Technology Leader .... What's the point? (rant)

Technoron · February 25, 2002, 00:37

WTF

A BIG part of playing an expansionist society for me is - WAS - the ability to reach the middle ages by 1500 B.C. and leave everyone else in the technological dust.

But now the A.I. has been tweeked to "aggressively trade". This means that I am no longer competing with seven other civs. I am now trying to out-research a single globe-spanning super-civ with six Forbidden Palaces and all the resources that single entity can bring to bear.

And then there's the reduced research requirements for all runners-up. I can be the proud owner of six unique techs and a couple dozen turns later the super-civ's right there with me.

No. Wait. It's AHEAD of me.

WTF

When I score a tech with a spiffy wonder attatched to it, I do NOT give that sucker away. I want that wonder for ME. But when an A.I. civ gets that tech it'll give that wonder to every friggin one of its "competitors" just as fast as it possibly can. This - somehow- doesn't seem right.

WTF

Once upon a time, my techs had value. I could to go to the trade window and get some actual leverage out of my files. I just tried to trade with the Germans for Iron working. The bastard wanted mysticism, masonry, alphabet, warrior code, and some cash on top of that.

WTF

And why the HELL does the A.I. think I'm gonna trade LITURATURE for a territory map?

Whoha · February 25, 2002, 01:02

play archipelago with no galleys(ai galleys can cross oceans somehow...), that slows down the ai's tech development.

John Paul Jones · February 25, 2002, 01:13

...or ferment war between your rivals

Terser · February 25, 2002, 01:44

My solution (playing Japanese):

Turn off spaceship victory
Turn off cultural victory

Both of these are usually obtained via a strong lead in research, which, post 1.17f, tends to be held by the AI. Since these two victory conditions suck anyway in CivIII I don't really miss them.

Wage war against the first civ you encounter. Let the war continue till you hit republic or you are on the verge of wiping them out. Offer (or be offered) peace and accept only if you are given every tech the defeated civ has (this has usually been three or four in my last three games).

Result:
-Strong military (with vet or elite units and typically at least one GL)
-Extra cities and/or more land. At the very least you have prevented a potential rival from expanding.
-It has always seemed to me that other civs respect you more when you have successfully prosecuted a war.

This basically sets you up for a win by score. That may or may not be your thing, and it does kinda suck being forced toward that vic condition. But it is possible to win that way (this is how I won my last two games) and it somehow feels more satisfying (and real) than just seeing a box popup saying you just won a cultural victory.

watorrey · February 25, 2002, 02:50

These are my complains as well.

In a post by Soren, he mentioned that they are very concerned about the technology progressing too fast. Heck... they just compounded the problem not made it better.

Someone... forget who... sugggested giving the human a research disadvantage instead of giving the AI an advantage at higher levels. This makes alot more sense, but would NOT fix the tech trading problem.

The AI is so busy trading between itself, it has no money to trade to me. So i end up taking a world map and 5 gold for Free Artistry just so no other civ gets something for it. And that is before the theater is built!!

watorrey · February 25, 2002, 03:01

These are my complains as well.

In a post by Soren, he mentioned that they are very concerned about the technology progressing too fast. Heck... they just compounded the problem not made it better.

Someone... forget who... sugggested giving the human a research disadvantage instead of giving the AI an advantage at higher levels. This makes alot more sense, but would NOT fix the tech trading problem.

The AI is so busy trading between itself, it has no money to trade to me. So i end up taking a world map and 5 gold for Free Artistry just so no other civ gets something for it. And that is before the theater is built!!

kimmygibler · February 25, 2002, 03:33

Yep this is the biggest problem with the game. I hope they fix it.

There needs to be some incentive for the ai and human to research their own techs rather than trade for all their techs. I think any tech you develop yourself should give you a culture bonus. (or something) Like inventing your own alphabet should be somehow better than just using another civs alphabet.

notyoueither · February 25, 2002, 04:04

You ask the AI for something, the AI will ask for ridiculous things back, initially.

Remove 2 or 3 of the 4 techs he was asking for. He'll probably still accept.

Salve

Jaguar · February 25, 2002, 04:09

I think the AIs should not be able to distinguish themselves from human players. That would fix most of the problems.

Also, when the AI offers you something, he tends to ask for a lot, but he will except you removing quite a bit.

Jaguar · February 25, 2002, 04:11

damn, beaten by 5 minutes. Anyway, methinks this is a case of not trading as intelligently as the computer. On Monarch, I keep up by trading. I view trading as my chance to fleece the computer, not get cheated.

notyoueither · February 25, 2002, 05:19

Always good to beat a dragon to the punch.

Salve

Sphinx2000 · February 25, 2002, 07:20

Always try to be as "width-stingy" as possible.

Give/sell as many of the same/similar techs as possible,

and never,ever sell any techs which advance 2 directions on the tech tree...

Sphinxy
--------------------------------------------------
I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the Blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank

Hope you guess my name...
Sx2000

Random Passerby · February 25, 2002, 09:55

This works both ways. Three of the four 1.17f games I've played I started out alone on an island, and made first contact with the AI civs when I had no ancient techs other than my starting techs and the line to Map Making, and they were in the early-to-mid Middle Ages... in all three of those games, by the time the industrial era rolled around, I had a slim tech lead and crushing dominance over all financial matters.

Since I usually get stuck with island and other very-limited-territory starts anyways, this is pretty much how I've always seen the game go. The only difference seems to be that things are ahead a couple centuries.

Azrikam · February 25, 2002, 10:19

Quote:

But now the A.I. has been tweeked to "aggressively trade". This means that I am no longer competing with seven other civs. I am now trying to out-research a single globe-spanning super-civ with six Forbidden Palaces and all the resources that single entity can bring to bear.

I completely agree. Some people may not think this is a problem, but to me it seems like a huge problem.

The AI asks for incredibly lopsided trades against the human competitor. That would be fine, but they obviously cannot use the same trading logic against other AI Civ's, or no one would ever trade. So, this bias is dead-set against the human player, meaning that his/her resources are less valuable than other Civ's.

Now, I'm all for competitive AI, but all this does is force the player to treat all Civs as a single enemy, and increases the ever-increasing need to "fight fight fight" to succeed in Civ III. It seems that the tradeoff for getting more competitive AI is a greatly simplified game with less strategic options. And that, in my opinion, is a huge step backward from Civ II/SMAC.

Tarquelne · February 25, 2002, 14:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Azrikam
The AI asks for incredibly lopsided trades against the human competitor. That would be fine, but they obviously cannot use the same trading logic against other AI Civ's, or no one would ever trade.

When I started playing civ I was struck by how similar the AI's trading strategy seemed to be to my own. And I play like trading games.... tooting my own horn here, but I almost always win board games with a strong trade element (Advanced Civilization would be a good example). And no, the people I play with aren't stupid. I _like_ the fact that the AI - rather than being a clueless wimp, like most AIs - is a ruthless and self-serving bastard sometimes about trades. (Civ3's AI is just a PC-game AI, of course, it's still sometimes quite "clueless".)

Quote:

So, this bias is dead-set against the human player, meaning that his/her resources are less valuable than other Civ's.

I've never ever ever seen that in a Civ3 game. Never. I've seen the AI try to take advantage of the fact that I'm "flush", I've seen the AI try to take advantage of the fact that I'm weak, I've seen the AIs start to all dislike me because I keept attacking other civs and break treaties, I've seen the AIs start to dislike me because I always negotiated to get the best possible deal (for me).... all things I do in the AI's place.

Directly addressing the "resources are less valuable than other Civ's" part:
The AI, like me, is playing a game, and wants to win. It looks to what it thinks you can afford to pay. It seems that, unlike me, the AI will develop a "grudge" during a game and want more out of you. But I think that's OK too, I have a friend that makes it part of his strategy in most games to _explicitly_ state that he holds grudges... it's a deterrent.

Quote:

Now, I'm all for competitive AI, but all this does is force the player to treat all Civs as a single enemy, and increases the ever-increasing need to "fight fight fight" to succeed in Civ III.

I don't, and I win reasonably consistently on Emperor and Deity. (But I agree that fighting (with military units, not just trying to screw over someone via trade) is too often the way to go in Civ3. I've made some changes to the game that make going on the offensive, militarily, more difficult. Seems to have helped.)

Quote:

It seems that the tradeoff for getting more competitive AI is a greatly simplified game with less strategic options. And that, in my opinion, is a huge step backward from Civ II/SMAC.

But, I submit, the game is far deeper tactically. (Esp since many people - not necessarily you - seem to define strategic depth as "lots of techs") You don't have a wide variety of relatively easy "grand strategy" decisions (like which branch of a wide tech tree to follow), with Civ3 your choices are relatively limited as far as "grand strategy" goes, but you have a host of good (difficult and interesting) "tactical" decisions to make. A step in a very different direction from Civ II or SMAC, certianly, but not a step _backward_. Hey, it's not the game I wanted to go buy either, but I've come to appreciate Civ3 for the game it is, not become frustrated because it keeps failing to be the game I expected it to be.

rothomp3 · February 25, 2002, 15:11

According to information posted by Soren (I think) back when the game first came out, the AI can not tell the difference between the human player and other AIs. He implied this would not change, and probably could not be changed. This tells me that the AI is, in fact, offering the same kinds of trades to each other as it/they offer to you. But as someone else pointed out, there is a certain amount of bargaining you can do, you do not have to accept the initial absurd offer. It's like you make an offer, it makes a counter-offer, then you counter-offer, etc. Clearly the AI does this between itself as well.

later,
rothomp3

Azrikam · February 25, 2002, 16:55

Quote:

According to information posted by Soren (I think) back when the game first came out, the AI can not tell the difference between the human player and other AIs. He implied this would not change, and probably could not be changed. This tells me that the AI is, in fact, offering the same kinds of trades to each other as it/they offer to you. But as someone else pointed out, there is a certain amount of bargaining you can do, you do not have to accept the initial absurd offer. It's like you make an offer, it makes a counter-offer, then you counter-offer, etc. Clearly the AI does this between itself as well.

If this is the case, then the AI MUST be willing negotiate, or they would never trade amongst themselves. Admittedly, I haven't played the game, so I'm only going by the information on the boards, so I'll be the first to admit that I could be off-base.

It does seem strange that Firaxis wanted to make the game less military-oriented, but from what I'm hearing, has done the opposite.

Technoron · February 25, 2002, 17:10

Quote:

You ask the AI for something, the AI will ask for ridiculous things back, initially.

Remove 2 or 3 of the 4 techs he was asking for. He'll probably still accept.

Uh. Yeah. Four techs plus cash for iron working was AFTER I'd talked 'em down. Cripes. Give a guy some credit.

Quote:

According to information posted by Soren (I think) back when the game first came out, the AI can not tell the difference between the human player and other AIs. He implied this would not change, and probably could not be changed. This tells me that the AI is, in fact, offering the same kinds of trades to each other as it/they offer to you. But as someone else pointed out, there is a certain amount of bargaining you can do, you do not have to accept the initial absurd offer. It's like you make an offer, it makes a counter-offer, then you counter-offer, etc. Clearly the AI does this between itself as well.

First off, the AI does NOT make counter offers. All counter offers are created by the human player.

Second, as an extension of the first, there is NO bargaining. THE AI DOES NOT BARGAIN (nor does Tommy Lee Jones). It calculates the absolute minimum it will accept and then asks for more. The player is then tasked with either attempting to find that minimum value or simply going to the cleaners.

Third, if the AI cannot distinguish itself from me and offers the same trades to itself as it does to me, well, that means that the AI is offering itself worthless maps in exchange for high end techs. And, apparently, it actually ACCEPTS those offers. I can think of no other way for a puny civ with no territory or resources to keep up in the tech race (and somehow they always do). "Hey guys! I just reconned an new square! wanna trade its location for some shiny new techs?"

I've got some major issues with how the AI tosses around techs (including wonder-bearing techs) like they're confetti at the Thanksgiving Day Parade. The way "challenge" is being created with the tech free-for-all takes me back to the day I was playing original Civ and the Indian capitol finished Pyramids and Colossus in back-to-back turns. (Original Civ AI never actually built wonders, they were simply "awarded" if a die roll was made.)

Sure would be nice if the AI's proclivity for blue light tech specials was tempered by the difficulty level.

Arrian · February 25, 2002, 17:25

You all may want to check out the 1.17 AI vs. AI "trading" thread, also in the General Forum. Soren has posted there (and has specifically indicated that Firaxis is looking closely at the rate of tech advancement - i.e. hitting the Industrial Age in 1000AD), and the debate between those of us who are upset with 1.17 and those that like the changes to AI trading has been going on for some time.

-Arrian

Technoron · February 25, 2002, 17:44

Quote:

Originally posted by FireDragon
damn, beaten by 5 minutes. Anyway, methinks this is a case of not trading as intelligently as the computer. On Monarch, I keep up by trading. I view trading as my chance to fleece the computer, not get cheated.

Fleece the computer? The AI KNOWS the value of what is being traded and will NOT trade for less than par. The only thing I've found that comes close to "fleecing" the AI is to start a war with a smaller civ and then extort the hell out of it when it begs for peace.

The computer trades intelligently? With unique tech comes unique advantage. Be first on yer block to field a couple dozen knights and watch the enemy's borders fold back. Get republic a few dozen turns before everyone else and watch the research flow. Be the one to build the Sistine Chapel and the serfs are forever grateful. No AI civ will hold any tech in reserve for any reason or amount of time (like they will in SMAC). The computer does not trade intelligently, rather, it trades INDISCRIMINATELY.

Calvin Vu · February 25, 2002, 18:57

This is my 2c.

The problem with this is due to two conflicting objectives: 1) reward the first player who gets the tech (instead of the second, normally human, player who buys it and then sells it to the remaing 14 civs, making a tidy profit for himself), and 2) prevent the "The poor gets poorer; the rich gets richer" scenario which compounds the difference and make the outcome of the game obvious by 200 AD.
Methink we can balance these two objectives by adopting the modern concept of "patent" to Civ. The rule can then be made so that only the technological inventor holds the patent to that technology and only he can sell/trade it for a number of turns,say 20 turns. That will help the tech leader to control how many civs (and even exactly which ones will get his tech for the critical "first 20 turns"). If this is adopted then we can change the "tech licensing" price to be much lower than it is right now so that the "technological poor" will have a chance to catch up. The "fair" price may then be calculated as:

FPr = TC / (NOC) + (TC * (NOC/2 - NKC)/NOC)

where:
FPr : full price of the tech license (i.e. price sold
to a Civ which has not yet researched that
tech). This will be proportionally reduced
depending on how far he gets in researching
the tech.
TC : cost of researching that tech.
NOC : Number of Other Civs in the game, not
counting the inventing civ.
NKC : number of civs who already have this tech.

So, using this formular, each tech license will cost a base price of [TC / (NOC)] plus a premium/discount depending on whether you're the first civ who licenses the technology or you're the last one.
With this formula, assuming the inventing civ license his tech to all remaining civs (and assuming all of them have to pay the full price since they have not yet done any research on this tech), then the inventing civ will get the full-price of his tech investment back and he would be the only civ who gets it for free. That would be nice but not as ridiculous as the huge profit due to tech whoring right now. That would also enable alternate strategies such as gold-rushing libraries and universities at the beginning instead of investing in science since the cost of obtaining just the licenses to catch up with the tech is not too ridiculously high.

To make it more interesting, we may not want to disable the sales/trades of techological licenses by the licensees but, instead, allow the inventing civ to declare war in that case and also reduce the likelihood of such "licensing breaker" to obtain another license in the future. That would be a fun choice, methink.

Whoha · February 25, 2002, 19:32

the ai trades for less then the acceptable value, just drop off 10 or 11 legions on the doorstep of their last city, and im sure you will find that the ai considers a peace treaty worth all of their tech,money,maps,contacts(contact each guy or the ai sells it next turn for whatever it can get, and you get contacted by however many ppl who want to sell you a useless tech you dont give a damn about...)

The whip is still as good as ever when it comes to warfare, The only fix i can think of is the fix applied to nerve stapling in smac/x,whereby nerve stapling becomes increasingly less effective. I think they should just drop the unhappiness penalty(it doesnt hurt builders who rush a temple and it doesnt hurt warmongers who set up temporary cities with taxmen and worker cities) and just have the value in shields from a whip drop, but after a set time pick back up again(during this time NO whipping could happen or it would continue to cause a drop in the value of a hurry sacrafice and a lengthening of the no whip time)