Thread Tools
Old February 20, 2002, 17:20   #1
Saurus
Prince
 
Local Time: 22:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 360
v1.17 and A.I vs A.I tech "trading"
Hello to all,

I found some very serious issues involving
A.I vs A.I tech "trading" in 1.17f


Soren or anyone from Firaxis,

You said the A.I is MUCH MORE agressive in
trading techs in ver 1.17f
Could you, please, explain what that means in more detail?

Let me explain what I noticed.
In my game this is what happened:
I spoke to my neighbours, the Greeks.
The only thing they had I did not have was The Wheel.
I had "communication to Aztecs"
Knowing that Greeks very soon would
discover Aztecs anyway, I decided to
make the best out of the situation so
I Offered the communication to them for
all they money (65gold) + The wheel. - They agreed.
They absolutely had nothing more to
trade with.
A few turns later I spoke to the Greeks again
and my mouth fell open.
Now they had Ironworking, Mathematics,
Philosophy, Code of laws, Horseback Riding,
Polyteism and a VERY detailed world map(!!!) avaiable for trade.


My question: Where did The Greeks get all that stuff from??

They had ABSOLUTELY ZERO gold in
reserve and ABSOLUTELY ZERO techs or
COMMUNICATIONS to trade with.
Does "A.I agressive tech-trade" mean the
A.I players hand over everything
for free to other A.I players?
This is really the only explanation I can figure out.
How else would the Greeks suddenly get 6 techs out of nothing?

As for now, I reverted back to 1.16f
where I could not find this kind of bugs with diplomacy.
Yes, maybe the A.I occasionally traded techs
during the human turn in order to avoid
heavy human abuse but at least they seemed to
treat the human as an even somewhat equal trading partner.
In 1.17f the diplomacy is "7 A.I civs V.S 1 Human civ"
and this simply is not really stimulating.
So If some of you where wondering
why the Industrial age may start way earlier
than it should (eg. earlier than 1000 A.D)
I think this is your answer.
The A.I donīt trade - It gives for FREE.
this kind of cooperation between A.I civs (= A.I cheating) encourages VERY quick tech-developement.
Among the A.I civs at anyway.


Firaxis please, Is this supposed to be this way
or is this a new VERY serious bug?



-Saurus
__________________
GOWIEHOWIE! Uh...does that
even mean anything?
Saurus is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 17:39   #2
Soren Johnson
PtWDG Gathering StormC4WDG The GooniesC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 ParticipantsApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Realms Beyond
Civilization IV Lead Designer
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 335
Re: v1.17 and A.I vs A.I tech "trading"
The AI's do not give techs away for free. They deal with each other in good faith and always try to meet the _full_ value of the tech. When necessary, a AI might be willing to sell a tech for down to half-value, but only if the other AI has nothing else to give for it (a tactic you used yourself when trading communications...)

The main difference with 1.17 is that the AI's contact each other more often and (perhaps most importantly) that they are now doing per-turn gold offers for techs. So I suspect that the Greeks traded their world map, whatever gold they did have in reserve, a newly discovered tech, and their per-turn supply of gold for most of those techs, which of course are devalued anyway since it sounds like the Greeks were technologically backwards. (There are other possibilities... goody huts?) Thus, the Greeks may have caught up tech-wise, but they are probably shovelling all of their gold to the Aztecs, which means that next time around, they might not have the cash/income/trade goods to pull of a trade and will fall behind again. In other words, I suspect that this will be less of a problem by the mid-game.
Soren Johnson is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 18:08   #3
Gramphos
staff
Civilization III MultiplayerC4WDG Team ApolytonCivilization IV: MultiplayerAge of Nations TeamC4BtSDG Realms BeyondCivilization IV Creators
Technical Director
 
Gramphos's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chalmers, Sweden
Posts: 9,294
What happens if the AI can't pa a per turn deal they have signed to pay?
__________________
ACS - Technical Director
Gramphos is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 18:12   #4
Soren Johnson
PtWDG Gathering StormC4WDG The GooniesC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 ParticipantsApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Realms Beyond
Civilization IV Lead Designer
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by Gramphos
What happens if the AI can't pa a per turn deal they have signed to pay?
They aren't allowed to sign per-turn deals they can't pay.
Soren Johnson is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 18:47   #5
Saurus
Prince
 
Local Time: 22:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 360
Thanks for your comment, Soren.
I think it cleared things out a bit.

Well, I guess I am fine with this.
The reason I was so suspicious was that I was
not able to get any reasonable trades with the
Aztecs. Not even my map was worth anything to them
(say 10 gold) (btw my map was an exact copy of that the Greek one)

Against this background I find it a bit hard to believe that
the Greeks somehow managed to get 6 techs
+ the world map from the Aztecs - whitout any money at all.
Even if at half-prize.


Yes, both Me and the Greeks
where techonlogically backwards, somewhat, but this was only because
the Greeks had compleatly unreasonable demands in tech-trading.. (e.g they wanted writing and masonry
and 40 gold in exhange for just pottery(!) ) so we newer made
any trades.

But Ok - so here we have an A.I - A.I tarde.
They try to make 100% of a techs value during a trade but
may be willing to drop the prize to half if needed
- sounds reasonable and fair.
However, If we have an A.I - Human trade -
Then how much is the A.I trying to get out of the human player?
e.g Writing, masonry + 40gold for just pottery seems
much more than just the full value of pottery.

-Saurus
__________________
GOWIEHOWIE! Uh...does that
even mean anything?
Saurus is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 18:55   #6
Saurus
Prince
 
Local Time: 22:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally posted by Gramphos
What happens if the AI can't pa a per turn deal they have signed to pay?
I think it is the same rule for A.I that for the human player here.
You can try this out for yourself.
If you are earning +5 gold/turn then you canīt make offers
that requires you to pay more than 5 gold/turn.
Try it and your advisor will tell you that "They will newer
accept such a deal"
So if you are earning > 0/gold a turn you cannot make a deal
where you are allowed to trade gold/turn


(set your tax rate to 100% BEFORE you negotiate and you
will be able to offer much more gold/turn)

-saurus
Saurus is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 18:56   #7
Aeson
Emperor
 
Local Time: 14:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: orangesoda
Posts: 8,643
Re: Re: v1.17 and A.I vs A.I tech "trading"
Quote:
Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
The AI's do not give techs away for free. They deal with each other in good faith and always try to meet the _full_ value of the tech. When necessary, a AI might be willing to sell a tech for down to half-value, but only if the other AI has nothing else to give for it (a tactic you used yourself when trading communications...)
Is the _full_ value what the AI will accept in trade from the player? Or is it some lower value? Because in my current game (Deity) the Egyptians wanted 700 Gold and my world map for Construction. I passed on the offer, but sold my map to the Egyptians for 400 gold and their world map. The only other Civ on the continent was the Persians, who had just researched Code of Laws the turn before. I traded contact with the Egyptians to the Persians for Code of Laws and their world map, and then traded Code of Laws to the Egyptians for their remaining gold. The next turn, somehow the Persians had bought Construction from the Egyptians, even though they had no per turn income, 5 gold, and no way to trade any luxuries or resources. I hadn't been able to trade Polytheism, Republic, Currency, and/or my world map to the Persians for any per turn gold. The Persian map couldn't have been worth much as I had sold my map which included the entire continent to the Egyptians, I doubt the Persians had much of anything to add. I also know that the Persians didn't get Construction from a hut as my Scouts had mapped out the whole continent well before. They couldn't have researched it as they had just researched Code of Laws the turn before. Is it just that the AI will trade per turn gold with each other and not to me in some cases? Or are the Persians getting Construction for 5 gold and a worthless map as compensation? Either way it's an AI vs Player trading mentality.

It's not that I really mind having disadvantages, thats why I play on Deity. It does make peaceful building much less viable though. Maybe you could tell the AI if they plan on keeping me out of the trading loop that my Impi will confiscate all the resources while my Horsemen raze their empire. There doesn't seem to be an option for that in the diplomacy screen, and the AI never seems to learn.
__________________
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Aeson is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 19:04   #8
m_m_x
Warlord
 
m_m_x's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Israel
Posts: 160
what was wrong with AI diplomacy in the previous patch?
why making it harder and unfair???
soren dont forget that the game should be fun.
there isn't a clear pattern for what the AI trade(or not trade) things for.
im a usual civ gamer not fanatic one, and if the AI doesn't trade with me tech the whole game, its not fun anymore.
beside that the patch is great...
m_m_x is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 19:04   #9
Gramphos
staff
Civilization III MultiplayerC4WDG Team ApolytonCivilization IV: MultiplayerAge of Nations TeamC4BtSDG Realms BeyondCivilization IV Creators
Technical Director
 
Gramphos's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chalmers, Sweden
Posts: 9,294
Quote:
Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
They aren't allowed to sign per-turn deals they can't pay.
Well, with 1.16f, when you asked the AI to make a suggestion they sometimes suggested to give more gold per turn then they generated, and then their cash would be able to pay. However, if you set it it never seems to allow more then they make.
I haven't tested this with 1.17f yet.
__________________
ACS - Technical Director
Gramphos is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 20:01   #10
Soren Johnson
PtWDG Gathering StormC4WDG The GooniesC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 ParticipantsApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Realms Beyond
Civilization IV Lead Designer
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by Gramphos

Well, with 1.16f, when you asked the AI to make a suggestion they sometimes suggested to give more gold per turn then they generated, and then their cash would be able to pay. However, if you set it it never seems to allow more then they make.
I haven't tested this with 1.17f yet.
This was fixed although I am not sure if it was before or after 1.17.

at any rate, the AI will only trade gold per-turn directly from their income to other civs, there isn't any funny business going on in that area.
Soren Johnson is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 20:16   #11
Soren Johnson
PtWDG Gathering StormC4WDG The GooniesC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 ParticipantsApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Realms Beyond
Civilization IV Lead Designer
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by Saurus
Thanks for your comment, Soren.
I think it cleared things out a bit.

Well, I guess I am fine with this.
The reason I was so suspicious was that I was
not able to get any reasonable trades with the
Aztecs. Not even my map was worth anything to them
(say 10 gold) (btw my map was an exact copy of that the Greek one)

Against this background I find it a bit hard to believe that
the Greeks somehow managed to get 6 techs
+ the world map from the Aztecs - whitout any money at all.
Even if at half-prize.


Yes, both Me and the Greeks
where techonlogically backwards, somewhat, but this was only because
the Greeks had compleatly unreasonable demands in tech-trading.. (e.g they wanted writing and masonry
and 40 gold in exhange for just pottery(!) ) so we newer made
any trades.

But Ok - so here we have an A.I - A.I tarde.
They try to make 100% of a techs value during a trade but
may be willing to drop the prize to half if needed
- sounds reasonable and fair.
However, If we have an A.I - Human trade -
Then how much is the A.I trying to get out of the human player?
e.g Writing, masonry + 40gold for just pottery seems
much more than just the full value of pottery.

-Saurus
There might be a number of factors here:

- the AI might be close to discovering writing or masonry, which means it is not worth very much via trade...
- writing and masonry might have been discoved by more civs than pottery, which means their relative value has dropped...
- if you are playing at a level above Regent, techs are worth less to the AI than the human because they get research bonuses...
Soren Johnson is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 12:25   #12
Analyst Redux
Settler
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 28
Soren, in evaluating the situations in this thread on a case by case basis, I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Explaining away each individual tree doesn't make the forest go away.

A very typical scenario post-patch: you uncover a civ that, for whatever reason (typically, because it started on an island, by itself, with lousy land), lacks contact with other civs and is technologically backwards. You sell it as much as you can, but at a certain point, that civ has no gold, no techs, no g/p/t, nothing left to trade with. You sell it contact with some civs, but not all. You see by the lists that you still have several techs and contacts that the poor civ hasn't even a single gold left to purchase.

If you go back to that civ just a 2-3 turns later, it's got everything you didn't deal to it: all the contacts, all the techs, and probably one or two that you've never been able to pry from other civs because they were demanding an outrageous price.

Posit all the hypotheticals you like (presumably, this horribly backward civ didn't wait for me to come calling to pop all of its huts), but this backward civ didn't suddenly come up with all the valuables it needed to aquire everything in a few turns. This doesn't happen so consistently and constantly without a severely stacked deck. If the other civs aren't giving it away, then the price is so nominal, compared to what they expect to charge me, that the difference between that price and free can't be much. Explaining it away won't make me feel better about seeing it happen every game.

Much as I hate this, I can't bring myself to uninstall the patch. The improvements made to the worker automation, i.e. no more chasing around after pollution, are worth their weight in gold, platinum, mithril, dilitium crystals (insert your fictional item of infinite value here). I can't bear to give those up and go back to end of game tedium in micromanaging 100+ workers because they can't be trusted. But this radical change (make no mistake, it is a radical alteration to the flow of the game) in AI-to-AI trading behavior is a heavy price to take in exchange.

To all (including Soren): My observation is that this problem is dramatically alleviated once the Republic tech advance gets passed around and AIs start adopting it. AIs that are Republics generate a lot more cash, giving you a lot more overhead to work with in gold-per-turn deals. For whatever reason, the AI also values g/p/t strangely. I can't count the number of times an AI with a healthy gold reserve refused to pay 40 gold for something, but happily paid 2gpt for it. Lots of players post that they wheel and deal their way out of a backward tech position during the midieval era. I submit that this is because the widespread adoption of the Republic, and the ability to milk the AI civs for gpt, is what levels the playing field for humans in trading with the AI.

Until you cross that threshold, however, there is just no such thing as a peaceful strategy on the upper difficulty levels. The ancient era is the era of the horseman. The peer-to-peer AI tech trading makes ancient era research a one-against-seven proposition. Actually, it's much worse, as the AI research bonuses, combined with their skewed value of a tech when trading it to you vs trading it to each other (which, of course, is based on the reasearch bonus) pretty much gurantees that trying to peacefully trade/research your way to victory on Emporer/Deity level is aking to trying to crawl out of an ant lion pit. The harder you try, the faster you slide.

The odds of getting what you want at the point of a horseman's lance are a great deal more sporting than that. It's just that a strategy game seems like it ought to have more, well, strategy. Until this patch, it did.
Analyst Redux is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 12:36   #13
Arrian
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Deity
 
Arrian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kneel before Grog!
Posts: 17,978
I have noticed that once 3 civs have a tech (out of 8... or 6, actually, two were dead), it's nearly worthless to the AI.

Example:

I sell Fission (this, in and of itself is a huge strategic change for me... I SOLD the tech for nukes to the AI, I must be going crazy) to the French and Germans, who offered the most for it. They both paid nicely. I contact the next civ, the English, and ask what they would give me for Fission. They told me that no deal could be done. The last civ offered me 1 gold, and "would be insulted" by 2 gold. Considering the first civ I sold it to (French, I think) paid something like 80 gold/turn for it... WOW, that's devaluation.

So, once a tech is commonly known, even a dead broke AI can get it (for 5 gold and a useless world map). In the above game, much earlier, I was behind by a few techs, and a single luxury trade got me two of them. So, even though I agree it seems that the AI has a old boy's network going, I think it may just be that the computer can instantly calculate exactly how much a tech is "worth" and do a deal, whereas if you're like me, and don't make diplomatic contact every single turn, you can miss out occasionally.

Speaking of making diplo contact every turn... I know I should, but it's tedious. I really wish there was a screen that showed (with an embassy) what each civ has for tech, money, luxuries, resources, and pacts. That, and a screen showing all of your active deals (e.g. dyes to greeks for 10g/turn, 7 turns left). Basically, the F2 screen on steroids.

-Arrian
__________________
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Arrian is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 13:29   #14
reefer addict
Warlord
 
reefer addict's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: oregon
Posts: 109
in my games with yhe new patch trading with the ai is a joke. it gets to the point where i dont even bother trying to trade with the ai because they want 100 g/p/t + all my cash on hand + my map + any resource i have available for a tech that everyone else has. i must admit its not alot of fun to find even the 3 city civs with no money can stay ahead in the tech race because the ai is a racist. any way to keep the worker upgrads without the trading bug?, its killing my fun!
reefer addict is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 13:59   #15
Rimpy
Settler
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28
Bravo, AnalystRedux -- your post was very well-written. It expressed my sentiments exactly. I don't like the aggressive AI tech trading because it makes the game less competitive. That is, there's not as much distinction between the different civilizations when knowledge is shared so freely. It ruins the science race element to the game.

But I could probably tolerate it if at least I could be "in the loop". However, I feel that the game has regressed to a "Me vs. The World" competition that I was so happy to leave behind in Civ1 and Civ2. That was my favorite improvement to the AI in Civ3, and I feel like this latest patch has ruined it.

In the three games that I have played since the patch came out, there has always been at least one backwards isolated civ that managed to make improbable leaps in science once another AI contacted them. It's extremely frustrating.

This comment by Soren really caught my attention:

Quote:
Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
- if you are playing at a level above Regent, techs are worth less to the AI than the human because they get research bonuses...
I'm curious if this effect is from the buyer's point of view or from the seller's point of view? That is, is the price of the tech determined by how much its worth to the seller or how much its worth to the buyer?

If the price is determined by the value of the tech to the buyer, then that might explain the origin of the "Me vs. The World" problem at the higher difficulty levels. (I usually play on Monarch or higher.) Because the AI gets a research bonus, the seller would demand a lower price when selling to an AI, whereas it would demand a higher price when selling to the human (who has no research bonus.) It doesn't seem fair that AI's can purchase techs from other AI's more cheaply than I can.

I don't mind the AI getting a research bonus at higher difficulty levels. But I wish that the research bonus wasn't factored into the price equation when it comes to trading techs. Let the AI get its research and production bonuses at higher difficulty levels. But when it comes to trading, all civizations should be treated equally (ceteris paribus, such as diplomatic standing.)

It seems to me that if you could remove the research bonus from the price equation, it would go a long to alleviating the "Me vs. The World" feeling at higher difficulty levels.

Rimpy
Rimpy is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 14:28   #16
Soren Johnson
PtWDG Gathering StormC4WDG The GooniesC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 ParticipantsApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Realms Beyond
Civilization IV Lead Designer
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by Analyst Redux
Soren, in evaluating the situations in this thread on a case by case basis, I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Explaining away each individual tree doesn't make the forest go away.

A very typical scenario post-patch: you uncover a civ that, for whatever reason (typically, because it started on an island, by itself, with lousy land), lacks contact with other civs and is technologically backwards. You sell it as much as you can, but at a certain point, that civ has no gold, no techs, no g/p/t, nothing left to trade with. You sell it contact with some civs, but not all. You see by the lists that you still have several techs and contacts that the poor civ hasn't even a single gold left to purchase.

If you go back to that civ just a 2-3 turns later, it's got everything you didn't deal to it: all the contacts, all the techs, and probably one or two that you've never been able to pry from other civs because they were demanding an outrageous price.

Posit all the hypotheticals you like (presumably, this horribly backward civ didn't wait for me to come calling to pop all of its huts), but this backward civ didn't suddenly come up with all the valuables it needed to aquire everything in a few turns. This doesn't happen so consistently and constantly without a severely stacked deck. If the other civs aren't giving it away, then the price is so nominal, compared to what they expect to charge me, that the difference between that price and free can't be much. Explaining it away won't make me feel better about seeing it happen every game.

Much as I hate this, I can't bring myself to uninstall the patch. The improvements made to the worker automation, i.e. no more chasing around after pollution, are worth their weight in gold, platinum, mithril, dilitium crystals (insert your fictional item of infinite value here). I can't bear to give those up and go back to end of game tedium in micromanaging 100+ workers because they can't be trusted. But this radical change (make no mistake, it is a radical alteration to the flow of the game) in AI-to-AI trading behavior is a heavy price to take in exchange.

To all (including Soren): My observation is that this problem is dramatically alleviated once the Republic tech advance gets passed around and AIs start adopting it. AIs that are Republics generate a lot more cash, giving you a lot more overhead to work with in gold-per-turn deals. For whatever reason, the AI also values g/p/t strangely. I can't count the number of times an AI with a healthy gold reserve refused to pay 40 gold for something, but happily paid 2gpt for it. Lots of players post that they wheel and deal their way out of a backward tech position during the midieval era. I submit that this is because the widespread adoption of the Republic, and the ability to milk the AI civs for gpt, is what levels the playing field for humans in trading with the AI.

Until you cross that threshold, however, there is just no such thing as a peaceful strategy on the upper difficulty levels. The ancient era is the era of the horseman. The peer-to-peer AI tech trading makes ancient era research a one-against-seven proposition. Actually, it's much worse, as the AI research bonuses, combined with their skewed value of a tech when trading it to you vs trading it to each other (which, of course, is based on the reasearch bonus) pretty much gurantees that trying to peacefully trade/research your way to victory on Emporer/Deity level is aking to trying to crawl out of an ant lion pit. The harder you try, the faster you slide.

The odds of getting what you want at the point of a horseman's lance are a great deal more sporting than that. It's just that a strategy game seems like it ought to have more, well, strategy. Until this patch, it did.
hmmm, maybe... my guess is that the pre/post Republic split has more to do with world maps than anything else. In other words, every civ has a trump card to play for a few techs. If you want to take this away, just buy their world map and give it away to all the civs you know. Or just try to make sure they never acquire contact with anyone else (much easier if they are on an island, of course...) The whole techs-are-cheaper-if-known-by-other-civs rule only applies to _known_ civs. So even if every civ but one know Republic, it is still full value to that last civ if it is still alone.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the game balance has shifted, but it is still balanced because it is still based on game rules. The AI is not just tossing techs to each other to screw over the human. I could have done that if I wanted to under the guise of "tribute" or whatever, but I decided that that would be unfair to the player.

Because the system is still based on rules, it is still beatable using that rule-set. Try using the tech-scaling to your advantage by raising your science rate as high as possible and ignoring one section of the tech tree to burrow straight to Republic or Monarchy or Construction. Then, sell your techs off to everyone for cash to purchase the now-highly-discounted techs you previously ignored. Or pick an exploration civ, build 3 or 4 scouts and a couple galleys and sell your world map to everyone, providing you with a source of income and preventing them from using their maps as leverage. Do everything in your power to keep civs from contacting each other to keep tech costs high. Aggressively trade off your luxuries and resources to keep the money flowing out of their treasuries so that they have less gold to buy techs. Build the Great Library... or just research the militaristic techs and go capture it. Use your imagination.
Soren Johnson is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 15:07   #17
Saurus
Prince
 
Local Time: 22:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally posted by Rimpy
Bravo, AnalystRedux -- your post was very well-written. It expressed my sentiments exactly. I don't like the aggressive AI tech trading because it makes the game less competitive. That is, there's not as much distinction between the different civilizations when knowledge is shared so freely. It ruins the science race element to the game.
Rimpy
Not only does it make the game less competitive.
It also makes the game to proceed way too quickly. The production rate in the game is simply not optimized for such a quick tech-developement .
It is an empty feeling that falls upon me....I hate it when I can build universities but havenīt had the time to even consider
building my libraries yet .
And reaching the indudstial age before 1000A.D is a sad reality
after installing 1.17f.

I gave 1.17f a few shots yesterday after getting the undesrtanding of how the A.I trades are handeled but
quickly found out this patch was not for me.
Waaaay to quick tech-developement.

1.16f will have to do for now.

-Saurus
__________________
GOWIEHOWIE! Uh...does that
even mean anything?
Saurus is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 15:15   #18
Soren Johnson
PtWDG Gathering StormC4WDG The GooniesC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 ParticipantsApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Realms Beyond
Civilization IV Lead Designer
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by Saurus


Not only does it make the game less competitive.
It also makes the game to proceed way too quickly. The production rate in the game is simply not optimized for such a quick tech-developement .
It is an empty feeling that falls upon me....I hate it when I can build universities but havenīt had the time to even consider
building my libraries yet .
And reaching the indudstial age before 1000A.D is a sad reality
after installing 1.17f.

I gave 1.17f a few shots yesterday after getting the undesrtanding of how the A.I trades are handeled but
quickly found out this patch was not for me.
Waaaay to quick tech-developement.

1.16f will have to do for now.

-Saurus
I should clarify that we are concerned about techs progressing too quickly, and you can expect this to be looked at in the future.

Last edited by Soren Johnson; February 21, 2002 at 15:26.
Soren Johnson is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 15:24   #19
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
Sigh. There are those that think techs progress way too slowly, esp. with the default settings in the ancient age. So how do you choose whom to please? Perhaps a solution can be approached from a slightly different angle in that giving the player more control in gameplay as to the rate of development, as in Civ2. That is, without being forced to play a certain way because we wrongly suggested a more complex game.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 16:21   #20
Arrian
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Deity
 
Arrian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kneel before Grog!
Posts: 17,978
Soren,

First, thanks for the responses. Second, I'm glad Firaxis will be looking into the tech progess rate. Small changes are probably all that's needed.

I understand what you're saying about the AI tech trading. I accept that it is trading according to the rules (which, on the level I play, Monarch, are skewed to give the AI advantages). However, I don't think that Fission (for example) should ever be worth 1 gold, no matter how many other civs know it. There should probably be a minimum cost for a tech. This would prevent AI's from catching up from 4 techs behind by giving up its already-known-by-all world map and 5 gold. I think that's the really annoying part. The new AI trading has made the game harder... but has also brought back the old Civ II "the world is against me" feeling, which many of us strongly disliked.

Aggressive tech trading between two advanced civs that have cash and/or luxuries to trade is fine, I welcome the challenge.

-Arrian
__________________
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Arrian is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 16:26   #21
Soren Johnson
PtWDG Gathering StormC4WDG The GooniesC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 ParticipantsApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Realms Beyond
Civilization IV Lead Designer
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Soren,

First, thanks for the responses. Second, I'm glad Firaxis will be looking into the tech progess rate. Small changes are probably all that's needed.

I understand what you're saying about the AI tech trading. I accept that it is trading according to the rules (which, on the level I play, Monarch, are skewed to give the AI advantages). However, I don't think that Fission (for example) should ever be worth 1 gold, no matter how many other civs know it. There should probably be a minimum cost for a tech. This would prevent AI's from catching up from 4 techs behind by giving up its already-known-by-all world map and 5 gold. I think that's the really annoying part. The new AI trading has made the game harder... but has also brought back the old Civ II "the world is against me" feeling, which many of us strongly disliked.

Aggressive tech trading between two advanced civs that have cash and/or luxuries to trade is fine, I welcome the challenge.

-Arrian
I would guess that the civ you were trying to trade it to was 1 turn away from discovering it, so it was only willing to give away very little.
Soren Johnson is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 16:34   #22
Arrian
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Deity
 
Arrian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kneel before Grog!
Posts: 17,978
No, I don't think that was it. Before I sold Fission, I checked what each civ (no one but me had it) would pay. I chose the best two and sold to them. After that, I got the 1 gold offer. Before, it had been quite a bit more, just not as much as the others.

Obviously, if England was a few turns from Fission, that would lower their offer, which may be why the French and Germans offered more to begin with. But still, 1 gold?? 1 gold to save an entire turn of research is pretty cheap.

I noticed stuff like this consistently throughout the game, not just with Fission. After selling to two civs, the tech is worthless. The remaining civs offer 1 gold or even NOTHING for it ("I don't think such a deal is possible"), even if they were offering their entire treasury and some gold/turn before I starting selling. Of course, they all have it on the next turn, because the other AI's take the 1 gold deal.

-Arrian
__________________
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Arrian is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 16:38   #23
Saurus
Prince
 
Local Time: 22:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Soren,

First, thanks for the responses. Second, I'm glad Firaxis will be looking into the tech progess rate. Small changes are probably all that's needed.

I understand what you're saying about the AI tech trading. I accept that it is trading according to the rules (which, on the level I play, Monarch, are skewed to give the AI advantages). However, I don't think that Fission (for example) should ever be worth 1 gold, no matter how many other civs know it. There should probably be a minimum cost for a tech.

-Arrian
Arian, I absolutely agree.
The "outdated" techs are dropping in value too quickly
and way too much.
This was a problem even before the 1.17f.
__________________
GOWIEHOWIE! Uh...does that
even mean anything?
Saurus is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 16:40   #24
Soren Johnson
PtWDG Gathering StormC4WDG The GooniesC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 ParticipantsApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Realms Beyond
Civilization IV Lead Designer
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
No, I don't think that was it. Before I sold Fission, I checked what each civ (no one but me had it) would pay. I chose the best two and sold to them. After that, I got the 1 gold offer. Before, it had been quite a bit more, just not as much as the others.

Obviously, if England was a few turns from Fission, that would lower their offer, which may be why the French and Germans offered more to begin with. But still, 1 gold?? 1 gold to save an entire turn of research is pretty cheap.

I noticed stuff like this consistently throughout the game, not just with Fission. After selling to two civs, the tech is worthless. The remaining civs offer 1 gold or even NOTHING for it ("I don't think such a deal is possible"), even if they were offering their entire treasury and some gold/turn before I starting selling. Of course, they all have it on the next turn, because the other AI's take the 1 gold deal.

-Arrian
well, one thing to be aware of is that once you sell the tech to two civs, the research cost will drop by 25% (assuming 8 civs still alive...), so a civ which was 10 turns away might now be 1 turn away.

however, I would be surprised if this is true for all the other civs. If you would be willing to post a saved game with an example, I would be happy to look at it.
Soren Johnson is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 16:52   #25
Arrian
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Deity
 
Arrian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kneel before Grog!
Posts: 17,978
Soren,

Hmm, I did forget about the research rate cut - so maybe Elizabeth suddenly was 1 turn from Fission like you said.

As for a saved game, thanks for the offer to check it out. I'd really like to oblige, since you've taken the time to answer my questions. But due to the size of the save files, I tend to have one save per game I play, which I repeatedly save over. So, unfortunately, I only have the 1812AD save, the turn before I won via the UN. However, if I encounter another situation like this that jumps out at me, I will try to remember to save it, zip it, and send it your way.

-Arrian
__________________
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Arrian is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 16:58   #26
Ironikinit
Prince
 
Ironikinit's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 421
The AI will sell techs cheap if you've almost completed them, one gold even. It's been that way as long as I've been playing.

I like the new system better than the AI trading on my turn. That really was frustrating. People have reported that it has turned up the speed a lot... but the advance rate can be quite slow in the early game, even so. Could we have early techs reduced in required beakers and medieval/industrial increased?

Soren's advice of increasing tech investment in the early game works, but I still had the situation where I fell behind anyway and was faced with buying what I had halfway researched. I ended up going ballistic on a neighbor, extorting techs for peace. I never really had to do that so much before 1.17, it was really fun. By the time the industrial era came the AI civs didn't want to give me RoPs due to peace treaty violations. It was a good game, but required some ruthless behavior.
__________________
Above all, avoid zeal. --Tallyrand.
Ironikinit is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 17:26   #27
ColdFever
Chieftain
 
ColdFever's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Luebeck, Germany
Posts: 94
rational against human AI
Greetings from Germany,
excuse me for interrupting, but I am afraid we see two different approaches for a Civ AI design here, that probably may cause a serious imbalance of the two Civ gaming philosophies that do exist, as Soren is creating the ultimate machine for the one fraction while the other fraction gets lost:

One fraction (including Soren), lets call them "rational hardcore" players, love to develop and play a perfect RATIONAL strategy game with a perfect rational AI intelligence and behavior

The other fraction (including me), lets call them "humanists", like to play the Civ series as a kind of HUMAN history simulator - and history isn't rational at all, as humans and their societies are not organized like computers

As Soren is the driving force behind the Civ3 AI we may come to the point when Soren creates the optimal rational Civ "chess" computer, perfectly fitting the desires of the "rational hardcore" players. But at the same moment the gameplay probably may have not much to do anymore with "real" world history and the game may be painful to play for humanists who feel like playing against inhuman opponents.

I think to the current point Soren did a tremendous job in designing a rational AI. But on behalf of the "humanist" fraction I plead to go a step further now and implement the "irrational" behavior of the human nature too. Currently the AI only distinguishes nations by their aggressiveness. I suggest to also implement human values like ethics, morale or belief. Probably then the gameplay would also be more surprising and demanding on the long run because of the unpredictability of human behavior.

Of course an artificial "human" intelligence would be much more complicated to do than an artificial "rational" intelligence. But it is possible and enjoyable (for example SMAC used a very simple but already playable "human" concept). Basically you could start with setting the human values to some initial settings that influence how likely the AI will deal with each other, for example: who wants to trade techs with a bastard of a leader if he isn't a bastard also? Hitler and Stalin may trade well with each other, but Lincoln shouldn't even consider to do any trade at all with them. You see, human values DO influence decisions.
ColdFever is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 18:06   #28
Analyst Redux
Settler
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 28
[I]f you're like me, and don't make diplomatic contact every single turn, you can miss out occasionally.

Speaking of making diplo contact every turn... I know I should, but it's tedious. I really wish there was a screen that showed (with an embassy) what each civ has for tech, money, luxuries, resources, and pacts. That, and a screen showing all of your active deals (e.g. dyes to greeks for 10g/turn, 7 turns left). Basically, the F2 screen on steroids.

-Arrian

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen, Arrian. If success in the game is now going to be so highly dependent on diplomatic persistence and precision, then the lack of tools to accomplish same is a pain which is now more acutely felt than ever.

Soren, none of the strategies you suggest are any news to me, but post-patch, they are of extremely limited utility in the ancient era, when the AI's are chronicly and acutely cash poor, but tech rich. You've already identified why the strategy can't be applied in that circumstance, because the AI understands the distinction between you research ability and its own, and applies it to the deal, it doesn't respect your research efforts. Such strategies pay off much better in the medieval era, when the AIs economies become more cash-flow generating and cash-flow dependent, and deals can be structured in terms of cash--taking them away from being skewed by disparate research rates. In the ancient era, such strategies will leave you in possession of something no one can afford to pay value for, at least until the crossing of that barrier which transforms it almost instantly into something that no one will want to pay value for. Little windows of opportunity do exist in between, I'll grant, but as Arrian observes, a lack of tools designed with this purpose/strategy in mind means searching them out involves enduring a certain level of tedium--one that, quite frankly, I can't bring myself to endure.

In the ancient era, there is a much more efficient and direct solution: let that lame little civ on the island get the techs for you, then beat the techs out of 'em. For the price of a relatively small number of horsies, all of those treasures that the weak civ never paid fair value for, and is too weak to defend, fall into your hands when that lopsided peace treaty gets negotiated. As tedious as combat can be, it's still a lot less tedious than bringing up seven negotiation dialogues every single turn to see if the stars and planets have aligned in such a way as to bring you a deal you can live with. It's also a much cheaper investment of in-game resources than enduring a series of lopsided trades that, at best, leave you one tech step behind at the end of the deal.

I'd also figured out on my own that it is an *extremely* bad idea to let the AIs get the opinon (pardon my anthropomorphizing) that they've got these greatly valuable worldmaps when you don't. I've always known that it seemed to get in the way of making ancient era deals. Now I've got a better idea why.

BTW, for my fellow players, a workaround that I've discovered--in the event that you don't want to play an expansionist civ every game just to block the AI's grandly inflated vision of the value of its worldmap--is that AI civs are still apt to trade territory maps straight up even when they want an arm and a leg for worldmap. Work out a few territory map swaps, and the price of the AI worldmap plummets. This will get you past that map-swapping bottleneck when you aren't an expansionist civ.
Analyst Redux is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 18:12   #29
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
I would contend that those two factions make up a tiny minority of civers. I would suspect that most who have bought Civ3 expected a game that would be simple in its design but deep in its execution. This has been the trademark of most of Sid's games from RRT to Civ1 and Civ2 to SimGolf. I believe the complexities introduced in Civ3, whether they worked or not, created a game that is less approachable and therefore, tends to be more work than fun. To go even further to the extremes of rationalism or humanism would create a game that truly becomes a niche.

Why, oh why must we continue to hash out needless complexities of the regular game when the scenarios/full editor and MP would satisfy a larger customer base??
Steve Clark is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 19:23   #30
The Andy-Man
Prince
 
The Andy-Man's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tory Party of 'Poly
Posts: 523
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.
__________________
eimi men anthropos pollon logon, mikras de sophias
The Andy-Man is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:51.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright Đ The Apolyton Team