Hurry up and release 1.18! I can't take the AI's tech trading any more!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by dunk999
I think the problem with the AI trading is the World Map. For some reason, the AI players value this over just about any tech, even when the map they are trading for is identical to their own. To me it's rather silly, but if you buy a World Map for whatever the astronomical price is (your map + 200 gold + 10 gold per turn + engineering + dyes... had that offered to me once, AI wouldn't even accept 1 gold piece less), you have a powerful bargaining chip. I think a solution is to devalue that damn map.

I think you're right. Devaluing the world map would definitely help. The trouble is, sometimes the world map really IS worth a lot. This is the case if you have discovered another continent with a bunch of civs on it. Your world map should be really valueable to the civs on each continent, because that way they know how to find one another. Unfortunately, I don't see a simple way to code the game such that there is a distinction between this situation and simply uncovering a few squares of empty ocean the AI hasn't seen yet. Therefore, I say devalue the map in general.

Luxury trading:

There are a couple of factors here that conspire to make a 1 for 1 luxury deal with the AI very rare.

#1 - The larger you are (# of citizens), the more a luxury benifits you... and the AI knows it. So, if you are 2x the size of the AI with whom you wish to trade, they feel they can charge you double.

#2 - Difficulty level. If you play on levels higher than Regent, you have an unhappiness disadvantage. Therefore, luxuries are worth more to you than to the AI... and it knows it. So take the 2x it feels it can charge in #1 and make it 3x. When the AI trades amongst themselves, there is no unhappiness imbalance. Which, combined with the AI's willingness to bankrupt themselves for luxuries (I often see the AI running 70% taxes just to break even), is why you see the AI's all having 7 or 8 luxuries when you feel lucky to muster up 5 or 6.

It just makes more sense to take the luxury(ies) you want by force.

-Arrian

[Zachriel]

Keep in mind that on higher levels, your money is being devalued -- by choice.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Arrian

Luxury trading:

There are a couple of factors here that conspire to make a 1 for 1 luxury deal with the AI very rare.

#1 - The larger you are (# of citizens), the more a luxury benifits you... and the AI knows it. So, if you are 2x the size of the AI with whom you wish to trade, they feel they can charge you double.

#2 - Difficulty level. If you play on levels higher than Regent, you have an unhappiness disadvantage. Therefore, luxuries are worth more to you than to the AI... and it knows it. So take the 2x it feels it can charge in #1 and make it 3x. When the AI trades amongst themselves, there is no unhappiness imbalance. Which, combined with the AI's willingness to bankrupt themselves for luxuries (I often see the AI running 70% taxes just to break even), is why you see the AI's all having 7 or 8 luxuries when you feel lucky to muster up 5 or 6.

It just makes more sense to take the luxury(ies) you want by force.

-Arrian

I was only 2 or 3 cities bigger (number of citizens shouldn't matter as a luxury only gives one happy face per city). Also, I was playing on Warlord difficulty.

[Arrian]

dunk999,

Warlord, huh. So you have a happiness advantage over the AI. Hmm... lemme think about that one.

No, by the way, a luxury does not just give 1 happy face. The first two do that. With marketplaces, the second two give two each, #'s 5 and 6 give three each, and #'s 7 and 8 give four each.

So, the more cities you have, and the larger they are, the more valueable a luxury is.

I also wonder if the AI is coded to be stingier to civs that are leading in score/tech. In your case, that would be you, right?

-Arrian

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Keep in mind that on higher levels, your money is being devalued -- by choice.

Hear, hear! I think that people occasionally forget that Regent is the only level where the AI doesn't cheat. Oh, I know, the Emperors of the Board may scoff at the lowly Regent level and snicker at anyone who can't beat Deity by 500AD. Nevertheless, Regent is where the "fair fight" is, at least in terms of resources, production and research. Anyone taking on a higher level is handicapping himself. It seems from time to time some forget this and complain "the AI gets a huge tech lead," or "corruption is killing all my production," or "all my citizens are unhappy." Unfortunately, by playing the higher levels that's exactly what you're asking for.

Sure, every now and again I take a deep breath and start up a Deity game for the sheer challenge of it. But for an enjoyable game where I don't have to be both perfect and lucky to have a chance at beating cheating opponents, it's Regent all the way.

Still, though, there is AI tech trading even on Regent, but it's not as bad, IMO, as on the higher levels. I've played numerous games where one or two AI Civs had a substantial tech lead (at least 6 techs) over other AI Civs, and it didn't seem like they were sharing one bit. OTOH, it does seem as though if I have an uncontested tech superiority over all the AI Civs, they're pretty good about sharing the tech they have in an attempt to regain some level of parity. Which, again, seems a perfectly reasonable strategy when chasing a runaway leader in a horserace-type game (which, IMHO, tech research certainly is).

[philler]

lots of interesting and originals ideas in this thread!

isn't it somewhat ironic that *we*, the players, who paid for the game (at least some of us ), have to come up with those ideas, so that the people at Firaxis can implement them?

don't they have any designers and testers at Firaxis?? (or not enough of them? or they're not good enough?)
Why should *we* playtest this game and then come up with idea to make it better? (or simply interesting to play).

I like this game, but I think it wouldn't take much effort to make it a lot better, and if you ask me I think the whole design/programming/marketing process is a travesty.

but, ah, they probably wanted it out for the Christmas season...

[philler]

let's take a simple example : stack move.

We had to wait till February to get it, whereas ANY CHIMP who played a game up to the modern ages could have told you it was indispensable!

[Barchan]

Originally posted by philler
isn't it somewhat ironic that *we*, the players, who paid for the game (at least some of us ), have to come up with those ideas, so that the people at Firaxis can implement them?

Not really. No one knows what the consumer really wants quite like the consumer. At least they're listening to consumers and trying to give us what we want, unlike SOME compaines out there....

[Grumbold]

World Map: it shouldn't be impossible to rate the map as 10 gold plust X gold per new city plus Y gold per new civilisation. A flat fee is just useless.

Luxuries: The AI always knows how many luxuries you are getting so if the negotiated one will give you x3 effect for 20 cities it will cost the earth. Once you have got that high, all future renegotiations will assume the luxury in question is the one giving that big bonus effect (of course) and the AI never rates its own luxury effect as higher than 1x even if it is getting several. I don't mind because quite often it IS worth that much to you. If it isn't, don't bargain for it

[WarpStorm]

I find that if the AI comes to you offering a deal it is much better than if go looking for one. I've often had it offering a luxury on a one for one (with a little gold thrown in) basis, when a few turns earlier I had gone to him and needed 2 luxuries and a good tech and the world map for the same luxury. I think it depends on who wants it more. If you go to him, he knows he has you by the short curlies.

[Brutus66]

In the game I am currently playing, I am on an archipeligo map with the full load of civs. I am holding on to the edge in technology and have explored most of the map. Thanks to the lighthouse, some of my galleys have gotten to distant shores and I have found just about everybody now. The other civs still have galleys and can't stray far from shore, so they are constantly after me for my map and wanting contact with other civs.
I have gotten to the point where I refuse to see anyone in diplomacy anymore, and I won't trade tech to anybody except in emergencies- like if I am being threatened by invasion from a strong neighbor and I want to recruit some allies.

If they want the tech, let 'em work for it.

[MikeV]

Originally posted by Grumbold
World Map: it shouldn't be impossible to rate the map as 10 gold plust X gold per new city plus Y gold per new civilisation. A flat fee is just useless.

I agree with your suggestion. But it probably makes more sense to determine value by how much "unknown" territory remains to be seen by that AI player.

That is, as everyone explores and swaps maps, the value of such swapping steadily decreases. By the time every player has full knowledge of the map, it no longer has any value (and therefore, would not come up for trade).

[dunk]

Originally posted by Arrian
dunk999,

Warlord, huh. So you have a happiness advantage over the AI. Hmm... lemme think about that one.

It knows that I have a happiness advantage? Why should that matter anyway? A happy face is a happy face. Whether it makes a happy citizen or a content citizen.

Originally posted by Arrian
No, by the way, a luxury does not just give 1 happy face. The first two do that. With marketplaces, the second two give two each, #'s 5 and 6 give three each, and #'s 7 and 8 give four each.

Ok, I forgot that one. Anyhoo, why should it know what happiness my people have already or if I have martketplaces? I don't know anything about his cities (save his capital when I make the embassy or pay 2/3 of my treasury to investigate a city).

Originally posted by Arrian
I also wonder if the AI is coded to be stingier to civs that are leading in score/tech. In your case, that would be you, right?

-Arrian

This may be a point. An official answer might be helpful. But the computer players always seem to be stingy with me, in the lead or not.

I still think the AI trades techs during my turn. I was the first to get Monarchy (at least I think, it never showed up in anyone's list in the diplomacy screen). I thought, yay, I can sell this for some big bucks to a couple civs. I sold it to the Indians for a chunk of change. Then... a pause in the game. Then, I try to sell to everyone else and it's not listed in my trade list.

[dunk]

Originally posted by MikeV


I agree with your suggestion. But it probably makes more sense to determine value by how much "unknown" territory remains to be seen by that AI player.

I think that is how it works when the AI trades me maps. My map is almost always useless to them, but their map is worth everything in my borders plus everything in my neighbor's borders. I think unless you are the first civ to contact a second civ, your map will be worthless throughout the game (unless of course you buy one... for the above price).

[Loopy]

I know I'm in the minority but I'll chime in anyways.

I don't have any major problem with the current tech trading. I didn't have a major problem with the AI trading on my turn (ala 1.16). I see these changes as just game play challenges and strategy shifts.

At first you could tech whore like mad (pre patch). Then you could tech whore but had to pick the richest buyer first (1.16). Now you can only tech whore if you've got the tech lead, and if the AI has the fundage to be your "tech-biatch".

Map valuation seems about right to me. If I'm not mistaken, your view of the world doesn't update road / rail / land improvements. Trading for a map you traded for last turn could give you additional information. Sure there aren't any new mountains, but knowing that a road has been built through them can be helpful. The AI's rampant map trading means their world map is much more up to date than yours, and should be worth more. But once you get one "current" version of the map though, everyone else's version will become "devalued", until the next turn of course.

I don't see how the tech devaluation / instant catch up is "broken" either. I've bought a couple of techs for 1 gold in my current game and that's what they were "worth" at the time. Everyone else had already researched the tech, and I was 1 turn away from learning it anyways.

Tech research cost is based on the number of other civs that you've contacted that know the tech. So when you find that isolated pair of backwards civs for the first time, their tech research drops slightly through contact with one known civ (you) that has the advanced tech. When they've traded communications to the rest of the world, their tech cost drops tremendously with 13 known civs that have the advanced tech. The lowered cost to "catch-up" is designed to help the human player, and also helps the isolated AI. Playing archipeligo works by keeping the base cost high (fewer civs in contact with one another), and the consequently the trade rate down.

And luxury costs work both ways. If you're much smaller than another civ, you can charge a lot for that 1 luxury that they don't have. In my current emperor game I'm trading my only source of ivory for one of China's 3 gems + 10 gold a turn. Granted, they're more than twice my size and probably need it a lot more than I do. But I fail to see the problem in how the system works.

The only real problem I see is the AI whipping cities to uselessness. Then again, I usually go for a diplomatic victory so I haven't run into that AI bug often. I guess what I'm saying is instead of saying the game's "broken" or a patch totally messed up the game, y'all should try adjusting your playing style. So what if it's not a walk in the park anymore, or if you're getting your butt whupped now 'cause your favourite exploit is gone -- there are still winning strategies out there.

[Arrian]

It's not the challenge that bothers me. I adjusted to 1.17 and have been doing as well as ever, but I don't like the tech devaluation rate - which in turn causes the excesses in AI tech trading. I just think the devaluation should be tempered a bit, such that no tech is ever "worth" 1 gold, and a civ that spends all of its time building military units will either a) fall behind or b) beat tech out of someone.

A civ that devotes itself to research at the expense of its military ought to reap some reward (a tech lead) to balance out the penalty of being militarily weak. I applaud efforts to keep the AI from falling toooo far behind, because the days of Modern Armor vs. Riflemen (as in the best AI units... I know there will be spearmen out there) are best left behind.

Edit: I should mention, before you get the wrong idea, that I have managed to gain and hold tech leads under 1.17, so I know 1.17 didn't "break the game." I don't think the game needs a huge change. Big changes usually cause other problems that were not expected. I just want the tech devalution decreased a bit. This, in turn, ought to slow down the tech trading a bit, which ought to slow down the overall pace a bit.

I totally agree about the AI self-destruct, and I hope 1.18 addresses that.

-Arrian

[dnassman]

I have neve said a bad word about civ3 but I finally loaded the 1.17 and started a new game on Regent. I couldn't believe how far ahead the AI was when it came to tech. The ancient era battles are so much fun but now they simply do not last long enough.

This is my first compliant at the game. God forbid that I have to go back and play at Chieftan or Warlord just to slow it down.

The rest of the patch has been great though.

[Grey Knight]

The big problem with tech devaluation is it takes the time value of money principal and tosses it on it's head.

For example, take two civs that each have $100 gpt to invest:

Civ #1 invests the $100 gpt on research to get a new advance. It takes 20 turns, so he spends $2,000. A the end of the he gets a tech advance. Lets say it's Chivalry (Knights, in other words!)

Civ #2 invests the $100 gpt into additional unit support and rush builds. Assuming he only gets an ROI of $1 (1%) per turn, at the end of 20 turns he has a minimum payback of $210.

So now Civ #1 can build knights. On a per-shield cost basis, the knight is roughtly 85% better:

              Horse Knight % Change
Base Attack     2     4      100%
Base Defense    1     3      200%
Shield Cost    40    70       75%

Win % vs Pike  17%   49%
Def % vs Hrse  21%   75%

Per 70 shields:
Win % vs Pike  30%   49%      65%
Def % vs Hrse  36%   75%     107%

Civ #2 already has an advantage - he's ahead by $210, and getting $20 gpt in payback on his earlier ROI. The real cost of buying the tech from civ #1 should be $2210. If Civ #1 doesn't sell, he can make up the difference, and the longer civ #2 goes without chivalry, the bigger that advantage gets.

So here's how I think tech should be valuated:

• When first discovered, the cost of the tech should be 110% of the research cost (reflecting the time value of money)
• For each civ that knows a tech, the cost should go down by 1% per turn. So after knowing the tech for one turn, the cost is 109%. If after 10 turns (back to 100%), it is sold, the next turn it would be 98% (since two civs know it). The floor would still be 1/(civs you have contact with that know it).

Cheers,
Shawn

[gnome]

I have noticed a high degree of difference between how shrewd of a negotiator the computer is, for resources compared to techs.

For resources... I think the programmers have got it just about right. They don't trade them lightly, often demand more than 1:1 if they perceive that you'll get more from the trade than they... and the overall effect is very positive in terms of both challenge and immersion. Wrangling for resources has become one of my favorite parts of the game, a welcome new addition to the series.

On the other hand, tech brokering has become so simplistic that it has been reduced to mere drudgery. Immersion is improved when a player finds himself faced with different challenges to contend with, dependent on the situation in the game. I find myself making the same decisions over and over again no matter what the state of the game is. The computer just has no idea of the value of a tech.

Can we have whoever wrote the negotiating strategy for resources fix the tech negotiation AI?

[Shaka II]

In addition to the general tech devaluation, etc. (in V1.17F), I have noticed an annoying tendency for the computer to research exactly what I am researching, and discover it exactly on the same turn. I did some very minimal testing and tried slowing my research down a turn to see if the AI would discover it ahead of me, and they did not.

Have they been using Intelligence Agency to give them this information, or is this just another cheat? I thought I was imagining things, but this has happened in several games, so the next patch really has to fix this.

Some forms of AI cheating and bonuses are necessary to make them viable competitors, but the AI should not know the human players research path.

This is a particular problem when trying to seek parallel research paths in order to trade a tech that no one has discovered for one that you don't have, thereby avoiding duplication of effort. In the final crtical ramp up for Space Victory, this tech cheating is most apparent.

Of course the AI sells this tech immediately, making it impossible for me to trade it for the missing tech(s). Well, I manage to win at Space anyway 90% of the time in Emperor, but sometimes by only a turn or two.

Has any one else noticed this?

Also, in the last several games, as I am researching laser and about 9 SS components built, one of the AI civs declares war on me, with no announcement by my military advisor (bug?). It is mainly the surprise factor in finding out that someone is at war with you, sometimes several turns later, when you notice the bombers strafing you're terrain improvements.

Another AI improvement in end game: The AI tech path needs to consider the type of victory conditions. In Diplomacy Victory disabled (the way I play), the French have built Cure for Cancer and Longevity wonders, while they should have been focussing in on just space tech, since nobody was going to achieve cultural or domination victories.

It seems pretty hit or miss, whether the AI pursues a direct path for space victory. So, perhaps the next patch can improve some in this area (less cheating and more effective stategy).

[Raion]

The game is dragging you along. It plays that way, -- different.

What I have noticed is that they (the computer) will build armies and have wars to gain a great leader, to complete a wonder faster and have, perhaps, more golden ages, if all the 'win' conditions are on.
The game plays different from CivII.
Are you suppose to like the other leaders?

They do not like you. One has to beat them down a little to get them to respond.

More interaction was developed for this game, than previous Civ games.



It wants to bug you more.

[rogue785]

allthough these problems exist, and are terrible, the game still is great fun and will always be

[bigvic]

This was origionally posted on another thread, but obviously belongs here more. I feel much better now that I see so many w/ the same problem. My suggestion is get rid of this latest irritation (the patch) and wait for the next pain in the butt patch to come out, praying they don't succeed in messing up more than they fix.

What follows is a frustrated rant tapped out at 3:00 AM last night. As such, its nasty and foul, but even now, with time and perspective, I still stand by what I said. 25-03-2002 08:01

Whining

I guess I'm in a foul mood. The second patch was installed on friday, caused a crash on saturday. I play a heavily modified game that works fine w/o any patches (both have caused probs). What is the deal about mods and patches again?
Foul mood that I'm in, I noticed that the next patch that will probably cause the program to crash will fix the "can't sink a ship w/ a plane" idiocy. Just thinking about that started irritating me. For generally such a great game it sure feels like I'm playing a beta test version, or something programed by the fine folks at Microsoft that bring us windows. Anyway, the more I play this game, the more lamebrained garbage keeps popping up. How is it possible that they tested this thing? I swear, sometimes it seems like not at all, or worse, testing was done, problems noted, and shoddy product knowingly released.
I read some comments about spearmen killing tanks. Never seen it yet, though can imagine it would be irritating. You gotta rationalize things like that, though. I mean what does a spearman unit in the modern age represent anyway, a bunch of spear toting primitives, or a small, poorly organized second line group of AK-47 toting thugs? At least thats how I see it. What I find more irritating is that the AI seems to cheat more at higher levels instead of play a better game. How many times have I run a thorough spy sweep, found nothing, attacked, then been faced with 30 - 40 primo attack units the next, issueing out of one of his frontline cities? How many games have I been forced to hard charge toward the Great Library because apparantly the AI loves tech trading fairly with itself, but not me?
Yeah, I know, whine whine, boo hoo. But am I the only one here noticing these things? What about the inability of the AI to form coalitions? This bugs me far more than the spearman vs. tank thing. You know, that part of the game where ally 1 declares war on ally 2, who is at war with enemy one, who allies with ally 1, and so on, ad nauseum. Sure its a game, but its supposed to be simulation something, and what, I don't know. I know my history pretty well, and despite some pretty cutthroat periods in early modern Europe, what precedent is there, for large, major powers behaving like this? None, above the level of petty feudal squabbles, and even most of those had more logic than the chaotic, irrational world dogfight cage matches that one witnesses in Civ III. It seems they could have taken a few clues from the nearly flawless and much quicker diplomatic situation of SMAC. At least there you could win a cooperative victory, ask someone to "call off your vendetta against my friend", and do so much quicker. And don't even get me started on that pathetic excuse for a "scenario editor".
I know, stop flaming, but jeez! A few more months of evaluation and playtesting might have made what is, I admit, a remarkable game, a true masterpiece instead of the cobbled together-promising-yet-dissapointing-product-of-lazy-genius that it is.


PS: I personally hope they really fix this obsession of mine.

[Shaka II]

Regarding tech trading in most recent game:

I (Zulus) had achieved the science leader by middle ages, partly because I was on a separate continent and had late ancient/early middle war to wipe out Russians and claim the continent (small one) for myself.

I traveled over to other continent as soon as I discovered map making (lost one galley in deep ocean) and found that while the other civs where advanced, they still had not discovered Literature. I decided not to trade this, since I had just built GL and didn't want to give any tech away (or the ability to build libraries). Furthermore, I didn't let them meet the Russians, so that I could have knights, without them getting Pikemen, etc. (Knights vs. Spearmen).

The other 6 civs were on the same continent and hadn't discovered Literature by the a third of the way into middle ages?!

So, after wiping out the Russians, I was peaceful through to game end and just became a builder and science leader.

So this is where it gets interesting. I was tech trading and deficit spending, which was easier to do on V1.16 patch. I was doing so well at it that apparently the AI could not keep up with payments. So, I noticed that I wasn't getting my trade luxuries anymore (1475AD) and found that no trade route was viable for 5 trading partners. Only the Chinese had a viable route, but could offer nothing for my luzuries.

Apparently, the 5 civs had all destroyed their harbors (on the same turn) to prevent paying me or to cause me unhappiness, etc. I am sure that they were too busy fighting to develop there economies as well as mine. It wasn't until after 1/3 of way into modern era that I was able to re-establish trade.

I checked with the trade advisor and no routes were viable, and no trade sanctions were being imposed against me. So, apparently the AI have learned to destroy their harbors, for reasons that I can only guess at. Bug or strategy?

[gaikokujin]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
Will it be as good and innovative and, most importantly, as terrifying addictive as MOO2?
AJ

Hmmm, MOO2 was a seriously flawed game. Once I figured out how to generate runaway production from a totally automated star system, I stopped playing the game.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by rogue785
allthough these problems exist, and are terrible, the game still is great fun and will always be

Well said. It sure is great fun and I don't need to play a 100% perfect game, just trying to help fix that last 10%.