pop-rushing and tech trading... - Page 2

Sirian · February 15, 2002, 11:52

I have questions for Soren, or anyone else at Firaxis in the know. Why the double change to whip/draft penalties?

The whip was being exploited due to lack of "negative happiness". That part's been corrected now, so wouldn't doubling the duration penalty push the whip over into "useless" for all but cities only able to muster 1 shield per turn? Is that the intent?

Did you guys test the Negative Happiness (at the same 20 duration penalty) and find it not strong enough of a new penalty to achieve the desired balance? I'm looking to understand the reasoning for adding two new penalties. From my perspective, that sounds like a bit of overkill.

The same goes for the draft. I found a way to exploit that one and discovered that it wrecked the game when I did, so I backed off using it. But that, too, is entirely corrected with the advent of Negative Happiness, as you can only get a couple of units out of a city before that city is permanently crippled, so why the extended time penalty? Isn't the duration automatically extended with each new whip/draft operation? I thought 20 turns was too long for the draft. The civilopedia claimed the penalty would only last 10 turns and it took me months to catch on to 20 turn penalty. I always wondered why even two or three units of conscription wrecked my cities, or why captured AI cities would take forever to calm down.

I'll tell you this much: 40 turns is such a SEVERE penalty for one conscript unit, I'll be shelving that option in my games. Not going to be worth using, even in desperate times -- and I've been one of the few players around to value the draft much at all with the current penalties. I ask again, was this the intent of this change? To make these two options so unappealing, they go from the extreme of exploitation to the other extreme of abandonment and gathering dust, unused? I could be wrong, but that's what it sounds like to me.

What I was hoping to see was just the Negative Happiness correction. I thought the rest was pretty fairly balanced, or perhaps lower the draft penalty duration to 15 or even 10. With Negative Happiness, the penalty would actually be felt. That the penalty was sometimes ignored was the exploit problem, not its duration. How do you even know what the true value of the old penalty duration was, when the overriding contentment concealed the effects of any heavy use? Wouldn't the auto mechanic's principle of "Tinker with One Thing at a Time" have been more prudent here? Or did you do that and find the results lacking?

Since the AI's tend to draft more than the typical human player, and whip more in the industrial era, won't these penalties further weaken the AI performance at that stage of the game?

In a separate question, what will happen to saved games from the last patch? If I load up a game in which I've whipped a city 18 turns ago, will its penalty still vanish in two more turns, or will it be extended to 22 more turns?

- Sirian

smellymummy · February 15, 2002, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Sirian
Since the AI's tend to draft more than the typical human player, and whip more in the industrial era, won't these penalties further weaken the AI performance at that stage of the game?

I can see it already: Trying to take over an important city held by the AI, and the siege takes over 4 turns. During these 4 turns the AI drafts and drafts and drafts.... Then once the city is under your control and it repopulates, you have to handle "hell no we won't go!" sporadic civil disorder until the end of the game...

What about tech trading anyone? I actually enjoyed being able to trade techs on my turns when I was able to get the edge. Now that's gone, and I have to accept the first offer an AI gives me..... then that AI will trade it all over and pocket the change! Anyone else feel like that about techs trading? Raise your hands please!!

In 1.16f patch the tech trading was toned down, but now this is maybe too much. I think firaxis was listening way too much to the people who flooded there e-mail boxes with complaints resembling "your game is dumb i can exploit it like this! fix it or else i'll tell my mommy to get a refund!"

And what about city trading? That was such a cool thing, and the only fix firaxis could find was to lower the value of city trades to the equivalent of a diplomatic insult. Let me offer my great neighboor, my respected ally, a chance to buy one of my great cities. Forget it "this deal will probably insult him". Great fix, yeah.

And don't flame me about city trading exploitation (which didn't always worked). The problem could of been fixed otherwise.

Whatever, I'm still playing, but the game is taking on a really weird route.

DrSpike · February 15, 2002, 15:08

I agree with Sirian. The reason despotic rushing was unbalancing was the lack of multiple unhappiness in temp cities for the first unit of pop. In 1.16f you can't rush all the time in cities you want to keep without damaging long term growth.

Aeson · February 15, 2002, 16:03

I haven't yet applied the patch, waiting to finish my current game first. There would still seem to be a military camp possibility from the details given, has this been taken care of?

It would seem that a size 2 to 1 rush is still possible (50%), and that your size 1 city could just make its only citizen an entertainer to deal with happiness problems. Growth would be handled by adding captured workers to the city in most cases. This would allow for pop rushing to be self sustaining even with the patch. Razing cities for captured workers would become even more of a priority.

Also in some instances a two turn worker factory could still be set up, to pair with an 'entertainer' military camp. This would result in 4 turn military camps (2 turns x 2 cities), which is on par with the average rate a pop rushing city could sustain prepatch. The military camp could be disbanded to get rid of unhappiness buildup after it had served it's purpose.

Important questions:

Can Entertainers be overriden by unhappiness?

Do Settlers 'forget' unhappiness buildup?

Brundlefly · February 15, 2002, 16:12

Quote:

Originally posted by smellymummy

What about tech trading anyone? I actually enjoyed being able to

This has been fixed. The AI no longer trades on your turn.

Quote:

And what about city trading? That was such a cool thing, and the only fix firaxis could find was to lower the value of city trades to the equivalent of a diplomatic insult. Let me offer my great neighboor, my respected ally, a chance to buy one of my great cities. Forget it "this deal will probably insult him". Great fix, yeah.

And don't flame me about city trading exploitation (which didn't always worked). The problem could of been fixed otherwise.

I think city trading is totally unrealistic and detracts from the game. When has such a thing ever happened in history? I think they should just take it out. It is a huge advantage to the player and the AI does not even city trade amongst themselves.

siredgar · February 15, 2002, 17:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold

When I'm trading my techs I sell it to everybody, because even if I only get 5 gold its 5 more than I would get if someone else sold the tech to them a turn later. I think the AI is now doing much the same rather than holding out for fixed minimum prices as it may have done in the past, hence the reference to 'more aggressive' trading.

Well, why don't they sell a tech to me for five gold? It IS an old boys network and they DO like to trade with each other more.

Regardless, I have to say the AI is quite good overall. I was surprised to see the Greeks place a few galleys in the Strait of Gibraltor (on a realistic map) to block that pathway. They then moved them out when it was in my cultural sphere.

I do not like the way they won't buy back their own cities that I took from them or liberated for them from another civ. Also, shouldn't an ally give a city it "liberated" from an enemy back to me, instead of keeping it for itself so I have to declare war against it later? I mean when the U.S. liberated Paris they didn't keep it for themselves they gave it back to the French.

Sirian · February 15, 2002, 17:43

Aeson: sharp observation. I guess the poprush loophole is still not quite closed yet.

Even so, it's been improved upon. You could only build workers in two turns with a city that has 5 surplus food and five shields per turn, and a granary. That's only going to happen in a few cases, I think. More likely, to have workers coming every four or five turns, perhaps alternating with cheap units. And that would only work with your core cities, something within close range of the capital, so any distant poprushing of spread out empires should be held in check.

I've played one game now, and Right of Passage seems to have been taken entirely off the table, it's been rendered quite expensive. This is another move I do not understand. What is this aimed at rebalancing? If they are trying to make RoP betrayals impossible by making RoP agreements impossible, would that not be throwing the baby out with the bath water?? RoP had a strong position in the diplomatic/peaceful arsenal, and now it appears to be off the table. Who can afford to keep these things going if the AI's want your firstborn every 20 turns? Getting more cash for RoP agreements from the AI's was practically the ONLY real in-game benefit (other than score) to spread out widely and embrace higher corruption. I don't know what to make of this.

- Sirian

Aeson · February 16, 2002, 01:03

If it is possible to override happiness by turning the one population point to a specialist, then pop rushing is still extremely powerful. The reason is that any conquest will be self perpetuating, as captured workers instantly become military units. Depending on map size and difficulty level, its quite easy to get between 100 and 500 captured workers in the course of a game. Thats still a lot of pop rushing opportunities, usually more than will be needed to complete any conquest. Of course losing more mobile units to non-retreats will have an effect on how many military units need to be produced in the course of a game.

Grumbold · February 16, 2002, 03:32

I'm not a pop-rush expert but it strikes me that if a 1 pop town has to be an entertainer permanently then its rate of production will be terrible. You're not going to get much of a unit for only 1 point of pop-rush so the captured worker may be more useful as a worker until the endgame where all squares are fully improved. Poprushing 100% corrupt cities during the endgame is about the only sensible way to get rid of all those hundreds of irritating units (unless you want to go through the "delete? Are you sure?" dialog for every single one of them).

To my mind its far more about killing off another strategy employed at the start of the game. We have to rush-expand or lose our expansion space to an omniscent AI who knows everywhere we have left for later. Now we have to push for monarchy or republic a.s.a.p because Despotism is inferior in every way. Expansion will be slower so we have to spend longer in an Ancient Era which has less features. Where's the fun in that?

DrFell · February 16, 2002, 07:10

You could of course have one city pumping out workers and another size 1 'taxman city' doing the actual work. 10 shields and one pop point become 40 shields. Hmm....

Edit: Just noticed Aeson said this already

DrFell · February 16, 2002, 07:14

'Now we have to push for monarchy or republic a.s.a.p because Despotism is inferior in every way. Expansion will be slower so we have to spend longer in an Ancient Era which has less features. Where's the fun in that?'

Well despo was crap in Civ2 as well, it's still a better government than it was in 2. Anyway it makes things more difficult and makes the game more viable for MP, because pop rush as it was before was so slow.

Andrew Cory · February 17, 2002, 02:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Feephi
I think city trading is totally unrealistic and detracts from the game. When has such a thing ever happened in history? I think they should just take it out. It is a huge advantage to the player and the AI does not even city trade amongst themselves.

Well, in the US, the (um, I think it was called) Galvastan Purchas was made from mexico, just a bit of land that the US wanted to possibly build a transconinental railroad on. The US also bought the whole of Alaska from Russia, about 1/3 of the country from the French (although technical all that was purchased was Frances _claim_ on that territory.), not to mention about 90% of a continent was bought from various native tribes.

It is true that none of these represented actual cities (can you immagine what would happen if Russia tried to sell Kiev?!?! Of course, the Chinese might be happy to purchase Vlaidivostok) but in Civ, territory is represented by cities. And if they were straped enough for cash, any government might just do that...

Kc7mxo · February 17, 2002, 02:51

Quote:

I think city trading is totally unrealistic and detracts from the game. When has such a thing ever happened in history? I think they should just take it out. It is a huge advantage to the player and the AI does not even city trade amongst themselves.

mm. ever heard of hong kong? new york? Loiusianna purchase? Territory exchanges hands all the time, (though not so much anymore) it is a perfectly realistic option. and if they removed it, there would be no way to return cities that you liberated to your allies.

siredgar · February 17, 2002, 14:10

They should bring back selling/trading cities under population 4 or so. I'd like to sell some of the cities I've liberated for an ally back to them and also buy small colonies from other civs.

paulmagusnet · February 18, 2002, 02:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Feephi

I think city trading is totally unrealistic and detracts from the game. When has such a thing ever happened in history? I think they should just take it out. It is a huge advantage to the player and the AI does not even city trade amongst themselves.

I strongly disagree. Go read history, city trading has been quite popular. Ever hear of the Luisiana Purchase or the Alaska Purhase? The Dutch sold S Africa to the British who so bungled integration that they had the Boer War.

The only question is proper valuation of cities and AI goals.

America's relationship with France actually improved, as both Napolean and Jefferson got what they wanted.

THERE SHOULD BE NO ARTIFICIAL RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE, SIMPLY BETTER AI BEHAVIOR.

We SHOULD have sove quantitative idea of the value of what we are asking for and offering beyond cryptic comments from the paper clip person. It's really annoying the way it is currently set up.

player1 · February 18, 2002, 04:28

Quote:

Originally posted by paulmagusnet

I strongly disagree. Go read history, city trading has been quite popular. Ever hear of the Luisiana Purchase or the Alaska Purhase? The Dutch sold S Africa to the British who so bungled integration that they had the Boer War.

The only question is proper valuation of cities and AI goals.

America's relationship with France actually improved, as both Napolean and Jefferson got what they wanted.

THERE SHOULD BE NO ARTIFICIAL RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE, SIMPLY BETTER AI BEHAVIOR.

We SHOULD have sove quantitative idea of the value of what we are asking for and offering beyond cryptic comments from the paper clip person. It's really annoying the way it is currently set up.

Look one nice thread in stratgey forums (and proposed algorithm for AI vs AI city trading).

Ribannah · February 18, 2002, 09:12

Shouldn't the anger from pop-rushing wear off faster once the city grows beyond the original size?

Zealot · February 18, 2002, 09:56

Uh, about the tech trading, does this mean that from now on we have to be in front of the monitor *every* time the AI plays its turn? I mean, they could want to trade a tech in their turn, and the game will stop so we can negotiate.

Isn't this the end of 'time to get a sandwich while the AI plays'? Won't we be forced to be expecting for some AI to talk to us?

Bloodaxe · February 18, 2002, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by smellymummy

I can see it already: Trying to take over an important city held by the AI, and the siege takes over 4 turns. During these 4 turns the AI drafts and drafts and drafts.... Then once the city is under your control and it repopulates, you have to handle "hell no we won't go!" sporadic civil disorder until the end of the game...

This has already happened to me in the game I just finished. Captured city could not be gotten past 1 pop due to the unhappiness over the draft even with temple/marketplace/cathedral/5+luxuries. Guess I'll just have to live with it.

smellymummy · February 19, 2002, 04:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
The US also bought the whole of Alaska from Russia, about 1/3 of the country from the French (although technical all that was purchased was Frances _claim_ on that territory.), not to mention about 90% of a continent was bought from various native tribes.

about the french *claim*... there were actually some settlements the french had established over the years. If i remember my lessons correctly, the english did not settle that far out west from the atlantic until much later in the colonial days... That left the french easy access (they came in from the st-laurent, to the great lakes, then all the way south).

besides ever notice all those cities with french names all through the middle part of where france had claims. And all the french family names of these regions. These can't all be homages to lafayette, right? Sure the french did not have the numbers, but they sure went out far...

and ever played colonization? So many of the french cities I think it was, were really american citie names, or was that vice versa.. Speaking about colonization, wasnt the guy responsible for that the missing key in civ3 (brian reynolds? a genius imo)? Shame he had to leave.

Andrew Cory · February 19, 2002, 04:36

Quote:

Originally posted by smellymummy

about the french *claim*... there were actually some settlements the french had established over the years. If i remember my lessons correctly, the english did not settle that far out west from the atlantic until much later in the colonial days... That left the french easy access (they came in from the st-laurent, to the great lakes, then all the way south).

I belive that you missed the point. Yes, the Americans purchased the French claim, and yes, with that came a lot of cities and settlements and whatnot, but in addition to that, there was a lot of territory the French claimed that various native American nations also claimed. One of the things that America bought with the territory was the right to dispute those native claims. Hence America had to fight the war of 1812 to keep the English from suplying said nations...

smellymummy · February 19, 2002, 04:54

i dont think i missed the point. I was just trying to paint a nicer sounding picture about the french. Instead of just having a broad notion that the french only claimed the land, they did have people around.

and was that what the war of 1812 was all about? i thought there was more to it than that.

Andrew Cory · February 19, 2002, 05:30

Quote:

Originally posted by smellymummy
i dont think i missed the point. I was just trying to paint a nicer sounding picture about the french. Instead of just having a broad notion that the french only claimed the land, they did have people around.

and was that what the war of 1812 was all about? i thought there was more to it than that.

Ah, I got you. Yes, the French did have people there, and yes, we _did_ help pay for the Napolonic wars. Which came in handy for us a few years latter, when it was _just_ enough to distract the English from giving us the whipping they could have had they but the full use of their millitary. (potentialy offensive comments about Laura Secord have been deleted by the poster) *sigh*

But, from the American perspective, the War of 1812 had a few different objectives:
1) Make the British respect American Soveriengty.
2) Keep Europe from playing in the Americas
3) I am sure there was one, but I cannot think of it right now...

That stuff you learned in schools about boats and sailors was mostly BS, BTW...

Intersting side note: On any objective scale, the US lost that war, and yet still mannaged to achive all of their objectives. Seems some bright boy in England realized that it would be smart to have friends in N. America who were not Canucks. Sure does seem far-sided of them at this point, doesn't it?

barefootbadass · February 19, 2002, 17:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Bloodaxe

This has already happened to me in the game I just finished. Captured city could not be gotten past 1 pop due to the unhappiness over the draft even with temple/marketplace/cathedral/5+luxuries. Guess I'll just have to live with it.

This really happens? I thought draft/pop rush unhappiness only applied to the civ that did the rushing. It would be something remembered like previous culture in case of a recapture, so you couldn't lose the city and then capture it back to clean the slate, but whoever captured the city would not be affected by your drafts.

Anyway, about the ai, if it hasn't been programmed to shun the draft to avoid negative happiness, it is dead in late game. Deity will really be a joke, for anyone who can survive to nationalism.

Raion · February 19, 2002, 17:57

And if elected President, I will strive to make this game a quite a few years game, competing with players from around this Planet, and on and on................further more....................and..............if....... ...............

Arrian · February 20, 2002, 12:14

Soren, if you're listening (well, reading, but you know what I mean) please seriously consider removing or somehow toning down the unhappiness penalty you get when taking an opponent's city that has been abused. I'm currently trying to nurse several Greek cities back to health, but I fear that dear 'ole Alex did too much drafting.

It's just a little much, that's all. I think the patch has moved the game from one extreme to the other. The AI still seems to whip and draft like crazy, meaning there is little reason to actually keep their cities. I've yet to raze any in the game I'm now playing, as I like the new rules regarding suppression cultural reversion. I don't have to raze-n-rebuild all the time.... or so I thought. For the next war, I'm bringin' settlers along.

Drafting should probably go back to a 20-turn penalty, instead of 40. 40 is just brutal. Heck, a Roman city I got via culture flip early on couldn't go past size 1 (with a temple and the 1 citizen still had to be an entertainer) for quite some time, due to some whipping Mr. Caesar had done.

I think that many here would agree with me when I say that most players are VERY annoyed when they get punished for something the (insert putdown here [stupid, cheating, etc.]) AI did. It's not MY fault that Caesar was crackin' the whip. It's only partially my fault that Alex drafted (he attacked me, unprovoked, and lost).

I don't know what to do about what Aeson brought up (just turn one citizen into an entertainer, add captured workers and pump out units... disband later). Such a thing... never occurred to me. Aeson, you warmonger you.

-Arrian

p.s. I haven't played enough yet to make an informed judgement regarding the new AI tech trading, but I can tell you that it's at once annoying and challenging. You do get more of a "all the AI's vs. me" feeling.

Soapyfrog · February 20, 2002, 12:47

Probably unhappiness due to draft/whip should be cancelled, in whole or in part, when the city changes hands, since the conqueror would be viewed as a "liberator".

Also, a city which has been subject to heavy whipping (or drafting) which changes hands would probably resist a lot less for the same reasons.

These would be nice additions.

DrFell · February 20, 2002, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah
Shouldn't the anger from pop-rushing wear off faster once the city grows beyond the original size?

I think they should just cut it back to 20 turns, and leave it at that. The best way to pop rush as it is is to have the size one taxman city (not that I'm complaining about that, it adds some variety to the way I play).

player1 · February 20, 2002, 14:54

Quote:

Originally posted by DrFell
I think they should just cut it back to 20 turns, and leave it at that. The best way to pop rush as it is is to have the size one taxman city (not that I'm complaining about that, it adds some variety to the way I play).

It should be 20.
Drafting was OK before.
Now it's something impossibile.

While whiping is even worse. It degrades AI.
I have conquested one American city in ancient era.
And now, I am in Industrial era, and some people are still unhappy because Amrecians whiped their own people 2000 years before.

belchingjester · February 20, 2002, 18:19

I like both SoapyFrog's and Arrian's ideas. Maybe there's some middle ground - inherit some of the unhappiness but not all?

Of course, if a city is retaken by the perpetrators, they should have to deal with the resentment full force. That might be tricky to do...

Also, now that the happiness incrementing is fixed, why do we have 40 turns? That does make it pretty tough - I agree with making pop-rushing less attractive, but still...

I don't have a problem with the AI tech trading (makes it easier to catch up), but I find it ridiculous (this has been raised other places too) that an AI would be willing to pay me 60 gold for a tech, but would be insulted by 3 gold/turn for 20 turns. Also ludicrous that I could PAY the AI a lump sum, but if I add 1 gold/turn the deal becomes less attractive.

-belchingjester