Research Agreement Blocking

[Martin Alvito]

You can win by diplomacy, conquest or space on Deity without blocking. I've done the first two, and the third has been done. I seriously doubt that a win by Culture would be possible, unless the win was really Domination postponed.

To me, it's clearly an exploit, since developer intent can reasonably be inferred from the effects of the mechanic, and you're end-running the intent. A thorough discussion of the topic can be found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=403956.

That said, the AI cheats like crazy at higher difficulties, and so the community generally agrees that almost anything is fair in Civ. Only the most abusive, verifiable exploits are out-of-bounds in the current Hall of Fame rules.

 

[EditorRex]

You can win by diplomacy, conquest or space on Deity without blocking. I've done the first two, and the third has been done. I seriously doubt that a win by Culture would be possible, unless the win was really Domination postponed.

To me, it's clearly an exploit, since developer intent can reasonably be inferred from the effects of the mechanic, and you're end-running the intent. A thorough discussion of the topic can be found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=403956.

That said, the AI cheats like crazy at higher difficulties, and so the community generally agrees that almost anything is fair in Civ. Only the most abusive, verifiable exploits are out-of-bounds in the current Hall of Fame rules.

Martin, I'm wondering whether the Culture win without blocking would be possible by emphasizing tech from wonders and great scientists, possibly downplaying RA altogether. I had a recent game (admittedly on a lower level) where I found myself getting much closer to the objective with the GS free techs, which was a good thing considering my blocking kept failing.

 

[Martin Alvito]

You won't get to Cristo Redentor fast enough on Deity unless you block, and someone will win by Space if you miss it. I think that you could get the Louvre with the first GE and bypass Sistine and still win, but I don't see any way that you'll get to Industrial fast enough without blocking the bottom of the tree.

 

[walkerjks]

You can win by diplomacy, conquest or space on Deity without blocking. I've done the first two, and the third has been done. I seriously doubt that a win by Culture would be possible, unless the win was really Domination postponed.

I would go my favorite Civ4 Deity approach for cultural victories - tiny islands. You restrict the AIs ability to much of anything fast and simply wait out your own painfully slow development.

 

[EditorRex]

You won't get to Cristo Redentor fast enough on Deity unless you block, and someone will win by Space if you miss it. I think that you could get the Louvre with the first GE and bypass Sistine and still win, but I don't see any way that you'll get to Industrial fast enough without blocking the bottom of the tree.

I'm going to try it in my next game. My thought is to apply the basic strategy you've discussed on other threads, but with some key modifcations.
-- Put more money into bribing CS and almost none into RA unless you are in one of the few parts of the tree (early) when blocking is less essential, or if you are so rich that it doesn't matter. Picking up a tech you don't want only hurts if you are pursuing a blocking strategy. Also, blocking uses up a lot of turns of research that might be better spent on what you actually do want.
-- Emphasize GS to an extreme so that you can pick up the more beaker-intensive techs free. Secondary emphasize would be GE.
-- Aggressively go for the free tech Wonders and and CS, especially if you can time completion to pick up expensive techs (while you are researching cheap ones).
-- Minimal emphasis on GA, but landmark any you get.
-- Play as France (although Egypt might also be OK).

I'll report back on my results.

 

[walkerjks]

Babylon might work better, due to the GS production bonus. Reroll until you get wine and/or incense. Go Meritocracy first for a GE and Stonehenge. And then pray nobody else wants to win the game fast.

Though even getting a university in reasonable time to get the GS production going might be a bit tough without RA blocking.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Is it any more an exploit than switching build before completing something so it can be completed at the best time? (eg, GL left at 1 turn so you get your free tech the turn after completing one rather than earlier)

GL makes a bit of sense, because you are risking something, each turn you put it off is a turn someone else could complete it.

And things can be called exploits by those who are clever enough to do them, but don't think that the "exploit" should be encouraged.

 

[DaveMcW]

RA blocking cost is still 25%, they only added a +3 beaker rounding error.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Let's put it this way:

The whole point of randomness in RA is to put into disadvantage tech bee-lining. In short, to risk getting cheap tech.

With use of this blocking tactic, you essentially negate that intent of RA. For this reason, I call this an exploit.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Let's put it this way:

The whole point of randomness in RA is to put into disadvantage tech bee-lining. In short, to risk getting cheap tech.

With use of this blocking tactic, you essentially negate that intent of RA. For this reason, I call this an exploit.

This is NOT an exploit; it is poor game design. The idea that you get a random Technology from a Research Agreement is pure nonsense.

I would argue that whether or not by intent, the game allows some or total control over the Technology provided in a Research Agreement, this is how the game should have been designed in the first place.

In the real world, Research Agreements would never result in the breadth of Technology discovery that is present in Civ V. This is another one of Civ V's features that should never have been released as part of the production game. The tactic described in this thread is simply a fix of the RA feature; it is NOT an exploit of it.

Strategy games must minimize the use of randomness to the lower level details, and even then only to the extent of avoiding total determinism of game mechanics. Randomness should never subvert good strategies based on hugely different outcomes (widely different Technologies resulting from an RA).

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[player1 fanatic]

This is NOT an exploit; it is poor game design. The idea that you get a random Technology from a Research Agreement is pure nonsense.

Nope, it's exploiting poor game design.

"I don't like design, so I'll work around it, by using exploit".

 

[Tabarnak]

This is NOT an exploit; it is poor game design. The idea that you get a random Technology from a Research Agreement is pure nonsense.

Yep. That's why RAs should never exist in this game. Many more and better solutions have been reported by many posters. Devs should remediate this for next expansion.

 

[snarzberry]

I don't want to go back to tech trading, but I don't like research agreements the way they are now. I'd be happy if they were made less powerful, but I don't want to turn them into a total crap shoot as to whether I'm going to get sailing or steel. This is Civ I'm playing, not roulette. Others have suggested a percentage increase to research rate, which I don't think is a bad idea. There should remain some benefit to beaker rate resulting from good relations with other civs.

 

[javaja]

In my opinion it should only ever block one tech, the one that's furthest along; all the others should be fair game. The only point of allowing tech blocking is so you don't get the tech you're already researching. Making it possible to block the other techs at all is kind of pointless.

Completely agree that this would be more in-line with what I think the intention of the program was.


I like RAs as well. Chiefly, they remind me of Civ 1 tech trading, "We see that you have secrets of Iron Working. We know secrets of Masonry. Want to trade?" Except it's not instant, and requires investment.

I don't actually like that DOW eviscerates the RA without refund, I almost think that the progress made thus far should be reflected by adding beakers to a random tech proportional to the % of RA turns that have elapsed @ the DOW, for both civs. This balances it, you don't get as much for your investment, but you get realistically everything that was worked on prior to DOW.

The only possible mod I can see to that is having the state which does the DOW gain slightly more beakers than the state which is DOW upon. The reason for this would be, for example, the DOW state kills the victim state's researchers and with-holds the latest advances in tech during the war declaration, which is also potentially realistic. Maybe have the penalty be a diplomacy hit with other civs for your "barbarian nature" or some such, and make it an option at DOW with an active RA.

Just my thoughts.

 

[javaja]

Yep. That's why RAs should never exist in this game. Many more and better solutions have been reported by many posters. Devs should remediate this for next expansion.

Why? I think the idea that you choose a research path at all is complete nonsense. Researchers of old didn't say, "hey, I think we should study Metallurgy so we can build Cannon."

They said, "Hey, I've noticed some interesting stuff about metal and heat, I think I might be able to do something cool if I explore this further." Which eventually became, Cannon, cast iron stoves, battlements, men o' war, railroads, automobiles, and whatnot down the line.

Which isn't to say I disagree with the game allowing choices of research, it's limited by prerequisites and research requirements in exchange for granting a bit of foresight, which makes sense for a strategy game.

All I'm saying is, realistically, breakthroughs are random. Working with foreign nationals on science, I mean seriously, how do you expect anything NOT random to happen? Think about it. =)

 

[Tabarnak]

Why? I think the idea that you choose a research path at all is complete nonsense. Researchers of old didn't say, "hey, I think we should study Metallurgy so we can build Cannon."

They said, "Hey, I've noticed some interesting stuff about metal and heat, I think I might be able to do something cool if I explore this further." Which eventually became, Cannon, cast iron stoves, battlements, men o' war, railroads, automobiles, and whatnot down the line.

Which isn't to say I disagree with the game allowing choices of research, it's limited by prerequisites and research requirements in exchange for granting a bit of foresight, which makes sense for a strategy game.

All I'm saying is, realistically, breakthroughs are random. Working with foreign nationals on science, I mean seriously, how do you expect anything NOT random to happen? Think about it. =)

Major problem of RAs(and civ4 tech trading) is that devs put absolutely no limits to these powerful tools. They put a system favorising chain reactions.

A single RA(with blocking) is not powerful. This is what you explain in your quote, and it's ok like that. One step at a time. This is how this should be implemented. A civ game is like climbing a stair. Sometimes you climb only one step, sometimes 2. Slowly and carefully.

What is powerful is when you achieve a 5-6 RAs combo and propulse yourself from the ren. era to the modern era in 1 single turn. It's not like climbing a step, it's like taking an elevator lol. But you need AIs money from trading luxuries, which is essentially given if you face peaceful AIs, and it's even worse because this is luck based. How can this be realistic and provides fairplay? For competition purposes, these rules really disturb balance.

Only multiplayer is pretty balanced right now.

 

[NwabudikeMorgan]

I think Sun Tzu Wu really hit the nail on the head. I fi send my scientists over to another country to do collaborative work, and I say, "go develop me a new, more powerful weapon with with i may strike down my foes", and they come back to me with acoustics, that makes no sense. and as Tabarnak said, it's only the multiple RAs on the same turn that is broken, so perhaps a fix might be to have a limit on the frequency at which you can sign RAs, so you're forced to do some research in between.

 

[javaja]

Major problem of RAs(and civ4 tech trading) is that devs put absolutely no limits to these powerful tools. They put a system favorising chain reactions.

A single RA(with blocking) is not powerful. This is what you explain in your quote, and it's ok like that. One step at a time. This is how this should be implemented. A civ game is like climbing a stair. Sometimes you climb only one step, sometimes 2. Slowly and carefully.

What is powerful is when you achieve a 5-6 RAs combo and propulse yourself from the ren. era to the modern era in 1 single turn. It's not like climbing a step, it's like taking an elevator lol. But you need AIs money from trading luxuries, which is essentially given if you face peaceful AIs, and it's even worse because this is luck based. How can this be realistic and provides fairplay? For competition purposes, these rules really disturb balance.

Only multiplayer is pretty balanced right now.

I don't disagree with your point here. All I'm going to say is in response to "How can this be realistic and provide fair play?"

Essentially, nothing I can imagine in the world is both "realistic," and provides "fair play."

If those concepts are not mutually exclusive, I have no idea what is.

 

[qemist]

I think Sun Tzu Wu really hit the nail on the head. I fi send my scientists over to another country to do collaborative work, and I say, "go develop me a new, more powerful weapon with with i may strike down my foes", and they come back to me with acoustics, that makes no sense.

You obviously don't have much experience with defense funded research. RAs are totally different now, and, in my opinion, better.