Conclusion: Diffusion is the Solution.

[GePap]

Diffusion is the Solution: A polemic [rant] followed by a thesis (Rant opptional)

Polemic:
This is yet another thread thats an off shoot of the FP/HP debate, but addressing a very common comlaint and the idea of 'realism' and gaming. The common complaint from many who defend the combat system is that the endgame of Civ2 was onesided after one player got a huge technological lead- you just made a few howlitzers and, using their RR's if any, steamrolled them mercilessly, no thinking, no strategy, no nothing. Now, I must admit that some days, I am in the mood for such slaughter, but a challenging battle would really be more fun because, even though i would probably get a heart attck, the satisfaction in beeting a worthy foe is nice. So, the argument goes, by instituting a combat system that overvalues old units (or undervalues new units) the backwards have a chance, giving the player a real fight. Also, the new resource system just makes the situation of haves, have nots WORST than before, since it's not only about tech but resources too. Well, as many know, I disagree with the idea that the thing to change then was the combat system. I think a combination of the Civ2 and SMAC combat system plus a few of the new features would have made the perfect combat sysytem. Yes, ancient units would get steamrolled, but they SHOULD. The greatest problem, ladies and gentlemen, is not whether ancients units should have a better chance at fighting modern ones (they SHOULD NOT) but whether ancient units should even fight modern ones- and the greatest problem here is the science system.
There are many who call for 'realism' in the combat system. Well, if pure 'realism' or close faccimily is important, then why not more howls at the UTTERLY ILLOGICAL nature of hoe science in Civ3, or nay civ game, works? Heres the deal. Somehow, I know beforehand what kind of technology my sicentist needs to learn (hey, there this thing called iron, and we could probably use it to make stronger swords for cheaper, so now go tell me what iron is and how it could be used to make better swords.....) and you also know EXACTLY how long it will take them to learn this based on the resources you are giving them (by the way, it will take you a century to discover how to do this with 10 gold, so, get going....). I could probably come up with some very strange case were musketmen would beat a Panzer division, but i simply CAN'T overcome the logical paradoxes of the science system. Now, better science systems exists that are far more realistic. Think of the blind research mode in SMAC, or the much earlier research system of MOO1. But for most gamers (me included, most of the time) this type of system is annoying because I then lack Godlike control, which is why you could turn it off in SMAC and why MOO2 didn't use it. Still, civ games allow one player to build nearly impossible tech leads with even their immidiate neighbors. Since espionage in this game is prohibitively expensive, the only way science gets around is by diplomacy- which means that the computer, or gamer, has the ability to build a huge tech lead and make sure the computer never gets anywere (there are already posts about how to make the A.I. pay itself into terminal tech backwardness). It is only because gamers or the A.I. are able to create nearly impossible tech leads that ancient units ever fight modern armor (besides the fact that the A.I. never upgrades). A true solution then to boring endgames or even steamrolling by ancient warriors (once the combat system is 'improved') is to make rules to keep tech differences to a manegable [realistic] level, insuring a challenging game.

Thesis:
Institute three new rules, which should not be that hard to code in. The two more radical should be optional, so gamers can ignore them if it does not suit their style.

1. Old complaint, but insure that the A.I. update its units to the most tech advaced possible (this takes resources into account)

2. Bring back tech capture. Unitl this game, you could take tech throught war. This happens in real life and should happen in the game. (the US missile program begun with German equipment and German scientist capture in war) Now, the way it was done before was too powerful (how could I get to choose froma lsit of all i don't know?). What I say, is have chance, small but not inconsequential, of taking tech you lack when to conquer a city. certain things, like the inclusion of libs, unis's or wonders, should increase the chance [forces gamer to defend such cities more carefully as well as being more likely in real life] The chance should be very great if you wipe them out or take capitol [secret documents].

3. Include diffusion-(the solution). One can't control ideas folks- how many civs 'discovered' gunpowder? One. How many use it? Many. Did the Chinese give this away? Certainly not- the idea just travelled- as do human beings. Diffusion of ideas is very powerful. The resaon native American civs were so unrepared was that they were isolated from the mass of humanity and thus did not share in the great exchange of germs and ideas that those in Eurasia engaged in. Even if Europe did get a large tech lead over the rest of wolrd, the tech difference within europe was never that great (again, diffusion). How would this work? well, every tech would have a grace period (whch gets shorter every new age) in which one has an assured monopoly if they were the only ones to discover it through their own effort. After this period, every turn there would be a small random chance that another civ would get the tech, just for free. Now, various variable influence this chance. The other civ need to be in contact. Land borders imrpove the chances. Trade greatly increases the chances (make openning trade routes a real question and may allow for 'isolationist' policies like those of Japan) and so do diplomatic agreements. war would make diffision very difficult (take it through conquest!).

I would add, that while so radical a chnage it peopably will never make it in, blind researching ala SMAcv should have also been possible.

[codemast01]

An excellent idea. However I propose that for a civ to get a tech for free, it must maintain its science level at a certain level. For at least x turns. Or lower the rate at which they gain free techs if their science rate is low. This should be done to be more realistic. Even if a country gets a blueprint for a F-22, they still need scientists to build it. This will keep a country from getting techs totally free.

[Thoth]

While I agree with you on your first two points, I disagree with your third point. Civ III already has a mechanism in place to model tech diffusion. The more civilizations to own a particular tech, the cheaper it is to research for those who lack it. I fear that increasing this diffusion would only reduce the value of research without adding anything to the gameplay or realism.

Blind research yes (as an option), and I think your ideas about tech capture are great, but tech diffusion is already adequately modeled in CIv III.

[Dis]

I believe there is no research problem. If you play a high enough level the ai will keep up with you.

the problem is the ai keeping old units around, not building better units, and not uprgrading defensive units. this is what needs to be fixed.

[YC4B4U]

I disagree with Tech capture but would prefer (in search for a better phrase) Tech contributions.

This has been done in another game I have played where killing a unit with sophisticated weaponary gave me a chance to pick up points towards that particular advance.

ie killing a musketeer with my swordsman gave me (say) 100 gold towards the advance of gunpowder. (amount randomly generated)

Similarly capturing a city with a library and marketplace would provide gold towards the advances of Literature and Currency (I hope I got the advances right).

Tech diffusion is a great idea but apparently already in the game (I don't really know). And upgrades of old AI units - YES PLEASE.

As regards the AI keeping up in science - my trouble is keeping up with the AI

[GePap]

Certainly the diffusion would help the human player also.

As for the contribution idea, I am not sure how it could be made to work. Would you have to be researching the tech at that point to get the contribution? or would the game 'remember' how many contributions towards a specific tech you have gathered? Also, 100 gold is a lot of money. maybe you meant 100 beakers?

[YC4B4U]

Originally posted by GePap
Certainly the diffusion would help the human player also.

As for the contribution idea, I am not sure how it could be made to work. Would you have to be researching the tech at that point to get the contribution? or would the game 'remember' how many contributions towards a specific tech you have gathered? Also, 100 gold is a lot of money. maybe you meant 100 beakers?

Clarification: Game would remember - just like putting into a bucket, once the bucket is full you get the tech. I suppose it could run into trouble if all of a sudden you invented Rocketry when you are in the ancient era - but I am sure there are ways to make it work logically.

One hundred Gold / One hundred beakers what ever - just "Show me the money"

[Fistleaf]

I think the reason why the AI does not upgrade their troops is because they do not have the money. Usually I find them with pitiful amounts of money probably due to the upkeep of huge number of troops they create. Couple this with the fact that I keep selling them techs, luxuries, resources, maps and they have to each pay me x gold/turn, you get the picture.

[rid102]

. Usually I find them with pitiful amounts of money probably due to the upkeep of huge number of troops they create.

To be successful at Civ3 you need to live between a fine balance of just having enough money in the bank to keep going. If you have surplus then you can afford more Science spending or can trade for resources/tech, i.e. you're not being as efficient as you can be. With Civ3 because everything runs off gold, it makes no sense at all to have any serious kind of cash reserves (whereas in Civ2, it didn't really make much difference).

BTW: The people who are on here ranting about all the great game ideas and changes they want is all well and good, but how many of you actually code or work on Civ-style games (e.g. Civ3 or FreeCiv etc.)? Seems like a bit of a waste of time to me ranting about ideas that you cannot implement nor could you even test the balance effects of.

[Optimizer]

If I am right, the number of beakers needed for a tech decreases when more civs have the tech.

[GodSpawn]

I disagree with point 2 especially.

I want to be able to give techs to a weak civ that's at war with a strong civ, without fear of the techs falling into the wrong hands. Ok, that's a bit sneaky...

[GePap]

To Godspawn:
Sometimes you have to take chances.

To rid102:
But then what would be the point of the General Forum

[dexters]

There are various reasons for ancient units fighting modern ones, and plenty of those reasons have nothing to do with tech leads

1) in relatively stable games with stable borders, people will hit their desired military size early in the game. Upgrading can be a choice, but with certain units reaching limits on how far they can be upgraded, the economics and realities of the game may force the player to keep their outdated units to keep the balance of power and not become a target of invasion, until such time as they can find the production resources to replace those units. In small maps with limited amount of cities, it could be a time consuming effort.

2) AI almost never upgrade their units, they simply replace them through attrition.

3) It is cost effective to keep ancient units as fodder. Instead of disbanding them to create free shields for new contruction project, it is almost always more efficient to throw them in the front lines as shock troops, mauling an enemy army before your newly minted expensive modern units get into the battlefield.

[GePap]

dexters:
I rarely ever disband since for money i can directly upgrade. It seems to me to help your balance of power more to have 10 extra inf. than spearmen. This is what i call to be fixed, make the A.I. more likely to spend gold to upgrade its defensive units (yes, through attrition it lost its spearmen, and its capitol...) while it uses its shields to build other stuff.

[dexters]

Well, the defensive units like spearman you can upgrade all the way to infantry.

But units like Swordsman and Archer/longbowman reach a dead end. And you'll need those units to be effective in the early game, especially if you have hostile neighbors. Actually, longbowman can still be quite effective vs. rifleman in the mid game.

I refer to those units when i talk about not disbanding dead end units.

[Your.Master]

There are so many good ideas in this thread that I can't decide. I just agree with all of them, including the ones that contradict the other ones.

[dexters]

I contradict you for the sake of contradicting.

Realism is good, but fantasy is better but realism is even better.