'I'll tell you if you dont tell anyone else'

[Worthingtons]

I think there should be an option in Civ III where you can Trade Technology with an AI on the basis they dont trade it with anybody else for 20 turns or summat, of course, you woudnt quite as much gold out of the AI if you do a deal on such a basis....

What do you think??

[The Andy-Man]

i like it.


the AI cheats though, and will still prolly give it away under some loopwhole.

[Random Passerby]

There already is that option. Get in alliance with that civ against everybody else, and then they won't trade it. They've already put in that loophole too, because of course the AI is fond of bailing out of military alliances 2-4 turns into a war.

[Arrian]

I'd love to see that feature... but I doubt it can be done, or at least it would take quite a bit of work to get right. There would need to be a whole new rules subset for it - does breaking such a deal constitute a war-worthy trespass, or merely a diplomatic reputation hit like making peace before a 20-turn alliance is up? How would the AI calculate the value of a tech it cannot trade, so that it doesn't get fleeced by the human?

-Arrian

[nato]

Wow that is another cool idea, it would be nice.

However it seems like the ENTIRE ai tech strategy is built around massive tech trading.

Remember, in the tech race its not you vs AI vs AI vs AI vs AI (etc.) ... it is you vs a 7 nation research consortium (or 15 / whatever).

But be comforted by the fact that the AI treats you just like the other AIs!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by nato
But be comforted by the fact that the AI treats you just like the other AIs!

Well, actually that's only true on Regent level. According to Soren (see 1.17 and AI vs. AI research "trading" thread), the AI is aware of its research advantage or disadvantage (depending on level of play) and includes that knowledge in trade calculations. This is why it will charge you more for techs on the higher levels - it knows you have to invest more beakers than another AI to learn a tech. So, on Monarch and up, if France (AI) has a tech to sell, and is contacted by Germany (AI) and Babylon (Human), it will sell the tech to Germany at a lower price than to Babylon, as the tech is worth more to Babylon due to the research bonus given the AI. Therefore, the AI's research bonus and tech trading advantage derived from that research bonus compound one another. Hence, the AI "old boys network" and the 7-headed AI vs human player syndrome.

-Arrian

[nato]

Ok thanks for the info Arrian. I just found it galling that the AIs were supposed to treat you like anyone else (so I thought) but the research consortium was so obvious.

I do not find the research consortium enjoyable or realistic myself.

[Arrian]

I'm with you, Nato, I hate it. Not because I can't handle a "challenge," but because I really liked playing a game that felt like 8 different civs were all competing. Now it absolutely feels like 7 vs. 1. I think there is middle ground to be found, however. I think 1.16 needed a boost, and the 1.17 changes were mostly on track. I just think the AI trading was taken a tad too far. If they scale it down a notch or two (or make it difficulty level dependent) and include a tech price "floor" so that no tech is ever, ever, ever sold for 1 gold (the offer I got from the English for Fission), I would probably be happy.

-Arrian

[Random Passerby]

If you play at Monarch or higher, you're deliberately taking a handicap and saying "It's OK if the AI cheats [more], because I want a harder game anyways." At Regent I've yet to find any evidence of any sort of everyone-vs-me conspiracy, unless the AIs have a sinister plot to cripple me by giving me so much money that I take up all my usable land just storying the stuff in vaults.

[Optimizer]

You shouldn't complain aboutt the AI:s co-operation on higher levels.

Something has got to differ between difficulty levels, and if the alternatives are that the AI is "stupid" when not on Deity, or that it cheats (which it sure does, but not as much as in Civ 2), I would prefer the difference to be the AI players teaming up against you.

No challenge, no fun.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Random Passerby
If you play at Monarch or higher, you're deliberately taking a handicap and saying "It's OK if the AI cheats [more], because I want a harder game anyways." At Regent I've yet to find any evidence of any sort of everyone-vs-me conspiracy, unless the AIs have a sinister plot to cripple me by giving me so much money that I take up all my usable land just storying the stuff in vaults.

Well, I agree that the higher difficulty levels are there for those who want a challenge. That is pretty obvious. However, as I said in my earlier post, it's not the increased challenge that bugs me. Most of the others who are concerned with the AI trading under 1.17f have similar reasons.

You say you haven't noticed any AI vs. you conspiracy on Regent. Well, you shouldn't, as research rates are even on Regent, and so the trading formula is the same for all civs, human or AI.

EDIT: The only difference is that the AI will still make tech trades on Regent level that a human wouldn't make (5 gold + world map for a tech), because that's what the trading formula indicates the tech is "worth." Thus, tech proliferates more rapidly, causing two "problems" (problems in quotes because some of us don't see it that way). #1 is that a poor, backwater civ can catch up in tech for almost nothing, which seems a bit out of whack. Yeah, they should be able to catch up, but not for 5 gold and a world map - and yes, the deals are that silly. #2 is that the overall tech advancement rate speeds up, resulting in less time to take advantage of a given technology before it is obselete. The game probably needed speeding up on the lower levels, but I'm hitting the industrial age around 1000AD on Monarch, and that's too early. Gaining a tech lead is possible, but taking full advantage of that tech lead is very difficult. That may, in fact, turn out the be the main problem here.

-Arrian

[wervdon]

Heh this happened in a recent game of mine on _chieftan_ I know I should go to a lower difficulty and all..... Actually, I ussually play on warlord, but I was testing a new map I had made.

I meet the zulu's on an isolated island. They ask to trade me their world map and all their gold + 1 gold per turn for my world map & ceremonial burial. I laugh and say sure. (I was working on construction which that and polytheism would of put me in the middle ages)

Next turn Babylon approaches me for contact with the zulu, offer me a nice sum of gold (200ish). I shrug and say sure. End of turn I get a history of the world...most advance nations: Zulu were #1 (they had polytheism like the rest of the AI's)

I contact them and sure enough, the other ais all have contact with them now, and they've turned their 0 gold (no income) and no tech into knowing every tech the AI knew. (and they was all the same by this point, basically 1 tech ahead of me)

I mean seriously.......thats a bit off. At least I got a laugh when the zulu turned around and attacked the egyptians a few turns (like 50-70) later

I _think_ what they actually did was trade my world map (which everyone already had except for the portion containing the zulu island) for gold + tech, then trading that gold + the map for more tech...etc.... Its still rather silly to go from backwards stone age to near middle ages in 1 turn though :P

[nato]

Random, Optimizer - I don't mind AI advantages that let each AI perform better. I do mind AI advantages that change the game from a free-for-all (like real history) to a 7-vs-1. It changes the nature of the game. It makes it not a harder version of history-like civ, but a kind of history scenario where all civs are born with an instinct to hate one particular civ.

I just don't think real civs would be so ready to team up and pool research and technologies.

Also for what it is worth I only play on Monarch, not the super hard levels. I also don't like Deity because again it feels less real and makes less sense. Why are my people such slow builders ... ack! I got elected King of the Dummies!

Anyway once again I think Rothy's idea is very good, but the current AI would need some adjustment to handle it I think.

[Calvin Vu]

Oops, I didn't read this thread before giving an almost identical idea of an exclusive 20-turn patent on an invented technology in another thread. No plagiarizing intended, I swear . The "secret" thread title is partially at fault for not getting my attention before reading the other thread .

[Random Passerby]

You're still complaining about a voluntary handicap. If you don't like the effects of that particular handicap (playing at difficulty levels where the AI gets a statistical advantage), then pick another (refraining from using certain strategies, letting governors manage your cities, etc.) Or you could use the editor and reduce or eliminate the AI tech advantage, making it up elsewhere (except for the fact that, as we all well know, Modding Is Evil. This is why mod-heavy games such as many first-person shooters like, say, Half-Life inevitably fail miserably and never attract any following to speak of).

I wonder... if Soren had said nothing about the AI tech trading except for the fact that they don't trade during your turn, would there even be a quarter as much discussion about it as there is now? Somehow I doubt it. Maybe it's just because I trade aggressively myself, but I've noticed practically no difference between 1.16f and 1.17f. The only noticeable effect has been when I'm getting to a new era or key tech within an era, glance at the date, and say to myself "Woah, this is early." In terms of individual trades... the AI seems to be playing by largely the same guidelines it did before.