The RA Exploit Question.

[SpearMan153]

Researching some of your cheaper techs so you don't get them in a RA is fine.

Putting 1 turn into each tech you don't want, and stacking RA so that they each finish one turn after the other so that you can get an extended beeline is boring and cheesy imo (not the way I like to play as I prefer a more intuative and relaxed game) and is a borderline exploit (I'm leaning toward exploit) but does take skill and patience to pull off - so well done those who can do it.

 

[Shaka II]

The easy change for the actual exploit would be that the RA could give you any tech you're not currently researching, regardless of whether you've sunk a couple of beakers into it or not.

I think that works.

In fairness, the AI should be made to understand how and why to choose expensive techs like steel or civil service.

 

[Johnpecan]

I realize that realism and strategy don't always go in the same direction when talking about Civ.

But I think a realistic remake would be to make it so that the tech you are granted is a random tech (regardless of whether you're researching it) that you're allowed to tech that the AI has and you don't.

That way there would be micro management in regards of how other civs are teching but the chances of an exploit seem lower to me.

If the civ doesn't have a tech that you don't, the money is refunded or TBD.

I never use the current RA exploit because it just feels like cheating and I would be astonished if it was intended to work this way.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I realize that realism and strategy don't always go in the same direction when talking about Civ.

But I think a realistic remake would be to make it so that the tech you are granted is a random tech (regardless of whether you're researching it) that you're allowed to tech that the AI has and you don't.

That way there would be micro management in regards of how other civs are teching but the chances of an exploit seem lower to me.

If the civ doesn't have a tech that you don't, the money is refunded or TBD.

I never use the current RA exploit because it just feels like cheating and I would be astonished if it was intended to work this way.

That would work well, but I think any thing you have put into that tech should be counted as overflow.

 

[Tabarnak]

Research agreements at this time feel very very odd.

I'd implement a system where both participants receive additional beakers. To balance it a bit, it'd start from a negative value; decreasing science output temporarily. For example for a 10 beaker research agreement it'd start from -5 beakers, increasing by 1 each turn until it reaches 10. Renewing or upgrading the research agreement would start it over again from the negative amount.

Sounds like a research pact from Master of Orion 2, and a good feature.

 

[JujuLautre]

At some point before the release of the game, when features were discovered, it was said that RA would give a boost to science to both civ in the form of a percentage boost.

Don't know why they changed that though

 

[Camikaze]

Maybe they figured that that would unfairly advantage large civilizations, by giving them a bigger bonus for a research agreement than civs with less per turn. RAs are a good way of catching up on tech, so if you make the return dependent upon how much you are producing, then it becomes harder to catch up.

 

[Tabarnak]

Maybe they figured that that would unfairly advantage large civilizations, by giving them a bigger bonus for a research agreement than civs with less per turn. RAs are a good way of catching up on tech, so if you make the return dependent upon how much you are producing, then it becomes harder to catch up.

If you fix the number of beakers given, civ with slower research rate will gain a better percentage.

Edit : A research agrement should be a way for 2 civs to leverage their science and let the slowest civ to gain a bit more from it.

 

[ShuShu62]

My answer changed repeatedly during the conversation.

1) Researching Horseback Riding because you know your joint team Is coming back with Astronomy is not an expolit
2) Researching Horsback riding because you know your joint team will come back with Astronomy asumes more knowledge of quantum mechanics than is reasonable to expect from a dictator so becomes an exploit.
3) Nobody invests in research without having some impact on the direction research takes, so if chosing HBR is my lever, let me pull it. Not an exploit
4) I influence the research direction when I sign the agreement, not when the research is complete, so chosing HBR on the last turn is an exploit.
5) If you partially researched each tech but the desired research agreement immediately after signing the agreement, then that is just the game's way of letting you specify the terms of the agreement. Not an exploit.
6) The game designers intended for the tech to be random, so changing the decision from random to determined is thus gaming the system and is thus... a MOD.

I think that distinguishes the RA exploit from the Pillage exploit, one can be considered a paradigm change while the other has no justification beyond gaming the system.

For the record, I like the MOO model trade agreements, but agree that they should be switched from percentage to fixed amount increases.

Side question... Is looting and crippling railroads in railroad tycoon 1 an exploit? It WAS intended AND realistic, but too easy to eliminate all competition which was not intended.

 

[alpaca]

No, not if you then finish the tech. What I feel is exploitative is just putting a little bit of research into a number of techs and getting the one you want from the RA. If you finish the tech, I think it's ok because I would let it run under the header of backfilling rather than complete RA manipulation. It also means that you can't block more than one tech, which in most cases just means the cheapest one but you still have a large element of randomness.

So, my house rule is to allow blocking one tech, which you then have to finish to unlock other cheap techs the RA could give you.