AI bonuses or not ??

[Akka]

No, I'm not starting on bonuses about fights, this has been talked about for ages and it seems there is nothing hidden here
What I'm wondering is about bonuses on the economical system as a whole.

Let's see the situation :

Game is prince difficulty, 15 civ left (India destroyed some years ago).
I'm using my mod, but I carefully made it so AI and I are perfectly equals (I don't like bonuses for anyone, I like every player submitted to the same rules).

My empire is the big blue mass in the centre, that occupy roughly one third of the continent. Greeks are the white splash in the nord-east, who would fit easily four times in my empire.

You can see here that the Greek army is twice to three time bigger than mine (see the 110 rflemen, 27 musketeers and so on ?). They are, like me, under democracy. I'm quite a builder, so most of my cities are fully developped.

Here is the situation about technologies :

You can see Greeks do not have neither Corporation, neither electricity. I have to add they are the first or second in tech after me, so there is nearly no bonus due to tech devaluation, and I don't think they can get tech by trading.

Until now, all is fine, ok ? (though I wonder how the Greeks were able to be ONLY three-five tech being, considering the difference in size, but well...).

Now, let's see the situation a little later...

Whow ! A tank unit ?
Let's see how my tech tree allow to get to tank...

So, has they did not had electricity nor corporation, you have, to get tanks, to get : electricity, corporation, combustion, motorized construction. That's 5 techs in all.

Let's see...
During this time, they had to support an army twice the size of mine, with an empire four time smaller.
Still, they managed to get AT LEAST 5 techs. My own empire, much bigger, much more developped, and with a much smaller army to support, still can't manage to find more than 5-6 tech on its own during the same time...
And I have Adam Smith company, which means even less maintenance.

Well, I don't want to hear about tech devaluation : there is 15 civ, so when I find a new tech, the next has to spend 92 % of the price of the tech to find it, which is about the same as 100 %. So it's not a valable explanation on how they succeed to get the tech
There was no change in age, so their scientific bonus does not apply neither.
Trade ? Well, to trade these tech, they have to find another civ that discovered them too. Which would lead to the same conclusion :

HOW DARN THIS AI IS ABLE TO KEEP PACE IN TECH WITH EMPIRE BIGGER AND WHO SPEND LESS THAN THEM IN ARMY ???


Edit : now the images work, got trouble with my ftp

 

[damunzy]

Edit: I don't know if you are currently messing with the pictures but now the first 2 work and the third doesn't. Even though the first 2 pictures are not working I can see how you would be aggravated. I am playing a Monarchy game and I have given up with trying to keep up with the computer even though my empire was the same size as theirs. They alwasy seemed to be 5+ techs ahead of me even when I was at 100% science. I am now set to 100% money making and I buy the techs I need and then upgrade my units and pick fights. With all my extra money I get MPPs and get countries to help me fight wars. It looks like I will win this game but I still have the Persians who are higher in tech (we both have modern armor and mech infantry) have a little more land area and a few more troops but aren't as good tactically in war.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

been there, seen that!

There is a bonus, unless they were in Demo/Rep and you in Monarchy.

Thanx for detailing this, I`ve alwas been too lazy!

 

[Rowain deWolf]

Comments:
a) as far as i see they have 196 Units compared to your 129 which is not that much a difference, but enough to make you wealthy and him very poor

b) Yes your Empire is much bigger so you suffer a lot more on corruption and waste than Greece.

c) As far as i have seen until Palehorse messed with your pics the tradingscreen was from 1650 AD and not 1808

d) If you are playing Regent-lvl neither you nor the AI will have any bonus. On the higher levels (Monarch,Emperor, Deity) they have huge research and building Boni. ( playing my first Deity now its 250 BC and the AI's have already Sun-Tzu, Leo and Sistine)

Good Luck on your Game

Rowain

 

[Akka]

Happy to see I'm not alone

Now, what is the true answer ?
Player bias, or AI bonuses ??

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

bias?

I want the see-map thing back, then we can check!

I never saw stuff like that with 1.16, then it could always be explained!

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Rowain deWolf
Comments:
a) as far as i see they have 196 Units compared to your 129 which is not that much a difference, but enough to make you wealthy and him very poor

b) Yes your Empire is much bigger so you suffer a lot more on corruption and waste than Greece.

My mod has a big lessened corruption, and I forgot to say I'm using the Forbidden Palace. All in all, I'm losing 15-25 % in corruption for the whole empire, no more.

c) As far as i have seen until Palehorse messed with your pics the tradingscreen was from 1650 AD and not 1808

I got completely mixed with pictures, took me a while to get it fixed
I removed the dates stuff from the main post, as I was mixing myself in them. I concentrated on number of techs developped during the same amount of time rather.

d) If you are playing Regent-lvl neither you nor the AI will have any bonus. On the higher levels (Monarch,Emperor, Deity) they have huge research and building Boni. ( playing my first Deity now its 250 BC and the AI's have already Sun-Tzu, Leo and Sistine)

Good Luck on your Game

Rowain [/B]

Yes, I was playing in Regent. I named it Prince, I'm too used to Civ1

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by Rowain deWolf
c) As far as i have seen until Palehorse messed with your pics the tradingscreen was from 1650 AD and not 1808
Rowain

Hey! PaleHorse76 did not touch a thing....I just commented on the fact that they were not showing up at first.

 

[Akka]

Ok, here I have took some more screenshots and put it in order to not mix dates again

So, this picture comes from 1650, that's sure :

This is my tech situation in 1650 :

This one is from 1844 :

At this time my tech situation is simple : all the industrial tech, plus one in modern time (computer).

So, if we consider the pictures, we can see that since 1650, I found 13 new techs.
Greeks, them, were five techs behind me in 1650 (electricity, electronics, labor union and scientific method).
In 1844, they are STILL five techs behind me : espionnage, mass production, flight, advanced flight, and computer (the tech i got in modern era).

So, what it means is that, during the 94 years, they had the EXACT SAME tech pace than me, though they had bigger army to support, smaller empire,

Strange, hu ?
Some could say "it's because they headed for max technology !
Ok, let's see then their capital in 1650 :

And in 1844 :

Noticing something ? Yes, they aren't even at the same percentage than I am at the same period...

So... I have MUCH BIGGER empire. Hugely more commerce. I have a higher percentage in science than them. My army growed not that much (129 to 163 units), while they had to fight a war against the Zulus in the same time.
And beside all, they still keep the exact same progression than me.

Well, is it still possible that it's the player bias ?

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I don't see any evidence of the computer cheating here. Three comments:

1) Obviously you are playing a mod. Therefore it has unpredictable effects on the AI behavior. For example, with 15 other civs, if they were studying random paths in that rather strange tech tree, then they quite easily could trade among themselves to catch up, especially since you invested some of your development time in researching dead end tech lines such as this labor union thing.

2) What years were the military screen shot? This thread is very confusing on years. You may want to just summarize it.

3) Greece is very poor compared to you, clearly they have either bought techs, or are spending the money maintaining a large army.

Bill

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
I don't see any evidence of the computer cheating here. Three comments:

1) Obviously you are playing a mod. Therefore it has unpredictable effects on the AI behavior. For example, with 15 other civs, if they were studying random paths in that rather strange tech tree, then they quite easily could trade among themselves to catch up, especially since you invested some of your development time in researching dead end tech lines such as this labor union thing.

That does not change anything. Even if every civ was researching a different tech, and even if they traded all the tech between us as soon as they found them, there is still a) the limit of different tech you can research (at the start of med era, ie, you only can research three different tech), and more importantly, b) the raw research power of the empire. Six civ that produce a total of 500 beakers would not be sufficient to beat an empire which produce 1000 beakers, even if each of them was looking for different techs.

2) What years were the military screen shot? This thread is very confusing on years. You may want to just summarize it.

Yes, I got confused somehow in the dates during the first message, and that's why I made the second The military screenshot are from 1808 I think.

3) Greece is very poor compared to you, clearly they have either bought techs, or are spending the money maintaining a large army.

Bill

They can buy tech only if there is another civ that can sell them. If another civ can sell them, it means that there is another civ that keep the pace in research with my civ, so it's the same problem.
And how can they keep the exact same difference in tech progress compared to me if they use a smaller part (40 % of their money goes to science vs 60% for me) of an already much, much smaller commerce total ?

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Akka


That does not change anything. Even if every civ was researching a different tech, and even if they traded all the tech between us as soon as they found them, there is still a) the limit of different tech you can research (at the start of med era, ie, you only can research three different tech), and more importantly, b) the raw research power of the empire. Six civ that produce a total of 500 beakers would not be sufficient to beat an empire which produce 1000 beakers, even if each of them was looking for different techs.

I disagree, six civ's researching at half of your pace would still beat you overall at a 3:2 pace, assuming they all developed different techs.

You are talking about 15 civ's still in your game if I recall correctly, I would be surprised if a combination of them were NOT researching throughout the tree.

Bill

 

[royfurr]

Akka,
I don't know if this can explain it but at least a little. Don't look at the difference in the number of techs researched (5 difference between the two of you). Look at the exact techs you researched in the time frame, and convert that to a number of beakers (ie the tech cost). Then do that with the techs Greece researched, (convert the techs THEY researched to their "cost"). Then look at the difference between those two values.

Remember that you are further into the tech tree and that means you are researching more expensive techs then they are. 5 of theirs don't represent the research effort of 5 of yours, and perhaps the reason your still only 5 techs ahead is that you are not 6 times their size rather then 4 times. ALso remember that basically its the size of the economy that supports both the military and science, look at how many banks and universitys they have vs. you, rather then land area of empire or size or army. And perhaps population count.

Don't know if those things will explain it but they could at least perhaps start too

Good luck. Civ on!

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by royfurr
Akka,
I don't know if this can explain it but at least a little. Don't look at the difference in the number of techs researched (5 difference between the two of you). Look at the exact techs you researched in the time frame, and convert that to a number of beakers (ie the tech cost). Then do that with the techs Greece researched, (convert the techs THEY researched to their "cost").
Then look at the difference between those two values.
Remember that you are further into the tech tree and that means you are researching more expensive techs then they are. 5 of theirs don't represent the research effort of 5 of yours, and perhaps the reason your still only 5 techs ahead is that you are not 6 times their size rather then 4 times.

Very good idea
In fact, between 1650 and 1844, I researched for an amount of 2095 cost (don't know if it's in beaker, in tens of beakers or anything, I just took the cost from my bic).
During the same time, Greece researched for an amount of 1315 cost unit. That's not really proportionnal to the difference between our both civ, but at least it's the 2/3rd of my progression rather than the same. Still perturbing though.

ALso remember that basically its the size of the economy that supports both the military and science, look at how many banks and universitys they have vs. you, rather then land area of empire or size or army. And perhaps population count.

Don't know if those things will explain it but they could at least perhaps start too

Good luck. Civ on!

I'll perhaps have a look, but right now I does not have the courage to make a spying in each of their cities, then to manually count the number of universities/libraries each of us have

Ah, give me back the information panels of Civ2 :'(

 

[player1 fanatic]

Did you MOD cost of spy missions?

To be, let's say, 10% of original value.

That could be an explaination. (a GOOD explaination)