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

[Arrian]

It's not the challenge that bothers me. I adjusted to 1.17 and have been doing as well as ever, but I don't like the tech devaluation rate - which in turn causes the excesses in AI tech trading. I just think the devaluation should be tempered a bit, such that no tech is ever "worth" 1 gold, and a civ that spends all of its time building military units will either a) fall behind or b) beat tech out of someone.

A civ that devotes itself to research at the expense of its military ought to reap some reward (a tech lead) to balance out the penalty of being militarily weak. I applaud efforts to keep the AI from falling toooo far behind, because the days of Modern Armor vs. Riflemen (as in the best AI units... I know there will be spearmen out there) are best left behind.

Edit: I should mention, before you get the wrong idea, that I have managed to gain and hold tech leads under 1.17, so I know 1.17 didn't "break the game." I don't think the game needs a huge change. Big changes usually cause other problems that were not expected. I just want the tech devalution decreased a bit. This, in turn, ought to slow down the tech trading a bit, which ought to slow down the overall pace a bit.

I totally agree about the AI self-destruct, and I hope 1.18 addresses that.

-Arrian

[dnassman]

I have neve said a bad word about civ3 but I finally loaded the 1.17 and started a new game on Regent. I couldn't believe how far ahead the AI was when it came to tech. The ancient era battles are so much fun but now they simply do not last long enough.

This is my first compliant at the game. God forbid that I have to go back and play at Chieftan or Warlord just to slow it down.

The rest of the patch has been great though.

[Grey Knight]

Tech devaluation versus "time value of money"

The big problem with tech devaluation is it takes the time value of money principal and tosses it on it's head.

For example, take two civs that each have $100 gpt to invest:

Civ #1 invests the $100 gpt on research to get a new advance. It takes 20 turns, so he spends $2,000. A the end of the he gets a tech advance. Lets say it's Chivalry (Knights, in other words!)

Civ #2 invests the $100 gpt into additional unit support and rush builds. Assuming he only gets an ROI of $1 (1%) per turn, at the end of 20 turns he has a minimum payback of $210.

So now Civ #1 can build knights. On a per-shield cost basis, the knight is roughtly 85% better:

              Horse Knight % Change
Base Attack     2     4      100%
Base Defense    1     3      200%
Shield Cost    40    70       75%

Win % vs Pike  17%   49%
Def % vs Hrse  21%   75%

Per 70 shields:
Win % vs Pike  30%   49%      65%
Def % vs Hrse  36%   75%     107%

Civ #2 already has an advantage - he's ahead by $210, and getting $20 gpt in payback on his earlier ROI. The real cost of buying the tech from civ #1 should be $2210. If Civ #1 doesn't sell, he can make up the difference, and the longer civ #2 goes without chivalry, the bigger that advantage gets.

So here's how I think tech should be valuated:

• When first discovered, the cost of the tech should be 110% of the research cost (reflecting the time value of money)
• For each civ that knows a tech, the cost should go down by 1% per turn. So after knowing the tech for one turn, the cost is 109%. If after 10 turns (back to 100%), it is sold, the next turn it would be 98% (since two civs know it). The floor would still be 1/(civs you have contact with that know it).

Cheers,
Shawn

[gnome]

resource trading vs. tech trading

I have noticed a high degree of difference between how shrewd of a negotiator the computer is, for resources compared to techs.

For resources... I think the programmers have got it just about right. They don't trade them lightly, often demand more than 1:1 if they perceive that you'll get more from the trade than they... and the overall effect is very positive in terms of both challenge and immersion. Wrangling for resources has become one of my favorite parts of the game, a welcome new addition to the series.

On the other hand, tech brokering has become so simplistic that it has been reduced to mere drudgery. Immersion is improved when a player finds himself faced with different challenges to contend with, dependent on the situation in the game. I find myself making the same decisions over and over again no matter what the state of the game is. The computer just has no idea of the value of a tech.

Can we have whoever wrote the negotiating strategy for resources fix the tech negotiation AI?

[Shaka II]

In addition to the general tech devaluation, etc. (in V1.17F), I have noticed an annoying tendency for the computer to research exactly what I am researching, and discover it exactly on the same turn. I did some very minimal testing and tried slowing my research down a turn to see if the AI would discover it ahead of me, and they did not.

Have they been using Intelligence Agency to give them this information, or is this just another cheat? I thought I was imagining things, but this has happened in several games, so the next patch really has to fix this.

Some forms of AI cheating and bonuses are necessary to make them viable competitors, but the AI should not know the human players research path.

This is a particular problem when trying to seek parallel research paths in order to trade a tech that no one has discovered for one that you don't have, thereby avoiding duplication of effort. In the final crtical ramp up for Space Victory, this tech cheating is most apparent.

Of course the AI sells this tech immediately, making it impossible for me to trade it for the missing tech(s). Well, I manage to win at Space anyway 90% of the time in Emperor, but sometimes by only a turn or two.

Has any one else noticed this?

Also, in the last several games, as I am researching laser and about 9 SS components built, one of the AI civs declares war on me, with no announcement by my military advisor (bug?). It is mainly the surprise factor in finding out that someone is at war with you, sometimes several turns later, when you notice the bombers strafing you're terrain improvements.

Another AI improvement in end game: The AI tech path needs to consider the type of victory conditions. In Diplomacy Victory disabled (the way I play), the French have built Cure for Cancer and Longevity wonders, while they should have been focussing in on just space tech, since nobody was going to achieve cultural or domination victories.

It seems pretty hit or miss, whether the AI pursues a direct path for space victory. So, perhaps the next patch can improve some in this area (less cheating and more effective stategy).

[Raion]

The game is dragging you along. It plays that way, -- different.

What I have noticed is that they (the computer) will build armies and have wars to gain a great leader, to complete a wonder faster and have, perhaps, more golden ages, if all the 'win' conditions are on.
The game plays different from CivII.
Are you suppose to like the other leaders?

They do not like you. One has to beat them down a little to get them to respond.

More interaction was developed for this game, than previous Civ games.



It wants to bug you more.

[rogue785]

All your base are belong to us!

allthough these problems exist, and are terrible, the game still is great fun and will always be

[bigvic]

Whining

This was origionally posted on another thread, but obviously belongs here more. I feel much better now that I see so many w/ the same problem. My suggestion is get rid of this latest irritation (the patch) and wait for the next pain in the butt patch to come out, praying they don't succeed in messing up more than they fix.

What follows is a frustrated rant tapped out at 3:00 AM last night. As such, its nasty and foul, but even now, with time and perspective, I still stand by what I said. 25-03-2002 08:01

Whining

I guess I'm in a foul mood. The second patch was installed on friday, caused a crash on saturday. I play a heavily modified game that works fine w/o any patches (both have caused probs). What is the deal about mods and patches again?
Foul mood that I'm in, I noticed that the next patch that will probably cause the program to crash will fix the "can't sink a ship w/ a plane" idiocy. Just thinking about that started irritating me. For generally such a great game it sure feels like I'm playing a beta test version, or something programed by the fine folks at Microsoft that bring us windows. Anyway, the more I play this game, the more lamebrained garbage keeps popping up. How is it possible that they tested this thing? I swear, sometimes it seems like not at all, or worse, testing was done, problems noted, and shoddy product knowingly released.
I read some comments about spearmen killing tanks. Never seen it yet, though can imagine it would be irritating. You gotta rationalize things like that, though. I mean what does a spearman unit in the modern age represent anyway, a bunch of spear toting primitives, or a small, poorly organized second line group of AK-47 toting thugs? At least thats how I see it. What I find more irritating is that the AI seems to cheat more at higher levels instead of play a better game. How many times have I run a thorough spy sweep, found nothing, attacked, then been faced with 30 - 40 primo attack units the next, issueing out of one of his frontline cities? How many games have I been forced to hard charge toward the Great Library because apparantly the AI loves tech trading fairly with itself, but not me?
Yeah, I know, whine whine, boo hoo. But am I the only one here noticing these things? What about the inability of the AI to form coalitions? This bugs me far more than the spearman vs. tank thing. You know, that part of the game where ally 1 declares war on ally 2, who is at war with enemy one, who allies with ally 1, and so on, ad nauseum. Sure its a game, but its supposed to be simulation something, and what, I don't know. I know my history pretty well, and despite some pretty cutthroat periods in early modern Europe, what precedent is there, for large, major powers behaving like this? None, above the level of petty feudal squabbles, and even most of those had more logic than the chaotic, irrational world dogfight cage matches that one witnesses in Civ III. It seems they could have taken a few clues from the nearly flawless and much quicker diplomatic situation of SMAC. At least there you could win a cooperative victory, ask someone to "call off your vendetta against my friend", and do so much quicker. And don't even get me started on that pathetic excuse for a "scenario editor".
I know, stop flaming, but jeez! A few more months of evaluation and playtesting might have made what is, I admit, a remarkable game, a true masterpiece instead of the cobbled together-promising-yet-dissapointing-product-of-lazy-genius that it is.


PS: I personally hope they really fix this obsession of mine.

[Shaka II]

Regarding tech trading in most recent game:

I (Zulus) had achieved the science leader by middle ages, partly because I was on a separate continent and had late ancient/early middle war to wipe out Russians and claim the continent (small one) for myself.

I traveled over to other continent as soon as I discovered map making (lost one galley in deep ocean) and found that while the other civs where advanced, they still had not discovered Literature. I decided not to trade this, since I had just built GL and didn't want to give any tech away (or the ability to build libraries). Furthermore, I didn't let them meet the Russians, so that I could have knights, without them getting Pikemen, etc. (Knights vs. Spearmen).

The other 6 civs were on the same continent and hadn't discovered Literature by the a third of the way into middle ages?!

So, after wiping out the Russians, I was peaceful through to game end and just became a builder and science leader.

So this is where it gets interesting. I was tech trading and deficit spending, which was easier to do on V1.16 patch. I was doing so well at it that apparently the AI could not keep up with payments. So, I noticed that I wasn't getting my trade luxuries anymore (1475AD) and found that no trade route was viable for 5 trading partners. Only the Chinese had a viable route, but could offer nothing for my luzuries.

Apparently, the 5 civs had all destroyed their harbors (on the same turn) to prevent paying me or to cause me unhappiness, etc. I am sure that they were too busy fighting to develop there economies as well as mine. It wasn't until after 1/3 of way into modern era that I was able to re-establish trade.

I checked with the trade advisor and no routes were viable, and no trade sanctions were being imposed against me. So, apparently the AI have learned to destroy their harbors, for reasons that I can only guess at. Bug or strategy?

[gaikokujin]

Re: The faster the better, I suppose !!

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
Will it be as good and innovative and, most importantly, as terrifying addictive as MOO2?
AJ

Hmmm, MOO2 was a seriously flawed game. Once I figured out how to generate runaway production from a totally automated star system, I stopped playing the game.

[Shaka II]

Re: All your base are belong to us!

Originally posted by rogue785
allthough these problems exist, and are terrible, the game still is great fun and will always be

Well said. It sure is great fun and I don't need to play a 100% perfect game, just trying to help fix that last 10%.