v1.17 and A.I vs A.I tech "trading" - Page 2

ShuShu · February 21, 2002, 21:17

I am a tech trader in the game. I found the biggest reason to be expansionist is for that first contact. I play emperor because deity does limit your options, but emperor provides a challenge for all the strategies I like to toy with.

1) How does the AI get 6 techs in one turn with no income?
I assume it is the same way I do it.
- Be first to a tech (goody hut most likely in Saurus example)
- Trade to richest known for second best tech and contacts.
- repeat process till all contacts milked for all techs.

2) Diplomacy every turn is tedious.
I'll say it is, that's why I only conduct it when I
- Discover a new tech
- cross a 20 turn barrier (I usually blow this off and wait for the tech)
- Acquire a new tradable commodity

3) The AI is too smart
That is what Chieftain is for.
- It'll still be smart, but you get to be the dumb AI with massive production/research bonuses.
- I am surpised how many people get a bruised ego if not playing Deity.

Kensan · February 21, 2002, 21:45

Soren,

I also think there is a something weird with AI tech trading. And if it is just the "discounting" factor it seems way off base. I played the Apolyton #6 tournament game using the new patch. I was able to make contact with 9 out of 12 civs fairly early in the game.

Once the Great Library gave me Education, I was in a world of hurt. I couldn't make any deals with any AI for the only thing I had of value. I had gone down the Engineering line knowing that the GL would keep me in the loop for the other techs. No one had any money to give me for Engineering. Most had only single digit gold in their treasuries. Yet somehow by some miracle in just a few turns every single civ was 3 techs ahead of me.

I became the 3rd civ to Education through the GL and the first to Engineering, but they somehow traded with the tech leader and everyone but me all of a sudden had Music Theory and Astronomy and started on both wonders. If I ask for a trade, they want my entire treasury (somewhere around 4-500), plus gpt, plus my map. And this is after I know that at least 7 other civs have this tech!!

There definitely needs to be a minimum price for techs, based on eras. No tech should ever be purchased for 1 gold. Sometimes saving that one single turn pays huge dividends.

This game has become increasingly annoying as it has become an AI vs. me game. I can't make up any tech room on these civs now. The Persians will get a free modern age advance to further not only their lead but everyone else's the way trading seems to work. If I hadn't received a Great Leader to build the ToE so I could get Replacable Parts, this game for me was all but over. The infantry kept me alive, but I'm still hopelessly behind unless I can somehow persuade a total world war against the Persians.

Also, not sure if this was intentional but when my cities grew from 6 to 7 my food box was completely empty. So I was paying a ton of money for maintenance of granaries and had no benefit from them. This seems to be a horrible fix to the pop-rushing strategy. I expected to see a half-full box. To make matters worse, the Persians would drop off troops on a grassland square and literally starve my city back to size 6 in one turn. No more defensive bonus since I didn't build walls. This may be a problem of the game being created in 1.16, and I'm using 1.17. Not sure as I haven't played a game created originally with the new patch.

nbarclay · February 21, 2002, 21:48

In regard to how a civ might gain several techs at once when it appears to have no gold, consider the following hypothetical scenario:

You have your science rate set at 60%, which uses up virtually all of your income. The Germans request an audience and trade you contact with the Egyptians for all your ready gold and all the gold per turn that is left over after your science expenditures. As far as the Germans are concerned, they've squeezed you completely dry. And you couldn't free up more gold during the negotiations if you wanted to, since you can't change your science rate when it's not your turn.

Then your turn comes around and you discover that the Egyptians have five techs that you don't. You cut your science rate from 60% to 10%, freeing up 50 gold per turn. Now you can offer Egypt an average of 10 gold per turn for those five techs, even though you just appeared broke to the Germans.

But in our hypothetical scenario here, buying those techs does require every last coin of the gold you freed up. So if the Germans try to negotiate with you again in their next turn, all of a sudden you have a lot more tech but still no gold.

Now turn the picture around and picture yourself as the Germans and one of the AI's as you, and you'll see a legitimate way the AI could (at least theoretically) make some significant purchases when it just looked, and still looks, broke. Someone from Firaxis would have to say whether or not such behavior is actually within the scope of the AI's programming (comments, Soren?), but the possibility certainly seems within the rules of the game.

By the way, I might note that human players do have one huge advantage over the AI in trading. When I offer a deal to an AI, I can use my advisor (with a lot of trial and error) to find out the maximum the AI is willing to pay. But the AI cannot possibly know my thinking about the best deal it could squeeze out of me, especially when I haven't bothered to figure it out myself. So the AI needs some kind of "cheating" of its own to compensate for that advantage if victory is to be purely a matter of skill.

One last thing: I'd like to wholeheartedly endorse the idea of having a simple way to know when the trading status of any of the AI civs changes significantly (i.e. they gain a new tech or have a significant change in their cashflow). I tend toward big maps with lots of civs, and checking with each of a dozen or so civs even every four turns or so, much less every turn, tends to be very tedious. My ideal would be a "trading status change" screen that provides a quick look specifically at significant changes in what the AI civs can trade rather than having to look through every detail and pick out the changes yourself.

Nathan

nbarclay · February 21, 2002, 22:19

In regard to how a civ might gain several techs at once when it appears to have no gold, consider the following hypothetical scenario:

You have your science rate set at 60%, which uses up virtually all of your income. The Germans request an audience and trade you contact with the Egyptians for all your ready gold and all the gold per turn that is left over after your science expenditures. As far as the Germans are concerned, they've squeezed you completely dry. And you couldn't free up more gold during the negotiations if you wanted to, since you can't change your science rate when it's not your turn.

Then your turn comes around and you discover that the Egyptians have five techs that you don't. You cut your science rate from 60% to 10%, freeing up 50 gold per turn. Now you can offer Egypt an average of 10 gold per turn for those five techs, even though you just appeared broke to the Germans.

But in our hypothetical scenario here, buying those techs does require every last coin of the gold you freed up. So if the Germans try to negotiate with you again in their next turn, all of a sudden you have a lot more tech but still no gold.

Now turn the picture around and picture yourself as the Germans and one of the AI's as you, and you'll see a legitimate way the AI could (at least theoretically) make some significant purchases when it just looked, and still looks, broke. Someone from Firaxis would have to say whether or not such behavior is actually within the scope of the AI's programming (comments, Soren?), but the possibility certainly seems within the rules of the game.

By the way, I might note that human players do have one huge advantage over the AI in trading. When I offer a deal to an AI, I can use my advisor (with a lot of trial and error) to find out the maximum the AI is willing to pay. But the AI cannot possibly know my thinking about the best deal it could squeeze out of me, especially when I haven't bothered to figure it out myself. So the AI needs some kind of "cheating" of its own to compensate for that advantage if victory is to be purely a matter of skill.

One last thing: I'd like to wholeheartedly endorse the idea of having a simple way to know when the trading status of any of the AI civs changes significantly (i.e. they gain a new tech or have a significant change in their cashflow). I tend toward big maps with lots of civs, and checking with each of a dozen or so civs even every four turns or so, much less every turn, tends to be very tedious. My ideal would be a "trading status change" screen that provides a quick look specifically at significant changes in what the AI civs can trade rather than having to look through every detail and pick out the changes yourself.

Nathan

Kensan · February 21, 2002, 22:24

Nathan,

I understand your comments, but I still think there is something amiss. In my example I only asked to trade for one tech (either Music Theory or Astronomy). The best deal that I could negotiate would have cost me approximately 600 total gold. And this is after I have checked with 6 other civs who all had this tech. Even if they adjusted their own science bars, I just did not see how they could have purchased at least 4 techs with the total output their civs could generate.

Their landmass, city sizes and land improvements were nothing special. Even if this was the case, then in theory these civs should have had almost no capability to do their own research for some time. But all of these civs left me in the dust. Banking and Economics were known by all extremely fast as well, and it only got worse from there. Someone had to pay the 2nd researcher rate and so on, and I just didn't see how they had "fair market value" to give if my cost was told 600 gold for a widely-known advance.

Maybe there is something I'm not factoring in, but I've never been left in the dust like this before in my games. Especially at this point in the game. Usually the final push to Industrialization puts me either in the lead or extremely close once the railroad network is in place.

Gallagher · February 21, 2002, 22:49

Andyman posted: soren said the AI trades within the rules, well, the nazi's siezed power in germany, technically, within the rules, and made it legal to kill jews. it didnt make it fair or right.

It hardly seems necessary to mention, but what could be a surer way of insuring that no Firaxis people continued to contribute to this thread than comparing game behavior with the Holocaust?

nbarclay · February 21, 2002, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Kensan
Nathan,

I understand your comments, but I still think there is something amiss. In my example I only asked to trade for one tech (either Music Theory or Astronomy). The best deal that I could negotiate would have cost me approximately 600 total gold. And this is after I have checked with 6 other civs who all had this tech. Even if they adjusted their own science bars, I just did not see how they could have purchased at least 4 techs with the total output their civs could generate.

Their landmass, city sizes and land improvements were nothing special. Even if this was the case, then in theory these civs should have had almost no capability to do their own research for some time. But all of these civs left me in the dust. Banking and Economics were known by all extremely fast as well, and it only got worse from there. Someone had to pay the 2nd researcher rate and so on, and I just didn't see how they had "fair market value" to give if my cost was told 600 gold for a widely-known advance.

Maybe there is something I'm not factoring in, but I've never been left in the dust like this before in my games. Especially at this point in the game. Usually the final push to Industrialization puts me either in the lead or extremely close once the railroad network is in place.

I'm not trying to say there isn't a serious imbalance involved. I haven't installed the new patch yet, since I wanted my Tournament 6 game to be official and only finished it a couple days ago, so I don't have first-hand experience with it yet. And from everything I'm reading, I'm a lot less thrilled at the idea of installing the new patch than I was a couple days ago.

My real point was that the situation may (and I'll emphasize may) not be as bad as at least one or two of the posts on this thread make it sound. The AI-to-AI prices, while cheap, may not be the total giveaways they appear on the surface. Or to put it another way, the situation may just be highly unfair to the human player instead of absolutely, totally, and completely unfair.

Nathan

Ironikinit · February 22, 2002, 01:31

The AI does put greater value on techs that yield a wonder, like music theory and astronomy. They charge the player more anyway, I don't know how they deal with each other.

ikol · February 22, 2002, 10:19

Okay, I hate the new AI tech trading system.

I really wonder why bother researching anything with the new patch, even on warlord the AI will keep up with you. The tremendous drop in research cost when some civs already know the tech makes the whole pursuit of a technological lead hopeless.

The only way to hamper their research rate is to have them fight each others.

One example : middle age, I go the opposite route researching engineering, invention...metallurgy. These are rather expensive techs.
I get as much as monotheism, chivalry and education from the Great Library (this is a hint the AI seems to go the other way). So as soon as I get metal, I switch to astronomy. In less than ten turn, the AI comes to me to trade metallurgy to astronomy
They swallowed a big tech gap in less than 10 turns. I am infuriated.

back to 1.16 now!

loki

The Andy-Man · February 22, 2002, 10:36

maybe the i did use a bit of a harsh example there......

erm, Mugabe made it the law that there was no opposition party, that dosnt make it right/fair. maybe that woulda bin better.

Heinrich IV · February 22, 2002, 10:59

First of all: thanx to Firaxis for a great game, and even more thanx to Soren for showing up here and takiung the player's problems seriously!!!!

I'm new here, so I hope this hasn`t been brought up in other threads as well..

Regarding: the AI may change science rate and thus free money

I just played an entire game using the see-map-cheat. Thus i could control the AIs settings and could count beakers and tax and so on.

Result: with 35 beakers / turn (30%) and two turns of 40% the English kept up with my research of 60% (44 beakers). This on Regent, so I guess that`s OK - just barely.

But at the same time they acquired 5 new techs from trading that were offered to me only at 2+lu+all gold+gpt:1, without them showing significantly less money.

HOW????

I don`t know!

I couldn`t catch up until they engeged in a major war.

Also, whtaever tech i researched - they went straight for the same while the Iroqus always took the other tree branch - then they traded - and I had nothing to trade for the other tree. They even did this despite the fact that they kept going to war every few turns.....

Another thing: forget Chivalry! The AI never researched it in that game, and didn`t even offer 1 Gold for it (it had cost me 15 turns). Obviously my experience that Knights are useless is not just my imagination. By the time a human can assemble a usefull strike force - the AI has Musketmen everywhere......

I actually switched to 1.16 when I lost 15 out of 17 fights in a row with Pikemen (6) and Musketmen (9), all vet, in city, against attacking Longbowmen and the next turn lost >20 Knights against 3 Musketmen, unfortified on open plains. Researching Chivalry sets the human back between 2 and 4 techs depending on how the Ai nations split their research goals while it gives NO extra military capability.

Soren:
Check it out for yourself, play an "open" game, and you`ll see that Regent no longer is anything like "equal". I just love Emperor and Deity under 1.16, but 1.17 is just unplayable to me......

ShuShu · February 22, 2002, 10:59

you must be new to the forum.

Otherwise you would know that there are some 'automatically ignore' names. Trust me, Firaxis hasn't been insulted by Andy-Man for months...

In any population study, there are always aberrations. Measures that don't belong. This is called 'noise'. Statisticians can't make noise go away, so they come up with methods to identify and discard noise as irrelevant.
-----------------------------------------------

There are many conclusions that can be drawn from a person who feels the need to draw parallels between a game and human tragedies.

The person needs to get a life.
The person is out of touch.
The person should be kept away from sharp objects.
...

the list goes on, but the relevant observations for this post would be:

The person is noise. A statistical aberration that should be discarded.

hope this helps.

Arrian · February 22, 2002, 11:19

Like Analyst Redux said, gaining and holding a tech lead is now futile. I started a new game last night and encountered the same thing. Everything was going great, until the late middle ages. Then the AI blew me away, coming from 2 techs back to 4 techs up in what seemed like a blink of an eye, despite the fact that I was #1 on all key elements of the demographics screen (pop, land, productivity, income, etc.) and way ahead on the histograph. Now, at the dawn of the industrial age, I'm barely hanging on (I got sneak attacked and another civ joined in. Both civs suddenly had riflemen when I still had muskets and knights).

All the time I spent building libraries, marketplaces, universities and banks seems wasted when the AI, which places much less emphasis on such things, can so easily catch and pass me in the tech race. I made a strategic choice to neglect my military and build up my empire's infrastructure (improvements, wonders).

Because the AI is now more "aggressive" in trading technology, the human player is effectively researching against the rest of the world. In my case, 1 vs. 6 (Zulu's having been removed). The massive devaluation of a tech that is known by another civ (let alone 2 or 3 others) makes catching up easier (for both human & AI). But holding the lead requires that you msut destroy some of the stronger AI empires.

When peaceful research and trade is made less fruitful (1.17f), there is the alternative: war. And so I will become a warmonger. I will forsake those marketplaces for more horsemen, and beeline for chivalry... and the world will be a painful place. So be it.

-Arrian

Heinrich IV · February 22, 2002, 11:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

When peaceful research and trade is made less fruitful (1.17f), there is the alternative: war. And so I will become a warmonger. I will forsake those marketplaces for more horsemen, and beeline for chivalry... and the world will be a painful place. So be it.

-Arrian

Good luck! I tried - but tech is so fast that your militray is outdated when it reaches the enemy while you`ll quickly find your Spearmen attacked by Longbowmen.

I`d like to simply cut research beakers by half thus doubling the number of turns for each research......

Pius Popprasch · February 22, 2002, 11:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Heinrich IV Another thing: forget Chivalry! The AI never researched it in that game, and didn`t even offer 1 Gold for it (it had cost me 15 turns). Obviously my experience that Knights are useless is not just my imagination. By the time a human can assemble a usefull strike force - the AI has Musketmen everywhere......

A.I. players research Chivalry and so do I. It seems that the Middle Ages are a weak time of the A.I. forces to me and my Knights hardly encounter Musketmen(def:4). Saltpeter needs to be connected and available and more often than not my neighbor doesn't have it. Cavalry is confronted with Riflemen(def:5) and even Infantry(def:8). Riflemen don't need resources.

Regarding the topic of this thread: I also would like to have more one-for-one trades.

Heinrich IV · February 22, 2002, 11:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Pius Popprasch
A.I. players research Chivalry and so do I. It seems that the Middle Ages are a weak time of the A.I. forces to me and my Knights hardly encounter Musketmen(def:4). Saltpeter needs to be connected and available and more often than not my neighbor doesn't have it. Cavalry is confronted with Riflemen(def:5) and even Infantry(def:8). Riflemen don't need resources.

Regarding the topic of this thread: I also would like to have more one-for-one trades.

what level are you playing on? It sound very much like my games on the lower two, where the AI is slower than the human, but on Regent I only once (tiny map) had any use out of Chivalry......... Also, the Ai trades Saltpeter extremely chaep to other AI in my experience... i made the mistake of going for a broke, iron&saltpeter lacking civ with Knights - they suddenly got Saltpeter from someone and 6 turns later had Riflemen - I was struggling to reach Economics and missing 4 other techs for the new age....

Arrian · February 22, 2002, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Heinrich IV

Good luck! I tried - but tech is so fast that your militray is outdated when it reaches the enemy while you`ll quickly find your Spearmen attacked by Longbowmen.

I`d like to simply cut research beakers by half thus doubling the number of turns for each research......

Well, I had a slim tech lead going into the middle ages in my game last night. I had built marketplaces everywhere (well, everywhere that wasn't horribly corrupt). More horsemen in certain places would have been better, I think. There may have been a short window of opportunity in the early middle ages for me to hit the Chinese (my southern neighbor who later betrayed me). What actually happened was that Shaka attacked me. He was terribly weak, so winning was easy... but I actually ended up buying chivalry, as I had ignored it for other techs. I upgraded what horsemen I had and crushed him. China, my ally vs. the Zulu, attacked the Indians. At that moment, I should have joined in on India's side. That I did not was a mistake. I wasn't really ready to fight China, but we all know how the AI deals w/two front war. If I'd had just a few more knights (say... 5) I would have done it. I am also going to have to adjust my wonder priorities. I cannot allow the AI to beat me to Copernicus. I will give up Leo's for that. That should help.

-Arrian

Heinrich IV · February 22, 2002, 11:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian If I'd had just a few more knights (say... 5) I would have done it. I am also going to have to adjust my wonder priorities. I cannot allow the AI to beat me to Copernicus. I will give up Leo's for that. That should help.

-Arrian

5 more Knights - well I can only say they`d been enough for me to kill 1 unprotected Musketman - will you tell me numbers for next weeks lottery?????

I`m happy with 1.16, Regent or Monarch. That is: I rock, especially militarily, while under 1.16 I sometimes don`t know why I buil units in the first place. They die without resistance, anyway!

Pius Popprasch · February 22, 2002, 11:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Heinrich IV what level are you playing on?

Emperor. In my current game I skipped Knights for other reasons but my opponents(Japanese) either don't have any muskets at all or very few. They have some Riflemen, though.

Want a save file?

Heinrich IV · February 22, 2002, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Pius Popprasch
Emperor. In my current game I skipped Kights for other reasons but my opponents(Japanese) either don't have any muskets at all or very few. They have some riflemen, though.

Want a save file?

Watch them go from a few Riflemen to lots when you attack them - one thing the AI learned in the patch is upgrading!!!!! They save the money as long as they can so you`ll see lots of Spearmen - then they upgrade (even if the`re broke, another mystery).

Yes, I`d like the save, but I reverted to 1.16 so it wouldn`t run. I`ll try and sk Firaxis if it`s possible to have two parallel installations of Civ by using different user profiles for Windows - if so I`d make one 1.16 and the other 1.17.....

bahoo · February 22, 2002, 12:20

It's just plain impossible that the AI treats other AI the same as it treats the human. Whether tech trading or anything else trading. If it did there would NEVER be any AI to AI deals.

The AI always wants 2+ resources or luxuries for a single resource or luxury.

The AI always wants all your money a ridiculous amount per turn, a map and all techs you have for a tech that only it knows.

For a World Map they usually want a World Map plus a tech even if you're world map covers 80% of the known world.

Now if the AI gave these demands to another AI, do you really think if they treated each other like you that they would come to a consensus? I don't think so. I occasionally offer the AI my World Map for theirs and a tech, or I'll offer them a resource for two of theirs and some gold per turn. Guess what, they always tell me to go pound salt! But I'm supposed to believe when the AI offers the other AI such a deal they can work it out?

To sit here and suggest that two AIs who have no concept whatsoever of fair value when dealing with a player and absolutely no willingness to negotiate down, could somehow come to agreement when dealing with each other without treating the AI differently than the player, is complete malarkey!

Not to mention with the new patch, the AIs are all ridiculous tech whores now. You can't teach any Civ a new tech without every other tech getting it the next turn (assuming they're linked with communications). I traded Greece metallurgy and the cavalry tech at a discounted price so they could help fight the Indians better, whom they were also at war with. I was 2 or 3 techs ahead of the next closest civ at the time. Two turns later India had cavalry, and I checked around and everyone had gotten the two techs by one means or another, in spite of the fact that we were in a world war. Of course if the AI does happen to get a tech ahead of you, they will no doubt trade it to every other civ within a couple of turns, thereby allowing you to pick it up for dirt cheap since you'll be the only one who doesn't know it.

Willem · February 22, 2002, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay

One last thing: I'd like to wholeheartedly endorse the idea of having a simple way to know when the trading status of any of the AI civs changes significantly (i.e. they gain a new tech or have a significant change in their cashflow). I tend toward big maps with lots of civs, and checking with each of a dozen or so civs even every four turns or so, much less every turn, tends to be very tedious. My ideal would be a "trading status change" screen that provides a quick look specifically at significant changes in what the AI civs can trade rather than having to look through every detail and pick out the changes yourself.

Nathan

One good way of doing this would be to have an Advisor's report at the end of every turn, which show any changes that would be of interest. This could also show trade deals, or anything that Domestic nag might want to bring to your attention. Maybe have a section for each advisor, with some sort of indicator whether any of them had anything of importance to report. If they do, you can click on their section and get a more detailed listing. If they don't, you just close the screen and the game resumes.

ikol · February 22, 2002, 12:28

This is the reason why you don't even need to bother spending money researching. You will never ever get a tech lead with 1.17. In fact, the trading which takes place allows you to grab techs for nothing. You will be one tech behind, but rich!
I want patch now !

loki

bahoo · February 22, 2002, 12:33

Additionally with the high speed tech trading, the acceleration of advances is out of control. I'd like to get to use some of my old time units throughout the game.

Playing Rome I got about 5 legionaries built before they were outdated in favor of knights. I never got any boats built prior to inventing the destroyer.

It was noticeable to some degree with prior patches, certain units were rarely used, namely frigates/man'o'wars because they came to quick before the superior ironclad. Now it seems to be affecting even more areas of the game.

Heinrich IV · February 22, 2002, 12:33

Quote:

Originally posted by ikol
. In fact, the trading which takes place allows you to grab techs for nothing.
loki

Yep, grab it in 4 turns! When I try to buy my way through the tech tree they block me from advanced governments and inportant military tech, then attack even if I have a strong military compared to them -and their advanced units almost always come through...

Arrian · February 22, 2002, 13:08

Well, certainly not "nothing." Even if all the AI's have a tech, you, the player, aren't gonna get it for 1 gold.

The AI clearly evaluates AI-AI luxury trades differently than AI-Human ones, as well. Hell, that was true in 1.16. Example:

I have 3 local luxuries, 2 of which are monopolies. I am the largest civ, so yes, a luxury is worth more to me than to other civs. So I make two 2 for 1 deals and get 2 more as imports. That's 5. I investigate an Indian city and see that India has 7 out of the 8 luxuries. India, bear in mind, is a medium sized civ with 1 local luxury, with a near-monopoly (all but 1). Now, 2 of those 7 they have are mine, as India was one of the civs I did a 2 for 1 deal with. Fine. But the other 4? They must be 1-for-1's, which the player almost never gets. Now, I would be fine with this, except for the fact that India, despite theoretically having to pay for all these luxury imports, is able to keep up in tech.

Yes, I'm whining. Let's just get that out of the way. I'm whining because the patch has, IMO, turned the game into human vs. a nearly united AI, which has taken a lot of the fun out of the game for me. It sucks, frankly, to have carefully guided your civ into a strong position, only to have that position undermined in a virtual instant, through no fault of your own.

I think what I'm trying to say is that, from my point of view, 1.17 has tipped the balance of AI advantages from a level that I can accept as "fair" (actually, I agreed that the AI needed some more help in 1.16) to a level I do not perceive as fair. It's not that the AI is cheating anymore than it did already, it's just that the AI has been taught how to properly exploit those cheats within the rules. The new AI tech trading is devastating because of the research advantage the AI's have. If you're up against 7 other civs, each of which can research techs for 90% of what you have to spend, and then they can trade amongst one another at a discount (techs cheaper in AI-AI deals b/c of the research advantage, whereas the human must ante up full price), it's really hard to keep up, let alone lead, even if that's your main focus.

-Arrian

Aeson · February 22, 2002, 14:07

Peaceful vs Warmonger -

After trying a lot of different trading scenarios on Deity, it does seem that the AI has to pay for their techs. Just with the discounted tech rate they have, and only having to pay 1/2. The AI's tech price seems to be about 1/4 or 1/5 of what the player would have to pay to get the same tech under the same circumstances. I actually like tech trading how it is now, a definite challenge just to keep up.

The problem is that there hasn't been a comparative decrease in military power. Getting rid of pop rushing (sorta) just delays military buildup, but doesn't disallow military supremacy once that buildup is achieved. The tech trading system doesn't allow for building up any kind of tech lead on higher difficulties. It upsets me though that my prefered playstyle (military rush and expansion) is becoming more and more of a copout, because of the relative weakness of peaceful building to military domination.

As a warmonger, a player can compete directly with 1 civ in military situations, or even be part of the military "loop" by signing alliances and MPP's. As a tech trader, it is the player against the world. A trade embargo doesn't help the player get in the trading loop, it just weakens their overall ability to keep up. The fewer AI that have a tech, the higher price it will cost the player. Also the techs that a player gets to first won't be worth as much if they can't sell them to every AI. In a game with 1 AI, military and trading are balanced, but in most games it favors the warmonger. This allows the warmonger to play on higher difficulties, which devalues those difficulties and frustrates the more peaceful players.

I would prefer to see warfare become more challenging, though I do realize that upgrading the AI in this area would be quite a task. I assume that production bonuses lower the prices AI's have to pay to upgrade, but do they also get the same 1/2 price advantage that they are allowed while buying techs? It would be nice to see the AI try to keep a gold reserve expressly for upgrading as well. Their tech rate would be a bit lower, trades a little less likely, and their military tougher. Having the AI favor building/reserving more mobile units for defense would help as well.

Ganging Up -

The more powerful the player is militarily, the less the AI will ask for when signing alliances and MPP's. This is more in line with reality, but opposite of the "AI vs Player" mentality the AI has in tech trading. Militarily agressive players should have alliances formed against them, not with.

Specialist Rushing -

Not directly related, but part of the "war vs peace" problem. It is still possible to overcome all unhappiness buildup by turning all citizens into specialists. This makes pop rushing still viable in some situations. While at war, there is an almost unlimited supply of captured workers available. The 1 turn worker factory has been dealt with, but in high food areas it is still possible to set up 2 turn worker factories. Most highly corrupt cities can build a worker every 10 turns. By adding these workers to "specialist camps" they can instantly be turned into military units. The captured workers allow for self perpetuating conquest. The corrupt cities are now producing 4 shields per turn instead of 1. The 2 turn worker factories are producing 20 shields per turn instead of 5. Specialist rushing needs to have drawbacks as well. Perhaps instead of making more people unhappy, pop rushing would first make an unhappy person into a resistor. This would eliminate the effectiveness of specialist rushing.

Forgetting Unhappiness -

Settlers don't remember unhappiness, and this allows for the player to not have to deal with any long term effects of specialist rushing. Once the military production is complete, the city is disbanded by rushing a settler, and can be rebuilt with no happiness concerns.

Willem · February 22, 2002, 14:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Aeson
It would be nice to see the AI try to keep a gold reserve expressly for upgrading as well. Their tech rate would be a bit lower, trades a little less likely, and their military tougher. Having the AI favor building/reserving more mobile units for defense would help as well.

You know, that idea might be able to kill two birds with one stone. Let's say that every AI civ has a reserve and that they have to set aside a certain amount of gold for per turn. This can only be used for upgrading units, nothing else. For example, they have a reserve of 1000 gold, and every turn they have to put in at least 5 gold until that reserve is full. It would be like a perpetual trade deal, but with themselves. That means that they will always have less gold per turn available for trading, and they would almost always have some cash on hand for upgrading.

Arrian · February 22, 2002, 14:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Aeson

As a tech trader, it is the player against the world. A trade embargo doesn't help the player get in the trading loop, it just weakens their overall ability to keep up. The fewer AI that have a tech, the higher price it will cost the player. Also the techs that a player gets to first won't be worth as much if they can't sell them to every AI. In a game with 1 AI, military and trading are balanced, but in most games it favors the warmonger. This allows the warmonger to play on higher difficulties, which devalues those difficulties and frustrates the more peaceful players.

Agreed.

1) Player research rate is lower than AI, therefore AI can discover things faster.
2) AI knows this, and factors this in to trade calculations.
3) AI is coded to trade tech immediately, for whatever it's worth, which drops dramatically as more civs learn the tech.

Here's the problem with #2 and 3: An AI civ, let's say France, has discovered Magnetism. It is the first to do so. Joan calls up another AI civ and wants to trade Magnetism. Joan charges 300 gold for it. If Joan had called up a human player, it would have cost more, because Joan "knows" that it takes more beakers for the human player to discover Magnetism on his/her own. That's bassackwards. The AI should charge the same rate for a tech no matter who is buying. In theory, EACH AI civ is playing to win, which means Joan should be stingy with tech to both the human and the other AI's. Further, there has to be a floor on how low tech cost can drop.

The AI, of course, knows how fast it can research things, and that should remain a factor when the human (or any other AI) wants to trade tech. If an AI is 1 turn away, refusing to pay or offering 5 gold and a map is fine. But the seller should reject that offer!

-Arrian

p.s. I think I actually liked the 1.16 occasional "oops, we traded a tech on your turn" thing better.

Arrian · February 22, 2002, 14:39

One more thought:

I think eliminating a civ hurts the player badly. I could be wrong, but I think the tech devaluation formula works based on the # of existing civs. So, if you start out with 8 civs, and 2 of them know a tech, the cost drops by 25%. Fast forward into the mid-game. Two civs eliminated, 6 survive. Now if two civs know a tech, the value drops by 33%. And so on. This may be why the AI has such an easy time demolishing my tech lead in the Middle Ages.

Therefore, beat an enemy down to 1 city, but leave them alive! You're shooting yourself in the foot if you kill them off.

-Arrian