Tweet
The New Trade Penalty vs Devaluation
In prior versions, if you met a civ and neither of you had met anybody else yet, they would trade with you evenly. That is, if you started with Masonry and they started with The Wheel, Masonry is worth slightly more, so they would be happy to trade. Now in 1.17f, this is no longer the case at high difficulty. On top of all their other bonuses, they now treat the player as a pariah, giving him worse deals, while trading amongst one another on even terms.
THIS is the reason why it now feels like Me vs The World.
What makes it playable is the devaluation. The current tech devaluation is SO severe, that the new trade penalty all but vanishes, as paying double for 1/8th cost, being the last of 8 civs to get the tech, is still only 1/4th of the primary cost. (My numbers are just an example and don't match the actual penalties and devalution, but you get the point).
The net result is now that on Emperor and especially Deity, there are two forces pulling at opposite ends: the trade penalty, and the tech devaluation.
I happen to believe that the emtremity of the devaluation is masking the flaws in the trade penalty. Once you are in contact with everybody, it stops mattering any more. BUT... if you are in contact with just one or two other civs, perhaps playing an archipelago map instead of pangaea, the broken nature of the new trade penalty shows through very clearly. In that situation, there is the inescapable sense of unfairness, as the AI's are able to trade freely but they impose the equivalent of oppressive tariffs on any trade they do with the player.
This is a problem! It pigeonholes the strategy into "Make Contact At ALL Costs", because the deciding factor in the game is how many other civs you're in contact with, and that applies to the AI's as well as the player.
I'm afraid the game balance goes out the window. Pangaea becomes simplistic, while anything that prevents you from making contact with lots of civs becomes pointless or frustrating. And yes, I agree with those who are saying this speeds the total pace of the game up too much, at least until Industrial, when wars will plunge most of the civs into the one government sure to sink their economies: Communism.
(Communism is SO WORTHLESS and broken that Anarchy is sometimes a better alternative! Isn't Communism supposed to be more attractive for sprawling empires than other governments? It's not. Here's proof if you want it, complete with save files if you want to compare Communism with Monarchy, 1820AD vs 1830AD. Click Here The problem with Communism is that corruption contines to climb as you add more cities, and that defeats the purpose of spreading the corruption around. The net result is that distant cities are still worthless, while the home cities are also penalized. Under all the other governments, at least the home cities stay strong! In fact, I'd say that Communism's broken state is more responsible even than Railroads for the pathetic performance of AI's post-industrial -- I'm getting off topic, though).
The new Trade Penalty for high difficulties is a step backward. I have found that exploiting the devaluation, and riding the coattails of the AI's until I'm strong enough to make a play, I can cope with it and still do well, even on Deity -- all with no exploit play.
BUT... that just shows up another problem. The devaluation is too strong, also. It renders the tech race nearly moot. Keeping a tech lead is too hard, and recovering from a tech hole is too easy. In 1.07, there was no point bothering with research in the early game, just buy everything. 1.16 fixed that, but now it's back to being broken again, as the best move is to ignore research, wait until you make contact with everyone, then buy yourself into tech parity on the ultracheap. Doing your own research IS A LOSING MOVE and this has to be considered broken.
If you research while isolated, you may need to do some research to have things to keep building. Need harbors, libraries, courthouses, maybe aqueducts. If you have nothing to do, that's more wasteful than doing research. BUT... short of that, doing your own research is foolish for this reason: tech devaluates, but coin does not. The wise player then saves everything into coin that he possibly can, then uses it to buy into tech parity. Any surplus can be used to rushbuy improvements or upgrade troops. The game is playable this way, but this can't be how it was meant to be!
I'm of the opinion that tech devaluation itself is a flawed concept, precisely because of that factor that research devalues in the game but coin does not. In REAL life, both devaluate. Obsolete tech becomes cheaper and readily available, but inflation also eats into savings, reducing the value of coin in a similar way. Civ3 doesn't account for this, which is why it has become a tech-whoring game end to end, in various ways. Human players are smart and will find all the loopholes for "storing" their economic gains in the areas where they won't be devalued as much.
Soren, if you ever want to tech whoring to stop, you will have to discard or at least dramatically change the tech devaluation system. It seems to me that immediate devaluation is a problem. In real life, obsolete tech only devaluates when the tech leader is several advances ahead. That is to say, a software company (for example) has no problem releasing source code to a program from five years ago, but NO WAY would they release it instantly just because a few rivals have developed similar programs. Do you follow that analogy in pertaining to the flaws in the instant devalution of Civ III techs?
I know it's not that simple, as the tech devaluation leads players to earn less from brokering techs to everybody. But there is also a flaw in the 100% willingness of the AI's to make trades. The AI will never turn down a trade if the buyer can pay their asking price. (Well, except if at war). They will never refuse to buy from the player, no matter how slimy his reputation gets. They never ever withold techs when in the tech lead, and it would actually be unwise for them to do so. The very fact that tech devaluates means that it would be foolish to hold on to it (economically). If you're going to sell it, sell it while the price is still high! If you wait, you lose the chance. This is the fault of devaluation. If not for the devaluation, the AI's could afford to turn down deals, try to be stingy with their tech now and then.
My jaw would probably FALL OFF if I saw an AI refusing to trade Music Theory to anybody while they sit and build on their Bach's Cathedral. If players are tech whores, they learned it from the AI, as the AI's will sell anything to anybody at any time, IF the price is right.
Whatever else you may decide, please repeal the Trade Penalty. The game was fun when civs I met (on high difficulty) were willing to deal with me fairly, or maybe with a slight bias. It's enough that they start with free units, have been given discounts on food, shields, and trade, and that the player has some handicaps too. But adding on top of that that the AI's shun the player and rip him off, accepting only 3-for-1 kind of deals in their favor while the Good Ole Boys AI Network trade with each other... is pointless, definitely NOT fun, and drives the player to have to exploit some trick or other, like shutting down all research to avoid any devaluation, poprushing, or city-trading exploits.
- Sirian
In prior versions, if you met a civ and neither of you had met anybody else yet, they would trade with you evenly. That is, if you started with Masonry and they started with The Wheel, Masonry is worth slightly more, so they would be happy to trade. Now in 1.17f, this is no longer the case at high difficulty. On top of all their other bonuses, they now treat the player as a pariah, giving him worse deals, while trading amongst one another on even terms.
THIS is the reason why it now feels like Me vs The World.
What makes it playable is the devaluation. The current tech devaluation is SO severe, that the new trade penalty all but vanishes, as paying double for 1/8th cost, being the last of 8 civs to get the tech, is still only 1/4th of the primary cost. (My numbers are just an example and don't match the actual penalties and devalution, but you get the point).
The net result is now that on Emperor and especially Deity, there are two forces pulling at opposite ends: the trade penalty, and the tech devaluation.
I happen to believe that the emtremity of the devaluation is masking the flaws in the trade penalty. Once you are in contact with everybody, it stops mattering any more. BUT... if you are in contact with just one or two other civs, perhaps playing an archipelago map instead of pangaea, the broken nature of the new trade penalty shows through very clearly. In that situation, there is the inescapable sense of unfairness, as the AI's are able to trade freely but they impose the equivalent of oppressive tariffs on any trade they do with the player.
This is a problem! It pigeonholes the strategy into "Make Contact At ALL Costs", because the deciding factor in the game is how many other civs you're in contact with, and that applies to the AI's as well as the player.
I'm afraid the game balance goes out the window. Pangaea becomes simplistic, while anything that prevents you from making contact with lots of civs becomes pointless or frustrating. And yes, I agree with those who are saying this speeds the total pace of the game up too much, at least until Industrial, when wars will plunge most of the civs into the one government sure to sink their economies: Communism.
(Communism is SO WORTHLESS and broken that Anarchy is sometimes a better alternative! Isn't Communism supposed to be more attractive for sprawling empires than other governments? It's not. Here's proof if you want it, complete with save files if you want to compare Communism with Monarchy, 1820AD vs 1830AD. Click Here The problem with Communism is that corruption contines to climb as you add more cities, and that defeats the purpose of spreading the corruption around. The net result is that distant cities are still worthless, while the home cities are also penalized. Under all the other governments, at least the home cities stay strong! In fact, I'd say that Communism's broken state is more responsible even than Railroads for the pathetic performance of AI's post-industrial -- I'm getting off topic, though).
The new Trade Penalty for high difficulties is a step backward. I have found that exploiting the devaluation, and riding the coattails of the AI's until I'm strong enough to make a play, I can cope with it and still do well, even on Deity -- all with no exploit play.
BUT... that just shows up another problem. The devaluation is too strong, also. It renders the tech race nearly moot. Keeping a tech lead is too hard, and recovering from a tech hole is too easy. In 1.07, there was no point bothering with research in the early game, just buy everything. 1.16 fixed that, but now it's back to being broken again, as the best move is to ignore research, wait until you make contact with everyone, then buy yourself into tech parity on the ultracheap. Doing your own research IS A LOSING MOVE and this has to be considered broken.
If you research while isolated, you may need to do some research to have things to keep building. Need harbors, libraries, courthouses, maybe aqueducts. If you have nothing to do, that's more wasteful than doing research. BUT... short of that, doing your own research is foolish for this reason: tech devaluates, but coin does not. The wise player then saves everything into coin that he possibly can, then uses it to buy into tech parity. Any surplus can be used to rushbuy improvements or upgrade troops. The game is playable this way, but this can't be how it was meant to be!
I'm of the opinion that tech devaluation itself is a flawed concept, precisely because of that factor that research devalues in the game but coin does not. In REAL life, both devaluate. Obsolete tech becomes cheaper and readily available, but inflation also eats into savings, reducing the value of coin in a similar way. Civ3 doesn't account for this, which is why it has become a tech-whoring game end to end, in various ways. Human players are smart and will find all the loopholes for "storing" their economic gains in the areas where they won't be devalued as much.
Soren, if you ever want to tech whoring to stop, you will have to discard or at least dramatically change the tech devaluation system. It seems to me that immediate devaluation is a problem. In real life, obsolete tech only devaluates when the tech leader is several advances ahead. That is to say, a software company (for example) has no problem releasing source code to a program from five years ago, but NO WAY would they release it instantly just because a few rivals have developed similar programs. Do you follow that analogy in pertaining to the flaws in the instant devalution of Civ III techs?
I know it's not that simple, as the tech devaluation leads players to earn less from brokering techs to everybody. But there is also a flaw in the 100% willingness of the AI's to make trades. The AI will never turn down a trade if the buyer can pay their asking price. (Well, except if at war). They will never refuse to buy from the player, no matter how slimy his reputation gets. They never ever withold techs when in the tech lead, and it would actually be unwise for them to do so. The very fact that tech devaluates means that it would be foolish to hold on to it (economically). If you're going to sell it, sell it while the price is still high! If you wait, you lose the chance. This is the fault of devaluation. If not for the devaluation, the AI's could afford to turn down deals, try to be stingy with their tech now and then.
My jaw would probably FALL OFF if I saw an AI refusing to trade Music Theory to anybody while they sit and build on their Bach's Cathedral. If players are tech whores, they learned it from the AI, as the AI's will sell anything to anybody at any time, IF the price is right.
Whatever else you may decide, please repeal the Trade Penalty. The game was fun when civs I met (on high difficulty) were willing to deal with me fairly, or maybe with a slight bias. It's enough that they start with free units, have been given discounts on food, shields, and trade, and that the player has some handicaps too. But adding on top of that that the AI's shun the player and rip him off, accepting only 3-for-1 kind of deals in their favor while the Good Ole Boys AI Network trade with each other... is pointless, definitely NOT fun, and drives the player to have to exploit some trick or other, like shutting down all research to avoid any devaluation, poprushing, or city-trading exploits.
- Sirian
Comment