[C3C] Anyway to turn off tech trading?

[Cyc]

I can't stand playing Standard map as they are so small.

If you want to play Civ, you should play it on a Huge Pangaea. With 8 Tribes. Ondskan has a point. It's why I can't stand playing any of the GOTM or COTM. The maps always suck, so do the starting positions. Usually the maps are way to small to do anything but war with the next nation immediately. THAT's boring....

[tR1cKy]

Originally Posted by Cyc

I can't stand playing Standard map as they are so small.

If you want to play Civ, you should play it on a Huge Pangaea. With 8 Tribes. Ondskan has a point. It's why I can't stand playing any of the GOTM or COTM. The maps always suck, so do the starting positions. Usually the maps are way to small to do anything but war with the next nation immediately. THAT's boring....

Well, this is clearly a matter of personal preference

For me, a huge pangea map with only 8 tribes would be INCREDIBLY boring. It would take ages before some real action takes place, and more ages to manage an empire that big.

And NOT waging war with the next nation ASAP would be boring as well. Once a core is set up and barracks are built, what's left if not war? Milking till the very late game? Geez i can't imagine playing in a more boring way.

FYI, lots of contenders in the GotM games choose non-military victory types, and they do not seem bored. And i don't recally any of them complaining about the maps. They shouldn't be that bad, after all

[Cyc]

Originally Posted by tR1cKy

Well, this is clearly a matter of personal preference

For me, a huge pangea map with only 8 tribes would be INCREDIBLY boring. It would take ages before some real action takes place, and more ages to manage an empire that big.

I understand, tR1cky. A lot has to do with attention span.

Originally Posted by tR1cKy

And NOT waging war with the next nation ASAP would be boring as well. Once a core is set up and barracks are built, what's left if not war? Milking till the very late game? Geez i can't imagine playing in a more boring way.

I don't milk games. Normally after I've been able to establish a nation, the international diplomacy and wars (or threat of wars) become very interesting. But thank you for proving my point. Long term goals in the game are an aspect I enjoy.

Originally Posted by tR1cKy

FYI, lots of contenders in the GotM games choose non-military victory types, and they do not seem bored. And i don't recally any of them complaining about the maps. They shouldn't be that bad, after all

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you. I'm well aware of what goes on in the GOTM forums. I've been at Civfantics for over 10 years. I've downloaded a lot of their games. I've read a lot of their threads. I know what type of victory conditions are sought by the participants. I was talking about the size of the maps, not the players. Why would you bring them up? I was talking about how I felt. And your right, those maps shouldn't be that bad.

[tR1cKy]

Originally Posted by Cyc

I understand, tR1cky. A lot has to do with attention span.

All right, then. Personal preference and attention span. Possibly, with a small role played by the time it actually takes to play a single game on a huge map.

I don't milk games. Normally after I've been able to establish a nation, the international diplomacy and wars (or threat of wars) become very interesting. But thank you for proving my point. Long term goals in the game are an aspect I enjoy.

Well, thank you, but here you do confuse me. What's the point you're proving and how am i helping?
The only clear thing to me is that, metaphorically speaking, you like big steaks while i prefer smaller steaks.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you. I'm well aware of what goes on in the GOTM forums. I've been at Civfantics for over 10 years. I've downloaded a lot of their games. I've read a lot of their threads. I know what type of victory conditions are sought by the participants. I was talking about the size of the maps, not the players. Why would you bring them up? I was talking about how I felt. And your right, those maps shouldn't be that bad.

Here you don't, but thanks anyway for caring.

The reason is simple: there are people, including experienced players, who like playing standard maps, and this means that those maps are not absolutely bad. It's just that some people like them and some people don't, and you happen to be among those who don't. Which is perfectly fine... as long as you do not pretend everybody to adhere to your personal standards (and sorry in advance if i misunderstood you here, but that's the impression you're giving me).

[Ondskan]

It's all good dude.
I think he's just trying to tell you that the complexity in warfare looses its charm after some time and as I've said the AI is the weakest there. Further crippled smaller map sizes and more water as it is completely awful in naval warfare.

But in a huge Pangea with conflicts erupting here and there, preferably with scarce resources, now it gets interesting. For example somehow surviving being a non-major state on Emperor level is interesting.

But in the end, I think all 3 of us are bored by now. There's just to little diplomacy, the warfare is to weak and knowing every inch of the AI and how it works while it doesn't know us makes it more a game of memory than a game of chess. One in which the only way to up the difficulty is to give the opponent more free pieces.

[Cyc]

Originally Posted by Ondskan

It's all good dude.
I think he's just trying to tell you that the complexity in warfare looses its charm after some time and as I've said the AI is the weakest there. Further crippled smaller map sizes and more water as it is completely awful in naval warfare.

But in a huge Pangea with conflicts erupting here and there, preferably with scarce resources, now it gets interesting. For example somehow surviving being a non-major state on Emperor level is interesting.

Yeah, I agree. My playstyle is peaceful builder. I want to dominate the map, but normally only go to war when the tiles are gone, or someone attacks me. If they attack me, all hell breaks loose, and the domination begins.

Originally Posted by Ondskan

But in the end, I think all 3 of us are bored by now. There's just to little diplomacy, the warfare is to weak and knowing every inch of the AI and how it works while it doesn't know us makes it more a game of memory than a game of chess. One in which the only way to up the difficulty is to give the opponent more free pieces.

Good point. Although I found a thread a while back in the Creations thread that spoke about an independant Civ game. It started as a poll, but wanted to know if there was interest in redesigning the Civ game to be much more enjoyable. I will get a link in a bit.

EDIT: Here's the link ~ Independant Civilization Ideas

[Cyc]

Originally Posted by tR1cKy

All right, then. Personal preference and attention span. Possibly, with a small role played by the time it actually takes to play a single game on a huge map.

Well, thank you, but here you do confuse me. What's the point you're proving and how am i helping?
The only clear thing to me is that, metaphorically speaking, you like big steaks while i prefer smaller steaks.

Sorry. That was me not playing well with others... You had said "And NOT waging war with the next nation ASAP would be boring as well. Once a core is set up and barracks are built, what's left if not war? Milking till the very late game? Geez i can't imagine playing in a more boring way." It appeared to me as if you had thrown down the gauntlet. This is where I have differed from most Civ players since Civ3 came out. I'm more into creating a nation that will stand the test of time, as opposed to one that can kill all the others. Sorry, I like to make the people happy and smart, with a little depth. But back to your question, the point was attention span. And you not being able to play C3 without immeadiate waring because you would become unimaginably bored seemed to prove the point. But I don't agree with the "big steak, little steak analogy. More like grilling up a freashly thawed steak or grilling up a seasoned/marinated steak. I like to take my time and bring out some flavor in my game.

Originally Posted by tR1cKy

The reason is simple: there are people, including experienced players, who like playing standard maps, and this means that those maps are not absolutely bad. It's just that some people like them and some people don't, and you happen to be among those who don't. Which is perfectly fine... as long as you do not pretend everybody to adhere to your personal standards (and sorry in advance if i misunderstood you here, but that's the impression you're giving me).

I don't pretend that everyone must play to my personal standards. One of the great things about C3C is that everyone can play solo they way they want. That's why I enjoy playing solo. I was part of the group of people that put together the Civ3 Gmes of Democracy. The first five games were fantastic. It was a community project. Lots of people involved. I had to learn to compromise on a forum (civfanatics and the Demogame was my first ever forum experience) with people who didn't play the way I did. But for me, those were the Civfanatics glory days. I looked into the GOTM and Succession Games but didn't want to change my playstyle to match the format. I did enjoy participating in the Never Ending Story games, as it allowed my to write. I'm sorry, don't know why I'm trying to explain this. I don't try to force my way on other players. I just get tired of hearing people say they can master they game when the only play on tiny (ok, you think they're Standard...) maps filled with water. That takes about 10 minutes. I'd rather read a book than send out suicide Galleys. There I go again. You're right and we are good.

[tR1cKy]

@Cyc: thank you for your thorough response. Now i think i understand the message. It seems to me that you like to play the game in a sort of "SimCiv" style. That is, building an utopian civilization that stands above all the others in every aspect of human excellence.

Well, i've been doing exactly that in my early times, but at some point i just gave up and turned into a sort of Attila the Hun on steroids. Why? At some point, i just found Civ3 too simple, too dumbed down to give a satisfacting experience in playing the role of the enlightened ruler. It fares much better as a war game.

And mind, a military victory per se is almost a no-brainer. As it's been said countless times, the AS are simply too stupid to stand against the mind of a human player, even with high initial advantages. But trying to win as early as possible, that changes the picture completely! You need deep forethought, detailed strategic planning and you must be ready to change the course of action if something does not end up as you predicted.

This, in my opinion, makes the game far more exciting and interesting than a peaceful builder style could ever be. But once again, we're in the field of personal preferences.

Finally, a few words on this:

Originally Posted by Cyc

I just get tired of hearing people say they can master they game when the only play on tiny (ok, you think they're Standard...) maps filled with water. That takes about 10 minutes. I'd rather read a book than send out suicide Galleys. There I go again. You're right and we are good.

Please note that in every past, present and probably future game community there is a certain number of noobs who pretend to be pros. I think you'd better take it as an unavoidable annoyance, such as mosquitoes or taxes, and live with it

I call it 'standard map' simply because it's how it is defined in the game. It's not a definition based on merit. Now, is it standard for warfare? Sure it is. Is it standard as a decent simulation of a world? Hell no, but the same can be said for a huge map. Even the biggest map possible, in this aspect, would have to be considered tiny.

Last thing: for my past memories, my impression is that in a large of huge map the AS does not fare better than in a standard one, it does not pose a harder challenge, it is not more difficult to beat, unless you find yourself in a very bad start position where you have little space to expand and have to face AS that are, say, 10 times the size of your empire. But it's years that i do not play a huge map, so i can as well be wrong on this.

[timerover51]

On a very large map, say at least 200 X 200, continents or archipelago, if you limit the number of civilizations and make sure that they are a good distance from you, they can give you all sorts of problems going for a military victory.

[bigFRANK]

Yep makes for a very slow game in the pre industrial age though, without the science to cross oceans your going to have to either get lucky with a chain of reefs/islands or spend a vast sum on researching every tech yourself.

[gja102]

The OP gave me an idea… If you’re going to turn off tech trading through the editor, I thought of a way to really shake up the tech system:

1) Use Government Rate Cap to cripple conventional research (upping tech costs too if necessary)
2) Make all techs untradeable
3) Create several +2 Free Tech wonders / small wonders. These are now the only way to scientifically progress.
4) Give every Civ easy access to a small wonder that grants advances known to 2 civs. This natural tech diffusion is now the only way to gain knowledge from other civs (even if they hate you).

Theoretical outcome - isolated civs will be stuck in the stone age (like the real-world Incas). Well-connected civs will be able to secure a tech advantage when they first build a +2 Free Tech wonder, which they will keep until someone else gets the same free tech, and then it will spread through the world as common knowledge.

You could even link some of the tech wonders to a frequently-disappearing ‘Local Genius’ resource, which should really randomise the tech advantage throughout the game.

I might not have thought this idea through properly… would it work?

[Cyc]

I like the way tou think, gja102. I've made seveal techs untradeable in my games. The first would be Map Making, then Repubic. Printing Press was another favorite. But I've never done them all. Give it a shot.

[gja102]

Thanks Cyc, I don’t know if I’m skilled enough at modding to make it work, though I do like the idea of removing the tedious tech-trade micromanagement with the AI (I.e. searching for the best trades while getting screwed over on the AI-to-AI deals), but at the same time still being able get techs from the other players and benefit from a crowded start. Would take a fair bit of balancing I think.

[TLF]

How can I get the information I need to make tech deals?
When the diplomacy screen is open I can't access the tech chart so I can't see how many turns each tech takes so that I can value them for trading purposes.

Is there a way to open other screens while the diplomacy screen is open?
Or, do you use the windows keyboard key to leave the game and look at outside reference material?
I really don't want to memorize the tech tree.

[Elephantium]

TLF, you can do two things (assuming you're getting a trade offer between turns -- if you're calling the AI up during your turn, your best bet is probably to check your tech tree, write down research times, and refer to that while you're haggling).

One, you can right-click on the tech name while it's in your list of things you can offer. That will bring up the 'pedia.
Two, you can click or right-click (don't recall atm) on the advisor head -- that will bring you back to the vanilla Diplomacy screen, and you can hit F6 to see the tech tree from there.

[King85Kong]

CPU tech trading is terrible in this game. Nations that are smaller then you have larger armies and are out front of you in tech, when clearly they shouldn't be. At least not in both areas at same time.

I turned of tech trading in map editor, only problem now is that I see the map before starting. Like having to find stuff by searching. I like everything else in this game. Just don't like the CPU tading techs with each other for peanuts. Then when I go to trade a tech, they look at it like its dirt.

To bad the game didn't come with the option of turning it off. Oh well