Announcement

**WarpStorm** · February 8, 2003, 09:43

If you don't like the features that make the game harder to win on diety, play on an easier level.

**Kassiopeia** · February 8, 2003, 09:56

AFAIK it's not a bug, I mean, it's Deity, it's supposed to be very difficult.

**Unconquered** · February 8, 2003, 10:57

I think the extra unit advantages, minimal anarchy period, and build advantages are enough. The only thing I don't like is I think the AI trades to much with itself but I can live with it. Deity is hard, I've played two games at that level and they were defensive games all the way to my end... What I did was work my way up from chieftain to a level where I could beat the computer with effort consitently (Monarch). Sounds like you need to play a lower level. But your right, the AI advantages are frustrating sometimes.

**Alex** · February 8, 2003, 12:05

I never play Deity. It annoys me.

**WarpStorm** · February 8, 2003, 14:02

In the editor you can set the AI-AI trade rate bonus. If you lowered it there you could play a diety-minus game, that would still be tough but without the AIs all being buddy-buddy.

**Immortal** · February 8, 2003, 14:15

Deity is far beyond my playing capacity, I played one game and I was trounced by 700AD. I stick to Emperor and Monarch now. Emperor if I want a good challenge.

But Deity is supposed to be difficult, judging by other peoples games, it is still possible to win on deity.

**notyoueither** · February 8, 2003, 15:54

You can also increase the costs of tech and increase the minimum time to research to slow the game down. That way you would not get into the modern age so soon.

**vmxa1** · February 8, 2003, 18:05

I do not see what difference it makes they still lose.
You can trade techs if you want to or buy them or take them by force. It is not a cheat as in theory it is available to the human as well. I know that in reality they will not be trading with you as you have nothing to offer most of the time and are often not on good terms, but this can be corrected.
You can research things they tend to not research. Me I prefer to take them and do not trade much anyway.

**Nor Me** · February 8, 2003, 18:29

Re: Is the AI actually cheating??

Originally posted by wrgj
I have a problem: When the AI players trade techs, their research towards the newly gained tech then counts towards the next advance.

Are you sure? I've not heard this before. If this were true, it would be another example of the AI cheating at chieftain.

**vmxa1** · February 8, 2003, 20:42

I suspect he is refering to the fact that as more players know a given tech it becomes cheaper to research for the rest. You can see this at times when you notice you have 3 turns to learn something and boom you get it the this turn. The price in beakers went down.
This is why some will streak out for a more remote tech and get the ability to trade or sell the one the have and back fill later at a lower cost in terms of beakers.

**wilbill** · February 9, 2003, 02:12

I have a real problem with using the terms "cheat" and "bug" to describe the AI advantages at the higher levels.
Seems to me that if the AI "cheated" it would involve breaking some rule of the game. Bonus units, cheaper trade rates, etc. are not cheats, but are. in fact, the rules the designers wrote into the game. These elements define the higher levels of competition. Far from "AI Cheating", when the AI's trade techs with each other at a lower rate, it's "AI Follows The Rules."
A "bug" is a programming mistake that causes the game to lock up, crash, or otherwise fail to perform as it is intended. In the early patches, fighters intercepting bombers frequently caused the game to crash. That was certainly a bug.
Since the AI is essentially the same software at all levels, AFAIK, the designers chose to give it these advantages as the difficulty levels increased. They certainly had other options. For instance they could have given the AI military units higher attack/defense values and more MP's than the human player's units at higher difficulties. Or they could have given AI temples and cathedrals a larger contentment bonus than the human's. Would those have been fairer? Probably not.

**pedrojedi** · February 9, 2003, 09:13

A "last" option, of course, is playing MP only, so no one will get AI advantages, and, picking the right adversaries (you have a lot here in the forum), it is still a Deity-Level challenge, with the spiced detail that you do not know your human opponent, as opposite to AI, which all of us know at least a little something:

"The Greeks are annoying"
"The Persians are really annoying"
"I should trash down those egiptian scum before they get too cultural on me"
"I hate too many Legions at my frontier"
"Another Babylonian king goes down"

**wrgj** · February 9, 2003, 23:14

Clarification and response.

[I just got logged out, and I lost all of version 1 of this message!! How annoying!!]

This issue is posted for two reasons:

* To bring it to the civ community's attention, such that IF it is deemed unbalancing in too many situations, there can be an adjustment to the mechanics of the game (as opposed to adjusting settings in the editor); and

* To bring it to players' attention: it is not obvious that it'll happen like this. It is important to know for AI trading strategies, especially for DIETY players. I didn't know for a while and it was important, and I concentrate on maximising every minute detail to gain every gold, shield, food and movement economisation I can.

### Clarification ###

The problem I am talking about is as follows. Imagine an AI player having, say 2 turns to finish researching a new tech. Then another player gets that tech, and trades it to aforementioned AI player. The AI player then has 1 turn to go for another UNDISCOVERED technology.

Thus, I suspect that the AI still will trade the tech only for a small amount if they only have a small amount of research to go (as the human player does) but then gets to transfer the research to another technology! This is doubling up on the value of trading techs, and at Deity level, they trade at reduced prices. I am not sure about the exact working of the valuation and mechanics of trading AI to AI, but I currently fear the worst in this situation.

[B] Evidence [\B]
How this appeared was when I was in the ancient era, and America (placed in England, with contact only with myself) had been researching Code of Laws for a while. I traded Lincon the tech, and the next turn he discovered Philosophy.

Note: This situation is fine - it means that the value of trading tech with AI doesn't depend on timing and which tech you choose to research. Also, it means that you cannot take advantage of the AI players by trading them techs by researching what they are not researching and getting ahead (by pseudo-cheating and reverting to a saved game.)

More evidence and a problem

The problem arises in the middle of the Middle Ages when you get to a large run of wonders, and so everyone is concentrating on tech, so they have a chance to build a wonder. Let us imagine that there are 6 AI civs with cutting edge techs - up to Gunpowder, Astro, Printing, Music - as an example. Thus, there are necessarily more than one Civ researching some of these techs. As they are all of roughly the same size/power to be cutting edge, they all finish their next tech at roughly the same time. As each civ finishes, they trade it to the other cutting edge civs who can afford it (at reduced rates, of course!) These civs then switch to other techs - including ones which needed this tech as a prerequisite. Thus, a civ can go from researching gunpowder to having metalurgy in the space of 3 turns!

The reason I mentioned wonders is that I assumed that having a short break between the race for certain wonders is implicit in the game's design. You do not expect to be able to switch from Sistine to Newton's College! But this will happen in my game. I admit that this might be deemed fair, as it gives all civs an opportunity to finish their wonder while not being held back by having the right tech. But it appears to me that rushing through the second half of the Middle Ages in the space of a handful of turns is unrealistic. All other challenges in the Deity level seem to be tough, but realistic.

### Responses ### [In reverse chrono order...]
pedrojedi: I assume MP is multiplayer? Yeah - MP, can't wait. PTW came out (apparently) here Down Under this weekend, but I do not have it. Love the idea, for the reason you mention - no AI means the ultimate challenge. (Yes, I love Diplomacy as well!) Still, the SP challenge lies in beating the best that Sid and the team can dish out, and still label winable. I am hoping this phenonemon will not effect the game from now on, but only this wonder-intense time.

wilbill: What does AFAIK mean? Hopefully it is now clear that I am not complaining about the changes in rules at Deity. I am glad that there is a 67% bonus for AI players, as when I thrash their arses in getting to wonders, despite their advantages, it is rewarding. I am talking about a difference in a fundamental game mechanism, and not a variable setting. I used the words "cheating" and "bug" to get players' and developpers' attention respectively. This is why I know want to make it clear that I am not moaning about deity being hard.

vmxa1: Thanks! I like your "they'll lose anyway" attitude! And the solution is obviously in trading techs to maximise one's ability to stay cutting-edge. Your suspicion was a good one - logical given the problem I proposed. BUT I am not actually referring to them getting techs easy once they have been discovered! That is a given - I know that once a tech is discovered, then ALL AI civs who are up to date on tech (no matter their wealth) will have it the next turn (assuming they have some gold/turn to trade, which they'll never give to me).

WarpStorm & Notyoueither: Adjusting the game mod settings may well be a good solution when playing with a certain number of players, at certain levels. I do think that it is not good to rely on the player to change the workings of the game - how do we know what is a fair challenge? I want to play the hardest game (on a map that I like, eg, Europe) according to the v1.29 rules. I have no idea how the mod rules may have been changed by the Author of Europe in the Civ3 website, and I don't know how I could change them back, IF they were changed. I thought that there were no real rule changes, but then again, squares diagonal from a river do not count as river! (I believe that this is strange and abnormal). But I accept them, as I have already invested an enormous number of hours into this game (and I'm still BC!) and it is indeed a challenge.

Question: Do you know how to verify what rules have been modified, and how? And how do we change them back to the current patch version?

Those who do not like Deity: The reason for this post, as I've already clarified, is not to get an easier game. I am only playing this bloody addicative game because of the challnge Diety offers. I tried Emporer and found it too easy for my style of overly nitpicking, detailed, time-consuming style of play. I only intend playing faster when I get a time limit in PTW. The real issue is if this quirk in AI-AI trade lets them gain doubly from trading techs, and if this is an intended working of the game.

For the record, I managed to build the Pyramids, Great Library, am about to have the choice of Sistine and JS Bach, and will be able to finish Copernicus' Observatory before any of the AI civs. All in the one city, which has no hills, no improvements (haven't had time yet, except for the wonders) and whose empire has managed to catch up to the size of the other civs. I have no doubt that I will win (even though I am still last in points) and it is not too difficult. This "quirk" worries me, though.

**Hurricane** · February 10, 2003, 03:04

Re: Clarification and response.

Originally posted by wrgj
### Clarification ###

The problem I am talking about is as follows. Imagine an AI player having, say 2 turns to finish researching a new tech. Then another player gets that tech, and trades it to aforementioned AI player. The AI player then has 1 turn to go for another UNDISCOVERED technology.

Thus, I suspect that the AI still will trade the tech only for a small amount if they only have a small amount of research to go (as the human player does) but then gets to transfer the research to another technology! This is doubling up on the value of trading techs, and at Deity level, they trade at reduced prices. I am not sure about the exact working of the valuation and mechanics of trading AI to AI, but I currently fear the worst in this situation.

[B] Evidence [\B]
How this appeared was when I was in the ancient era, and America (placed in England, with contact only with myself) had been researching Code of Laws for a while. I traded Lincon the tech, and the next turn he discovered Philosophy.

That would definitely be a bug, but I am 100% certain that there is some other explanation. Of course (like always), you should back up your claims with a savegame.

Announcement

Is the AI actually cheating??

Is the AI actually cheating??

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment