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

[ACooper]

Destroyed the game! You got to be kidding.

The is the latest hot issue, like "group movement" was before the patch. It seems to me that most of you have no experience with Civ games or are so caught up in hearing yourself rant and cry that you know nothing about the game or the game's history.

Soren has stated concerns about this "tech whoring" since the release of the patch. (and before actually) It is being looked at. Probably will be some fix to make the AI trade techs a little less aggressively in the future patch(es). Until then, get over it, it can be managed and when you get in the industrial ages you can catch up and pass all of the AI civs.

If I see one more post on how "Firaxis ruined the game." I'll go nuts. (Probably get banned).

Seriously, if you can't handle it, play something else.

[Zouave]

Originally posted by ACooper
Destroyed the game! You got to be kidding.

The is the latest hot issue, like "group movement" was before the patch. It seems to me that most of you have no experience with Civ games or are so caught up in hearing yourself rant and cry that you know nothing about the game or the games history.

Soren has stated concerns about this "tech whoring" since the release of the patch. (and before actually) It is being looked at. Probably will be some fix to make the AI trade techs a little less aggressively in the future patch(es). Until then get over it it can be managed and when you get in the industrial ages you can catch up and pass all of the AI civs.

If I see one more post on how "Firaxis ruined the game." I'll go nuts. (Probably get banned).

Seriously, if you can't handle it, play something else.

Word.

[Evil_Eric_4]

Glad to hear that they realise their mistake, Arrian, but when they get to the point where they have to fix their fixes I have to wonder.

I mean it seems there is a lack of commitment.
It has been taking a LONG time between patches and even then the patches break as many things as they fix.

It seems they are sending out the patches with as little playtesting as the original game itself!

How many people are working on this I wonder?
Two retards and a chimp?

[Ming]

ACooper


Oh... and try not to get banned

[MiloMilo]

Most everything about this game now looks good to me, except for some SERIOUS AI propblems. Here's what I'd like to see fixed in 1.18, or in a mod maybe (thought I don't know if it's possible to tweak the AI in mods):

1) Cancel this terrible AI tech-trading nonsense. I like this game in large part because I'm playing against seven (or fifteen) different opponents. The other nations should be as wary of each other as they are of me. Militarily this is well-implemented. Now I'd like to see the same good implementation with scientific advancment.

2) Pop-rushing is an exploit, and if Firaxis wants to limit players' ability to do it, fine. But at least program the AI to not hamstring itself under communism. If it makes citizens unhappy for 40 turns, just program the AI to only do it once per five citizens in a city, per 40 turns. Or something. You want the AI to be flexible like a human player, but you also want it to be smart, and smart means eliminating some options that are available to flexible but dumb people.

3) Yes, I want the AI to be aggressively expansionist, but it annoys me when they always build cities in that last little pocket of land on the other side of my borders. When this city flips to me ten turns later due to culture, it's gratifying but still annoying that an opponent would be so wasteful with their resources. Can't there be a guidline such that for the first eight or ten cities, the AI will attempt to place new cities to be contiguous with their existing border, and then branch out? (This would reflect their ability to now build the Forbidden Palace - even if they never build it. Which brings me to the last one--)

4) The AI should build more improvements, and fewer military units. Just shift this balance a little bit. In peacetime the AI should not have more units than it can handle; cities should build either improvements or wealth. In wartime, make this limit arbitrarily higher: say, +2 units per city. Then for each one unit that dies, increase this limit by 2, showing the need to muster more soldiers if the nation gets put on the defensive. When peace is declared go back the peacetime limits, possibly recycling extra units.

I know much of seems like it would restrict the AI and make it easier for humans to outwit it. But in the end that's how these games should be played anyway. Consider casino backjack. The dealer must always play the same way, while the players can strategize creatively. This gives them an advantage, but it's still a fun game and people still lose quite often.

[Captain]

here we go again... I see this possibly devolving into another flamefest...

but to those who aren't too emotionally involved in the game to realize that it is a game and that you can do other things with your life, here's my 2 cents.

1. tech devaluation should be slowed and capped at a minimum so there's no more buying techs for 1 gold.

2. AI should NOT sell you things when they're "furious" at you. Make them hold a grudge.

Example:
In my latest game, I'm the Romans and I've taken over the Germans and the Egyptians (except the Egyptians ran away to a 1 city island and I have yet to build a caravel). I own the biggest continent and offensive military. I also used my golden age to mass produce culture and improvements, so I'm finally in 2nd place (way behind Japan). Japanese and Russians kept trying to grab bits of my continent that my borders hadn't taken yet (they have now). I've betrayed the Germans and Egyptians a dozen times (that was a tough war), and recently trashed two Japanese cities and declared war on Russia. Immediately after getting peace with Japan (I couldn't reach him but I kept killing all his landers), I buy three techs right off him! He didn't sell me gunpowder (good!) but he sold me his other 3? I couldn't threaten him, but I could buy the techs? Ridiculous. He shouldn't be so ready to sell to someone with my reputation. Doesn't he realize selling me techs just gives me the means to kick the crap out of his uber-culture continent ?

And he doesn't even demand outrageous amounts of money. I think I spent at most 200g for 3 techs. Pocket change!

(Does his reputation factor in? Cuz the Japnese and Russians both have crappy reps.)

[Captain]

hmm, while I was writing that, cooler posters prevailed.

MiloMilo, great points! Firaxis, please stop the AI from crippling itself.

A bit of nitpicking though... the AI isn't just overly ready to trade with each other, they even trade with human players who are their biggest threat. See my post above.

Also, what about AI combat? Sometimes it does wonky things.
Never mind, I'll post a new thread about it.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Captain
here we go again... I see this possibly devolving into another flamefest...

NO... It won't... because the first person that starts it will be toast. And anybody that continues it will also be toast.

IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!!

IS MY MESSAGE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY!!!!!!!

[jackshot]

Sorry, no sympathy from me. These are but some of the problems, and Firaxis put them there. Perhaps instead of being aware of the problems they should be aware of the need to put out a finished product in the first place.

Six months later and the game is still a pile of mistakes upon mistakes. Six months later and all we can say is that they haven't quit yet - sometimes I wish they would go and leave the field to someone who actually wants to do something interesting and exciting with the franchise. I've read their comments too, and they all have this "making up as we go" quality - they have no plan that shows in any work to date. If you were a publisher, would you accept this title without Sid's name on it?

Let's face it, at this rate Firaxis is going to have problems having a finshed, quality product version of what was released last Christmas in place by this Christmas.

For any price.

[kimmygibler]

Does this seem logical to anyone...

Make it so that you and the ai have some incentive to research tech rather than trade for it. The obvious thing would be a culture bonus for development of your own tech. No bonus if you acquire it through trade.

Would this be too hard for firaxis? Is it a good idea? Would it solve the problem?

In the current game it is unrealistic as well. Once the zulus develop writing, next turn zulu is the universal language. Every other civ simply uses the zulu writing due to trading. I know the game currently has no concept of this idea, but it might solve the problem if the ai had some reason to avoid trading for at least some techs.

I can see things like gunpowder really make no difference culturally. But alphabet, literature, philosophy, writing, monarchy, republic, music theory, free artistry, even contruction....

[ACooper]

Gibler

Great idea. Two types of techs. Culture techs could not be traded or at least the value jacked up really high.

Once again - great idea.

[kimmygibler]

Thanks, but could this be done in a patch???
Or rather, is there a hope in hell that it will be done?


Also, I wouldn't say that you can't trade techs, just that you don't get any culture bonus unless you research them yourself.

[ACooper]

I imagine it would require a rewrite of several areas of code. Like assigning a culture points value to each "cultural" tech and adding that to the culture total (as a 1 time culture bonus?). Also you would have to have the ai recognize these techs as more desirable to research than trade for.

It's not alot of work if it was done from the start, but without knowing how the game was coded it may or may not be too much work for a patch. That would have to be a cost/benifit decision made by Firaxis.

I do think you should bring the suggestion to their attention.

[Capt Dizle]

I used to think that the game was poorly designed but its more than that. It's also a lack of time and testing.

Heck the game was a beta on release and the patches were rushed to boot. I'd say let them work on it till Christmas. Which is when the developement cycle should have ended in the first place.

I know I won't test another patch. Been there, done that.

[Capt Dizle]

And I agree with Cooper in his reaction to Egyptian's statement that the patch DESTROYED the game. I think DESTROYED is too harsh and a bit inaccurate considering the sorry state the game was in with v1.16.

Clearly, in v1.17f the combination of zero value tech and AI self induced starvation BROKE the game, but only in the sense that a zombie, run over by a fleet of trucks would be messier looking than when first untombed, but still dead in either case.

[Maxis Dugan]

Me thinks I'll wait to d-load any of the patches. I'm glad I read this thread.

...no more rhymes now , I really mean it! Anybody want a peanut?!?

[jabroni154]

Just to add a few more comments to the thread. I just finished another game last night and here would be my short list of things that I would like to see fixed which are mentioned above:

1. Stop the AI tech-whoring! (one suggestion)

Change the techs to add in a few extra parameters (best if the option exists to change them in the editor)

- Min/max sell value - This could simply be a number from 0.05 to 10 or so that dictates the min/max value for a tech when trading. Scale the change 100%, 90%, 80% in between the costs. For example:

If Synthetic Fibers costs 500, with a min/max of 1.5/5.0, the 1st Civ to trade would only sell for 5*500 or 2500 gold. By the time it gets down to the last Civ, the minimum value to sell for is 1.5 * 500 or 750 gold. After 2 civs know it, it might drop to 90% or .9 * (5.0 - 1.5) + 1.5 = 4.65 * 500 or 2325 gold.

For the AIs tech bonus, simply divide the value by the research bonus, i.e. chieftain, 2325 / 0.75 = 2584

This is a simplified version as I am not sure of the exact numbers but hopefully my point is clear. For a base case, make any techs with wonders (1.0/4.0) and for techs that increase military strength (i.e. compare greatest non-bombard attack/non-naval attack) with current of civ, add in another modifier. For instance, if I just discover musketman, I sure as heck do not want to give this tech to everybody in the civilized world as that would make any assaults that much more difficult.

2. Lessen the whip-cracking penalty for the AI or make it not crack the whip as much

Once I reach the industrial age and get communism, it is to my advantage to give the tech to all of the AI, create some wars and watch them kill themselves. This is insane. The AI should not crack the whip as much as it does. Occasionally, yes, but not from cities of 12-15 down to cities of 2 or 3, that is just crazy!

Those are my two big gripes for the patch, as for other things, well, that is off-topic from the post but man, the 7/15 headed AI thing just makes the game intolerable. I want to give it a chance and I want to enjoy it. It is just a good thing MOO3 is not out because once that comes out, I don't think Civ3 will get much time after that.

[Uncle Thade]

Read through the two threads and it seems to make more sense now, thanks for the heads up Arrian. On devalueing of techs that just doesn't make sense. Perhaps they should be devalued after an era or echelon...

Conquering the world, one game at a time... Uncle Thade.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by monkspider
i'm starting to agree with the assertion that Firaxis and Infogrames represent Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dum.

At least Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum didn't charge us $45 for the game and $19.95 for a lame-ass "Strategy Guide".

The game wasn't so hot BEFORE the 1.17 patch, either.

Civ III is a tedious bore, with a slapped together Mod.

[kimmygibler]

When is the next patch?

[ZigZac]

I haven't had too much trouble with the AI. So far I am the most advanced, richest, biggest army, navy, airforce. But I downloaded the patch about halfway through the game.

I hope the patch comes out soo if it is really as bad as you guys say.

[Barchan]

I do agree that the current devaluation equation is a bit harsh, but I ask you to mull over these concepts:

The Kingmaker:
You, the human, are clearly the best player at the board and the other players (AI) know this. If they try to take you on individually, they know they'll lose. So, in an effort to win, or at least ensure that you don't, they're willing to make rock bottom trades or even outright gifts to make sure that no fellow weak player (read AI) falls victim to the cunning abilities of the human. I'm sure that most of you have done this once or twice yourself in MP games; it's simply acting against your own self-interest to ensure the victory (or defeat) of another player. The thought usually is "hey, I might not be able to win, but I can effectively decide who will."

Fair Market Value:
I can appreciate the strategic value in having a tech advantage, but there is another school of thought that would say that if you don't get whatever the market will offer for discovered tech, you're not taking full advantage of it. Money, luxuries, resources, maps and agreements can all be brokered with technology; to simply sit on tech and refuse to trade it is both illogical and uneconomical. If you combine this with the Kingmaker concept above, why shouldn't you be free and easy with the technology you have, especially with the other weaker players? Even if it's just a map and some gold, it's better than the nothing you're getting by not making the trade. Sooner or later, that other Civ is either going to develop the tech itself or be destroyed by another Civ. Unless the conquering Civ is going to be you, you might as well make some profit from the technology and strengthen another bulkhead against the #1 player. If you're not the dominant player (which the AI isn't, remember), then this is a reasonable strategy to keep yourself in the game and possibly have a shot at winning.

Now, before you being flaming, please re-read the subject of this post. I'm not defending the current tech-whoring, but merely suggesting that it's not necessarily the product of bugs or designer insanity.

[John Paul Jones]

Agree with original post.
'Aggressive tech-trading'='swap you my 10 techs for your 1 gold piece and make sure if that human comes looking for them to screw him for everthing he's got'

[John Paul Jones]

Originally posted by Barchan
to simply sit on tech and refuse to trade it is both illogical and uneconomical

What if you're the only civ with Literature and building the Great Library - would you give it away ? Should the AI ?

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Ming


NO... It won't... because the first person that starts it will be toast. And anybody that continues it will also be toast.

IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!!

IS MY MESSAGE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY!!!!!!!

You're really into toast?

Robert

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Coracle



At least Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum didn't charge us $45 for the game and $19.95 for a lame-ass "Strategy Guide".

There's a strategy guide?
This is what the manual was supposed to be?
You know, I remember a time when they used to put the instructions to a game in the box with the game itself. Not sell you that later.
Although to be fair, I haven't read the 'manual' either.

Robert

[Barchan]

Originally posted by John Paul Jones


What if you're the only civ with Literature and building the Great Library - would you give it away ? Should the AI ?

Well, no, of course not. I did mention at the beginning of my point that *I* can appreciate the strategic value of tech. The AI, unfortunately, doesn't seem to. In the scenario above, I'd keep Literature until the GL was built. Once it is, though, the strategic value of holding it is greatly diminished.

As an aside, I'm rarely rational enough to operate on a purely economic basis. Hell, a lot of the time I won't make eminently reasonable trades simply because I've decided to have nothing to do with those [expletive deleted] lying, back-stabbing Aztecs, and they can cram their [expletive deleted] Spices where the [expletive deleted] sun don't shine! You'll get [even more expletives deleted] nothing and like it, Montezuma!

Sorry, but you get the idea. The point was in a truly rational, economic way of approaching things, even getting a few coins and a world map for a technology is better than nothing at all. A more sophisticated approach would have to account for the strategic values in withholding the tech, as well as the Goodwill values to be had for giving it away, but, economically speaking, there will always be a price at which it's going to be worth it to trade it away.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Barchan
As an aside, I'm rarely rational enough to operate on a purely economic basis.

In classical economics, it was assumed that everyone made decisions based upon their own best interest, and in full knowledge of everything relevant. This was fanciful, of course. Classical economics could not predict the advent of fads, like the hula hoop or rock 'n' roll, for instance. Modern models use computers to simulate "agents" who work with limited knowledge and various motivations -- much like a computer game.

[dunk]

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. Or make ocean-worthy vessels available earlier, so players (human or AI) can build their own without trading.

[dunk]

Oh yes, the luxury trading is insane too.

I would have had to give 3 luxury resources + gold per turn for one luxury resource. I was in an alliance with this player too.