Some Thoughts on 2.08 Changes

Ok, I'm used to playing Huge maps/ Monarch / marathon and an still doing so...BUT....hmmm, I'm wondering if some of the recent additions have changed the game to an extent never really intended.

Bear with me, and I'll give an example, and try to explain what I mean. Current game I randomly got Victoria, found myself totally isolated on an island continent with enough room for 15 cities (eventually)..I really wouldn't have played this particular game any different if I started over, really to my estimation haven't put a foot wrong. I've founded conf, christ, and tao, have used all the "isolated techniques" i.e. skeleton army, wonders etc, and was even found to be the 2nd most advanced nation in around 1 AD.

And yet, its now 1350AD and Im exploring the world, and Ive found several 26 size cities (how the frick can they possibly be kepy healthy without modern health improvements?) and as for tech its a joke.

Capac and Saladin have both entered the Industrial age. In 1350AD. I'll pause and say that again. The age of Steam Power and Railways in 1350AD.
I'm still researching Education, to put matters into perspective, and am just starting to build knights. I've seen several machine guns in cities.

Now even though this may be a slight fluke of a game (all AI nations on a pangea continent..me solo), to my mind this must derive for the cumulative effect of the "new AI improvements", that is growing large early, using land more effectively etc etc. Which is fine in principle, but even before the patch, the AI was science obsessed, and now it had the ability to get science crazed.

Which brings me back to the earlier point, of changing the game in ways never really intended. The tech tree is no longer big enough. Its fine for the early times, but is now becoming increasingly compressed, due to AIs going science mad. Before the patch ( and Ive played dozens and dozens of marathon / huge / monarch games), the industrial age was generally reached by someone in around 1600-1650 on average. If this is pushed back by 300-350 years more, then the tech tree has become completely whacked out of sync.

Anyways, pls don't bothered posting "just drop down a level" or something along those lines, because that isn't really my point. I just think that the AI changes from 2.08, have overall ramifications on tech progression, which weren't actually thought through properly. Their either needs to be more techs in the game, or the ones from medieval times onwards need to cost a lot more for everyone.

Your comments welcome

So in effect they made Monarch harder in mid to late game, as usually you used to be able to get a tech lead around that time. I haven't yet tried it out, I guess it will be even longer before I reach Emperor level.

One quirk I had with the game is that the timeline date is so far off, I wish sometimes it just displayed the number of turns instead of showing the year.

Well, Drew, I know you've played a lot of Civ, and that you're no slouch. All I can contribute is to note that a CFCer- I think it was someone from Firaxis, even- noted that trading helps the AI more than it does the human player. Sound as if, on top of improved use of terrain, they've relaxed some of the AI barriers to tech trading. If you're still getting blown out like that on a mostly land map like Lakes or Inland Sea, then you'll know this wasn't a fluke.

If we're talking about tech tree variety, though, I'll throw in my two cents and say I'd like to see more techs before the Space Ship, and less techs after. Building a SS can be made tough enough without the pain of having to research seven or so techs just to get all the components. (Do Ecology and Genetics really have to be researched on their own?) Maybe an early version of Flight, that allows Dirigibles and Biplanes, and another science tech between Scientific Method and Physics. The details could be worked out later, but the chance of getting real choices after Rifling, say, would be a welcome change IMHO.

Man, I can't even imagine what Diety is like now.

Basically you are saying that the AI is teching faster and managing its empire so well that it is advancing faster than its real world counterparts, correct?

Good observations and very consistent with what I have seen.

Unfortunately the short term answer is the one you asked no one to post, but I was never one to follow rules so...

What you are seeing is exactly what might have happened had you played this map pre-patch on Deity or maybe even Immortal, the extra research bonuses and other incidental bonuses for the AI (lower inflation, more free techs, faster growing cities) would have resulted in a similar timeline, reaching industrial at some absurdly early date.

Now, post-patch the AI is so much better at the builder part of the game that if you cannot disrupt it with wars (due to being isolated as in this game) it will perform on Monarch as it used to perform on the higher levels without needing the bonuses...hence the advanced timeline.

I guess this really is a case of be careful what you wish for...

Longer term in another patch (or sooner by modding) the real solution I think is that the handicaps need to be adjusted (in a number of areas not just tech) to account for the more efficient AI (I almost said smarter but I just couldn't make myself say it). Of course one could instead add some easier levels for beginners below settler to balance this out, leaving Monarch as the new Immortal and Diety as an even more unattainable target for us poor mortals.

Could be the AI has just been techs with itself like mad, which allowed it to advance much faster. You mentioned you were stuck on your continent by yourself, so you didn't have this advantage.

Try turning off tech trading and starting a new game. See if the same phenomenon occurs.

I think with tech-trading on and you be the only isolated civ this result was always going to happen on monarch. It's all about getting a monopoly on 1 tech and then trading it to everyone, whereas you've had to research everything on your own.

For comparison I'm playing a game on emperor right now and i'm going to be first to Education by quite a way and not because i'm really any good at the game.

Your only hope was probably to realise your situation early and go for a culture victory.

I agree that there's a need to adjust the AI handicaps. The changes in the AI obsoletes the current handicaps. Sure, a few elite players will enjoy more challenge on Deity, but how do casual players benefit from having to move down a few levels?

I believe the point of the AI changes is to make the game more fun and feel less like you're trying to exploit AI dumbness, not to make the game more difficult. And, in fact, the skewing of the timeline that Drew has pointed out takes away part of the historical fun that Civ is supposed to offer.

I concur with the assessment that the implications of the changes haven't been thought out properly. And this is probably due to the nature of corporations. Either the changes have been rushed, as Blake suggests, or it's simply not cost or time effective to come up with a new set of AI handicaps. But I guess the day when companies strive 100% for the benefit of their customers is only a dream...

i was wondering I just bought warlords today because of the patch but in my excitement I forgot to install the patch for my first game...If I download the patch mid game will the rest of the game be under 2.08?

you need to go down a level, I play a game on noble (normal level monarch) and the cpu is so improved at anything but war (and i'm not the war type of guy) that we're 5 or 6 near the top and it's a really close game.

the cpu is in fact, capable of maintaining the same level of tech as a human, even on noble (and I was diplo heavy in my game, trading a lot to maintain myself in the lead)

What would be unlocked by new technologies? It's not worth increasing the size of the tech tree if the majority of new technologies are just space fillers - not providing any use beyond a gate way to more advanced technologies.

Maybe you'd prefer the research times to be increased? Either way, it would lead to the human player having little hope of reaching the end of the tree by 2050. The AI has bonuses at Monarch - it's to be expected that they can research faster than might be considered historically accurate.

I have tried exactly the same type of custom games on warlords as I was playing in vanilla, and I find that where before I was ahead or even 80% of the time at Prince, now out of 6 games I have been dead last in all of them.

Definately some big time changes here for the AI

Some great points folks, thanks for replys

Ok well I have to now admit it was probably partly a fluke, the game I mentioned. I started another, same settings as before (plus aggressive AI which I always play but forgot to mention), and this time chose to play Victoria.

Quite different results indeed. I found myself on the main cont. with Alex, Capac, Mansa, Hannibal, and Frederick. This time my starting position was much better and I set up marble, and stone in my 2nd and 3rd cities, and proceeded to build GW and Oracle. Alex founded Judaism, and after knocking half a dozen cities out myself, I decided to take his holy city, plus a couple of other cities.

Hey it's Alex, its the only way to be sure (can't nuke him from orbit, haven't researched that yet )

mjs0 said:

Now, post-patch the AI is so much better at the builder part of the game that if you cannot disrupt it with wars (due to being isolated as in this game) it will perform on Monarch as it used to perform on the higher levels without needing the bonuses...hence the advanced timeline.

Click to expand...

This is very well summed up indeed, the first game I couldn't do this, but in this game I fought several wars against Hannibal and Mansa, purely to do this, and also to finance my empire with mass pillaging. And you know, it was pathetic. Hannibal for instance I knew had horses connected up, he also had horseback riding tech, and he didn't build one single numidian cavalry or chariot. Similar for Mansa, and this is aggressive AI remember. All they seem to be programmed to build is a tiny defence force, presumably so they can run the normal ludicrous science rate they do.

Due to my constant intervention, and later bribing Alex to join in (me, him, Capac, and Freddy are the Jews, Mansa and Hannibal are the Confucians), has had the effect of technological holding back our continent to sensible lvls.

When we met continent no 2, even though that only consisited of Cyrus, Brennus, and Ottoman, they were a few techs ahead but not an insurmountable lead. But that just showed the difference when there is no player intervention, and no AI psycho (Monty, shaka anyone?) to disrupt matters. 3 nations playing a gigantic group hug strategy for all of time, had outteched the 6 on our continent.

The 3rd continent consisted of Viking, Japan, and Napolean, had obviously scrapped since time immemorial, and were lagging behind the rest of us.

Its 1350AD, when I just saved, I'm no 1 in land, power, 3rd in tech (but I've had Education since 1240AD) which no-one else has, and I have Hannibal as a capit vassal. This should be an easy win.

But it does now seem the only way to do it is to constantly be the aggressor, evn when most of the wars weren't for land, they were just to disrupt the AIs no aggression / no troops / trade away with anyone and everyone, no matter the religion. ( Capac and Freddy wouldn't join any of the wars, they wouldn't even stop trading with Hannibal and Mansa, even though they kept telling me to "watch out for Mansa Musa, he's our worst enemy "). And gifts, ha!, even though I was friendly with both Fred and Capac, could I get a penny from them..? No longer, it seems its reserved to run a lunatic science rate for even longer.

aelf said:

I believe the point of the AI changes is to make the game more fun and feel less like you're trying to exploit AI dumbness, not to make the game more difficult. And, in fact, the skewing of the timeline that Drew has pointed out takes away part of the historical fun that Civ is supposed to offer.

Click to expand...

It does indeed. I used to play Chess at a pretty high lvl, but the game at that lvl becomes more an exercise in remembering openings down to the xth move, and then and only then starting to actually think and play. It started to feel more like a mathematical exercise, rather than something enjoyable. The last few games since 2.08 have started to feel like that.

thedrin said:

What would be unlocked by new technologies? It's not worth increasing the size of the tech tree if the majority of new technologies are just space fillers - not providing any use beyond a gate way to more advanced technologies.

Maybe you'd prefer the research times to be increased? Either way, it would lead to the human player having little hope of reaching the end of the tree by 2050. The AI has bonuses at Monarch - it's to be expected that they can research faster than might be considered historically accurate.

Click to expand...

I'm not pretending I have any great ideas on which techs I would insert, but they need to be somewhere around the "renaissance era". Military wise, Grenadiers come much too soon (even though thats a seperate thread), as do Cavalry. Its more the fact of the "financial techs" starting with banking, then free market, then corporation coming so close together. It all leads to an incremental increase in commerce availabe for science, which leads of course to a higher tech research rate, which again leads to more techs that allow techs to be researched even faster.

Making tech more expensive is maybe an option, no more "freebie" upgrades for the AI is definetly another, and maybe switching tech trading option to off another, even though I've never played a game with that option.

I dunno, it just feels a bit lame racing to get the spaceship built 50 years before Mozart was born

Someone mentioned in another thread, how the AIs now seem even more keen on trading anything with anyone (except the player in general), which also contributes to tech being researched sooner all round, here's an example from the game I mentioned earlier.

Freddy, and Capac are my main trading ptnrs, and Mansa and Hannibal are my enemies. Both F, and C have Feudalism, which I don't, but I've just used a GM to pop Civil Service. Now Feudalism is quite a long research (marathon / large empire at that time, I'm still catching up).

Freddy hasn't got Lit, Drama, Theo or CS, and Capac has Music, Theo, Drama but no CS. So eventually, I give in to Fred and trade him CS plus Lit for Feud and some cash (they always have to have the better deal of course). Capac has nothing I don't have already, so I leave it there.

But next turn, I check and amazingly, Fred has everything I do PLUS Machinery and Engineering, as does Capac, as does Mansa, as does Hannibal. I can only guess about the trades made, but somehow, even though supposedy Hannibal and Mansa are enemies of My triangle group, Fred and Capac won't stop trading with them.

So in short, my one early discovery of CS has launched the whole of my continent (except me) ahead by the best part of 100 years in one turn. So although this was only one case in point, I'm starting to agree with whoever said that tech trading (even done intelligently) post 2.08 now firmly favors the AI. Maybe I shouldn't have traded CS, but without hindsight, I couldn't have seen the chain reaction, that took me from tech power, to tech backward.

For the improved AI changes to work, with tech trading left on, I really think more negative AI modifiers between each other need to be introduced, discouraging trading between supposed "enemies". If you have only 3 or 4 Ai guys with whom you can trade techs, yet the other 11 or 12 will freely interchange and have the effect of filtering techs through to everyone else, then you are basically screwed if you trade and screwed if you don't.

More work is needed on this topic.

You could always just kill everyone... That's what I do, and I think that 90% research maintained by constant conquest is a GRRRRRREAT way to keep up.

A couple questions, Drew. Do you think that cast of AIs might have pulled off those trades even before the patch? All four of them are leaders I think of as being open to trading, although Freddy can run hot and cold. Ever since Vanilla Civ4, Mansa has been open to that kind of wheeling and dealing. If you told me the parties involved were Izzy, Tokugawa, Saladin and Louis, that would really be an eye-opener.

Just a pro forma question too-- was there any possible contact with another continent? I think all that's needed is LoS with cultural boundaries, and stranger things have happened. Doesn't sound like it, but it might explain the sudden jump.

While we're on the subject of AI changes, I've got a question for Drew, or anyone who plays with "Aggressive AI" checked: has the patch reduced the AI on AI warring? In three games, my first impression is that this is definitely so. In fact, the only instance that's happened is Monty declaring war on a neighboring Hatty-- hardly an unusual circumstance, but made so by the lack of action with everyone else. If this option has been (essentially) nerfed, that would be a huge change for many of us, no matter what level we play on. (I mean, AI vs AI conflict wasn't common (Standard, Noble), but it happened usually at least once a game; once in three games is whole 'nother ball game.)

uncarved block said:

A couple questions, Drew. Do you think that cast of AIs might have pulled off those trades even before the patch? All four of them are leaders I think of as being open to trading, although Freddy can run hot and cold. Ever since Vanilla Civ4, Mansa has been open to that kind of wheeling and dealing. If you told me the parties involved were Izzy, Tokugawa, Saladin and Louis, that would really be an eye-opener.

Just a pro forma question too-- was there any possible contact with another continent? I think all that's needed is LoS with cultural boundaries, and stranger things have happened. Doesn't sound like it, but it might explain the sudden jump.

While we're on the subject of AI changes, I've got a question for Drew, or anyone who plays with "Aggressive AI" checked: has the patch reduced the AI on AI warring? In three games, my first impression is that this is definitely so. In fact, the only instance that's happened is Monty declaring war on a neighboring Hatty-- hardly an unusual circumstance, but made so by the lack of action with everyone else. If this option has been (essentially) nerfed, that would be a huge change for many of us, no matter what level we play on. (I mean, AI vs AI conflict wasn't common (Standard, Noble), but it happened usually at least once a game; once in three games is whole 'nother ball game.)

Click to expand...

Good point first, I suppose that group is quite a "trade with all combo" and have to admit that yes they may have pulled off those trades pre patch. I was really trying to illustrate how with their individual supra-increased research potential, sharing everything they don't have a monopoly on, and then researching faster and sharing again, can have the cumulative effect of science much faster than before. MUCH faster.

They didn't have any "outside" contact with the 2nd, or 3rd conts, that came a 100 years later.(The 2nd slightly more advanced continent must have randomly sailed away from our continent, I had Jewish holy city and Jew line of sight in all the "tips" of our continent and would have seen them..contact would have come much earlier if they'd sailed west instead of east)

And I've only played part of 4 games post 2.08 (marathon takes a while with huge maps ) so can't say with any certainty, but I'd have to say yes, the "aggressive AI" setting hasn't produced many inter-AI wars that I had knowledge of as yet, but of course it may be that I've had combined game circumstances that didn't encourage it.

well, having played 2 games on monarch post patch I denfinitely AM dropping down a level

After having read Blake's posting elsewhere on CFC, what seems to be happening is that each of the leaders is weighting techs differently (not vastly so, but noticeably), which means that instead of racing to the next "top number" tech, they'll diversify down (up?) the tree. On Standard size, this probably won't make much difference, but on Huge maps, each step of the tech tree will probably be being researched at any given time-- which would explain the explosive advance that inspired this discussion.

If this is so, what's the alteration? I like drkodos' idea that we should rejigger our expectations, so that playing the AI on an equal footing will be the top difficulty level, but until then some minor handicapping might be nice. Maybe a hindrance to trading tied to the era, so that it's easy and common in the Ancient era, but more rare in the Rennaissance and Modern times, ie. trading for Construction is fairly easy, trading for Scientific Method not so much, and Composites very difficult. As it stands, I can see every game having the AI leave the human player in the dust when the Caravels start sailing. If the idea is to win or lose the game before 1 AD, this is fine, but I don't think that's what the designers had in mind.

uncarved block said:

After having read Blake's posting elsewhere on CFC, what seems to be happening is that each of the leaders is weighting techs differently (not vastly so, but noticeably), which means that instead of racing to the next "top number" tech, they'll diversify down (up?) the tree. On Standard size, this probably won't make much difference, but on Huge maps, each step of the tech tree will probably be being researched at any given time-- which would explain the explosive advance that inspired this discussion.

If this is so, what's the alteration? I like drkodos' idea that we should rejigger our expectations, so that playing the AI on an equal footing will be the top difficulty level, but until then some minor handicapping might be nice. Maybe a hindrance to trading tied to the era, so that it's easy and common in the Ancient era, but more rare in the Rennaissance and Modern times, ie. trading for Construction is fairly easy, trading for Scientific Method not so much, and Composites very difficult. As it stands, I can see every game having the AI leave the human player in the dust when the Caravels start sailing. If the idea is to win or lose the game before 1 AD, this is fine, but I don't think that's what the designers had in mind.

Click to expand...

Well current game, should be an easy win for me on monarch (the game thats still at 1350AD I mentioned earlier...sunday is reserved for NFL as it should be )

So it's not by any means impossible, as long as you are "in the mix" from early times. I will have to check tech trading screens, and other nations tech status almost every turn from now on, (which is still a heck of a lot of turns to go on marathon) but I don't mind this at all. The main problem I envisage is being treated like a trading leper by the others, while nations like Freddy and Mansa act like a "technological hub" in that they'll trade with everyone and thus cause tech to filter out to all and sundry.

We'll have to see, more games need to be played, but I'm am starting to get the horrible feeling that no-one has realised the tech ramifications of the Blake AI inspired changes, in that at Monarch (probably even Prince now) and above, a peaceful path to victory is all but obsolete.

And this, I guarantee was not the aim of anyone involved with the patch. Civ is a vastly complex game, where tiny changes can cause major ripples throughout its gaming experience. At the moment butterflies and earthquakes come to mind.

We'll see in time.