Hurry up and release 1.18! I can't take the AI's tech trading any more!

[Maxis Dugan]

Me thinks I'll wait to d-load any of the patches. I'm glad I read this thread.

...no more rhymes now , I really mean it! Anybody want a peanut?!?

[jabroni154]

Just to add a few more comments to the thread. I just finished another game last night and here would be my short list of things that I would like to see fixed which are mentioned above:

1. Stop the AI tech-whoring! (one suggestion)

Change the techs to add in a few extra parameters (best if the option exists to change them in the editor)

- Min/max sell value - This could simply be a number from 0.05 to 10 or so that dictates the min/max value for a tech when trading. Scale the change 100%, 90%, 80% in between the costs. For example:

If Synthetic Fibers costs 500, with a min/max of 1.5/5.0, the 1st Civ to trade would only sell for 5*500 or 2500 gold. By the time it gets down to the last Civ, the minimum value to sell for is 1.5 * 500 or 750 gold. After 2 civs know it, it might drop to 90% or .9 * (5.0 - 1.5) + 1.5 = 4.65 * 500 or 2325 gold.

For the AIs tech bonus, simply divide the value by the research bonus, i.e. chieftain, 2325 / 0.75 = 2584

This is a simplified version as I am not sure of the exact numbers but hopefully my point is clear. For a base case, make any techs with wonders (1.0/4.0) and for techs that increase military strength (i.e. compare greatest non-bombard attack/non-naval attack) with current of civ, add in another modifier. For instance, if I just discover musketman, I sure as heck do not want to give this tech to everybody in the civilized world as that would make any assaults that much more difficult.

2. Lessen the whip-cracking penalty for the AI or make it not crack the whip as much

Once I reach the industrial age and get communism, it is to my advantage to give the tech to all of the AI, create some wars and watch them kill themselves. This is insane. The AI should not crack the whip as much as it does. Occasionally, yes, but not from cities of 12-15 down to cities of 2 or 3, that is just crazy!

Those are my two big gripes for the patch, as for other things, well, that is off-topic from the post but man, the 7/15 headed AI thing just makes the game intolerable. I want to give it a chance and I want to enjoy it. It is just a good thing MOO3 is not out because once that comes out, I don't think Civ3 will get much time after that.

[Uncle Thade]

Tech trading links...

Read through the two threads and it seems to make more sense now, thanks for the heads up Arrian. On devalueing of techs that just doesn't make sense. Perhaps they should be devalued after an era or echelon...

Conquering the world, one game at a time... Uncle Thade.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by monkspider
i'm starting to agree with the assertion that Firaxis and Infogrames represent Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dum.

At least Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum didn't charge us $45 for the game and $19.95 for a lame-ass "Strategy Guide".

The game wasn't so hot BEFORE the 1.17 patch, either.

Civ III is a tedious bore, with a slapped together Mod.

[kimmygibler]

When is the next patch?

[ZigZac]

I haven't had too much trouble with the AI. So far I am the most advanced, richest, biggest army, navy, airforce. But I downloaded the patch about halfway through the game.

I hope the patch comes out soo if it is really as bad as you guys say.

[Barchan]

The Devil's Advocate....

I do agree that the current devaluation equation is a bit harsh, but I ask you to mull over these concepts:

The Kingmaker:
You, the human, are clearly the best player at the board and the other players (AI) know this. If they try to take you on individually, they know they'll lose. So, in an effort to win, or at least ensure that you don't, they're willing to make rock bottom trades or even outright gifts to make sure that no fellow weak player (read AI) falls victim to the cunning abilities of the human. I'm sure that most of you have done this once or twice yourself in MP games; it's simply acting against your own self-interest to ensure the victory (or defeat) of another player. The thought usually is "hey, I might not be able to win, but I can effectively decide who will."

Fair Market Value:
I can appreciate the strategic value in having a tech advantage, but there is another school of thought that would say that if you don't get whatever the market will offer for discovered tech, you're not taking full advantage of it. Money, luxuries, resources, maps and agreements can all be brokered with technology; to simply sit on tech and refuse to trade it is both illogical and uneconomical. If you combine this with the Kingmaker concept above, why shouldn't you be free and easy with the technology you have, especially with the other weaker players? Even if it's just a map and some gold, it's better than the nothing you're getting by not making the trade. Sooner or later, that other Civ is either going to develop the tech itself or be destroyed by another Civ. Unless the conquering Civ is going to be you, you might as well make some profit from the technology and strengthen another bulkhead against the #1 player. If you're not the dominant player (which the AI isn't, remember), then this is a reasonable strategy to keep yourself in the game and possibly have a shot at winning.

Now, before you being flaming, please re-read the subject of this post. I'm not defending the current tech-whoring, but merely suggesting that it's not necessarily the product of bugs or designer insanity.

[John Paul Jones]

Agree with original post.
'Aggressive tech-trading'='swap you my 10 techs for your 1 gold piece and make sure if that human comes looking for them to screw him for everthing he's got'

[John Paul Jones]

Re: The Devil's Advocate....

Originally posted by Barchan
to simply sit on tech and refuse to trade it is both illogical and uneconomical

What if you're the only civ with Literature and building the Great Library - would you give it away ? Should the AI ?

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Ming


NO... It won't... because the first person that starts it will be toast. And anybody that continues it will also be toast.

IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!!

IS MY MESSAGE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY!!!!!!!

You're really into toast?

Robert

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Coracle



At least Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum didn't charge us $45 for the game and $19.95 for a lame-ass "Strategy Guide".

There's a strategy guide?
This is what the manual was supposed to be?
You know, I remember a time when they used to put the instructions to a game in the box with the game itself. Not sell you that later.
Although to be fair, I haven't read the 'manual' either.

Robert

[Barchan]

Re: Re: The Devil's Advocate....

Originally posted by John Paul Jones


What if you're the only civ with Literature and building the Great Library - would you give it away ? Should the AI ?

Well, no, of course not. I did mention at the beginning of my point that *I* can appreciate the strategic value of tech. The AI, unfortunately, doesn't seem to. In the scenario above, I'd keep Literature until the GL was built. Once it is, though, the strategic value of holding it is greatly diminished.

As an aside, I'm rarely rational enough to operate on a purely economic basis. Hell, a lot of the time I won't make eminently reasonable trades simply because I've decided to have nothing to do with those [expletive deleted] lying, back-stabbing Aztecs, and they can cram their [expletive deleted] Spices where the [expletive deleted] sun don't shine! You'll get [even more expletives deleted] nothing and like it, Montezuma!

Sorry, but you get the idea. The point was in a truly rational, economic way of approaching things, even getting a few coins and a world map for a technology is better than nothing at all. A more sophisticated approach would have to account for the strategic values in withholding the tech, as well as the Goodwill values to be had for giving it away, but, economically speaking, there will always be a price at which it's going to be worth it to trade it away.

[Zachriel]

Re: Re: Re: The Devil's Advocate....

Originally posted by Barchan
As an aside, I'm rarely rational enough to operate on a purely economic basis.

In classical economics, it was assumed that everyone made decisions based upon their own best interest, and in full knowledge of everything relevant. This was fanciful, of course. Classical economics could not predict the advent of fads, like the hula hoop or rock 'n' roll, for instance. Modern models use computers to simulate "agents" who work with limited knowledge and various motivations -- much like a computer game.

[dunk]

I think the problem with the AI trading is the World Map. For some reason, the AI players value this over just about any tech, even when the map they are trading for is identical to their own. To me it's rather silly, but if you buy a World Map for whatever the astronomical price is (your map + 200 gold + 10 gold per turn + engineering + dyes... had that offered to me once, AI wouldn't even accept 1 gold piece less), you have a powerful bargaining chip. I think a solution is to devalue that damn map. Or make ocean-worthy vessels available earlier, so players (human or AI) can build their own without trading.

[dunk]

Oh yes, the luxury trading is insane too.

I would have had to give 3 luxury resources + gold per turn for one luxury resource. I was in an alliance with this player too.