Don´t like 1.17f - gone back to the first patch!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Killer

More then a third of my treasury lost in plungerings of the smallest of 17 towns!!! STINKS! I do not keep my treasury in an outpost!!!!! There should be an upper limit of how often barbs can plunder the same town within one turn!

I have noticed that too. Perhaps they mugged your tax collector, while he was traveling through Sherwood Forest.

As an added observation, I have noticed that they do not rip you off quite so bad in later ages, at least in terms of a percentage of your treasury.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Zachriel


I have noticed that too. Perhaps they mugged your tax collector, while he was traveling through Sherwood Forest.

As an added observation, I have noticed that they do not rip you off quite so bad in later ages, at least in terms of a percentage of your treasury.

a quote comes to my mind - no doubt brought up by your mentioning Sherwood Forest: "With a spoon? Why would you cut out their hearts with a spoon?" - "Because it hurts more, you moron!"

It seems that Firaxis often didn`t take that little fact into account: "a very small change of the launch angle at the firing time leads to a large miss distance at impact time.." (from a manual on firing Stinger shoulder held anti-aircraft missiles). Same with Civ: despite al the ingame "stearing" - you simply can only influence so much and once your "out of the envelope" - you stay out!

 

[Grey Fox]

Why change back to 1.16?

Well Yes the other civs are better, or more agressive at tech trading, but hey they won't trade when it's your turn anymore. And this will make the game a little harder, which it should be, altough it's just a game, not a simulation.


I can play at Emperor and I have been in a tech lead for a very long time now, *cough* Great Library *cough*... did anyone say something? Nay, I didn't think so...

And not adapting to the new patch will make you a less good Civ player, how can you compete against us who have played more with the patch then you when it comes to GOTM (You have to install 1.17f to play that one) or even Multiplayer?

Well I hope you all upgrade, for your own good...

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
Why change back to 1.16?

Well I hope you all upgrade, for your own good...

I don`t mind if the game is harder, but have you ever tried Deity on 1.16 without exploits? It`s pretty damn hard, especially since it is tougher to get out of a tech lag.....

Also, I don`t think I`ll mind using 1.17 for MP . when I MP I usually do it without AI players anyway....

Aside from that i guess most people simpl hope that 1.18 will actually redude the tech change back to somewhere near 1.16.....

 

[Maleficence]

The thing that annoys me about 1.17 is that the AI's will always trade techs between themselves (at least they've never offered me a single tech in all my games).

What annoys me about this is, as someone else mentioned, that all the AI's end up being the same. No longer will a civilization lag behind and be stuck in his own little world/age.

I personally have no problem with aiding the AI get techs faster so the tech race is more of a challenge. What annoys me to no end is the endless trading and homogenization 1.17 has created.
AI players should encourage weak enemies, and somewhat strong allies. Particularly the more aggresive civs. I can see India or the French wanting to spread their research across the globe to aid everyone due to their lower aggresiveness rating. But the germans or the russians?

It just feels like I'm playing versus one AI opponent with multiple personalities, instead of multiple AI opponents with unique personalities.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

I agree with you Maleficence.

Some of the joy of playing this game is gone now. It does feel like me vs. the world.

 

[Exile_Ian]

I don`t mind if the game is harder, but have you ever tried Deity on 1.16 without exploits? It`s pretty damn hard, especially since it is tougher to get out of a tech lag.....

Well isn't that the whole point of Deity level? If people could regularly win at the highest level, there would cease to be much challenge wouldn't there?

I'm still playing with 1.17 and I don't seem to be having too much problem with the tech trading in my latest game. I'm playing as Romans at Regent level and am currently running in second place (on large map with 12 civs). I am a couple of techs behind some of the Civs, but am easily keeping pace on the techs I actually want. (I find if I focus on the techs I want, and manage to get one or two earlier than the other Civs, its easy to pickup the missing techs in trades). I notice that not all Civs have all techs (am I'm frequently able to 'buy' a tech and trade it on) so its not as simple as saying that the AI Civs always trade civs between themselves.

I'm certainly not an expert player, and I avoid the obvious exploits (that would be like cheating at Solitaire for me) but I tend to think that if I can get a challenging game going at Regent level (I generally do worse at Monarch and higher), then the balance of the game is about right. Anyone who thinks they should be about to win easily at the higher levels just doesn't appreciate what the game is about.

Edited: I've also noticed that I can often pick up older techs for a throwaway price - the other civs have frequently offered me an advance in exchange for just my World Map (and will often accept less). I've equally been able to sell some of my techs for significant amounts of money.

 

[Grey Knight]

A tech which requires 3600 beakers, and sells a 1st Civ prices for 360? Nonsense!

If the 1st civ price was half the research cost, then things would settle back down (since the AI usually wouldn't be able to pay!) Of course, that would require the AI be able to run a good economy...

Cutting the price by 50% for each civ that knows it would probably be fair.

EDIT: Never mind, I have though this through a little more. See below.

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Exile_Ian
I'm certainly not an expert player, and I avoid the obvious exploits (that would be like cheating at Solitaire for me) but I tend to think that if I can get a challenging game going at Regent level (I generally do worse at Monarch and higher), then the balance of the game is about right.

Right on! The higher levels always feel more like playing the mechanics of the computer game, rather than a ruling a nation.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

To clarify whta i said earlier on: I meant that 1.16 and deity is pretty hard enough playing if you refrain from using exploits! So no need to jack it up further with 1.17 - especially not by invalidating several playing styles at one time!

 

[Grey Knight]

Well, I changed the map-size tech modifiers by +50%, and we were still ahead by about 100 years on regent, even with me tech whoring to try and stunt the AI's research.

It is simply too cheap to buy tech! A "tech cost factor" for setting how much tech to cost relative to the # of beakers, along with a "tech devaluation factor" (or even better probably, a tech devaluation floor, and have it scale between the two based on the number of civs in the game). Solve the problem with the AI not being able to run a decent economy by having a "trade bonus factor" under difficulty levels similar to cost factor! The AI's lack of a good economy hurts it outside of science also -- this would probably make for a more reasonable setting than the "free units" setting.

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Killer


probably

be seriously, I`ve never had good luck with 1.17, while I do remember incidents with 1.16 where I went: Whoa, I didn`t really expect to win that!



Another annoying thing in that game: lone town on new island, size 2, walls, 1 fortified veteran Swordsman, town is on hill.
Barb uprising, lotsa Horsemen show up. First kills Swordsman w/o loosing even one HP. Plunderes town, taking 4 of my precious 65 gold. next one plunderes, destroying walls. next one takes 4 gold. next 3 take 3 gold each, then 3 times 2, 3 times 1. Total loss: 1 Swordman, walls, 26 gold. More then a third of my treasury lost in plungerings of the smallest of 17 towns!!! STINKS! I do not keep my treasury in an outpost!!!!! There should be an upper limit of how often barbs can plunder the same town within one turn!

That sounds demented. One group of barbarians in 1.17 LEAVES a whole load of gold for the NEXT group of barbarians?!?!? Jesus, what a polite and considerate bunch they are. That is also why I turn off barbarians.

Capitals are of MUCH less importance in Civ III than in Civ II. There are no longer civil wars and in Civ III they instantly reappear in a nearby city automatically. I once had the enemy capital change five turns in a row as each turn I conquered that capital.

Capitals should, to make them somewhat as valuable as they should be, contain at least half of a civ's gold.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Zouave


That sounds demented. One group of barbarians in 1.17 LEAVES a whole load of gold for the NEXT group of barbarians?!?!? Jesus, what a polite and considerate bunch they are. That is also why I turn off barbarians.

Capitals are of MUCH less importance in Civ III than in Civ II. There are no longer civil wars and in Civ III they instantly reappear in a nearby city automatically. I once had the enemy capital change five turns in a row as each turn I conquered that capital.

Capitals should, to make them somewhat as valuable as they should be, contain at least half of a civ's gold.

I totally agree! Also, culture should take a hit, too, when the capital is taken, to simulate the emotional impact!

 

[Grey Knight]

I'm thinking that I'd rather wait a week to release 1.18 and have them test it versus rushing it out like they did with 1.17....

 

[Grey Knight]

(This is a repost from 'poly)
The big problem with tech devaluation as it stands in 1.17 is it takes the time value of money principal and tosses it out on it's head.

For example, take two civs that each have $100 gpt to invest:

Civ #1 invests the $100 gpt on research to get a new advance. It takes 20 turns, so he spends $2,000. A the end of the he gets a tech advance. Lets say it's Chivalry (Knights, in other words!)

Civ #2 invests the $100 gpt into additional unit support and rush builds. Assuming he only gets an ROI of $1 (1%) per turn, at the end of 20 turns he has a minimum payback of $210. If you consider that the Stock Market has a return of 5%, a more reasonable number may be in the range of $1,000!

So now Civ #1 can build knights. On a per-shield cost basis, the knight is roughly 85% better:

              Horse Knight % Change
Base Attack     2     4      100%
Base Defense    1     3      200%
Shield Cost    40    70       75%

Win % vs Pike  17%   49%
Def % vs Hrse  21%   75%

Per 70 shields:
Win % vs Pike  30%   49%      65%
Def % vs Hrse  36%   75%     107%

Civ #2 already has an advantage - he's ahead by $210, and getting $20 gpt in payback on his earlier ROI. The real cost of buying the tech from civ #1 should be $2210. If Civ #1 doesn't sell, he can make up the difference, and the longer civ #2 goes without chivalry, the bigger that advantage gets.

So here's how I think tech should be valuated:

• When first discovered, the cost of the tech should be 110% of the research cost (reflecting the time value of money)
• For each civ that knows a tech, the cost should go down by 1% per turn. So after knowing the tech for one turn, the cost is 109%. If after 10 turns (back to 100%), it is sold, the next turn it would be 98% (since two civs know it). The floor would still be 1/(civs you have contact with that know it).
• If you have partially researched a tech the cost should scale proportionatly

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Grey Knight
(This is a repost from 'poly)
The big problem with tech devaluation... snip

...
Cheers,
Shawn

thanx! Right on!

I find that with 1.16, the selling civ often has a good reason for the price it asks, and there is sense in investing in reasearch. Not so with 1.17.

Now I understand a little better, why!

 

[ArtofWar]

What frustrates me is that I can only wage war successfully in the modern age. I have to develop a large enough economy to start poring money in technology then I switch to building a military. I feel like I'm missing of all of the fun of using pre-industrial age military units. The key for Firaxis is to give us game options to change the the tech. development rate.

 

[Grey Knight]

Firaxis did give you the ability to change the tech rate, just not in the game, in Civ3Edit. You have three options

1) (Recommended by Dr. Shawn) In the map size section, there is a tech rate modifier. Multiply it by 1.5 to 1.75 for each map, which will effectively make every tech 50% more expensive

2) Change the min/max turns to discover to 30/8

3) Change the base value of each tech by itself (blegh!)

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[karambunai]

Guess what? When I was informed that the only significant change in 1.17f is the stack movement, I didn't even bother to download the patch, and I do not intend to. I am running 1.16f now, but I still prefer the original (1.0 or something) if not for the bug in the "air superiority" command. BTW Dark sheer, when are you coming back to Penang?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by ArtofWar
What frustrates me is that I can only wage war successfully in the modern age. I have to develop a large enough economy to start poring money in technology then I switch to building a military. I feel like I'm missing of all of the fun of using pre-industrial age military units. The key for Firaxis is to give us game options to change the the tech. development rate.

I love war in the early ages; and it is certainly possible. Currently, in the year 500bc, I am using my Roman Legions to attack Egypt. I usually try to have at least one good war per age.