Getting tech from conquest.

[Kramsib]

I remember getting techs from conquest in Civilization II but in Civ III this is not possible.

Why?

As far as I am concerned, this ability can balance a warmonger's strategy with a builder's strategy allowing the warmonger to maintain the costs for all his wars and keep his units nearly up to date.

On the other hand, money from conquest is too low and selling buildings is not worthwhile .

I would be very pleased if these options could be changed/edited/implemented with the editor.

Do you agree?.

[Spiffor]

In Civ2, it was way too easy for a warmonger to never be late in the tech race, even when playing at higher difficulty. You just had to attack a badly defended city, and voilà !

I think Civ3 is considerably more balanced on the matter, as the warmonger player has actually to pay some drawbacks for choosing this stance

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

However, it would be nice to have a random (if slim) chance of "capturing an enemy scientist" and forcing them to work on YOUR programs for you, just like in real life.

[Arrian]

I HATED the CivII way. One AI sneak attack (or more likely, the use of a single diplomat) suddenly grants them Tanks? Bah!

You can still get tech from warfare in CivIII, it just works differently. You can fight, and then get techs in exchange for peace. You can only demand techs you have the prerequisites for, though.

So if you don't have Polytheism, you cannot demand Monarchy.

-Arrian

[Alex]

Yes, I like the way Civ3 handles the spoils of war. No more automatic techs, but you can demand them during peace negotiations. It helps to balance the game.

[Catt]

IMHO the ability to get techs through conquering cities would tilt the playing field even more towards aggressive warmongering. Again IMHO, warfare is the most effiicient approach to winning, and strengthening that method would further channel the game into one method of playing.

Catt

[Thirgaral]

It´s much better the civ 3 way!!!
(although it spoils some of my tactics at the higher levels)

[TheArsenal]

Yes, I like the way Civ3 handles the spoils of war. No more automatic techs, but you can demand them during peace negotiations. It helps to balance the game.

I agree. Going to war and suing for peace can get you techs, sometimes many, but never guarantees you anything along those lines. Civs on their last poorly defended city sometimes refuse to give what you ask for in exchange for peace.

Even though I wouldn't change it, it is a classic example of where game play diverts from real world situations for the better. If I conquered every square inch of your empire, had access to all your labs, scientists, libraries and universities, I'm pretty sure I would have all your techs along with it.

[Dominae]

Although you do not get techs from conquering cities in Civ3, the net result is still there in the form of sueing a beaten AI opponent for Peace. In fact, sometimes the problem is worse in Civ3, as you can conquer a 5-civ empire and propel yourself into the tech race. Below is an example of this.

***AU401 Spoiler***

When I finally managed to conquer Rome at the end of the Ancient era, most civs (including the Romans) were already in the Medieval age. After trading for Writing and Math from the Babylonians, here is what I got for a Peace Treaty with Rome:

Construction
Currency
Polytheism
Philosophy
Code of Laws
Literature
Map Making
Horseback Riding
Roman Worker
World Map
158 Gold

I had to conquer 3 cities to get all these techs (although Rome itself was a particularly tough nut to crack; Archers versus Legionaries is not a pretty sight). I'm now in the Medieval age, one tech behind the Scientific civs but with a 1200 Gold treasury. Warmongering is good.


Dominae

[Demerzel]

hmm damn AI will never give me techs for peace even when I'm battering the heck out of it and taking its cities every other turns

[amra]

my only problem with this is the AI refusal to capitulate even when the odds are astronomically against it... self preservation should be an absolute... if the AI is down to the last city (probably some piece of garbage in a swamp or desert) it should give me whatever I ask for in return for peace...

sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't... i think it must have something to do with how you have treated the civ in the past...

but if facing complete extermination, the civ should capitulate, end of story...

amra

[TheArsenal]

It's amusing, isn't it? I often find myself asking out loud:
"How can you POSSIBLY be insulted by this deal, when the only other deal on the table is my marching through your capital with your head on a pike?"

But again, its frustrating, and far from realistic, but I think it balances things. It keeps warfare from being the primary goal to winning everything you want and makes war just a part of an overall strategy.

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by amra
my only problem with this is the AI refusal to capitulate even when the odds are astronomically against it... self preservation should be an absolute... if the AI is down to the last city (probably some piece of garbage in a swamp or desert) it should give me whatever I ask for in return for peace...

sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't... i think it must have something to do with how you have treated the civ in the past...

but if facing complete extermination, the civ should capitulate, end of story...

amra

Umh, I actually think it is good that a civ down to its last little village in some stinking swamp gets all stubborn and refuses to hand anything over. That civ is completely stuffed anyway so why should it hand over technologies that will magnify my power so I might then do the same thing to some other civ. Much better that it be stubborn and spiteful, better for gameplay too.

[peterfharris]

I think the AI should be much more stubborn particularly given the popularity of the "oscillating warfare" strategy (perhaps better described as "the systematic bullying of AI neghbours") used by many human players. If I find myself in trouble with a big nasty AI civ I am absolutely determined to give them nothing, if I give them something it will just make them stronger for when they come back for another round (and by strengthening them I am thus increasing the likelyhood that they will attack again). In such a situation I will instead give techs or whatever to everyone else to attack my bullying opponent. I will even attempt to buy off his allies if need be. I will do virtually anything to avoid strengthening a bully by giving him tech.

I think after a human player has bullied a certain amount then any AI civ should just fight to the death before handing over anything other than moderate amounts of cash, maps or maybe useless cities.

[Kramsib]

Ok I know about the problem of getting tech from poor little villages, but it can be easily solved if the game rules restrict the chance to steal a technology for cities which are bigger than 6.

And about the diplomats.

Civ III has something that I still don't understand, why is the espionage more expensive than buying the technology to its owner?, that makes no sense. IMHO, diplomats and spies in Civ II were better, a cheap way to get the tech level of your enemies, (with a high risk of war obviously), there was another difficulty because you had to transport the diplomat or the spy to your enemie's territory, I found more adventure on this way.

In addition I remember more spy options in Civ II

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Kramsib
Ok I know about the problem of getting tech from poor little villages, but it can be easily solved if the game rules restrict the chance to steal a technology for cities which are bigger than 6.

And about the diplomats.

Civ III has something that I still don't understand, why is the espionage more expensive than buying the technology to its owner?, that makes no sense. IMHO, diplomats and spies in Civ II were better, a cheap way to get the tech level of your enemies, (with a high risk of war obviously), there was another difficulty because you had to transport the diplomat or the spy to your enemie's territory, I found more adventure on this way.

In addition I remember more spy options in Civ II

Ah, but with espionage your opponent doesn't get the gold you spend, keeping him weaker. Check out some real world espionage sites to see how much public money is spent on espionage, and you'll appreciate it's actually quite realistic

Getting a spy to it's target in Civ2 wasn't that tricky - no culture glue to hold units back, and once you had units running around enemy railway lines warfare was quick - too quick.

I do miss the sabotage enemy units option... Kinda ultra mobile artillery. But I reckon espionage is simpler and mostly better on Civ3.

[Kramsib]

Ah, but with espionage your opponent doesn't get the gold you spend, keeping him weaker. Check out some real world espionage sites to see how much public money is spent on espionage, and you'll appreciate it's actually quite realistic

I don't think so. Let me explain...

1. The IA does not know the meaning of "secret technology", it always trades tech among the IA civs. So you can buy it to the weakest civ. It is not worthwhile spending so much money on espionage for something which nearly everyone has.

2. The money spent in espionage is completely lost for the game, if you buy a technology to another civ you put more money in the system giving it more dinamism. For a tech trader's strategy inyecting some money in the system is very useful to recover it with interests.

Getting a spy to it's target in Civ2 wasn't that tricky - no culture glue to hold units back, and once you had units running around enemy railway lines warfare was quick - too quick.

Not in Civ III, where foreign Railways has no bonus for your units. On the other hand you could always do counter-espionage by placing spies in your cities.

I do miss the sabotage enemy units option... Kinda ultra mobile artillery. But I reckon espionage is simpler and mostly better on Civ3.

Bribing units are another lost thing, in the Ancient Times and in the Middle Ages Mercenaries were very common.

[MoonWolf]

It should be possible somehow to get a tech from warmongering. Think of it as it is today:

A group of spearmen are attacked by a horseman:
SM#1:"Where did they come from? They move fast!"
SM#2:"I've seen them many times before, you can't follow them!"
SM#1:"That's right, let's tell our leader our scientists should research this"
Leader:"Hold on, first they must find out about iron working!"

As it should be:

A group of spearmen are attacked by a horseman:
SM#1:"Where did they come from? They move fast!"
SM#2:"I've seen them many times before, you can't follow them!"
SM#1:"Really? They move that fast? Maybe we should try the same!"

Especially some of the older techs could be as simple like this; after encoutering a new tech for a time or several times, there should be a chance of getting that tech. Of course, a spearman being attacked by a tank, should not be able to understand how that metal monster works...

Talking of civ2-spying, I miss some of that too. I was actually hoping it would be possible to carry spies in subs with civ3.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Espionage was out of whack in both Civ 2 and 3, IMO.

Civ2: you won the whole damn game by switched to the super-paradise-gov't entitled "Fundamentalism" and then just BUYING all of your enemies' cities!

Civ3: espionage is too expensive (IMO) and too risky.

I think that the Civ3 option is better, but needs to be modded greatly.

[epics]

MoonWolf: it's not that that you see how a horse looks like but that you have to learn how to tame him.

[Frank Johnson]

The most realistic tech system I've seen related to conquest would be from stars!

If you destroyed enemy ships, or took a planet, you get some tech points sent to your current goal. This worked better in that game since advances were divivded into catgoires like weapons, industry, etc....

But yeah, wouldn't it be most realistic to get at least some tech points toward your goal when taking a city? The larger the differences between the civ, the more points.

[Kramsib]

Good, I like the idea. If you are researching a technoly owned by the attacked civ, you can recieve some gold and some tech points from conquest.

[pedrojedi]

It would be nice, of course, if those "tech points" could only be gained when conquering enemy cities of more advanced civs. In "more advanced", it could be counted as:
1) Having different techs, even if it is roughly in the same tech level.

2) Being behind in tech.

It would require, though, a big great "TECH COUNTER", just like a Culture Points Counter, with the sum of all tech points gained during the eras, representing the accumulation of tech expertise in various areas.
The idea, I think, can be further developed, but I am right now too lazy to think about it.

[Kramsib]

But there is still a Tech counter, let me explain.

Ok, now, for example, we are the Chinese civilization, and we are researching for Currency, there are still 8 turns to get the advance, and we are at war with the mighty Romans wich has already got currency but they are very bad guys and they don't want to share it with us.

In this turn we have just conquered CaesarAugusta (currently called Zaragoza ), and we have received 2 gold (yes, too little money in Civ III from conquest) and some tech points in such a way we need only 4 turns to get Currency instead of those 8 turns before.

If you can remember, in Civ II the scientific advisor had a "Tech Counter" where the bulbs were acumulated, in this case, Civ III has substituted the tech counter into an indicator ( 10 turns, 12 turns, ...) but the counter is still there, adding all the lab glasses from each city, and this time, when conquering CaesarAugusta we have added a lot of those lab glasses from the Romans.

[pedrojedi]

Ok, but what you are describing is the already existing Advancement Tech Counter, with beckers in it. What I'm proposing is a UNIVERSAL, ALLMIGHTY POWERFUL tech counter, which would show all beckers accumulated from the stoneage until modern age. Just like Culture counter.

Is this a good idea?

[Frank Johnson]

Well some modifications could be made in civ3. You guys have the right basic idea.

In stars, tech advances were broken into vague catigories like energy, weapons, and construction. The only difference between then were numbers, like level 1, 2, etc... if you blew up ships with a design that required any tech higher than you currently possessed, then you got some tech points in those catigories where there was a difference from the remains, depending on how many ships, and how great the difference.


In civ3 in could work this way. Say you take over a city with a library intact. It'd be fair to say I'd get a great shot at learning alphabet if I didn't have it, a good chance at learning writting, and a possiblity of learning literature. If I took over a city with city walls in tact, I think it'd be fair if I had a chance to learn masonry.

Alternatively, in stead of a "chance" at getting the tech, you could just get some progress on any tech that falls in the catigory of the type of buildings you capture.

Intact barracks would help with any military type advances the enemy had that you didn't. (warrior code, the metal workings, chivalry, etc)

Intact markets would push tech points higher in money related advances. (Math, currency, banking, corperation, etc)

Intact libraries would push tech points higher in all writting related feilds, and any other sciences, after all, its a library.

Walls, Aquaducts, Colluseums, etc would advances building techs (masonry, construction, engineering, invention, etc)

Temples, Cathedrals, etc would advance the religion line. (burial, poly, mono, theo)


If the building was lost in the fighting, or you burned the city. Sorry. You don't get the points, or you get way less than you would otherwise. That's one pretty realistic way it could be dealt with. But I'm just dreaming.

You could also in theory gain tech points if you killed enemy units and lived. Say there were x advanced units on a square. You killed all x and seized the square. You get x tech points times y which is some number that defines the tech difference between your best unit and the units you killed. If you only killed x-1 of the units, you get nothing though, since you didn't get to pick through their remains to learn stuff. ^_^

[Russian_King]

sorry for not taking the time to read the whole thread, but for the first few posts:
have u noticed how you can cheat in deplomacy?
i was playing my game. me and another civ on my continent (he was huge! due to the fact that he started off in a place where my expansion was cut off.)
and i was regrettably very litle.
all the other civs were on the other side. in the 400th century AD just before anyone discovers caravels. me with my trireme(galley) went over seas and just by accomplishing the rare of making it through to the other side of the world (large map) i traded my map in one turn to all the civs for their techs and retraded all the techs back to my neighbor, then traded my neighbor techs and maps and became about 10 techs smarter and 500 gold richer and also a world map thicker.
another thing i did just after was trade my contact with egyptians with each of the civs on that same turn, to get in return 2 and sumtimes 3 techs from each. its amazing how u can fool the AI

[peterfharris]

Russian King,
The AI can do that too so I would not call it a cheat. It is good play to capitalise on a passing opportunity. You played well to get maximum benefit from your temporary monopoly of contacts.

[Kramsib]

Congrats Russian King.

But, back on topic.

I like the idea very much Frank

Should we report it to Firaxis? Or it would be another dream which never come true in a Civ game?.

[Frank Johnson]

Well like you said, the game company isn't going to change everything for little old me. I've been tinkering with game ideas since forever, and making one seems to be beyond the people I've be associated with. Besides even right here on apolyton there are people working on game projects like freeciv, and others which I can't remember right now, that is the only kind of hope for stuff like this. I remember before civ3 came out all of the people that were in the civ2 community offered up lots of great ideas. Some got in, most didn't, and even the whole event didn't prevent flaws, problems and shortcomings in the game so.....at this late stage, I just leave the suggestion to the young programers of the internet.