pop-rushing and tech trading... - Page 3

DrFell · February 21, 2002, 05:49

Quote:

Originally posted by player1
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.

Yeah, unhappiness from whipping should disappear when another civ conquers the city, after all, it's not you who's subjected them to any oppression. The people should of course have a memory and unhappiness should come back if the city goes back to it's previous owners.

Grey Fox · February 22, 2002, 17:12

Why won't the AI trade me any techs?

Seems like it's them against me...

The only possible strategy in Pop-Rushing it seems is the ones Aeson provided, put up some worker factories, and some 1 Specialist cities (Why Entertainers Aeson? Make 'em Taxmen or Scientists instead) that pop-rush with the workers.

This would make it possible to rush out an Horseman or Swordsman every other turn in one town.

To prevent this strategy, Firaxis would have to take away "Add to City"-option with Workers and Settlers.

Aeson · February 22, 2002, 17:40

I just defaulted to entertainers (much like the game), I should have said specialists. A way to fix specialist rushing without disallowing population increases through adding settlers and workers is to allow unhappy people to turn into resistors. The first pop rush would make a content citizen unhappy, the next would make an unhappy citizen into a resistor. Since a resistor can't be changed to a specialist, and a city in resistance can't rush build, this would limit cities to how often they can be pop rushed.

DrFell · February 22, 2002, 18:14

Yeah, that would be a good way to fix it. Sounds similar to the unhappy citizens of civ2. Might be difficult to put in though, especially if your troops quelled the resistors. All you'd need would be a couple size one pop rush cities, when you get resistance in one, wait for it to end, then switch to another. Still, that would make it even more difficult to use.

Arrian · February 22, 2002, 18:17

Aeson,

Great idea... but don't resistors have to be foreign? So I don't know if this could be done in a "native" city. I could be wrong, though. If a resistor doesn't have to be foreign, your idea fixes the exploit nicely. The negative unhappiness should remain, and the penalty should be returned to 20 turns. Then the only real problem left is inherited unhappiness when you capture cities. I could see that being difficult to change, however.

-Arrian

Bloodaxe · February 22, 2002, 21:55

And here's a picture. I've forgotten exactly when I captured this city but it was 20+ turns ago.

GeneralTacticus · February 24, 2002, 02:56

I agree that you shouldn't 'inherit' unhappiness from what the previous owners of a city did. If anything, you should get happiness bonuses in cities that have been abused, but the unhappiness should come back totally if you do it too.

GeneralTacticus · February 24, 2002, 02:57

I agree that you shouldn't 'inherit' unhappiness from what the previous owners of a city did. If anything, you should get happiness bonuses in cities that have been abused, but the unhappiness should come back totally if you do it too. Of course, this should also go away after a while...

korn469 · February 24, 2002, 05:32

basically the same rules being exploited by turning pop 1 cities into units factories is the same exploit used in SMAC to create poor man's punishment spheres, and there is an easy fix for this

make all cities have to have at least one laborer

this would end biggest of the exploits with pop 1 cities because it would go into riots eventually and wouldn't be useful to rush from, i suggested the same fix for army laundering (the practice of putting all of you military units into cities that can't riot, either punishment sphere cities or size one cities with just an entertainer) in SMAC, but basically it ends happiness exploits of all kinds (army laundering, unit factories, etc) in the civ genre

Big R · February 24, 2002, 11:24

Quote:

Originally posted by belchingjester

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.

-belchingjester

I'd suggest the AI is just being a smart financial cookie:

Assuming a 5% interest rate (Wall Street), 60 gold now is worth over 159 gold in 20 turns.

3 gold for 20 turns is worth maybe two thirds of that (about 104?).

So, the AI is quite correct in turning you down for offering him 55 less gold than he offered you.

R.

Zachriel · February 24, 2002, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Big R
I'd suggest the AI is just being a smart financial cookie:

Assuming a 5% interest rate (Wall Street), 60 gold now is worth over 159 gold in 20 turns.

3 gold for 20 turns is worth maybe two thirds of that (about 104?).

So, the AI is quite correct in turning you down for offering him 55 less gold than he offered you.

That's assuming each turn is only one year. If each turn is 20 years, then the interest rate in the example is much, much lower.

Considering the uncertain political situation over the long term, and the unreliability of civs, human or AI, it's surprising loans are available at any interest rate.

Big R · February 24, 2002, 12:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

That's assuming each turn is only one year. If each turn is 20 years, then the interest rate in the example is much, much lower.

I agree that the ANNUAL interest rate would be much lower, but I'm comparing apples and apples:
Interest per turn (as I believe Wall Street does?) to payment per turn. This should make the number of years per turn irrelevant.

If I'm wrong about Wall Street paying 5% interest per turn (can't check right now) and it is in fact 5% interest per year,
then it MAGNIFIES the difference between lump-sum now vs payments for 20 turns, making lump-sum even more valuable.

Galahadba · February 24, 2002, 14:17

the unhappiness penality for pop-rushing is really only 20 turns????
couse i have a game that i pop hush in 3 of my cities pratically every turn during a long time (all the ancient age) and now after more than 100 turns (i havent count it, but i'm already in the modern time) i stiil have unhappy citizens in my cities, and this is making a lot of trouble hehehe

Aeson · February 24, 2002, 15:33

It is 20 turns of unhappiness per rush.

Galahadba · February 24, 2002, 15:56

yes, but you have one more citzen being unhappy for 20 turns at every hush or you have one more citizen being unhappy plus the total turns of unhappyness for every one is now 40 turns?

Zachriel · February 24, 2002, 15:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Big R
I agree that the ANNUAL interest rate would be much lower, but I'm comparing apples and apples:

I was agreeing actually.

If the loan term is 200 years, then the risk is very high. It would be very hard to secure a loan over this term, much less at the rate of only 5% every 20 years (0.25% per annum).

But even at the much higher rate of 5% per year, it would be hard to justify a loan with a twenty year payout when your human opponent is busily manufacturing tanks and has expressed a desire for world domination.

I mean would you give a loan to this man:

Big R · February 24, 2002, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

I was agreeing actually.

Sorry, when you said that it was only if I assumed, I thought you weren't buying my argument.

So - agreed! The AI is correct to put more value on money up-front given the opportunity cost and uncertainty surrounding a series of payments.

R.

smellymummy · February 24, 2002, 20:47

that picture is a real waste of bandwidth

Aeson · February 25, 2002, 01:12

I've just started a game with the Iroquois (Deity), my first real game so far with the patch. I captured a few English towns about 500BC, and was able to keep them from culturally reverting. It's nice that the number of units in a city now matters, but there is another reason not to capture cities now. It seems Liz was liberal with the whip, and unhappiness was rampant. That's ok with me, I figured I'd just pop rush a settler and the happiness worries are gone right? Wrong. Seems the unhappiness transfered to my closest city! None of my core cities had done any pop rushing whatsoever, but now 3 of them have 40% "can't forget the cruel oppression".

I haven't played long enough to figure out if this is just from my whip to produce the settler, or if it also includes Liz's rushing as well. I suppose a dummy city could always be built to intercept the unhappiness transfer, but in this case it sorta blindsided me. If it is just unhappiness from my whip, I like it. If it's transfering the AI's built up unhappiness though, I'll probably never capture a city again... raze em all.

notyoueither · February 25, 2002, 03:53

Aeson: You're right. Do not capture enemy cities, unless they have a wonder in them. Burn them down and plant your own settlers.

I have seen very few AI cities that were worth keeping.

Firaxis really should do something to have citizens recognize *liberators* and eliminate or reduce the effects of tyrannical behaviour by the deposed civ.

Hah! Take that Sid! The game now encourages genocide even more than at any time in the past. I think this may be because Soren neglected to tone down the AI use of the whip with 1.17
I examined some of the AI civs at an earlier part of my current game. Their capitals were starving as about 2 pop were working while about 12 were entertainers.

Salve

Zachriel · February 25, 2002, 09:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Aeson
raze em all.

Depends what your purpose is. If you want to conquer the world and be known forever as Aeson the Extremely Bloody, then raze away. Later generations will eventually win their freedom (culture) and write the history books.

If you want a true gaming challenge, then keep the cities and find a way to civilize them.

Galahadba · February 25, 2002, 11:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Depends what your purpose is. If you want to conquer the world and be known forever as Aeson the Extremely Bloody, then raze away. Later generations will eventually win their freedom (culture) and write the history books.

If you want a true gaming challenge, then keep the cities and find a way to civilize them.

I Agrre, and if you are in the modern ages when you are figthing you ussually take the cities with factories,hospitals, barracks and some other city improviments that make the city worth of mercy hehehe

belchingjester · February 25, 2002, 12:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Big R

I'd suggest the AI is just being a smart financial cookie:

Assuming a 5% interest rate (Wall Street), 60 gold now is worth over 159 gold in 20 turns.

3 gold for 20 turns is worth maybe two thirds of that (about 104?).

So, the AI is quite correct in turning you down for offering him 55 less gold than he offered you.

R.

You missed what I was saying. We're in agreement - I said (pay attention to who is paying whom):

Quote:

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.

It is in the AI's interest to pay me less money up front. The PV of the revenue stream is much less, therefore it should be happier to pay me less and keep its money up front.

So why would the AI rather pay ME 60 gold up front than pay ME 3gold/turn for 20 turns?
-belchingjester

belchingjester · February 25, 2002, 12:19

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Aeson: You're right. Do not capture enemy cities, unless they have a wonder in them. Burn them down and plant your own settlers.

I have seen very few AI cities that were worth keeping.

Firaxis really should do something to have citizens recognize *liberators* and eliminate or reduce the effects of tyrannical behaviour by the deposed civ.

Hah! Take that Sid! The game now encourages genocide even more than at any time in the past. I think this may be because Soren neglected to tone down the AI use of the whip with 1.17
I examined some of the AI civs at an earlier part of my current game. Their capitals were starving as about 2 pop were working while about 12 were entertainers.

Salve

notyoueither, I agree with your identification of the problem but disagree re: Soren needing to tone down AI use of the whip.

As long as Soren does something for "liberators", he doesn't need to modify AI whip use - need to maintain historical unhappiness figures for each civ that takes over a city, because otherwise the exploit would be to flip the city to someone else quickly.
-belchingjester

Big R · February 25, 2002, 13:42

Quote:

Originally posted by belchingjester

You missed what I was saying. We're in agreement
-belchingjester

You are right - the sentence was not clear to me. In my head (a very strange place) I somehow twisted the last part to mean that he would be insulted if I offered him instalments for same tech (in a role reversal).

I misunderstood your scenario, and I agree with you 100% for the reasons we've beaten to death already.

Hmm... maybe the downside to the payments would be inflexibilty if he wanted to attack you later, because breaking the agreement would damage his reputation? A bit of a stretch, but I'm grasping at anything here. It would have to be pretty situation-specific for that flexibility to be worth so much to him.

R.

belchingjester · February 26, 2002, 10:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Big R

You are right - the sentence was not clear to me. In my head (a very strange place) I somehow twisted the last part to mean that he would be insulted if I offered him instalments for same tech (in a role reversal).

I misunderstood your scenario, and I agree with you 100% for the reasons we've beaten to death already.

Hmm... maybe the downside to the payments would be inflexibilty if he wanted to attack you later, because breaking the agreement would damage his reputation? A bit of a stretch, but I'm grasping at anything here. It would have to be pretty situation-specific for that flexibility to be worth so much to him.

R.

No problem - I think I did not state it clearly since several people read it the same way you did.

This thread actually has a good discussion of this issue - you can only offer as much as your per-turn cash flow, so even if you have a big treasury you can't spread out the payments. (Same goes for the AI). I wish this would generate a different message than "They would never accept such a deal" - confused the crap out of me until I read the response from Saurus on aforementioned thread.

I agree that the AI should maintain a strategic cash reserve (some for upgrades), but should only retain a larger cash reserve for rushing once it is Republic or Monarchy. I imagine this may be a restriction to stop the AI from bankrupting itself just prior to a war; however, the AI has no problem doing that to me (it just holds off attacking me if I have negotiated a gold-per-turn agreement).

The net effect of this, however, is to punish people who ratchet their science rate through the roof. It's much more effective to buy the tech; unfortunately, this means you're never able to maintain much of a lead.
-belchingjester

Grumbold · February 26, 2002, 11:14

Set your tax rate to 100%, buy every tech on the market at x/turn and then declare war on the sucker and eradicate their puny empire. Works for me

=DrJambo= · February 26, 2002, 12:15

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Aeson: You're right. Do not capture enemy cities, unless they have a wonder in them. Burn them down and plant your own settlers.

I have seen very few AI cities that were worth keeping.

Firaxis really should do something to have citizens recognize *liberators* and eliminate or reduce the effects of tyrannical behaviour by the deposed civ.

Hah! Take that Sid! The game now encourages genocide even more than at any time in the past. I think this may be because Soren neglected to tone down the AI use of the whip with 1.17
I examined some of the AI civs at an earlier part of my current game. Their capitals were starving as about 2 pop were working while about 12 were entertainers.

Salve

VERY important point raised in this post!!!

Basically if you go to war against the AI in the late game when cities and populations are large, the AI whips his cities to such an extent that they all starve themselves down to a population of 1.

This just happened in my game when warring with the Zulus... when i eventually landed on their island and took a couple of their cities, they rushed such an attack on me that eventually their cities were all size 1..

Talk about self destruction

=DrJambo= · February 26, 2002, 12:35

....

double post

BillChin · February 26, 2002, 13:19

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469

make all cities have to have at least one laborer

There is a problem with this fix. As noted by others, many captured cities have no content citizens because of extensive whipping and drafting. So putting this fix in requires the additional fix of the "liberator" bonus to happiness. With both fixes in, it might be okay.

Other simple fixes for the huge 1.17f pop rushing loophole is to forbid the joining of workers to negative happiness cities, or to have a one turn delay after joining before pop rushing.