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

[kimmygibler]

There is no use researching now. This is now my biggest problem with the game. Some incentive has to be given to research over trade.

[Ironikinit]

Again, I have to say that yes, I can get a tech lead, and that requires research. Tech lead = research. Hello?

Haven't noticed the AI trading on my turn, either. Not since installing 1.17, anyway.

[Lancer]

Though the AI does seem to get a sci advantage through trade that isn't open to me I can usually manage to beat the sci I need out of one of them. However it can turn into an early world war which resembles more of a fight for survival without techs to trade to gain allies like in 1.16f. If things go well it's a nice option to be able to catch up on sci through peace agreements, but must be a much tougher game for pacifist players since 1.17f.

In my opinion the AI advantage was a good idea... but went slightly too far in 1.17f.

[monkeyman]

Re: Various points

Originally posted by Zachriel

Though only a few nations have nuclear subs, many have the technology. They are just not very useful in today's world. For instance, I'm sure Norway or Israel could build one, but why would they?

World nuclear sub club:

Britain 13
France 11
China 6
U.S. 101
Russia 110, er 109
India is building one

Could Israel or Norway really build nuclear subs that are anywhere near as effective as those of the US or Russia? Is the Indian nuclear sub going to be anything but a feather in their cap? I have my doubts. Another example is the question of Israel and its air force. How much of that is actually manufactured in Israel? How much are they buying? In fact, technology transfer is very complicated and must take into account secondary (applied) technologies which reduce the cost of utilizing more advanced applied and theoretical technologies.

Secondarily is the question of equivalent technologies. Just because a country can produce jet fighters does not mean that those jet fighters are going to be competetive with the jets of the most modern countries. If a country produces a fighter equivalent to those flown by the US during the Korean conflict, they will have NO chance against a US F-16 for example. Also see my question about nuclear subs. I think we saw some of this in the Gulf war re the anti-air missile tech that Iraq was using being almost totally ineffective.

So technology transfer has to take this into account, and thus in this simple CIVIII tech model tech transfer SHOULD be slower if we are going to nod to reality.

FFT

-MM

[m_m_x]

some off topic fact
israel has nuclear subs....

[Zachriel]

Re: Re: Various points

Originally posted by monkeyman
Could Israel or Norway really build nuclear subs that are anywhere near as effective as those of the US or Russia? Is the Indian nuclear sub going to be anything but a feather in their cap? I have my doubts. -MM

Any sub with a nuclear missile is certainly no mere window dressing.

Concerning your point that techs in Civ3 transfer too fast; the U.S. exploded our first A-bomb in 1945, the Soviets exploded their first H-bomb in 1953.

I've found that technology transfers at different rates depending on the strategic situation. Yes, sometimes every Civ is at approximately the same level of technology. Other times, if the AIs are fighting they don't transfer techs at all. And once a Civ falls behind, it rarely catches up, as it has no money to buy techs and can't develop them independently.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by m_m_x
some off topic fact
israel has nuclear subs....

I thought that all Israel's subs are diesel, either Dolphin-class or the older German Gal-class. ?

(Of course, they are certainly capable of launching nuclear missiles.)

[m_m_x]

lately we bought some new dolphin class subs from germany
they are already have been modified to lunch nuclear missiles...

[Zachriel]

Why Civs trade techs

Civs have a strong incentive to trade techs.

Case: Behind in techs.
This is obvious. If you are behind, you certainly hope that other Civs will provide you technology.

Case: Ahead in techs.
Looking at the strategic situation, you usually see that some Civs are stronger than others. The stronger Civs are your rivals. By supporting the independence of the smaller Civs, you are countering your rivals. Your rivals must expend resources to defend, or if they are attacking, they will need more force to accomplish the same goal.

So every Civ has an incentive to trade in order to keep the strategic situation balanced. The only exception is trade between the rival "superpowers."

[monkeyman]

Lots of good points, others on this list obviously know more about the order of battle of world powers than I, but just look at all the nations that DON'T have the technology. Also one must make the distinction between buying the product of the tech and buying the tech to produce the product. The game has no mechanism to distinguish, which is a flaw that was deliberately introduced to minimize exploits... ...perhaps some of these problems would go away if you COULD trade units again, but including AI algorithms which will better distinguish value of units and would disband lesser units in favor of better units when they are gifted, etc. This way, you could arm your favorite vassal state with cavalry without giving the the corresponding tech. Win-win situation IF an effective AI algorithm is present. For instance, if an AI is building fighters anyway, it should prioritize purchasing jet fighters. Building cavalry? >>seek tanks.

So I say, more cutthroat AI's, less tech transfer, more transfer of goods.

-MM

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by monkeyman
Lots of good points, others on this list obviously know more about the order of battle of world powers than I, but just look at all the nations that DON'T have the technology. Also one must make the distinction between buying the product of the tech and buying the tech to produce the product. The game has no mechanism to distinguish, which is a flaw that was deliberately introduced to minimize exploits... ...perhaps some of these problems would go away if you COULD trade units again, but including AI algorithms which will better distinguish value of units and would disband lesser units in favor of better units when they are gifted, etc. This way, you could arm your favorite vassal state with cavalry without giving the the corresponding tech. Win-win situation IF an effective AI algorithm is present. For instance, if an AI is building fighters anyway, it should prioritize purchasing jet fighters. Building cavalry? >>seek tanks.

So I say, more cutthroat AI's, less tech transfer, more transfer of goods.

-MM

You are right that technology is not evenly distributed. Many countries were purposefully limited in industrial and scientific development during the colonial period. And I agree that unit trading would be an easy and logical addition to the game.

Life is much more complicated than Civ3, though. For instance, I'm sure that they can make guns in the third world, but because they are manufactured far better and cheaper in the the West, local industries have a great deal of trouble staying competitive and in business. It's not that they don't know what gunpowder is, though. They have the technology, but not the infrastructure.

I have seen that situation many times in Civ, especially with the Romans or the French. They get behind, become weak vassals of the larger Civs, and never catch up. No tech, no money, no future.

[Selkirk]

Don't forget that on deity, the computer starts out with what? a dozen warriors? They have far more capacity to get goody huts and with all of their units exploring. Even the non-expansionists have better maps than the human player. They also have a much better chance of being first to contact other civs than the human player does. These first contacts are valuable. Not only to sell the contact, but remember they likely have disjoint maps at the point when contact is established.


I think the tech trading is just fine. Deity SHOULD be hard and I suspect that it is fair. (although perhaps not fun for certain styles of play)


So far I have been able to keep up by:

Aggressively exploring and trading first contacts and maps. (Prior to .17f, I rarely explored farther than necessary to find resources and city spots and built ships only if absolutely necessary.)

Trading excess resources and luxuries for techs (instead of gold).

Buying the dead ends and optionals of the tech tree later at discount prices (horseback riding, republic, free artistry, espionage, etc.)

Beating the crap out of my neighbors at regular intervals.


Also, I have found that at some point in mid game things will start going badly for one or two of the computer players and all of the other computer players will pile on the same guy and declare war. There is no reason not to join in. You might even be able to sell a military alliance. Wait until the target empire has been razed from the main land mass and they are only on some little tiny island somewhere, then ask for peace. If you get them at the right time, they will give you a bunch of tech when you haven't even attacked any of their cities or units. That new capitol with two forested tundras will need all sorts of extra iron, horses, and saltpeter and rubber too.

[Aeson]

If you watch the AI use it's extra units, they really don't do anything useful with them. They will send stacks to target barbarian camps, but if barbarians are off, only 1 or sometimes 2 warriors (or the expansionists scout) will be out scouting. The extras just mull about in the culturally claimed territory, waiting for a Settler to escort. Unless the AI is an Expansionist civ, they also seem to avoid opening huts close to their cities.

I just played through the Ancient Era on a Deity game, with the Iroquois. It was a huge map, so my 15 or so Scouts kept me just about even on tech. It helped that 2 of the first 6 huts were Settlers, my second Deity opening with 2 Settlers from huts since installing the patch. I have the fixed version (no armies from huts) but it does seem that Settlers are more common, might just be luck though.

The AI seems much more moody with the patch, 6 of the 8 AI have declared war on me, some of them twice, and it's only 500BC. Oh well, Mounted Warriors still seem to be extremely powerful, the retreat roll doesn't effect them nearly as much as plain Horsemen. I've been buying up techs that everyone already has, or demanding them from my neighbors. I can get Middle Ages techs for 80-150 gold each once the other 8 Civs have them, the tech rate is pretty scary. Might be seeing launches before 1000AD on Deity. My tech slider has yet to get off of 0%, might stay that way the whole game, at least until the AI has been crippled enough by my MW's and their successors.

[ikol]

Originally posted by monkeyman
Looked at another way, the US and USSR invented and manufactured Nuclear Subs 50 years ago. Today, who has that capabilitiy? US, Russia, China, UK, France(?). (there may be more, but not many)

nuclear subs launched by the US in 1955. France's nuclear subs in 1965 or something like that. Not sure China has any though.

ikol

[ShuShu]

Downloaded the patch on Friday...

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.

I definitely like the fact that the AI's do not give over their research capabilities to the human player with higher and higher per turn pay outs.

Please note, I NEVER START wars so I am getting ahead on tech without conquest.

In the early stages, I am way behind, but I wait to see if I win the Great Library race before I start paying. As soon as I lose the race (70%), I buy all that I can, spreading the money around and including a small per-turn incentive to stay friendly with me.

Until education becomes available, minimize research (one scientist is best). Once you find eductaion, it is time to start shifting over to research instead of purchase. This conversion is only possible in the middle ages because the AI strays from the main path giving you a lead to the Industrial Age.

Only sell techs for Resources and MPPs after war declared against you. If you sell the tech to one for this reason, sell it to all for any reason.

Resources and Luxuries are the key to trade now. The world is full of warrior tribes. There is always war and they like to raze cities. Your stong culture will expand to fill gaps. Have settlers ready to fill in gaps and claim resources with cultural brute force.

Any idea how much Horses are worth to an AI in a war?

AIs don't trade with each other when they are at war. The biggest trick to gaining a tech lead is STAY OUT OF WARs. Not only are you able to continue trading, but if a militaristic AI is not fighting you, it IS fighting someone else. If you are in a war, make sure you are not alone. Again, this greatly slows down the global research rate.

Finally, although I don't win every game I play, I don't feel the effort is hopeless. This is the first release where I have seen culture become a major player (peaceful resource acquisition).

I realise this is not in keeping with the mood of the thread, but I actually like the new release much better.