-proletarian-
Chairman and CEO
I haven't downloaded it yet, I'm waiting on you brave souls to try it out first. 
So, has it?
So, has it?
So, has the rabid tech advancement from v1.17 been fixed in the new patch?
- Thread starter -proletarian-
- Start date
-proletarian-
Chairman and CEO
-twiddles thumbs as he relaxes to the soothing sounds of Nine Inch Nails-
-proletarian-
Chairman and CEO
uh oh.....
Exsanguination
No longer here
the babs just OFFERED me Bronze Working for Pottery. I'd say so.
Anyone else have any input on proletarian's question? This is of major significance to many people, I'd think, I know it is to proletarian, and to me.
Thanks for anyones who'll post! 1.17 was for me (and a lotta others) a real dissaponment- it made things worse in some ways ... boy I hope this one is better ... please ...
Thanks for anyones who'll post! 1.17 was for me (and a lotta others) a real dissaponment- it made things worse in some ways ... boy I hope this one is better ... please ...
Northstar5757
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2001
- Messages
- 112
It's been fixed somewhat.....
Lesser civs will lag behind in technology more than before. The top civs still will trade amongst themselves very often and you'll be hard pressed to find a time when the computer offers you a tech they havn't already traded to everyone else. They also demand much more from you for a tech but that might have to do with the fact that I usually have more to offer.
Civs seem to value techs much more when they are the only one's that have it. If two civs have one tech almost everyone will have it within 5 turns.
In short I still go 100% for at least the first era of the game. Unless the comp leaves an optional tech like literacy open I don't do much research until I've built Copernicus' Observatory on Regent Level, with higher levels I do even less research.
I can understand why a comp civs trades so much. What i don't like is that it still appears to give priority to other civs over your own.
Lesser civs will lag behind in technology more than before. The top civs still will trade amongst themselves very often and you'll be hard pressed to find a time when the computer offers you a tech they havn't already traded to everyone else. They also demand much more from you for a tech but that might have to do with the fact that I usually have more to offer.
Civs seem to value techs much more when they are the only one's that have it. If two civs have one tech almost everyone will have it within 5 turns.
In short I still go 100% for at least the first era of the game. Unless the comp leaves an optional tech like literacy open I don't do much research until I've built Copernicus' Observatory on Regent Level, with higher levels I do even less research.
I can understand why a comp civs trades so much. What i don't like is that it still appears to give priority to other civs over your own.
-proletarian-
Chairman and CEO
Thanks for the input so far guys. Any more would be welcome.
I think I might just mosey on over and download 1.21, seeing as no major bugs have been reported yet.
I think I might just mosey on over and download 1.21, seeing as no major bugs have been reported yet.
GeneralTacticus
Warlord
In my game it seems to be fixed... I tweaked the .bic file so that the AIs won't pay any more than something is worth to one another, and it seems to have made a huge difference. Poor civs are no longer caught up instantaneously by rich ones.
dikwhit
Warlord
tanks in 1340 , nope tech rate hasnt slowed down a bit.
No.Dice
Warlord
Tech rate seems just as fast, maybe even faster. Middle Ages 850 BC on Emperor, without all 16 civs having contact with each other. Without the techs devaluing so much, its become very hard to acquire techs, and/or stay current. Early, and frequent wars are a better option than they ever were, unless you plan on skipping the first age, concentrating solely on infrastructure and caving to AI threats. You (or at least i) can't have a strong military and still be churning out science. The best option becomes beating your neighbors into the dust and taking their techs, for the first third or so of the game anyway.
Another annoying thing, the AI still doesn't put priority to researching chivalry or military tradition. In all of my recent games i had to research them myself, and then trade/give them away to keep things balanced.
Another annoying thing, the AI still doesn't put priority to researching chivalry or military tradition. In all of my recent games i had to research them myself, and then trade/give them away to keep things balanced.
Not to sure. I got 10+ techs the turn after I built TGL. That seems pretty extreme. I was in the tech race at first and the A.I. traded one for one with me but some how they seemed to pull a head by a good margin and I had no money in which to trade for their techs.
I am playing on Monarchy.
I am playing on Monarchy.
I don't see no difference. Just got done kicking some butt with the new patch (on the monarchy level whatever). They traded like crazy still.
I don't like that free trade stuff sometimes .. like it other times (especially when I can sue for peace and get all the techs!).
I'll work with it.
I don't like that free trade stuff sometimes .. like it other times (especially when I can sue for peace and get all the techs!).
I'll work with it.
My observation, and its tainted by the fact that I lowered the AI trade value thing to 100% for Chieftan through Regent, and adjusted the tech rate for map sizes down alot)
On my two warlord games so far, it felt about right. I could get a tech lead, but I had to work at it. In one game, several ai's got behind and stayed that way like one would expect.
First game on Regent, it seems more like 1.17. The ai's trade techs almost as soon as they become available (though I wasn't left out, probally because of the 100% trade rate adjustment). However, the Americans did get left out of the loop, and fell about 5 or 6 techs behind for most of the game (they was the smallest empire and had no tradable resources)
All in all, I think its a nice balance no between realism and fun. They still trade a bit too easily at times (especially older techs), but its now at least possible to get a tech lead if you make it your primary goal (albeit a short lived one, they do catch up if given a chance) And its equally possible for an AI civ to fall behind. Unlike 1.21, if you find an isolated civ still working his way out of the stone ages when your industrial, that civ won't be in a tech lead 2 turns later. Unlike 1.16 and before, that civ won't stay stone aged for long though (in my regent game, the isolated zulu went from where the great library had left him to the end of the middle ages (military tradition) before he had nothing to trade to catch up totally (the other two leading civs: me & england) had refining & electricity) Presumably by the end of the game though Shaka will probally catch up since he has more cities than any other civ by far (most of which with german names, bad shaka bad shaka, well maybe good shaka if you go after england next)
Most importantly though, unlike 1.21 the AI civs dont all always know the exact same list of techs as each other I, at least, no longer really feel like its me against them in the research department.
On my two warlord games so far, it felt about right. I could get a tech lead, but I had to work at it. In one game, several ai's got behind and stayed that way like one would expect.
First game on Regent, it seems more like 1.17. The ai's trade techs almost as soon as they become available (though I wasn't left out, probally because of the 100% trade rate adjustment). However, the Americans did get left out of the loop, and fell about 5 or 6 techs behind for most of the game (they was the smallest empire and had no tradable resources)
All in all, I think its a nice balance no between realism and fun. They still trade a bit too easily at times (especially older techs), but its now at least possible to get a tech lead if you make it your primary goal (albeit a short lived one, they do catch up if given a chance) And its equally possible for an AI civ to fall behind. Unlike 1.21, if you find an isolated civ still working his way out of the stone ages when your industrial, that civ won't be in a tech lead 2 turns later. Unlike 1.16 and before, that civ won't stay stone aged for long though (in my regent game, the isolated zulu went from where the great library had left him to the end of the middle ages (military tradition) before he had nothing to trade to catch up totally (the other two leading civs: me & england) had refining & electricity) Presumably by the end of the game though Shaka will probally catch up since he has more cities than any other civ by far (most of which with german names, bad shaka bad shaka, well maybe good shaka if you go after england next
)Most importantly though, unlike 1.21 the AI civs dont all always know the exact same list of techs as each other
I, at least, no longer really feel like its me against them in the research department.
Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
It has been fixed a bit, but not sufficiently.
Now, what is suffucient? That`s 100% fair on Regent. And with the 130% value it isn`t, the AIs would get 4 or 5 techs ahead if I opted for an expensive tech. And ancient techs must have a meaning besides leading to more modern ones. i want to see wars in the ancient era, but with the landgrabbing going on.....
Now I`ll try a mod where I changed that to 100% and made ancient techs more expensive.
Now, what is suffucient? That`s 100% fair on Regent. And with the 130% value it isn`t, the AIs would get 4 or 5 techs ahead if I opted for an expensive tech. And ancient techs must have a meaning besides leading to more modern ones. i want to see wars in the ancient era, but with the landgrabbing going on.....
Now I`ll try a mod where I changed that to 100% and made ancient techs more expensive.
GeneralTacticus
Warlord
Actually, cutting back AI trading even w/o changing tech values seems to have had the effect of making Republic and Monarchy way too expensive to buy, as they won't have already whored it around and devalued it. I don't think you need to increase tech costs as well.
Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
I only did that to make the era go slower - the first temple was built by me, then not one followed until 100 AD. I didn`t make Monarchy and Republic more expensive though, only the other techs, and them by +/- 33%
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
Originally posted by -proletarian-
I haven't downloaded it yet, I'm waiting on you brave souls to try it out first.
So, has it?
It just occured to me that your use of "rabid" was not a typo for "rapid".
The AI tech advance indeed was RABID, foaming at the mouth rabid!
Haven't played enough 1.21 yet to be certain, though.
DrJambo
Crash-test dummy
This is my experience of 1.21f in my first game, large map, 12 civs on Monarch level:
Everything was advancing nicely, with the ancient era progressing as slowly as expected. I had contact with 4 civs on my side at this time.
Then i found the others on the other side with a bold trieme and sold my communications with them to the others. Bad move. During the middle ages i swifty fell behind in the tech race due to swift AI to AI tech trading. And i mean behind everyone, even the less well developed civs. I was progressing on an average timescale building knights and pikemen by 900 AD, but when i checked China, the most developed of them all, i discovered they were building cavalry by 900 AD!!
So, in conclusion, the AI to AI tech trade rate is still too high. No civ should be building cavalry until much later than 900 AD, more likely it should be around 1700 AD.
As i said, the game progressed nicely for me, however, the AI still needs to be slowed down a little. I suggest setting regent to 100% and Monarch to 110-115% instead of their current settings of 130 and 140% would be much more advantageous to the game and bring AI trading more in-line with the human.
At least we can now modify it ourselves.
PS, it may well be different on standard map size with smaller number of civs?! A bit of trial and error testing should end up with settings that make for a very enjoyable game.
Everything was advancing nicely, with the ancient era progressing as slowly as expected. I had contact with 4 civs on my side at this time.
Then i found the others on the other side with a bold trieme and sold my communications with them to the others. Bad move. During the middle ages i swifty fell behind in the tech race due to swift AI to AI tech trading. And i mean behind everyone, even the less well developed civs. I was progressing on an average timescale building knights and pikemen by 900 AD, but when i checked China, the most developed of them all, i discovered they were building cavalry by 900 AD!!
So, in conclusion, the AI to AI tech trade rate is still too high. No civ should be building cavalry until much later than 900 AD, more likely it should be around 1700 AD.
As i said, the game progressed nicely for me, however, the AI still needs to be slowed down a little. I suggest setting regent to 100% and Monarch to 110-115% instead of their current settings of 130 and 140% would be much more advantageous to the game and bring AI trading more in-line with the human.
At least we can now modify it ourselves.
PS, it may well be different on standard map size with smaller number of civs?! A bit of trial and error testing should end up with settings that make for a very enjoyable game.
dikwhit
Warlord
modern armor 1540 monarch/huge/12civs rabid about covers it,,, but im still up 3 techs.
