spy "thief" action completing

Deadstarre

Expert
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
960
Location
New York
I hit a few unexpected payloads of gold last game, and it wasnt until later on i noticed what was going on -

when my spies were set to "thief" in non-capital cities and the turn timer to thief completes, if they have no available GW to steal, you instead steal gold and science- right?

my rank 3 spies were all sent to cities with 2 star rating or below; on average it was taking 15 turns to complete their action and in the late game the completed actions each granted me 16,800 gold and 16,800 science.

the techs at the time were only costing about 17k beakers. here I was, already the tech leader, effectively found a much better way to "steal" techs than if I had sent spies out for such (which wouldnt be possible as i was already ahead in tech)

so what exactly is the formula for spy "thief" action completing? is this working as intended or are the values way too high? it seems like it puts tech stealing to shame and makes rigging elections an even worse choice than it already was. not to mention, how upset would I be if instead of getting 16,800 gold and science I got one of their artifacts :lol:
 
I hit a few unexpected payloads of gold last game, and it wasnt until later on i noticed what was going on -

when my spies were set to "thief" in non-capital cities and the turn timer to thief completes, if they have no available GW to steal, you instead steal gold and science- right?

my rank 3 spies were all sent to cities with 2 star rating or below; on average it was taking 15 turns to complete their action and in the late game the completed actions each granted me 16,800 gold and 16,800 science.

the techs at the time were only costing about 17k beakers. here I was, already the tech leader, effectively found a much better way to "steal" techs than if I had sent spies out for such (which wouldnt be possible as i was already ahead in tech)

so what exactly is the formula for spy "thief" action completing? is this working as intended or are the values way too high? it seems like it puts tech stealing to shame and makes rigging elections an even worse choice than it already was. not to mention, how upset would I be if instead of getting 16,800 gold and science I got one of their artifacts :lol:

They aren't related, however if a spy has been in a city for a really long time and hasn't had an advanced action, the potential value goes way up.

G
 
They aren't related, however if a spy has been in a city for a really long time and hasn't had an advanced action, the potential value goes way up.

G

what isn't related? sorry i dont follow what you meant by that

I do know that 16,800 number came up repeatedly and happened more than once though - and it would only happen when I got the notice saying "soandso has gathered enough to steal a great work!" which is a weird notice to be getting when no great work is stolen (i presume none available to steal) and the "great work" was instead replaced by thousands of gold and science.

that late in the game it's hard to keep track of every single notice, and for the fact I had like 5 spies i was getting a lot of intrigue but as to which spy stole 16,800 G & S and which was the ones gathering intrigue i'm not sure.

from the tooltip I had no idea that if no GW was available I would even be guaranteed to get gold / science, i had no clue that was the replacement action for great work heisting. But either way it's too high a number that it should even be a possibility to happen so might wanna take a look there. It felt really cheap that i dont want to send spies as "thieves" anymore, but if the AI is still doing it then i'll apparently be at a big disadvantage if I dont.
 
Last edited:
I think I had logging enabled actually, this is the logs for that game - I dont know if spy stuff is shown in there for you or not but hopefully it is and you can see what I meant was going on, im uploading here.
 

Attachments

  • spy.zip
    213.2 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:
I know this can be confusing because of the wording involved but to clear im not at all talking about the regular "advanced actions" that occur regardless of the turn timer countdown on a spy, im talking specifically about what occurs when you send a spy as Thief to a non-capital city, and his turn timer reaches 0 - thats when i get the notice saying i stole a great work, but instead of a great work I get a popup notice telling me I just gained 16,800 gold and science
 
I know this can be confusing because of the wording involved but to clear im not at all talking about the regular "advanced actions" that occur regardless of the turn timer countdown on a spy, im talking specifically about what occurs when you send a spy as Thief to a non-capital city, and his turn timer reaches 0 - thats when i get the notice saying i stole a great work, but instead of a great work I get a popup notice telling me I just gained 16,800 gold and science

You don't have AI logging enabled so the logs don't help, unfortunately. I've never seen this issue and there's no connection in the DLL to said function. The only possibility would be the instant yield bonus for completing a spy action - you have any of that stuff?

G
 
You don't have AI logging enabled so the logs don't help, unfortunately. I've never seen this issue and there's no connection in the DLL to said function. The only possibility would be the instant yield bonus for completing a spy action - you have any of that stuff?

G

hmmm maybe.

which means, im getting notices about my "spys collecting enough to steal a great work!", but they dont because theres no great work to steal, however their (failed) attempt is still creating an instant yield bonus of 17k gold and science for me? so far as i can tell the "national intelligence agency" wonder is the only thing i have which would create instant yields for spy actions. it does unlock at a late atomic tech, but is it meant to be granting that much and/or granting in that specific instance?
 
here is the save, you load this turn you'll see the notify for completed great work heist (but no great work), and the instant bonus
 

Attachments

  • AutoSave_0271 AD-1802.Civ5Save
    2.3 MB · Views: 29
by the way that was a really awesome game, but this was the first time i went with rationalism and it turned into what appears to be neatly wrapping up into an easy science victory- i actually stopped playing a few turns ago and just started nuking recklessly for fun cause its really over, the SV is inevitable


Arabia played a really strong game and we were tight for a long long time but they chose industry, so after I picked up the policy which reduces per-city science penalty I really just ran away with the techs and couldnt be caught at all.

it kind of mirrors the late game experiences Ive been having lately where normally im the one taking industry, and then at a certain point the top civs who took rationalism just fly away with the techs and I cant possibly keep up no matter what I do. Scholars in residence is the only thing that allows non-rationalism civs to keep pace actually, but as i mentioned in other threads I nerfed it for my games because i felt it was impacting too heavily and really skewing the balance of all victories, and so now im finding that without that one proposal existing at the base VP strengths, there is simply no way for somebody who didnt take rationalism to keep up with someone who does (assuming roughly equal strength when the discrepancy occurs)

I think the largest part of that is coming from that one policy which reduces per city penalty, cause before I took it i was looking at a branch of techs which all cost 8 or 9 turns, after i took it they all became 6 turn techs. I took it 4th in the tree because I hadnt realized how powerful it was, but i can imagine this would have been more lopsided if i'd grabbed it 2nd.

are you seeing the same thing in your AI games? where you have 2 close civs all game long, and then one takes rationalism and one doesnt, and the rationalism guy just runs away with it? is the rationalism tree meant to be creating such large discrepancies in techs like this? i see it as a problem because where you have a tree like Imperialism which is meant to be giving combat bonuses, you'd actually get much better combat bonuses just by having more techs (particularly nukes of course- first one to nukes has a really major advantage). And then versus a tree like industry which isnt focused on any VC but is just helpful for everything, and it really feels like a great tree and I've loved taking it, right up until that point the rationalism guy runs away with techs and then im like.... well, i could have won this game if id just taken rationalism.

TLDR - after many late games recently ive come to the conclusion that rationalism needs a change, in particular that per-city-science reduction policy is just absolutely massive and too skewing. the tree doesn't need a "nerf" exactly but it does need to do less for science and could make up for it with a little more in some other area of the game. science is not something that should be given in really big globs anywhere because of the nature of the game it really just affects everything too greatly.
 
Last edited:
by the way that was a really awesome game, but this was the first time i went with rationalism and it turned into what appears to be neatly wrapping up into an easy science victory- i actually stopped playing a few turns ago and just started nuking recklessly for fun cause its really over, the SV is inevitable


Arabia played a really strong game and we were tight for a long long time but they chose industry, so after I picked up the policy which reduces per-city science penalty I really just ran away with the techs and couldnt be caught at all.

it kind of mirrors the late game experiences Ive been having lately where normally im the one taking industry, and then at a certain point the top civs who took rationalism just fly away with the techs and I cant possibly keep up no matter what I do. Scholars in residence is the only thing that allows non-rationalism civs to keep pace actually, but as i mentioned in other threads I nerfed it for my games because i felt it was impacting too heavily and really skewing the balance of all victories, and so now im finding that without that one proposal existing at the base VP strengths, there is simply no way for somebody who didnt take rationalism to keep up with someone who does (assuming roughly equal strength when the discrepancy occurs)

I think the largest part of that is coming from that one policy which reduces per city penalty, cause before I took it i was looking at a branch of techs which all cost 8 or 9 turns, after i took it they all became 6 turn techs. I took it 4th in the tree because I hadnt realized how powerful it was, but i can imagine this would have been more lopsided if i'd grabbed it 2nd.

are you seeing the same thing in your AI games? where you have 2 close civs all game long, and then one takes rationalism and one doesnt, and the rationalism guy just runs away with it? is the rationalism tree meant to be creating such large discrepancies in techs like this? i see it as a problem because where you have a tree like Imperialism which is meant to be giving combat bonuses, you'd actually get much better combat bonuses just by having more techs (particularly nukes of course- first one to nukes has a really major advantage). And then versus a tree like industry which isnt focused on any VC but is just helpful for everything, and it really feels like a great tree and I've loved taking it, right up until that point the rationalism guy runs away with techs and then im like.... well, i could have won this game if id just taken rationalism.

TLDR - after many late games recently ive come to the conclusion that rationalism needs a change, in particular that per-city-science reduction policy is just absolutely massive and too skewing. the tree doesn't need a "nerf" exactly but it does need to do less for science and could make up for it with a little more in some other area of the game. science is not something that should be given in really big globs anywhere because of the nature of the game it really just affects everything too greatly.

No, and I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Are you asking if it happens, or are you asking if I've noticed it? It doesn't happen without due cause (i.e. the civ was already snowballing and took rationalism versus it was behind and then vaulted ahead).

G
 
No, and I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Are you asking if it happens, or are you asking if I've noticed it? It doesn't happen without due cause (i.e. the civ was already snowballing and took rationalism versus it was behind and then vaulted ahead).

G

I guess i was asking if you've noticed it. you'd have to be looking for it to notice it though I suppose. so all other things being equal, 2 civs which are equal in score / strength at the same time they both start on the 3rd trees - the civ which takes rationalism has no better chance of turning in a win as the civ which chooses something else? I guess thats my question, it is kind of specific scenario
 
I guess i was asking if you've noticed it. you'd have to be looking for it to notice it though I suppose. so all other things being equal, 2 civs which are equal in score / strength at the same time they both start on the 3rd trees - the civ which takes rationalism has no better chance of turning in a win as the civ which chooses something else? I guess thats my question, it is kind of specific scenario

Can't say I have, no. I'll keep an eye on the value, though. TBH the AI takes industry more than any other late tree.

G
 
there is simply no way for somebody who didnt take rationalism to keep up with someone who does (assuming roughly equal strength when the discrepancy occurs)

I don't think you realize what you're saying. If you could keep up scientifically with someone who chooses rationalism while you choose industry and you're equal strength then rationalism is horsehocky. The only point of that tree is to give a bunch of science. It would be like claiming it's unfair that a flashlight is better at lighting up a room than your phone.

If you want to keep up as industry or autocracy you need to declare war or win a faster VC.
 
If you could keep up scientifically with someone who chooses rationalism while you choose industry and you're equal strength then rationalism is ****. The only point of that tree is to give a bunch of science. .. If you want to keep up as industry or autocracy you need to declare war or win a faster VC.

what youre saying is pretty flawed, seeing as how techs directly tie into every VC there shouldnt be any policy branch that is SO much better at techs than anything else. To suggest I should *need* to declare war on somebody just because they took a particular policy or it will be game over for me really shows a balance problem. it is OK for it to be slightly better at techs, but you cant win a war against someone who is destroying you in tech. first one to cruisers gets free reign on the seas / coastal cities, first one to nukes gets free reign inland. first one to the Internet has a much better chance of wrapping up CV, for some obvious examples. no one said rationalism is ONLY about giving a bunch of science.. it could easily do other things, but still give more science than the other branches and work just fine.


but anyway this could be as simple a problem as the fact that per-city science penalties were literally just adjusted, and this policy was not - it may have been tweaked to work specifically with an older patch, and now it is out of date - because when I took that one policy in Rationalism and all the techs in front of me went from 8-9 turns to 6 turns, that is effectively a +%30 increase in science which works at all times? I only had like 13 cities when I took it, a normal number for everyone in the game. no one policy should be giving that absurd amount of tech

really, just compare that to another policy in the tree which gives only %10 science during golden ages only- you can see thatd be a problem.


Thank you G for keeping an eye on it / looking into it and for the other spy thing that was the reason I made this thread =)
 
Last edited:
what youre saying is pretty flawed, seeing as how techs directly tie into every VC there shouldnt be any policy branch that is SO much better at techs than anything else. To suggest I should *need* to declare war on somebody just because they took a particular policy or it will be game over for me really shows a balance problem. it is OK for it to be slightly better at techs, but you cant win a war against someone who is destroying you in tech. first one to cruisers gets free reign on the seas / coastal cities, first one to nukes gets free reign inland. first one to the Internet has a much better chance of wrapping up CV, for some obvious examples. no one said rationalism is ONLY about giving a bunch of science.. it could easily do other things, but still give more science than the other branches and work just fine.


but anyway this could be as simple a problem as the fact that per-city science penalties were literally just adjusted, and this policy was not - it may have been tweaked to work specifically with an older patch, and now it is out of date - because when I took that one policy in Rationalism and all the techs in front of me went from 8-9 turns to 6 turns, that is effectively a +%30 increase in science which works at all times? I only had like 13 cities when I took it, a normal number for everyone in the game. no one policy should be giving that absurd amount of tech

really, just compare that to another policy in the tree which gives only %10 science during golden ages only- you can see thatd be a problem.


Thank you G for keeping an eye on it / looking into it and for the other spy thing that was the reason I made this thread =)
You are saying that rationalism is stronger because you always need science. But you could say the same with industry and gold.

If 2 civs of equal strength take rationalism and industry, and they enter at war with each other, I am pretty sure the industry one will win by flooding the other one with units.

I am not saying current situation is balanced, since it's been a while I have not played a game to its end, but currently, if you buff the science of the other trees, or nerf rationalism, you will need to make a serious buff to rationalism to give it another thing than science.
 
what youre saying is pretty flawed, seeing as how techs directly tie into every VC there shouldnt be any policy branch that is SO much better at techs than anything else. To suggest I should *need* to declare war on somebody just because they took a particular policy or it will be game over for me really shows a balance problem. it is OK for it to be slightly better at techs, but you cant win a war against someone who is destroying you in tech. first one to cruisers gets free reign on the seas / coastal cities, first one to nukes gets free reign inland. first one to the Internet has a much better chance of wrapping up CV, for some obvious examples. no one said rationalism is ONLY about giving a bunch of science.. it could easily do other things, but still give more science than the other branches and work just fine.


but anyway this could be as simple a problem as the fact that per-city science penalties were literally just adjusted, and this policy was not - it may have been tweaked to work specifically with an older patch, and now it is out of date - because when I took that one policy in Rationalism and all the techs in front of me went from 8-9 turns to 6 turns, that is effectively a +%30 increase in science which works at all times? I only had like 13 cities when I took it, a normal number for everyone in the game. no one policy should be giving that absurd amount of tech

really, just compare that to another policy in the tree which gives only %10 science during golden ages only- you can see thatd be a problem.


Thank you G for keeping an eye on it / looking into it and for the other spy thing that was the reason I made this thread =)
You don't need to declare war on the rationalism civ. You could use your extra production to decalre war on other civs and gain puppets or to build diplomatic units and take rationalism guy's CS allies.

Obviously there's a discussion to be had on how much science rationalism gives. If it gave 1 million science per turn it would be broke, so there is some balanced limit.

However I think there need to be more testing before we decide it's too high. It's not like you can't win a military victory, diplo victory or cultural victory from being 5-10 techs behind.
 
TLDR - after many late games recently ive come to the conclusion that rationalism needs a nerf, in particular that per-city-science reduction policy is just absolutely massive
I literally don't ever take industry, I'm a huge fan of rationalism (and imperialism has its job).

I'm going by memory, but rationalism's policy will reduce your per city cost by 5%, right? So the 8% per city penalty (on a standard map) becomes 3%. If you had 10 cities total, your costs go from 172 to 127 (with just a capital being 100), a drop of about 26%. That would be a true 26%, not an additive bonus like most other multipliers. Its a crazy amount to get from just one policy. For a big enough empire its probably more than the rest of rationalism's science combined.
 
Would it be better for rationalism to give a fixed percent discount on technologies? Like 5-10% less science needed for technology.

This would benefit small and large empires the same.
 
I literally don't ever take industry, I'm a huge fan of rationalism (and imperialism has its job).

I'm going by memory, but rationalism's policy will reduce your per city cost by 5%, right? So the 8% per city penalty (on a standard map) becomes 3%. If you had 10 cities total, your costs go from 172 to 127 (with just a capital being 100), a drop of about 26%. That would be a true 26%, not an additive bonus like most other multipliers. Its a crazy amount to get from just one policy. For a big enough empire its probably more than the rest of rationalism's science combined.

The current value is 3%, but I'll probably drop it by 1% (to 2%) for the next patch (just based on a few scenario tests I've been checking in on). So 10 city empire goes from 172% above cost (8% x 9) to 154%. A more modest amount.

Also @CrazyG I finally replicated your weird no-overflow wonder issue and fixed it. You aren't going insane. Yet.

G
 
Top Bottom