Soren - new tech trading system has ruined the game!

[Moulton]

Playing as England, in England on Kitten-of-chaos mod.
European nations had pretty well evened out by 90AD, all having the same tech, except I am one ahead. When we discover Egypt, Persia, Babalonia, India and china, they are all behind about 5 techs. Maps and communication are traded all around. In 90AD, India lacks polytheism and currency. the rest lack math(so also curncy) mapmaking, poltheism and Code of laws. India has 21 gold, Persia 5, the rest 0. Suddenly, in 130AD, Egypt gets mapmaking, Bab and Persia get mapmaking and code, and china gets Poly.210ad India gets polytheism, the rest get math and Poly, and Persia gets code of laws in addition. Persia still has 20 g, India has gradually gone up to 62, the rest are at 0.

I can see trading back and forth during their turn, IE, like I do, get a tech, and trade it same turn. But they stil have no gold, maps have long been traded, and the available luxuries in each cive remain the same.
I think maybe I see one thing: maybe one threatens another--"give me Mapmaking...", and they give. I demanded one of Russia, early on, and she gave--"Well, we will give it to you, but you understand it does not help our relationship...."

I am still ahead by one tech, much later. With the GL, now having gone dead with education, looks like I got Invention the same time everyone else did... they all strated the Workshop the same turn I discovered it. My score is seadily dropping-- but I am not building cities on the ice, so my territory stays the same while theirs goes up.

 

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Moulton
I think maybe I see one thing: maybe one threatens another--"give me Mapmaking...", and they give. I demanded one of Russia, early on, and she gave--"Well, we will give it to you, but you understand it does not help our relationship...."

Soren from Firaxis said the AI does not demand tribute from other AI:s, so that´s not what happened. I think they just sold their world map again.

 

[DGuller]

Well, from all these comments, it looks like Firaxis go from one extreme to other back and forth with each patch. Well, to be fair, the first one fixed up the game. I agree with someone, it seems like Soren looks at what strategy works, and if he doesn't like it, he eradicates it radically, game balance be damned.

 

[kcheung]

For the 0 Gold issue, I am sorry to say that you guys got it all wrong. 0 Gold in treasury doesn't mean that AI cannot pay for a tech. It can pay Gold per turn, or it can trade, or it can lower the science rate and pay in lum sum next turn.

Now, I am not saying that I know the AI is not cheating. I just wanna point out that there are other possibilities.

BTW, I am not a skilled player (Civ 3 is actually my first strategy game) and I have only played in Warlord so far, but I can confirm that the 1.17f patch doesn't make conquest the only option in lower level. I just won a diplomacy victory -- there's no war b/w my civ and the AIs' and everyone likes me. I am 1-2 tech more advanced and trade a lot with the AIs, and got some very good deals from them.

I am trying a higher level tonight and hopefully, conquest is still not the only option.

 

[Hurricane]

For the 0 Gold issue, I am sorry to say that you guys got it all wrong. 0 Gold in treasury doesn't mean that AI cannot pay for a tech. It can pay Gold per turn, or it can trade, or it can lower the science rate and pay in lum sum next turn.

Maybe I wasn´t clear enough in my post. All AI civs had 100% science all the time. They had no income whatsoever (and no costs either). Their only income came from the occasional barbarian encampment. I am positively 100% certain that they at no point in th example I described did any gold per turn trades with anybody. You can check out the savegame, too, if you want to.

 

[SirPleb]

Great post Hurricane! Lots of good info.

Your theory re the trading of maps with minimal value is interesting. It could explain cases where it seems trading is too cheap and quick even allowing for the more aggressive trading.

Re minimal value given for contact with other Civs: I think this may be highly variable. I've started suspecting that it could be like the value of maps, that the AI "knows" how valuable a particular contact is before making it (based on what things the contacts might be able to trade? I'm not sure) and assigns a value to the contact. Kind of like knowing how much value to put in someone else's maps.

Your thought about the last AI in the loop getting better deals more of the time sure is interesting. Could be that the new logic actually turns the last AIs, at some points in the game, into tech-scavengers. I don't think the sequence of AI turns is fixed across all games though, seems to me that in any given map if you select random rivals then the sequence of the other AIs is randomly set when the map is generated, then remains fixed throughout that particular game. So I think that which AIs scavenge most could vary from map to map.

 

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by SirPleb
Your thought about the last AI in the loop getting better deals more of the time sure is interesting. Could be that the new logic actually turns the last AIs, at some points in the game, into tech-scavengers. I don't think the sequence of AI turns is fixed across all games though, seems to me that in any given map if you select random rivals then the sequence of the other AIs is randomly set when the map is generated, then remains fixed throughout that particular game. So I think that which AIs scavenge most could vary from map to map.

You might be right about the sequence. I haven´t actually taken note of the sequence in my other games, so this definitely needs more data.

 

[Moulton]

Oh well, another good idea bites the dust.
As for trading maps... we have all experienced the request to trade thier map for mine + one tech. Maybe they do that.
I realize treasury gold does not directly point to income.... however, if you track a civ from turn to turn, for say 12 turns, like I did, and the gold stays at 0 or 20 or 32, or whatever--and nothing else changes, same tech level, same luxuries available for trade.... and science is set at max available money, usually 100%, sometimes less, then I belive they have no available income. Add their response to my offer, " I regret that that is not possible." True, they could reduce science, and make gold available for perturn, but not unless they initiate the contact.
It looks like they decided to eliminate the tech broker strategy. Guess we have to find another loophole.
The other thing, which may or may not be related, I was researching Republic before I could affect the time required to research a tech with the slider. even at 100% it was 40 turns. Now maybe what is really happeniong is that it takes much more than 40, but the limit is set to 40, and the tech has to get near completion before you have enough beakers to matter. But, still I just left it at 10 for the ancient period got GL and let them do the work. Traded for tech--even at high prices--to stay even, until I got the GL. Made that my first goal, not even mapmaking to get off the island. First time it has ever made much diffeenct in my games... but it hastened several techs, and got me several that I did no research on, letting me get far ahead down another line. AS a result, I will have democracy in a few turns, and should be able to widen the gap.

 

[kcheung]

One question: If the science rate is 100%, then their treasury should never have anything but 0 gold. If this is the case, can someone explain why the AI have gold in their treasury?

Please understand that I am not saying the AI is not cheating, but I want to know how you find out that the science rate is ALWAYS 100%.

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by kcheung
One question: If the science rate is 100%, then their treasury should never have anything but 0 gold. If this is the case, can someone explain why the AI have gold in their treasury?

Please understand that I am not saying the AI is not cheating, but I want to know how you find out that the science rate is ALWAYS 100%.

I hope Hurricane meant to say, "The AI puts all its income to science". Which is slightly different from having a science rate of 100%. Or, the AI max's its science expenditure. I would be very upset if someone verifies that the AI does not have to pay maintenance costs like I do.

It is easy to obtain gold while maintaining a break-even budget. Goody Huts for one. Have you noticed the AI always knows where all the barbarian emcampments are? They're worth at least 25 gold each.

Edit: 'hope' replaces 'think'.

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by Moulton
Add their response to my offer, " I regret that that is not possible." True, they could reduce science, and make gold available for perturn, but not unless they initiate the contact.
It looks like they decided to eliminate the tech broker strategy. Guess we have to find another loophole.

I've seen them do this without initiating contact, but it's like pulling teeth.

We can all admit that tech brokering was uhm.. carried away (read exploited) before. But now, it's been crippled beyond reason. I'm finding out that the game is not exactly harder to beat, but much less rewarding to play.

I don't mind spotting a rank beginner a pawn or even a knight. Or an AI production or research bonuses. But:
(a) don't randomly throw a queen into the game, and
(b) don't tell me my opponent doesn't have to play by the rules.

 

[NY Hoya]

I think it's pretty obvious to most people that there is a problem with AI tech trading post patch. The game is less fun, period.

What do people think Firaxis can do to solve the problem though? I don't want a return to 1.16 because the AI trading during my turn was just too frustrating. 1.07 was too easy to exploit with the tech broker strategy. I think what soren should implement in the AI trading rules are the same rules we as players apply when thinking about trading a tech to other civs.

For example, I will never trade an important military tech to another AI civ, i.e., Military Tradition. Make it so the AI is also reluctant to trade these techs, and, in the event they do trade them, they should require full value for the tech.

Also, I usually won't trade a tech to the AI if it allows an important wonder like Sun Tzu's, Hoover Dam, etc. Again, require full value for these techs as well.

I like the idea of selling a tech to one civ with the understanding that the civ cannot re-sell the tech to others for a certain time period. Oftentimes, in war, I would be willing to sell/give an ally a military tech to help them against a common foe, but I won't do it because all other civs automatically end up with it, including the civ we are fighting.

I don't think these changes would be too hard to implement, but who knows...

Any other suggestions?

 

[SirPleb]

Well, my vote would be to put the AI right back to as it was in 1.16. I liked that AI, it made for a fun game.

Many great ideas for improving research and trading have been proposed. E.g. prerequisites for particular techs, limited value reduction of some techs, changed research costs, time delays on some trades, etc. But I think that all such ideas have two problems:
1) Different people will favor different ones, making it hard to get a consensus. Literally, there are too many good ideas.
2) Most such ideas involve new trade-offs and make it very hard to anticipate on a theoretical level whether the new rules would be balanced. I.e. major play testing is required before all the ramifications were understood and smoothed out. Without it, any of these great ideas might lead back to the same kind of problem (less fun) in their first attempt.

So to my mind I'd rather go back to something which was play tested and was known to work and be fun. I.e. 1.16.

About the 1.16 "AI trading during our turn" problem: To my mind that was a bug and should just be fixed. I'm not sure that removing it changes the game balance and needs to be offset by some other change. But perhaps I'm missing something - was that a change from 1.07 to 1.16 which all by itself reduced the power of tech brokering? I didn't play enough 1.07 to know. With 1.16 I didn't find tech brokering overpowering, in my quests for high scores it has seemed to carry enough penalty, by accelerating tech speed, that I want to avoid doing it much.

On the general subject "what do people think Firaxis can do" I have an opinion. I rather doubt this will happen, it requires a ruthless willingness to cut losses. Anyway, IMO they should consider being as drastic as:
1) Go back to 1.16
2) Reapply the bug fixes
3) Reapply the "j" command but review all the code and fix the glitches
4) Ditto for other small improvements
5) Start over on the culture flipping fix and get it to feel right this time.
6) Start over on the pop rushing fix. Make unhappiness accumulate but don't increase the turn count. Make it impossible to add workers to very unhappy cities.
7) Remove the AI trading during our turn
8) Poll the community on the bombardment change. Reapply it only if a majority think the new way is more fun.

Release it. THEN start considering any more drastic changes which might be in the pipe and which could alter the game's feel and balance, releasing any such changes only after thorough play testing.

 

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by kcheung
One question: If the science rate is 100%, then their treasury should never have anything but 0 gold. If this is the case, can someone explain why the AI have gold in their treasury?

Please understand that I am not saying the AI is not cheating, but I want to know how you find out that the science rate is ALWAYS 100%.

Notice that I only talked about the early game, when the AI was under Despotism. They had their science at 100%, i.e. no income at all. And after me having sold techs, ROPs and similar stuff to the AI, they had 0 gold in their treasury, just as you expected. Their only income came from the occasional barb camp. With no improvements in the cities, they didn´t have to pay any upkeep. No cheating is needed here and did not either occur.

However, as soon as the AI changed government to Republic (in this game they discovered that before Monarchy) they had to start pay maintenance for units and promptly switched to about 60% science and 40% tax, which gave they some gpt income. I didn´t say that they keep their science at 100% throughout the entire game - only in the beginning.

But as long as we talk about the Despotism time, the AI will not have more money than what he has found from barb camps and what he has traded.

 

[Quentin]

The thing about the AI putting 100% science is quite obvious. During the beginning of the game, everytime you contact another civ you notice they eiher have 10 gold or 0 gold. They never seem to have more until later in the game. The AI really cheats in trading. Once I attacked Babylon and left only one of their city unconquered before I made peace with them. They most probably could not have got a very nice map or much gold to trade but they always seem to be at around the same tech level as the other civs. It is nice if some of the civs have a friendly relationship and trade among each other but this is ridiculous! It really isn't fun to have you versus the game in this way. I would rather play an RPG for such stuff. GET RID OF THIS FREAKING RIDICULOUS TECH TRADING SYSTEM!

 

[Zachriel]

Don't let Civs trade techs unless they are contiguous, or have a sea connection. Of course, this will make it much harder on isolated Civs, so I am not sure what this will do to game balance.

But it will slow tech advances in the Ancient Age, and it would be analogous to history. When Europeans wanted silks or spices they had to trade through intermediaries (except during the brief period of time when the Mongols united Asia, and before the Middle East "flipped" back to Muslem control). The purpose of European oceanic expansion was to bypass the middle man.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Originally posted by kcheung
For the 0 Gold issue, I am sorry to say that you guys got it all wrong. 0 Gold in treasury doesn't mean that AI cannot pay for a tech. It can pay Gold per turn, or it can trade, or it can lower the science rate and pay in lum sum next turn.

Now, I am not saying that I know the AI is not cheating. I just wanna point out that there are other possibilities.

BTW, I am not a skilled player (Civ 3 is actually my first strategy game) and I have only played in Warlord so far, but I can confirm that the 1.17f patch doesn't make conquest the only option in lower level. I just won a diplomacy victory -- there's no war b/w my civ and the AIs' and everyone likes me. I am 1-2 tech more advanced and trade a lot with the AIs, and got some very good deals from them.

I am trying a higher level tonight and hopefully, conquest is still not the only option.

Why does the computer never trade technology for gold per turn with the player no matter how good the deal is, then?

 

[Reichsmarshal]

On Regent level the computer usually gets tanks very, very fast (1700's is very normal).

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal
Why does the computer never trade technology for gold per turn with the player no matter how good the deal is, then?

They do. I buy most of my techs on the payment plan.

 

[dfhny]

It is now March, so I thought 1.17 would be ready to try out. Started a game at Monarch level (where I was doing fine thank you on 1.16) using a huge map and went to work. First three civs I met would not trade tech with me at ALL. They never did this on 1.16, I could always negotiate some kind of reasonable trade...now just "no thanks." Then, further on up the map, I find that Persia has 7 ancient era techs!!!! Come on. I am talking about a few rounds into the game where I have two warriors out scouting, my sci rate is at 50% to get some coin, etc.... This is stupid. Not only that, Persia refused to trade any tech except for pottery (which I don't use anyway).

Also, I think the philosophy of the game should be simple: the AI CANNOT know which civ is human and which is AI. Clearly this is not the case, or else how would the other AI civs have traded into all these techs? Or, perhaps Soren just starts off the AI with more techs...fine, five them the Wheel, but not 7 techs! Back to the drawing board, and next time, don't fix the AI unless we tell you it is broken (e.g. if you didn't like tech trading under 1.16 just put a cap on the GPT the AI was willing to trade--i mean it was stupid that Japan would pay me 50 GPT for some stupid tech when they were down on their last gold piece...but don't rewrite a perfectly good algorythm!!!).

THX

Dan in Brooklyn