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

[Arrian]

Of course a tech lead is possible, it's just very difficult to hold on to. I would like to see a saved game of that particular example, because having Tanks before the AI has infantry on Emperor level is pretty impressive.

Zachriel - how did you play that game? Did you go a-conquering early and often, or did you play more of a builder style? I'm curious, because it's my opinion that 1.17f encourages warmongering over building.

-Arrian

[exeter0]

It is possible but not very enjoyable.. and requires a very linear strategy.

I see that with 1.17f you rarely see the AI's engage in hostilities with each other... only the human player... at one point one AI civ (Babylonians) went to war with me and lo and behold it had an aggression pack with EVERY other civ... none of the other CIV's would even acknowledge my envoy.

Even the French whom previously had been polite with me and were very appreciative of the free gestures of Furs, Gems, Silk, Construction and Territory Map I hade given them over the last 20 turns.

If the game is balanced how did the French turn on me like that. (The Babylonians culture was 10-20% greater than mine.. would that make such a difference?)

I agree with those posters who suggest there needs to be minimum value on a tech to be traded. An individual CIV should value and protect a new found tech.

If the US developed the Warp Drive this year.. do you think that they would be trading it with any other nation the following year? Absolutely not.. not until they had developed and iplemented the techology themselves to ensure that by the time they sold it... they were already decades ahead. Not so in CIV.

I believe that 1.17f is a very quick fix way to increase the competitiveness of the AI... but it is scewed and is against the spirit of the game. It turns commerce and science into a liquidation sale... even though the game has 7 out of 12 profitable and thriving CIVs.

Of course I could adapt and develop strategies to beat it..I couldn;t be bothered. When you invest 30+ hrs in a game... you get tired of having to go back to the beginning and implement a new streategy or CIVEDIT custimisation... you start again and another game balance issue and... back to the beginning.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Arrian
Of course a tech lead is possible, it's just very difficult to hold on to. I would like to see a saved game of that particular example, because having Tanks before the AI has infantry on Emperor level is pretty impressive.

Zachriel - how did you play that game? Did you go a-conquering early and often, or did you play more of a builder style? I'm curious, because it's my opinion that 1.17f encourages warmongering over building.

-Arrian

I usually have at least one war in the ancient era to soften up the neighbors. Then I build. Once the world is full, then the trouble starts, as the AI starts looking for opportunities to expand.

I often play defense, and keep building my technology and infrastructure. Most of the time, my riflemen and cannon can chew up enemy attacks with little loss. The AI just wastes its resources in futile wars of aggression. I attack only when it is of benefit to my people, and when the technical means are at hand.

[jabroni154]

I have to concur with a vote towards the feeling of a me vs. the world flashback to Civ 1-2 with the new patch. I've played about 3-4 games (only two all the way through) and although I like the new changes to the workers/etc., the AI trading just seems waay to overpowered.

The games I have played have been on Warlord/Regent so I'm not playing on the higher difficulties. The classic example that I had came from the game I won as the Germans. The Greeks were cordoned off on the continent with myself and the Americans, about 4-5 cities remaining. War breaks out with America declaring war on the Greeks. I join in and get a force ready to go. A caravel makes its way up to a city and lands. The Greeks at this point had absolutely nothing (and I mean nothing) because I had been watching them fairly closely, spending everything they had on their military.

Long story short, the turn before my caravel lands, Americans make peace. My troops land and see hoplites. No problem, next turn, musketeers, WTF? Damn, they were at least 2 techs back before the war started. Oh well, higher casualties, charge the knight, lose, keep the pikeman. Next turn, they have Rifleman. WTF!!!! Pure BS there how they could have pulled that off. They were in the poor house and magically went from sub-gunpowder tech to getting Nationalism. In my mind, there was no real way such things could occur without a drastically over-powered world map as the Greeks had nothing of value to trade (I'd taken the extra resources away by pillaging and such) leaving only the world map to trade for value as they had no real gold source. Plus, this was on Warlord no less. Craptastic if you ask me.

I much preferred the pre-patch non-me vs. the world. The sentiments in the thread reflect pretty much what I have felt.

I would be a firm supporter of certain techs having a minimum value or even receiving an extra boost in terms of value. For example, any tech providing a better defender should get a huge increase in value. Perhaps the editor could include an option to have a factor for tech worth (something factored in besides the raw scientific output). It would seem to be a fairly easy change and for the stock Civ game, it could simply be 1 (i.e. no effect). It wouldn't seem to be too bad to put in but may be fairly tricky to balance. Certain techs should just be worth more and AIs should try to hang on to techs a bit longer to milk them for a little bit. Heck, I don't even mind if the AI globally checks to see what everybody has (in the omnipotent sort of way) to see how close other people are to see if it should be sold.

Also, put me down for supporting a minimum cost for a tech. Perhaps a minimum cost of 30-50% or so preventing the backward civs from leaping through too many techs too fast.

[Txurce]

I agree that with 1.17f on Monarch, it is very difficult to build and hold a meaningful tech lead. At the same time, I've just won two space race games in a row with the new patch, and wasn't even remotely close to being a superpower. In addition, I rarely get to build a science wonder... maybe because I rarely get leaders.

My strategy is to expand as much as possible at first - sometimes this is very little - and then build infrastructure, Civ2 style. I only declared war in my last two games against the superpower, because I needed resources. The military end is made easy because the AI is almost helpless against a mobile rush and mobile defense. But even with the new patch, I hung close in the tech race, researching the expensive techs (which the AI tends not to do first) and then trading them. In the end in both games, I overtook the AI because I was more focused, researched the spaceship techs in the optimal order, and had the last one pre-built as I finished researching the last tech.

Again, this is not as much fun as 1.16. But you can win a tech race with 1.17, and do so with relatively few of the traditional aids.

[Panag]

hi ,



okay , just in , .....;

we have tested this with a whole group , tech trading , the AI , seems to now more the we , ........ahem , like that was news , ..;

in 92 games , 1.17 the comp seems to trade techs for next to nothing , in half the games all civs started with no techs , result , one civ gets a tech and gives it away , lol , also it seems that the comp in 1/3 of the games is doing this ; everyone is reasearching a different tech , thus after x turns they have 15 different tech (if ya play with 16) and you only 1 , is life just not great , .....
in civ3 ?!!


have a nice day

[dojoboy]

Sincere Question

Why are you (general public) still playing 1.17? Also, I'm not reading much about UUs under the 1.17 tech trading system. I found this to be the most discouraging side-effect (edit: lose advantages quickly). I enjoy, sometimes, rushing the opponent early w/ impis, etc. Curious.

[IthacaMike]

Originally posted by jabroni154
Long story short, the turn before my caravel lands, Americans make peace. My troops land and see hoplites. No problem, next turn, musketeers, WTF? Damn, they were at least 2 techs back before the war started. Oh well, higher casualties, charge the knight, lose, keep the pikeman. Next turn, they have Rifleman. WTF!!!! Pure BS there how they could have pulled that off. They were in the poor house and magically went from sub-gunpowder tech to getting Nationalism. In my mind, there was no real way such things could occur without a drastically over-powered world map as the Greeks had nothing of value to trade (I'd taken the extra resources away by pillaging and such) leaving only the world map to trade for value as they had no real gold source. Plus, this was on Warlord no less. Craptastic if you ask me.

Been there done that.

I was playing Babylon and found myself in a two front war with Greece and Germany. I managed to induce the Americans and Egypt to come in against Greece. The problem was that Greece was tiny and backwards. I sold Gunpowder to everyone I could and then _gave_ it to Egypt. I also gave them Horses and Iron. It was good to watch Alexander bleed as he slowly ground Egypt under. It gave me enough time to finish with the Germans and redeploy.

Maybe the AI did the same to you?

Mike G