Tech Theft

floppa21

floppa21

Crusty Manhole
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
3,233
Location
Aurora, CO
I did a search, maybe I don't know the subtleties of this search or words maybe... Anywho...

Is there a limit to the number of techs you can steal from a civ? Is it dependent on 1 per turn or something else? I never bothered stealing any techs when playin Prince or lower, I needed it the other night on King level... Thanks yall!
 
AFAIK, there is no limit on the number of techs you get from a civ, only on the number of techs you get per city! :yeah:

You can only steal once every certain amount of turns (20 I think) from the same city. There was also some difference between stealing with a diplo and with a spy. The diplo triggered some city flag, which doesn´t allow further theft, but the spy was somehow different.
Let´s wait for Starlifter to explain this fully!
:D
 
Hehehe... That makes sense. I used diplos and the 1st stole a tech, the next 4 destroyed the city's infrastructure... :rolleyes: Can only steal once from a city is good to know. Thanks Lucky! And I look forward to Starlifter's reply also on Monday. I'll mess around with it some more this weekend hopefully. :)
 
Lucky's first line was correct, subject to more caveats. You can indeed steal all the techs you want from a civ.... and once you setal from a specific city governed by a specific civ, any subsequent attempts to steal depend on the unit:

Diplomat: Cannot steal a 2nd tech from the sme city (unless the city changes hands).

Spy: Can steal as many techs as it wants, but cannot choose a specific target tech on 2nd and subsequent attempts. In effect, the powers of a spy are kindof 'reduced' to those of a Diplomat for the 2nd and later attempts. If the city changed ownership, the Spy can steal a tech as if none has ever been stolen before.


Extra info that gets a little technical with programming terms:

In a thread the other day, someone was espousing a very creative strategy to get around the one tech per city issues... his solution was to steal a tech, take the city, let the AI have the city back, and repeat the process... thus getting two tech per cycle using Dips. This will work, because the program stores the Stolen Tech information with something called a "flag" inside the .SAV file's data matrix for that city. When the flag is "set" (e.g., a bit value of 1), the program knows a tech has been stolen from that city (but not which civ actually stole it), and prevents any dip from any civ from taking more techs (and changes the spy's response at noted earlier).

When a city changes hands, the flag is set to a state of 0 again (e.g., no tech has been stolen). Every time a city changes hands, the Stolen Tech flag is reset to zero.... and any Dip/Spy will see it as a city that has never had a tech stolen.
It is possible that the program may reset the Stolen Tech Flag perodically, but I have not personally looked at that particular issue that Lucky reased (about the 20 turns). To my knowledge, the capture date of the city is not stored, so any reset wtihout capture would need to have some other trigger, like multiple of certain tech totals, game turn intervals, or just about anything. :)
 
Thanks Starlifter! :goodjob: Sure is a long wait from Libraries/Diplomats to Spies... :eek:
 
Sure is a long wait from Libraries/Diplomats to Spies...
Click to expand...

LOL, not so long in a Power Republic/Democracy <wink!>....

Dips can do the dirty just fine for most of the game though :)

:flamedevi :hammer:
 
I didn't know that you could steal tech after the city has traded hands. That's good to know though. Although I just steal once from each city using diplos because if I need to steal more then I am just backwards in tech and that NEVER happens.
 
Hm, starlifter, could you read this
Click to expand...

Be glad to. Wow, SlowThinker... that is truly an impressive page. I'll take some time and read & think about it carefully. :}
 
SlowThinker
I just reread the results of 'our' research about dips and spies.
I notice that nothing is stated about the ability of spies to 'plant nuclear device' in a city.

I have studied that recently and it appears that this is by far the cheapest and most powerful weapon in civ2 :crazyeye: :
With vet spies, the rate of success is about 2/3, which means that if you attack with 30 vet spies, you will probably lose 10, and 'destroy' 20 cities (even with SDI inside).
As you can see, the cost is incredibly low: about 15 shields/city :D (since you lose about 1 spy for 2 cities 'destroyed').
I write 'destroy' because the results of the attack are the same as those of a nuclear missile: all units inside and around the city killed, one half of the population lost and a few skulls appearing around the city.
Of course, it is highly advisable to have some fast moving units ready and take the city after having 'nuked' it with your vet spy.
With careful planning, you can destroy a whole civ in 1 turn, which brings the nice advantage of not having to take care of those nasty partisans (all of them suddenly disappear when you take the last city:p ).
 
Notes/Comments by Reference Number:

My Notes: I use Civ 2 MGE, 5.4.0f, 24mar99 (the Patch 3), and comments apply to Single Player games only (if any differences with MP, I have not tried). Some comments refer to possible options in scenario usage and/or game editing (e.g., Barbarian comments).


The comments follow the order of the website:

1.2: The "contact bribe" (at least in MGE SP) can change a unit to the enemy civ.

1.4: Other functions, like sabotage, are also allowed.

1.8: Change wording from "are ways how to get dip/spy with veteran status." to "can gain a non-vet's veteran status"

1.9: Delete "neither".

1.10: Insert closing parenthesis at end of 1st sentence.

2.11 Change "is" to "may be" (doing these dirties will not always result in an incident).

2.31 Insert closing parenthesis at end of sentence.

2.32 Change "arbitrarily " to "an arbitrary".

2.33 Add "or reputation" to "and it doesn't affect attitude."

3.4 Change "... plus all units one square out of the city ..." to plus all units (belonging to the civ owning the city) one square outside of the bribed city ...".




3.9 Two years ago, I tested the partisan issue just for my own info, and found out the increments of partisans followed the aquaduct/sewer cutoff as I recall. e.g., when city hit size 8, more partisans were formed, and size 12, even more. I believe size 5 was the cutoff for no partisans forming at all. I'd have to retest again sometime to verify the numbers and relative civ stuff, as I didn't keep the info... so don't quote the numbers as fact :). It takes both Communism and Gunpowder (or Comm + Partisan Warfare) to produce partisans. GP, PW, and Consc can increase the number of Partisans produced.

PS, I cannot get the Apolyton pages to load to check those links... All Apolyton pages always timeout before loading, so Poly=Useless for me personally.


3.1 Move this section up to top (it is 3.1), or rename it to 3.10.

3.1: The modifiers are multiplicitive (meaning multilply together); change " ...(these modifiers are cumulative)... " to "(these modifiers are multiplicitave, e.g., multiply them together to obtain the final result)"

3.20: Barbs can, by editing, be allowed to gain gold and have any form of government. In normal random maps, though, this section is OK.

3.21. Not true. Bribed barb cities can have disorder after they are bribed.

3.22 True, as you can't have a CF, Peace, or Alliance with Barbs.

3.23. Totally untrue. Barbs can have any form of Gov't, but the human must set a flag manually. In regualar SP games, however, barbs by default will not be in Communism. Scenarios and manual editing are how barbs can be in Democracy (ugh!), Comm, Fundy, have gold, science, etc.


4.4 To avoid confusion between the Engish "non" with the "NONE" unit, I personally always refer to nons as "NONEs"... it can be very confusing to newer players as 4.4 is written. So change "non-unit" to "NONE unit" is my suggestion.

4.20 might want to add "(there is usually no barbarian gold (G=0), no barbarian capital, and no barb Democracy)

4.4 (notes) change "2nd row applies to formula 4.1 (10 shield-unit, 0 gold)" to "2nd row applies to formula 4.1 (10 shield-unit, 0 gold, not Set/Eng)"

5.1 (Table-Incite) Change "5/6 (2/3 if veteran) of price" to "5/6 (2/3 if veteran) of a Diplomat's price"

5.1 (Table-Nuke) Change "may be lost" to "Will never be lost"
Add "Non-vets will not achieve Veteran status if successful"

7.1 (after "Secondly"): Seems confusing in format; it took a several times of reading it to understand just what was meant :). Maybe just a plain sentence like this:

Secondarily, her attempt may be foiled by an enemy dip/spy positioned in the city for the "steal technology/any will do" mission only (see 11.2); she completes her assignment for all other missions.

7.3 Add a comment about planting Nukes, mabye as a 7.5. When planting a Nuke, if the mission is successful, the spy will return to your nearest city; non-vets will not be upgraded to veterans; a successful nuking spy will always survive the bomb blast.


8.11. Veterans have 50% better odds of surviving a unit sabotage. The non-vet odds are 50-50, according to my experience (but I have not run a large series of tests under various conditions to fully test the odds).

11.1 The "Stolen Tech" flag may indeed change over time, as Xin Yu and Lucky have suggested. I have not tested or paid attention to this before, so I'm not sure. But the "Stolen Tech" flag will be reset if a city changes hands :).

11.2 Maybe add wording: "The anti-espionage effect of more than one Dip/Spy in is multiplicative (multiplied) for each unit present in the city

11.5: I have not specifically tested the "sleep" vs. "fortified" anti-espionage effectiveness; I rarely see an AI spy get thru to a city. From a small sample size, I had not noticed a difference. I normally Sleep my spies (except in coastal transport cities) so they will wake up and alert me to any AI units moving nearby in a huge empire.

12.2 Definitely can't sabotoage an SDI in MGE, even at size 1 (from My_Wife_Hates_Civ). Besides tests, here is the message if you specify the SDI:

civ2_SDI_NoSabotage.gif


12.4 In this case, if you try to get the SDI, you'll never get the menu.... the production is always sabotaged if the SDI is the only improvement in city.

14.1: I've not run enough tests to verify exact Nuking odds, but I personally plan on 2 Vet or 4 non-vets to get a city nuked.... on average.

21.4 Expel to Capitol (Palace) city, not home city (your nearest city if no capitol).

21.5 Take AI Capital first (and assuming it does not move), many remaining city bribes are much cheaper (if AI not in Democracy) due to 4.12.


Well, that's about it :) You have a very comprehensive reference page, SlowThinker! Nice job to you and anyone who helped!
 
Starlifter, thanx a lot.
In the main document the red text means that I am not sure about its veracity. Please let me know if you can bear any red text out.
(questions are blue and the newest text is green)

>1.2: The "contact bribe" (at least in MGE SP) can change a unit to the enemy civ.
:confused: Could you explain? I don't know this...

>1.8: Change wording from "are ways how to get dip/spy with veteran status." to "can gain a non-vet's veteran status"
Shouldn't there be also "dip/spy" somewhere? For example "can gain a non-vet's veteran status of dip/spy"?

>2.11 Change "is" to "may be" (doing these dirties will not always result in an incident).
:confused: I thought the incident is sure...Do you know how is the chance the incident won't come?

>7.1 (after "Secondly"): Seems confusing in format; it took a several times of reading it to understand just what was meant . Maybe just a plain sentence like this:
>Secondarily, her attempt may be foiled by an enemy dip/spy positioned in the city for the "steal technology/any will do" mission only (see 11.2); she completes her assignment for all other missions.
Good, but I think I should let the italic text.
Optimally I would like to preserve the table. Maybe I could add borders to the table, add the first column with "step 1", "step 2", "step 3" and change the initial sentence
"It is possible to divide spy's mission into three parts"
to
"It is possible to divide spy's mission into three parts, executed step by step"
What do you think?

>8.11. Veterans have 50% better odds of surviving a unit sabotage. The non-vet odds are 50-50, according to my experience (but I have not run a large series of tests under various conditions to fully test the odds).
Do you want to say the 50% vet bonus is valid and it is independent on the non-vet odds?
Is Jeff B true in 7.4 ?

Planting nukes, barbs: I will look later.
 
In the main document the red text means that I am not sure about its veracity. Please let me know if you can bear any red text out
Click to expand...
Aha! That's a great code. I'l reread your page with that pattern in mind.

The "contact bribe"
Click to expand...
The contact bribe is the term I personally use for when a non-dip/non-spy AI unit comes into physical contact (one of the 8 adjacent squares) with one of my own non-stacked units, and the clicking "bribe" sound occurs, and my unit switched sides to the AI that contacted my unit... and all this without even so much as deducting gold from the AI treasury. And on top of that, it happens even in a Democracy.

The odds increase if the my unit is blocking a choke point, esp. when fortified on really tough terrain like a Mountain or river/swamp river/forest, etc. The increased odds may actually "apparent" odds; that is, a blockin unit is more likely to have AI contact, and therefore is more likely to be "bribed" thru contact (the Contact Bribe).

The defense is to send forth a diplomat or any 2nd unit to stack with the defender, thus preventing the possibility of a Contact Bribe. But once again let me warn... Democracy (with it's "immumity' from bribery) does not prevent the Contact Bribe. It does, however, prevent conventional bribes (with Dips & Spies).

I have tested this to my own satisfaction, but not enough to reverse-engineer the odds at different difficulty levels, terrain, advances obtained (if any changes are even related to these for sure). What I can tell you for sure is that it is hardcoded into the game algorithm, and the Contact Bribe is a random function which is determined at the moment ot contact. The frequency (odds) of a given Contact Bribe (based on replaying a game event dozens of times) is significantly higher in some situations, and almost negligible in others. But the odds never reach 100%, though undoubtedly they drop to 0% under some conditions.

But again, I just stack units at places I think, from experience, that Contact Bribes are likely to occur, and this avoid the whole annoying issue :eek: .

PS, I'm sure someone at Apolyton has notice this behavior, but I simply can't ever get a single Apolyton page to load. The pages always time out. But they might have more info.





1.8: Change wording from "are ways how to get dip/spy with veteran status." to "can gain a non-vet's veteran status"
Shouldn't there be also "dip/spy" somewhere? For example "can gain a non-vet's veteran status of dip/spy"?
Click to expand...
Hmmm... well, the sentence I wrote is awkward, esp. for international English.

"7.2 and 1.7 and succesful defense against an attack (see 1.10) are ways how to get dip/spy with veteran status."

change to :

"7.3 and 1.7 and succesful defense against an attack (see 1.10) are ways for a dip/spy to gain veteran status."
This wording is about the least "awkward" I can think of. Note that I suggest changing 7.2 to 7.3





2.11 Change "is" to "may be" (doing these dirties will not always result in an incident).
I thought the incident is sure...Do you know how is the chance the incident won't come?
Click to expand...

The wording I would use is this:
"An international incident may be caused by the following actions:"

There is a chance that you can do these actions with no international incident, even in a Democracy. The way you usually know is if the spy gets caught. Section 2.13 mentions some details, BTW.

The difference in what we are saying may be in what we are thinking this section is talking about. You might mean "If a player wants to see an international incident, here is a list of the only ways you can cause one:" , but I am thinking about what these actions can cause as an outcome of performing them. Sometimes English is ambigious :(.

In context of your overall page, I prefer the wording "An international incident may be caused by the following actions:"
:D


Optimally I would like to preserve the table. Maybe I could add borders to the table,
Click to expand...
Ahhhh.... I see how you were doing it now. I read this section more than any other to make sure I understood what you meant. It was confusing to me because I thought a "cut-and-paste" might have been messing up the format . Making it into a table with borders should help out a great deal! I was trying to make it read like a sentence, not a table LOL! So yes, try a table with borders :).

8.11 Do you want to say the 50% vet bonus is valid and it is independent on the non-vet odds?
Click to expand...

In my experience, veteran spies are 50% more efficient in doing "The 6 Dirty Deeds: Sabotage, Stealing Technology, Industrial Sabotage, Inciting Revolts, Poisoning Water Supplies, and Planting Nukes. What I mean is that they can get the job done with 50% more success, and not get causght with 50% more success. I have not specifically broken this into separate categories and run 100 or 200 tests on each to verify the odds turn out that way, however. But it is my feeling from observing the outcome of using the spies this way. On one OCC game where I was conquering the planet with one city, I had to use hundreds and hundreds of poison water actions, and my vet spies did indeed avoid capture about 50% more than the non-vets. That remains my only game that I reverted to Communism from Democracy only to obtain the 50% advantage of Veteran spies... it chopped over 40 game turns off the end of my game.

For 100% sure things, like making Embassies, of course, the effectiveness does not change. To me )depending on the exact action a spy does), the effectiveness is measured by either/or :

1. Did the spy get caught?
2. Did the spy succeed & return?
In a Democracy, for instance, I won't even think about using a non-vet to "do a dirty", since they often cause an international incident & collapse of government in the process.


So at this point, I have to say it is only my opinion, and not necessarily actual fact, that spies are always 50% more effective than non-vets. It would take significant testing to verifiy it for sure at all game levels (I suspect the odds do not change as a function of game level, but rarely play at other than Deity, so I have no feel for it).

So the bottom line is I can't say for sure that this point is 100% true at all times, but if anyone else can show a reproducable exception to it, that would be quite interesting to see.

I think Jeff B was referring to vet spies "Doing the Dirty", from the context. It certainly does not increase the odds of successfully establishing an embassy, for instance. ;)



Hope that helps.

I'll think more about some of the red and blue print later :).
 
Did you obtain my e-mail?
I contacted the admin of Apolyton. He asked about details
Click to expand...
I'm sure your e-mail arrived, but I just cannot access it at the moment... I have to figure out my password from last fall, LOL. I've been putting it off now that the CFC PM download to harddrive option works right & my PM box is finally cleared, but I guess I'd better fix the e-mail, hehe.

Yeah, I've traced it, and it falls off at 205.207.137.7, which is owned by civilization.gamestats.com. It is specifically that hop (connection) that is the problem... it times out. All routers and pipes to that point check good. I made a small .ZIP file with two graphical info shots made with two of my tracing tools.

Last Fall, I remember Smash tried helping, but there is really nothing individuals can do. But last Fall, a connection would sometime (very rarely) get through. This month, never a single inkling of connection. I presume it has to do with traffic density and Civ 3. The attached file shows the target IP address and complete trace, plus the owner info of the bad hop, using the link from your website. Thanks :).
 
Originally posted by starlifter


In my experience, veteran spies are 50% more efficient in doing "The 6 Dirty Deeds: Sabotage, Stealing Technology, Industrial Sabotage, Inciting Revolts, Poisoning Water Supplies, and Planting Nukes. What I mean is that they can get the job done with 50% more success, and not get caught with 50% more success.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this is not in accordance with the results of my testing when we studied diplomats and spies, SlowThinker and I. Here are some results:
1) Inciting revolts: vet and non-vet succeed, but the cost is lower with vet (if 1 is the bribing cost when using a diplo, it becomes 5/6 with non-vet spy and 2/3 with vet spy))
2) Industrial sabotage:
Method #1 ('use her judgment'): losses = 25% with vet, 50% with non-vet
Method #2 ('choose primary target'): losses = 55 vet after 400 attacks (different kinds: capital, non-capital, walls, no-walls,...), 136 non-vet after 400 attacks (same attacks as those with vets)
3) Poisoning water supply:
Capital city, non vet spies, losses = 2/3
Non capital, non vet spies, losses = 1/2
Vet spies = 1/3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NapoleonBlownApart
How do I scale tech cost?
Replies
2
Views
483
NapoleonBlownApart
NapoleonBlownApart
Quintillus
Forum customization scripts
Replies
1
Views
646
Quintillus
Quintillus
Methos
A Strategy For Harriet Tubman
Replies
12
Views
2K
JaeChunDaeSung
JaeChunDaeSung
W
[Civ2] Help with Civ 2 finances
Replies
4
Views
3K
kdsteff
K
S
Future Tech ...
Replies
1
Views
390
superslug
superslug
Back
Top Bottom