1.FIRAXIS-patch: 17f tech acceleration is too fast to enjoy

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 2, 2002, 11:20

In several threads people have concluded that the tech progression since the latest patch develops ways too fast!
This reduces the attractiveness of playing in and progressing through the different eras. It's more fun and realistic being able to use your precious built armies (not meaning leader-armies) for a longer period of time. Basically the Roman legions ruled for almost a half millennium. Now the possibility of simulating these historic events/realities (having UU's military strengths ruling for an appopriate period of in-game time, better reflecting the reality of ancient time), is almost reduced to 0.

IMO this could and should be adjusted.
Now it's not a game of evolvong through history, it's more like racing toward modern times and really fighting it out then.

This can't be ment to be, can it?

Any supporters of this (frequent) request?

AJ

Worthingtons · March 2, 2002, 12:15

I completely whole-heartedly agree, this is what frustrates MOST about the game, it's more annoying than the corruption model for me.

Firaxis have tried so hard to make the game unbeatable, that they are ruining the game

Tech 'patents' MUST be introduced in the next patch!!!

No.Dice · March 2, 2002, 12:29

Also each civ develops the same tech all within a turn of each other, leaving no diversity and making tech brokering nearly impossible in early/mid game. Emperor and above have become nearly unplayable unless you start an early war, and involve everybody in it to slow down progress.

Dida · March 2, 2002, 12:38

You get one tech after another so fast, that the units become obselete before you can even built them in great numbers.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 2, 2002, 12:52

In my latest emperor/Iroquois game I've tried to settle as fast as possible, building up my armies afterwards. I was all of the time very much behind in tech, whilst knowing every other civ, but while I most of the time have had two luxuries to trade, the other civs only traded 'ancient' techs to me.

So by the year 590 AD I attacked and conquered Rome, that held the GL (GL gave me all before education AND music theory, banking, astronomy, economics, navigation, physics, magnetism and metallurgy !!!!
--> posted my remark on forum: general: 1.17f bugs). So out of the blue I was suddenly even with the Formula One tech-civs. But a couple of turns later we (this means: all of the other civs except me) were in modern times, and my precious built up MW's had to face riflemen.

My point: by the (limited) time I spent building up an attack army of ca. 15 MW's, the other civs were far ahead already, making ancient and medieval units obsolete in the 6th century! Was I playing on a huge map with 16 civs. Not at all: standard, 8 civs, continents, larger land masses.

I won't finish the game as I've picked the Iroquois to enjoy ancient expansion. But ancient times no longer exist.
And don't get me wrong: I've won many games on emperor before. But a civ game without fair evolving phases troughout times/eras just isn't ...

FAIR
AJ

I Am Jeff · March 2, 2002, 13:30

I think an easy solution to the tech problem would be to slow down expansion. Everybody expands WAY to fast. I remember In civ2 there was still sometimes open land by the time I got modern techs. If expansion was slowed, then they would have less cities, and less cites means less tech output. Which would lead to gaining tech slower. Only way that I think you could slowen expansion is by raising the cost of settlers and making them take 3 population, instead of 2. Anything else would be in Firaxis power to change, such as what units the cpu starts with and so on.

One thing they could do is have, on higher difficulty levels, the settler cost for the cpu be the same as the human player. This way the computer will expand slower as well.

Dida · March 2, 2002, 14:05

An easy way is to make techs for expensive.

White Elk · March 2, 2002, 14:25

I agree, the Tech race has been lobotomized, and gameplay has greatly suffered. Enough with these broken fixes already; Firaxis(with all due respect) please hire more testers and thouroughly playtest future patchs/games.

My first 1.17f patched game was played on Emperor. I was expecting to have to work hard and manage my Empire well in order to gain a tech lead. It was apparent early that I was going to have to pull a rabbit out of my hat to accomplish that task. So I built the Great Library which was a great help, and sacrificed some food production for commerce, and continued building the Science infrastructure. The tech race was no longer against individual Civ's but a consortium of tech whores. Where did the challenge of the Tech Tree go?...(sound of a flushing toilet in the background)

The game droned on and I kept current with the other Civs tech, but was unable to get ahead. As we communially entered the Industrial Age, I focused my tech research towards The Theory of Evolution. It was vital to my success to prevent the AI civs from discovering Replaceable Parts (rubber and the Infanryman) before I could disrupt their infrastructure and capture their rubber producers.

My Gambit was initially effective. The Theory of Evolution gained me the Replaceable Parts tech and I was two techs ahead of my opponents. The rifleman production switched to infantryman and an initial invasion force would be ready to sail in three turns. Now that rubber was visible, I discovered that only I and the Aztecs had access to the resource. I would be able to secure all the worlds rubber resources within five turns. yahoooo.....

However. A few turns after my discovery of replaceable parts the entire world had discovered replaceable parts. They had caught up to my two tech lead within a few turns. My infantrymen still secured the resources, but the Aztecs and their trade buddy the Persians had 2-3 turns of access to rubber. In that time they had been able to upgrade to infantrymen. Aaah, the unjustice of it all. I had no embassies with any Civ and no one had discovered Espionage yet. I can see no way that they could have (within the human game parameters anyway) closed the tech gap so quickly.

In summary; due to the tech trade changes, much gameplay strategies have been lost, and the game has become far to linear. In addition, the (once) great wonder The Theory of Evolution is useless. However the human player must build it or the AI civs will all benifit from it.

cassembler · March 2, 2002, 14:27

Isn't there a way to adjust the "minimum tech time" in the editor?
Does this affect AI research? Did I just fart?

davidttm · March 2, 2002, 15:29

IMHO the lightning speed problem is caused by the ai civs trading all their techs in a round-robin to each other (and sometimes even the human) without regard for the tech's strategic value.

Yes, we the humans are tech whores too. BUT we balance money-making against the military or wonder head-start the tech can give us.

If the human discovers a military unit tech he or she probably won't sell it to anybody the right away (much less to an agressive civ that lives right next door). The ai doesn't seem to have any governor on selling brand new tech, even if hoarding that tech would give their civ an advantage. Each ai civ is supposed to be trying to win, I thought.

I don't know how to fix it but making tech slower or more expensive by itself is not going to solve the root problem.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 2, 2002, 16:16

A thought:

To slow down the very rapid advance in ancient and medieval era, perhaps a couple of 'imperatives' could be included before a civ can evolve to another era.

For example:

A civ can't research/trade/enjoy medieval techs before having built at least 3 libraries, ...

A civ can't advance to another era if it hasn't conquered at least 1/2 cities from a rival civ (reflecting the absorbance of the culture of a defeated empire by the new one -- Greek culture was taken over by the Romans, giving a boost to Roman culture/knowledge)...

If you all find a couple of good 'triggers', Firaxis could make a synthesis and implement it (seems to be rather easy, although I don't know anything about programming). These triggers can contribute more to realism: in real life we name different periods in time because there exist many clear differences in the socio-economic and political parameters between distinctive periods.

Just program a couple of must have's or must do's before being allowed to advance to another era ...
More interplay goals, more fun!

AJ

lockstep · March 2, 2002, 18:44

Quote:

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
A civ can't advance to another era if it hasn't conquered at least 1/2 cities from a rival civ

I wholeheartedly disagree. This would kill any incentive to peaceful coexistence.

pauli · March 2, 2002, 19:44

Quote:

A civ can't advance to another era if it hasn't conquered at least 1/2 cities from a rival civ

WTF?

with all due respect, that's the worst idea i've seen suggested for civ3, ever

notyoueither · March 2, 2002, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by cassembler
Isn't there a way to adjust the "minimum tech time" in the editor?
Does this affect AI research? Did I just fart?

Wisdom from cows... Is that like pearls before the swine?

Good suggestion. No, make that great. Double the minimum and increase the maximum by, say, 50% and the tech rate might resume it's leisurely pace through the ages. I'm gonna try it.

Salve

lockstep · March 2, 2002, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Good suggestion. No, make that great. Double the minimum and increase the maximum by, say, 50% and the tech rate might resume it's leisurely pace through the ages. I'm gonna try it.

IMO, rapid tech devaluation and the AI's extreme willingness to tech whore is the problem, and doubling the minimum research time won't solve it. The AI's may be only allowed to research 1 tech in 8 turns, but they will still sell 8 techs in 1 turn when given the opportunity.

notyoueither · March 2, 2002, 20:25

Quote:

Originally posted by lockstep

IMO, rapid tech devaluation and the AI's extreme willingness to tech whore is the problem, and doubling the minimum research time won't solve it. The AI's may be only allowed to research 1 tech in 8 turns, but they will still sell 8 techs in 1 turn when given the opportunity.

Yes, but...

The modifications were for a good reason. Tech whoring by the human was very close to a guaranteed win. ie, It could be said that it was an exploit. Now that problem is solved. The AI will take advantage of selling tech just as readily, or more so, than the human.

The new problem is to restore the balance so that the different eras have more meaning. Isn't it? One way to do that is to lengthen the amount of time it takes to develop tech. Maybe it's the best way, maybe not. However, the return of the exploit would not be progress.

Salve

lockstep · March 2, 2002, 20:47

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
The new problem is to restore the balance so that the different eras have more meaning. Isn't it? One way to do that is to lengthen the amount of time it takes to develop tech. Maybe it's the best way, maybe not. However, the return of the exploit would not be progress.

I agree that the 'human-only' tech whoring of v.1.07f should not return. Nor should the 'solution' of v.1.16f (AI tech trading during the human player's turn). However, in v1.17f where the AI is finally able to cope with the concept of tech trading (BTW, compliments to Soren for that), any tech that is discovered by an AI civ will be in the hands of most or all other AI civs a few turns later. This is due to the current formula of tech devaluation with its absurd lower floor of 1/16 of the original tech cost. This hard-coded formula needs to be changed - luckily, Firaxis seems to be willing to do so.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 2, 2002, 20:49

quote:

A civ can't advance to another era if it hasn't conquered at least 1/2 cities from a rival civ

WTF?

with all due respect, that's the worst idea i've seen suggested for civ3, ever

--> It was just an example/suggestion. One could choose just a couple of triggers out of a list of more triggers ...

AJ

Munroe · March 2, 2002, 21:15

Double click on civ3mod.exe
Hit Ctrl-R
Goto World Size Tab
Increase the tech rates by 3-4x for whatever size you play on..
Problem Solved

This doesn't solve the AIs giving out techs but it makes the ages last alot longer and every civ is pretty much equal with everyone else in techs.

notyoueither · March 3, 2002, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Munroe
Double click on civ3mod.exe
Hit Ctrl-R
Goto World Size Tab
Increase the tech rates by 3-4x for whatever size you play on..
Problem Solved

This doesn't solve the AIs giving out techs but it makes the ages last alot longer and every civ is pretty much equal with everyone else in techs.

Actually it does. On large map I kicked the Tech Rate from 180 to 200. Increased minimum from 4 to 8 and maximum from 40 to 60. 12 civs. Emperor. Large continents.

750BC and we're still in the Ancient Age. Also, the AI tends to keep unique techs for a while before selling them to anyone. Then, pfff, it's everywhere. It seems the game is more balanced. More later.

Salve

Pius Popprasch · March 4, 2002, 04:57

I increased the prices for the Middle Ages techs to play that era longer and it works relatively well. The remaining problem are the tiny underdeveloped civs who gain access too easily.

exeter0 · March 4, 2002, 05:38

Quote:

Actually it does. On large map I kicked the Tech Rate from 180 to 200. Increased minimum from 4 to 8 and maximum from 40 to 60. 12 civs. Emperor. Large continents.

I agree. I've made similar changes and it seems to work a lot better with similar results.

theEntity · March 4, 2002, 07:25

I have an idea that I think would both be easy to implement and that would work...

Just add a rule that a civ must known a tech for a set number of turns before it can sell the tech to any other civ. the number of turns could possibly depend on the age, with 30 turns in the ancient age and 10 in the modern age.

This is both quite realistic - Knowledge don't travel with the speed of light, and should fix the tech acceleration problem. It will also work against both human and AI players.

aahz_capone · March 4, 2002, 07:32

quote:
"In summary; due to the tech trade changes, much gameplay strategies have been lost, and the game has become far to linear. In addition, the (once) great wonder The Theory of Evolution is useless. However the human player must build it or the AI civs will all benifit from it."

This is exactly what happened to me. I've reloaded game from the autosave many occasions to see how the civs which are backwards in tech and have no cash or luxuries or resources get withing 2 turns of their contacting a "well informed civ" all the techs and all the contacts with the only requirement that the backward civ have at least 5 cities. (For some reason if it hqas like 3 cities it gets so totally and utterly ignored in the game that you wonder why they are allowed to live).

My only conclusions are that the AI either "gives" techs away in the name of peace and love, which I think is NOT what is happeneing, FIRAXIS would never program like that. The other is that the techs are literally being traded for 1 gold and your territory map (and for some reason I have only extremely rarely been able to get civs wordl map even by offering my lifes blood in 1.17f). Result: tech whores. (I love that fraze...)

I think that a pattent system is much needed. A civ may NOT trade a new tech with another civ for X turns after you've traded it with them, but it makes the whole deal more expensive, deal broken -> war, yadd yadda yadda, u get the idea

Adm.Naismith · March 4, 2002, 07:37

It seems to me that the problem is related to:
- too fast devaluation of tech cost
- lot of trouble about trading tech (added to many silly AI decision trading resources, luxuries, cities, etc.)

I use to visit this site seldom, in last couple of months, so I'm probably missing something relevant, but I've get the strong impression that "patches" solution about tactics and strategies (i.e. not strictly about bug crushing) reflect developers wandering without a good plan.

I've already read about stopping every (human) winning strategies cutting game choice. I'm really unable to win the game without a large abuse of military (not a starship launched yet! My worst result after years of Civ/CivII/SMAC games!

).

I tried different tactics, but nothing seems to work outside of a very narrow path, that include a relevant part of necessary lucky for good measure!

Someone should go back to the design table, take a long breathe and rebalance the whole beast before the game become a pale shadow of the former "legend". IMHO, of course.

kailhun · March 4, 2002, 08:09

I voted don't know, because a) I don't know and b) there was no banana option.
I've just started my first 1.17 game and the tech has gone extremely fast. I'm hoping that this is due to a different way of playing (build cities closer together so that more of the land actualy gets used, so more beakers). I've also reduced the min number of turns to 1. I did see some very low turns for tech numbers though.
I went straight for Republic. The other civs went their own way, but want Republic so much they will trade three or four techs for Republic. So now I've gotten almost all of the first tech screen. In a very short time.
It was impossible to build wonders as the way to Republic passes most of them and the AI has them build before you even have the tech. In this game tech seems to have developed very fast.

I would like to know what was changed in 1.17 to speed up tech development and why.

Robert

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 4, 2002, 08:21

Remind us, the Formula One Tech Accelerations ain't an issue whilst playing on lower levels than emperor/deity.

There however exists one major slowdown process on emp./deit.:
a long-period World War. Civs then focus on military and economic maximilization, instead of researching. If you play a game on larger maps and there are wars very early on that keep proceeding throughout times, then and only then, the FOTA develops in a 'normal' way ... Meaning: warmongers now get rewarded even more and better than before ...

What do you guys (or/and girls?) think about some extra must do's / must have's (only a few of them, chosen out of a list of 'triggers') before being allowed to advance through other eras?
This would better reflect historical realism and has already been implemented in a way in AOE2, ...

Just a couple of triggers you (= your civ empire) 'd have to focus on if you want to move on the scale of civ-advances ...

I'd definitely vote YES, IMMEDIATELY !!!!

Kind regards,
AJ

White Elk · March 4, 2002, 14:00

Quote by AJ Corp. The FAIR
Remind us, the Formula One Tech Accelerations ain't an issue whilst playing on lower levels than emperor/diety.
I must be misunderstanding this statement, or is it a sarcasism that's gone over my head? I've played two Monarch and one Emperor level game since installing the patch; and have found the accelerated tech race to be just as much of an issue with the Monarch games as the Emperor.

I like the idea of "triggers" but have none of my own (that have any semblence of game balance) to share.

I do however have a couple of other ideas.
What if a Civs reputation played a part in trade deals? A Civ that has broken agreements, been excessivly aggresive etc. would be "blacklisted" from future trades, or would be required to pay an exhorbinant amount for the tech. Currently AI Civs will sue for peace, and within a few turns trade techs like Gunpowder or Chivelry with each other. That seems a little out of whack to me.

Maybee a limit to how many tech trades per Civ per turn? I would prefer pre-1.17f to this, but would rather play this way than the way it is now.

And what about assigning each Civ a compatibility value? This would require that each Civ has it's own unique "personality". That way relations and the likelyhood of trade will be better between some Civs than others. For instance the Religous/Commercial Indians would be less likely to trade with the Militaristic/Scientific Germans. Then for even more interesting and complex gameplay, add in reputation factors. So compatible Civs who have treated each other poorly will also be unlikely to trade with each other. And uncompatible Civs who share a common foe and have never warred will become more likely to trade.

Arrian · March 4, 2002, 16:32

Just so you all know, Soren has said that Firaxis is looking into the rate of tech advancement and also the floor on tech devaluation (i.e. the lowest value a tech can fall to, currently 1/number of existing civs). Basically, they agree things aren't working quite right. See:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=43559

and

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=42905

FYI.

-Arrian

White Elk · March 4, 2002, 17:45

Thanks for pointing out those threads Arrian.