'I'll tell you if you dont tell anyone else'

Worthingtons · February 25, 2002, 15:29

I think there should be an option in Civ III where you can Trade Technology with an AI on the basis they dont trade it with anybody else for 20 turns or summat, of course, you woudnt quite as much gold out of the AI if you do a deal on such a basis....

What do you think??

The Andy-Man · February 25, 2002, 15:47

i like it.

the AI cheats though, and will still prolly give it away under some loopwhole.

Random Passerby · February 25, 2002, 16:37

There already is that option. Get in alliance with that civ against everybody else, and then they won't trade it. They've already put in that loophole too, because of course the AI is fond of bailing out of military alliances 2-4 turns into a war.

Arrian · February 25, 2002, 17:28

I'd love to see that feature... but I doubt it can be done, or at least it would take quite a bit of work to get right. There would need to be a whole new rules subset for it - does breaking such a deal constitute a war-worthy trespass, or merely a diplomatic reputation hit like making peace before a 20-turn alliance is up? How would the AI calculate the value of a tech it cannot trade, so that it doesn't get fleeced by the human?

-Arrian

nato · February 25, 2002, 18:20

Wow that is another cool idea, it would be nice.

However it seems like the ENTIRE ai tech strategy is built around massive tech trading.

Remember, in the tech race its not you vs AI vs AI vs AI vs AI (etc.) ... it is you vs a 7 nation research consortium (or 15 / whatever).

But be comforted by the fact that the AI treats you just like the other AIs!

Arrian · February 25, 2002, 18:34

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
But be comforted by the fact that the AI treats you just like the other AIs!

Well, actually that's only true on Regent level. According to Soren (see 1.17 and AI vs. AI research "trading" thread), the AI is aware of its research advantage or disadvantage (depending on level of play) and includes that knowledge in trade calculations. This is why it will charge you more for techs on the higher levels - it knows you have to invest more beakers than another AI to learn a tech. So, on Monarch and up, if France (AI) has a tech to sell, and is contacted by Germany (AI) and Babylon (Human), it will sell the tech to Germany at a lower price than to Babylon, as the tech is worth more to Babylon due to the research bonus given the AI. Therefore, the AI's research bonus and tech trading advantage derived from that research bonus compound one another. Hence, the AI "old boys network" and the 7-headed AI vs human player syndrome.

-Arrian

nato · February 25, 2002, 18:37

Ok thanks for the info Arrian. I just found it galling that the AIs were supposed to treat you like anyone else (so I thought) but the research consortium was so obvious.

I do not find the research consortium enjoyable or realistic myself.

Arrian · February 25, 2002, 18:42

I'm with you, Nato, I hate it. Not because I can't handle a "challenge," but because I really liked playing a game that felt like 8 different civs were all competing. Now it absolutely feels like 7 vs. 1. I think there is middle ground to be found, however. I think 1.16 needed a boost, and the 1.17 changes were mostly on track. I just think the AI trading was taken a tad too far. If they scale it down a notch or two (or make it difficulty level dependent) and include a tech price "floor" so that no tech is ever, ever, ever sold for 1 gold (the offer I got from the English for Fission), I would probably be happy.

-Arrian

Random Passerby · February 25, 2002, 18:46

If you play at Monarch or higher, you're deliberately taking a handicap and saying "It's OK if the AI cheats [more], because I want a harder game anyways." At Regent I've yet to find any evidence of any sort of everyone-vs-me conspiracy, unless the AIs have a sinister plot to cripple me by giving me so much money that I take up all my usable land just storying the stuff in vaults.

Optimizer · February 25, 2002, 18:50

You shouldn't complain aboutt the AI:s co-operation on higher levels.

Something has got to differ between difficulty levels, and if the alternatives are that the AI is "stupid" when not on Deity, or that it cheats (which it sure does, but not as much as in Civ 2), I would prefer the difference to be the AI players teaming up against you.

No challenge, no fun.

Arrian · February 25, 2002, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Random Passerby
If you play at Monarch or higher, you're deliberately taking a handicap and saying "It's OK if the AI cheats [more], because I want a harder game anyways." At Regent I've yet to find any evidence of any sort of everyone-vs-me conspiracy, unless the AIs have a sinister plot to cripple me by giving me so much money that I take up all my usable land just storying the stuff in vaults.

Well, I agree that the higher difficulty levels are there for those who want a challenge. That is pretty obvious. However, as I said in my earlier post, it's not the increased challenge that bugs me. Most of the others who are concerned with the AI trading under 1.17f have similar reasons.

You say you haven't noticed any AI vs. you conspiracy on Regent. Well, you shouldn't, as research rates are even on Regent, and so the trading formula is the same for all civs, human or AI.

EDIT: The only difference is that the AI will still make tech trades on Regent level that a human wouldn't make (5 gold + world map for a tech), because that's what the trading formula indicates the tech is "worth." Thus, tech proliferates more rapidly, causing two "problems" (problems in quotes because some of us don't see it that way). #1 is that a poor, backwater civ can catch up in tech for almost nothing, which seems a bit out of whack. Yeah, they should be able to catch up, but not for 5 gold and a world map - and yes, the deals are that silly. #2 is that the overall tech advancement rate speeds up, resulting in less time to take advantage of a given technology before it is obselete. The game probably needed speeding up on the lower levels, but I'm hitting the industrial age around 1000AD on Monarch, and that's too early. Gaining a tech lead is possible, but taking full advantage of that tech lead is very difficult. That may, in fact, turn out the be the main problem here.

-Arrian

wervdon · February 25, 2002, 19:42

Heh this happened in a recent game of mine on _chieftan_

I know I should go to a lower difficulty and all..... Actually, I ussually play on warlord, but I was testing a new map I had made.

I meet the zulu's on an isolated island. They ask to trade me their world map and all their gold + 1 gold per turn for my world map & ceremonial burial. I laugh and say sure. (I was working on construction which that and polytheism would of put me in the middle ages)

Next turn Babylon approaches me for contact with the zulu, offer me a nice sum of gold (200ish). I shrug and say sure. End of turn I get a history of the world...most advance nations: Zulu were #1

(they had polytheism like the rest of the AI's)

I contact them and sure enough, the other ais all have contact with them now, and they've turned their 0 gold (no income) and no tech into knowing every tech the AI knew. (and they was all the same by this point, basically 1 tech ahead of me)

I mean seriously.......thats a bit off. At least I got a laugh when the zulu turned around and attacked the egyptians a few turns (like 50-70) later

I _think_ what they actually did was trade my world map (which everyone already had except for the portion containing the zulu island) for gold + tech, then trading that gold + the map for more tech...etc.... Its still rather silly to go from backwards stone age to near middle ages in 1 turn though :P

nato · February 25, 2002, 19:51

Random, Optimizer - I don't mind AI advantages that let each AI perform better. I do mind AI advantages that change the game from a free-for-all (like real history) to a 7-vs-1. It changes the nature of the game. It makes it not a harder version of history-like civ, but a kind of history scenario where all civs are born with an instinct to hate one particular civ.

I just don't think real civs would be so ready to team up and pool research and technologies.

Also for what it is worth I only play on Monarch, not the super hard levels. I also don't like Deity because again it feels less real and makes less sense. Why are my people such slow builders ... ack! I got elected King of the Dummies!

Anyway once again I think Rothy's idea is very good, but the current AI would need some adjustment to handle it I think.

Calvin Vu · February 25, 2002, 19:54

Oops, I didn't read this thread before giving an almost identical idea of an exclusive 20-turn patent on an invented technology in another thread. No plagiarizing intended, I swear

. The "secret" thread title is partially at fault for not getting my attention before reading the other thread

.

Random Passerby · February 25, 2002, 19:58

You're still complaining about a voluntary handicap. If you don't like the effects of that particular handicap (playing at difficulty levels where the AI gets a statistical advantage), then pick another (refraining from using certain strategies, letting governors manage your cities, etc.) Or you could use the editor and reduce or eliminate the AI tech advantage, making it up elsewhere (except for the fact that, as we all well know, Modding Is Evil. This is why mod-heavy games such as many first-person shooters like, say, Half-Life inevitably fail miserably and never attract any following to speak of).

I wonder... if Soren had said nothing about the AI tech trading except for the fact that they don't trade during your turn, would there even be a quarter as much discussion about it as there is now? Somehow I doubt it. Maybe it's just because I trade aggressively myself, but I've noticed practically no difference between 1.16f and 1.17f. The only noticeable effect has been when I'm getting to a new era or key tech within an era, glance at the date, and say to myself "Woah, this is early." In terms of individual trades... the AI seems to be playing by largely the same guidelines it did before.

steelehc · February 25, 2002, 19:59

As an experiment, I created a map, with two islands as far as possible away from a huge continent. The water around the island was all coast, but everywhere else was ocean, hopefully to prevent an AI galley on an island from reaching the mainland, or vice versa. I restarted and restarted until I ended up on one of the islands, luckily the one I had loaded with resources, huts, and generally favorable terrain. The other island was largely desert and mountains. I developed quickly, making contacvt with only the AI on the island near me. As soon as possible, I built ships, and kept building them, eventually, I had enough to blockade the other island, meaning that if anyone were to get through, I would see it. This is far more ships then I would normally build (80 or so). As I progressed through the ages, I upgraded my ships, and filled in the holes in the line.

When I had completely closed off all access to the other island, I sent a frigate out to find the other AIs. I had a couple/three more techs then all of them, which I sold for much gold and maps, and contact, etc...

When I finally reached the modern era, third, behind a couple AIs, the civ on the island was still in the middle ages, with something like ten gold, the most useless world map, and being completely blockaded, couldnt trade. I sold contact with this civ (the Zulu, I think), to each of the AI civs. Within two turns, this backwards, dirt-poor, useless, pityful and blockaded civ had reached the modern era.

Something is wrong with this.

Steele

Zachriel · February 25, 2002, 21:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Well, actually that's only true on Regent level. According to Soren (see 1.17 and AI vs. AI research "trading" thread), the AI is aware of its research advantage or disadvantage (depending on level of play) and includes that knowledge in trade calculations. This is why it will charge you more for techs on the higher levels - it knows you have to invest more beakers than another AI to learn a tech.

Ah so. That is very useful information. I usually play Monarch or Emperor, and trade aggressively, so I never noticed the problem. I have seen many posts complaining about the problem, though.

This makes sense, as humans (on a higher level) are playing with a voluntary handicap. The human just needs to have lots of money. The AIs are not really ganging up, the human just needs lots of cash to keep everyone happy.

This information will help with creating effective strategies. They don't hate me, after all! It's just my national currency is taking a beating in the global money markets. Like paying in pesos.

THANKS, ARRIAN!

notyoueither · February 25, 2002, 23:45

steelehc: Excellent experiment. You seem to have put the AI trading practices in a bright light. Even though techs would be cheap for them (because eveyone else has them) it is hard to believe what they could have bartered, borrowed and stole to advance so rapidly. Have you sent an email to Soren about it? Did he reply?

Hmmm. Is it possible it sold city improvements? I'm sure I have games where the AI is selling improvements. Used the *multi* switch to look around at past saved games and capitals seemed to be overly light on improvements.

Zac: You have it right. It is not that it is 7 vs 1, at least in my limited experience (2 1.17 games on Emperor). I have had no problem keeping up tech wise. I just needed enough cash. To paraphrase someone or other, *Build Marketplaces young man, and go West to Republic.*

The AI isn't picking on me tech wise, they just ain't being my fools anymore. I guess that can be an adjustment for some.

Salve

Worthingtons · February 25, 2002, 23:54

Quote:

Oops, I didn't read this thread before giving an almost identical idea of an exclusive 20-turn patent on an invented technology in another thread. No plagiarizing intended, I swear . The "secret" thread title is partially at fault for not getting my attention before reading the other thread .

No Worries

I've become very disheartened with the AI tech trading now, and my stratagy has developed into a money making one where i spend next to nothing on Research, buy off the AI, and only spend money on tech when i *Really* want to get a tech early. This stratagy seems to worked quite well in my latest game,where i had a good lead in the game anyway, due to a favorable start, and i've lagged behind for most of the game, until the industrial age, where i spend nearly all of my £££££ on Research, I now have Tanks before the Japs and it's paying off.

Barchan · February 26, 2002, 05:03

Quote:

Originally posted by steelehc

When I finally reached the modern era, third, behind a couple AIs, the civ on the island was still in the middle ages, with something like ten gold, the most useless world map, and being completely blockaded, couldnt trade. I sold contact with this civ (the Zulu, I think), to each of the AI civs. Within two turns, this backwards, dirt-poor, useless, pityful and blockaded civ had reached the modern era.

Something is wrong with this.

Steele

Well, not exactly. "A stronger enemy of your enemy is a stronger ally." I've beefed up "poorer relations" a few times myself in games, especially when they've been quarreling with neighbors. Better to sell, or even give if necessary, the tech required to keep them alive and happy with you than to see their land taken and improved by your rival. Wars by proxy can be very satisfying! Besides, if they're that backward, they won't catch up to you anyway due to a lack of infrastructure.

Dienstag · February 26, 2002, 06:11

I think steelehc's experiment is excellent, and I agree that there's something wrong here.

Barchan is right that it is sometimes strategically beneficial to make generous deals with weaker civs, and this would be one explanation for steelehc's neighbor's instant rise to modernity. This requires that the AI has a good sense of balance of power, which I have yet to see anyone praise. I can't prove that the AI doesn't have perfectly valid and compelling strategic reasons to be generous with such an extremely weak civ. I just really really doubt it, based on everything I've experienced and read concerning CivIII.

steelehc · February 26, 2002, 06:37

Quote:

I think steelehc's experiment is excellent, and I agree that there's something wrong here.

steelehc: Excellent experiment. You seem to have put the AI trading practices in a bright light. Even though techs would be cheap for them (because eveyone else has them) it is hard to believe what they could have bartered, borrowed and stole to advance so rapidly. Have you sent an email to Soren about it? Did he reply?

Thanks for the comments about my experiment.

I did not think about commenting to Soren, I'll try to remember to do that when I have a chance.

As a side note, I tried the experiment again, but slightly different. I sold contact with the trapped civ in the industrial age instead of the modern age. It took six turns for them to become industrialized, which is much less impressive.

Steele

Zachriel · February 26, 2002, 09:08

Quote:

Originally posted by steelehc
Something is wrong with this.
Steele

Good experiment, Steele. I'm not sure it indicates something wrong with the game, though. Just because they now have the "secret" of industrialization does not mean they now have factories, nor does currency translate directly into marketplaces. They still need to build the infrastructure which can take generations -- depending on the level.

I, too, always prop up minor civs to annoy my rivals, and to help build a better world. For instance, I always give or sell them medicine and education.

aahz_capone · February 26, 2002, 09:53

I heartely agree with this. It should be more expensive to put such conditions on trading but it should exist (With penalties like a refund if they break the deal). I also play by helping the small civ in non military techs, in the interest of "World peace and good will to all", but the computer always thinks I have some evil alterior motive (I RARELY DO, REALLY!!)

But seriously, I am gratefully thankful that the AI doesn't trade tech in your turn anymore, but the balance in the last patch, the fact that they trade techs amongst themselves like madmen, REALLY pisses me off! They must trade techs for like 1 gold a piece! I'm not kidding. I'm playing a game where the Japs were totally isolated except for my contact and 6 techs behing the rest of the world. I thought I'd keep them that way because I was 3 techs behind the rest and could sell the difference to them for mucho $$$. I had to wait though because they had NOTHING worth trading (no cash or lux) However they met the enlish and within 5 turns they were AHEAD of me in tech. pathetic!

And another thing, sometimes the AI just doesn't except offers which are immensly in their favour. like one tech for 5 techs, 2000 gold and a city or two. These AIs NEVER trade cities unless you demand them to end war (or you've been at war once, but you still have to DEMAND them). Not even a no culture, 1 size piece of crap which is NOWHERE near them for a rediculous amount of techs and cash. What's up with this?!

Arrian · February 26, 2002, 13:48

Steele,

I like your experiment too. Once question, though: did the Zulu have any tradeable commodities? Lets say they have a monopoly on the world's gems (total of 6 deposits). They make 5 gem trades with the other AI's. Because the the industrial age techs were now totally worthless (due to the massive tech devaluation since everyone knew them), the Zulu probably get most, if not all, of them from the very first trade, along with a luxury in return. Repeat process, with the techs becoming more expensive, until the Zulu have caught up in tech.

-Arrian

nato · February 26, 2002, 17:54

How cool! I also give away lots of tech/money to try to give an enemy a strong neighbor. Maybe that should be mentioned in the strategy forum (if it doesn't seem too obvious).

That was a pretty big experiment to run Steel. You've got real Civ dedication! I can only imagine the massive turbulence the poor Zulus went through modernizing so fast. Anomine or something.

Quote:

For instance, I always give or sell them medicine and education.

Wow Zachriel that is an imaginitive way to "role play" being a good guy ... I never thought of that, good one. I like it.

steelehc · February 26, 2002, 22:00

Quote:

Steele,

I like your experiment too. Once question, though: did the Zulu have any tradeable commodities? Lets say they have a monopoly on the world's gems (total of 6 deposits). They make 5 gem trades with the other AI's. Because the the industrial age techs were now totally worthless (due to the massive tech devaluation since everyone knew them), the Zulu probably get most, if not all, of them from the very first trade, along with a luxury in return. Repeat process, with the techs becoming more expensive, until the Zulu have caught up in tech.

-Arrian

I did think of resources, and they did have a few (3 ivory, 3 incense, 1 horse, 2 coal, maybe some others...), but I had completely blockaded the island (or at least tried). I will run it again, but making sure I have completed my blockade.

Quote:

That was a pretty big experiment to run Steel. You've got real Civ dedication!

It only took about two hours total. Not that big of a deal, just innovative.

Once again, thanks for your compliments.

Steele

notyoueither · February 27, 2002, 00:36

BTW steele. Are you really blockading the island if you are not at war with them? AI units no longer prevent use of tiles when they are trespassing near your cities, so are you really stopping his trade?

Salve

steelehc · February 27, 2002, 00:48

I was hoping that by covering every tile of water around the island, I could prevent trading of resources, however I may have been mistaken. If so, this kinda throws off the results I got here. Could someone confirm or deny that merely stationing ships off an island is not enough to prevent trading resources?

Steele

Bautou · February 27, 2002, 01:56

One time, I used a save game editor to swap positions with the AI (change to a civ that the computer used to control). One very interesting thing that I saw was that the big civ that I took over was paying 30 gold/turn for a peace treaty with the last-place civ (that had five cities in total). (I also saw that there was actually a one-for-one luxury trade deal too

). Perhaps this is how the backward AI gets the income to buy all the tech it needs?