI in this area would be quite a task. I assume that production bonuses lower the prices AI's have to pay to upgrade, but do they also get the same 1/2 price advantage that they are allowed while buying techs? It would be nice to see the AI try to keep a gold reserve expressly for upgrading as well. Their tech rate would be a bit lower, trades a little less likely, and their military tougher. Having the AI favor building/reserving more mobile units for defense would help as well.

Ganging Up -

The more powerful the player is militarily, the less the AI will ask for when signing alliances and MPP's. This is more in line with reality, but opposite of the "AI vs Player" mentality the AI has in tech trading. Militarily agressive players should have alliances formed against them, not with.

Specialist Rushing -

Not directly related, but part of the "war vs peace" problem. It is still possible to overcome all unhappiness buildup by turning all citizens into specialists. This makes pop rushing still viable in some situations. While at war, there is an almost unlimited supply of captured workers available. The 1 turn worker factory has been dealt with, but in high food areas it is still possible to set up 2 turn worker factories. Most highly corrupt cities can build a worker every 10 turns. By adding these workers to "specialist camps" they can instantly be turned into military units. The captured workers allow for self perpetuating conquest. The corrupt cities are now producing 4 shields per turn instead of 1. The 2 turn worker factories are producing 20 shields per turn instead of 5. Specialist rushing needs to have drawbacks as well. Perhaps instead of making more people unhappy, pop rushing would first make an unhappy person into a resistor. This would eliminate the effectiveness of specialist rushing.

Forgetting Unhappiness -

Settlers don't remember unhappiness, and this allows for the player to not have to deal with any long term effects of specialist rushing. Once the military production is complete, the city is disbanded by rushing a settler, and can be rebuilt with no happiness concerns.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Aeson
It would be nice to see the AI try to keep a gold reserve expressly for upgrading as well. Their tech rate would be a bit lower, trades a little less likely, and their military tougher. Having the AI favor building/reserving more mobile units for defense would help as well.

You know, that idea might be able to kill two birds with one stone. Let's say that every AI civ has a reserve and that they have to set aside a certain amount of gold for per turn. This can only be used for upgrading units, nothing else. For example, they have a reserve of 1000 gold, and every turn they have to put in at least 5 gold until that reserve is full. It would be like a perpetual trade deal, but with themselves. That means that they will always have less gold per turn available for trading, and they would almost always have some cash on hand for upgrading.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Aeson

As a tech trader, it is the player against the world. A trade embargo doesn't help the player get in the trading loop, it just weakens their overall ability to keep up. The fewer AI that have a tech, the higher price it will cost the player. Also the techs that a player gets to first won't be worth as much if they can't sell them to every AI. In a game with 1 AI, military and trading are balanced, but in most games it favors the warmonger. This allows the warmonger to play on higher difficulties, which devalues those difficulties and frustrates the more peaceful players.

Agreed.

1) Player research rate is lower than AI, therefore AI can discover things faster.
2) AI knows this, and factors this in to trade calculations.
3) AI is coded to trade tech immediately, for whatever it's worth, which drops dramatically as more civs learn the tech.

Here's the problem with #2 and 3: An AI civ, let's say France, has discovered Magnetism. It is the first to do so. Joan calls up another AI civ and wants to trade Magnetism. Joan charges 300 gold for it. If Joan had called up a human player, it would have cost more, because Joan "knows" that it takes more beakers for the human player to discover Magnetism on his/her own. That's bassackwards. The AI should charge the same rate for a tech no matter who is buying. In theory, EACH AI civ is playing to win, which means Joan should be stingy with tech to both the human and the other AI's. Further, there has to be a floor on how low tech cost can drop.

The AI, of course, knows how fast it can research things, and that should remain a factor when the human (or any other AI) wants to trade tech. If an AI is 1 turn away, refusing to pay or offering 5 gold and a map is fine. But the seller should reject that offer!

-Arrian

p.s. I think I actually liked the 1.16 occasional "oops, we traded a tech on your turn" thing better.

[Arrian]

One more thought:

I think eliminating a civ hurts the player badly. I could be wrong, but I think the tech devaluation formula works based on the # of existing civs. So, if you start out with 8 civs, and 2 of them know a tech, the cost drops by 25%. Fast forward into the mid-game. Two civs eliminated, 6 survive. Now if two civs know a tech, the value drops by 33%. And so on. This may be why the AI has such an easy time demolishing my tech lead in the Middle Ages.

Therefore, beat an enemy down to 1 city, but leave them alive! You're shooting yourself in the foot if you kill them off.

-Arrian